I'm officially giving up re: Original Sin

[Marjorie]

We had a post about this a LONG time ago-- about Christ being tempted and what this means. I'll see if I can dig it up later.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Servus Iesu]

The idea that Mary just "chose" to be free of sin smacks of some form of Pelagianism to me. The belief is instead that Mary was full of the Holy Spirit so she did not sin. It was a perfect and complete cooperation of her will and God's, and she was *chosen* by God, she wasn't just the only human to successfully abide by God's terms-- as if she could do just as well without God's grace. Our difference isn't in how we view Mary's chosenness, but instead in our view of fallen humanity...
In IC XC,
Marjorie

Remember Joseph the 'Orthodox' Bishop who denies the perpetual virginity of Mary. I had an argument with him awhile back over the issue of Pelagianism. He claimed that Pelagius was actually Orthodox and the Pelagius was right and St. Augustine was wrong.

What do real Orthodox actually think about Pelagius and his doctrines?

 

[Marjorie]

Remember Joseph the 'Orthodox' Bishop who denies the perpetual virginity of Mary. I had an argument with him awhile back over the issue of Pelagianism. He claimed that Pelagius was actually Orthodox and the Pelagius was right and St. Augustine was wrong.

What do real Orthodox actually think about Pelagius and his doctrines?

Short version:

He was a heretic. We like God's grace and are very big on it.

We also think Augustine went too far in the opposite extreme when countering him, though.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

 

[Bulldog]

Short version:

He was a heretic. We like God's grace and are very big on it.

We also think Augustine went too far in the opposite extreme when countering him, though.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Would you consider an Orthodox to be in error if he said something like "I associate more tieh Pelagius than Augustine when it comes to salvation" (something that I have seen)?

 

[Unified in Christ]

I believe that sin is not so much human but rather something which robs us of our humanity.

That's exactly St. Paul's doctrine on sin: The turning away of love from God and neighbor toward the self is breaking of communion with the life and truth of God, which cannot be separated from His love. The breaking of this communion with God can be consummated only in death, because nothing created can continue indefinitely to exist of itself. Thus, by the transgression of the first man, the principle of "sin (the devil) entered into the world and through sin death, and so death passed upon all men..." Not only humanity, but all of creation has become subjected to death and corruption by the devil. It is through death and corruption that all of humanity and creation is held captive to the devil and involved in sin, because it is by death that man falls short of his original destiny, which was to love God and neighbor without concern for the self. Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam. He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences.

 

[Servus Iesu]

That's exactly St. Paul's doctrine on sin: The turning away of love from God and neighbor toward the self is breaking of communion with the life and truth of God, which cannot be separated from His love. The breaking of this communion with God can be consummated only in death, because nothing created can continue indefinitely to exist of itself. Thus, by the transgression of the first man, the principle of "sin (the devil) entered into the world and through sin death, and so death passed upon all men..." Not only humanity, but all of creation has become subjected to death and corruption by the devil. It is through death and corruption that all of humanity and creation is held captive to the devil and involved in sin, because it is by death that man falls short of his original destiny, which was to love God and neighbor without concern for the self. Man does not die because he is guilty for the sin of Adam. He becomes a sinner because he is yoked to the power of the devil through death and its consequences.

Good to see we agree on something. Does that mean you agree with my conclusion that to be human does not necessitate an ability to sin (specifically in the person of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Lord and Redeemer)?

 

[Knee V]

Good to see we agree on something. Does that mean you agree with my conclusion that to be human does not necessitate an ability to sin (specifically in the person of Jesus Christ Our Blessed Lord and Redeemer)?

Just look at Jesus. Fully divine, but also fully human. Yet he never sinned.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Just look at Jesus. Fully divine, but also fully human. Yet he never sinned.

I am well aware that Jesus was fully human. This question really stems out of the 'Could Jesus have sinned?' debate. The question is: What does it mean for Jesus to be fully human?

Those who say that Jesus possessed the capability to sin tend to cite the humanity of Jesus as proof that He could have sinned. What I am saying is that I don't believe one must possess the ability to sin to be fully human. This choice is what I think the scholastics referred to as liberty of indifference. It doesn't perfect human liberty, rather it is a weakness of human liberty.

The other issue I have with the notion that Jesus could have sinned is that I believe it lends itself to Nestorianism or perhaps even Arianism. Jesus had two natures but He was ONE person. If Jesus were to sin He would sin in His whole person, human and divine. How can sin enter into a divine person? This seems to me to be an impossibility. Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. The Father can neither sin nor lie, so how can the Son?

 

[Unified in Christ]

I am well aware that Jesus was fully human. This question really stems out of the 'Could Jesus have sinned?' debate. The question is: What does it mean for Jesus to be fully human?

Those who say that Jesus possessed the capability to sin tend to cite the humanity of Jesus as proof that He could have sinned. What I am saying is that I don't believe one must possess the ability to sin to be fully human. This choice is what I think the scholastics referred to as liberty of indifference. It doesn't perfect human liberty, rather it is a weakness of human liberty.

The other issue I have with the notion that Jesus could have sinned is that I believe it lends itself to Nestorianism or perhaps even Arianism. Jesus had two natures but He was ONE person. If Jesus were to sin He would sin in His whole person, human and divine. How can sin enter into a divine person? This seems to me to be an impossibility. Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. The Father can neither sin nor lie, so how can the Son?

According to St.Maximus the confessor, the creation of man had five divisions, that Adam had to transcend: The division between uncreated and created, noetic and tangible, Heaven and earth, Paradise and world, male and female. Adam would have to overcome these divisions and reach communion and unity with the uncreated. He failed though to transcend the divisions mentioned, with the result that decay and mortality entered into nature, that he wore the coats of skin of decay and mortality. The transcending of the five divisions took place in Christ. The fall in reality is darkness of the image (darkening of the nous), loss of the divine life. Adam lost his noetic function and enslaved himself to the passions. Fallen man uses God to safeguard his individual security and regards his neighbour as an object for predatory exploitation. He cannot have selfless love, because all his expressions and all his love contain the element of self-seeking, which is to say that man is characterised by self-seeking love. What our Lord Jesus did, according to the Holy Fathers, is that in his divine & human nature, The transcending of the five divisions took place: He took the human nature through his birth from Theotokos, a human nature perfect from every aspect. And why is that? Because His Human nature was united unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably with His Divine nature. According to St. Gregory Palamas, Christ received Adam's human nature before the fall. Yet, He accepted the consequences of the fall, in order to restore mankind to the previous stage. Since Christ accepted a t w i l l the consequences of the Fall & yet not the d a r k n e s s of the human image, He could not have sinned.

 

[Servus Iesu]

Exactly... thank you.