Various Debates on Eastern Orthodoxy

In the past months, I've had several debates with those who are Eastern Orthodox on various topics. I will indent the comments of the various EO responders and not indent my own comments. One debate was on penal substitution (link):

------------------------------------------------------------

This is basically a repost of a video you made which is now private. I asked on that video (and did not receive a response): 

If the Eastern Orthodox apologist really thinks Jesus tasted the penalty of sin for all men [without exception], how is it just for the damned to nevertheless experience the same penalty? 

Likewise, you said in the now private video that in the garden of Eden, Adam and Eve experienced alienation "from each other." But surely - and conspicuously left unmentioned by the Eastern Orthodox apologist - the principal alienation they experience is alienation from God! Surely this is the death of which God spoke even prior to Eve's creation in Genesis 2:17. If Jesus participates in "the deepest experience of our alienation," does that mean the Eastern Orthodox apologist thinks Jesus likewise experience this alienation - alienation from His own Father? I am unaware of any Eastern Orthodox apologists who admit this. The usual claim is that penal substitution is Nestorian. To the extent that Eastern Orthodox apologists shortchange the penalty Christ undertook on our behalf, they don't really accept penal substitution after all. Nuances like this might easily go unnoticed by converts.

EO #1 The damned experience the penalty because they never appropriated to themselves the benefits of Christ's redemption through living faith. 

Christ bore the punishment in His humanity and experienced what a human experiences who is abandoned by God. He remained fully God Himself though, and fully united to the Father and Spirit. But in His humanity He did not feel the consolation and blessing which the blessed feel from the Godhead, but rather the wrath deserved by sinners. "He said 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?' to show the magnitude of His penalty, for He was suffering so grievously, as if He were not the Son of God, but God's enemy." –St. Bede the Venerable, Meditation on the Passion of Christ for Seven Hours of the Day

Redemption entails forgiveness. If the benefits were never appropriated, Christ never substituted Himself for them. This is limited atonement. 

What you are describing is characteristic of Reformed theology and opposed to much of what I've heard from EO apologists such as Jay Dyer. It's nice to see!

EO #1 The atonement is objectively unlimited. Christ paid the debt for all. 

But not all people appropriate the benefits of Christ's redemption.

The atonement and redemption ARE appropriated benefits of Christ's work. God is not at-one with faithless individuals, for their sins have not been substitutionally "covered" ("kaphar" = atonement) by Christ's blood.

EO #1 Fine but Christ's atonement objectively provided atonement for all of them, paid the debt for all of them. Until this is appropriated though, yes, people are still in their sins

If everyone's debt has been paid, you are a universalist.

EO #1 Christ paid the debt for all, but all are not saved, because not everyone appropriates the benefits of Christ's all-sufficient Redemption to themselves, and thus their sinfulness is not done away with on their subjective end, though on the objective side of Christ's work itself, He died for them too

Payment of debt entails forgiveness of sin (Colossians 2, Matthew 6, 18). Again, universalism.

EO #1 Sins are forgiven when people appropriate to themselves the saving benefits of Christ's work, which is sufficient for all but only efficient in those who are saved. So sure, Christ has not wiped out every individual's sins, but He has made a payment to divine justice sufficient for all, for He bought even those heretics who would deny the Lord who bought them

To say Christ's death is sufficient for all is NOT the same thing as saying He paid the penalty for all. You keep relocating soteric categories from application to accomplishment. Payment is in the former. Atonement is in the former. Etc. To say Christ's death actually paid for MY sins, YOUR sins, and EVERYONE'S sins is to say we owe God no more debt, that Christ was the substitute for even unbelievers - universalism. 

Also, 2 Peter 2:1 is not a reference to God as Redeemer but rather as Creator. As Dr. Gary Long notes, "agorazõ is never used in a salvation context (unless II Peter 2:1 is the exception) without the technical term “price” (times — a technical term for the blood of Christ) or its equivalent being stated or made explicit in the context (see I Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Rev. 5:9; 14:3-4)."

EO #1 He paid a price sufficient, and so we each can know that we CAN be saved if we appropriate those benefits

Christ's death is such that it COULD pay the price for all, not that He does. The point is: FOR WHOM is Christ penal substitute?

EO #1 The Holy Spirit in the Scriptures was fine with saying Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all, and bought those who would deny Him. Therefore I am content to say so, while denying that everyone appropriates this benefit

All of whom? All without exception (every individual)? Or all without distinction (categories of men)? If a train conductor says, "All aboard!" do you think he means every individual ever or all those who have a ticket? When Luke says Caesar Augustus made a decree to all the world, you think he was talking about North American Indians? Try applying a little context and coherence to 1 Timothy 2. You're advocating universalism. Is Christ the penal substitute for Judas?

EO #1 For all in the same sense I've been explaining: that it is sufficient for all.

No, Paul says Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all. That does not mean He merely made salvation POSSIBLE but ACTUAL: 

Job 33:24 and he is merciful to him, and says, ‘Deliver him from going down into the pit; I have found a ransom 

Psalm 49:15 God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol 

Isaiah 35:10 And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain gladness and joy, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away 

Revelation 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth 

Does God do this for everyone without exception? Universalism.

EO #2 "Christ's work" 

The uncreated Son does not have to "work" 

nestorian phraseology for nestorian reformed PSA

Reread the gospel of John and tell me again Christ did no VOLUNTARY work on behalf of His people. 

Your Nestorian strawman is goofy, by the way.

------------------------------------------------------------

That ends the first debate. The first commenter was no better than an Arminian in failing to discern between redemption accomplished and redemption applied. The atonement falls into the latter category.

The original video I responded to is one I reference here. The maker of that video, Seraphim Hamilton, was not one of the responders. He's also one of the new-trend EO apologists who are trying to co-opt Reformed thinking. Some EO are doing this with apologetics (link), Seraphim Hamilton is mostly doing it with typology in the mold of James B. Jordan and Peter Leithart. Yet you'll find that these EO apologists have obvious double-standards. 

"Penal substitution is Nestorian if Reformed Christians believe it, but not if we do" (oh, and we'll fail to substantiate our charge, ignore questions about whether Jesus suffered only bodily or in His full humanity, and if all else fails, well, we'll allow nuance or room for intramural discussion for us but not you). 

