The concept of Original Sin in the East and West

[a_ntv]

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.

We do a dinstiction between sin and result of sin.

If Bill kills Bob, Bill makes a sin (=he chosed something in you life more important than God and so he wanted to break the Communion with Him), but Bob is death.
Now Bill repents, is sorrow and he wants to re-estabilish the Communion with God (he prays, he asks forgiveness, he confesses).
But Bob is still death: that is a result of the sin !

With baptism we can re-estabilish a communion with God, but the results of the previous lack of communion (that we call it improperly 'original sin') still remains: concupiscence and (first) death.

Ok the power of Jesus on the Cross is like a new creation, and so it both allows us to re-estabilish Communion with Him and also heals the results of sin:
- the re-estabilishment of Communion with Him (that is the more important think) is effective by His Risen
- the healing of the results of sin is only partially effective now, while this healing will be fully effective in the Last Days when he will come again.

P.S.: I've found this doctrine is also in the two book of Orthodox Theology I've read

 

[Tonks]

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.

Is your issue one that deals more with the transmission aspects of the Catholic dogma?

 

[Theophorus]

With baptism we can re-estabilish a communion with God, but the results of the previous lack of communion (that we call it improperly 'original sin') still remains: concupiscence and (first) death.

Ok. This I agree with. So there is the distinction.

Is your issue one that deals more with the transmission aspects of the Catholic dogma?

I don't think so . It is more the nature or ontology. The view of the fallen creation as a whole.

 

[Tonks]

I don't think so. It is more the nature or ontology. The view of the fallen creation as a whole.

Gotcha. I've just seen what I asked in a list of Orthodox apologetics on the issue. I am beginning to perfer the Eastern view, but that's another discussion.

 

[a_ntv]

I don't think so . It is more the nature or ontology. The view of the fallen creation as a whole.

The Catholic way of see the 'orginal sin' is nowaday exactly the one of Orthodoxes, and moved far away from a certain Augustinian Middle-age view that is now held by many protestants.

Read the Compendium of the Cathechism of The Catholic Church:
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


We can point out following points:

- the 'original sin' is a state, not a act: it plays on the ground of the onthology not on the one of guilt.

- anyway the result of o.s. is NOT a complete corruption of our nature, but simply a wound. The man is anyway capable to be in synergy with God: 535 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. This statment of the Cathechism could be held by Orthodoxes but surely NOT by Luther and Calvin.

- transmission as a mystery, not as something that passes in the sperm of the Father (Augustin + some portestants on CF)

To differentiate from the CC, many Orthodoxes say that the 'original sin' is not a sin but a ill of the man: we say that the original sin is a state of wound: I see no difference in these two view.ss The huge difference in towards who consider the o.s. as a 'guilt' that cancels everything good can be found in the human nature (including the be image of God)

 

[Teke]

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.

Just to add (especially for Protestants reading along)
The Orthodox baptism represents even more. It follows the OT pattern of entrance into the priesthood/Church. Just as in the OT the priest was washed, anointed and robed, so does the Orthodox pattern follow.

The cleansing from sin is a part of the "setting apart"/holy/sanctifying process of beginning ministry with the Church. We see this from Jesus own example. He was not baptised to cleanse Him from sin, but to sanctify Himself for our sakes (John 17:19), His ministry, which is the same ministry of the Church.

So the "cleansing from sin" aspect is one that is an act of faith in the promise of the revelation of the Son. That being effectual in our healing from sin. (first thing you do with a wound, is clean it). The Church then begins His work of healing the wound. Luke 10s parable (the wounded man/sinner, the Samaritian/Jesus and the Inn/Church) makes this very clear, even down to the price (two pence) He gives the inn keeper, which is the equivalent of the price of a soul in the OT (by weight).

The Lord leaves us in the care of His Body the Church.

 

[Teke]

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."

Thought from St Irenaeus of Lyons likely defines Orthodoxy best. As Orthodox hold the Incarnation as central to their school of thought. St Irenaeus sees it as the Orthodox do, "recapitulation", summing up life. This is also related in our teachings on theosis.

Thought of Irenaeus

Irenæus had clearly taken great pains to understand the various heretical systems which he describes. His mode of exposing and refuting these is generally very effective. It is plain that he possessed a good share of learning, and that he had a firm grasp of the doctrines of Scripture. Not unfrequently he indulges in a kind of sarcastic humour, while inveighing against the folly and impiety of the heretics.


A central point of Irenaeus' theology is the unity of God, in opposition to the Gnostics' division of God into a number of divine "Aeons", and their distinction between the "High God" and the wicked "Demiurge" who created the world. Irenaeus uses the Logos theology he inherited from Justin Martyr, but prefers to speak of the Son and the Spirit as the "hands of God." Christ, for him, is the invisible Father made visible.


Irenaeus' emphasis on the unity of God is reflected in his corresponding emphasis on the unity of salvation history. Irenaeus repeatedly insists that God created the world and has been overseeing it ever since. Everything that has happened is part of his plan for humanity. The essence of this plan is maturation: Irenaeus believes that humanity was created immature, and God intended his creatures to take a long time to grow into his likeness. Thus, Adam and Eve were created as children. Their Fall was thus not a full-blown rebellion but a childish spat, a desire to grow up before their time and have everything now.


