Original Sin?

[St_Worm2]

We also don't agree with total depravity, or even inheriting the "sin nature". We do inherit a fallen nature, but we are still made in the image of God.

Hi All4Christ, what is the difference between a "sin nature" and a "fallen nature"? I've always considered them to be the same thing.

Thanks

--David

 

[All4Christ]

Hi All4Christ, what is the difference between a "sin nature" and a "fallen nature"? I've always considered them to be the same thing.

Thanks

--David

I may not explain this properly, so forgive me for any unclear points

We are not born in a sinful state or in a state of depravity. Rather, we are born in the image of God, but are also born with a corrupted nature - primary consequence being subject to death, as well as an inclination to sin. We are judged on our own sin, not Adam's sin.

 

[Ron Gurley]

Your Post #20 was a GREAT post! I agree EXCEPT:
"Most of Western Christianity, however, is very influenced by Augustine's "doctrine of original sin".

Christian ~= Christ-follower. There are oodles of those who are neither RCC nor Orthodox (Eastern).
Let's pray that we ALL see other in heaven!

 

[GingerBeer]

Augustine's "doctrine of original sin".

How is it Augustine's? Did he invent it?

 

[GingerBeer]

What kind of death is being referred to in "bold" in this verse?

It looks like the usual kind. The kind that takes every human being (with very few exceptions) out of this world.

 

[All4Christ]

Your Post #20 was a GREAT post! I agree EXCEPT:
"Most of Western Christianity, however, is very influenced by Augustine's "doctrine of original sin".

Christian ~= Christ-follower. There are oodles of those who are neither RCC nor Orthodox (Eastern).
Let's pray that we ALL see other in heaven!

I agree that there are many Christians who are not RCC or Orthodox Despite that, many Christians of many denominations (though not EOC or EC) are influenced by St. Augustine...but not all.

Amen to your last statement

 

[All4Christ]

How is it Augustine's? Did he invent it?

He was one of the first to define original sin similar to how most understand it today, particularly in regards to depravity and a sinful state (or inherited guilt) upon birth.

 

[GingerBeer]

He was one of the first to define original sin similar to how most understand it today, particularly in regards to depravity and a sinful state (or inherited guilt) upon birth.

I am not sure what you mean by depravity though Augustine wrote of concupiscence, is that what you mean, concupiscence?

 

[Ron Gurley]

Q: "Suprema Scriptura" means that the Bible is the primary authority, but other authority is also accepted to a lesser degree. Is that what you mean?

A: Not quite. "Suprema Scriptura" means the ABSOLUTE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS revealed by God the Holy Spirit, the "author" of ALL "Bibles"...compared to/in irreconcilable conflict with... ALL doctrine which is extra-biblical and not "God-breathed".

Q2: Our "bodies" will be resurrected and will be united with our "souls".

A2: Believers have 1 death / ONE resurection. UNbelievers have TWO...EACH!

What is being "resurrected"?

A: The Body/Soul combo is mortal and returns to dust/clay/ at "death".
B: SPIRIT is immortal and will be JUdged:

Believers: Not judged because of their SPIRITUAL POSITION in Christ.
UNBelievers: judged for their unsaved status AND their deeds/thoughts!

John 5:24
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but "has passed" out of death into life.

Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your SPIRIT (pneuma) and SOUL (psyche) and BODY (sarx) be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The SOUL and The BODY are inter-related and mysteriously intertwined = Body/Soul combo which is MORTAL.

Jesus as TRUE MAN's Body/Soul combo bled to death. As TRUE GOD, He committed His SPIRIT back to heaven from which it CAME DOWN / WAS SENT DOWN.

Hebrews 4:12
For the "word of God" is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as
the division of 1.SOUL and 2.SPIRIT,
3. of both joints and marrow,(BODY)
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the "heart".(mind?)

Ecclesiastes 12...Remember God in Your Youth: AT DEATH...
7 then the dust (body/soul combo) will return to the earth as it was, (SEE: Genesis 2:7)
and the spirit (breath of life) will return to God who gave it. (SEE: Genesis 1:26 SPIRITUAL image)
8 “Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “all is vanity!

Revelation 20:5-6
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Revelation 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the "lake of fire".

Revelation 2:11
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.’

Revelation 21:8
But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all
liars, their part will be in the "lake that burns with fire and brimstone", which is the second death.”

 

[All4Christ]

I am not sure what you mean by depravity though Augustine wrote of concupiscence, is that what you mean, concupiscence?

That's part of it. I have to run to a doctor's appt now, so I can't write long - I'll get in touch with more info soon

 

[All4Christ]

Q: "Suprema Scriptura" means that the Bible is the primary authority, but other authority is also accepted to a lesser degree. Is that what you mean?

