Sin is in no Way the Fault of our Nature
‘I am the victim of violence in my nature; you say. ‘I love Christ, yet my nature compels me to sin.’
If you were in fact compelled to sin, if you were the victim of violence, then you would be forgiven for it. On the other hand, if you sin through idleness, do not expect forgiveness.
But let us look at the question a moment to discover if we do commit sins by compulsion, under pressure of violence, rather than through idleness or serious negligence.
It is written: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’
But who compels you to kill? Who forces you to do it? On the contrary, you have to do violence to your own nature to kill someone. Which of us would light-heartedly cut a neighbour’s throat? Who would gladly stain his hands with blood? No one. So the facts are the exact opposite of your contention. To sin, you have to force yourself.
God has given our nature the gift of mutual love as a result of which every living creature loves its own kind, every human being loves his neighbour. Do you see? Our nature predisposes us to virtue. It is the vices that are contrary to nature. If they win a victory, it is the fault of serious negligence on our part.
And adultery, what shall we say about that? What sort of necessity drives you to that?
You answer: ‘The tyranny of desire.’
Why, I ask you? Can you not have intercourse with your spouse and in this way defeat that tyranny? ‘But I am in love with someone else’s spouse.’ In this case there is no compulsion. Love cannot be compelled. You do not love because you are forced to love: you love spontaneously, of your own free will. Sexual intercourse may be an irresistible need, but love is a free choice.
The conclusion is clearly apparent: virtue is consistent with our nature whereas vice is opposed to it.
John Chrysostom On the Letter to the Ephesians, 2, 3 (PG62, 20)
God does not Judge by Quantity
To steal or at any rate to covet another person’s belongings is a sin whose seriousness is not lightened according to whether it is gold or silver that is at stake. In either case, it is the same attitude of mind that is at the root of it.
A person who steals a small object will not refuse to steal a big one. If he does not steal, it is because he has no opportunity, and that is no credit: it is the combination of circumstances.
You say to me: ‘That ruler is robbing his subjects.’ But you, tell me, do not you rob others yourselves?
It is no use your objecting that he is stealing money by millions and you are only taking a little. Think of the incident in the gospel when the woman gave two farthings to charity and yet acquired as much merit as rich people who offered gold. [Luke 21:1] Why is that? Because God sees the intention of the heart and is not interested in the amount of the offering.
If that applies to almsgiving, why should it be different with greed of gain?
Just as the woman who offered two farthings has as much merit thanks to her intention, so you who steal two farthings are no less to blame than thieves on a grand scale.
John Chrysostom On the Second Letter to Timothy, 3, 3 (PG62, 617)
~ Thomas Spidlik, Drinking from the Hidden Fountain, A Patristic Breviary: Ancient Wisdom for Today’s World
