Christians--Every human was born a sinner.

[Scuba Pete]

Ezekial 18:19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. 21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? NIV

God does not hold Adam's sin against us. No, we are more than capable of sinning all on our own and are therefore without excuse. BTW, it amazes me that there are not many scriptures proffered as support for one's beliefs. The Bible is rich with examples and verses that help us to understand our hearts and just what God wants from us. Doncha think?

 

[Quiddity]

ND, this is talking about 2 men who are fully conscience and capable of knowing right from wrong. In this sense I agree. The process of knowing right from wrong has already begun for these 2 and therefore is not a good example of what we are talking about. How about showing and example where the son is not yet born or something like that?

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

I don't think I understand. It does not matter IF the son is cognizent... he is responsible for HIS actions.

 

[Original Freak]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't the pain of Childbirth a punishment to women for the Original Sin of eating an apple?

(Genesis 3:16) - "To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

...and death a punishment to both of them?

Romans 5:12-19 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

 

[Scuba Pete]

OF,

Sin has consequences as well as punishment. Sometimes those who are innocent share in the consequences (car accidents, etc). So no, the pain of childbirth is not a punishment, but the consequense of not having a perfect communion with God.

It is not readily apparent if physical death was already present. This is referring to a "spiritual death", which was a separation from God and fairly immediate. This happens to EVERYONE once they sin.

 

[James the Persian]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but isn't the pain of Childbirth a punishment to women for the Original Sin of eating an apple?



...and death a punishment to both of them?

Well, not in Orthodox theology it isn't. We don't believe in inherited guilt in the way that Bl. Augustine described, which is what people usually mean by Original Sin. We do, however, suffer the consequences of that sin in that we are mortal and have a propensity to sin. We don't believe that infants are born sinners (but we do practice infant baptism - baptism is much more than just a washing away of sins, it's a death and rebirth in Christ which is why it can only be performed once).

In our view, in committing the 'Original Sin' Adam and Eve turned from God who is the source of all life and in doing so the natural consequence was that they became mortal. This was not a punishment by God but a self-wrought condemnation. It is good to note that when God warned them not to eat the fruit He said 'for in that day you will surely die' not 'if you do I'll kill you' - there's a big difference there.

In becoming mortals in a fallen world cut off from God, Adam and Eve acquired a tendency to sin and it became much more difficult to live a holy and God-pleasing life. As we are of the same substance as they are (and in the same situation) we inherited the same failings, but it as inappropriate to say that we are being punished for their sin as it would be to say that a crack baby is being punished for its mother's drug abuse. It suffers the consequences, true, but nobody is punishing it and it is guilty of nothing. The consequences are simply the natural and tragic result of the mother's abuse.

James

P.S.
And where do people get this strange idea that the forbidden fruit was an apple from? I've never understood that.

 

[Original Freak]

Sin has consequences as well as punishment. Sometimes those who are innocent share in the consequences (car accidents, etc). So no, the pain of childbirth is not a punishment, but the consequense of not having a perfect communion with God.

so the innocent suffer a consiquence placed on them by god for being imperfect, when in fact it's impossible to be perfect by his design? By using drugs to null the pain of birth are we then disobeying god?

It is not readily apparent if physical death was already present. This is referring to a "spiritual death", which was a separation from God and fairly immediate. This happens to EVERYONE once they sin.

So it's a metaphorical statement meaning no one will ever really know what god's punishment truly was and one can only debate and speculate.

 

[Pah]

While the "out of faith" posts have been civil and not overly agressive, I would remind posters here that Same Faith Debates means what it says.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Dear OF,

God was not the one who commited the sin. The SINNER is the one responsible and not God. Take a car accident... God was not the one speeding recklessly or talking on the phone. That innocents suffer is unfortunate, but it was caused by the driver and not God.

A loving God lets us decide how we should live and what speed we should travel. There are all sorts of signs to obey, and not obeying them is a sure way to crash. But it's not God's fault that we are so pig headed.

BTW, why would you equate spiritual with being a metaphor. Our spiritual side is far more real than our physical side. Spiritual death (separation from God) is far more serious.

