Transmission of sin from Adam....

[Constantine the Sinner]

Sin, in Orthodoxy, is not juridical in the Catholic sense, so using terms like "informed decision" isn't really helpful.

 

[Light of the East]

Sin, in Orthodoxy, is not juridical in the Catholic sense, so using terms like "informed decision" isn't really helpful.

Understood, yet these are the very issues I am wrestling with. If sin is not juridical, how come the Scriptures use terms like "propitiation," which has a juridical understanding attached to it.

What is sin then, if it is not an action taken against God with a corresponding knowledge? Is it simply a state of being? How are children seen to be sinners in need of baptism into Christ?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Is it simply a state of being?

Yes, sin is ontological in Orthodoxy. Sin, in Latin ("vice"), Hebrew and Greek, literally means to "miss the mark".

You do not need to have knowledge to sin. When we ask for forgiveness, it is for sins willing and unwilling, known and unknown, done and undone. In Orthodoxy, we don't have confirmation years after baptism, we have it right then and there; even babies receive Holy Communion.

 

[Light of the East]

Yes, sin is ontological in Orthodoxy. Sin, in Latin ("vice"), Hebrew and Greek, literally means to "miss the mark".

You do not need to have knowledge to sin. When we ask for forgiveness, it is for sins willing and unwilling, known and unknown, done and undone. In Orthodoxy, we don't have confirmation years after baptism, we have it right then and there; even babies receive Holy Communion.

Okay, I think I may have it. So sin is a "state of being," that state of being is that we are all born "outside the Garden" as it were, or to put it another way, we are all in a state of being separated from God. The picture we get of the Garden in Genesis is a picture of mankind leaving the presence of God.

Perhaps one of the problems with Western soteriology is that Adam is, as I understand, in Hebrew "ah-dahm" and means "mankind" which is all-inclusive. So Adam, (mankind) has separated from God through the actions of our first parents, and we are all in a land of sin, or separation from God. Thus, we are all born sinners because we are born outside union with God.

Now....what about the other question I asked, that is, the ability of even very small children to steal and lie before they even have a cognisant ability to understand evil? Doesn't that seem to point to an "old nature" as St. Paul described it, a nature which is by birth bent towards sin?

Or is is that the nature is neutral, but the sinful world around us suggests sin and we respond accordingly. In other words, using the three year old child again, the evil one puts a suggestion in the mind "That's pretty. Take it from him for your own and the child responds to a suggestion that he doesn't even understand because he has nothing inside to keep him from responding against that suggestion."

(That idea just came to my mind as I was typing. What do you think?)

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Perhaps one of the problems with Western soteriology is that Adam is, as I understand, in Hebrew "ah-dahm" and means "mankind" which is all-inclusive.

Dahm means "blood" and adahm is "to be red". ben adahm literally means son of adam...mankind. Adamah is earth or ground. God formed Adam from adamah...

 

[ArmyMatt]

But I don't recognize any difference between your first paragraph and Catholic teaching on the subject. (Specifically that we possess a sin nature, transmitted through sexual reproduction.)

And your second paragraph is the teaching I received from various Protestant groups which seemed to develop from the first, yes, and deny the necessity of the IC as you say.

for us, the sin of Adam was not passed on to anyone but Adam. the effects of Adams sin such as death, corruption, inclination to sin, etc. (to include physical sexual reproduction as a means of procreation) are. in the West, it is not only all of that, but also the guilt or sin of the stain of Adam, which must be wiped away.

the difference is that we see the same symptoms as Rome, but they misdiagnosed the disease and the cure.

 

[Light of the East]

For us, the sin of Adam was not passed on to anyone but Adam. the effects of Adams sin such as death, corruption, inclination to sin, etc. (to include physical sexual reproduction as a means of procreation) are. in the West, it is not only all of that, but also the guilt or sin of the stain of Adam, which must be wiped away.

the difference is that we see the same symptoms as Rome, but they misdiagnosed the disease and the cure.

Not just that, but the juridical view leads us to view God in this way

instead of like this:

 

[Light of the East]

I believe that Paine was an atheist, but in this, I believe he is spot on. And let me add that belief in a judgmental (condemnatory) God makes one judgmental (condemnatory) also.

 

[~Anastasia~]

for us, the sin of Adam was not passed on to anyone but Adam. the effects of Adams sin such as death, corruption, inclination to sin, etc. (to include physical sexual reproduction as a means of procreation) are. in the West, it is not only all of that, but also the guilt or sin of the stain of Adam, which must be wiped away.

the difference is that we see the same symptoms as Rome, but they misdiagnosed the disease and the cure.

Again, this all makes sense to me.