"Jordan's typology is great and extends to various EO dogma" (but we'll just ignore Jordan's comments on iconography). 

"The transcendental argument refined by Reformed apologists can really only be applied to EO" (but we'll just ignore original sin and fail to articulate or perhaps even understand how how this apologetic is integrally connected to a revelational epistemology).

The next debate is on what EO considers infallible: link

------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any infallible list of infallible EO dogma?

EO Truglia: Is there any infallible list of RC dogma? 

Everything received with consensus is the infallible in EOy.

That doesn't really answer my question: is there an infallible list of "everything received with consensus"?

I'm a Protestant, by the way. 

Let's take an example of why I find issue with your reply: Mogila's confession was received "with consensus," was it not? But he taught inherited guilt, something by and large rejected by the current EO "consensus." So which is infallible?

EO Truglia: similar to the Protestant Canon, there is firmness on canonical questions because of consensus. We discern this consensus as a matter of historical fact. 

As a matter of your other questions about the contents of these documents, that's all that can of worms which is worth discussing, but I really don't want to pack it here and so few words in a comment.

I'll leave other considerations aside, but Protestantism actually lists what it considers infallible. Does Eastern Orthodoxy do this? Where?

EO Truglia: yeah, the bible. We do too, the Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. What constitutes both for the both of us is a historical question for both of us. No need to be polemical.

I'm sorry, but this comes across as avoidant - perhaps unintentionally. 

Like I said, I'm willing to leave other considerations aside - including the attempts to analogize our positions, with which I wouldn't agree - but for Eastern Orthodoxy, what actual, concrete, specifics does "Sacred Tradition" entail? I've never seen anyone comprehensively list this out. 

This could be due to my own ignorance, but I hear some EO apologists say that only the 7 ecumenical councils are infallible. Others say 9. Others include pan-orthodox councils. Others include doctrines not taught in these councils but are alleged to be "received" universally, by consensus, etc. How am I supposed to examine Eastern Orthodoxy if I can't know what it regards as infallible?

EO Truglia: im on my phone, but the universal traditions are all consensus base. The liturgy, hymnography, and 7 councila have universal agreement. Just like every prot church has the same Bible, every single Ortho church is the same on these other than hymns to local saints. We have second tier authorities which though having pan episcopal acceptance (like the pan orthodox councils) lack mass commemoration (in effect, their reception among the laity is incomplete.) so, similar to prots being divided upon whether the longing ending of mark is infallible, leading to uncertainty, these second tier authorities have less certainty. Just as not morally safe to reject the longer ending of mark, it isn't safe i feel to reject these secondary authorities--especiakly if received on an official, episcopal level. 

This stuff is not nebulous as you imply. When the Anglicans wanted union in 1720, they were essentially told to accept these things.

For something like the council of Jerusalem, why would what the laity receives be the standard for certainty if, as you suggest, the authorities of the laity all received it? 

Separately, I've already been looking for a good, primary source (free or not, whichever is more comprehensive) record of EO liturgy if you know of one.

Even better: is the version of reception theory you espouse itself consensually received by bishops, laity, etc.? 

I'd never even heard of such a thing before the past 5 years or so, but again, I could be ignorant.

EO Truglia: you're being polemical again. The answer is yes. I did not invent it.

I'm asking sincere questions in good faith and admitting the potential for ignorance. That said, I do not deny my questions convey light jabs intended to discover whether EO has any counters to them. As you seem to be intent on parrying my questions, I suppose I'll have to look for a polite spar elsewhere.

EO Truglia: Too old and tired for needless "light jabs" honestly

I honestly don't know how else I could have posed the questions for which I am interested in answers. I thought I was using kid gloves, but you've no obligation to answer me.

EO #2: You could look up some scholarly material on the history of the Liturgical corpus but since the orthodox catalog of daily cycles feats synaxarium, and services is a whole libraries worth if material you will not find anything even close to such a thing in English or any available language in publication

That's a shame. How else am I supposed to know that to which EO would commit me?

EO #2: Read whats available its all lives of the saints, kontakions or get a complete set of the horologion and daily offices listed in the anthologian as well as whats listed in the matins and vespers. If you want a list like denzinger it doesn't exist but you could get the rudder which is more of a commentary of the canons throughout the ages but some councils are missing, the synodikon also has an extensive list of beliefs as well as the corpus of Gregory palamas, so stop complaining and do some leg work I did and so can you

EO #3: by going to a church and talking to the priest.

[Response to EO #2] Since when is asking questions complaining?

[Response to EO #3] I can only learn of infallible list of EO dogma from fallible sources?

EO #2: Your last question was in regards to "how am supposed to learn" its complaint I had to do alot of leg work that you won't get in any parish catechism, but we don't have that many dogmas that you have to use every loving manuscript to figure out so I don't really get why you want every single liturgical hymn do have any idea how many there are? If thats too much work then I don't know what else to tell you.

Ok, what is the content of the dogma? The acts of ecumenical councils? Just its decrees? More?

EO #2 decress such as the confessions of faith and the theological anathemas such as the condemnation of nestorius and pelagius

the content is the confessions and the updated synodikon that affirms all theological topics of dogmatic importance.

Thank you - where may I find this updated synodikon?

------------------------------------------------------------

And that is the end of this debate. A few observations:

Truglia seemed put off when I questioned whether his reception theory was 1) self-consistent 2) as well as consistent in practice (on the question of inherited guilt; cf. link).

Notice none of them could provide me with somewhere to go to for the content of their allegedly infallible liturgy. Apparently, just like a RC has to pre-commit to hoping he doesn't receive any lumps from the pope, to accept EO, you have to buy before sight. In both cases, I guess one is left to hope he doesn't find himself with buyer's remorse (link). 

The reply of third EO commenter brings up an interesting point: can EO (including its liturgical decisions) only know of the infallible contents of EO from fallible bishops? This EO either also applies buy before sight or almost makes it sound like another borrowing Reformed apologetics, this time in the way of R. C. Sproul's view of the canon as a fallible list of infallible books. In fact, either despite or as a supplement to his reception theory, Truglia himself says this exact thing on his blog (link)! Truglia says:

My final reflection now drags Anglican apologist "The Other Paul" to the mix. He claimed in a debate with myself that because there is no infallible list of sacred tradition, it is too vacuous a concept to hold to. This led not only to the absurdity that we (he alleges) do not infallibly know the Gospel of John to be Scripture (by my above criteria, we obviously can and everyone knows the Orthodox are correct about this), but it puts him into contradiction with Ortlund and Sproul who give the only remotely satisfying answer to the Scriptural canon question, even if their apologetic is incomplete.

