Original Sin

[Quiddity]

As far as I understand I am in Orthodox with James on this:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin.

``Victor

 

[michel]

Michel,

I ask because the part you've quoted above again does sound like the Augustinian idea but is written in ambiguous language.

Do you believe that

1 We are all born sinful because the guilt of Adam's sin is inherited by all his descendants as a punishment from God.

or

2 Nobody is born sinful because God does not punish anyone for his father's sins but that we all suffer the natural consequences of the Fall in that we are mortal and have a tendency to sin (because we share the substance of our ancestors).

The first view is the Augustinian one, which most people appear to mean by the term Original Sin. The second view is that of Orthodox Theology, which we usually refer to as the Ancestral Sin. I find the former both wrong-headed and repugnant as such a punishment would be unjust (like beating my as yet unborn grandson in revenge for my son's naughtiness). The latter turns the fall into an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of turning from God and, hence, is no punishment at all.

Hope that clarifies my question for you.

James

Well, thank you for the education; I must admit that I believed the Anglican Church taught what you call the Augustinian view. But, as usual, my lack of knowledge shows through..........

 

[Engyo]

Who here believes in original sin?

I for one, don't, I believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's trangessions. I think it a strange idea that people think that way. Comments?

Buddhism postulates that delusions, and especially ego, mask the inherent perfection of human life. Each person has the potential to become enlightened, if he or she is willing to work to eradicate those delusions and ego, in order to be able to awaken. As for punishment of sins, the principle of karma maintains that whatever thoughts, words, or actions one chooses are causes and they create effects in one's life. This happens regardless of belief, practice, or what-have-you; it is simply a description of how life functions. Thus whatever I think, say, or do, good bad or indifferent, I will reap the effects of those choices. Dealing with those effects is part of eradicating the delusions and ego I mentioned earlier.

 

[James the Persian]

As far as I understand I am in Orthodox with James on this:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin.

``Victor

I'm not at all surprised (having discussed this previously with Scott). The RCC in more modern times appears to have returned to the Orthodox view on Original Sin and rejected the Augustinian distortions that now only seem to be prevalent among certain Protestant groups - notably Calvinists. This is a very good thing.

Michel,

You may be right about what the Anglican Church teaches. They broke from Rome, after all, when their teaching was Augustinian also. I can't say I ever noticed it during my school days, but then the Anglican Church never really did seem to have any specific teachings to me. It's always looked like a rather ill-defined catch all church containing people who are almost RC or Orthodox on the one hand, or practically Puritan on the other. It's very hard to find any common beliefs at all.

James

 

[blueman]

All were tainted and cursed by that original sin. We inherit a sinful nature through the seed of man and that has carried since the fall of Adam. Being born in a sinful nature requires a redemption (bridge) back to a relationship with God. That bridge was facilitated through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not at all surprised (having discussed this previously with Scott). The RCC in more modern times appears to have returned to the Orthodox view on Original Sin and rejected the Augustinian distortions that now only seem to be prevalent among certain Protestant groups - notably Calvinists. This is a very good thing.

Please James, if you are going to say such words as "return" give me something to read. I don't think it "returned" but rather repeated or further clarified.

~Victor

 

[James the Persian]

Please James, if you are going to say such words as "return" give me something to read. I don't think it "returned" but rather repeated or further clarified.

~Victor

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you're after. Are you trying to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church never accepted Augustine's position on Original Sin? If so, then I'd appreciate it if you could show me some evidence for this belief. It is certainly my understanding that that was precisely what was taught (and it's certainly what my older RC relatives were taught back before WWII). Now, I agree that it is possible that this was an acceptable teaching on Original Sin rather than the official dogma, but I find it hard to believe given some of the things I've read, some of the things I've heard from friends, family and acquaintances and some of the dogmas and teachings produced by the post-Schism RCC which seem to make sense only if underpinned by Augustinian theology. If my understanding is correct, then you have indeed returned to the pre-Augustinian teaching. If I have misunderstood then you may not have done, but until I'm shown evidence to the contrary, that is precisely what I believe has happened. This is not the only area where I can see RC teaching moving back towards the east, so to speak, either. This is a good thing, in my opinion, and the only reason I can see for your getting upset by my observation is if you believe the RCC has never made mistakes, but we both know that this is not the case.

James

 

[Scott1]

Easy fellas... you're both sorta right.... but James you have skipped a few hundred years. The "un-orthodox" (by current teaching) teachings promoted by Ambrose, Abrosiaster, and in its fullest and most enduring form in Augustine flourished from its earlist forms with Tertullian up until the Middle Ages. It was Anslem of Canturbury that started the change in thinking towards original sin as a lack of santifying grace as opposed to personal guilt.... this ideal was best clarified (in my opinion) by Aquinas..... and was further clarified in the Council of Trent against the so-called "reformers".

This is not the only area where I can see RC teaching moving back towards the east, so to speak, either.

Amen and amen.

May we all be ONE,
Scott

 

[Scott1]

Oooops.... James, I forgot to ask: What Orthodox Ecumenical Council gave the you proper defintion of "original sin"?

 

[James the Persian]

Oooops.... James, I forgot to ask: What Orthodox Ecumenical Council gave the you proper defintion of "original sin"?