In re-reading Jckstraw's post, I think I misunderstood "fallen mode of human nature".

If what he meant is what you just said, then I simply misunderstood him (I was pretty sure the fault was on my end ). Thanks for helping to clear that up, Matt.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not just that, but the juridical view leads us to view God in this way

Those are frightening.

I still remember the view I got of God from reading my early children's Bible stories book. Jesus was a wonderful, nice, loving Person, who threw Himself in the way or otherwise restrained the wrath of an angry, vengeful, all-powerful and all-seeing old man in the sky who just couldn't wait to destroy me and everyone I knew.

There was always this schizophrenic disconnect in my mind as a child. Jesus I understood, and could relate to, and loved. It was He I devoted myself to. But God the Father was something distant and frightening, and if I were honest, I wanted no part of Him. A few years later as I began to understand the Holy Spirit talked about as a Person, I really knew I must have no understanding of God at all ... except I still felt that connection to Christ.

Thank God for better knowledge!

 

[jckstraw72]

Anastasia, a little more on mode of nature --- there are basically three modes --- natural, sub-natural, super(above)-natural. to be clear these are all the same human nature, but three conditions of it. You could maybe think of it like a normal healthy person, a person battling cancer, and Michael Phelps! they all have the same human nature but radically different qualities of it.

Adam and Eve were created in the natural state, the state according to nature -- they were full of virtue and easily saw the good things of God. in this state virginity reigned and the Fathers say reproduction simply would have happened another way. man was called to spiritual pleasure, but not to engage in sensible pleasure for its own sake. the pleasure/pain dialectic was not yet in play.

when they sinned they fell to a state against/contrary to/below nature -- now we more easily incline to sin and it is harder for us to see the path of God. What Met. Kallistos said is good but it seems to me he focused almost entirely on the bad influences around us, and didn't say enough about the fact that we ourselves inherit an inclination for following those bad influences. Adam and Eve beheld and tasted of the fruit for its own sake-- for its sensible pleasure. as a result pain and death enters the world. the pleasure/pain dialectic is introduced. now man dies and in order to continue the human race God gives us marriage as we know it and reproduction as we know it. as our condition of nature had fallen we then reproduced in a fallen way -- that which is wrought in pleasure is brought forth in pain. but Christ was born of a virgin (not conceived in pleasure), and thus her childbearing was painless (no pleasure - no pain), thus the pleasure/pain dialectic was broken by Christ (He's undoing what we did by our sin), and He received the UN-fallen mode of human nature.

more about this in these two articles: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/01/did-christ-have-fallen-human-nature.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/12/why-jesus-had-to-be-virgin-born.html

the third mode is above nature, which is what Adam and Eve were called to, and which we see in Christ. Christ took on the natural mode at His conception, and by virtue of the union of His Divine and human natures, His human nature was immediately deified and raised to be being above nature. this is what we now see in the saints as well. this is the calling of all mankind.

St. Paisios the Athonite had a vision which helps speak to all of this:

Elder Paisios of Mt. Athos, by Hieromonk Isaac, p. 144-145:

Once, on Sinai, the Elder beheld a supranatural event in the Holy Spirit: the holy and temperate marital relations of the Ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna, by which the Holy Theotokos was conceived and born. The Elder related to us the revelation he received: “Saints Joachim and Anna were completely spiritual people, without any carnal-mindedness at all. They were the most passionless couple that’s ever lived. First, they prayed to God separately, with tears, that He would give them a child, and then they came together, out of obedience to God and not out of any carnal desire. And, since the conception happened without self-indulgent pleasure, the Panagia was all-pure and chaste. Of course, she wasn’t free from ancestral sin, like the papists falsely believe, because she was conceived in the usual or natural way [that is, not without seed, like Christ]; but still [it was] totally without passion, as God wanted people to be born.”


Once the Elder was stressing these truths during a discussion. Seeing that the other person was hesitant and reluctant to accept his words, he stood up and in a decisive tone declared, “I experienced what took place!” He wanted to make clear that he was expressing, not the content of his own reverent thoughts, but a divine revelation.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I do agree with the Eastern Orthodox view that man only inherited the curse that came from the fall and not, "rebellion or disobedience" of the first mankind on the world. Therefore, the Purpose of Christ was to restore our fallen nature by giving us his Spirit. The Spirit makes us not as vulnerable to sin as compared to the unbelieving. However, since we still go back to dust and we don't stop wrestling with the sinful nature of man, we may still have to die to rise again incorruptible. Otherwise, the nature of man was weak to the desires of flesh right from the word go and the serpent didn't mind taking advantage of that weakness. :/ EO you can correct me if i'm wrong!!!

