The Orthodox Gospel is a process or synergy - so long and convoluted in its complete form it will take some time to post it here..... watch this space.

The basic idea is, that when Jesus said "Whoever believes in me has everlasting life" he was only joking.

They believe that Evangelical Christians are evil, as they accept Christ as their one and only Saviour.


1) That Jesus purged the corporate "ancestral sin" nature of man in his incarnation:

Their doctrine is that in the incarnation Jesus, being fully God and fully man, purged the corporate human "ancestral sin" nature by himself partaking in it yet at his conception purging it as it met his God nature..... thus the very incarnation of Christ itself helped to save us in Orthodox theology.


This means the concept of "ancestral sin" is directly involved in our actual salvation. It is also blasphemy to say Jesus was born with "original sin" as he was the Second Adam, and as such like Adam before The Fall. If Jesus was born with neither "original sin nature" (tending toward evil) neither "ancestral sin" (a will weakened by the Fall through Adam) but rather the 3rd option "with a will like the unfallen First Adam" (I believe this) it would mean that the Orthodox explanation of salvation fails at the very outset.

This begs the question: "As the unique Orthodox concept of ancestral sin (a weakening of human will) is best described as Semi-Pelagian, if Jesus corporately purged this nature in his conception, was mankind therein after born Pelagian in nature?

Is such a convoluted Orthodox doctrine possibly at all part of "the simplicity of the Gospel" of Christ? Being complex from the very outset.

Protestantism on this: is of two divided views (but we have no statistics on the percentages % of each view)

a) Jesus, the 2nd Adam, was born with the human nature of the unfallen First Adam (I believe this).

b) Jesus in order to fulfill the scripture "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb 4:15 must have been born with "original sin" that is a nature tending toward evil (it is not being "blamed for Adam's sin") but he overcame this nature and remained sinless. I find this to have potentially blasphemous connotations, as does the Orthodox view of Jesus having "ancestral sin" at any point. 

Evolution - how this false doctrine evolved - After delving into questions over the Godhead, such as whether Jesus had two natures or one (as he was one person, but fully God and fully man) the Orthodox finally stumbled on the most logical sounding answer (but not before chopping off the hand and cutting out the tongue of the first person to answer this correctly - Gregory of Nyssa). This process of "spiritually dissecting God" made them so vain they decided they were God-like and developed the doctrine of Theosis. They also decided to introduce the subject of "the analysis of God's nature" into actual salvation, (thus this Orthodox nonsense doctrine about Jesus healing the corporate human nature in his incarnation / conception). This explains why it is not part of Catholic theology. The very lateness of the development of this teaching proves they have another gospel other than the one originally preached, which according to Gal 1:6-9 means they are anathema (under the curse of God).