The concept of Original Sin in the East and West

[Reminiscent]

You'd have to clarify on that. As many times the fathers writings are taken to extremes not meant in their original intent.

St Anslem tried to be metaphysical, but in his attempt to explain the ineffable, he became vertical IMO. IOW making the move from metaphysical to theology.

As I recall he makes five straightforwardly philosophical arguements about metaphysics. He argues for an unmoved mover, an uncaused cause, a necessary being, a maximum being, and an intelligent end, and each of the arguments fits solidly in the tradition of philosophical arguments right up until the last line of each paragraph, where he appends this shift. At the very last line Aquinas turns it, ending each philosophical argument with some variation of the phrase “et hoc dicimus Deum” (and this we call God).

"And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

The reason for this is because you are focused on men and not God's Word.

 

[seanHayden]

Yes. There are sinners who reject God's Word, but by the Holy Spirit my brothers and sisters in Christ stand firm.
The reason you repent is because the human race is responsible for its choices it makes. The human race began with Adam and so all men and women are born into sin which causes us to sin. We don't repent of being born into sin, but of sinning. You don't have to repent for Adam's sin, for he is responsible for his own sin. You do have to repent though for not accepting salvation from sin that you commit. It's a beautiful redemptive design.
Your sinful nature is now your own, but not because you made it, but because you are given it when you were physically born. That is not your fault you were born, it is your fault if you don't receive salvation, because remember, you have a spirit of God-consciousness and are without excuse for not receiving God's love.
He separates the inequity of one person from another by requiring each person to receive the salvation. Therefore, Adam's sin causing you to be born into sin, you are not blamed for being born into sin by Adam, only in not receiving salvation.
Cain was told by God that he needs to give right offering to be saved. Just as Adam was disobedient, so was Cain. They both chose hell of their own accord. Cain was never blamed for being born of his father; he is to be judged for refusing salvation which is why he murdered.
No. God never said he could master it, for only God has the power to provide deliverance; thus, Cain was suppose to give right offering (free-will offering), but refused to. Abel gave right offering.
Yes, God told Cain that he was a sinner because his father is a sinner, so that is why God said He needed a right offering, because all that is born of the flesh is flesh.

What you are promoting is mastering sin by self-strength, but don't realize you don't have the power to master sin. This is called salvation by works and is delusional. A sinner can't save himself. Anyone who is of the flesh sins. There are no exceptions. Only by right offering (coming to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior) can grace enter to receive power over sin.
God never destroyed the world at Noah's flood; it was a local flood. In Genesis 1:2 though He did flood the whole world because of the sin of the inhabitants of Earth's earliest ages.

The reason God caused the local flood was not because we are all born into sin, for this is already a fact known at Gen. 6:3 as evident by sin leads to death and all flesh must die. We are all born of the flesh.

The reason for the flood was because the level of sin reached such proportions it was the only possible remedy in those days; the reason why the flood won't happen again is because of God's grace by the work of the cross has entered, and the veil is now rent.
The flesh is the sin of the body and the self of the soul in its selfishness. If you are born this way, then you cannot avoid sinning, and this is proven by the fact that not a single person in human history has not sinned. No exceptions!

The flesh makes you sin. You are compelled to sin. God therefore treats the flesh as it truly is: it must die! It cannot be reformed or refined or beautified. It is utterly corruptible and it only has one place-its very destruction!

We can not master sin! What we can do is let God's life work in us to render sin powerless by the grace of God. We repent firstly to come to the cross to receive God's gift of eternal life so that our spirit is quickened by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit may come through the window of our conscience to indwell our new life.

If you don't go through this first stage to enter the new creation to receive eternal life today, then your attempt to master sin is vain and pretentious. The reason you choose to not overcome so that sin is not your master is because you seek to be the master which is refusing God's perfect salvation, starting with your denying original sin. If you don't accept original sin, it is your master. Sin has the nasty habit of going dormant only to resurface because the sinner did not let the cross deal with it according to God's design.
When you try to understand with your corrupted mind, you will reach nefarious conclusions. You will need to give up your soul in order to gain it.

