It was temporarily paused to slow the roll. 
I appreciate your response, but my roommate isn’t willing to back down. He’s starting to get a bit out of hand — throwing things around — and I’m trying my best to calm him down.
He usually sits with me, but I think I need to sit in a separate room now. 
Anyways, I’m moving out in 3 weeks…
I think it’s worth remembering, brothers, that the heart of this debate isn’t ultimately about “tradition vs. Scripture” as if they are enemies. The question is: How did Christ Himself choose to hand on His teaching?
Jesus never wrote a single book. Instead, He formed disciples and entrusted them with authority:
“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me.” (Luke 10:16)
The early Church lived the Gospel before a single New Testament verse was penned. They baptized, broke bread, laid on hands, and preached long before the canon was closed — and they did so guided by the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13). That same Spirit did not disappear when the last apostle died; He continued to guard the Church in all truth (John 14:26).
Tradition, therefore, isn’t “man-made invention” — it’s the living memory of the Church, the ongoing voice of Christ’s Body speaking with the authority He gave it. When we honor apostolic tradition, we are not rejecting Scripture — we are receiving the fullness of the same Gospel Scripture itself proclaims.
And this is why countless saints — from Ignatius of Antioch to Maximilian Kolbe — were willing to die for that faith. They weren’t clinging to “man-made rituals.” They were clinging to Christ, present and alive in His Church.
1 Like
Thank you very much.
Brother @ILOVECHRIST You are right: the Spirit does guide the Church, and the saints’ witness is a powerful testimony to the faithfulness of Christ through the centuries.
At the same time, we must not let the reverence for tradition eclipse the simplicity of the Gospel. Salvation is entirely Christocentric — His death and resurrection fully accomplish what is necessary for us. Sacraments, rituals, and liturgical forms are means to participate in that grace, not prerequisites or sources of it. The saints did not die because of liturgy itself — they died because they clung to Christ alone, even unto death, obeying Him fully in faith and love.
Let us affirm the beauty of the Church’s life and the heroic witness of the saints while remembering Paul’s warning: adding human inventions to the Gospel in a way that obscures Christ’s finished work is precisely what Galatians 1:6–9 condemns. True devotion flows from the Word, nurtured by grace, empowered by faith, and expressed in works of love — all centered on Christ alone.
In essence, we can honor tradition, we can cherish the saints, and we can participate in liturgy — but our eyes must never stray from the Cross, which is the only foundation of salvation.
Let’s not get sentimental just because the candles are flickering and the icons are staring. The question isn’t whether the Church has a memory. The question is whether that memory is binding when it starts preaching what Christ never commanded.
Jesus didn’t write a book? True. He also didn’t swing incense, venerate icons, or teach the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. He taught truth. And then He entrusted that truth to the apostles, who wrote it down so that future generations wouldn’t have to rely on oral tradition filtered through centuries of human hands.
Luke 10:16? That’s not carte blanche for ecclesiastical invention. Jesus wasn’t handing out unlimited theological credit cards. He was speaking to living apostles delivering direct revelation. Not to bishops two millennia later inventing sacramental machinery and calling it “mystery.”
The idea that tradition is just the “living memory” of the Church sounds warm, but when that memory starts contradicting the Word of God, it’s not faithfulness. It’s drift. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees not for forgetting the Law but for wrapping it in tradition so thick you couldn’t see God anymore.
Yes, the early Church baptized and broke bread before the canon was closed. But they weren’t burning incense and bowing to images of saints while reciting prayers from the Liturgy of Basil. What they did, they did under apostolic instruction. What they didn’t do, later generations added. And Christ doesn’t need help finishing what He already completed.
The saints didn’t die for icons. They died for the Gospel. The real one. The one Paul said was already delivered. The one that needs no upgrades, no supplements, no sacred choreography.
So no, tradition and Scripture aren’t always enemies. But when tradition starts speaking where Scripture is silent, or worse, where Scripture has already spoken, then yes… they are enemies.
Because Christ doesn’t need a megachurch or a monastery to save. He needs no ritual to make His grace effectual. No procession to make His presence real. He is enough.