Why would I need an Ecumenical Council? As far as I'm aware the teaching as currently held by the RCC and as always held by the Orthodox was never seriously questioned prior to Bl. Augustine. Original Sin, as we both now teach it, is part of the Patristic Concensus. Now, the writings of Bl. Augustine were condemned in certain local councils of the east (though never the saint himself, and for good reason) which clearly has the result of saying that his teachings were heterodox (including his view of Original Sin). There was, of course, a council considered by many Orthodox to be Ecumenical (and it was all Orthodox prior to about the 19th century, and I'm one of those who considers that we have 9, not 7, Ecumenical Councils) which did, in effect, condemn Augustine's teachings, though this was more a condemnation of those who followed on in Augustine's footsteps, as the original material is never actually referenced - the Palamite Councils. I think that you are rather labouring under the assumption that the Orthodox believe nothing that is not defined by an Ecumenical Council, but this is far from the case as we don't convoke Ecumenical Councils when defence of the Church is unnecessary, local councils can be accepted universally (several were), and the Patristic Consensus includes many teachings that have never been seriously questioned.

James

 

[Quiddity]

Why would I need an Ecumenical Council? As far as I'm aware the teaching as currently held by the RCC and as always held by the Orthodox was never seriously questioned prior to Bl. Augustine. Original Sin, as we both now teach it, is part of the Patristic Concensus. Now, the writings of Bl. Augustine were condemned in certain local councils of the east (though never the saint himself, and for good reason) which clearly has the result of saying that his teachings were heterodox (including his view of Original Sin). There was, of course, a council considered by many Orthodox to be Ecumenical (and it was all Orthodox prior to about the 19th century, and I'm one of those who considers that we have 9, not 7, Ecumenical Councils) which did, in effect, condemn Augustine's teachings, though this was more a condemnation of those who followed on in Augustine's footsteps, as the original material is never actually referenced - the Palamite Councils. I think that you are rather labouring under the assumption that the Orthodox believe nothing that is not defined by an Ecumenical Council, but this is far from the case as we don't convoke Ecumenical Councils when defence of the Church is unnecessary, local councils can be accepted universally (several were), and the Patristic Consensus includes many teachings that have never been seriously questioned.

I was aware of the 9 Councils you speak of but I am still a bit fuzzy as to how an Eastern Orthodox is to identify truth when: a) The majority [Patriarchs] is not necessarily it. b) The minority is not necessarily it either. c) A Council is not necessarily it either [some Councils have been wrong]. We can discuss this further in a latter time.

I was only trying to understand why you saw Rome as "returning". Did Scott's statements clarify anything?

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

All were tainted and cursed by that original sin. We inherit a sinful nature through the seed of man and that has carried since the fall of Adam. Being born in a sinful nature requires a redemption (bridge) back to a relationship with God. That bridge was facilitated through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So, our sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ's atonement, but Adam's sin wasn't? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Katzpur]

The "un-orthodox" (by current teaching) teachings promoted by Ambrose, Abrosiaster, and in its fullest and most enduring form in Augustine flourished from its earlist forms with Tertullian up until the Middle Ages.

And you're telling me that the Roman Catholic Church has not changed its doctrines over the years?

 

[James the Persian]

I was aware of the 9 Councils you speak of but I am still a bit fuzzy as to how an Eastern Orthodox is to identify truth when: a) The majority [Patriarchs] is not necessarily it. b) The minority is not necessarily it either. c) A Council is not necessarily it either [some Councils have been wrong]. We can discuss this further in a latter time.

I was only trying to understand why you saw Rome as "returning". Did Scott's statements clarify anything?

~Victor

I see you as returning because you've returned to the original teaching. Prior to Augustine you believed as we did. After Augustine the west started to be swayed by his theology (and a compelling argument for why this happened is that he was one of the only Fathers who wrote in Latin - it's noticeable that the Greek Fathers are underemphasised in the medieval western Church - and the knowledge of Greek in the west was fading). At some point you started teaching, a la Augustine, that guilt was inherited and then later you changed yet again, but this time back to the pre-Augustinian teaching. I know of no other way to describe that than as a return.

As for what determines truth, the majoriy of the Church (the Patriarchs have no more claim to infallibility than any other member) at any one time is not the determining factor, nor is the opinion of any one council (there were Robber Councils in the history of both our churches), nor, obviously, is it the minority at any one time that is correct. It is the concensus over the entire history of the Church. This is the mind of the Church, the Patristic Concensus, whatever you want to call it. We trust it because, no matter how many and how flawed certain members opinions are, we trust that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from error.

James

 

[Quiddity]

And you're telling me that the Roman Catholic Church has not changed its doctrines over the years?

Actually, he said it has changed, I'm the one that has been saying it hasn't changed. Only to find out that we were applying different meaning to the word change. I'll let him explain it to you. But in short the teaching of original sin has been the same essence passed down by the apostles.

~Victor

 

[Katzpur]

Actually, he said it has changed, I'm the one that has been saying it hasn't changed. Only to find out that we were applying different meaning to the word change. I'll let him explain it to you. But in short the teaching of original sin has been the same essence passed down by the apostles.

~Victor

Victor,

But Scott said, "The "un-orthodox" (by current teaching) teachings promoted by Ambrose, Abrosiaster, and in its fullest and most enduring form in Augustine flourished from its earlist forms with Tertullian up until the Middle Ages."

If unorthodox teachings flourished for several hundred years but no longer do, doesn't that constitute "change"? It certainly does in my book!