How could man who had not fallen have crucified Christ? That makes no sense. The sacrifice of Christ was the will of the Father because of the Fall.
Love by nature is sacrificial, and I think that this is the general point that Lakis is trying to get at, - that God's relationship in love with us is always sacrificial, and that it does not require a fall for it to be this way. Speculatively, we can say that without the Fall there would be no death, there would be no crucifixion in the specific historical terms that we know it, but nevertheless we know truly as St Isaac notes, that the voluntary sacrifice of love is an ongoing reality within the Trinity itself, and in God's relationship with man.
In one sense the discussion is about how we use language. Crucifixion can be a specific historical type of punishment, but brought into the Church and into Christ's transforming reality, it becomes representative of complete and selfless sacrificial love.
It's a more allegorical use of language,but this approach to talking about the faith is something that we find in certain of the Fathers. I guess it is a matter of balance, since the word itself becomes representative of love, precisely through a specific historical reality connected with Christ.
Edited by Anna Stickles, 06 January 2015 - 06:38 PM.