 

[Katzpur]

In a timeless dimension that means nothing more then "I'm a sinner, but not until I actually do it". It's almost as if you're saying "I know I'm weak and will eventually sin but please don't call me a sinner until I do it." In the the big scope of things it makes no difference. That is exactly why you need God's Grace as early as possible.

~Victor

Victor,

I asked you a question which you failed to answer. If you believe we are born sinners, as opposed to being born predisposed to sin, would you tell me what sin you believe you were born having already comitted. Please don't just respond criticizing my opinion.

You're right about one thing: I did essentially say that "I know I'm weak and will eventually sin, but please don't call me a sinner until I do it." But you are dead wrong that "in the big scope of things it makes no difference. It makes a world of difference. Why do you think that Jesus made such a point of telling us that we must become as little children? If little children were in the same situation as us adults, His constant references to their purity would make no sense at all. All of us will sin and all of us consequently will need a Savior. But babies haven't sinned when they have done nothing more than having been born. If you think they are sinners, you ought to be able to tell me what sin they've committed. That's all I'm asking you to do.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, James.

We don't believe in inherited guilt in the way that Bl. Augustine described, which is what people usually mean by Original Sin. We do, however, suffer the consequences of that sin in that we are mortal and have a propensity to sin. We don't believe that infants are born sinners (but we do practice infant baptism - baptism is much more than just a washing away of sins, it's a death and rebirth in Christ which is why it can only be performed once).

That's interesting. I didn't realize you don't believe in inherited guilt. The way you expressed it, the fact that "we suffer the consequences of that sin in that we are mortal and have a propensity to sin" is identical to my point of view. But I don't understand that if you have this perspective on Original Sin, why you would practice infant baptism. I even agree that it's a rebirth in Christ, but it seems to me that it would be infinitely more meaningful to the recipient if he were to be old enough to appreciate its significance. The scriptures speak so often of "baptism unto repentance." Since a baby has not committed any actual sin, it has no need of repentance. It can't make any spiritual commitment to Christ, either. So what's the real reason behind the practice of infant baptism in the Orthodox Church?

P.S. And where do people get this strange idea that the forbidden fruit was an apple from? I've never understood that.

I've often wondered the same thing.

Kathryn

 

[James the Persian]

So what's the real reason behind the practice of infant baptism in the Orthodox Church?

It's what I said it was, although there's a little more to it. We believe that baptism is death and rebirth in Christ, as a Mystery but really, not as a symbol (we don't hold with Protestant ideas of symbolic sacraments). As such it doesn't matter in the slightest if you are old enough to appreciate it when it happens or not, the effect is the same. As Christ's body on earth is the Church, it follows from this belief that you cannot be a member of that body until you are baptised (though we do allow the idea of baptism by blood or baptism by intent such as for the good thief or many martyrs). This is significant because we also believe that infants should be chrismated (annointed) immediately after baptism, which is roughly analogous to western confirmation and more importently, we commune infants. As we commune nobody outside the Church, this clearly pre-supposes infant baptism. We take Christ's words to 'suffer the little children to go to Him' very seriously indeed, and this means allowing them to take the Eucharist in which we believe Christ is really present as a Mystery. That most important Christian sacrament is most certainly not simpy symbolic either. I don't doubt that you'll disagree with us, but I hope that you will understand.

James

P.S.

You knew me elsewhere, I believe, as jmbejdl. I've chosen a slightly more readable handle on this forum. I think we managed to discuss things reasonably despite disagreements before and I hope we can continue to do so now.

 

[Scuba Pete]

As such it doesn't matter in the slightest if you are old enough to appreciate it when it happens or not, the effect is the same.

So do the little Tykes repent as well? That is a precursor to baptism according to scriptures.

I would also suggest that God is way into symbolism (check scripture), even if you are not. The following scripture brings up the second issue I have with infant Baptism... how is the infant "pledging" here? Me thinks that your confirmation (though that may be an RC thing) tries to cover this, but I find no support of scripture for that either.

I Peter 3;18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19t hrough whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. NIV

 

[James the Persian]

So do the little Tykes repent as well? That is a precursor to baptism according to scriptures.

I would also suggest that God is way into symbolism (check scripture), even if you are not. The following scripture brings up the second issue I have with infant Baptism... how is the infant "pledging" here? Me thinks that your confirmation (though that may be an RC thing) tries to cover this, but I find no support of scripture for that either.

