Do you agree with the traditional doctrine of original sin?

[Teofrastus]

Well, your argument to begin with, from my understanding, is that Jesus participates in the elements, the Body and Blood co-existng with the bread and wine IOW. But that wasn't Paul's point at all in 1 Corinthians 10:16 with the use of the word koinonia.

I said that, in Augustine's view, the sacramental sign (the bread and wine) participates in the reality it signifies (Christ's flesh and blood) and that this corresponds to Paul's use of koinonia (participation). If Jesus participates in the elements, then it would be the reverse, which I didn't say.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

They were in a different position than us before the Fall and, either way, they were not sinners until they sinned. Again, God does not create anyone as sinners -or He'd be the worst of sinners Himself.

We seem to be having a communication issue about sin. There is another party to sin that is missing from all your equations. Our adversary.

Adam and Eve engaged the adversary internally, just as Jesus stated in Mark 4:15. From that point on their narratives are not about only Adam and Eve as individuals. It is about them and their and our adversary who is within their equations just as our adversary is in our equations.

The moment God spoke to them sealed their fate. Satan entered their hearts and stole from them just as Satan steals from us all. Satan deceived them just as Satan deceives all of us. And every bit of this by God's own design.

ORIGINAL SIN was never about the people, but about our adversary whom we all remain subject to in our own minds.
The usual reaction to this information is typically cluelessness. Then possibly followed by denial that it happens. A tirtiary reaction is to revert to blaming and accusing only people, which actions of course are all of the devil or demonic reactions in the hearers. BUT Paul gave us the spot on example here:

Romans 11:32

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

That disobedience is a spirit that is not the person. It is our adversary. The adversary who blinds the minds of all people, per Acts 26:18, Romans 7:7-13, Romans 11:8, 2 Cor. 3:19, 2 Cor. 4:4 and particularly

Eph. 2:2
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Ye walked according to the spirit of disobedience.

All of us who "really believe" know this is a fact only in retrospect, after our eyes are opened to the fact of it. It does assuredly not mean we eliminated our adversary from our equations or the equations of anyone else.

Those who merely blame and accuse Adam and Eve are essentially still blinded to the facts of what happened to them and what still happens to every person.

They are oblivious to our enemy.

This fact is what led Paul to this conclusion:

2 Corinthians 1:9
But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead:

Our trust to get out of this dilemma is not ours to make. The promise of the Gospel is that some day this obstacle will be PERMANENTLY REMOVED.

In the meantime we all suffer the consequences regardless of the garbs we wear in denial.

As to the "devil fleeing" that does happen only when we realize IT is not "me." Just as it was "no longer I" for Paul in Romans 7:17-21. That assuredly doesn't mean we are no longer in battle.

 

[fhansen]

I said that, in Augustine's view, the sacramental sign (the bread and wine) participates in the reality it signifies (Christ's flesh and blood) and that this corresponds to Paul's use of koinonia (participation). If Jesus participates in the elements, then it would be the reverse, which I didn't say.

Ok, sorry, I just don't see the connection between the two, or the significance of making a distinction in the first place. The church has always used terms such as sign and symbol for all the sacraments including the Eucharist but the signs, of course, signify something different from what they truly or naturally are on their own. So Augustine would say in Sermon 272,

"For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood."
and,
"My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped."

But the elements seen as participating in Christ's body and blood don't shed much different or new or better light IMO. And Paul's use of the term koinonia isn't even for the purpose of addressing this matter, but for a very different one.

 

[fhansen]

Adam and Eve engaged the adversary internally, just as Jesus stated in Mark 4:15. From that point on their narratives are not about only Adam and Eve as individuals. It is about them and their and our adversary who is within their equations just as our adversary is in our equations.

Satan is just another created being at the end of the day, but one who's in total rebellion against God and seeks to spread that rebellion. We're in his playing field de facto by virtue of the fact that we're not in God's-and we're born outside of God's. The narratives are first and foremost about the alienation from God that we're born into. Any such separation between creature and Creator is, by its nature, evil, unjust. In Eden, man listened to the creature rather than the Creator, and the world we have is the result. And we carry on that family tradition until we turn back and start listening to God. So, even though, yes, it's a battle, to the extent that we do the following, with the help of grace, we're winning, overcoming:
"Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you."

 

[Teofrastus]

Ok, sorry, I just don't see the connection between the two, or the significance of making a distinction in the first place. The church has always used terms such as sign and symbol for all the sacraments including the Eucharist but the signs, of course, signify something different from what they truly or naturally are on their own. So Augustine would say in Sermon 272,

"For what you see is simply bread and a cup - this is the information your eyes report. But your faith demands far subtler insight: the bread is Christ's body, the cup is Christ's blood."
and,
"My friends, these realities are called sacraments because in them one thing is seen, while another is grasped."

