I really like Eastern articulation (from Simeon the New Theologian) Grace = uncreated energy of God It inspired the essence/energy distinction; that grace is the conscious, experiential presence of the uncreated Holy Spirit. And it builds on the Augustinian idea of grace as the indwelling Holy Spirit. If you’re experiencing grace, it is divine, and you’re experiencing the Holy Spirit personally, that is, person to (divine) person. And since we are not divine, this is as unmerited as it gets. The western formulation is usually something like “divine aid” but in usual discourse often lacks the very real personal connection of the Holy Spirit (though you’ll find it in some western theologians).

I’m sure people have already recommended “Rock and Sand” by Fr. Josiah Trenham … a must read on the topic of EO and Reformed. It includes the various attempts of Reformers and Eastern Orthodox to dialog, often unproductively but incredibly fruitful articulations of faith on both sides (also the tragedies of their failures to reconcile, all due to sin). You’ll be particularly interested in the Confession of Cyril (EO patriarch advocating for Calvinism), and the Confession of Dositheus which is more or less a rebuttal, but fully articulates the EO positions (that were often misunderstood by the reformers).

Glory to God

Whenever the thief on the cross gets mentioned in that context it’s important to remember exactly that ^^ Had he survived somehow, would he have not been baptized afterwards? Would he not have obeyed Christ? See how St. Paul was baptized immediately after his sight was restored. Also, important to remember: He repented directly to Christ, and he rebuked the unrepentant thief, “we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” and then he explicitly asked for Christ’s mercy (“remember me when you come into your kingdom”). Church fathers sometimes called this “baptism of desire” and historically it applies to catechumens who died before their baptism, and always understood as an exception to water baptism; sometimes you’ll hear this a “baptism of blood”, which applies to martyrdom. The iconography of the good thief (St Dismas) is one of my favorites, he’s typically depicted as carrying his cross in paradise. And in depictions of multiple saints in paradise, he’ll stand out as he’s still carrying his cross.

Typically it means “get ready for battle” … if you find yourself questioning God consider it honor beyond measure that he tells you to stand up like a man and face Him (just be ready to repent)

The surface answer is in Genesis 25:34, where it is simply not the case that “Esau was not given a chance” “Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.” The deeper answer is in Job, which is what St. Paul indirectly references in Romans 9 (“who art thou that repliest against God?”) “Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.” ~ Job 38:1–4 And Job’s response (after several chapters of rebuke) is the correct one, a response that all too many Christians miss (especially those who seem ready to argue theology with God): “I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” ~ Job 42:2–6 On questions of determinism and the cooperation with God’s grace, the correct answer is always “repent in dust and ashes” … otherwise we’re presuming to know the mind of God (“Hath not the potter power over the clay”). This is an area where you’ll see many Internet Calvinists stumble and accidentally violate reformed theology. God is never the author of evil, nor ever responsible for the sins of man (not even Esau, not even Pharaoh, not even Judas Iscariot). The sins of man are the fault of man and man alone. And the grace (and all goodness, truth, beauty) of man are from God and God alone. At the judgment, I imagine all the pride in us will melt when Christ says to gird up thy loins like a man. And when one considers the alternative (“depart from me, I never know thee”) we’ll (God willing) recognize the infinite love and mercy behind these words.

Two things: 1. There is 100% an antichrist agenda in the Church, but Mary is not it, quite the contrary (as Revelation makes clear) 2. The antichrist agenda is of course attacking His church, because it is His church. The devil you’ll notice need not attack the Zionist mega church (as those are already his)

There’s patristic consensus on this exact topic, and the reformers did not deviate from this. Christ dwelling inside you means the trinity is inside you. There’s a reason we will see the Father when looking upon Christ, and that the Father will see His Son when looking upon us (through the Holy Spirit). And the crowns in icons have specific meaning, exactly as crowns do in scripture. The language of icons is its own nuanced and beautiful topic.. I love reformed theology, not the milquetoast modern versions, I mean the full-throated reformed theology from the Puritans, but I find it incomplete in what it rejects and ignores. And not just their iconoclasm (which is a separate topic), but little things like marriage, which is clearly a sacrament, and the bad fruits of the desacralization of marriage is all too obvious today. I don’t think reformed theology gets anything wrong, but there is undeniable bad fruits born from what it lacks (look at their churches today). I once ignored Marian theology and held strongly to the reformed position. Mary was exalted but really didn’t appear in my prayers or thoughts as anything other than a footnote. And tbh I can’t provide a rational argument to prove anything to @Laser or others (whose views I deeply respect). But I will say my views on Mary radically changed when I was introduced to the Rosary (despite not being Catholic). It was humbling, as if my eyes were opened. Every line of the Rosary (every mystery, even Luminous Mysteries) was right there in scripture, and I realized I had been ignoring these words of scripture with respect to Mary (from Mary’s fiat, to her presence at the crucifixion). I was on an Eastern Orthodox path, and bizarrely it was through that “Latin innovation” of the Rosary that the hardness of my heart finally cracked. I now pray the rosary daily, in Latin and English (and occasionally in other languages), and finally understood the “phronema” that our Eastern brothers frequently speak of..

fwiw, the abject heresies on display at modern Protestant churches might be sufficient to remind the apostolic East and West that they are in need of repentance and unification that can only come from Christ.

Except the opposite has been true, as evidenced through history. From the “temples of reason” during the French Revolution (which quickly devolved into places of execution and torture), to the grotesquely evil behavior of Marxists during every one of their ungodly revolutions. As Christianity fades, literal and actual opium use increases. Every secular society, every single one, ends up in a nihilistic meaning crisis (with lots of drug use, bread and circuses) and a collapse in fertility rates below replacement levels.. we’re watching this happen throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia (crisis levels in South Korea).