I Peter 3;18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19t hrough whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. NIV

Firstly, I didn't discount symbolism entirely, I said the sacraments are not simply symbolic so that argument falls rather flat. As for repentance, surely there is only need for repentance if you have sinned? In the, purely hypothetical, case of an adult who hadn't sinned being baptised, would you expect them to repent? For what? That argument makes no sense to me. It certainly is no argument against infant baptism, unless you believe infants are sinners? As for the pledge, this is a part of both baptism and chrismation and is done on behalf of the child by the godparents. Do you believe that this is wrong? Why? If my son wanted to pledge something now, as a minor, wouldn't I actually have to do this for him? Once the child is old enough then, of course he needs to live up to it, or abandon the Church, but I can't see this as an argument against infant baptism either.

Your single quote taken out of context simply does not invalidate the ancient practice of the Church as exemplified by whole households being baptised in Acts and nor does it trump Christ's words as I mentioned in my previous post. It's also apparent that you are homing in on very minor issues which are peculiarly of interest to Protestants while missing the major issues of infant communion and death and rebirth in Christ. I accept that this is because you and I come from totally different Church traditions, but we might as well be speaking different languages. I don't expect you to agree with us but I had hoped you might be able to understand our position nonetheless.

James

 

[Scuba Pete]

I said the sacraments are not simply symbolic so that argument falls rather flat.

No, that's NOT what you said. You said:

as a Mystery but really, not as a symbol

Unfortunately, many Christians get the idea that the spiritual is not nearly as true as the physical. Baptism is all about spiritual re-birth and not a physical one.

surely there is only need for repentance if you have sinned?

Just as "there is only need for baptism if you have sinned".

Do you believe that this is wrong?

Wrong as in sinful? No. However it is completely unsupported by scripture. Whole households do not by default have young children or infants in them. My current household consists of my Son (16), my wife and me. Please show me an instance of baptism in the Bible of a young child or an infant. No, all of the conversions are of ADULTS making a conscious decision to "Repent and be Baptised" as Peter told the very first converts to do.

Your single quote taken out of context

I am hurt by this. Should I quote the ENTIRE chapter next time? Then you call me a protestant, which I am NOT. In fact them thars fightin' words!!! (If only I fought! )

I accept that this is because you and I come from totally different Church traditions

I avoid traditions and instead rely on a scriptural basis for my beliefs.

I don't expect you to agree with us but I had hoped you might be able to understand our position nonetheless.

Again, I am hurt by this. I think that the record on this forum will show that I have defended Catholics from untoward criticisms. I don't believe in them. Howevder, if you are looking for me to rubber stamp my approval on what I see as a scripturally flawed position, then I will simply have to dissapoint you. I fully understand your position and reject it because of that understanding.

 

[jeffrey]

Our 5 year old was just Baptized 3 weeks ago. Our son doesn't fully understand it, but it also was about his Godparents agreeing to be his Godparents. And as he becomes older, his understanding will grow also. Look at it like insurance. If he gets to the age of knowing right from wrong, commits a sin and dies, well, I'd rather be Baptized at a young age then not at all.

 

[jeffrey]

OF,

Sin has consequences as well as punishment. Sometimes those who are innocent share in the consequences (car accidents, etc). So no, the pain of childbirth is not a punishment, but the consequense of not having a perfect communion with God.

It is not readily apparent if physical death was already present. This is referring to a "spiritual death", which was a separation from God and fairly immediate. This happens to EVERYONE once they sin.

A good example of that would be God taking the life of David's son, " The wife of Uriah had borne to David" because of King David's sins.

 

[James the Persian]

No, that's NOT what you said.

Actually, it is what I said, though I admit on rereading that it wasn't so clear. When I said Christ was really present in the Eucharist, not as a symbol I was referring to the Real Presence, that doesn't discount all symbolism in any sacrament. I did also say that the Eucharist wasn't simply symbolic. Did you, perhaps miss that because of the typo? I admit that I should have been cleare, however.

Just as "there is only need for baptism if you have sinned".

