Orthodox Questions - Reformed Answers

[hedrick]

Salvation consists of both justification and sanctification? As in sanctification is NECESSARY for salvation, and if one whom God elects and "saves" neglects to pursue justification, he is no longer saved?

I'd be interested to know if that is the Reformed teaching. But it's not the sense I have ever gotten from Reformed teachers?

No, that’s not what I said.

You’re reading my statement as saying that our justification depends upon our pursuing sanctification. But that’s not what I said (or at least not what I meant). Remember, for us, salvation is something God does. God grafts us into Christ. We respond with faith. From this, both justification and sanctification flow. It’s not that salvation depends upon sanctification, so that if you neglect your duty, you’re no longer saved. Rather, salvation in some sense *is* sanctification. That is, the point of salvation is to restore God’s image in us. That means changing us.

Are there people who are saved and stop being saved? That depends upon what you mean by saved. There’s a tendency today for saved to refer to a one-time event, often based upon an emotional reaction: “have you been saved?” When Jesus uses the term it seems to refer to a change leading to eternal life. Indeed the primary meaning of salvation seems to be precisely inheriting eternal life. I’m not convinced that he ever uses salvation of something temporary that goes away because of neglect.

That’s not to deny that there are people who from our point of view look like they’re going to be saved, and then fall away. But we don’t know people like God does. We can’t judge either whether the initial appearance of being Christ’s or the impression that they no longer are is correct. All we can do is assure people that if the trust God for salvation he won’t fail them. (See my previous post today.)

Jesus certainly cares how we act, and says that we’ll be accountable for that. But in his teachings and parables about judgement, the people who end up in hell are people who spent their lives abusing others, or never did anything. Mat 7:21 is sometimes cited as an example of people who seem to be followers and are rejected. But it’s not that they once were and fell away. It’s that they were using Jesus’ name but not doing what God wanted. And the final judgement is “I never knew you,” not “I once knew you but gave up.”

 

[~Anastasia~]

No, that’s not what I said.

You’re reading my statement as saying that our justification depends upon our pursuing sanctification. But that’s not what I said (or at least not what I meant). Remember, for us, salvation is something God does. God grafts us into Christ. We respond with faith. From this, both justification and sanctification flow. It’s not that salvation depends upon sanctification, so that if you neglect your duty, you’re no longer saved. Rather, salvation in some sense *is* sanctification. That is, the point of salvation is to restore God’s image in us. That means changing us.

Are there people who are saved and stop being saved? That depends upon what you mean by saved. There’s a tendency today for saved to refer to a one-time event, often based upon an emotional reaction: “have you been saved?” When Jesus uses the term it seems to refer to a change leading to eternal life. Indeed the primary meaning of salvation seems to be precisely inheriting eternal life. I’m not convinced that he ever uses salvation of something temporary that goes away because of neglect.

That’s not to deny that there are people who from our point of view look like they’re going to be saved, and then fall away. But we don’t know people like God does. We can’t judge either whether the initial appearance of being Christ’s or the impression that they no longer are is correct. All we can do is assure people that if the trust God for salvation he won’t fail them. (See my previous post today.)

Jesus certainly cares how we act, and says that we’ll be accountable for that. But in his teachings and parables about judgement, the people who end up in hell are people who spent their lives abusing others, or never did anything. Mat 7:21 is sometimes cited as an example of people who seem to be followers and are rejected. But it’s not that they once were and fell away. It’s that they were using Jesus’ name but not doing what God wanted. And the final judgement is “I never knew you,” not “I once knew you but gave up.”

That sounds much more like what I'm familiar with from Reformed teaching. One who "falls away" was likely "never saved" ... and of course we cannot know with certainty ourselves, so ...

I think what threw me off is your statement that salvation is both monergistic and synergystic, and involves both justification and sanctification. Frankly, I think the statement put that way would be essentially agreeable to Orthodox. But I suspect the truth is that we don't quite agree, and I may have a tendency to read certain things into your words because of my point of view.

(By the way, I didn't THINK that was what you meant before, but I did deliberately ask in that way to find the point where I was disconnecting from your intent.)

I think what may be the problem is the idea that there is a synergy involved - at the level of sanctification - and such sanctification is part of salvation. Orthodoxy certainly believes this, but I suspect Reformed teaching does not actually agree with us?