Regarding Cain and Able,

"Sin is waiting to attack and destroy you, and you must subdue it."

This translation doesn't hit home very well, but there it is black and white, the very thing you said God didn't say. Gen 4:7

Concerning my salvation--you couldn't be more wrong.

I work for salvation?

Far from it, I can do nothing to earn my salvation.

Stop being the impossible ( either / or ) person!

Oh, and please forgive me if I have insulted you. I am sure you have walked with Lord far longer then myself.

 

[Reminiscent]

Sin is merely missing the mark, as created beings we do that.

Might be hard to support that--eh? Although, I bet its a little more fleshed out then that...

This is easy to support. No human being has never not sinned.

 

[seanHayden]

This is easy to support. No human being has never not sinned.

I was refering to sin being only "missing the mark", but Teke is far smarter then myself, and I know she meant something more as well.

Please don't jumpt to conclusions about me or what I say, if I haven't presented something clearly, I apologize.

 

[Reminiscent]

Yeah, that was somewhat unclear....

I believe that your comments about Anselm to be pretty much spot on. I believe, in many cases, that Aquinas took was Anselm said and ran with it.

Perhaps the most difficult element in the traditional Catholic teaching on original sin is the claim that the very guilt of Adam’s sin has been passed on to the entire race. It was Augustine who, in the course of the Pelagian controversy, first drew this conclusion from St. Paul’s discussion of sin, particularly in the letter to the Romans. Augustine ultimately attributed the transmission to the agency of concupiscence, a less than happy solution. When he came to treat the issue in his Summa, Aquinas shifted the agency from the impetus of concupiscence to the will of the first man, a move of marked importance in the Augustinian tradition.

Both theologians see the unnatural concupiscence inherent in carnal generation as contributing to the propagation of original sin. For Augustine, this itself is the method of original sin's propagation. In violation of the will's rule over the soul, generation occurs and is thus subject to original sin. For Aquinas however, this is only the method by which Adam's will moves his descendants, and thus makes them subject to original sin as participators in his nature. Thus, the distinction between the will (Augustine) and the nature (Aquinas) as to the location of the prime subject of original sin.

However, before getting into a lengthy discussion it is also important to note (which is far too long a discussion for the OP) the somewhat divergent theological views between Augustine and Aquinas on "original justice" - which underpin their somewhat different views on Original Sin. I'm pretty much ignoring Anselm here - while his views are interesting - it is Aquinas' "completion" of Anselm's views which are dominant in the Western Church.

When reading all the various documents one does not find Anselm using Augustine’s term for guilt, reatus, though that is the word that the Council of Trent will use, perhaps pointedly, in its formal teaching on original guilt. Instead, Anselm speaks of the culpa, the fault or blame that each of us bears. The sin of Adam has made all of us accountable. We are all responsible for the sin committed at the origin of our nature, liable for the debt (debitum) which that sin incurred, and yet, to a person, incapable of paying the debt.

Aquinas' views can obviously be found in the Summa. However, the best explanation of Anselm is not found in Why God Became Man, but rather its sequel: On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin.

"Unclear" is the outcroping of men who violate verse 9 as they are always talking about what men say: "And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

Original sin is nothing complicated at all. Adam was disobedient to God's will. God said don't do something and the man did it anyway.

But we are not guilty for what a man did, for that is his responsibility alone. But we are resonsible, being born into sin, if we don't receive salvation.

People try to complicate things for themselves unecessarily which tends to puff up self.

 

[lionroar0]

This has been one of the most charitable threads I have seen REPS for almost everyrone!!!

Peeace

 

[Reminiscent]

Regarding Cain and Able,
"Sin is waiting to attack and destroy you, and you must subdue it."

This translation doesn't hit home very well, but there it is black and white, the very thing you said God didn't say. Gen 4:7

The translation should hit home well to all Christians, for it is the very Word of God. The question then becomes how is it subdued? Do you subdue by your own strength or do you rely on God's strength and mercy? The answer seems clear. There is Cain's choice (your choice) and Abel's choice. Since you know the Bible teaches against salvation by works, you should repent.

Concerning my salvation--you couldn't be more wrong.