A: Not quite. "Suprema Scriptura" means the ABSOLUTE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS revealed by God the Holy Spirit, the "author" of ALL "Bibles"...compared to/in irreconcilable conflict with... ALL doctrine which is extra-biblical and not "God-breathed".

Your definition is different than what I've read and heard from others.

Q2: Our "bodies" will be resurrected and will be united with our "souls".

A2: Believers have 1 death / ONE resurection. UNbelievers have TWO...EACH!

What is being "resurrected"?

A: The Body/Soul combo is mortal and returns to dust/clay/ at "death".
B: SPIRIT is immortal and will be JUdged:

Believers: Not judged because of their SPIRITUAL POSITION in Christ.
UNBelievers: judged for their unsaved status AND their deeds/thoughts!

Our beliefs differ in this, as do the beliefs of most traditional Christians. Scripture is very clear that there is a bodily resurrection of all of us, saved and unsaved. Our bodies (those who are saved) will be transformed and perfected.

I realize that response here is very inadequate in further explaining our beliefs. As I mentioned to another poster, I am short on time now so I will respond with more details later, although this evening is busy. If I can't respond tonight, I will respond soon afterwards

 

[gordonhooker]

How is it Augustine's? Did he invent it?

You must have missed the word doctrine

 

[hedrick]

We are not born in a sinful state or in a state of depravity. Rather, we are born in the image of God, but are also born with a corrupted nature - primary consequence being subject to death, as well as an inclination to sin. We are judged on our own sin, not Adam's sin.

It's probably worth clarifying just what the issues are. After all, Calvin would pretty much agree with what you've said. He agreed that the image was still there, but corrupted. He also rejected the idea that we are guilty of Adam's sin.

There are a couple of disagreements here, I think:

• Are we guilty of Adam's sin? Original sin is often understood as saying that, but not everyone would agree. Indeed I'm not sure even most would. Calvin didn't.
• The biggest difference, I think, is over just what the corrupted state actually implies. Many Christians would say that we are incapable of salvation without God's grace, that without it we'd be incapable of accepting his invitation. I'm not sure whether Orthodox would go that far, but classical Arminians would. Calvinists go further, and say that we are unable even to respond to God's grace without God regenerating us.

It's unclear to me just how much these disagreements are real and how much verbal. The Reformed idea, as I noted, is that God must regenerate us before we can respond. Is this actually different from the Arminian idea that God's grace has to go before our response?

 

[JackRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.
Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a world where there was real good and evil.
In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[hedrick]

I’ve thought about this issue for myself a bit over the last few years.

First, I’m convinced that Jesus’ idea of righteousness is someone whose heart is in the right place (after all, he emphasizes motivation a lot), but who knows he is imperfect and repents when he needs to, as well as forgiving others, since they’re in the same situation. The idea that righteousness is impossible for normal people because it means moral perfection or implies that we can earn God’s grace, has little Biblical basis — the only real support is one passage in Paul which quotes an OT text that clearly means something else.

So do I accept original sin? Since I think sin is inevitable, I suppose you could say so. But in my opinion the natural situation of mankind includes both the inevitability of sin and the understanding that we need to repent and forgive. I say this is the natural situation because I don’t find a big difference between the Christians and non-Christians I know. A lot may be because our culture as a whole shares many of Jesus’ ideas of what people should be like. Maybe in that case you could say that God’s grace is operating on all of us. But I find traditional Reformed descriptions of non-Christians to be hostile stereotyping, with little connection to the world I know. Not to say that there aren’t morally dead non-Christians, but there seem to be at least as many Christians.

I read some of Pelagius’ statements a year or so ago, and it did seem to me that he underestimated the need for God’s grace. So I don't think I'm a Pelagian. But if in some sense I accept original sin and the need for God’s grace, I see God’s grace as operating much more broadly and freely than many who talk about original sin.

 

[All4Christ]

It's probably worth clarifying just what the issues are. After all, Calvin would pretty much agree with what you've said. He agreed that the image was still there, but corrupted. He also rejected the idea that we are guilty of Adam's sin.

There are a couple of disagreements here, I think:

• Are we guilty of Adam's sin? Original sin is often understood as saying that, but not everyone would agree. Indeed I'm not sure even most would. Calvin didn't.
• The biggest difference, I think, is over just what the corrupted state actually implies. Many Christians would say that we are incapable of salvation without God's grace, that without it we'd be incapable of accepting his invitation. I'm not sure whether Orthodox would go that far, but classical Arminians would. Calvinists go further, and say that we are unable even to respond to God's grace without God regenerating us.

...

I still think there is an underlying difference, which is often difficult to explain due to common terminology.

