Original vs. Ancestral Sin

[Hmm]

I had assumed that every Christian believed in original sin but I came across a discussion here on CF that mentioned a different paradigm: ancestral sin. The discussion was very brief so I thought I'd create a thread to learn more.

What I understood from the discussion was that original sin is a Western concept, believed in by the Catholic and the Protestant churches, and involves original guilt as well as death - so we all inherit Adam's guilt and all deserve final judgement merely for being born.

Ancestral sin OTOH is believed in in the East, by the Orthodox churches, and the idea of this is that it brings death to humanity but not guilt.

Is that a fair representation of the two views?

I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask on this:

Does ancestral sin imply that we can, in theory at least, live a guilt free life? It seems to me that children and people with severe mental impairment, at least, do.

Suppose that ancestral sin is correct and we're not guilty of anything at birth. Do we still have to deal with the consequences of Adam's sin because it is after all something that has shaped the world as we experience it? For example, when Adam introduced self-centredness into the world is this not the ultimate cause of the institutions in society today that encourage selfishness and which have made us all selfish to some extent?

 

[Cormack]

Does ancestral sin imply that we can, in theory at least, live a guilt free life? It seems to me that children and people with severe mental impairment, at least, do.

I’ve always considered Jesus living a guilt free life as proof that it’s possible for humanity to do likewise. That doesn’t mean we have done it and that doesn’t mean we ever will, but a sin free life exists in the sphere of possibilities for man, hence the reality of Jesus’ sin free human life.

What Christ assumed He also redeemed (namely our humanity,) what He doesn’t assume, He did not redeem. I don’t think Jesus leaned into His God nature in order to live a sinless lifestyle, rather He rested on His Godlike character, the exact reflection of the Fathers likeness.

I think some definitional flavours of original sin actually destroy the incarnation.

 

[Hmm]

I'm not really understanding what you're saying so I hope you don't mind some follow up questions...

What Christ assumed He also redeemed (namely our humanity,) what He doesn’t assume, He did not redeem.

By 'assumed' do you mean 'put on', that only by putting on our humanity/becoming human was Christ able to redeem us? What was it that He didn't assume and redeem?

I think some definitional flavours of original sin actually destroy the incarnation.

Do you mean that there's no important difference between original and ancestral sin? How is this destroying the incarnation? Because it's better to think holistically, that Christ saved us in our full, complex humanity, rather than try to divide it up into things like guilt and death? Sorry, you've probably not even had breakfast yet

 

[Cormack]

By 'assumed' do you mean 'put on', that only by putting on our humanity/becoming human was Christ able to redeem us? What was it that He didn't assume and redeem?

Exactly. Being found in appearance as a man, taking on human likeness. That’s not to say He doesn’t make all things new, but rather that the exact object or His interest in the incarnation is humanity. So He assumes human form in order to redeem human form. I don’t think God imputes guilt, crimes or anything onto the largely clueless animals, for which there’s no need to redeem them from sin.

Do you mean that there's no important difference between original and ancestral sin?

It depends on the definition of original sin we go by. What you described as original sin, I’ve always known to mean imputed guilt, as though we’re somehow guilty of Adams sin.

That would be very different from the idea of ancestral sin (how you defined it.) Ancestral sin sounds more like suffering by consequence, owing to Adams sin, not as though we are morally accountable for Adams sin.

I’m actually an early riser, brother.

About destroying the incarnation, for example, Christ didn’t take on Adams nature, He didn’t take on the nature of man pre fall, but rather post fall.

So if Christ has mans post fall nature, and if we had some very destructive idea of original sin (think total inability under Calvinism,) then Christ would have to take on all of those destructive traits.

If we have a more neutral post fall nature however, Christ could assume that with no serious consequence to His character.

 

[FenderTL5]

Do we still have to deal with the consequences of Adam's sin because it is after all something that has shaped the world as we experience it? For example, when Adam introduced self-centredness into the world is this not the ultimate cause of the institutions in society today that encourage selfishness and which have made us all selfish to some extent?

