What Does Eastern Orthodoxy Say About Original Sin?

[rkwright]

Too bad Apo's not around to explain, but this sounds utterly contrary to everything I've learned in Catholic theology.

Socrates - I'm with you on this. I wish I could find that old topic because I was really scratching my head when I read that. I remember showing that to one of my professors and discussing it.

The questions you asked go right to the heart of the issues with the EO teaching on orginal sin.

What's the point of baptism? If someone dies unbaptised yet has committed no personal sin what happens?

[dairygirl4u2c]

even a fallen nature, or a propensity to sin, under EOrthodox would say needs to be cleaned by baptism.

 

i and others have said that it's not clear where the teaching is that says that we inherit the guilt of original sin. but the fact that we are said to have original sin i might surmise is enough to say we have the guilt of original sin as well. again, original sin condemns one to hell was dogmatically defined at the council of florence. i would suppose that the fact it even talks about original sin, is sufficient to say that it's a dogmatically defined to exist, and by extension that it means we inherit the guilt of it. i would suppose that's why they say we go to hell for it to begin with.

 

 

[marigold]

Rather, we say if baptism is all that is needed to wash away original sin, then what is the point of the Crucifixion?

Baptism bestows the Holy Spirit, mirroring the baptism of Christ in the Jordan, when the Spirit descended in the form of a dove. It is the Holy Mystery (sacrament) which initiates the believer into the Body of Christ so that s/he may become a partaker of the Kingdom. It goes hand-in-hand with chrismation, i.e. anointing, at which we receive 'the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit'. And everyone shouts, 'Sealed!' :)

Baptisms in the name of the Trinity which take place outside the Orthodox Church are valid but not complete.

Christ's death on the cross, descent into death, and resurrection are the completion of everything. He restores our fallen nature, destroying death by his own death. What or who is strong enough to overcome death? Only God himself, and that is exactly what he has done.

"Christ did not come to make bad men good, but to make dead men live."

[Credo in Deum]

Rather, we say if baptism is all that is needed to wash away original sin, then what is the point of the Crucifixion?
 

 

We say; no one is claiming baptism is all that is needed to wash us of original sin, since we wouldn't have a baptism of the Holy Spirit which Christ brought if we did not have His Crucifixion. Without the Crucifixion we would only have a baptism of repentance which John the Baptist issued, and which did not cleans us of original sin.   

 

"John answered, saying unto all: I indeed baptize you with water; but there shall come one mightier that I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire"--Luke 3:16 

 

 

When we read the account of the fall in Genesis, we see God ask Adam :where are you?  As Dr. Scott Hahn mentions, God was not asking a question He did not know the answer to.  He was asking Adam; Where are you in relation to me? Meaning why is your soul not in the state it should be in?  Plus we see God say that the day they eat of the fruit they will die the death, but they didn't physically die that day.  The death then must have been also the relationship Adam and Eve's soul had with God's grace.  This broken relationship between the soul and God's grace -along with the physical death of our body- is the consequence that we inherit from our first parents due to their original sin, and it is not until we are baptized, is the relationship brought back to life, and then fortified and maintained by the reception of the other sacraments like; confirmation, confession and communion, marriage for those who are called to be married, Holy Orders for those called to be priests and clergy, and extreme unction for when we approach the day of our physical death.

Original sin makes us dead to a sacramental life, while in baptism we are born again into a sacramental life, the life of Christ. 

[dairygirl4u2c]

i gave a heap of academic stuff in that debate i quoted. but as to why jesus had to die, or did die. he could have engaged in self defense. according to even the catholic church, he had that right. but he chose not to. it is only a right that can be enforced, it doesn't have to be. this was a sacrifice, the same way the OTestament had sacrifices. and it shows the real substance in the sacrifice.... self giving, not doing harm to others, not leading others astay in thinking violence might be the best answer. Jesus was then able to defeat death in a most perfect and self less way. God would not let Jesus die.... love conquered death. and only one like Jesus who lived like Jesus could conquer death. by extension, given we participate in the brotherhood as christians, God will not let us die. we live because he lives, we die because he dies, we rise because he rises.

this to me is the heart of "christus victor"

 

---------------------

 

"The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?" says the Lord . "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats" Stop bringing meaningless offerings!... wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isa 1:11,13,16-17)

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God, more than burnt offering". (Hosea 6:6)

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise". (Psalm 51: 16-17)

Yahweh does not need a bribe to convince him to be just or merciful because he is the very definition of justice and mercy. God does not need an appeasement to forgive. On the contrary Jesus tells us that Yahweh is our model for loving our enemies:
" But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteousA533; Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. " (Math 5:44-45, 48)

"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:15)

By the cross God triumphed over the System and crucified it, he nailed the law to the cross.
"Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14)

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:1).

