your understanding of ancestral sin and Romans 5,16 and 18

[Till]

Apologies if this is the wrong sub forum for opening a new thread. But as I do not want to debat but only ask, I felt this sub forum is more suitable.

If I understood correctly - and please correct me if my understanding is wrong - the orthodox church does not accpet the teaching of the Western church about humans having inherited the guilt of Adams sin. Also known as culpa hereditaria. As to be differentiated from the other - complementary - teaching of the inheritance of corruption of human nature (corruptio humanae naturae hereditaria) which, leaving aside different emphases, the orthodox church shares with the Western church. So far correct?

What, in the light of this non-acceptance of the teaching of inherited guilt, is then the orthodox understanding of Romans 5:

Rom 5:18 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.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

The Greek word for condemnation is katakrima - the sentence. The word used for justification is dikaiōsis - the acquital. It seems difficult to understand Pauls writing meaning anything other than sentencing of guilty criminals in front of a judge and acquiting the defendant who was found to be innocent. Leaving, for the time being, aside that these verses to my mind clearly show Paul following a concept of forensic justification, I feel they also support the teaching of inherited guilt. As you reject this concept, how do you understand these verses?

Many thanks,
Till

 

[ArmyMatt]

this article has some good info. and I would add that we don't shy away from the juridical sound of sin and salvation (because they are in there), there is just more to sin and redemption and the Fall than the juridical way of looking at it.

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia — Articles

 

[Cappadocious]

The Greek word for condemnation is katakrima - the sentence. The word used for justification is dikaiōsis - the acquital.

I would check with a Greek expert. Bible colleges and Concordances often have theologically-loaded translations that beg the question.

People often also project later understandings of law courts onto Ancient Near Eastern 'law courts'.

 

[truefiction1]

It means that people sin due to mortality, and cannot refrain from sinning unless they firmly believe in personal immortality.

So, if they don't believe in Christ's promise of eternal Life, they will continue to behave sinfully and be full of corruption in their souls. But if they really do believe in Christ's promise and repent and do the will of God instead of their own will for a change, they will become good persons who are liberated from bondage in sin, So they'll ultimately be acquitted because they're no longer sinners. That's what Paul's trying to tell us with all of this here fancy legalistic imagery.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Ok, so you Orthodox folks believe that Adam's sin did NOT set a precedence for humanity? The response is simply that humans are corrupt by nature, or became corrupt and sinful after Adam's sin? But then how would people be able to sin if they did not "inherit" it? Does God "bestow sinful natures" on people?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok, so you Orthodox folks believe that Adam's sin did NOT set a precedence for humanity? The response is simply that humans are corrupt by nature, or became corrupt and sinful after Adam's sin? But then how would people be able to sin if they did not "inherit" it? Does God "bestow sinful natures" on people?

it did, it gave us death, mortality, and an inclination to sin. that is what we inherit. it is like a baby born HIV positive because one of the parents slept around. the baby did nothing, but has to deal with the effects of what the parent's did

 

[grandvizier1006]

Ok. But how does that differ from other Christian denominations? I was raised Protestant, so the idea of there being "no Original sin" befuddles me.

 

[RobNJ]

It's just not the same concept of Original Sin, that formed in the west


"In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved.

In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death. "


From here: Q &amp A - St. Augustine & Original Sin - Orthodox Church in America

 

[grandvizier1006]

Ok, that makes a bit more sense. Thanks!

 

[ArmyMatt]

the idea that we are born guilty of Adam's sin leads to all kinds of wacky beliefs like Limbo, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the possibility of her Assumption without dying, Calvin's total depravity, etc.

 

[grandvizier1006]

How does a belief in Original Sin lead to Catholic doctrines? I agree with you that those are unusual, since I was raised Protestant, but how do they link to each other?

Also, can you say what you said about Calvin again at my church?

Seriously, though, what is the Orthodox position on the whole free will/election thing? I assume you all have a unified position? I've never gotten the chance to look into it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How does a belief in Original Sin lead to Catholic doctrines? I agree with you that those are unusual, since I was raised Protestant, but how do they link to each other?

if every human is tainted with the guilt of the Original Sin of Adam, if Mary was not Immaculately conceived, then Christ would have the stain as well. how is He the spotless Lamb if He has that on Him? but then since Mary was free of that stain, then that does open the door for her to not die (since she never sinned and was not stained by Adam's sin), so there are some who believed that she never died.