I work for salvation?

Far from it, I can do nothing to earn my salvation.

You are working for your salvation by first altering God's Word by denying original sin which is Pelagian and in so doing, living your works from your self-strength founded on this false teaching. God saves those who are repentant of being sinners and accept the fact that all men and women are born into sin. No exceptions!

Stop being the impossible ( either / or ) person!

Either or what? I am having a chuckle. His yoke is easy.

Oh, and please forgive me if I have insulted you. I am sure you have walked with Lord far longer then myself.

I don't recall you insulting me.

 

[Reminiscent]

This has been one of the most charitable threads I have seen REPS for almost everyrone!!!

Peeace

I do what I can.

 

[seanHayden]

The translation should hit home well to all Christians, for it is the very Word of God. The question then becomes how is it subdued? Do you subdue by your own strength or do you rely on God's strength and mercy? The answer seems clear. There is Cain's choice (your choice) and Abel's choice. Since you know the Bible teaches against salvation by works, you should repent.


You are working for your salvation by first altering God's Word by denying orinal sin which is Pelagian and in so doing, living your works from your self-strength founded on this false teaching. God saves those who are repentant of being sinners and accept the fact that all men and women are born into sin. No exceptions!


Either or what? I am having a chuckle. His yoke is easy.


I don't recall you insulting me.

Your adding to the text, clearly it says ( you ) must subdue it. And, the context doesn't support your ( addition ).

Either you agree with original sin, or you work for salvation.

The o'le ( either / or )

I don't deny I am a sinner, that is what is important.

I don't think I sinned because Adam sinned, but as Adam sinned.

Maybe I can put it another way for you, if it were me in the garden, Eve wouldn't have sinned, for their would have been no fruit left!

But hey, either I accept your teaching, or....

 

[Reminiscent]

Your adding to the text, clearly it says ( you ) must subdue it. And, the context doesn't support your ( addition ).

You're just overlooking text surrounding Genesis 4:7.

When they grew up, Abel became a shepherd, while Cain was a farmer. At harvesttime Cain brought to the Lord a gift of his farm produce, while Abel brought several choice lambs from the best of his flock. The Lord accepted Abel and his offering, but he did not accept Cain and his offering. This made Cain very angry and dejected. (Gen. 4:3-5)

Cain worked for his offering, Abel did not.

"Why are you so angry?" the Lord asked him. "Why do you look so dejected? You will be accepted if you respond in the right way. But if you refuse to respond correctly, then watch out! Sin is waiting to attack and destroy you, and you must subdue it." (Gen. 4:6-7).

That is why I said "There is Cain's choice (your choice) and Abel's choice. Since you know the Bible teaches against salvation by works, you should repent."

Either you agree with original sin, or you work for salvation.

You can also agree with original sin, but still be lazy or try to work by your own self. Knowing something in the head and abiding in that truth to what needs to be done for salvation is another thing.

You can't work for salvation. God never saved a single soul who worked for salvation. If you continue to do so you are only deluding yourself.

The o'le ( either / or )

Is that pig latin?

I don't deny I am a sinner, that is what is important.

Knowing one is a sinner and receiving the cross is what is important, not claiming you are a sinning because of you, but because you were born into sin.

I don't think I sinned because Adam sinned, but as Adam sinned.

God said in John 3:6 you sinned because you were born into sin and all people born into sin, do sin. That is the proper cause and effect. If you don't accept this then if you are the one who caused you to be a sinner, then by self works you can change yourself without God's help.

Maybe I can put it another way for you, if it were me in the garden, Eve wouldn't have sinned, for their would have been no fruit left!

That is silly nonsense. Again, see how you are trying to usurp yourself above God. You think if you eat all the fruit sinning over and over, like a gluttonous old man, that that will stop Eve from sinning. Or maybe you will cut down the tree and hide it from view. Silly nonsense. Don't you know that hiding the fruit or eating yourself is a sin, because you are trying to be cunning and couth.

But hey, either I accept your teaching, or....

All I know is the Bible says we shall know them by their fruit, and you do try desperately to alter God's Word. What is one to think about you then?