"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12)

"I will ransom them from Hell. I will redeem them from Death
O Death I will be thy plague. O Hell I will be thy destruction" (Hosea 13:14)

Edited July 11, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither things present nor things to come, neither powers nor principalities, neither height nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[marigold]

I want to respond to some of this in more detail but real life beckons! Hope to get back to these interesting thoughts soon. :)

[dairygirl4u2c]

if anyone is interested, i can also find writings from former cardinal ratzinger from before he was pope, that writes pushing for the idea of something like 'christus victor' and against penal substitution.

 

it isn't a doctrine, afterall, penal substitution, just a commonly held western idea.

[marigold]

I hope this quote, from One Flew Over the Onion Dome, is a helpful introduction to where I'm coming from:

 

Within the predominant theology of America and the West, the fingerprints of three men are evident: Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas. ...The Anselmian doctrine of the Atonement permeates the popular Christianity of America and the West. Those reared with such an understanding see this in the Old Testament and the New Testament. They hear it preached, time and again, from the pulpit: "An angry God was finally appeased when He killed His Son, who went to heaven, now we're saved." This can prove to be a continuously underlying struggle for the neophyte. Now I realize that there are those reading these words and thinking, "That's not it at all." But ... no longer struggling to understand salvation through the eyes of Anselm is a huge breath of fresh air

 

For many American Christians, the movie "Star Wars", especially the first three releases, is pure theology. That is, the yin-yang interpretation of the battle between Light and Darkness is how they understand spiritual warfare. This is a form of an ancient falsehood (heresy) known as Manichaeism. Blessed Augustine was a Manichaean for nine years, and although he is revered as a Saint of the Church, some of his writings are tainted, or interpreted, with this error. His teaching, particularly concerning Original Sin and Original Guilt, permeate Western Christianity.

 

Thomas Aquinas is known as the father of Scholasticism and is the author of the Summa Theologica. His influence on Western Christians is best summed up in the following quote:

 

"It is a vast generalization, but it is, nonetheless, therefore generally true, that the western mind: energetic, exploratory, analytical, systematic, rational and empirical, has made a Christianity of its own. One can trace a clear historical line in western theology from St. Augustine, through the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas, to the crisis of the Reformation and the fragmentation into either a monarchical concept of papacy on the one hand, [or] the idea of every man his own pope on the other. ..."

 

And this video, on the Orthodox understanding of salvation, is worth a close look.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

 

I know I'm sidestepping some of the questions here but I hope these go some way to establishing a common ground to talk on. Right now it seems like we're talking at cross-purposes a lot and not understanding what the other means.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"...Christianity had forsaken its mystical tradition in favor of Cartesian emphasis on "the reification of concepts, idolization of the reflexive consciousness, flight from being into verbalism, mathematics, and rationalization."

[ChristianGirlForever]

We don't inherit the guilt, but we inherit the 'pigpen'.
Father Thomas Hopko: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_prodigal_son_and_the_fathers_house/print
"We find ourselves in the pigpen, forgetting the house of the Father, that we have to remind ourself again. And that’s why some fathers say that the forgetfulness of God, the forgetfulness of the Father’s house, is the cause of every sin."

Father Antony Hughes: http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin
"His (Augustine's) misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve's sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates."

I also believe the Catholic term for it is that people bear the "Stain of Original Sin," correct me if I'm wrong.

[ChristianGirlForever]

Does the Roman Church declare that we inherit the "guilt" of Adam and Eve's sin? I have read and re-read that part of the Catechism and I do not find that belief.

Sorry, JohnRyan, I quoted and replied to 1054 about this by accident. I'm not Catholic, so don't quote me, but I believe Catholics believe they inherit the "stain" of original sin.

[ChristianGirlForever]

Life. The purpose of the cross is that Christ died, and by dying conquered death, so we may live.

I actually do not think the EO teaches that we have a stain, but I will wait for 1054 to answer.

You're right, Selah, Orthodox do not believe we have the stain of original sin when we are born and before we have committed any sins of our own. As far as I recall, Catholics believe that the rite of baptism removes this stain, but I might be wrong in that.

[Credo in Deum]

I hope this quote, from One Flew Over the Onion Dome, is a helpful introduction to where I'm coming from:

 

 

 

And this video, on the Orthodox understanding of salvation, is worth a close look.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

 

I know I'm sidestepping some of the questions here but I hope these go some way to establishing a common ground to talk on. Right now it seems like we're talking at cross-purposes a lot and not understanding what the other means.