Yes. We are surrounded by sin and sinners from birth., "in sins my mother bore me.. (Psalm 50 LXX)"


Although the thrust of this article is elsewhere, I think it could shed some light on Orthodox understanding.
Ancestral vs Original Sin

 

[Hmm]

Exactly. Being found in appearance as a man, taking on human likeness. That’s not to say He doesn’t make all things new, but rather that the exact object or His interest in the incarnation is humanity. So He assumes human form in order to redeem human form. I don’t think God imputes guilt, crimes or anything onto the largely clueless animals, for which there’s no need to redeem them from sin.



It depends on the definition of original sin we go by. What you described as original sin, I’ve always known to mean imputed guilt, as though we’re somehow guilty of Adams sin.

That would be very different from the idea of ancestral sin (how you defined it.) Ancestral sin sounds more like suffering by consequence, owing to Adams sin, not as though we are morally accountable for Adams sin.

I’m actually an early riser, brother.

About destroying the incarnation, for example, Christ didn’t take on Adams nature, He didn’t take on the nature of man pre fall, but rather post fall.

So if Christ has mans post fall nature, and we had some very destructive idea of original sin (think total inability under Calvinism,) then Christ would have to take on all of those destructive traits.

If we have a more neutral post fall nature however, Christ could assume that with no serious consequence to His character.

Very interesting, thanks

 

[Cormack]

Always a pleasure @Hmm.

 

[Hmm]

So if Christ has mans post fall nature, and we had some very destructive idea of original sin (think total inability under Calvinism,) then Christ would have to take on all of those destructive traits.

That's a good point if I'm understanding you correctly. If Calvinism is right and we have no free will because we're all completely depraved then Christ would have to assume those characteristics in order to be able to redeem us, which is obviously not the case.

 

[Hmm]

Yes. We are surrounded by sin and sinners from birth., "in sins my mother bore me.. (Psalm 50 LXX)"


Although the thrust of this article is elsewhere, I think it could shed some light on Orthodox understanding.
Ancestral vs Original Sin

Thanks. It looks like a fantastic article. It's quite long so I can't read it now but looking forward to reading it later.

 

[Cormack]

That's a good point if I'm understanding you correctly. If Calvinism is right and we have no free will because we're all completely depraved then Christ would have to assume those characteristics in order to be able to redeem us, which is obviously not the case.

That’s right. Depending on how you picture humanity’s condition post fall will be exactly how Christ came to save us.

So if we adopt a low, disparaging view of humanity on the level of nature, then we inadvertently tar and feather Christ with those same aspects of humanity.

I think of how some groups use Psalms, a poetic verse that says something like babies have fangs, venom from their mother’s womb. Some groups (not naming any names ) some groups want to paint humanity’s fallen state as venomous, filled with this malice or that hate, geared towards sin and selfishness.

Okay, fair enough, but if we adopt that view, that’s the mode we just made Jesus adopt upon the incarnation.

Personally, I’m not willing to adopt a view of humanity that undermines the incarnation.

 

[Cormack]

Thanks. It looks like a fantastic article. It's quite long so I can't read it now but looking forward to reading it later.

Oh man, now I want to read it.

 

[Albion]

That's a good point if I'm understanding you correctly. If Calvinism is right and we have no free will because we're all completely depraved then Christ would have to assume those characteristics in order to be able to redeem us, which is obviously not the case.

Well, no. It may seen contradictory, but the standard Christian belief is that Jesus had a human nature that was complete and like ours in every way...except for sin. As God, he could not have sin.

"For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Cor 5:21

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Another way to look at it (and Ill have to go over it further) is that in the western view, man was made perfect and fell from perfection. If we were made perfect, we should not have been able to fall. The East sees that we were made to become perfect (hence the Tree of Life which Adam and Eve didnt bother with) and we fell from potential perfection to imperfection. So in a way, our view of the fall is still catastrophic but not as high.