The Gospel is not a river that widens over time. It is a fountain sealed, fixed, and full. If the Church’s memory starts pouring in things God never said, then we are not remembering Christ. We are burying Him under centuries of well-meaning clutter.
Let the saints inspire. Let tradition inform. But let Scripture rule.
Anything else is nostalgia in a cope. And it won’t save.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
But your argument assumes that later generations of the Church—guided by the apostles’ teaching and the Holy Spirit—automatically “invented” everything outside the canon. If the Church truly is the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22–23), entrusted to preserve the apostolic faith, then its memory is not mere nostalgia; it is the living continuity of the Gospel.
The apostles did indeed write the Scriptures, but they also taught orally for decades, training disciples, establishing churches, and passing on practices and sacraments before anything was codified. Luke 10:16 reminds us that the apostles carry Christ’s authority; rejecting their successors’ guidance ignores the Body Christ built. The Divine Liturgy, the sacraments, and the veneration of icons are not additions to the Gospel but incarnational expressions of it—ways to participate in the mystery of Christ, not replacements for it.
And let us not forget the saints, martyrs, and faithful Christians throughout the centuries. They died for the truth of Christ and His Church, not for personal indulgence or ritual novelty. Their witness is proof that the Gospel has been lived and guarded, even when it is mediated through forms, prayers, and practices that predate modern reformers. To dismiss centuries of faithful witness because it does not match a minimalist reading of Scripture is to mistake personal preference for divine mandate.
Christ is indeed sufficient, but He works through His Body. Tradition, rightly understood, does not compete with Scripture—it safeguards it, interprets it, and passes it on. True discernment tests all things against the Word of God in humility, not by declaring centuries of apostolic faithfulness to be “clutter.”
1 Like
Ah, I see we’ve reached the part of the conversation where “apostolic faithfulness” becomes the theological cover for centuries of spiritual drift.
Let’s get this straight.
No one is denying that the apostles taught before they wrote. But unless you’ve got a time machine and an audio recording of Paul’s sermons in Thessalonica, then you’re still bound to what the Holy Spirit chose to preserve in writing. That’s the point. Scripture is not a snapshot. It’s the final Word. The once-for-all faith delivered to the saints. Not a starter kit for the Church to embellish over time.
Luke 10:16 is not your license to canonize every theological invention that showed up in the centuries after the apostles were gone. That verse refers to the apostles themselves, not to their alleged successors two thousand years and several imperial councils later. Authority isn’t inherited like a royal title. It’s grounded in truth, and truth is tied to the Word of God… not to who can trace their robe back to Peter.
And no, the Divine Liturgy and icon veneration are not “incarnational expressions” of the Gospel. That’s poetic fluff with no Scriptural footing. Jesus didn’t die on a cross so you could swing a censer and kiss a painting. The Incarnation doesn’t sanctify every religious instinct man can concoct. It reveals the fullness of God in Christ… not in rituals, not in relics, not in robes, but in the Son.
As for the saints and martyrs, yes… many of them died for the name of Christ. But let’s not confuse dying for Christ with dying for liturgical tradition. The test of truth is not how many people died for it. Muslims, Mormons, and Marxists have died for lies. Martyrdom proves sincerity, not accuracy.
What does prove accuracy is the Word. “Sanctify them by the truth. Thy word is truth.” That’s John 17:17, not “Thy evolving tradition is truth.” You say tradition safeguards Scripture. That sounds noble… until tradition starts contradicting it. Then it’s not a safeguard. It’s a muzzle.
And that’s exactly the issue here. When “apostolic tradition” begins to smother apostolic doctrine… when incense clouds the clarity of the cross, when prayers to Mary compete with the name above all names, when the sufficiency of Christ gets wrapped in centuries of ritual… what you’re preserving isn’t the Gospel. It’s a gilded memory of the real thing.
If the Church is the Body of Christ, then it is subject to its Head. And the Head has spoken clearly through the Word. Not through mystical progression. Not through church politics. Not through beautiful practices that feel spiritual. Through Scripture.
