explain "original sin?"

[RKO]

I get that the orthodox do not believe that we inherit Adam's guilt for his sin, but we do get the effects of it. What is the measurable difference in that position versus the Catholic one, where we are guilty as well?

On another forum, CA, it has been suggested that the difference is purely semantics...I doubt that.

 

[Christophercbm]

We are all found guilty through one mans sin (Adam), but we are also all found blameless through one mans righteousness (Christ). Even babies die, and death is the wages of sin, so I believe we inherit sin.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Lukaris]

From a question I asked an EO priest,



Fr. ,
If I recall correctly you had mentioned during the visit of Frederica Matthews Green that St. Augustine had some sort of misunderstanding of Romans 5:12 which is reflected in the last part of the passage “…..so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” (king james vers.). Was it Augustine’s own theological error or a misunderstanding of the teaching he received from St. Ambrose?

Thank you,
Ed Broody



Ed,
Blessed Augustine was using the commentary from Ambrosiaster on Romans in which the Latin text read in quo--in whom--all have sinned. That is the difference which makes the sin to be in one--Adam--in whom all humanity has sinned and is therefore condemned--the massa damnata.
Father .

 

[Knee V]

The bare-bones answer is that somehow the sins of one person affect the world around them, including other people. We just don't have a theology of "guilt" which we then use to define how we understand those effects of sin.

 

[Kristos]

It's how creation became this world.

 

[Gnarwhal]

We are all found guilty through one mans sin (Adam), but we are also all found blameless through one mans righteousness (Christ). Even babies die, and death is the wages of sin, so I believe we inherit sin.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hey Christopher, just FYI it appears that you're not an Eastern Orthodox Christian but you've managed to stumble upon the Eastern Orthodox sub-forum of Christian Forums. For sections of the forum like this, there's specific rules that state that if you're not (in this case) Eastern Orthodox, then you can't debate or teach contrary to Orthodoxy. You can, however, post in fellowship and ask questions. You're more than welcome to be a part of this area of the community, just know that it's against the rules to teach anything contrary to Orthodoxy (the same would go for the Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican and other forums just like this one which are dedicated to traditions with specific doctrines).

Here's a link to the rules, the rule in question is under "Congregational Forum Restrictions".

Cheers.

 

[Ignatius21]

I posted my thoughts at a possible analogy here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7704917/#post61853701

I kicked that around with my priest and he didn't see anything unorthodox about it. As long as we remember that these are all models and analogies to help us get our minds around things that aren't understandable by us.

 

[Christophercbm]

Hey Christopher, just FYI it appears that you're not an Eastern Orthodox Christian but you've managed to stumble upon the Eastern Orthodox sub-forum of Christian Forums. For sections of the forum like this, there's specific rules that state that if you're not (in this case) Eastern Orthodox, then you can't debate or teach contrary to Orthodoxy. You can, however, post in fellowship and ask questions. You're more than welcome to be a part of this area of the community, just know that it's against the rules to teach anything contrary to Orthodoxy (the same would go for the Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican and other forums just like this one which are dedicated to traditions with specific doctrines).

Here's a link to the rule in question is under "Congregational Forum Restrictions".

Cheers.

Sorry, my mistake. This site is a little different than what I'm used to. I have to pay attention to what sub-forum a thread belongs to. I use the "new post" feature that shows new post from all threads in all sub-forums. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Sorry, my mistake. This site is a little different than what I'm used to. I have to pay attention to what sub-forum a thread belongs to. I use the "new post" feature that shows new post from all threads in all sub-forums. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

No worries mate, this forum can be a little goofy to navigate sometimes. Feel free to stick around though!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[ArmyMatt]

the best analogy I heard is that it is like putting pollutants into a river. the guilty people are the ones who polluted the river, and they deal with the effects of it, but also all those who live downstream must deal with the effects as well, even though they are not guilty of originally dumping anything. now we also believe that each person downstream also dumps pollutants into the river, so they must deal with the effects of their own doings as well as of those prior.

another way to look at it is a baby born with AIDS because the mother or father decided to sleep around. the baby has done nothing wrong (the parents did), but must deal with what it was born with.