If Protestants insist their canon is fallible, but this has no effect on moral certainty on the question (I grant the latter, but not the former due to the quibbles above), then they are stuck granting the same to sacred tradition or at least in matters of degree (we have more consensus on biblical canon than on X tradition, and so we are by that degree more certain).

I respect Truglia more than other EO apologists I encounter. He tends to apply standards more evenly (unlike EOs I mentioned above). But to that extent, it makes his position more easy to critique.

That is, "The Other Paul" got him on this one. I would add to the vacuity of "Sacred Tradition" my earlier argument that EO apologists have to sell their goods before allowing the buyer to see it. His assertion that Sproul's view of the canon is "the only remotely satisfying answer" begs the question, and his "I'll look the other way if you will" tactic only works if he gets away without being called out for it. My position is that we have an infallible list of infallible books, for the Protestant canon just is the self-authenticating, extant extent of divine revelation. I expect that this is not the answer Truglia wants to hear.

The last debate also involves Truglia and others, this time on original sin.

------------------------------------------------------------

Mogila says original sin renders one liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath. That sounds like original guilt to me (contra Pomazansky, for example).

EO Truglia: If taken in isolation it can be taken in that way, but if we understand "guilt" to be the right judgment for a defective tropos/will, then it harmonizes.

Does "defective" mean "sinful"? 

If not, your response does not explain on what account we are held liable to the eternal punishment of divine wrath. 

If so, then since the mode of will for the people in question is due to Adam's sin, that just is original guilt. 

As you would say, "it's a good question" :) 

Fortunately, Mogila even tells us the answer to this question: 

"...whosoever is not a partaker [of baptism,] such a one remains unabsolved from his sin, and continueth in his guilt, and is liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath: As it is said (John 3.5), Verily, verily, I say unto you, that except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven." 

The persons of whom he speaks are ones unabsolved from his sin. Unabsolved = guilty. His sin = reason. His sin = "hereditary sin." That's original guilt.

EO #2 Yes we are guilty because we are liable this is why palamas stretches the fact that man was corrupted by Adam's fault but this does not negate man from grace in all sense but as Popovich states that we have an indelible mark on the soul that enables us to do natural good

Shouldn't it be that we are liable to punishment because we are guilty? Divine punishment is grounded in man's guilt. Otherwise, that's voluntarism (highly ironic, since that's what EO's commonly charge Reformed believers of). 

Who's Popovich?

EO #2: well yes thats why St Gregory palamas and Philaret of moscow say it's necessary for Christ to become man and aleviate the sickness in our nature by giving man eternal life.

St Justin popovich is an Orthodox theologian and philosopher who also cites the catechism of peter mogila but of you want modern Orthodox statements free from free from Romanides and Yannaras liberalism heres from the 80s "catechism" 

Orthodox Catechism by Metropolitan Sotirios Athanassoulas (Ecumenical Patriarchate): “That is original sin. And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the “image.” That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then “the imagination of man’s heart is evil “(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve’s. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam.

So you disagree with EOs who reject original guilt? 

Does that mean you admit Mary was conceived guilty in the same way Mogila describes? (i.e. that she was rendered liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath) 

Finally, if one is guilty, presumably it is of original sin. What is the connection between Adam and ourselves if we are guilty of the sin he personally committed? Reformed theology would follow Augustine (Against Julian) in saying that we are not only guilty but culpable for Adam's sin, having participated in it (reatus culpa in addition to reatus poenae). That is, you can't have guilt without culpability (else, voluntarism again). What is your thought on that?

EO #2: Not culpable but liable we never lost the Image of God but as the confession of dositheos explains we are damaged, and yes I disagree with modern orthodox because are mostly ignorant on their own literature I'm not

Also I have to disagree with your assessment I've studied many documents in Orthodoxy on original sin and mogila and pomazansky dont conflict pomazansky cites the encyclical of the eastern patriarchs and the Russian confession which doesn't deny the use of guilt but lists how some sects over emphasis phrases to lead to different anthropologies "In order to restore the order which had been violated, it was necessary first of all to give satisfaction for the offense given to God, and by this means to remove the guilt of mankind and the punishment that weighs upon him." orthodox dogmatic theology 

Also

"Before Christ we all shared the same ancestral curse and condemnation poured out on all of us from our single forefather, as if it had sprung from the root of the human race and was the common lot of our nature. Each person’s individual action attracted either reproof or praise from God, but no one could do anything about the shared curse and condemnation, or the evil inheritance that had been passed down to him and through him would pass to his descendants." St Gregory palamas

EO #3: There is a difference between being guilty of Adam's transgression (direct imputation of what he personally commited), and being guilty of our own sinful condition/nature that we inherited from Adam.

EO #2: I guess you concede liability then thanks I accept your concession.

[Response to EO #2] If you don't click to reply button, I don't get notified and assume the conversation is over. So you can make up whatever nonsense in your mind you want, but it's not like I sit around clicking refresh on this video hoping you have responded. 

As for your comment, for you to say we are liable without culpability is voluntarism. It makes us subject to punishment for no other reason than mere, divine will. We have done nothing to deserve punishment if we are not also culpable, as Augustine recognized. In other words, you've compromised God's justice.

[Response to EO #3] Was this meant for me? If so, what does Romans 5 say about the contrast between the first and second Adam's acts?

