Original Sin

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

Mighty strong words from a church that doesn't believe in current revelation.

Revelation is only one of the ways God can keep His Church from error.

Originally Posted by DB

Lots of judgement around for all.

No judgment, just a statement of what we know from scripture as to what is required in order to be saved. God is all powerful and can act outside of these guidelines, so only He can judge. But the guidelines exist and so we feel confident taking a position and offering guidance and recommendations with regard to these stated methods. After all that is what a Church is for, to guide the flock.

Originally Posted by DB

What do we have directly from the apostles in this matter, or is this just another "development" that should be inferred from the scripture?

Not the Apostles, but Christ Himself, who said that unless one was born of both the water and the spirit one could not be saved.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily,verily,Isayuntothee,ExceptamanbebornofwaterandoftheSpirit,hecannotenterintothekingdomofGod.

Originally Posted by DB

For example, assumming that children should be baptised, it therefore needs to be for a reason...Wow, children must be sinful because baptism is for sins.

Baptism is not just for sins. It is also for the administration of graces and the cleansing away of the stain of original sin.

Originally Posted by DB

Is it any wonder why protestantism got started?

That is not one of the reasons Protestantism got started.

[disciple]

Thats where the Anabaptists came in,and they were persecuted by the Prots

[Darth_Bill]

>Revelation is only one of the ways God can keep His Church from error.

It seemed to be a good enough method for the apostles. However the modern RCC church rejects it on principle.

>John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily,verily,Isayuntothee,ExceptamanbebornofwaterandoftheSpirit,hecannotenterintothekingdomofGod.

So, you do know what happens when an unbaptised child dies. At least, they aren't in the kingdom of heaven taking your reading of this. You assume that "man" in this verse applies to children? Does it also apply to women? Why do you make this assumption? Yeah, yeah, tradition.

>God is all powerful and can act outside of these guidelines, so only He can judge.

So why proof-text at all? Why even have the atonement if he can act out of guildlines?

>After all that is what a Church is for, to guide the flock.

And it can lead them in the wrong direction.

>Baptism is not just for sins. It is also for the administration of graces and the cleansing away of the stain of original sin.

That original sin is even existant is an assumption, a premise. Many groups reject that premise as not being found in the scriptures nor in sound doctrine. Are you missing the point of the thread?

>That is not one of the reasons Protestantism got started.

Protastantism got started because of perceived injustices and incorrect doctrine. It might not have applied to OS directly, but the principle is the same.

I might not be talking about Lutheranism or some of the early reformers. They worked under a certain set of assumptions (which I think were wrong also). It was only later that other items came into question.


>Thats where the Anabaptists came in,and they were persecuted by the Prots

Being protestant doesn't mean you're automatically tolerant of other beliefs. They can d*** just as quickly as the RCC and EOC even though they are more recent.

[michael_legna]

Originally Posted by Darth_Bill

It seemed to be a good enough method for the apostles. However the modern RCC church rejects it on principle.

But even they did not rely solely on Revelation. We don't reject revelation, we just claim to know that "public" revelation has concluded and it was not just the Catholic Church, but the entire Church at the time (since this was decided long before the first split) which came to this conclusion.

Originally Posted by DB

So, you do know what happens when an unbaptised child dies. At least, they aren't in the kingdom of heaven taking your reading of this.

No that is not a correct assumption based on the above verse and our understanding of God's will. What is true is that we cannot say definitively that they are in heaven (as they have not met one of the guidelines expressed in scripture). But as I said before it is possible they are in heaven because "we trust in God's mercy" and "that no one can be certain of the fate of unbaptized babies who die." SO "As Christians we can and should trust that God will welcome those babies into heaven."

Baptism by water and spirit is not a hard and fast rule as God is not limited. But since it appears in scripture it is a good guideline to consider when one asks what must I do to be in the kingdom of heaven.

Originally Posted by DB

You assume that "man" in this verse applies to children? Does it also apply to women?

Yes we assume that when it says man it means it in the generic sense as in mankind.

Originally Posted by DB

Why do you make this assumption? Yeah, yeah, tradition.

Right we rely on those who were actually trained by the Apostles as to the true meaning of the doctrines before the New testament was even written in its entirety, and long before the writings that make up the New Testament were decided upon, in fact it is that knowledge of doctrine that was used in part to decide what books did and did not make it in. So yes God's word in the form of Sacred Tradition plays a large role in protecting the Church from error.

Originally Posted by DB

So why proof-text at all? Why even have the atonement if he can act out of guildlines?

Because we do not question the way God has chosen to act. Why go to a Priest for confession? Why not go straight to God? But then if that is the case why did Jesus give some on earth the authority to remit sins? It might not make sense to us, but we try to follow what we know God has told us and do it in the way He has told us to do it.

