The concept of Original Sin in the East and West

[Tonks]

 

[Reminiscent]

Frivilous posts clutter, we don't need to know you are sleepy, just a suggestion

 

[Tonks]

Frivilous posts clutter, we don't need to know you are sleepy, just a suggestion

I know. I'd just rather talk about Eastern vs. Western views of Original Sin than have to wade through posts about "calling no man father" which are best served in another thread.

 

[Reminiscent]

I know. I'd just rather talk about Eastern vs. Western views of Original Sin than have to wade through posts about "calling no man father" which are best served in another thread.

I know what you are saying, but hear me out.

The Holy Spirit has shown me that in regards to east and west, there are some who are contending for original sin not being what it plainly is because their motivation is to say: if the original sin did no transfer to us all then maybe there could be a sinless woman they can worship in the east. So God says we can see through them by testing the spirits and to see if they violate Scripture when it says call no man your father.

We notice the word “church fathers” being used quite often and without consideration for other Christians, particularly before those men, or from different church periods (Rev. 2 & 3) in talking about east and west beliefs. Little is mentioned of God’s Word either, just these so-called church fathers.

Do you see this idol problem you present? It’s easy to see if eyes are open. There is nothing particularly noticeable in these idols, as they have many contradictory views. My advice would be to keep it to the topic of the thread and not about male idols you call church fathers from a particular era.

If the Bible warns about this obsession, perhaps you should consider the warning of the Bible, after all, it is for good reason as it would present some false teaching you would be committed to as a result of holding this church fathers idolatry.

 

[Theophorus]

I have a couple of questions.

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

Out of these "66" books, which were written by the finger of God? And where do you get 66 from? This is relevant to your assertions.

I know what you are saying, but hear me out.

The Holy Spirit has shown me that in regards to east and west, there are some who are contending for original sin not being what it plainly is because their motivation is to say: if the original sin did no transfer to us all then maybe there could be a sinless woman they can worship in the east. So God says we can see through them by testing the spirits and to see if they violate Scripture when it says call no man your father.

We notice the word “church fathers” being used quite often and without consideration for other Christians, particularly before those men, or from different church periods (Rev. 2 & 3) in talking about east and west beliefs. Little is mentioned of God’s Word either, just these so-called church fathers.

Do you see this idol problem you present? It’s easy to see if eyes are open. There is nothing particularly noticeable in these idols, as they have many contradictory views. My advice would be to keep it to the topic of the thread and not about male idols you call church fathers from a particular era.

If the Bible warns about this obsession, perhaps you should consider the warning of the Bible, after all, it is for good reason as it would present some false teaching you would be committed to as a result of holding this church fathers idolatry.

The problem here is that the EO and RC agree on 99.9% percent of the bible. So, what is the source of our differences? But also, what is the source of the non EO and RC differences?

As many have maybe noticed, it's hard to seperate the RC and the EO with the scriptures.

 

[a_ntv]

We notice the word “church fathers” being used quite often and without consideration for other Christians, particularly before those men, or from different church periods (Rev. 2 & 3) in talking about east and west beliefs. Little is mentioned of God’s Word either, just these so-called church fathers.

Do you see this idol problem you present? It’s easy to see if eyes are open. There is nothing particularly noticeable in these idols, as they have many contradictory views. My advice would be to keep it to the topic of the thread and not about male idols you call church fathers from a particular era.

If we stay ONLY on the Bible, also JW interpetation (or even worse ones) shall be considered.
The difference between Christians on CF and JW is only that we held a very particular interpretation of the Bible (the Nicean creed), that is a job of Church Fathers, who were (globally and not individually) inspired by the Holy Spirt like the authors of the Bible were.


Back to the OP:
The problem of the OP (the idea of original sin) is that the Church Fathers before Augustine never discussed deeply on it. We have only some ideas (quite contraddictory and not developed).
Differently from us, the early Church Fathers were by far more interested in Christ/God by itself rather than the meaning of Christ/God for the man.

Any question about the man point of view (how can I be saved, what is the use of the cross for me, how I got the original sin..) was not developed by the early Fathers, because their huge faith moved their attenction from the man to Christ/God, and so they prefered to discuss deeply the natureof Christ/God.

