Man's Sinful Condition and Jacob I loved but Esau I hated

Another discussion that I had with my Protestant friend was on the topic of man's sinful condition.  He struggled to see that anything good could be left in man once Adam and Eve sinned against God, and thought the Orthodox view of man being severely crippled yet retaining some good after the fall could make Christ's Sacrifice unnecessary.  He thought that scripture clearly taught that only by God's grace are the elect saved, and that this choosing is a mystery of God's that does not have anything to do with our lives or God's foreknowledge of our lives.  He chose the famous line of scripture where St. Paul quotes the Old Testament remembering God saying "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."(Romans 9:13)  The argument boiled down to whether or not works are important for salvation and whether good works are a result of God's election, or if God's election results from our good works.

Once again, the Orthodox position does not have an either/or mentality, but sees both as truths.  To be completely clear, every Father of the Church that I have read interprets these scriptures to be showing God's power of foreknowledge to teach God is in full control of the events of life.  Never is it taught by the Fathers that God chooses to grace randomly some instead of others, but it is always made clear that "God is no respecter of persons." (Acts 10:34)  There are many scriptures that if taken very literally seem to contradict each other.  So it is up to the Church to interpret which if any is literal, and which is written in a way that is expressing a truth yet is not to be taken literally.  Examples of Scriptures that cannot be taken literally would range from the scriptures that speak of God being informed about things as if He did not already know them and walking in the Garden with Adam and Eve to scriptures that tell us that we must hate our wives and children, and other such seemingly extreme views.  So when comparing scriptures that either demonstrate God's impartiality or seem to speak of His election outside of foreknowledge, it must be decided which is more literal.  The Orthodox Church chooses God's impartiality, where Protestantism seems to choose God's mysterious election, afraid to attribute anything to man's good deeds.  Rather than show all of the examples of Holy Scripture that clearly show that our salvation involves our own struggle, I would rather use the technique of St. Paul in comparing this struggle to an earthly figure.

One thing that Orthodoxy recognizes that seems to be lost by many Protestants is that all the things in life are for our instruction and symbolize a spiritual reality.  Why is it that in our daily lives that we do not ever teach children that they are worthless and incapable of doing anything of their own and that they can only do something because someone else is actually responsible for doing it.  We all of course should teach our children that  it is only by God's love that we exist and can think and move, but that we must work hard and strive to love others and develop all of the Godly virtues that we know to be good.  No one should think that it is improper to reward children that advance in virtue and to discipline children that advance in vice.  But if it is purely God that makes the virtuous children to be so, there is no need to reward the children, but we do not do this.  And it is also very silly to think that just because a child was virtuous at one point in time, they do not have the possibility of losing their good habits and developing sinful vices.  So we constantly are on guard to keep them advancing in virtue and are aware of the danger of falling into vice.

So it seems that the confusion has to do with taking thoughts of St. Paul and others out of context.  In places he clearly is trying to help us to develop humility by emphasizing our origin of coming from nothing, for us to remember that it is only by God's grace that we exist and can do anything.  What is missed is that this is speaking more to our great God-like potential, not our specific actions, which are very much dictated by our choice as is made clear by God's constant warnings about choosing the Good over evil.  It is also true that God does give the righteous further grace, but it is incorrect to think that this grace is not available to the wicked if they would repent.  All of the Fathers speak of God giving more grace to the virtuous as they increase in virtue.  But this is in response to the person's wise choices.  This is the only way that we can become God-like, having perfect discernment.  But to think that this is purely God-given without any effort in man is to make God guilty of favoritism and the damnation of the wicked, and stripping the crowns from the elect that even St. Paul spoke of obtaining.

So if God loved Jacob only because God made him become virtuous without any contribution from Jacob, love becomes a very sick reality because it means that God really just loves Himself and does not love us in the sense of appreciating us personally.  And if God hated Esau only because God did not give him the Grace to overcome temptation, God is responsible for evil.  It makes little sense that God would not just create each individual either Good or evil in isolation since there is no influence from man's choices in God's election anyway.  The Orthodox know that what is meant in this statement is that God is not ignorant of what will come and is in full control of the world even though it sometimes appears that God has forgotten us because of the trying times.  It was before they did anything that He prophesied the future to let us know we can trust Him.  We also know that in God's wisdom it was Good for man to experience the darkness of sin, to truly appreciate the Light of God.  So it makes sense that our choices in the face of Light and darkness are what God either Loves or hates.

The different meanings of "The Church"

Recently I was in conversation with a very nice friend who expressed his concern with the contrasting views of what "The Church" is from the Orthodox point of view and from a protestant point of view.  The Church in his view was the body of the faithful that were saved.  And in his opinion, the Orthodox view the Church as the institution of Hierarchy with priests and laymen that is a means by which the faithful become sanctified.  I don't think that what my friend was saying was wrong, but I don't think he realized that the Orthodox Church doesn't view things like many of us in the West do, namely as an either-or scenario minimalism, but rather as maximalists that embrace the many facets of truth in each of God's interactions with us.  The best example being that many in the west struggle with giving honor to the Holy Virgin Mary and the Holy Saints and Angels, somehow thinking that this detracts from the honor given to the Holy Trinity.  We as Orthodox do not think of it as a competition at all, but fully know that without God there is nothing.  We don't hold back love to the Saints out of fear of forgetting this, but rather our love for the Saints helps us grow in love for God.   

So it is not that we as Orthodox don't see the Church as the body of the faithful that are saved, but that we also recognize that the Church can also mean a method of salvation.  The key is to understand that Jesus Christ himself likened the Kingdom of God and Heaven as many things that fall into both of these realities.  Our Lord spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven being likened to 10 virgins with lamps, 5 of which were wise, but the other 5 were foolish.  But He did also speak of the Kingdom as a mustard seed that grew into a great tree.  But then again He spoke of it as a man that sowed good seed in his field but while he was sleeping an enemy sowed tares among the wheat.  But then again he likens it to leaven that secretly grew.  And many more of course, but it is clear that there are many facets of the diamond that is The Kingdom of Heaven, which we can logically equate to the Church.

St. Gregory the Great and Dialogist says in his homily on the parable of the 10 Virgins, that "Often in the sacred scriptures the Church of the present time is called the kingdom of heaven.  In another place the Lord says: The angels will come and gather in all causes of sin from the kingdom of my Father(Mt13:41), although in that kingdom of blessedness, in which there is the greatest peace, there will be no causes of sin to be gathered in.  Again it is said: But whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others' will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever observes and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 5:19) In fact, anyone who preaches in words what he does not fulfill in his life is breaking a commandment and so teaching others.  But no one who won't fulfill through his works what he is teaching can reach the kingdom of eternal blessedness.  How will such a person, then, be called least in it, when he is not allowed ever to enter it?  Accordingly, what does this passage mean by 'the kingdom of heaven' but the Church of the present time?  The teacher who breaks a commandment is called least in the Church since his life is contemptible and therefore his teaching is despised."- Homily 10