Original Sin

[Searching_for_Christ]

So I read in a thread that the Orthodox disagree with the Catholic Churches teaching on Original Sin, anyone want to quicly outline the Orthodox view of Original Sin?

 

[Dostoevsky]

Short answer: We don't believe in it. Especially the part about inherited guilt.

Long answer: This is a wonderful article dealing with the Orthodox understanding of original sin. To summarize it, original sin is not something we're born with, but rather something we voluntarily take upon ourselves. fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/the-mystery-of-love/

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

Do the Orthodox believe that we are totally depraved?

 

[Kristos]

only if you're Pat. Cyril Lucaris

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

huh?

 

[Macarius]

Absolutely not.

It has to do with the Greek understanding of the word "nature." Nature, in Greek, is the word for the list of attributes that are "natural" to a given thing. So human nature is the list of all those things natural to humans.

Our nature, from the beginning, was capable of sin (free will is part of our nature), and of death (if we separate from God we are naturally mortal). But these aspects of our nature, though possible, were not manifest prior to the fall. After the fall, they became manifest. Nothing else really changed in human nature - but that's all that needed to change! Death (and fear of death) inspires much sin. The culture of sin created around us teaches us to sin. Being born (now) separated from God inclines us to sin as being separated from God it is difficult to discern Truth.

But our nature CANNOT include guilt for sin nor sin itself, or we are not saved. If it includes guilt and / or sin THEN Christ either:
A) Took on our nature ("as we are" according to Hebrews) and therefore was also guilty of sin

B) Is not guilty of sin and therefore took on some OTHER version of human nature than the one we have.

For us, it is critical - in fact it is everything - that Christ assumed our full humanity and redeemed it. He came as we are, to make us as He is (into His likeness). This is why, though we affirm that we all chose to sin, we also affirm that we are all born capable of NOT sinning. We are each culpible for our own sins - we each are Adam and Eve falling into sin; we each crucify Christ. But Christ came as we are, and yet did not sin. He showed us a way out of this madness! He took on our nature, that our nature can now be a means of communion; He entered even death, that even in death we would not be separate from Him.

But sin and death are still UNnatural.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Macarius]

huh?

That's a Patriarch of Constantinople who was Calvinist. He was condemned as a heretic for it!

 

[Sphinx777]

.





Original Sin







.​

 

[AoibhinnGrainne]

Ahhhh...where to begin???

Trying to keep this simple, the basic back-story is that I am Orthodox, my Husband...not so much. He is firmly and happily placed in the Presbyterian Church of America, a denomination of which I have much knowledge and experience.

Currently, my Husband is winding-up his 4th trip to Haiti where he leads medical and construction teams to aid in the disaster relief. In our most recent discussions, this is his way of "worshipping"...to work with his hands and his career experience as a Senior Project Manager in industry to help folk who desperately need help. Then, as relationships are built, to have shown them the love of Christ through his actions, his deeds, rather than tracts and empty words.

So...back to my related (honestly!) question:

I asked the Pastor at the local PCA Church, with whom we are friends, the following (jumping-off of Macarius' excellent posts):

The Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon declared Jesus to be of two, inseparable natures: fully God and fully Man. And, it would appear, that Hebrews 4:15 and Romans 8:3-4, would be supportive of that.

But what, then, happens to Adam's Sin/Original Sin/Inherited Guilt...total depravity...as He would have inherited this from His Mother, Mary? If our human nature includes guilt for sin as well as sin itself, then Christ either:

a. inherited this sin nature, also sharing in the guilt of Adam's sin OR
2. did NOT inherit this sin nature and is not guilty; therefore, taking on some alternate "human" nature of which we have no part.

For me, it is paramount! necessary!...that Christ assumes our full and complete humanity and save it, redeems it, restores it heals it. He came as we are, so to make us as He is (into Christ-likeness: "be holy even as I am holy"). So...if Christ indeed inherited the sin of Adam, how could He also be the "spotless Lamb of God", "yet without sin", "the perfect sacrifice...without spot or blemish" for my sin...past, present, future?

So I have, like, three options (so far):

1. I resort to the sort of hoops the RCC has invented declaring Mary without Original Sin (Immaculate Conception), so Jesus can be without Original Sin. Yeah...not so much. Hardly a Scriptural basis for that; one of the many arguments I've had with the RCC and a part of why I left lo! these many years ago.

B. I claim Jesus was fully God and full Man + something other. But this, then, refutes the teachings of Nicaea and Chalcedon and historical Christianity (not to mention Scripture!).

iii. There is a flaw in my understanding of Original Sin (and/or total depravity) which makes this all moot. But, then, Augustine and the Reformers would be wrong...and who has ever heard of a(n) ULIP?

(thought of a fourth one...)

d. Jesus was forgiven of (if, indeed, He inherited) Adam's Sin at the time of his baptism: Father and Spirit were there. But then, doesn't that verge on a works-salvation? on baptism becoming the remission of sin? And if we back this up to the time of His circumcision, we have the same problem... Unless you count the time He was 12 years old and announced He was "about His Father's business" teaching in the synagogue. Would this have been a public profession of faith, thus forgiving Him of Adam's Sin...or later, when He teaches on the passage in Isaiah? But, then, He cannot claim Himself to be "Lord"; He cannot put His faith in Himself.

aiya (Chinese for crazy-girl frustration)

So... any ideas?

Thanks.

His reply was to point me to this:

Q~W(estminster)S(horter)C(atechism) 16: Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q~WSC 18: Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate wherein man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate wherein man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called Original Sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it. (And, BTW, there are no "Scripture proofs" for this...).