 

[Tonks]

"And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

The reason for this is because you are focused on men and not God's Word.

This really has nothing to do with that at all, in fact. The origins a lot of Christian theology - both East and West - are lost to the mists of time. Patristic study allows all Christians to see the first fundamentalists, as it were. Is God three in one or one in three? Is God three? Are there two natures and two wills? Does God's human will exist in some sort of lesser state than his Divine will? What is sin?

Christianity, to a degree, is indeed a religion of the Book. However, the Early Church Fathers let us know why this is so. A modern Christian can point to the Scriptures and rattle off why we believe in the Trinity and how the Gospels, as the summit of Sacred Scripture reveal to man the mysteries of faith.

But, and it is a big but, those that walked with the Incarnate Word - and their contemporaries and those that followed after did not always have such a clear cut idea of why Christians believed what they did.

Original Sin is so much more than you make it out to be. Indeed, the birth pangs of the Reformation and the theologians that came from it owe a great deal to the Early Church - particularly the Latin fathers.

 

[Tonks]

There is guilt offerings in the OT and sacrifices. A seared conscience senses no guilt, denying the sins one commits.

Again, the comments between Teke and I really have nothing to do with this. There are two entirely different theological traditions - East and West - that follow different courses. That's the discussion.

 

[scandinavian19]

Adam was the federal head of the human race.


Rom. 5:12-14, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."
However, the penalty of Adam's sin is reconciled by Christ.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[Tonks]

Adam was the federal head of the human race.


Rom. 5:12-14, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."
However, the penalty of Adam's sin is reconciled by Christ.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Yes, but to take it back to the OP, Scripture says one thing but what do you believe are the effects of Original Sin? How is it transmitted? IS it transmitted?

I can't self-interpret your Scripture interpretation...

 

[Reminiscent]

This really has nothing to do with that at all, in fact. The origins a lot of Christian theology - both East and West - are lost to the mists of time.

No. The Word has been with us and remains to this day.

Patristic study allows all Christians to see the first fundamentalists, as it were. Is God three in one or one in three? Is God three?

God is Triune and He is One Being in 3 Persons.

Actually Patristic study is men that came later and they all had their varying views that contradicted each other. That's why the Bible says,

"And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

Revelation 2 & 3 also depicted propblems in the church periods of the past 20 centuries.

Are there two natures and two wills? Does God's human will exist in some sort of lesser state than his Divine will? What is sin?

Jesus emptied Himself of His independent attributes when He broke into creation to make Himself in the likeness of flesh for the atonement.

God only has one nature, His nature, which is holiness. But when the 2nd Person broke into creation He became a man so that He was both God and man. He had His will as a man and always did God's will perfectly.

Sin is a mistaken assumption. The will of Jesus when He was on Earth was not two wills. All these things are shown in the Word. You don't need to call men fathers to hear their contradicting ideas to decide these truths.

Christianity, to a degree, is indeed a religion of the Book. However, the Early Church Fathers let us know why this is so. A modern Christian can point to the Scriptures and rattle off why we believe in the Trinity and how the Gospels, as the summit of Sacred Scripture reveal to man the mysteries of faith.

These men you idolize in their contrardictory beliefs, you did not need to go to them to know the truth that religion is the worship of God, having a relationship with the Son (66 books of God's Word), by communion with the Holy Spirit indwelling.

But, and it is a big but, those that walked with the Incarnate Word - and their contemporaries and those that followed after did not always have such a clear cut idea of why Christians believed what they did.

That is why the rest of the NT had not yet been written at that time.

Original Sin is so much more than you make it out to be. Indeed, the birth pangs of the Reformation and the theologians that came from it owe a great deal to the Early Church - particularly the Latin fathers.

Original sin is not more. Men always like to add more. It is not more. If it were more surely someone could have shown by now from the Word.

The Reformation is associated with calvinism which is false since God does not save people before they can believe. It would stand to reason that if you had error in men you call your fathers, you will have error in groups that rely on those errors as did those in the Reformation.

I can't reach your conscience if you don't let it be reached when the Bible says don't call any man your father.