EO #2: by sending his only Son into this world, who might take flesh of a most unspotted virgin, by the operation of the Holy Spirit and redeem lost man; and receive him into his kingdom, from question 25 of Mogila establishes that he views the virgin as spotless now whether she was made spotless at her entrance to the temple as some fathers say or as Some scholars theorized that she was born spotless as some who beleive Mogila himself held the view you're making a statement about the mother of God mogila himself doesn't hold and in Orthodoxy we do hold that the liability keeps one out of the flock of Heaven which is why baptism is necessary. There's a spectrum of sin as people who are born into it are under but not all people experience eternal punishment the same you're just making a mistake of incorporating a sweeping view based on your prior precepts

You do realize it's possible to culpable while not being fully liable "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows" Luke 12 also St Gregory nanzianzus says infants who die unbaptized don't face the same degree of punishment as Adam would have

Reread your own citation of Luke 12: "But the one who does not know and does things DESERVING PUNISHMENT will be beaten with few blows" 

Ironically, your own citation refutes you. The point is, if you reject infant culpability, you have no basis upon which to assert they deserve ANY punishment, no matter how many or few blows. And let's not pretend that Mogila doesn't say that it is the eternal punishment of the divine wrath that infants deserve. Next time, please address the point. 

You've compromised God's justice in suggesting God punishes those who bear no culpability for sin.

EO #2: Still awaiting an answer since ive already provided the Orthodox dogmatics and the subsequent councils your charge that we have no dogmas failed and now you're just arguing with nothing concerning original since im not a romanidean .

EO #4: “However, it is called sin, not in such a way that it makes us guilty, but because it is the result of the guilt of the first man and because by rebelling it strives to draw us to guilt, unless we are aided by the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, lest even the dead sin so rebel that by conquering it revives and reigns.” 

This is what St. Augustine says in Against Julian. He's saying we aren't guilty of Adam's personal sin, but we are in a guilty state before God prior to baptism due to our sinful nature inherited from Adam. This is cleansed at baptism, for we are baptized for the remission of sins. This is why the exercism prayers are read even for infant baptisms. 

Here is Canon 121 of Carthage 418 (which is dogmatically binding per Trullo): 

"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."

[Response to EO #2] My charge is you've compromised God's justice in suggesting God punishes those who bear no culpability for sin.

[Response to EO #4] You cited canon 110, not 121. I'm well aware of it, as was Augustine (present at that council). So since you mention Augustine, let's see what else he says in Against Julian: 

//I ask you by what justice must an image of God that has in no way transgressed the law of the God be estranged from the kingdom of God, from the life of God? Do you not hear how the Apostle detests certain men, who, he says, are 'estranged from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart'? Is a non-baptized infant bound by this sentence or not? If you say he is not bound, they you will be vanquished and punished by the evangelical truth and by the testimony of Pelagius himself, for where is the life of God except in the kingdom of God, into which none but those born again of water and the Spirit can enter? But, if you assert that he is bound, you acknowledge the punishment. Then you must acknowledge the guilt (culpam). You confess the torment—confess, then, that it is deserved.// 

But Eastern Orthodoxy denies that infants are culpable (see [EO #2] right above you). Most EO don't even affirm inherited guilt.

EO #2: Do you have a place where I ever say that as the case? I do have Peter Mogila saying that the virgin mary was pure and even some evidence suggesting he may have held to the immaculate conception so your attempt to target the doctrine of the purity of mary off your speculative case isn't gonna work here

"And this is done in the mystery of holy Baptism; and whosoever is not a partaker thereof, such a one remains unabsolved from his sin, and continueth in his guilt, and is liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath" 

Mary isn't even mentioned, but that's irrelevant anyways. Mogila says all infants are under original sin and therefore guilty and liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath. For you to say infants aren't culpable makes them be subject to undeserved punishment. That is what destroys the justice of God in your system. You can avoid the point or address it.

EO #4: I cited Canon 121 according to the Masterjohn translation of The Pedalion (Rudder). Canon 110 refers to people returning from Donatism and bishops. 

I agree with [EO #2] and The Church's teaching that infants aren't culpable because they haven't committed personal sin. However, they are liable for Adam's sin because they were found in Adam at the Fall, as all humanity was. We have our nature from Adam, and that nature was corrupted by his sin. Therefore, we fall under the same curse. You can find this language in St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Ambrose, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and St. Symeon the New Theologian, and several other Church Fathers. 

Again, it depends on what you mean by guilt. St. Augustine used three words for that English word: culpa, reatus, and reus. 

As a side note, I don't really care what the average (or most, as you said...which is a claim that will be hard for you to prove) EO person today affirms. I care about what the dogmatically binding councils and Holy Scriptures say. Individual saints are not infallible. The consensus of the Fathers, which is borne out in the dogmatically binding councils, is. Carthage 418-419 is one of those councils.

From the Church Fathers I mentioned: 

But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another.” – St Cyprian of Cathage, Epistle 58 

“In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of paradise, in Adam I died. How shall God call me back, except He find me in Adam? For just as in Adam I am guilty of sin and owe a debt to death, so in Christ I am justified.” – St Ambrose of Milan, On the Death of His Brother Satyrus 

“Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted; thus has the power of the curse ceased, and the dominion of death been brought to decay. And this too Paul teaches, saying, ‘For as by the disobedience of the one man, the many became sinners, so by the obedience of the One, the many became righteous.’ For the whole nature of man became guilty in the person of him who was first formed; but now it is wholly justified again in Christ. For He became for us the second commencement of our race after that primary one; and therefore all things in Him have become new.” 

“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in.” - St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel; Commentary on Romans 

“When Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men.” - St Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians and On the Incarnation of the Word 

“Just as Adam sowed sinful impurity into pure bodies and the yeast of evil was laid into the whole of our mass [nature], so our Lord sowed righteousness into the body of sin and His yeast was mixed into the whole of our mass [nature]” – St Ephraim the Syrian“ 

“Having been sent in a flesh in the likeness of that of sin, He did not have sin in the same way that He had flesh. But as all flesh comes from sin, that is, it derives from the sin of Adam the progenitor, He has been sent in a flesh similar to that of sin, because in Him sin does not subsist, but the image of sinful flesh.” – St Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Psalm 118 

“Human nature is sinful from its very conception. 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.”

"Thus, in soul Adam died immediately, as soon as he had tasted [from the fruit of that tree from which God had commanded him not to taste, threatening him that if he should only taste of it he should die]; and later, after nine hundred and thirty years, he died also in body. For, as the death of the body is the separation of it of the soul, so the death of the soul is the separation from it of the Holy Spirit… Later, for this reason, the whole human race also became such as our forefather Adam became through the fall – mortal, that is, both in soul and body. Man such as God had created him no longer existed in the World.”– St Symeon the New Theologian, Homily 37:3; Homily 45:3

You may have meant to "cite canon 121 according to according to the Masterjohn translation of The Pedalion (Rudder), but, no, you did not cite that. Here's how that translation reads: 

"It has pleased the Synod 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 propatorical 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." 