The truth doesn’t evolve. It endures.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
I share your desire to cling to Christ alone. Yet I must clarify a misunderstanding: the Orthodox Church does not add to Christ or replace Scripture; it participates in the living faith delivered by the apostles. The Divine Liturgy, icons, sacraments, and prayers are not human inventions—they are the means by which His grace is actualized in our lives, reflecting the inseparability of Word and action, faith and works. I have experienced this transformative power personally: the Church has helped me overcome sins I struggled with repeatedly, and in baptism and the sacraments, I felt God’s mercy and love in a way I never knew. I am a new person now, learning and growing in Christ, embracing His truth, and striving to love Him more deeply. I may not know everything yet, but I am moving forward in humility, guided by His grace and the living faith of the Orthodox Church.
Your sincerity is clear, and I respect your desire to grow in Christ. But spiritual sincerity is not the same as spiritual accuracy. Personal experience is not the standard of truth. Scripture is. And no matter how heartfelt the testimony, it cannot override what God has already spoken.
You say Orthodoxy doesn’t add to Christ, but then you describe a system where grace must be mediated through rituals, icons, and sacraments. That is addition. When the Gospel becomes something to be “actualized” through liturgy and holy oil instead of received by faith alone in Christ alone, you’ve moved from grace to mechanism. That’s not apostolic Christianity. That’s spiritual formalism in a cassock.
The apostles never said, “Feel God’s mercy through a centuries-old rite.” They said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31)
They didn’t preach “Go to the sacraments and be transformed.” They preached “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” (Romans 1:16)
What you describe as transformation through Orthodoxy is what Scripture describes as the work of the Holy Spirit through the Word. That’s not exclusive to incense-filled sanctuaries or chant-soaked sacraments. It happens wherever the true Gospel is preached, and hearts respond in repentance and faith.
The problem is not whether you feel closer to God through Orthodoxy. The question is whether Orthodoxy presents God’s truth without distortion. Because if the system requires sacraments to mediate grace, icons to access holiness, or bishops to unlock interpretation, then Christ is no longer sufficient. He’s just the starting point in a long relay of intermediaries. And that’s not the Gospel. That’s a religious maze.
The faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3) does not evolve. It does not require candles to ignite or rituals to operate. It requires Christ crucified, Scripture rightly handled, and a heart humbled in faith.
What you’re embracing may feel ancient, reverent, and powerful. But if it shifts the focus from the finished work of Christ to the ongoing machinery of man’s religion, then no matter how moving the experience, the foundation is flawed.
We are saved by Christ… not through ambiance, not through architecture, not through ecclesiastical choreography. Just Christ. Faith in Him, by grace, through the Word.
That alone is what makes a person new.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
Amen brother SincereSeeker
100% I love reading your posts, but I had to ask one question,
Brother, could you explain this? It seems like a good point and I’m glad you brought this up.
Actually, my entire faith in Orthodoxy pivots around this point. From my knowledge, I think Orthodox says Christ is indeed entirely sufficient, and the sacraments, liturgy, and icons are not meant to replace Him—they are the living instruments through which His grace is communicated, a continuation of the apostolic ministry, and the means by which faith is actualized in the believer. I would love to hear how you see the distinction between “Christ being sufficient” and the Orthodox understanding of the Church as the conduit of His grace.
Glad you asked, brother… because this is the theological fault line where everything either stands firm on Christ or sinks under the weight of tradition.
When I say Christ is sufficient, I mean fully, finally, and freely sufficient. That the moment you introduce anything between the sinner and the Savior as a necessary channel, you are no longer pointing to Christ as the mediator… you’re pointing to the Church as the power grid and Christ as the switch. It’s subtle, but it’s deadly.
Orthodoxy says the Church is the conduit of grace. But Scripture says Christ Himself is the conduit, the content, and the completion of grace. No middleman needed.
“There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5)
Not Christ + Church. Not Christ + sacrament. Not Christ + liturgy. Just Christ.
If you need a sacrament to get grace, or an icon to behold holiness, or a bishop to unlock the text, then you are functionally saying Christ alone is not enough. You may not say it that way. Orthodoxy certainly doesn’t. But that’s how it operates.