 

[Vedant]

My understanding of original sin is that it is a concept of Western Catholicism in that it is something that we hold, a lack of grace. Some protestants have understood this to mean more, that we hold original guilt. In Eastern and I believe Oriental Orthodoxy, sin can only be actions that go against God's will, and not something that can be held. Everyone today is born into a world of fallen nature unlike the perfect world that God created.

 

[Reminiscent]

Again, the comments between Teke and I really have nothing to do with this. There are two entirely different theological traditions - East and West - that follow different courses. That's the discussion.

It really does have something to do with this since you mention guilt from Adam as a RC teaching, and in comparision to east and west, we should also discern what is true and what is not true. If all you do is compare and not see the truth, what good would that be to you?

That is why I said to indicate guilt does come from our sinning, though not from the sin of another man,

"There is guilt offerings in the OT and sacrifices. A seared conscience senses no guilt, denying the sins one commits."

 

[Tonks]

Actually Patristic study is men that came later and they all had their varying views that contradicted each other. That's why the Bible says...

Um, the study of Ante-Nicene Fathers include many that wrote before the the Scriptures were canonized. Indeed, particularly with many of the Pauline epistles there is zero evidence to support the (very wrong) idea that Paul (or whomever wrote them) had any inkling that they'd even be Scripture.

This isn't really a thread to discuss your incorrect views of the word "Father" or discussion of the Hypostatic Union and the various heresies associated with alternate views. My statements were only examples of what the early church was dealing with.

That is why the rest of the NT had not yet been written at that time.

Which, again, is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. Just as Scripture did not fall from the sky neither did understanding of the word (Remember, Logos = The Word = Christ...graphe = writing = the Bible. The Bible is not the Word as the Bible is not Christ).

The Reformation is associated with calvinism which is false since God does not save people before they can believer.

The Reformation has to do with much more than Calvinism.

Please stick to the OP and don't clutter the thread.

 

[Reminiscent]

Adam was the federal head of the human race.


Rom. 5:12-14, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come."
However, the penalty of Adam's sin is reconciled by Christ.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

So simple, so true.

 

[Reminiscent]

Um, the study of Ante-Nicene Fathers include many that wrote before the the Scriptures were canonized.

Men's cannonizing was not the deciding factor. The Word was already completely given before then.

Indeed, particularly with many of the Pauline epistles there is zero evidence to support the (very wrong) idea that Paul (or whomever wrote them) had any inkling that they'd even be Scripture.

Paul wrote them, and Paul knew by the Holy Spirit they were the Word of God. He knew what he wrote was God's will and would be included in God's Word. Many times he mentions God's approval. There may be other things Paul wrote that he was unsure about it, but these things he did write in the Word he knew.

This isn't really a thread to discuss your incorrect views of the word "Father" or discussion of the Hypostatic Union and the various heresies associated with alternate views. My statements were only examples of what the early church was dealing with.

The word is not "Father", for this is the name of the first Person of the Godhead.

Rather, what I posted was this verse: "And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, [even] he who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

Call no man your father as we see this sin being committed here by some calling men their "church fathers".

False views would not doubt include slants on the Word that are not right by violating Matt. 23:9.

The early church should not be deemed church fathers, but the early church was before that, in the Ephesus church period of the first century (Read Revelation 2).

Which, again, is wholly irrelevant to the discussion. Just as Scripture did not fall from the sky neither did understanding of the word (Remember, Logos = The Word = Christ...graphe = writing = the Bible. The Bible is not the Word as the Bible is not Christ).

It is not irrelevant. If you make a point which is false, the explanation is forthcoming. It therefore, is relevant.

The 66 books of God's Bible are the embodiment of Christ the Word in written form.

The Reformation has to do with much more than Calvinism.

All that flows from calvinism is wrong since the foundation of calvinism is wrong. As long is this is recognized. People often overlook this.

So as not to create confusion God prefers we say the Sardis church period which started with Luther's justification by faith and various revivals. But they were problematic because it is like emptying a glass of water to only fill it up again with less water.

Please stick to the OP and don't clutter the thread.

My posts have stuck and did not clutter. When accuse falsely?