This is not what you cited in your last comment. Be more honest. 

Also be more honest in that you are quoting material from another website (The Orthodox West). You come off as if you haven't done any research yourself. 

Since you yourself say "Individual saints are not infallible," I'll mostly skip responding to your list. You've already skipped responding to my citation of Against Julian, so that's even. I too prefer to focus on what you consider to be dogma. In fact, that's why I cited Mogila at the beginning - his catechism has pan-orthodox acceptance. But let's hover on Symeon the New Theologian's following statement: 

//...all people also who came from the seed of Adam are participants of the ancestral sin from their very conception and birth...// 

This is excellent, but it also means infants are culpable. The only one's who teach reatus culpa are us - pesky, Reformed Christians. I'm pleasantly surprised that we have more in common with him than you and "The [EO] Church" does. 

And I'm well aware of the meanings of "guilt." Did you not see me specify one of them (culpam) in my citation of Augustine's Against Julian? I have been very specific in my critique of [EO #2] that he (and you, apparently) have compromised God's justice in suggesting God punishes those who bear no culpability for sin. Your following statement does not help: 

//However, they are liable for Adam's sin because they were found in Adam at the Fall, as all humanity was. We have our nature from Adam, and that nature was corrupted by his sin. Therefore, we fall under the same curse.// 

Can you even explain what this means - in your own words? For example, define "nature." 

If we were truly in Adam (traducianism, which I accept), not nominally, then we are, as Symeon says, participants in Adam's sin. You've begged the question by assuming "that infants aren't culpable because they haven't committed personal sin." "Personal sin" is not the only sin for which one may be culpable.

EO #2 I pointed out where mogila said mary is spotless you can ignore that if you want but it just shows your bias confirmation and i already posted that culpability is via liability not for the things sake. It's why if they die they don't suffer like Adam would have suffered

Whether Mary is spotless has nothing to do with my criticism of your position. So I will ignore it. 

In your fourth comment in this thread, you said: "Not culpable but liable." 

But Mogila says all infants (exclude Mary if it makes you feel better) are under original sin and therefore guilty and liable to the *eternal punishment of the divine wrath*. That's suffering, and it doesn't matter what the degree of it is. It's undeserved if one has no culpability. So you make infants subject to undeserved punishment and, thus, compromise God's justice in suggesting God punishes those who bear no culpability for sin.

EO #2: You're either being obtuse or arguing just to argue I already stated as did ancient insights that liability was due to Adam's culpability being upon all men which makes us have a loss due to adams transgression so we are depraved of the inherentance, which you confuse and conflate every man has done what adam has done. We are still guilty because we are stricken with adams penalty by being his sons

Ancient Insights? You mean Ben? You said that Ben said "that liability was due to Adam's culpability being upon all men." But that's false. In a video he made with Truglia 3 years ago, Ben says that "the only person culpable for Adam's sin is Adam himself." I think you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Can you even define liability and culpability? Please do so.

EO #4: I'm staring right now at the 2006 Masterjohn version on my computer. It says what I posted in my comment. Which version are you looking at? You also accused me of citing Canon 110 of Carthage, so now you're changing your accusation. 

I'm happy to admit that those quotes were found on The Orthodox West's blog. I don't see where I found them having an impact on the content of the saints' words. The reason I brought up the various saints is to show that there's a wide consensus of the Church Fathers teaching original sin and that we are found guilty before God because of it before we even commit personal sins. That's why infants are baptized for the remission of sins. 

I would affirm St. Peter Mogila's confession, as did the Synod of Iași in 1642. The patriarchates of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria all signed on to it by 1643, making it dogmatically-binding. I'd especially affirm his response to Question 24, which is relevant here: 

"Whether all men are liable for the sin of Adam? 

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 has become, not only subject to sin, but also, on account of sin, to punishment; which, according to the sentence pronounced by God, was (Gen. 2.17): “In the day that thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt surely die.” And to this the apostle alludes (Rom. 5.12): “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” So that we are conceived in our mother’s womb, and born in this sin, according to the holy psalmist (Ps. li.7): “Behold, I was shapen in wickedness, and in sin hath my mother conceived me.” This is called ancestral sin, first, because before this, man was free from all sin; although the devil was then corrupt, and fallen, by whose temptation this ancestral sin sprang 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." 

You'll get no argument from me about this statement. You might get some modernist EOs denying that, but they would be going against the tradition of The Church. 

For the record, I'm using the translation from Maksimologija because I couldn't copy the one made by J.J. Overbeck. The essence of the text is the same. 

Let me define my position better because I think we are talking past each other but might actually agree. If by culpable you mean liable for punishment because all of humanity was present in Adam when he sinned, then I would affirm that infants are culpable. If by culpable you mean that Adam and I (or infants) both chose to commit the original sin with the same level of intention, then I would not affirm that they are culpable. I believe St. Symeon is speaking of the former when stating that we are participants in Adam's sin. Therefore, I would say infants are culpable in the former sense mentioned above. 

I'm currently undecided between traducianism or creationism with regard to the creation of the soul because, as far as I'm aware (open to correction here), The Church has not dogmatically made a pronouncement. There were saints that held each of these views. St. Symeon's statement above would imply he affirmed some sort of traducianism. That said, I would say traducianism offers a simple explanation as to why Christ did not have original sin in His humanity (virginal conception by His mother). What IS condemned by The Church, however, is the preexistence of souls.

The copyright I'm looking at is 2005. If you have a different version, I apologize for my assumption. It makes little difference. 

This is quite a turnaround from early today, when you said, "I agree with [EO #2] and The Church's teaching that infants aren't culpable because they haven't committed personal sin." 

You are now the closest I have come to discussing with an EO who understands the point I have been getting at. I know of no one else who would accept what I have said as you have: that we are culpable (deserving of blame) for the original sin because we are and always have been (since our conception) participants in it. It wasn't an atomistic Adam who sinned, but his agency by which he sinned is shared with his progeny traduced out of him. As a friend of mine says, there cannot be a continuity of the substance of the soul without a continuity of being and moral agency. 