It may hinge mostly on whether one believes in the "irresistible" part of salvation. Is it REALLY synergy, if a person cannot resist? Though to be honest, I've questioned myself on that through my life. I think we have a responsibility and a need to cooperate with God, and I don't really think that He forces us ... yet I have a difficult time understanding why one would refuse to cooperate if one had really experienced God's grace and really had faith in Him and believed what Christ has said.

In the final analysis, there may be far less difference than I might think. I don't know. But the road that each set of teachings seems to lead down will diverge at a point where we seem to end up at wildly different preaching. I haven't been able to identify where the divergence is, or what causes it, or why we end up so differently.

It may be in the view of "election". I would have a difficult time explaining what Orthodox believe, but essentially it hinges more on God's foreknowledge than so much a matter of Him choosing for us, in the case of those who teach double predestination. But I'm not sure where on the spectrum you, or JM, or anyone else stands, and sometimes we are not so far apart there either.

 

[~Anastasia~]

After reading your post a few more times ....

Maybe it is in the impossibility of "losing salvation" that we disagree?

I don't like to use the term "being saved" because we don't view it as a one-time event either. But yet, we are hesitant to refer to it as some kind of "done deal" regardless of any experience we may have or anything that happens in life. It would seem to me that numerous examples in Scripture support the need to persevere, warn against falling away, and such. We take those warnings as applied TO US ... not a description of what might happen to someone who was never really elect in the first place (assuming by elect one means a person that God's grace initially started working in).

Still thinking on this. Thank you for your input.

 

[hedrick]

That sounds much more like what I'm familiar with from Reformed teaching. One who "falls away" was likely "never saved" ... and of course we cannot know with certainty ourselves, so ...

I think what threw me off is your statement that salvation is both monergistic and synergystic, and involves both justification and sanctification. Frankly, I think the statement put that way would be essentially agreeable to Orthodox. But I suspect the truth is that we don't quite agree, and I may have a tendency to read certain things into your words because of my point of view.

What I said was that God’s acceptance does not depend upon our cooperation, since it comes before we’re in a position to cooperate, but that growth in Christ is synergistic, because it inherently involves us.

I think most Protestants agree with this. But there’s a tendency for some evangelicals to refer to salvation as a one-time event, often described as being born again. The Reformed model, however, sees salvation as including both justification and sanctification, because we don’t see it as just that one-time event, but as the whole process that God uses to renew his image in us. Reformed theology is known as having a larger place for “works” in the process of salvation than other Protestant theologies.

I think Orthodox agree with us in this. However I suspect that we disagree on justification. Certainly Catholic theory does. They use the term “justification” to refer to the whole process, i.e. it includes both what we call justification and sanctification. If I understand Catholic theology properly, this means that certain deliberate, serious sin interrupts the process of justification. and if repentance doesn’t occur, it leads to loss of salvation.

We don’t agree with that. We think God doesn’t give up on us when we sin. In effect for people who are actually saved, God works with them to bring them to repentance and continue with the process.

But can there be a situation where the process simply breaks down? Catholics would say that this can occur if a person commits mortal sin and doesn’t repent (though there are pastoral concerns that don’t make things cut and dried). Most Protestants object to the concept of mortal sin, saying that as long as we trust God for salvation, i.e we have faith, he will see to it that things do not break down. Anything else would violate his promises. However many Protestants would say that in the end it is possible for someone to lose saving faith, in which case the process does break down, and they are no longer justified or saved.

I think as a matter of observation, Reformed agree that situations like that can occur, but we would say that in that situation the person wasn’t saved in the first place. This answer makes sense for Reformed theology, because in it, salvation is monoergistic. So such people aren't elect.

Thus far we have traditional Reformed doctrine. I’m not a traditional Reformed person. I’m on the liberal end of the Reformed tradition, with an emphasis on taking doctrine directly from Jesus’ teachings wherever possible. So I’m not sure whether what I’m going to say now agrees with traditional Reformed theology or not.

I’m concerned that saying someone wasn’t saved in the first place sounds like kind of a cop-out. But the appearance of a cop-out occurs because of a definition of salvation that doesn’t agree with Jesus’ use of the term (and the traditional Reformed ordo salutis). The whole question of losing salvation occurs because people view salvation as a one-time event, not as the final place to which our lives lead. Once we take that view, it’s conceptually impossible to lose salvation. It is still possible, however, for people to show all the signs of being a Christian, and fall away.