 

 

Thank you, Marigold for the video.  The quote above, however, I do not feel helps the dialog between the two sides.  Especially since I think the quote greatly misunderstands the Wests position. Maybe not towards Protestants, but for sure towards Latin Rite Catholics. 

 

I did like the video and do not see the disconnect.  The orthodox way is the way I've always viewed salvation and I do not see where it is at odds with the Latin Rite.  I admit I'm not really well trained or educated on either but I'm trying to learn so bare with me. 

[Credo in Deum]

Bear*

 

I also believe the Catholic term for it is that people bear the "Stain of Original Sin," correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Yes, we call it a "stain" however, this does not mean the guilt of original sin.  It means we bear the consequences of the original sin of Adam,  which is the death of the relationship the soul had with God's grace, and the physical death of our body.  

 

 

[1054]

Sorry for the delay in responding.  I've been having issues with my internet recently and this is the first chance I've had to spend some time on here. 

To be honest, the majority of reading I've done concerning original / ancestral sin has been from an Orthodox viewpoint.  I apologize if I've ever misrepresented the Catholic teaching.  I try to use quotations whenever possible to defer to those who have greater insight and knowledge on these matters. 

[The Hierophant]

Did not read whole thread, but so far as I know, it was an opinion in the West that Adam's descendants inherited his guilt, but it was never a formal doctrine or dogma.  These days that opinion has largely waned.

[1054]

I hope this quote, from One Flew Over the Onion Dome, is a helpful introduction to where I'm coming from:

 

 

 

And this video, on the Orthodox understanding of salvation, is worth a close look.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

 

I know I'm sidestepping some of the questions here but I hope these go some way to establishing a common ground to talk on. Right now it seems like we're talking at cross-purposes a lot and not understanding what the other means.

Thank you for sharing this video!  I was finally able to watch it!!! 
Absolutely beautiful.  "Christ is Risen, my joy, Christ is Risen!" - Saint Seraphim

[1054]

......

There is an excellent talk available on YouTube given by Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware on the Orthodox perspective of the Crucifixion.  I don't have access to find it at the moment, but I will search for it for those who may be interested.  I also heartily recommend his book, "The Orthodox Way" which gives an in depth, yet extremely readable, overview of the Orthodox understanding.  He also wrote, "The Orthodox Church" however the focus of this book tends towards the historical whereas "The Orthodox Way" is more theological. 

Finally found it, my memory played tricks on me, the talk's focus is on the Orthodox approach to salvation, not specifically the Crucifixion. 
The link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F7h-TStNd8

The title to search for on YouTube if the link doesn't work for you:
Metropolitan KALLISTOS Ware Salvation in Christ - The Orthodox Approach -Lecture   
posted by: Seraphim William Davidson 

Thanks again to Marigold - the video was suggested from the "Love Wins" video she posted. 
A head's up: the talk Metropolitan Kallistos gives is in Orthodox time (meaning somewhat lengthy).  An hour and a half in lay man terms.  ;) 

 

[marigold]

Thank you, Marigold for the video.  The quote above, however, I do not feel helps the dialog between the two sides.  Especially since I think the quote greatly misunderstands the Wests position. Maybe not towards Protestants, but for sure towards Latin Rite Catholics. 

 

I did like the video and do not see the disconnect.  The orthodox way is the way I've always viewed salvation and I do not see where it is at odds with the Latin Rite.  I admit I'm not really well trained or educated on either but I'm trying to learn so bare with me. 

 

Thank you for that. I wasn't sure it would be helpful but decided to err on the side of basic. 

 

Time for some nutshells:

 

Orthodox believe that Adam and Eve fell from innocence when they chose to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. 'When you eat thereof you shall surely die.' And yep, sin and death were introduced into creation. Adam and Eve had to leave the garden and they began to live life as we now experience it, separation from God, the tendency toward sin, having to work, sickness, and eventual death. They also had babies and the babies grew up in this same experience, and so on until Christ.  

 

Roman Catholics, according to both my (Orthodox) catechesis and my RC friends in casual conversation and when directly asked, believe those same three first sentences. But then it takes a swerve off the Orthodox understanding. Adam and Eve, having now deliberately separated themselves from God, are somehow marked or 'stained' by their transgression. Humanity itself is in a state of something called sin. When they leave the garden, therefore, and begin having babies out in the world, their babies are necessarily also marked by sin. How is the sin transmitted? Through sex; therefore anyone who participates in sex is in collusion with sin, and from there the whole thing takes on a life of its own with the help of people like St. Augustine and you have the whole of Western civilisation affected by this one seemingly trivial difference.

 

There are more related thoughts, especially on how these views affect how we go about our sacramental life in the Church, and what we believe salvation looks like, but I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts on this first.