Only if you interpret baptism according to your tradition as only for the remission of sins. We don't, and that's the sort of thing I had hoped you would understand. I'm also not sure where you got the physical/spiritual dichotomy from - it certainly wasn't in my post.

Wrong as in sinful? No. However it is completely unsupported by scripture. Whole households do not by default have young children or infants in them. My current household consists of my Son (16), my wife and me. Please show me an instance of baptism in the Bible of a young child or an infant. No, all of the conversions are of ADULTS making a conscious decision to "Repent and be Baptised" as Peter told the very first converts to do.

So you expect me to believe that not one of the entire households baptised had a single child in it? That, frankly, is totally unbelievable. To quote the old addage, 'abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence' and as I am the one following the ancient teaching of the Church and you are the one disputing it it falls to you, not me, to prove that those households had no children in them.

Then you call me a protestant, which I am NOT. In fact them thars fightin' words!!! (If only I fought! )

I accept that you don't like to be called a Protestant but from where I'm standing, that's exactly what you look like. I meant no offence by this. You clearly do accept Reformation doctrines such as sola scriptura, however, so exactly what is it that makes you not a Protestant?

I avoid traditions and instead rely on a scriptural basis for my beliefs.

Well to this I would have to say that you only think you avoid traditions. Sola scriptura is a tradition, the books that make up your Scripture is a tradition (part of my Holy Tradition), even the teachings of what ever theologians you admire is a tradition. It is impossible for anyione at all to interpret any text, whether Scripture or Shakespeare, outside of any tradition. The question is not, can I avoid all tradition, but is the tradition I follow the right one?

Again, I am hurt by this. I think that the record on this forum will show that I have defended Catholics from untoward criticisms. I don't believe in them. Howevder, if you are looking for me to rubber stamp my approval on what I see as a scripturally flawed position, then I will simply have to dissapoint you. I fully understand your position and reject it because of that understanding.

I'm genuinely sorry if I hurt you. I certainly don't expect you to rubber stamp the Church's Holy Tradition but you do display a lack of understanding of our position if you can't understand that your a priori positions with regards to Scripture are not shared by us. That's what you appeared to show, but I accept that this may be an appearance only. I have no wish to argue with you on this matter. You will certainly not convince me of the truth of your position (which is one I've already rejected before becoming Orthodox) and it's equally clear I won't convince you of mine. Neither of our arguments holds weight with the other so we should just agree to disagree and continue to support one another when we can do so in good conscience. As misguided as I believe your position is, I'm hardly going to condemn you for it - I do still have no doubts that you are a Christian.

James

 

[Original Freak]

While the "out of faith" posts have been civil and not overly agressive, I would remind posters here that Same Faith Debates means what it says.

point taken...bows out

 

[Scuba Pete]

Clarity is best... please don't expect me to read your mind or interpret your typos correctly.

Only if you interpret baptism according to your tradition as only for the remission of sins

No interpretation needed... let's just read the scriptures:

Acts 2:36 "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

3 7When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." 40 With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. NIV

Even John the Baptist maintained that repentance must be a part of Baptism:

Luke 3: 7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire." NIV

So you expect me to believe that not one of the entire households baptised had a single child in it?

Only Acts 16, 18 & I Corinthians 1 mention the whole household converting. Why would you ASSUME that they had young children?

Let's consider this passage:
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. NIV

Did you notice the absense of "children" or "infants" here?

You clearly do accept Reformation doctrines such as sola scriptura, however, so exactly what is it that makes you not a Protestant?

Please call me either a Christian or a disciple; they're the only scriptural names. I have no protest against the church of the New Testament, and it certainly does not need reform. There are areas which need the church to be restored to it's former glory and structure. I agree with various doctrine as they agree with the scriptures; not the other way around.

Acts 11:25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. NIV

The main difference between us is how we arrive at our beliefs. You choose the Orthodox church as the ultimate authority and I choose the Scriptures.

In light of our discussion, I would hasten to point out, that it is you who seems to lack an understanding of my faith and not the other way around. I fully understand your positions and why you ascribe to them. It is my understanding on these topics, and how they relate to the scriptures that causes me to reject them.

As for your "Christianity", I accept all who accept Jesus as brothers (or sisters).