So I’m suggesting a definition of salvation that I suspect is closer to the Orthodox one than to the evangelical one-time “born again” event, but combined with the concept of justification that is distinguished from sanctification, and continues even when there’s a setback in sanctification.

There’s one loose end for me personally. That is whether someone who trusts in Christ for salvation can actually fall away. The Reformed tradition, as well as Catholic (and I assume Orthodox) say yes, though Reformed would say they were never saved. To my knowledge the only tradition that says no is Free Grace. I confess a certain sympathy with them, though I can’t agree with them that salvation can continue independent of the lives of the people involved. My sympathy comes from my understanding of Jesus' teaching. I'm not sure quite where to go with this though.

 

[JM]

Hey folks. Sorry I haven’t been checking in as often as I use to but, you know, life is busy. Anyway…

You seem entirely willing to settle your theological issues on certain points of the Scriptures only while ignoring the others.

I would say the same for your Tradition. Why not accept the tradition that claims the Pope of Rome is the universal Bishop? Shouldn’t you repent and get into communion with the Papacy?

Not that this is entirely uncommon.

Why is your Tradition canon of scripture different from other Traditional bodies of churches? It’s not entirely uncommon to pick and choose which “Traditions” you believe are apostolic and which are not.

I was being sarcastic but honestly, we are sinners saved by grace and no one will have a “perfect” theology. That’s Gnosticism. To believe that we can “arrive” at perfect truth and somehow have “a perfect” understanding of scripture is unchristian. If I error I error because I’m a sinner and I would suggest other Christians error for the same reason.

For instance, my concern with your response is your insistence upon the strictly legal language of the Scriptures while ignoring the analogies given throughout the OT and NT in which spousal or marital language is used to describe our relationship.

Actually, that’s not what I did. What I did was demonstrate the legal aspects of salvation you denied. I never denied the aspects of relationship, love, etc. I just found your one-sided emphasis on lovey dovey Christianity to be incomplete. It gives the wrong impression as to why Christ had to die for sinners to be saved for Law breaking. You presented the idea of marriage but left the scriptural idea incomplete. Marriage is based on a legal obligation to the spouse and yes, love does come into play, but that’s only one aspect of a marriage. Even when you are not “in love” or feeling lovey dovey you are still in a legally binding marriage to that spouse.

God is our creator and even if we deny Him we are still ultimately responsible to Him. I guess the question is…how? How are we responsible to God and on what basis? Scripture seems to indicate that all of mankind is in covenant with God…always. Either we are in a “marriage” like covenant (covenant of grace) or in covenant with God based on our works. Our works are judged. Upon what standard do our works get judged? Even before the Law was re-stated on Sinai by Moses mankind was obligated to follow the revelation of Law given him and it is upon this basis we are judged. I’ll touch more on this point under the question about Romans 5.

Leviticus 16 is particularly interesting to me in that we see the corporate covenant being renewed through the offering of an appropriate sacrifice. This sacrifice points to the one great Sacrifice which establishes the congregation of God forever. What I have failed to see, and perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out to me, is the specifically legal language used in that chapter. I wonder if you might be referring to the word "atonement" in verse 24. I look at the online Strong's Concordance and I see a number of uses of this verb:

to cover, purge, make an atonement, make reconciliation, cover over with pitch

1. (Qal) to coat or cover with pitch
2. (Piel)
   1. to cover over, pacify, propitiate
   2. to cover over, atone for sin, make atonement for
   3. to cover over, atone for sin and persons by legal rites
3. (Pual)
   1. to be covered over
   2. to make atonement for
4. (Hithpael) to be covered

Could it be that this language is pointing to a temporary covering over or reconciliation of the sins of the Congregation of God until the permanent comes along many centuries later? Is it a legal payment? I think Scripture is fairly silent here, and certainly the Early Fathers of the Church didn't see things that way. The legal language of Christianity really didn't get started until invented by Augustine in the fourth century and promoted by Anselm of Canterbury.

If we put this in the language of Hosea, that is, the language of God as spouse and Israel as the adulterous wife, then how does it stack up? Is there a legal payment which is acceptable for adultery, or does the commission of adultery require more in a personal relationship than some money or punishment changing hands. What exactly is it that God is looking for in our sinful state - punishment or redemption,legal payment or restoration? In a healthy spousal relationship, when there are rough spots, it is restoration to reunion which is being sought.

