The concept of Original Sin in the East and West

[Yeznik]

The concept of Original Sin in the East and West.

In regards to Original Sin, the concept differs form the Roman Catholic Churches and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

What is the purpose (purpose meaning where did it come from) of guilt in the RC concept of Original Sin? How is that guilt passed on in Original Sin? Is the concept in the RC that a person inherits both sin and guilt of Adam? Are the guilt and sin seen as 2 separate entities or one unit? If there is a separation between the guilt and sin at what point is the separation made? How does this come into effect in regards to story of the putting the blood of the lamb on the door posts?


In the EO Church which Church Father(s) distinguished the difference between the RC and EO view of Original Sin? What was distinguishable between the Churches and at what in history did this difference come into affect? How does this come into effect in regards to story of the putting the blood of the lamb on the door posts?

 

[QuantaCura]

There was a discussion of this in OBOB a while back. I suggest asking Newman99 (he's a mod) about this topic. He has a good handle on it. Here is one of his posts from that thread--it is discussing original sin in the context of the immaculate conception but it should give you a decent understanding.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27452173#post27452173

In a nutshell, our differences are in the language we use to approach it--the East in regards to deification and the West in regards to sanctifying grace.

 

[Reminiscent]

The concept of Original Sin in the East and West.

In regards to Original Sin, the concept differs form the Roman Catholic Churches and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

What is the purpose (purpose meaning where did it come from) of guilt in the RC concept of Original Sin?

The letter takes over and what was started first in the Spirit is continued in the flesh.

 

[Reminiscent]

Is the concept in the RC that a person inherits both sin and guilt of Adam?

Except that it is pelagian because in a RC a person can have a salvation that once given can be lost and given back again, rejecting God's atonement once forever salvation.

 

[Reminiscent]

Are the guilt and sin seen as 2 separate entities or one unit?

In these two entities east and the west, they both treat guilt as a consequence of sin, but there are different ways of handling it.

 

[Reminiscent]

How does this come into effect in regards to story of the putting the blood of the lamb on the door posts?

Some prefer to believe the blood is to be redrank to be Christ's actual blood again in the east. In the west, they know the the Lord's supper is a remembrance instead. So the blood on the doorposts is a type of the once for all blood shed, not a continually resheding of his blood as is taught in the east.

 

[Reminiscent]

In a nutshell, our differences are in the language we use to approach it--the East in regards to deification and the West in regards to sanctifying grace.

Yes, God sanctifies by faith at new birth, so it would be wrong to believe in deification, that is, calling yourself God. It is duplicitous to say the least, to say you are God and you believe in God, because of using the same term in different ways. This is couth. God gives His life and nature, but you are not God or a god in life and nature.

 

[Reminiscent]

In the EO Church which Church Father(s) distinguished the difference between the RC and EO view of Original Sin?

It's the same, but we should call no man our father.

 

[Reminiscent]

What was distinguishable between the [rc & ec] Churches and at what in history did this difference come into affect?

It's the same. No differences.

How does this come into effect in regards to story of the putting the blood of the lamb on the door posts?

They are the same, with the same misunderstanding.

And the coptic church has their own problem with claiming Jesus could not be both God and man, which is another way of not dealing with sin properly.

Is there any specific problems with oriental? Perhaps, but it is so diverse, you can't really tie anything down like you can with the RC, EC and the CC.

Hence, we see profitable results in protestation in the west and some positive results in the far east in the oriental church, but in between it is really messy.

 

[a_ntv]

The concept of Original Sin in the East and West.

In regards to Original Sin, the concept differs form the Roman Catholic Churches and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. ....

The differences are in the words used, not in the understanding.
On the other side there is a difference in understanding between catholics and many protestants, even if the words used are almost the same: in fact most protestants consider the man falled completly unable of anything positive, while catholics do not consider so extremly heavy the results of the original sin.

Anyway I think that the best is to let speak the Compendium of the Cathechism of Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html)

77 When tempted by the devil, the first man and oman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.

78 Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand

79 In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural owers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence

Please consider that the words "guilty" and "punishment" do not appare in this catholic text

The point is not the trasmission of the original sin (that is a mystery as above stated), but how heavy are the results of this sin, in other word how much the man can/must synergically cooperate with Christ (that do NOT means to do without Christ).