Arminians would claim that prevenient Grace was given to everyone as a result of what our Lord Jesus Christ did for us - but that the prevenient Grace is what gives us the ability to choose to follow God. Orthodox believe that ability to choose was never taken away from us. We still are born in God's image, albeit a marred image. That said, we cannot achieve theosis without God's Grace. So yes, I think the key differences is what we mean by a "corrupted image".

I believe that both Calvinists and Arminians teach, against Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, that the sinner’s will is depraved and bound to sin, so it can't respond positively to God without supernatural grace. Armenians believe God's prevenient Grace is given to all before we choose to accept or deny salvation, whereas Calvinists (correct me if I'm wrong) believe that God's Grace is extended to the elect specifically.

So how does Orthodoxy fit in? We also reject Pelagianism. That said - prevenient Grace is kind of redundant. We never lost God's Grace (I'm not referring to sanctifying Grace here though). Because we didn't lose His Grace, we are able to choose His sanctifying Grace (offered through Christ's work of salvation), which allows us to participate with God (synergism) to be sanctified or to grow closer to theosis, and ultimately to have eternal life.

Honestly, I'm probably botching this explanation The nuances are difficult to describe at times.

 

[hedrick]

So how does Orthodoxy fit in? We also reject Pelagianism. That said - prevenient Grace is kind of redundant. We never lost God's Grace (I'm not referring to sanctifying Grace here though). Because we didn't lose His Grace, we are able to choose His sanctifying Grace (offered through Christ's work of salvation), which allows us to participate with God (synergism) to be sanctified or to grow closer to theosis, and ultimately to have eternal life.

As you'll see from my next posting, I think we agree on this.

 

[All4Christ]

As you'll see from my next posting, I think we agree on this.

Yup I saw it after I posted the above.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I still think there is an underlying difference, which is often difficult to explain due to common terminology.

Arminians would claim that prevenient Grace was given to everyone as a result of what our Lord Jesus Christ did for us - but that the prevenient Grace is what gives us the ability to choose to follow God. Orthodox believe that ability to choose was never taken away from us. We still are born in God's image, albeit a marred image. That said, we cannot achieve theosis without God's Grace. So yes, I think the key differences is what we mean by a "corrupted image".

I believe that both Calvinists and Arminians teach, against Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, that the sinner’s will is depraved and bound to sin, so it can't respond positively to God without supernatural grace. Armenians believe God's prevenient Grace is given to all before we choose to accept or deny salvation, whereas Calvinists (correct me if I'm wrong) believe that God's Grace is extended to the elect specifically.

So how does Orthodoxy fit in? We also reject Pelagianism. That said - prevenient Grace is kind of redundant. We never lost God's Grace (I'm not referring to sanctifying Grace here though). Because we didn't lose His Grace, we are able to choose His sanctifying Grace (offered through Christ's work of salvation), which allows us to participate with God (synergism) to be sanctified or to grow closer to theosis, and ultimately to have eternal life.

Honestly, I'm probably botching this explanation The nuances are difficult to describe at times.

I can appreciate your explanation, and I'm not disagreeing exactly ... but I am re-reading it with the understanding that grace is the Energies of God Himself ....

And that circles back around to what Hedrick said earlier -- mentioning some level of goodness in non-Christians. I have seen that (and goodness in children) and wondered at it when I was under strong Calvinist teaching. But I believe Orthodoxy is correct in that there is potential for goodness in all of us, and that God's grace can work even in those that don't know Him, and every instance of good is a result of God's grace. He is not stingy with Himself, but reaches out to whoever will respond in any way. Of course, we do not say this does or does not mean salvation -- merely that God's grace enables goodness in any person.

I'm not sure if anyone has missed that while Orthodoxy rejects Original Sin, we do so because of certain teachings associated with it, and instead speak of Ancestral Sin. So generally, we have certain ideas in common. I think very little of Christianity rejects the idea of sin in Genesis.

 

[All4Christ]

I can appreciate your explanation, and I'm not disagreeing exactly ... but I am re-reading it with the understanding that grace is the Energies of God Himself ....

And that circles back around to what Hedrick said earlier -- mentioning some level of goodness in non-Christians. I have seen that (and goodness in children) and wondered at it when I was under strong Calvinist teaching. But I believe Orthodoxy is correct in that there is potential for goodness in all of us, and that God's grace can work even in those that don't know Him, and every instance of good is a result of God's grace. He is not stingy with Himself, but reaches out to whoever will respond in any way. Of course, we do not say this does or does not mean salvation -- merely that God's grace enables goodness in any person.

I'm not sure if anyone has missed that while Orthodoxy rejects Original Sin, we do so because of certain teachings associated with it, and instead speak of Ancestral Sin. So generally, we have certain ideas in common. I think very little of Christianity rejects the idea of sin in Genesis.

I agree with your statements here. Not 100% sure how what I said disagrees with your comments, but I readily admit I struggle with how to explain it properly