The idea of a temporary covering is most definitely there and I agree that under the old Mosaic covenant of works salvation was never obtained. It could not be.

Hebrews tells us why:

“For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:”

“For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”

This is a why Paul refers to the old covenant as “the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.”

So how is salvation contrasted with the old Mosaic covenant of works?

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” (quoted in Hebrews 8, applied to believers under the new covenant of grace)

Notice how the covenant enacted in Christ’s blood is different;

1) It’s a new covenant

2) It’s unlike the one made with our fathers/old covenant Israel

3) The law (legal aspect) is now written on our hearts instead of tablets of stone

4) We will in fact be God’s people

5) We will know the Lord

6) Our sins are forgiven by God by

7) Hebrews 8.7 declares the first/old covenant of works wasn’t faultless

8) Hebrews 8.13 the old covenant is gone

Jeremiah 31 is further explained Hebrews 8-10. The old Mosaic covenant of works had, “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:” but the new covenant was made complete in Jesus Christ, “this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;” So, it’s not a late development, not at all. You only fool yourself by claiming such things…even the early church fathers taught elements that are found in Reformed/biblical soteriology.

Now in Romans 5, you appear to have a much stronger case. I have always wondered what this verse means: Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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.

Let’s back up to Romans 2, “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”

A couple of points;

1) “Glory, honour and peace” are mention all of which must be judged by an objective standard, I would suggest this passage is assuming a universal moral Law

2) It would be entirely consistent with what we know of Law if we understand “those that sinned without law” as a reference to those who did not have the revelation of God as being condemned anyway

3) The Law was given to Israel as a particular people to drive them to Christ (Gal. 3)

4) The doers of the Law under the new covenant are those who have the Law written on our hearts and which we perform out of love to God and neighbour

5) Gentiles that were not given the Law by special revelation still have a knowledge of the Law, although marred by sin, “in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness”

6) And this knowledge leaves them without excuse

The covenant made with Adam in the garden was simple and can be summed up as, “do and live.” We can take many rabbit trails on this one simple command but suffice it to say Gen. 2.16-17 makes it clear that God gave Adam a command. God gave Adam a law. In Gen. 4 we see that God assumes Cain knows the difference between right and wrong, what was legal in terms of offerings and what was not. Right from the beginning we have God assuming mankind knows what is required of him. The covenant made with Abraham was a pure covenant of grace and pointed to Christ Jesus, His finished work and promise of salvation. The seed is Christ! (Gal. 3) Abraham was given physical promises as an appendix, they were added in Gen. 15 and 17. This is where we find circumcision and the land promises added. To the believer today these promises point to Heaven and heart circumcision. Israel, the physical seed of Abraham had turned away from God’s covenantal promise of salvation so God re-stated the covenant made with Adam (do and live) in the Law and ordinances, sacrifices, etc. The very essence of the covenant made with Adam is exactly the same as the covenant given on Sinai, “do and live.” It was a covenant based on works, on performance and differs completely from the new covenant of grace promised to Abraham in Gen. 12, 15, 17; Jer. 31, Heb. 8.

What do you think this is saying? I would be curious because it appears to speak to the fact that the law is not necessary for man to be separated from God. This makes me wonder what the purpose of the Law would be, given that even before the giving of the Law, there was that state of separation from God called "death." Let me see what you have to say before I go much further with this.

I would say (here is the rabbit trail) that God foreknew (however you want to define that word) that Adam would not keep the covenant made with him. Mankind is never saved by works but by Jesus Christ alone, amen? In every age fallen man is saved by Christ alone through faith alone, not by works, for no one can keep any command given by God perfectly. We must trust Jesus Christ alone for our salvation. God does in fact give us commands we cannot keep and the purpose of this is to drive us to Christ who is our life.

Running outta time.

Peace

 

[JM]

Hello again, JM. I may never manage to catch up on what I very much wanted to reply to in your thread, but I'll make a few attempts.

BTW, I hope nothing that I say comes across in an adversarial way - that is not my intent.

Oh heck no.

And also your last sentence there that "Eastern Orthodoxy miss entirely" ... that Salvation is not the payment for what we do ... [but] the freeing from bondage of our human ... nature to become holy.