That is a very good teaching: we shall move our attenction on Christ, forgetting to try to answer questions like: "how can I be saved, how I got the original sin".
So the best attitude is to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church (as usally), and do NOT question too much about how the original sin is trasmitted, but simply state with the point 78 of the CCCC (see my post #10): This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand

 

[Reminiscent]

Out of these "66" books, which were written by the finger of God?

All of them.

And where do you get 66 from? This is relevant to your assertions.

66 comes from the fact that these 66 books agree perfectly and no other book does that is added.

The problem here is that the EO and RC agree on 99.9% percent of the bible. So, what is the source of our differences?

I prefer to deal in specifics.

But also, what is the source of the non EO and RC differences?

I prefer to deal in specifics.

As many have maybe noticed, it's hard to seperate the RC and the EO with the scriptures.

Hence, Pergamum and Thyatira are next to each other and we are warned about the woman in Revelation 17.

 

[Reminiscent]

If we stay ONLY on the Bible, also JW interpetation (or even worse ones) shall be considered.

That's not true. Jesus is God in the Bible, but JW's don't believe Jesus is God.

The difference between Christians on CF and JW is only that we held a very particular interpretation of the Bible (the Nicean creed), that is a job of Church Fathers, who were (globally and not individually) inspired by the Holy Spirt like the authors of the Bible were.

There is nothing wrong with the Nicean creed, but it doesn't touch on many many issues which shows the false fruit of many at CF who say they are Christians. Many who believe in the Nicean creed are not saved. You'll have to dig deeper than that.

Back to the OP:
The problem of the OP (the idea of original sin) is that the Church Fathers before Augustine never discussed deeply on it. We have only some ideas (quite contraddictory and not developed).
Differently from us, the early Church Fathers were by far more interested in Christ/God by itself rather than the meaning of Christ/God for the man.

It is inconsequential to spiritual Christians. It does not impact their spiritual life or spiritual knowledge in any way whatsoever, no matter how much you obsess over these men you call your fathers.

Any question about the man point of view (how can I be saved, what is the use of the cross for me, how I got the original sin..) was not developed by the early Fathers, because their huge faith moved their attenction from the man to Christ/God, and so they prefered to discuss deeply the natureof Christ/God.

It is was already developed in the Word of God. What you call huge is just the norm for a Christian. My advice is stop idolizing men and calling them your fathers, even Fathers.

That is a very good teaching: we shall move our attenction on Christ, forgetting to try to answer questions like: "how can I be saved, how I got the original sin".

These are not mutually exclusive matters. All the Word of God is profitable. You should never forget how to save a person to lead them to Christ nor how you got original sin into you: all that is born of the flesh is flesh.

So the best attitude is to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church (as usally), and do NOT question too much about how the original sin is trasmitted, but simply state with the point 78 of the CCCC (see my post #10): This transmission remains a mystery which we cannot fully understand

The best attitude is not to follow the RC because it has some very false teachings. Christians know how the original sin was transmitted as was shown. It is not an issue for us. The transmission is no mystery for born-again believers which we fully understand as is disclosed in the Word.

 

[Reminiscent]

I want to make a committment to the Lord today on something so that it is my testimony to angels and men of the power of the Holy Spirit to working a deeper incision into my life by the cross.

My desire is to not post again at CF for the rest of this year (and God willing even longer), because there is nothing here for Christians. The RC and EO false teachings breath down peoples' necks as you would expect: human worship (a Mary goddess), not accepting transmission of the original sin (for the goddess), popery, intermediary priesthood, amillennialism, preterism (partial or full), and postmillennialism, having no faith God gives eternal life at new birth (not accepting God's infinite foreknowledge for OSAS), many levels of bureaucracy beyond the workers in the NT, not convicting thousands of pedophiles, abusiveness towards women (women can't be workers in the highest positions), paying money for indulgences, adding books to God's Word (Rev. 22.18,19). There is a bunch of seemingly lesser items.

May this testimony and awareness give you peace and deliverance to strengthen your spirit to resist too by the Holy Spirit.

Thankyou Jesus.

 

[Tonks]

I want to make a committment to the Lord today on something so that it is my testimony to angels and men of the power of the Holy Spirit to working a deeper incision into my life by the cross.

