“I suppose the very essence of what salvation means is one of the major differences between the different Christian faiths.”
Yes indeed, FK. The differences between what the Latin Church since the Great Schism (or even perhaps since the 4th century) and its offspring the Protestant communities since the Reformation believe and what Eastern Christians believe are extensive, even vast. This is why I on occasion remark that we worship different Gods.
"In any event, if theosis, then, is restoration to the pre-Fall Adamic state, and as you said this includes the potentiality for sin, then do the Orthodox believe that the saved enter Heaven finally with the potential to sin further."
Orthodoxy teaches that when we die, our souls experience the "particular Judgment" and go to the "Place of the Dead" to await the Last Judgment. The Last Judgment is just what you think it is. In neither event can the deceased sin anymore. In fact, the deceased can't do anything after death one way or the other to effect where he or she will spend eternity. As always, that depends 100% on the mercy of God.
"It means there is no weigh station after physical death in which we are tortured or otherwise purified by pain, subject to being bailed out by money or prayer. :)"
The Russians have a concept of weigh stations where the soul is examined after death and gets some sort of foretaste of what awaits in eternity, but it is not dogmatic at all.
FK, to understand Eastern Christianity, one has to understand that for us all creation is full of God's immeasurable and boundless love. This is fundamental to our understanding of everything. Without understanding this, no one can understand Orthodox Christianity. As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'"
+Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'"
On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures"
Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!
Need we say more?
Makes ya wonder why God even made a hell huh?
OK, good. I didn't think there was any disagreement about sinning after departing or in our eternal destination (assuming it's not hot :).
As +Isaac the Syrian said, "'Among all His actions there is none which is not entirely a matter of mercy, love and compassion: this constitutes the beginning and the end of His dealings with us'"
Does "us" mean all people? If it does, then is what +Isaac goes on to say about justice the equivalent of what we call God's righteous anger (unlike typical human anger) or wrath? If God's justice is people getting what they deserve, then I would think we would be in agreement and are just using different terms.
+Isaac goes on to say: "'Everyone has a single place in His purpose in the ranking of love, corresponding to the form He beheld in them before He created them and all the rest of created beings, that is, at the time before the eternal purpose for the delineation of the world was put into effect... He has a single ranking of complete and impassible love towards everyone, and He has a single caring concern for those who have fallen, just as much as for those who have not fallen'"
Did +Isaac distinguish what might be called "saving love" from other love God shows His creation? Given His omnipotence it doesn't seem to make sense that God could have equal love in all aspects for the saved and damned alike.
On God's Mercy and Justice, +Isaac says this: "'Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God's use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures"
Very different from "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", isn't it!
Well, I'm honesty not sure. :) One interpretation of the above would be universal salvation since everyone would seem at some point to be "deserving of good", thus God's mercy (double portion) would outweigh all his sins. But that can't be right. Another interpretation is that salvation is fully earned and is determined by whether it is evident (presumably by works) that EITHER mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, OR justice belongs to the portion of wickedness, since both cannot abide in one soul. But that doesn't sound right either, so I must not be getting his point. :)