Unfortunately the Orthodox in my old parish didn't understand it that way. In fact, they viewed their works as their means of salvation... This is the fault of the Eastern system and traditions which limit the preaching of the Gospel to physical means almost exclusively. I understand large amounts of scripture are read during the Liturgy but lets be honest...no one listens to them. During the service people are in and out, lighting candles, stepping out to talk to grams about this or that. Everyone returns to receive the Lord's Supper but most of the service is missed. The little old lady that faithfully stands for the entire service is reciting her prayer rope! She misses the readings as well.

And I see a further misunderstanding. We don't "earn" anything - we could never do so.

I'm speaking of the common faith expressed by Orthodox members. They do in fact view their actions as meritorious. Converts are different from ethnic believers in North America, it has been a common experience that most in Orthodox churches are liberals and works focused. Doesn't it bother you that people in your local church are trying to work their way into heaven? Or that if they could they would allow for gay marriage? One only has to google to find the stats are the largely liberal North American Orthodox church. It has been estimated (I'll try to find the source and post it for my next log in) that Orthodoxy will find itself in the same boat as Anglicanism. In a local Baptist or Reformed church salvation by Christ alone through faith can, at the very least, be articulated.

But I can assure you, what you describe is absolutely NOT how it is supposed to work. Our priest has tried to gently but firmly speak against any such thing when it comes up. Of particular irritation to many priests are the prevalence of "evil eye" amulets. Yes, a number of the yiayias in my parish wear them. But I've seen more than one priest get angry and tell someone, "If you don't think the Cross will protect you, what do you think that thing will do for you? They can't exist together - get rid of the mati!!!" But as I said, old teachings die hard. The stubbornness is a good thing when holding onto the real Tradition of the Church, but unfortunately, it gets attached to other things by some.

Here's a question...does the Cross, a physical Cross, actually protect you?

God be with you!

And also with you. Lift up your hearts...we lift them to the Lord.

PS: I'm still reading through the Orthodox Study Bible. This is month 7! I've been working my way through the Wisdom of Sirach making notes verse by verse. It has been a very fruitful endeavor.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi JM,

Unfortunately the Orthodox in my old parish didn't understand it that way. In fact, they viewed their works as their means of salvation... This is the fault of the Eastern system and traditions which limit the preaching of the Gospel to physical means almost exclusively. I understand large amounts of scripture are read during the Liturgy but lets be honest...no one listens to them. During the service people are in and out, lighting candles, stepping out to talk to grams about this or that. Everyone returns to receive the Lord's Supper but most of the service is missed. The little old lady that faithfully stands for the entire service is reciting her prayer rope! She misses the readings as well.

That is regrettable. I have heard from people who visit parishes and are very upset by what they find. As for me, I have visited now ... perhaps a dozen parishes, or a few more maybe. And I have never seen what you describe. I don't pay much attention to what others are doing, but nearly all of them stay in the service until the end.

We typically light our candles before we come in, say our greetings in the Narthex before entering the main Church, and except for one or two persons - maybe a parent with a fussy toddler - they stay in until after the service (though I have noticed one family that used to leave directly after receiving the Eucharist). I do sometimes use my prayer rope during the service, but it is with the blessing of my SF and does not remove my attention from the service. I don't pray during the readings.

But if that is the attitude you saw, then I don't blame you for your opinion. It worries me sometimes, thinking I might have to move. I would be terribly distressed to end up with such a parish as my only option. But I've never seen it myself, only heard a few folks describe it.

I'm speaking of the common faith expressed by Orthodox members. They do in fact view their actions as meritorious. Converts are different from ethnic believers in North America, it has been a common experience that most in Orthodox churches are liberals and works focused. Doesn't it bother you that people in your local church are trying to work their way into heaven? Or that if they could they would allow for gay marriage? One only has to google to find the stats are the largely liberal North American Orthodox church. It has been estimated (I'll try to find the source and post it for my next log in) that Orthodoxy will find itself in the same boat as Anglicanism. In a local Baptist or Reformed church salvation by Christ alone through faith can, at the very least, be articulated.

Well, all it can tell you is that it DOES bother me when I note a point of pretty essential doctrine being wrongly understood. I've run across that now 2-3 times in as many years. Yes it bothers me. (I started a thread recently in TAW for just that reason). But it tends to be an isolated individual (though I worry that others may pick that up from them). I don't experience the Church as liberal either. I know of one person who has said they support gay marriage. They weren't ostracized over it, but neither did anyone else agree. They have since left the Church.