Everything that has happened since has therefore been planned by God to help humanity overcome this and grow up. The world has been designed by God as a difficult place, where human beings are forced to make moral decisions - only in this way can they mature. Irenaeus likens death to the whale that swallowed Jonah: it was only in the depths of the whale's belly that Jonah could turn to God and do his will. Similarly, death and suffering appear evil, but without them we could never come to know God.


The high point in salvation history is Jesus. Irenaeus believes that Christ would always have been sent, even if humanity had never sinned; but the fact that they did sin determines his role as a saviour. He sees Christ as the new Adam, who systematically undoes what Adam did: thus, where Adam was disobedient about the fruit of a tree, Christ was obedient even to death on the wood of a tree. Irenaeus is the first to draw comparisons between Eve and Mary, contrasting the faithlessness of the former with the faithfulness of the latter. In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity.

Irenaeus thus thinks that our salvation comes about, essentially, through the incarnation of God as man. He characterises the penalty for sin as death and corruption. God, however, is immortal and incorruptible, and simply by becoming united to human nature in Christ he conveys those qualities to us: they spread, as it were, like a benign infection. Irenaeus therefore understands the atonement of Christ as happening through his incarnation rather than his crucifixion, although the latter is an integral part of the former.


http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/irenaeus.htm#thought

This is likely why many think Orthodox do not make so big a deal about sin. Sin is not a curse, man was not cursed. Sin is more like an illness that needs treatment. Sin and repentance build immunity to the disease and healing becomes effected.
This is also observed in the created order, or nature of things in the result. Historically we've seen geographic locals undergo terrible plagues and diseases, those who survived them also passed along an immunity to later generations from those very ills.

 

[Teke]

We do a dinstiction between sin and result of sin.

If Bill kills Bob, Bill makes a sin (=he chosed something in you life more important than God and so he wanted to break the Communion with Him), but Bob is death.
Now Bill repents, is sorrow and he wants to re-estabilish the Communion with God (he prays, he asks forgiveness, he confesses).
But Bob is still death: that is a result of the sin !

With baptism we can re-estabilish a communion with God, but the results of the previous lack of communion (that we call it improperly 'original sin') still remains: concupiscence and (first) death.

Ok the power of Jesus on the Cross is like a new creation, and so it both allows us to re-estabilish Communion with Him and also heals the results of sin:
- the re-estabilishment of Communion with Him (that is the more important think) is effective by His Risen
- the healing of the results of sin is only partially effective now, while this healing will be fully effective in the Last Days when he will come again.

P.S.: I've found this doctrine is also in the two book of Orthodox Theology I've read

Orthodox see sin and the result of sin in a sort of mirroring way.
Beginning with Adam and the sin which resulted in death (first), then man sees death which causes more sin. As St Paul put it, "....if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." 1 Cor. 15:32 (also see Is. 22:13)

And this is why the Lord taught us to transcend this way of thinking, and take no regard for the body and it's death.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

 

[WarriorAngel]

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.

I love ya bunches...but logically this would mean that infant baptism was unnecesary. Since infants have no sins of their own.

But because the sins of A&E we have a division from God, to which baptism yields our washing ourselves in the blood of Christs death.

We would have no need to be baptized at all, until we sinned if ever we did sin, it were not for the fallen nature of humanity due to the origin of sin...which was the first sin.

 

[WarriorAngel]

IF mankind did not take on the origin of sin...then ONLY Adam and Eve would have been kicked out of the Garden, and their children would be taken back.

See...original means the first sin.

To which we are all living the effects of this.

God even says that NOW women would suffer childbirth pains. Not just Eve...but all. FOR all time, until we finally cease livin on earth after the Savior opens the gates.

IF it were only to effect A&E, then why does man toil and labor??

Why do weeds grow up in gardens? And did all of nature, animals included have to come to a mortal living?

IT is because of the origin of sin, that all of CREATION have suffered...even the innocent lives have the effects of Adam and Eve. That includes even animals, and babies. We cannot seperate ourselves from that origin of sin.

NOW, since we had the death of Christ.... being baptized we can die and have entrance to Heaven. WHICH is the point of infant baptism.

For no one knows when we would die...but all who wish to see salvation with God must be washed of the sins of humanity in order to be able to see the Beatific Vision of God. THAT seperation was due to the sin that was the original sin.

Did not Christ say ALL must be washed into His death through Baptism??

Why would it matter for the retarded and infants if we did not carry the effects of A&E??

The effects are death...the effects are seperation.

NONE of us are without that original sin. For if we were, we would be in Heaven now...and not excluded from God. ALL are born mortal...we have no choice. SO to be born mortal means we ALL carry that sin.

SEE?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ok. This I agree with. So there is the distinction.



I don't think so . It is more the nature or ontology. The view of the fallen creation as a whole.