But the elements seen as participating in Christ's body and blood don't shed much different or new or better light IMO. And Paul's use of the term koinonia isn't even for the purpose of addressing this matter, but for a very different one.

How about 2 Peter 1:3-4 NIV then:

His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate [koinōnoi] in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.​

Thus, in the Eucharist we participate in the divine nature. Alexander Schmemann says:

The symbol is means of knowledge of that which cannot be known otherwise, for knowledge here depends on participation—the living encounter with and entrance into that "epiphany" of reality which the symbol is. [...] The "original sin" of post-patristic theology consists therefore in the reduction of the concept of knowledge to rational or discursive knowledge or, in other terms, in the separation of knowledge from "mysterion". [...] A is no longer viewed as the very means of "participation" in B. Knowledge and participation are now two different realities, two different orders. ("For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy", 1973, pp. 141-42)​

 

[fhansen]

How about 2 Peter 1:3-4 NIV then:

His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate [koinōnoi] in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.​

Thus, in the Eucharist we participate in the divine nature. Alexander Schmemann says:

The symbol is means of knowledge of that which cannot be known otherwise, for knowledge here depends on participation—the living encounter with and entrance into that "epiphany" of reality which the symbol is. [...] The "original sin" of post-patristic theology consists therefore in the reduction of the concept of knowledge to rational or discursive knowledge or, in other terms, in the separation of knowledge from "mysterion". [...] A is no longer viewed as the very means of "participation" in B. Knowledge and participation are now two different realities, two different orders. ("For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy", 1973, pp. 141-42)​

There's not much use in belaboring the point here, but as I said, there's no doubt that we participate in God in various ways, including the Eucharist. That's a vital relationship. But to employ 1 Corinthians 10:16 or 2 Peter 1:3-4 in Eucharistic theology as pertaining to the relationship between Christ's Body and Blood and the Eucharistic elements is simply a stretch, a complete jump, no?

 

[Teofrastus]

There's not much use in belaboring the point here, but as I said, there's no doubt that we participate in God in various ways, including the Eucharist. That's a vital relationship. But to employ 1 Corinthians 10:16 or 2 Peter 1:3-4 in Eucharistic theology as pertaining to the relationship between Christ's Body and Blood and the Eucharistic elements is simply a stretch, a complete jump, no?

It's a stretch, yes. However, while the absence of explicit substance-realism in Paul and Peter's writings doesn't prove they rejected such views, their use of participation language is clear. Since they don't explicitly address the metaphysical status of the bread and wine, it's reasonable to suggest they may have understood the Eucharist through participatory concepts familiar from their cultural context, including religious practices of the time.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Satan is just another created being at the end of the day, but one who's in total rebellion against God and seeks to spread that rebellion. We're in his playing field de facto

IF you think James is claiming we are no longer tempted internally by the tempter or deceived or any number of other ill works such as having evil thoughts that defile us courtesy of our adversary that is not what James said. James was very clear we can and do have "devilish" thoughts.

James 3:
14 But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

The package of man or woman from the beginning looks like this:

[The person and the tempter]

As such it's pointless to paint the parties with the same brush. Even worse to ignore the adverse party or put God's Words upon people for what really belongs to the devil and his own

 

[fhansen]

IF you think James is claiming we are no longer tempted internally by the tempter or deceived or any number of other ill works such as having evil thoughts that defile us courtesy of our adversary that is not what James said. James was very clear we can and do have "devilish" thoughts.

Well..I don't think so, and never said so. As I did say, we'll still struggle with sin-and fail at times. But that is in no way an excuse for remaining in them.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

Well..I don't think so, and never said so. As I did say, we'll still struggle with sin-and fail at times. But that is in no way an excuse for remaining in them.

The "main point" is still in play.

No one is ever sinless because of the presence of the tempter within us all

That's really all I have to say on the subject. If you haven't figured it out after this many posts we'll just have to leave it at that.

 

[fhansen]

The "main point" is still in play.

No one is ever sinless because of the presence of the tempter within us all

That's really all I have to say on the subject. If you haven't figured it out after this many posts we'll just have to leave it at that.

There is no tempter within us all, while the tempter is present everywhere in this world, as the serpent was right there in the garden in the beginning, ready to do his stuff. We're not sinless because we still will to sin-because we're not yet perfected in love which means we're still giving ear to the devil. But we can't say that either the devil or God made me do it.

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

There is no tempter within us all,

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.