Good for you. We are called to pick up the Cross and follow for our entire lives.

My desire is to not post again at CF for the rest of this year (and God willing even longer), because there is nothing here for Christians.

I'm guessing the non-Catholics and Orthodox, particularly those that classify themselves as Bible believing would take offense to that statement.

The RC and EO false teachings breath down peoples' necks as you would expect

Well, it was a thread about the differences between Catholic (Western) and Orthodox (Eastern) theology on Original Sin. I'm shocked and appalled that we decided to discuss it with charity.

human worship (a Mary goddess)

Provide the relevant material where either a) Catholics or b) Orthodox consider the Theotokos divine and then we can talk.

not accepting transmission of the original sin (for the goddess)

You incorrectly lump together Catholics and Orthodox on this one. Had you read the thread, or done any reading on Orthodox theology, you'd realize that we're a bit far apart on this one.

popery

Since the Pope wasn't really discussed in this thread this must be the typical evangelical ad hominem.

intermediary priesthood

Which is entirely Biblical. Of course, it seems that some can't be bothered with a Scriptural discussion that is different from their own beliefs.

amillennialism

Which is the historic position of the Church be it Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, Reform etc.

preterism (partial or full)

You'll find very few full preterists around here. There are, much like most of Christianity, many partial preterists - they have been blessed with understanding what constituted apocryphal literature. It is, once again, the orthodox Christian position for whichever denominational flavor you choose.

and postmillennialism

Eschatology is down the hall.

having no faith God gives eternal life at new birth (not accepting God's infinite foreknowledge for OSAS)

I'd be happy to have a discussion if you'd point to where, in Christian history, this belief developed. Again, is it not the position of any of the historic Churches nor is it the position of any of the mainlines either.

many levels of beauracracy beyond the workers in the NT

not convicting thousands of pedophiles

which has zero to do with anything salvific. besides, you must not have been watching the news the past few years.

abusiveness towards women (women can't be workers in the highest positions)

If you can point to me in Scripture where this was deemed acceptable then we can talk. This is more a product of the "me" generation. It is quite anti-Biblical.

paying money for indulgences

Ah, that old canard...I thought you had previously mentioned that the Reformation was only about the Calvinists and that "everybody knew that"??? Whaaa happened?

adding books to God's Word (Rev. 22.18,19)

Two things: one, that passage applies specifically to the
Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle and 2) we have the exact same 27 book New Testament. I won't bother getting into the fact that the Apostles used the Septuagint.

May the give you this deliverance also to strengthen your spirit to resist.

And the same to you. Seems like only yesterday you arrived.

 

[Teke]

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.

So do you see these fathers as leading the Latins in another direction than that of the Greek fathers?

I see the eastern view formed mainly from the protology and eschatology of the Greek fathers. St Basil excels the other Cappodocian fathers on this subject, especially in his writing "On the Human Condition". Writing on the "thumos" and desire being the nonrational faculties.

 

[Tonks]

So do you see these fathers as leading the Latins in another direction than that of the Greek fathers?

In many respects I think that very argument can be made. The reasons, however, are not as clear-cut as either the Catholics or the Orthodox would have us believe. Further, outside of the earliest Fathers the exposure to the Greeks in the West was about as minimal as the Latins in the East.

Specifically dealing with the OP, I think that part of it has to do with the relative lack of exposure that the East had to Augustine. Though Pelagianism was condemned at at both Councils of Carthage (which were ratifed at Ephesus), ideas about Pelagianism continued to percolate in certain areas of the West for quite some time after. In many respects, down the "Western" view was quite far down the list of theological issues when it came to the Schism - much of "modern" Catholic thought is directly tied to Aquinas - be it the concrete stylings of the IC, indulgences et al.

I believe that Bishop Ware, in one of his books, also remarked something to effect of that we always much remember the geographical location of Rome. Even beyond some of the political / ethnic / etc tensions between Rome and Constantinople, Rome was the only Western outpost of all the Apostolic Sees. Consequently, she had to deal with a whole host of issues that cropped up -theological or otherwise - that the other Sees did not for reasons of proximity, similar ethnic backgrounds, and theological outlook.