 

[Joyous Song]

I had assumed that every Christian believed in original sin but I came across a discussion here on CF that mentioned a different paradigm: ancestral sin. The discussion was very brief so I thought I'd create a thread to learn more.

What I understood from the discussion was that original sin is a Western concept, believed in by the Catholic and the Protestant churches, and involves original guilt as well as death - so we all inherit Adam's guilt and all deserve final judgement merely for being born.

Ancestral sin OTOH is believed in in the East, by the Orthodox churches, and the idea of this is that it brings death to humanity but not guilt.

Is that a fair representation of the two views?

I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask on this:

Does ancestral sin imply that we can, in theory at least, live a guilt free life? It seems to me that children and people with severe mental impairment, at least, do.

Suppose that ancestral sin is correct and we're not guilty of anything at birth. Do we still have to deal with the consequences of Adam's sin because it is after all something that has shaped the world as we experience it? For example, when Adam introduced self-centredness into the world is this not the ultimate cause of the institutions in society today that encourage selfishness and which have made us all selfish to some extent?

I've never heard of ancestral sin but original sin links back to a Jewish belief among at least one sect. It origin there is in why we were created in the first place. Before HaShem, praise be He, created anything He had millions of servants but no children. These would do exactly what He told them but non could create anything from nothing.

HaShem wanted children, but to create beings that could created as He does, he had to create free will this is what angels do not have. Unfortunately free will gives us the power to believe and follow HaShem or go after our own eyes.

Original sin then is that each and everyone of us will choose unwisely sooner or later. This is the reason we meed redemption in the first place! Only the Messiah went through life without original sin though some suspect Marry had to also be free of this to bear Him in Her womb (a lean vessel).

That another discussion in its own. Yet original sin is really the end result of free will, and Adam and Eve are only the first examples.

 

[Andrewn]

Greek Fathers opposed the doctrine of original sin from the beginning with all of their theological and pastoral authority. They felt it to be alien to the main body of orthodox belief, and therefore judged it to be heretical.

Many Protestant theologians prefer the term "Total Depravity" but it, more or less, means the same thing as "Original Sin."

Jer 31:28 “In those days they will no longer say:

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children’s teeth are blunted.’
29 Rather each will die for his own iniquity:
if anyone eats the sour grapes,
his own teeth will be blunted.”

Eze 18:2 “What do you mean by using this proverb in the land of Israel saying,

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
so the children’s teeth are set on edge?’

3 As I live”—it is a declaration of Adonai—“you will never again use this proverb in Israel. 4 Behold, every living soul is Mine—the soul of father as well as the soul of son—both are Mine. Behold, the soul who sins is the one who will die.

 

[Hmm]

Well, no. It may seen contradictory, but the standard Christian belief is that Jesus had a human nature that was complete and like ours in every way...except for sin. As God, he could not have sin.

But I wasn't disputing that. I was saying that if one's conception of human nature is that we don't have free will, are "filthy rags" etc. cf. Calvanism then that description must also be applied to the incarnated Christ and that's not something I personally believe.

 

[Cormack]

Hebrews 2:14-18, as an extra feather in the cap.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.​

 

[Cormack]

Jesus takes on the nature of Abrahams children, the seed of Abraham, so, whatever that nature contains, that’s what He took on. If the seed is somehow rotten, so too is the host of that seed.

Exempting Christ from fully having taken on the nature of Abrahams seed is one tactic to help mitigate the damage done by the doctrine of original sin or total depravity, I’d sooner do away with those two doctrines.

 

[Hmm]

Exempting Christ from fully having taken on the nature of Abraham and his seed is one tactic to help mitigate the damage done by the doctrine of original sin or total depravity, I’d sooner do away with those two doctrines.

How is the doctrine of original sin regarded in the Western churches? Does it have the status of a dogma in the RCC and is it an essential belief in the main stream Protestant churches?

 

[Cormack]

How is the doctrine of original sin regarded

With confused silence Though maybe some friendly Catholics could jump in to help clarify the RCCs belief on the subject.