 

[Gnarwhal]

the best analogy I heard is that it is like putting pollutants into a river. the guilty people are the ones who polluted the river, and they deal with the effects of it, but also all those who live downstream must deal with the effects as well, even though they are not guilty of originally dumping anything. now we also believe that each person downstream also dumps pollutants into the river, so they must deal with the effects of their own doings as well as of those prior.

another way to look at it is a baby born with AIDS because the mother or father decided to sleep around. the baby has done nothing wrong (the parents did), but must deal with what it was born with.

I like that polluted river analogy. One could say that because the river is already polluted, we have a tendency to contribute to the pollution ourselves.

 

[RKO]

I like the polluted river analogy as well, but what is the measurable difference between that and he RC position, which I guess would be "your father polluted the river so you're both going to jail?"

Maybe I jus answered my own question . In Orthodoxy you deal with the "pollution" of sin. In Catholocism, you deserve to go to jail...

 

[ArmyMatt]

I like the polluted river analogy as well, but what is the measurable difference between that and he RC position, which I guess would be "your father polluted the river so you're both going to jail?"

Maybe I jus answered my own question . In Orthodoxy you deal with the "pollution" of sin. In Catholocism, you deserve to go to jail...

more or less I would say. many might not believe it now, but back in the day everyone was born guilty of the sin of Adam. this is the reason for innovations like the Immaculate conception and limbo.

 

[RKO]

more or less I would say. many might not believe it now, but back in the day everyone was born guilty of the sin of Adam. this is the reason for innovations like the Immaculate conception and limbo.

You know, those are excellent examples of the RC need for "development of doctrine." So, everybody is inherently sinful and hellbound, due to original sin. "Wait! What about The BVM?" Soon follows the Immaculate Conception. "Wait! what about all the dead babies?" limbo...

I don't mean to sound critical of my own (RC ) church. i just never thought through these things before...

I mean, as far as I know, They could be right...Still working it all out...

 

[Ignatius21]

You know, those are excellent examples of the RC need for "development of doctrine." So, everybody is inherently sinful and hellbound, due to original sin. "Wait! What about The BVM?" Soon follows the Immaculate Conception. "Wait! what about all the dead babies?" limbo...

I don't mean to sound critical of my own (RC ) church. i just never thought through these things before...

I mean, as far as I know, They could be right...Still working it all out...

Yep, every theological pronouncement has consequences further down. An example would be the use of icons in worship. Ultimately the basis for accepting them (requiring them, per the 7th council) was "this is consistent with the doctrine of the Incarnation" as elaborated in the six preceeding councils. Oddly enough, the iconoclasts (ancient and modern) still try to root their arguments against icons also in the Incarnation. I came to believe that this ultimately also works in reverse, showing them to have an inadequate understanding of the Incarnation.

When I first began looking at Orthodoxy as a Protestant, I heard things like "Protestants are much closer to Rome than to Constantinople." It sounded absurd, after all, Protestants were the opposite of the RC, right? I came to see, though, that core ideas like the procession of the Holy Spirit, original sin, a largely forensic understanding of salvation, etc. remain at the root of Protestant theology. If anything, they took the Catholic teachings on these beliefs and "turned it up to eleven" (little Spinal Tap reference, right there... )

So even Protestant ideas about justification, etc. are also an extension of how they understand original sin, guilt, and the like.