Do we or do we not carry the effects of the origin of sin?

And since we do, it is necessary to die with Christ's Passion thru baptism, hence infant baptism.

To remove the seperation we have through the cause of the origin of sin, brought to us by Adam and Eve.

Therefore ALL ARE BORN WITH THE ORIGINAL sin. Root word, the origin of such. Mortality and seperation from God are the effects, and seperation will continue from God if we do not become washed before we die. Regardless if we ever personally sinned or not.

 

[Teke]

IF it were only to effect A&E, then why does man toil and labor?

It effects us all, because it is part of God's plan. Key word "effect". We are made subject to vanity (being in the flesh with the passions associated with that) and in that God has hope for us. Everything He does is for our good, as He loves us greatly.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Romans 8:19-21

 

[Teke]

to which baptism yields our washing ourselves in the blood of Christs death.
.

Christians don't wash in blood. We wash with water.
Do you know that in ancient times water was symbolic of chaos and confusion.
We see this type in Revelation where the sea is the people of the earth. This is also why we are as fishermen, fishing in the waters of confusion.
In baptism we do not stay in the water, but are risen from it. So we are also to rise above the confusion of the world and it's worldly standard and thinking, to God's priesthood, ministry and worship.
If you stand on solid ground, you won't be tossed to and fro in such waters.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It effects us all, because it is part of God's plan. Key word "effect". We are made subject to vanity (being in the flesh with the passions associated with that) and in that God has hope for us. Everything He does is for our good, as He loves us greatly.

For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Romans 8:19-21

What is the bondage Teke?

Isnt that bondage due to our 'inheritance' from our parents, Adam and Eve??

Are we not bonded to being sinners since our own start?

Explain why it is necessary to baptize an infant if we are ONLY responsible for our own sins.

 

[Teke]

What is the bondage Teke?

Isnt that bondage due to our 'inheritance' from our parents, Adam and Eve??

Are we not bonded to being sinners since our own start?

Explain why it is necessary to baptize an infant if we are ONLY responsible for our own sins.

The bondage of corruption/decay, is in relation to what we faced before His resurrection. Which was death and decay ie. consumption, another aspect of the created order, that which is dead and decayed is swallowed up in life.
But Christ being the recapitulation, we are no longer in such bondage.

This is related in the Church's teachings on relics. As you know some of the saints bodies are displayed for the faithful to venerate. Proving the bodies have not suffered consumption.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Cor. 15:54

So one is either alive, having life in Christ, or is faced with a consumption from sin, the illness which will consume one to death (second death), if there is no repentance in faith.

Infant baptism replaced the eighth day dedication ceremony of circumcision, and also the days of purification to present the child before the Lord. Luke 2:22

Infants have no sin, they are innocents. However they are born in the same nature as the rest of humanity, which is a state of weakness.
In our weakness He perfects us.

And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 2 Cor. 12:9

We wrestle as Israel did, for the blessing. To be "axios"/worthy.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The bondage of corruption/decay, is in relation to what we faced before His resurrection. Which was death and decay ie. consumption, another aspect of the created order, that which is dead and decayed is swallowed up in life.
But Christ being the recapitulation, we are no longer in such bondage.

WHY were we and still can be in bondage...without regard to age as a matter of importance, in bondage without 'baptism'??
FOR we know that without baptism...there is NO salvation. Is there?
We are baptized into Christ's death.... without which we will not be saved.
THIS is without regard to age...so an infant MUST be baptized...and yet a baby has never sinned on their own.

This is related in the Church's teachings on relics. As you know some of the saints bodies are displayed for the faithful to venerate. Proving the bodies have not suffered consumption.

Yes, I know. But what about the original sin in babies?

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Cor. 15:54

So one is either alive, having life in Christ, or is faced with a consumption from sin, the illness which will consume one to death (second death), if there is no repentance in faith.

Infant baptism replaced the eighth day dedication ceremony of circumcision, and also the days of purification to present the child before the Lord. Luke 2:22

SO then, is baptism a mere symbol?

Infants have no sin, they are innocents. However they are born in the same nature as the rest of humanity, which is a state of weakness.
In our weakness He perfects us.

And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 2 Cor. 12:9

We wrestle as Israel did, for the blessing. To be "axios"/worthy.

Being weak is not a sin. Having sin however; will keep us from the entrance of Heaven. Hence the souls of all who waited for Christ could not enter without His death and resurrection.

Careful where this is leading. Was it not Donatist who also did not believe infants had no sins?

 

[WarriorAngel]

I beg pardon, it was Pelagius who believed we were born without sin.

 

[seanHayden]

Infants have no sin. There, now you can add my name to your list of heretics. However, I don't think the CC would add me for saying that.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Infants have no sin. There, now you can add my name to your list of heretics. However, I don't think the CC would add me for saying that.

The point?

 

[seanHayden]

The point?

You clearly gave a warning to those who thought infants were without sin, I think your warning is baseless, because you can find no sin in infants. Instead you must rely on the concept of original sin. I prefer to acknowledge that infants have no sin.