Of course, Christ is not culpable is that He was never "in" the first Adam and, thus, never [culpably and participatively] sinned in Adam (unlike the rest of Adam's progeny). He was not paternally traduced. 

This is indeed the way to resolve how infants could be subject to eternal punishment without compromising divine justice. 

But accepting imputed guilt and reatus culpa sounds good in theory. In practice, I have never heard any EO accept this. I wonder if you take this to your deacon, priest, or bishop, what will you say if, as I suspect, he or they tell you that these are wrong?

EO #4: I thought [EO #2] and I were saying the same thing, but I realized we weren't, especially with regard to the Theotokos. The Fathers teach that she had original/ancestral sin but no personal sin (thus, why she is spotless) but was cleansed of original sin at a given point. 

This is from Bishop Theophilus of Campania in Greece (1749-­‐1795) in a chapter titled "On the Ancestral Sin of the Holy and Ever-­Virgin Mary": 

"Athanasius the Great in his Discourse Against Apollinaris 4, says: "He [the Son of God] united to Himself a soul-endowed body, which had the possibility to suffer willingly, and which did not pre-exist and was afterwards united with Him because of its virtue. This body did not simply come forth from the human side, i.e. from Mary, but after she had been sanctified, and then, God the Word became through her a partaker of humanity by uniting to Himself by way of condescension (economy) a soul-endowed body, so that He is one and the same person, God and man." Do you hear this? He said, "after she had been sanctified, and then, God the Word became through her a partaker of humanity", i.e. after she was cleansed from the ancestral sin. Because, what other sin had this blameless and pure Virgin committed? 

And again the same Father, in his work On the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, says the following: "And so man is divided into two parts and was condemned to end up in two places. This is why there was need of Him who pronounced this, so that He would Himself dissolve His decision by appearing with the uncondemned and sinless form of the condemned humanity, and thereby God’s reconciliation with man might be achieved and man’s freedom might be restored through a man in communion with the image of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ." Consider this, then! He pronounced the curse of the ancestral sin for the entire humanity, and He, too, dissolved it, by appearing with the uncondemned and sinless form of the condemned humanity, so that man’s reconciliation with God might be achieved and the freedom of all human beings, all without exception, including His Mother, might be granted through Him by condescension (economy)." 

Some of the Fathers point to the Annunciation and indwelling of the Holy Spirit as the moment the Theotokos was cleansed of original sin, and this seems to be backed up by the liturgical texts on that feast day: 

"Ode VII in Matins: My soul hath been cleansed, my body sanctified; I am made a temple fit to hold God, a divinely adorned tabernacle, a temple rendered animate through the visitation of the most holy Spirit, and am the pure Mother of the Life!” 

With regard to culpability (worthy of blame), now you have my clarification of terms and my position. 

Unfortunately, many modern Orthodox people end up falling into a crypto or outright Pelagian position to avoid sounding "too Western" (whatever that means). This is really a 20th century innovation. The Eastern Patriarchs did not mention original sin or the atonement in their list of grievances against Papism in their 1848 encyclical to Pius IX. Following the scriptures, dogmatically-binding councils and confessions, and the consensus of the Church Fathers is a better way to go than renovationism.

Thank you, you are correct about Mary. And I am inclined to agree with you in really quite every respect. This has been most encouraging. 

But that 20th century trend you mention is what gives rise to my last question: hypothetically, let's say you take what you've said and present it to your deacon, priest, or bishop. If they tell you that these are wrong, would you believe yourself to be conscience bound to your interpretation of the matter or to what your deacon, priest, or bishop tells you to believe instead? 

This is no impractical question. I've watched dozens of videos of these EO authorities teach exactly against what you've said.

EO #4: I'd be conscience-bound to the teachings of The Church, which any clergyman who denies original sin would be against. As you know individual clergymen are not infallible and also must abide by the teachings of the Church (especially in dogmatic areas). What's a shame is that you have bishops in the early 20th century who held the Church's teaching like Abp Theophan of Poltava and New Martyr Victor of Vyatka who have been, in a way, swept under the rug (so to speak). That's why I appreciate resources like The Orthodox West's blog for showcasing what The Church actually teaches on the matter from the works of the Fathers themselves. 

Out of curiosity, can you name the clergymen you've seen who deny original sin publicly? I'm not denying that they exist, but I want people to know who they are.

Search youtube for "What is the Orthodox Perspective on Original Sin?" and listen especially to minute 9:42 and following: 

//...we have this development, this theological development which is based on this erroneous concept but we also have among the Reformers John Calvin who embraced a lot of the Augustinian concepts including predestination and he also embraced the understanding of Original Sin and the transmission of sin and guilt and the responsibility of Adam based on Augustine's understanding and that has been the case until this day for those who have followed the Calvinist understandings. Of course in the Orthodox Church this is not even a topic to be discussed because we do not see any such possibility of transmission of sin and guilt and responsibility in any possible way.// 

The video has over 100k views. Eastern Orthodox bishop Irenei of London & Western Europe was forced to backtrack what he said in a video ("Are We Born Guilty of Sin?) when he said: 

//We are born spotless. There is no human ever ever born sinful, as if he were already a sinner by virtue of his constitution. God does not create like this, and every human being is born pure as Adam was fashioned pure. Yet we are touched by sin from the very beginning. By the time we open our eyes to the world, the sinfulness of the world is already having an impact on us.// 

In a note on Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, we read: 

//Some Orthodox Christians have mistakenly defended the Augustinian notion of "original guilt" — that is, that all men have inherited the guilt of Adam's sin — and others, going to the opposite extreme, have denied altogether the inheritance of sinfulness from Adam. Fr. Michael rightly points out, in his balanced presentation, that from Adam we have indeed inherited our tendency towards sin, together with the death and corruption that are now part of our sinful nature, but we have not inherited the guilt of Adam's personal sin.// 

See also Romanides, Andrew Louth (Original Sin and the Fall: Five Views), Josiah Trenham on Reason and Theology (minute 107:54ff.), etc. 

I respect your answers. You seem like someone who would not so easily put out straw men against Reformed theology that I hear so often in these contexts (e.g. it's Manichean). Would you agree that EO and Protestantism share more in common on the topic of private judgment than. We both agree that there are higher and lower authorities. We both agree that where in disagreement, we need to accept the higher authority. Do we not then agree that we must judge when such occurs? This is another straw man argument I often hear against Protestantism. 