 

[truthseeker32]

This thread reminds me of the following quote from David Bentley Hart:

Will we ever indeed be allowed really to have that conversation? I ask this, because, the most intransigent and extreme members of our respective communions—and those, I fear, who in the East are usually at present the most impassioned and obstreperous among us—seem often incapable or unwilling to acknowledge any recognizable distinction between substantial and accidental differences, between real and imagined difficulties, between obvious and merely suppositious theological issues, and between matters of negligible import and those that lie at the heart of our division... Today, however, a grand mythology has evolved regarding the theological dispositions of the Eastern and Western Christendom, to the effect that the theologies of the Eastern and Western Catholic traditions have obeyed contrary logics and have in consequence arrived at conclusions inimical each to the other—that is to say, the very essence of what we believe is no longer compatible. I do not believe that, before the middle of the 20th century, claims were ever made regarding the nature of the division as radical as those one finds not only in the works of inane agitators like the altogether absurd and execrable John Romanides, but also in the works of theologians of genuine stature, such as Dumitru Staniloae, Vladimir Lossky, or John Zizioulas in the East or Erich Przywara or Hans Urs von Balthasar in the West; and until those claims are defeated—as well they should be, as they are without exception entirely fanciful—we cannot reasonably hope for anything but impasse.

Here is the full article: http://fatherdavidbirdosb.blogspot.com/2012/05/myth-of-schism-by-david-bentley-hart.html

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

When it comes to "development of doctrine," I ask myself what is the deadline for legitimacy? I mean, at what century or decade do we stop calling men "Fathers" and start claiming they are developing doctrine?

And I think for me the problem I've ALWAYS had as an Orthodox Christian, to say it frankly, is the Fathers! In Catholicsm, there is great love for the Fathers, but the Church recognizes their diversity of thought and that not all of them were right about everything all the time in every place. So the Popes and magisterium have taken it collectively, holistically, and made the Fathers vast treasury of statements of theology and moral teachings, something coherent and unified, something we can sink our teeth into.

In Orthodoxy, you have zillions of saints and fathers taking positions on things and a huge array of varying and sometimes opposing viewpoints. That's why we can have a long thread debating "Toll Houses" and Father Seraphim Rose, etc. These men took one angle or one theological opinion, and almost put a stamp of infallibility on it.

In Orthodoxy, there are a zillion voices talking at the same time and for me, it is almost like I hear none of them. In Catholicism, they could silence them, come to an orderly, coherent, palatable set of theological dogmas, and I could grasp it.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Discovered an article called "Introduction to Orthodoxy" on the Orthodox Wiki, it's great cause it succinctly answers some of the more basic questions that we non-Orthodox tend to have...

All of mankind suffers from the effects of sin (death, sickness, and all evils), even if a particular individual may theoretically not have committed any personal sins. Guilt does not enter into Orthodox anthropology, since it is essentially a legal category and not directly relevant to the existential reality of man's sin illness. Thus, even if the term original sin is used in Orthodox theology, it is understood not as a transmitted guilt for Adam's sin, but rather as an inherited disease which may be cured in salvation, enabling the Christian thus to return to the dynamic path of growth in God's likeness.

Introduction to Orthodox Christianity - OrthodoxWiki

 

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

From what I remember, before the original sin we were not subjected to death, pain and suffering,
nor where we inhabitants of this world. We were in heaven, near God.
(Whether this means we were spiritual beings, or of a state where there was
no difference between material and spiritual existence, I cannot tell.)

When Adam and Eve committed the original sin, we were reduced to what we are now and released upon this material world. Thus, our nature was changed, but that does not mean that we are guilty for Adam's and Eve's choices.

To anyone more experienced than me; Do I recall correctly?

PS; Guilt has no place in Orthodoxy.
Evil is a sickness and thus we should feel pity for the sinful and try to heal them of their sickness, not punish them for it.

 

[truthseeker32]

PS; Guilt has no place in Orthodoxy.
Evil is a sickness and thus we should feel pity for the sinful and try to heal them of their sickness, not punish them for it.

Guilt is being responsible for a offensive or criminal action. Orthodox Christians are not exempt from this responsibility if they act in such a way.