I don't know what to tell you, JM. My experience doesn't match yours. I do worry about what goes on broadly, but I speak pretty regularly with lots of priests and laypeople, and none of them are heading in that direction. We do have a few renegade types that are very vocal. But the experience I have of Orthodoxy, and the general experience of everyone I know, doesn't match that. I have heard complaints from friends that travel - you wouldn't by chance be speaking of a parish in Chicago or Canada would you? But otherwise, no. And it does concern me, yes, and would break my heart if the US Church went in a wrong direction. If she does, she will no longer BE Orthodox. But to be honest, I don't really believe that will happen.

Here's a question...does the Cross, a physical Cross, actually protect you?

It is not the wood, the metal, or whatever the Cross is made out of that offers protection. It is what it stands for, which is Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, and His power and protection.

In terms of a baptismal Cross, say, if someone who didn't believe or follow The Lord wore the same Cross, it would be nothing for them. I wear my baptismal Cross at all times because that's what we do. But my help comes from The Lord, not from a little piece of metal - though I do love it because of what it represents to me.

And also with you. Lift up your hearts...we lift them to the Lord.

PS: I'm still reading through the Orthodox Study Bible. This is month 7! I've been working my way through the Wisdom of Sirach making notes verse by verse. It has been a very fruitful endeavor.

Awesome. You're doing better than I am then ... Once I get past this little bump in my own road, I hope to embark on more serious study again.

 

[JM]

Here's a golden saying, “…wisdom is perfection in the mouth of the faithful.” Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 34.8b

I'm not able to post as often but I continue to pray, read the scriptures and church history. The quote above was from my reading this morning.

 

[JM]

A few questions touching upon the biblical doctrine of original sin were asked in the Orthodox forum. I thought I’d take a crack at 'em.

As I understand it, the Western Church looks at sin as being transmitted from Adam by the act of sexual intercourse (yes? no?).

“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” Romans 5

The Western Church views the transmission of sin as Federal or Covenantal. In Romans 5 we read that all those in Adam fell in sin just as all those in Christ will be raised up. You have Adam representing the human race and Christ representing His body, the Church. We sin because we are sinners and creation suffers from the fall.

“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.” Romans 8

All of creation suffered from Adam’s fall for, “many died through one man's trespass” (v. 15). Paul clearly states, “the offence of one judgment came upon all” (v.18) and “by one man's disobedience many were made sinners…” (v.19) Not only did sin affect man but all of creation for, “we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

Sin is inherited from our covenant head Adam. It’s inherited just like blue eyes or curly hair.

R. C. Sproul explains it better here: http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html

I believe somewhere I read that Augustine was the one who really got this ball rolling. It led to the concept of "Original Sin" (yes? no?)

Absolute “no.” Augustine, like Jesus and Paul, taught original sin. You may prefer quotations from the church fathers instead.

Irenaeus: ....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3 emphasis mine)

Tertullian (c. 200 AD): Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom Man was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression Man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

Origin (c. 244 AD): Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sin; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD): If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

Many, many others are cited in John Gill’s work The Cause of God and Truth. In this work he clearly outlines from the writings of the early church the major points of Protestant doctrine. You may benefit from reading John Calvin as well. He quotes from and deals directly with the church fathers.

In that context, it is understandable that the Theotokos had to be Immaculately Conceived. Have to break that line of Original Sin.

Ephraim of Syria: Adam sinned and EARNED ALL SORROWS, AND THE WORLD, FOLLOWING HIS LEAD, ALL GUILT. And it took no thought of how it might be restored, but only of how its fall might be made more pleasant for it. Glory to Him that came and restored it! (Hymns of the Epiphany 10:1)

Great questions.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[~Anastasia~]

Btw, JM, I'm not sure whether you might realize, but as best I can tell, the OP in that thread is looking for the matter of the Catholic teaching of Original Sin (with attendant guilt) as opposed to what Orthodox usually call Ancestral Sin. We (Orthodox) certainly recognize that the curse of death passed on to all of mankind as a result, and also that we are born into a sin-infected world, with a bent toward sin, and all will sin.

The difference is slight - regarding the degree of inherited guilt (ought we deserve punishment for the sins of Adam - as opposed to recognizing that we do inherit death), and the method of transmission (whether necessarily sexual).

It is an interesting question. Just pointing out that at times "western" may include Protestant thinking as well, and at times may not, to the degree you may have rejected Latin teaching.

Thank you for the quotes, btw.