I'm certainly not offering the above as an apologia but I think that is important to note the circumstances differed (sometimes wildly) even during the earliest times of the unified Church.

(I think it was Ware. I've read so much about Orthodoxy lately I may be confusing my authors....)

 

[Teke]

Actually Tonks, the church of Rome only had to deal with what they decided to. To present time, they do the same. In this EO differs. The Orthodox only deal with that which pertains to the Church.

Orthodoxy is far less beauracratic than Rome on personal issues, such as divorce and abortion. I say personal issues, because they do not directly effect the Church, but only the individuals involved.

Which is why people don't see Orthodox making statements that could be misunderstood as laws of the church, or that which infringes on christian liberty.

I know of more than a couple of catholics who were excommunicated because of paper work dealing with divorce and the church. And your basic layperson doesn't understand this (nor the myraid of other legalities associated in church documents with Vatican councils and rulings), also seeing it as very impersonal on the church's part.

So Rome winds up looking like the legal ruler, and Orthodoxy like the slackers who don't mind much.

The Church was never called to judge people and raise a standard for the downtrodden of the world. The Church was called to care for them.

Just because science and society along with the media come up with all sorts of senstional news, doesn't mean the Church must respond to such things. ie. the latest stem cell research, what does that have to do with the church

 

[Tonks]

None of which has anything to do with Original Sin.

[edit] To clarify, my post really had nothing to do with various issues of authority but to also shed light on some of the other issues surrouding the Latin and Greek Fathers - particularly since while the Church did deal with things ecumenically through the councils there was a reduced (to the point that it pretty much stopped) cross pollination of theology as each side stuck to their own language.

 

[a_ntv]

Orthodoxy is far less beauracratic than Rome on personal issues, such as divorce and abortion. I say personal issues, because they do not directly effect the Church, but only the individuals involved.

Which is why people don't see Orthodox making statements that could be misunderstood as laws of the church, or that which infringes on christian liberty.

I know of more than a couple of catholics who were excommunicated because of paper work dealing with divorce and the church. And your basic layperson doesn't understand this (nor the myraid of other legalities associated in church documents with Vatican councils and rulings), also seeing it as very impersonal on the church's part.

So Rome winds up looking like the legal ruler, and Orthodoxy like the slackers who don't mind much.

The Church was never called to judge people and raise a standard for the downtrodden of the world. The Church was called to care for them.

Just because science and society along with the media come up with all sorts of senstional news, doesn't mean the Church must respond to such things. ie. the latest stem cell research, what does that have to do with the church

Beauracratic on personal issues, such as divorce and abortion ??????

Are you joking? It is NOT a problem of Burocracy!!!

Unfortunatly the Catholic way is very difficoult: Christ over ANY OTHER thing.

But that was the same once a time also for the EO Churches...but now they are watered by protestant liberalism: it is not enough to have a rich Liturgy to be 'sacred and ancient': it is requested also a brave effort to teach the truth, even if un-easy and un-pleasant

 

[Teke]

Your both right, I was out of line. It's not my place to speak against the structural set up of the Roman see. (tho it's also my choice to not put myself under it)

Sorry for getting carried away in my previous post.

Let's stay neutral and look at the subject from the church fathers in relation to their views on protology and eschatology, and if they spoke directly on original sin, lets look at that.

I've already mentioned St Basil. What Latin fathers would you refer to?

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

IF we did NOT carry the 'effects' of the original sin, then we would have no need for baptism. Would we? We know baptism is part of the sacramental order to cleanse ourself of the origin[al] of sin....and also any sins committed to that point [if an adult] due to the origin[al] of sin.
I highlighted your next sentence...because the sin of pride led to the disobedience.

Just because science and society along with the media come up with all sorts of senstional news, doesn't mean the Church must respond to such things. ie. the latest stem cell research, what does that have to do with the church

WE are supposed to give a voice for those who do not have a voice to be heard. IE...we speak for those who cannot speak. Speak means to open mouth and talk...and say something and of course of the direct issue for those unable to do so.
Yes the Church MUST respond..they cannot be silent. There is such a thing as a sin by silence. It will come to me....maybe by Monday. lol

Let's stay neutral and look at the subject from the church fathers in relation to their views on protology and eschatology, and if they spoke directly on original sin, lets look at that.