Limbo happens when you have babies or pagans who never heard the gospel and were never baptized, so when they died, they still died guilty of Adam's sin. because of that, they cannot enter into heaven, but they did no evil (or were ignorant not of their fault), so they don't go to hell. hence, a third place where one grows in natural glory but not supernatural glory.

and the whole Calvin thing, if man is stained with that sin, it is not a leap to say he is totally depraved.

Seriously, though, what is the Orthodox position on the whole free will/election thing? I assume you all have a unified position? I've never gotten the chance to look into it.

it's both. God sees (since He is outside of time) man's free will choices, and He elects or foreordains things to happen, people to call and when, etc. He does not, from before Creation, randomly pick who to save and who not to save. He knows who will follow Him.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Eh, Immaculate Conception for me just seems like a question that we don't really NEED an answer to. Jesus was divine as well as human. He might have had to make Himself vulnerable to sin, but He still never actually sinned. And even if being a human meant that for Him, it's apparent He was able to resist sinful desires with His divinity. Limbo just seems unusual to me because nothing in the Bible as far as I know suggests its existence, and as a human concept I should be skeptical of it, I feel, the same way I am with Calvinism is that I don't want to immediately side with it. Molinism--which is what the Orthodox view sounds like--seems more appealing, but I'm not quite sure about that, either. Again, though, I don't like how specific denominations equate their human-invented, flawed concepts with the absolute truth of the Gospel.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Eh, Immaculate Conception for me just seems like a question that we don't really NEED an answer to.

well, it also makes Jesus' and Mary's humanity different than everyone else's. Their humanity did not have the stain of original sin, so what does the Incarnation do for the rest of us? Christ only deified the humanity of His mother. also, if God can remove the stain of original sin from her, why not everyone?

Limbo just seems unusual to me because nothing in the Bible as far as I know suggests its existence, and as a human concept I should be skeptical of it, I feel, the same way I am with Calvinism is that I don't want to immediately side with it.

yep

Molinism--which is what the Orthodox view sounds like--seems more appealing, but I'm not quite sure about that, either.

what is Molinism?

Again, though, I don't like how specific denominations equate their human-invented, flawed concepts with the absolute truth of the Gospel.

good, neither do we.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Molinism is basically this sort of "compromise" between Arminianism and Calvinism--it's Protestant lingo so I can understand if you didn't know

Basically, Molinism proposes that God gives humans free will and created a universe which allowed the most number of people to be saved. But at the same time, God knows what we will do AND what we could do. Like God knows what you will do in your life, but from your perspective it's free will, and He knows what would happen if you did this other thing in your life. Like, God made the universe, and He knows what alternate universes would be like. I think the concept is known as "middle knowledge". It's worth looking into, although it might conflict with some of your doctrines. Some pretty smart folks believe it, though, and I think that while it's fairly sound, it's a bit complicated and there have been some objections raised against it by Calvinists.

 

[ArmyMatt]

haha, thanks. I think the error is that God created the universe and became incarnate to save everyone, and then He calls those He sees will follow Him, all the while He never stops calling out to those who will reject Him. so from His POV as well we have free will. in fact, we could even say that the damned are saved as well, but because they have set their will against God, the very salvation God offers is their eternal torment.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Never thought of it that way, Hell's eternal torment being a sort of "salvation". I feel like it would be against God's nature to call it such, though; He's no sadist.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Never thought of it that way, Hell's eternal torment being a sort of "salvation". I feel like it would be against God's nature to call it such, though; He's no sadist.

no He is no sadist. it's those in hell that are masochists. and it's not salvation since God does not force Himself. we cooperate with Him. His salvation rejected is hell. God, as He told Moses, Is that He Is. so He does not act one way toward the saint and another way toward the sinner. He pours out His love on both. the issue is that love in the face of evil is wrath and judgment. if the sinner would turn to Christ, what was tormenting him would become blessedness.

it is the Protestant idea that makes Him a sadist. people crying in hell for God's mercy and God refusing, watching them in a massive lava pit.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Hmm, never thought of it that way. That does make me feel better about having to tell an unsaved person that they're a sinner and Hell and such. I mean, I wouldn't want to make it the centerpiece of a witnessing scenario, but that does sound a good way to speak the truth with love.

 

[SillyFool]

grandvizier1006 - "...I mean, I wouldn't want to make it the centerpiece of a witnessing scenario..."

Good! I don't think any of the authors of Scripture made Hell (or "not going to Hell") the centerpiece of their witnessing scenario either. They were much more focused on the fact that life and reconciliation with God and victory over the enemy were now open to everyone in Christ.