Dialogue would be much better between both sides if we set aside the bad arguments.

EO #4 The examples you shared with me are atrocious to hear as an Orthodox Christian. St. Augustine is always the strawman scapegoat for these types of people. They don't seem to actually read what he wrote, nor do they know that the "Eastern Fathers" also teach original sin. The article about inherited guilt in St. Augustine and St. Cyril on the Orthodox West's blog is helpful in this regard. Same with the Ancestral/Original Sin article. Anytime I hear "East vs West" nonsense, I walk away. 

I remember commenting on Bp Irenei's video. That statement is pretty darn close to Pelagianism. Even his walk back statement was still crypto Pelagian (see from 11:41-12:54 of the video). I wish more Orthodox people knew that Pelagianism (in the form of Caelestius and Julian of Eclanum) was condemned at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. In fact, Nestorianism and Pelagianism were both linked by St. John Cassian and Marius Mercator: 

"[T]he error of Pelagius ... that in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they [chose]." - St. John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius 

Accusing Theodore of Mopsuestia of being the father of the Pelagian position: "T]hat the progenitors of the human race, Adam and Eve, having been created mortal by God, did not wound any of their descendants when they strayed by their transgression, but harmed only themselves; that they made themselves guilty of the command before God, but absolutely no one else." - Marius Mercator, Commonitorium 

Romanides is just...he shouldn't even be taken seriously. Same with Yannaras. 

Orthodox people are better off learning their own faith instead of pontificating straw men about other confessions. I remember someone telling me about the "Latin view" of original sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church didn't even teach what that person was saying. It makes Orthodoxy look really bad when erroneous polemical statements are made. 

With regard to your questions, I don't know enough about the Protestant confessions (especially the Reformed position) to give positive or negative answers to your questions.

The question isn't really about confessions. It's about how we must judge between higher and lower authorities when they disagree. We both would say to always side with the higher authority, right? 

Let me encourage you to address error where you see it (like the Irenai video). It can be tempting to take the easy route and just walk away - and sometimes the demands of life does require that of us - but if you can push back, do. 

Looking back over my notes, I realize I have one last question. Compare the following: 

We should also know that when baptized infants die, they enjoy the Paradise of delight, whereas those not illumined by Baptism and those born of pagans go neither to Paradise nor to Gehenna. (Synaxarion Saturday Before Meatfare Sunday) 

Mogila's Confession 20. What is original sin? 

Original sin is the transgression of that law of God which was given to Adam, the Father of all men, in these words (Gen. 2.17), Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. This original sin spreadeth over all human nature; forinasmuch as we were all then contained in Adam. Wherefore by one Adam sin hath passed into us all. And we are conceived and born with this blemish, as the Scripture teacheth us (Rom. 5.12), By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. This hereditary sin cannot be rooted out or abolished by any repentance whatever, but only by the grace of God, through the work of redemption, wrought by our Lord Jesus Christ, in taking upon him our flesh and pouring out his precious blood. And this is done in the mystery of holy Baptism; and whosoever is not a partaker thereof, such a one remains unabsolved from his sin, and continueth in his guilt, and is liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath: As it is said (John 3.5), Verily, verily, I say unto you, that except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. 

Mogila's Confession 63. What are we to think concerning those who depart hence under the wrath of God? 

Of these, some, after the last Judgment, will be punished with greater, some with lesser Torments; but both will be without end. As the Scripture declareth (Luke 12.47), That servant that knew his Lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes: But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. 

Mogila's Confession 68. Where is the place of those souls who leave their bodies under the displeasure of God? 

Many names are given to that place: it is called “Hell”, into which the Devil, when thrust out of heaven, was driven; as the Prophet testifies (Isa. 14.14), I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High, saith Satan. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Again, it is called “Everlasting fire”, as the Scripture saith (Matt. 25.41), Depart from me, ye cursed, into Everlasting Fire, prepared for the Devil and his Angels. Likewise it is named Outer Darkness (v. 30), Cast ye the unprofitable Servant into Outer Darkness; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. It is called by many other names, all of which mean a place of condemnation and the wrath of God. To this place go down the souls of all those who die at enmity with God, and under his wrath; and here are they damned. This, then, is to be believed by the Faithful, that as the souls of the righteous, although received into heaven, do not receive the full and perfect crown of glory before the last judgment, so neither do the souls of the damned feel and suffer the full measure and weight of the punishments before that time. But after that final and decisive judgment, the souls of all, rejoined to their bodies, will be crowned with glory or overwhelmed with torments. 

Confession of Dositheus, Decree 16. 

We believe Holy Baptism, which was instituted by the Lord, and is conferred in the name of the Holy Trinity, to be of the highest necessity. For without it none is able to be saved, as the Lord saith, “Whosoever is not born of water and of the Spirit, shall in no wise enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens” (John 3.5). And, therefore, it is necessary even for infants, since they also are subject to original sin, and without Baptism are not able to obtain its remission. Which the Lord showed when he said, not of some only, but simply and absolutely, “Whosoever is not born [again]”, which is the same as saying, “All that after the coming of Christ the Saviour would enter into the Kingdom of the Heavens must be regenerated.” And forasmuch as infants are men, and as such need salvation; needing salvation, they need also Baptism. And those that are not regenerated, since they have not received the remission of hereditary sin, are, of necessity, subject to eternal punishment, and consequently cannot without Baptism be saved; so that even infants ought, of necessity, to be baptised. Moreover, infants are saved, as is said in Matthew (Matt. 19.12); but he that is not baptised is not saved. And consequently even infants must of necessity be baptised. 

How do you resolve what Dositheus (unbaptized infants are not saved, subject to eternal punishment, and cannot enter heaven) and Mogila says (infants are "liable to the eternal punishment of the divine wrath," explained in 63 and 68) with what is said in the Synaxarion Saturday Before Meatfare Sunday?

EO #4: For your question regarding unbaptized infants, I refer you to the owner of this channel's work on the subject entitled "The Damnation of Unbaptized Children and Possible Exceptions" since he knows more about the subject than I. The translation I have for Meatfare Saturday also says "Hades" instead of "Gehenna", which might imply the particular judgement and not the last judgment. Regardless, I refer you to Craig's article. 