St Augustine was really clear about original sin.

 

[Tonks]

I've already mentioned St Basil. What Latin fathers would you refer to?

I'm going to punt - sort of - on that one. Augustine, as noted before, is the leading proponent of the Latin view of OS up until Anselm et al got into the act. When I say punt that's because I'm including Tertullian (who, as we know, unfortunately died a Montanist) and St. Cyprian who are, properly, Ante-Nicene Fathers.

I realize that there is some contention between the East and the West over St. Cyprian (at times). I include them both because they were the first to really write in Latin.

I'll further punt by adding that St. Augustine was shows a substantial degree of influence owing to the Alexandrian school - as shown by Clement's Stromata bits above - as well as bit and pieces from Origen. Sadly, Augustine also shows a certain Marcion influence from which he would never escape.

Dealing specifically with the Latin Fathers (instead of chief writers of the West where I'd lump Tertullian et al) Hilary of Poitiers in the third century and (notably) Ambrose in the fourth century. Indeed, in Augustine's works on Original Sin, Ambrose - in particular - is often cited. St. Jerome shows up a bit as well.

Augustine showed an interest towards the doctrine of man in Tertullian that was not present in the Eastern Fathers of his day. This is significant considering Tertullian was a 2nd century Father and was not close in time to the heresy of Pelagius.

Historians and Augustine himself show that Cyprian believed the will was totally dependent upon divine grace in conversion and in all things. Hilary taught original sin without using the term, and also asserted that regeneration and faith were both unconditional gifts of God. With respect to Ambrose (who I could talk all night about) remember, Augustine was taught and baptized by Ambrose. His influence is in evidence pretty much everywhere.

I'm still at work (yay Friday night) but when I get home I'll be able to look at all the things that I've saved on the ol 'puter so we can delve deeper into to the why and theology instead of just the "who."

 

[WarriorAngel]

I'm going to punt - sort of - on that one. Augustine, as noted before, is the leading proponent of the Latin view of OS up until Anselm et al got into the act. When I say punt that's because I'm including Tertullian (who, as we know, unfortunately died a Montanist) and St. Cyprian who are, properly, Ante-Nicene Fathers.

I realize that there is some contention between the East and the West over St. Cyprian (at times). I include them both because they were the first to really write in Latin.

I'll further punt by adding that St. Augustine was shows a substantial degree of influence owing to the Alexandrian school - as shown by Clement's Stromata bits above - as well as bit and pieces from Origen. Sadly, Augustine also shows a certain Marcion influence from which he would never escape.

Dealing specifically with the Latin Fathers (instead of chief writers of the West where I'd lump Tertullian et al) Hilary of Poitiers in the third century and (notably) Ambrose in the fourth century. Indeed, in Augustine's works on Original Sin, Ambrose - in particular - is often cited. St. Jerome shows up a bit as well.

Augustine showed an interest towards the doctrine of man in Tertullian that was not present in the Eastern Fathers of his day. This is significant considering Tertullian was a 2nd century Father and was not close in time to the heresy of Pelagius.

Historians and Augustine himself show that Cyprian believed the will was totally dependent upon divine grace in conversion and in all things. Hilary taught original sin without using the term, and also asserted that regeneration and faith were both unconditional gifts of God. With respect to Ambrose (who I could talk all night about) remember, Augustine was taught and baptized by Ambrose. His influence is in evidence pretty much everywhere.

I'm still at work (yay Friday night) but when I get home I'll be able to look at all the things that I've saved on the ol 'puter so we can delve deeper into to the why and theology instead of just the "who."

What I find maddening most about you dear is the fact I cannot rep you.

 

[Theophorus]

IF we did NOT carry the 'effects' of the original sin, then we would have no need for baptism. Would we? We know baptism is part of the sacramental order to cleanse ourself of the origin[al] of sin....and also any sins committed to that point [if an adult] due to the origin[al] of sin.

The effects of original sin I agree with. That being a nature no longer in communion with God.
We have a need for baptism two fold, Yes it washes our sins away, but ours only. It does not take away the sin of Adam, because we still die.