 

[Petros2015]

Therefore, the Purpose of Christ was to restore our fallen nature by giving us his Spirit. The Spirit makes us not as vulnerable to sin as compared to the unbelieving. However, since we still go back to dust and we don't stop wrestling with the sinful nature of man, we may still have to die to rise again incorruptible

In many places Christ compares the Kingdom of God to a seed. To go back a little to LoTE remarking on baptism, and why are little children (and little adults still unregenerate after it? But I think it's really that a seed has just been planted. Planting the seed in the soil of our lives is beyond us. So is the sun and the rain. But weeding the garden of our souls, caring for and cultivating the Spirit planted within is not. Matthew 13:18-29. Our first parents were Gardeners. It's not so strange to me that we should be called to be too.

 

[Radrook]

Adam and Eve were provided with sexual organs for the purpose of copulation so they could multiply, as all other mammals had been and were doing, and fill the Earth. In fact, that command is part of a blessing.

Gen 1: 28

New International Version
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Were they supposed to desist after the fall? Well, God doesn't prohibit it. In his condemnation he only speaks of increase in childbirth pain. That means that they were free to proceed.

Gen 3: 16
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Genetically induced Consequences?

Rom 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

 

[Linet Kihonge]

We need to enculture children into Christianity, that's why Sunday school; but I honestly don't see baptism as important in doing so unless they have felt the conviction of wanting to know Christ more and after that, they can be baptized with water (immersion, sprinkling are your call) in the name of Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit. You need to be fully aware of what's required of you before join the fold. Children are not tiny adults! :/ Do not use that as a reason to baptize :/

 

[~Anastasia~]

Anastasia, a little more on mode of nature --- there are basically three modes --- natural, sub-natural, super(above)-natural. to be clear these are all the same human nature, but three conditions of it. You could maybe think of it like a normal healthy person, a person battling cancer, and Michael Phelps! they all have the same human nature but radically different qualities of it.

Adam and Eve were created in the natural state, the state according to nature -- they were full of virtue and easily saw the good things of God. in this state virginity reigned and the Fathers say reproduction simply would have happened another way. man was called to spiritual pleasure, but not to engage in sensible pleasure for its own sake. the pleasure/pain dialectic was not yet in play.

when they sinned they fell to a state against/contrary to/below nature -- now we more easily incline to sin and it is harder for us to see the path of God. What Met. Kallistos said is good but it seems to me he focused almost entirely on the bad influences around us, and didn't say enough about the fact that we ourselves inherit an inclination for following those bad influences. Adam and Eve beheld and tasted of the fruit for its own sake-- for its sensible pleasure. as a result pain and death enters the world. the pleasure/pain dialectic is introduced. now man dies and in order to continue the human race God gives us marriage as we know it and reproduction as we know it. as our condition of nature had fallen we then reproduced in a fallen way -- that which is wrought in pleasure is brought forth in pain. but Christ was born of a virgin (not conceived in pleasure), and thus her childbearing was painless (no pleasure - no pain), thus the pleasure/pain dialectic was broken by Christ (He's undoing what we did by our sin), and He received the UN-fallen mode of human nature.

more about this in these two articles: http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/01/did-christ-have-fallen-human-nature.html
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/12/why-jesus-had-to-be-virgin-born.html

the third mode is above nature, which is what Adam and Eve were called to, and which we see in Christ. Christ took on the natural mode at His conception, and by virtue of the union of His Divine and human natures, His human nature was immediately deified and raised to be being above nature. this is what we now see in the saints as well. this is the calling of all mankind.

St. Paisios the Athonite had a vision which helps speak to all of this:

Elder Paisios of Mt. Athos, by Hieromonk Isaac, p. 144-145:

Once, on Sinai, the Elder beheld a supranatural event in the Holy Spirit: the holy and temperate marital relations of the Ancestors of God, Joachim and Anna, by which the Holy Theotokos was conceived and born. The Elder related to us the revelation he received: “Saints Joachim and Anna were completely spiritual people, without any carnal-mindedness at all. They were the most passionless couple that’s ever lived. First, they prayed to God separately, with tears, that He would give them a child, and then they came together, out of obedience to God and not out of any carnal desire. And, since the conception happened without self-indulgent pleasure, the Panagia was all-pure and chaste. Of course, she wasn’t free from ancestral sin, like the papists falsely believe, because she was conceived in the usual or natural way [that is, not without seed, like Christ]; but still [it was] totally without passion, as God wanted people to be born.”


Once the Elder was stressing these truths during a discussion. Seeing that the other person was hesitant and reluctant to accept his words, he stood up and in a decisive tone declared, “I experienced what took place!” He wanted to make clear that he was expressing, not the content of his own reverent thoughts, but a divine revelation.