It was a pleasure having a discussion with you on the other points. Have a great rest of your day!

I have read that article before. He doesn't mention Mogila (I forgot to cite Mogila's Confession 64, which appears even clearer). Thanks for the conversation.

------------------------------------------------------------

This conversation appears to have wrapped up. Final points:

For Reformed Christians trying to wrap their minds around how to approach apologetics with EO, I've tried to show why I think that original sin is a good entry point. It also provides smoother access to processing Christology (why isn't Christ sinful if He is human?), anthropology (what is it to be human?), metaphysics (what is [human] nature?), and other areas on which that EOs like to think they have the high ground but don't.

Truglia exited this conversation quickly, which didn't surprise me. I've critiqued Truglia's videos on original sin elsewhere (link). 

In addition to double standard apologetics, another common EO tactic is quote-mining such as the rather dishonest EO #4 tried to steamroll me with - it is ironic that it led to EO #4 agreeing with me, and I'm glad to have learned of another theologian (Symeon) who uses language of "participation" in the context of original sin, phraseology that the more consistent Reformed theologians have likewise used (link).

EO #2 here is the same as EO #2 in the debate on infallible EO content. Like EO #4, he too ignored my citation of Augustine's Against Julian which affirms infant culpability. EO #2 also ignored that Luke 12:48 - which he brought up! - speaks of culpability. Notice that at one point, EO #4 begins to realize EO #2's ignorance on this subject over time and has to distance himself from his former, stated agreement with him. Here is one speculative reason:

As I see it, EOs are used to stock arguments. They're used to feeling misunderstood, so they're used to playing whatever apologetic track they've heard on repeat. This makes them sound like a broken, useless record when I make a simple argument using their own source of dogma, Mogila (whose confession had pan-orthodox acceptance at the 1642 Synod of Jassy). My simple argument was: if you suggest God punishes those who bear no culpability for sin, you've compromised God's justice. One who deserves no blame deserves no punishment. This is Augustinian thinking. This is biblical thinking.

Yet as simple as this is, EO #2 doesn't even come close to addressing it, let alone understand deeper criticisms like the charge of voluntarism (but which they're happy to try to understand if it's a charge made, say, against Reformed Christians). It's like their robotic programming requires them to generate the same outputs as an automatic response regardless of new data inputs. When this happens, don't lose the point. Keep bringing the conversation back to where they don't want.

Sometimes, you need to test whether people even know what they're talking about. When you see someone virtually plagiarize like EO #4 did in lifting all of those quotes from one website, ask them to define a key term in their position (like "nature"). Or when you see someone reference someone else as their source, double-check them like I did when EO #2 referred to the guy Truglia made his video with that I critiqued. I caught EO #2 in a lie, which leads me to question whether he even understands the keys terms we've been discussing ("liability" and "culpability"). Forcing them to define these words should force them closer to acknowledging the force of the simple argument. But only God works the conviction for which we pray.

The trend of conversation with EO #4 was encouraging, though. His willingness to backtrack and understand me properly - because he recognized that I took the time to understand EO properly - might allow me a foot in the door to discuss other topics. I chose to pivot to the question of normative authority mentioned in my last post on this subject (link). The rift within EO on original sin makes it easy to relate the issue to private judgment and that Protestants and EOs are really in the same boat when it comes to exercising judgment in matters involving matters on which higher and lower authorities disagree. It also puts an expectation for EO #4 and his ilk to speak out against other EO apologists when they hear of these misrepresentations. If such results in a shift of EO apologetic focus even slightly away from anti-Protestant polemics more towards intra-mural debate, so much the better as a worthy goal. Leverage agreement to gain concessions. EO #4 chose to claim ignorance. While this is a cop-out (especially since I simplified the argument for him), if he claims ignorance about Protestantism, then at least he can't very well critique it. 

My final point is actually what I think is a pretty strong indication that even for EOs who bite the bullet and basically accept a Reformed view of original sin, they still have problems in terms of resolving what their sources say about the final destination of the unborn. EO #4 referred me to this article, which I've read before and does not address what Mogila says about hell.

The point is not to insist that unborn or unbaptized infants really must go to hell. On Reformed theology, divine grace is sufficient for salvation. I've written on this elsewhere (link). The point is to press a seeming inconsistency in EO. Do unbaptized infants depart from this life under the wrath of God? Then his Confession 63 and 68 applies. See also what Mogila says here:

64. Do not some die, so as to be in a medium between the blessed and the damned?

Of these there be not any; nevertheless, it is certain that many sinners are freed from the chains of Hades; not by their own repentance or confession, as the Scripture saith (Ps. 6.5), In the pit who shall give thanks unto thee? And elsewhere (Ps 115.17), The dead praise not thee, O Lord; neither all them that go down into the pit; but for the good works and alms of the living, and for the prayers of the Church, made in their behalf; but chiefly for the sake of the unbloody Sacrifice (the Liturgy) which the Church daily offers up for the living and teh dead; in like manner as Christ also died for both. But the souls of such are by no means to be delivered by their own works; as Theophylact, treating on these words of Christ, in the sixth chapter of Luke, To whom Power is given of forgiving Sins on Earth, teacheth, saying, “Observe, it is said on Earth; For so long as we continue on Earth we can wipe out our sins, but after we leave this Earth we are no more able of ourselves to cancel our sins by our confessions. The ‘Doors then are shut’.” And again, on the Words of Matthew (ch. 22.13), Bind him hand and foot, by which the active Faculties of the soul are meant, he says, In this life life we may labour and endeavour, but afterwards the active faculties of the soul are bound, nor can we any more do ought atonement for our offences. And farther, on the 25th chapter of the same Gospel, he says, There is no more time for repentance and good works after this life. From all which it is clear, that after its separation the soul can no more perform penance, nor do any other work whereby it might be freed from the chains of Hades. Therefore, only the sacrifices, the prayers and alms, which are performed by the living, for their sakes, do comfort and greatly benefit the souls, and free them from the bonds of Hades.

Even if unbaptized infants could be somehow freed by sacrifices by the living, Mogila's denies what EO #4 suggests as well as what the supposedly infallible EO liturgy teaches: "those not illumined by Baptism and those born of pagans go neither to Paradise nor to Gehenna." This is a problem no matter how the EO tries to slice it.