Read ad instance:

535 Because through creation God first calls every being from nothingness. Even after the Fall man continues to be capable of recognizing his Creator and retains a desire for the One who has called him into existence. All religions, and the whole history of salvation in particular, bear witness to this human desire for God. It is God first of all, however, who ceaselessly draws every person to the mysterious encounter known as prayer.

I would like Orthodoxes, when they love to criticize the Catholic doctrine, will critize above statments, and not a false understanding of our faith usually present on they sites/books.

 

[Yeznik]

There was a discussion of this in OBOB a while back. I suggest asking Newman99 (he's a mod) about this topic. He has a good handle on it. Here is one of his posts from that thread--it is discussing original sin in the context of the immaculate conception but it should give you a decent understanding.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27452173#post27452173

In a nutshell, our differences are in the language we use to approach it--the East in regards to deification and the West in regards to sanctifying grace.

Thanks for the link, I need to read it again.

 

[Reminiscent]

The concept of Original Sin in the East and West.

In regards to Original Sin, the concept differs form the Roman Catholic Churches and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches...

The differences are in both the words used and in understanding, for remember these are different systems, not necessarily divided by regions of the world.

Those protestants who call themselves calvinistic teach total depravity (not found in Scripture) which is false since man is still made in God's image to have the choice and God did not save people before they can believe, while the RC and EC teach accurately the fall, but they appropriate a salvation which can be lost, so this too is wrong.

What then may you ask is God's way of salvation? Well God predestinated by foreknowledge our free-choice (Rom. 8:29) which is a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. This is the position Jacob Arminius held and other saved souls.

Thus, in order to be saved, one must come to the cross as a helpless sinner from the free-choice in His image (fulfilling the condition to receive grace), not by the flesh from the fall. It is a most beautiful salvation that God affords to us who would authentically receive His life. So these are the ones God wants to be with, to walk with, for us to be pillars in the new city.

 

[Yeznik]

There was a discussion of this in OBOB a while back. I suggest asking Newman99 (he's a mod) about this topic. He has a good handle on it. Here is one of his posts from that thread--it is discussing original sin in the context of the immaculate conception but it should give you a decent understanding.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=27452173#post27452173

In a nutshell, our differences are in the language we use to approach it--the East in regards to deification and the West in regards to sanctifying grace.

The differences are in the words used, not in the understanding.
On the other side there is a difference in understanding between catholics and many protestants, even if the words used are almost the same: in fact most protestants consider the man falled completly unable of anything positive, while catholics do not consider so extremly heavy the results of the original sin.

Anyway I think that the best is to let speak the Compendium of the Cathechism of Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html)

77 When tempted by the devil, the first man and oman allowed trust in their Creator to die in their hearts. In their disobedience they wished to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God (Genesis 3:5). Thus, Adam and Eve immediately lost for themselves and for all their descendants the original grace of holiness and justice.

78 Original sin, in which all human beings are born, is the state of deprivation of original holiness and justice. It is a sin “contracted” by us not “committed”; it is a state of birth and not a personal act. Because of the original unity of all human beings, it is transmitted to the descendants of Adam “not by imitation, but by propagation”. This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand

79 In consequence of original sin human nature, without being totally corrupted, is wounded in its natural owers. It is subject to ignorance, to suffering, and to the dominion of death and is inclined toward sin. This inclination is called concupiscence

Please consider that the words "guilty" and "punishment" do not appare in this catholic text

The point is not the trasmission of the original sin (that is a mystery as above stated), but how heavy are the results of this sin, in other word how much the man can/must synergically cooperate with Christ (that do NOT means to do without Christ).

Read ad instance:

535 Because through creation God first calls every being from nothingness. Even after the Fall man continues to be capable of recognizing his Creator and retains a desire for the One who has called him into existence. All religions, and the whole history of salvation in particular, bear witness to this human desire for God. It is God first of all, however, who ceaselessly draws every person to the mysterious encounter known as prayer.

I would like Orthodoxes, when they love to criticize the Catholic doctrine, will critize above statments, and not a false understanding of our faith usually present on they sites/books.