Romans 5:12-21; Luke:1:35-37.

Basically, the two bits of the WSC contain what I call (forgive me!) the "Immaculate Conception Clause". The inference, also drawn from the Luke passage, is that because Jesus' Father is the Holy Spirit it either 1) negated Mary's inherited sin/guilt because the Holy Spirit is, well, Holy and more powerful, um, DNA (???) or 2) was sort of a non-issue as this is Adam's sin...something inherited through the Father...not the Mother; again, negated because...you'all get it...

The other explanation is the idea of Federal Headship: For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (1Corinthians 15:22) Christ couldn't have had a sin nature because he was the perfected type of Adam (see Romans 5).

I later talked with our Friend, exploring some of this, and mentioned that if this is all true (and he is convinced, as I would expect), then what are we really saying in the Nicaean Creed? Does that make the decrees of Nicaea wrong? Unfortunately, he doesn't really know enough about it; Church History is his weakest point.

I know what I know, thanks be to God who leads my feeble mind into some small understanding! But is there anyone here who has anything that I can bring to the table when I begin to open up some of these discussions with my Husband???

BTW, I am also aiding a questioning Friend in a similar journey towards Orthodoxy...

(Is there a faint emoticon???)

Thanks.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I've recently rejected TULIP but my wife and I still go to a PCA church. Until I get ordained that is.

 

[Gwendolyn]

So what does baptism "do" (horrible wording, I know) for infants who have committed no personal sin?

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

the explanation that original sin is inherited through the father...what is wrong with that explanation? my own dad believes this, and quoted some scripture in genesis for me. Is there a reason that it cannot come through the father?

 

[Barky]

So what does baptism "do" (horrible wording, I know) for infants who have committed no personal sin?

Initiates them in the Christian Body. In Baptism we die with Christ and Rise with Christ, putting away the old man and putting on Christ, as the Orthodox hymns say. This is the sacrament that starts the Christian journey, the decision is made by the parents to bring the Child into the Christian fold, also an affirmation to raise the child in Christ.

At the heart of what Baptism (and all sacraments) are really doing is a mystery, that's why we typically call them mysteries. We are ok with such mysteries.

 

[Gwendolyn]

But what does it mean to say that we are "putting off the old man" if we are all born with the ability not to sin, and we only sin because we learn it from others around us, modeling their behaviour?

 

[Macarius]

But what does it mean to say that we are "putting off the old man" if we are all born with the ability not to sin, and we only sin because we learn it from others around us, modeling their behaviour?

Even if we are not born guilty of sin, we still must deal with the consequences of other's sin (i.e. the victims of abuse have trauma to deal with, even if they themselves have no guilt / culpability).

The consequence of sin is death and separation from God. Even an infant starts from that point, having inherited it from the parent. In Christ, His human nature would have been born this way, except that due to the Incarnation (indeed, at the moment of the beginning of the Incarnation) He began to heal the separation by uniting God to humanity.

In baptism, we put on Christ (putting of the death and separation from God we inherit). An infant needs this as much as an adult; just as the sinless (i.e. Mary) need it as much as the sinful (i.e. me).

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[rdhosken]

The notion of inherited original sin is due to a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 into Latin. The original Greek does not say that we inherit sin, but rather that we inherit death. "As in Adam all died, so in Christ all are made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).

This false notion of inherited original sin was taken up by Augustine in his famous formulation: Adam had "posse pecare et posse non pecare" (the ability to sin and the ability to not sin), but after the Fall he only had "posse pecare et non posse non pecare" (the ability to sin and not the ability to not sin).

Calvin later developed his hybrid TULIP, combining Augustinian and Reformation theology. Presbyterians are heirs of Calvin, inheriting the sins (errors) of Augustine and Calvin, not of Adam ;-).

The Orthodox believe that in Adam we all will suffer death, but in Christ we will be transformed into His glorious image and likeness. We are born with a tendency to sin because of inbred weaknesses of our fleshly nature and our social circumstances, but we are not totally depraved. If we were totally depraved and had no choice but to sin, then we would not be responsible for our actions, and thus there would be no guilt or moral blame in our sinful acts. But we do still possess the possibility of not sinning: even pagans, non-Christians, are capable of leading upright and moral lives. There is no "total depravity."

And as Christians who have been baptized into Christ, who have received the Holy Spirit in our chrismation, who partake of the real Body and Blood of Christ thus are becoming one with His nature, and who enjoy the koinonia-fellowship of the new society, the Kingdom of God in Christ's Body the Church, we are freed from the bondage to sin.

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

the explanation that original sin is inherited through the father...what is wrong with that explanation? my own dad believes this, and quoted some scripture in genesis for me. Is there a reason that it cannot come through the father?

bump got any answers for me

 

[Monica child of God 1]

the explanation that original sin is inherited through the father...what is wrong with that explanation? my own dad believes this, and quoted some scripture in genesis for me. Is there a reason that it cannot come through the father?

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." --Ezekiel 18:20

 

[Searching_for_Christ]

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him." --Ezekiel 18:20

In the context it would seem that this verse is saying he does not share the guilt of the son because he has kept the Lords statutes. Doesn't that make this NOT a verse dealing with the possibility that sin nature is passed through the dad?

 

[Kristos]

the explanation that original sin is inherited through the father...what is wrong with that explanation? my own dad believes this, and quoted some scripture in genesis for me. Is there a reason that it cannot come through the father?

it's not inherited period - father or mother. The judicial concept of inherited sin/guilt is a purely western idea. It reduces the fall to a legal event and thus creates a legal solution. This reduces the Resurrection to a mere byproduct instead of the main event.