Now hear me… there’s nothing wrong with baptism, communion, prayer, liturgy, or even art that lifts your thoughts to God. But the moment those become essential instruments of grace rather than responses to grace already received, you’ve moved from the Gospel to a system.
And here’s the key difference:
- In the Gospel, Christ gives grace directly to the believer by faith.
- In the Orthodox system, Christ gives grace to the Church, and the Church dispenses it to the believer through sacraments.
That’s not Christ being sufficient. That’s Christ being stockpiled in a liturgical warehouse and handed out by clerics.
Orthodoxy says these are “means of grace.” Scripture says faith is the means.
“Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1)
Not “having been justified by faith plus liturgical participation.” Not “through the sacraments of the apostolic Church.” Justified by faith. Full stop.
The danger is not in loving the Church. The danger is when the Church becomes the mediator, the interpreter, and the dispenser, rather than the witness to Christ.
Let me put it plainly:
If I must go through the Church to get to Christ,
If I must receive the sacraments to receive grace,
If I must venerate icons to access holiness,
Then Christ is no longer my high priest. The Church is. And that is not the Gospel.
The Gospel is not Christ plus a conduit. The Gospel is Christ the conduit.
—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.
(That slow roll is awesome! It really gives your thoughts time to perculate. Now, I need coffee.)
Amen, brother @SincereSeeker . Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective so clearly. I really appreciate it. Your points make a lot of sense, and I can see the tension between how I understand Orthodoxy and the sufficiency of Christ you’ve highlighted. It’s a challenging, thought-provoking tension, and your explanation gives me much to reflect on.
For now, I think it would be best to study further and bring these questions to those more knowledgeable than myself (my mentors, friends, and members of my Orthodox Discord chat), so I can process everything thoughtfully. I’ll complete my daily Bible reading and then get some rest.
It’s been a meaningful conversation, and I truly appreciate your clarity and patience. Good night, brother, and may God bless you.~
By the way, it’s such beautiful weather here today, it’s the perfect backdrop for reflection and prayer.
@Samuel_23, Jesus’ authority given to the Apostles is not an institutional one or formally passed down, but it is one that they can use in his name especially through prayer.
Any true Christian leader, Protestant or Catholic, has Jesus’ authority through his Word, the Bible, which is our sword.
Eph 6:17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,
Eph 6:18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints,
Amen, Bruce. I appreciate your reflection on the authority given by Christ to the apostles. Indeed, their authority flows directly from Him, exercised in His name, and prayer is central to that authority.
I also agree that the Word of God is the believer’s sword, as Paul reminds us in Ephesians 6:17. Coupled with prayer (Eph 6:18), it equips us to remain vigilant, discerning, and spiritually prepared. Whether Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox, every Christian leader who walks in obedience to Christ exercises His authority through faithful adherence to His Word and intercession for the saints.
To add, my previous post was mainly highlighting the Orthodox understanding of Apostolic succession. Bishops of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches today were ordained by bishops, who were ordained by bishops, going all the way back to the original apostles themselves. I was just trying to explain apostolic succession to sisiplayz user, nothing more.
Anyway, @Bruce_Leiter, how have you been? It’s been a while!
You are mistaken. Jesus never commanded us to follow “traditions of men.” He commands us to hold fast to His Word (Philippians 3:16). Yes, He sent the apostles out, but with limited authority to preach the message He gave them (Ephesians 6:20). Paul made it abundantly clear: “These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that which is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). This is the standard; not the unwritten traditions of men.
The apostles preached, baptized, and broke bread before the canon was completed, but that same Spirit-led teaching was recorded so we might “know the certainty” of the truth (Luke 1:4). The Scripture itself declares it is sufficient to make the man of God “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). Nothing outside the written Word of God is necessary.
Jesus warned that the traditions of men will make the Word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13). This is precisely what happens when men place “living memory” or later custom on the level of divine authority. The Spirit will not contradict Himself. He “put in order” the written Word (2 Peter 1: 21), and it is that written Word through which we test everything (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1).