Thanks very much. As I suspected, I read too much into your words and that's why I wasn't seeing the difference. Thank you for expanding.

And I've read among various writers regarding modes of reproduction. I actually hadn't made fully the connection with painless childbirth, but it fits. Kind of funny, but as a child I had something concerning this in my mind, and I remember thinking on it. I have actually had trouble in intervening years making it "fit" with what I later learned, but that has never left my remembrance, even so many years later.

Anyway. I see what you mean about Met. Ware concentrating on the environmental aspect. I understand that there is a balance between that influence, and the fact that we are born "bent", and yet perhaps it is a matter of degree? Maybe the Catholics overstate not only guilt inherent in their doctrine of original sin, (and indeed maybe I misunderstand the nuances) but it seems along with that human nature becomes something slightly more evil-inclined at birth than we understand. Perhaps coming out of that the idea of total depravity (which actually some teach is not as bad as it sounds) finds its origin. It appears the "degree of fallenness" of human nature is what varies on the spectrum among these teachings. While as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned we teach the nature as no longer perfectly in the image and likeness of God (having been obstructed or marred) combined with the influence of a sin-infected world as being the case. I hope I'm getting the nuances of this figured out, though I'm not articulating them very well.

This actually explains questions and disagreements I've had with both religious teaching and psychological explanations and understanding in a couple of decades of trying to reconcile the two.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I do agree with the Eastern Orthodox view that man only inherited the curse that came from the fall and not, "rebellion or disobedience" of the first mankind on the world. Therefore, the Purpose of Christ was to restore our fallen nature by giving us his Spirit. The Spirit makes us not as vulnerable to sin as compared to the unbelieving. However, since we still go back to dust and we don't stop wrestling with the sinful nature of man, we may still have to die to rise again incorruptible. Otherwise, the nature of man was weak to the desires of flesh right from the word go and the serpent didn't mind taking advantage of that weakness. :/ EO you can correct me if i'm wrong!!!

I think we would say our first parents were not so much weak as immature. Not that they were created with an inherent weakness (implying they would always carry that weakness). But it doesn't make a lot of sense to talk about what might have been.

I don't think we would disagree exactly with what you said otherwise, but in re-reading it and thinking of the implications, it strikes me simply as being incomplete. With God's help, we are less vulnerable to sin. If we cooperate with God. The Church also gives us tools to discipline ourselves, as Paul describes, in efforts to bring our flesh into subjection. The end purpose is to restore us to the image and likeness and Christ, to complete and perfect us (which in this life we generally only move towards as you say) ... until we are safely beyond this life there is the need to watch and resist temptation.

(I'm not saying what you wrote is incomplete and mine is complete ... I merely filled in just a few more details and affirmed more of what you wrote, but there is of course much more depth.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Adam and Eve were provided with sexual organs for the purpose of copulation so they could multiply, as all other mammals had been and were doing, and fill the Earth. In fact, that command is part of a blessing.

Gen 1: 28

New International Version
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Were they supposed to desist after the fall? Well, God doesn't prohibit it. In his condemnation he only speaks of increase in childbirth pain. That means that they were free to proceed.

actually, Genesis never mentions anything about relations and childbearing prior to the Fall, aside that there was an increase in pain in a woman's childbearing. so we know they were to proceed, how they proceeded was what changed because our condition changed from an unfallen state to a fallen one.

 

[tatteredsoul]

For us, the sin of Adam was not passed on to anyone but Adam. the effects of Adams sin such as death, corruption, inclination to sin, etc. (to include physical sexual reproduction as a means of procreation) are. in the West, it is not only all of that, but also the guilt or sin of the stain of Adam, which must be wiped away.

the difference is that we see the same symptoms as Rome, but they misdiagnosed the disease and the cure.

Not just that, but the juridical view leads us to view God in this way

instead of like this:

Interesting thread.

So you think it is a Western thing that promotes the view of God as the first two pictures? I can tell you Christianity makes it easy to believe that vs the latter two pictures - or rather, the guilt of sin does not allow many of us to see the relationship of the last two pictures. I don't know if it is an interpretation thing, or a denomination and historical issue, but I think it is a problem.

Most Christians are depressed and guilty in the West rather than content. (This makes it hard for people to actually want to be Christian: who wants to be depressed, guilty and scared of hell AND be restricted in sin? May as well sin and ignore God... being relieved of stress.)

Are E VS W doctrine that fundamentally different?

☆ Are there different bibles people are reading? ☆

 

[ArmyMatt]

Are E VS W doctrine that fundamentally different?

yes

☆ Are there different bibles people are reading? ☆

yes, ours is longer and historically the one Christ used, and most importantly, we have the proper context.