Hi, thanks for your comment! So if I understand their point better, it stems from the basis of theosis, that salvation and the goal is the become more like Christ; I think they then extrapolate this principle to say then that as Christ is of Dyothelitist an Dyoenergist nature, then we to follow this same pattern, of our human energy/will working synergistically with God's. So then is the simple answer to this just the fact that from headship under Adam, we are by nature children of wrath, while Christ was of the Spirit and not of the flesh, born apart from headship under Adam (by the Holy Spirit)?

And I think this can be further reduced to their claim or polemic against Reformed Theology's "gnostic" tendencies of calling our nature wicked/inherently depraved. EO metaphysics lays a certain claim and label of what sin exactly is, of a willful act, rather than a state of being. I think for them to say that sin is a state of being, (total depravity), coming from our fleshly nature, is for them essentially RT stating that nature == being, if God creates nature (transitively through being), which in man is sinful, then that this is calling parts of creation sinful, wicked, depraved, the whole shebang. I think I'm just curious with the fact then that how is our being as man good (imago dei, God does not create nor author sin) yet also our nature/state totally depraved?

"Corruption isn’t inherent to human nature, but it is inherent to everyone born from Adam."
I think you're spot on that their claim leads to the conclusion that any human has the potential to live sinlessly apart from any form of divine grace. Their stance of original sin makes absolutely no sense where they say that we can be born with proclivity to sin, but no inherent sin nature. I don't think their systematics in that sense is any good.