Christ is alive, and He is present by His Spirit and His Word. He is not present in man-made rituals, and not present in later traditions made hundreds of years after the last apostle had died. If it is not grounded in Scripture, it is not binding truth.
1 Like
Brother, I’ve taken much from our discussion, and I truly appreciate the time and thought you’ve shared. At this point, I feel it’s best for me to step back and reflect on everything I’ve learned. I’ve moved on in my own journey, seeking to grow in Christ and deepen my understanding.
It’s been good discussing these things with you, and I’m grateful for the exchange. May God continue to guide us both in His truth and grace.
I concur @bdavidc
The context of Mark 7 is a direct confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisees and scribes over their use of παράδοσις τῶν πρεσβυτέρων (paradosis tōn presbyterōn, “the tradition of the elders”). These were not simply cultural habits, but a system of oral rulings, commentaries, and expansions layered on top of the Law of Moses, later codified in the Mishnah. They were regarded by many in Jesus’ day as binding and sometimes carried more weight in practice than the written Torah itself.
The immediate issue in Mark 7:1–13 is ritual handwashing. The Pharisees accused Jesus’ disciples of defilement because they did not perform the prescribed ceremonial washings before eating. But Jesus exposed the deeper problem: their traditions were being used to override God’s commands. The most vivid example He gave is the practice of declaring resources Corban (קָרְבָּן qorban, “a gift devoted to God”). By vowing something as Corban, a person could refuse to use it to support his parents, even though the fifth commandment required honoring father and mother (Exodus 20:12). Thus, in the name of piety, they nullified the divine command with human regulation.
The word Jesus uses, ἀκυρόω (akuroō, “to invalidate, render void”), shows that such traditions were not neutral but actively destructive when elevated above Scripture. They drained God’s Word of its authority and power in practice.
So the “traditions” here are specifically rabbinic oral regulations and inherited customs, which went beyond the Law and were treated as binding. Jesus is not condemning all tradition (for example, Paul commends apostolic tradition that comes directly from Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15), but He draws a sharp line between God-given apostolic instruction and man-made traditions that contradict or overshadow the Word.
In short, the traditions Jesus rebukes are those that replace or nullify God’s commands, such as ritual washings and the Corban practice. The principle applies broadly: whenever human customs, councils, or later practices claim authority equal to or greater than Scripture, they fall under the same rebuke.
Stay strong in Messiah brother.
J.
1 Like
I cannot tell you how much I value your passion for Scripture alone, brother @bdavidc, and the clarity you brought today in rightly handling the Word of God. The witness of Paul and the apostles rings with one voice. Scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed, fully sufficient to make the believer complete and equipped.
The Word is alive, powerful, sanctifying, and piercing, and the Spirit Himself indwells us to illumine and apply it with divine power.
No tradition of men, no later inventions, no ritual beyond what Christ commanded can ever add to this. The crucified and risen Christ is revealed in the Word, the Spirit drives it into the heart, and that is enough for life, godliness, worship, and obedience. The church must cling to what is written, test everything by it, and walk in the sufficiency of Scripture with the Spirit’s abiding presence. Nothing else binds the conscience, nothing else carries divine authority.
I look forward to reading more of your posts.
You truly warmed my heart dear brother in Christ Jesus and a hearty shalom to you and family.
J.
1 Like
@SincereSeeker
After doing some research and talking with my friends, I got the following details.
You talked about 1 Tim 2:5, that “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ”. It rightly underscores Christ’s hypostatic union as the bridge between divinity and humanity, a doctrine enshrined at Chalcedon. I refered to Orthodox theology books, it is written:
Christ alone, as God-man, effect reconciliation
Now you talked about “power grid” with Christ as “switch”, is a good analogy, but St. Ignatius of Antioch said in the Epistle to the Smyrnaeans that “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” identifying the ekklesia not as a separate entity but as Christ’s mystical body (Eph 1:22-23, Col 1:18). The Church is not a middleman but the extension of the Incarnation, wherein Christ Himself acts (Matthew 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them”).