Ok from my understanding the Orginal Sin that we inherit is death and (almost) everyone is born with it. But how does this sin relate to spiritual death? IMHO its not the disobedience that was Adams sin, it was pride. Now pride has both a spiritual and physical aspect to it.

Btw, my intentions are not regarding the Immaculate Conception. My apologies if my comments were recieved as such.

 

[Yeznik]

The differences are in both the words used and in understanding, for remember these are different systems, not necessarily divided by regions of the world.

Those protestants who call themselves calvinistic teach total depravity (not found in Scripture) which is false since man is still made in God's image to have the choice and God did not save people before they can believe, while the RC and EC teach accurately the fall, but they appropriate a salvation which can be lost, so this too is wrong.

What then may you ask is God's way of salvation? Well God predestinated by foreknowledge our free-choice (Rom. 8:29) which is a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. This is the position Jacob Arminius held and other saved souls.

Thus, in order to be saved, one must come to the cross as a helpless sinner from the free-choice in His image (fulfilling the condition to receive grace), not by the flesh from the fall. It is a most beautiful salvation that God affords to us who would authentically receive His life. So these are the ones God wants to be with, to walk with, for us to be pillars in the new city.

So I take it that you are presenting the Arminian view of Original Sin? Just an FYI, I am an Armenian (ethnic nationality) not an Arminian.

 

[Reminiscent]

Ok from my understanding the Orginal Sin that we inherit is death and (almost) everyone is born with it.

Don't fall into that trap. Not "amost", but "all". All that is born of the flesh is flesh the Bible says.

But how does this sin relate to spiritual death?

Eternal separation from God.

IMHO its not the disobedience that was Adams sin, it was pride. Now pride has both a spiritual and physical aspect to it.

It was disobedience, it was sin and it was pride. Physicall he was locked out of the garden and man now became flesh. Spiritually, his spirit is shut in and lost communion with God, he vaunted his soul life and smothered his spirit; so, he was separated from God unless he received salvation as did Abel.

Btw, my intentions are not regarding the Immaculate Conception. My apologies if my comments were recieved as such.

We can talk about the dogma of immaculate conception elsewhere on how it violates Scripture that all are flesh because all are born of the flesh.

 

[Reminiscent]

So I take it that you are presenting the Arminian view of Original Sin? Just an FYI, I am an Armenian (ethnic nationality) not an Arminian.

Your discernment is exceptional, for I wrote, "This is the position Jacob Arminius held and other saved souls."

Armenians can be saved too, for God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).

 

[Yeznik]

The differences are in both the words used and in understanding, for remember these are different systems, not necessarily divided by regions of the world.

Those protestants who call themselves calvinistic teach total depravity (not found in Scripture) which is false since man is still made in God's image to have the choice and God did not save people before they can believe, while the RC and EC teach accurately the fall, but they appropriate a salvation which can be lost, so this too is wrong.

What then may you ask is God's way of salvation? Well God predestinated by foreknowledge our free-choice (Rom. 8:29) which is a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. This is the position Jacob Arminius held and other saved souls.

Thus, in order to be saved, one must come to the cross as a helpless sinner from the free-choice in His image (fulfilling the condition to receive grace), not by the flesh from the fall. It is a most beautiful salvation that God affords to us who would authentically receive His life. So these are the ones God wants to be with, to walk with, for us to be pillars in the new city.

Your discernment is exceptional, for I wrote, "This is the position Jacob Arminius held and other saved souls."



Armenians can be saved too (i.e., like Arminian), for God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34).

I like to normally make a note of Arminianism. Once a Calvinist directed a refutation of Arminianism to me in another forum and I was clueless to what that person was talking about.

 

[Reminiscent]

I like to normally make a note of Arminianism. Once a Calvinist directed a refutation of Arminianism to me in another forum and I was clueless to what that person was talking about.

The reason you were clueless was likely do to the fact that it was not a refutation.

 

[seanHayden]

I think the idea that I have sinned as Adam sinned, and not because Adam sinned is worth looking into.

Poor Adam--

 

[Reminiscent]

I think the idea that I have sinned as Adam sinned, and not because Adam sinned is worth looking into.

Then you are not accepting God's Word which says we all sin due to the sin of one man. To deny God's Word in your heart will have consequences.

Adam was rich in himself. If you consider him poor, then how can you be delivered from his rich self life that you have now too?