Patristic exegesis reinforces this:
St. Cyril of Alexandria (Commentary on John 12, on John 17:21) interprets the Church’s unity as participatory in Christ’s mediation: “That they may be one, even as we are one… so that the world may know that you have sent me.” The Church, vivified by the Spirit (John 16:13), is the locus of Christ’s ongoing priesthood, not a competitor. To anticipate a potential objection that this blurs Christ’s uniqueness, note the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (AD 381): “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church,” confessing the ekklesia as the communal actualization of Christ’s redemptive work, resilient against monophysite or Nestorian distortions.
Now comes the main part:
Yesterday you told me about Church as dispensing grace…This caricature elides the patristic understanding of the Church as the pneumatic organism wherein grace flows from Christ Himself. St. Basil the Great articulates: “The Spirit is the source of sanctification…But He is not separated from the Son…for the Son, who is united to the Father, is the giver of the Spirit.” Grace is the uncreated energies of God, emanating from the Triune essence, not a created commodity dispensed bureaucratically.
Scripturally, Eph 4:7-13 depicts Christ bestowing grace through the Church’s ministries: “To each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift…for the equipping of the saints”. The Church is not a mediator supplanting Christ but His Body, wherein He nourishes members. St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Eph 3, On EPh 1:23) says “The Church is the fullness of Him who fills all in all… not a mere assembly, but the very Body of Christ.” Clerics, as successors to the apostles (Titus 1:5; 1 Clement 42–44), facilitate this communion, but grace remains Christ’s direct gift (John 1:16: “From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace”).
Now Orthodoxy speaks of royal priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9, Rev 1:6) with sacraments as communal participations, not elite dispensations. The danger you talked about is highlighted in my textbook, in which it is written that the danger, of the church becoming the mediator is averted by Christocentrism, the Church witness Christ (Acts 1:8), not warehouse Him.
Your distinction between “essential instruments of grace” and “Responses to grace already received” is good, yet Orthodoxy, after learning, integrates it beautifully as synergistic:
Sacraments are Christ’s initiatives eliciting human cooperation (Phil 2:12-13). Now you talked about “Christ alone is not enough” IF sacraments are required for grace. However, sacraments are not additions but Christ’s own actions: the Eucharist, instituted by Him (Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor 11:23-26), is His Body and Blood, not a church-manufactured channel. St. Ambrose of Milan affirms: “It is not what nature formed, but what blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.” Amen
Icons, likewise, are not “necessary to behold holiness” but incarnational aids, as St. Theodore the Syudite (Antirrheticus III.1.34) defends against Iconoclasm, “The icon is a channel of divine energy, not because of its material, but because of the prototype [Christ]” Veneration honors the archetype (Seventh Ecumenical Council, Ad 787) responding to grace (Eco 20:4-5, prohibits idolatry, not representation, cf Numbers 21:8-9’s bronze serpent as type). Grace is received by faith, but faith is VIVFIED sacramentally, as baptism enacts death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-4). St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Baptism of Christ): Elucidates that “Baptism is not a mere symbol but the very participation in Christ’s death.”
This synergy, that God’s prevenient grace enables response, guards against Pelagianism (human merit) and monergism (negating cooperation)
Your citation of Romans 5:1—“Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”—aptly highlights dikaiosis (justification) as forensic and transformative. Orthodoxy affirms justification by faith, but contextualizes it within theosis (2 Peter 1:4), per St. Athanasius (On the Incarnation 54): “He was made man that we might be made God.” Romans 5:1 follows Romans 4’s Abrahamic faith (v. 3–5), yet Paul integrates works as faith’s fruit (Romans 6:1–2; cf. James 2:14–26). St. John Chrysostom (Homilies on Romans 9, on Romans 5:1) expounds: “Justified by faith… not by works of the law, but this faith itself is dead without works… peace through Christ, who reconciles us.”
Thank you sincereseeker, you raised such objections, and these objections made by faith in Orthodox stronger, because of your posts, I researched till 4AM in the morning. I haven’t slept, your posts ignited a fire in my heart, thanks again. Now I feel sleepy, although its 6am here 
.