Originally Posted by DB

And it can lead them in the wrong direction.

Only if you also assume that the Church can lead heaven in the wrong direction too, since any decision bound on earth is similarly bound in heaven.

Originally Posted by DB

That original sin is even existant is an assumption, a premise. Many groups reject that premise as not being found in the scriptures nor in sound doctrine. Are you missing the point of the thread?

Well yes of course that is the whole point of this thread - I was expressing the Catholic understanding of the purpose of Baptism. I was explaining that it is an incorrect conclusion to assume that because we Baptize infants that it is because we think they have a sinfulness to wash away (which is what I understood your initial point to be).

I can't prove everything in one fell swoop. So does that mean that I cannot bring up another aspect of the issue until I first prove it?

Originally Posted by DB

Protastantism got started because of perceived injustices and incorrect doctrine. It might not have applied to OS directly, but the principle is the same.

Yes, the principle, but it is the reformers who get to decide what they apply this principle to. For instance some did not apply it to the real presence and others did. Some did not apply it to free will and others did. If you can show me a reformer who balked at Original Sin then I will be glad to add it to the list. Otherwise this seems to remain a problem primarily between the East and the West with all due respect to the Churches who have formed since the reformation.

Originally Posted by DB

I might not be talking about Lutheranism or some of the early reformers. They worked under a certain set of assumptions (which I think were wrong also). It was only later that other items came into question.

But few of those would consider themselves as reformers or as acting as part of the reformation.

Originally Posted by DB

Being protestant doesn't mean you're automatically tolerant of other beliefs. They can d*** just as quickly as the RCC and EOC even though they are more recent.

I don't think disciples point was that that proved the protestants were right, only that if one were to disagree with the idea of original sin and are thus persecuted for that it shows they were outside the group doing the persecution. Therefore they were outside the group most people recognize as reformers and thus the issue is not part of the reformation (other than based on principle and how loosely one wants to apply it ).

[michael_legna]

I was wondering if either Symeon or Orthokid could show me how to get comfortable with the Canons from the Council of Carthage that I listed (which I will re-quote below)

Originally Posted by CoC

CANON CIX. (Greek cxij. continued.)

That Adam was not created by God subject to death.
THAT whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body -- that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.
NOTES:

CANON CX. (Greek cxii. bis)
That infants are baptized for the remission of sins.

LIKEWISE it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother's wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the layer of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.
For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have "sinned," than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

and the summary statement made by Orthokid (which I assume represents the Orthodox Church's position on Original Sin) which I now quote as well:

Originally Posted by Orthokid

I think you really gave it, in quoting the DRB and the interlinear Greek. It's the difference between "on account of which {ie. death} all have sinned" rather than "in whom all have sinned". We sin because of death -- separation from God -- not because of some "stain" inherited from Adam.

How do you reconcile the two ideas, that (from the Council) "

For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, "By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have "sinned," than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration." and the idea (from Orthokid) that "We sin because of death -- separation from God -- not because of some "stain" inherited from Adam."

I will add that the Catholic Church believes as Orthokid says, that we sin because of separation from God, but those are our personal sins. That is not discussing Original Sin which the Council clearly seems to imply exists (even for infants) and must be removed via Sacrament washing of Baptism.

[disciple]

So even before we commit individual acts of sin,we have already within us a propensity or inclination to sin as a result of original sin right?

[michael_legna]

Yes, that is what is meant by a disposition or habit (which are other terms they use). It is a deprivation of the grace that we must have in order to please God. It is not sin, in the generally or commonly used sense. But it is what the Catholic Church believes is what must be addressed in a person that makes Baptism by water and spirit required to enter the kingdom of heaven. Maybe (to avoid all the confusion) the early theologians should have never used the term sin, but then it is Baptism which washes away our sins, so it does seem to fit.

[disciple]

I agree with this without getting this discussion off track,as there is some fascinating history of how this doctrine has been defined over time,doesn't Paul use this idea of original sin as a support for the believer being identified with the second Man Jesus Christ in Romans 5.

As all were made sinners,many shall be made righteous?

to deny original sin,would also nullify this second teaching of Pauls,that Christ makes many righteous,is that correct?

[Symeon]

I have been doing my best to wade through the material, ML, but it's slow going for me.

Partly perhaps because this isn't already one of my topics of personal interest, so I have to get oriented on the topic (no pun intended); partly perhaps because my efforts to parse the different sources (both on the councils and on the topic more generally) is taking a lot of time, during a period when my time is being claimed mostly by work and family; and partly perhaps because we're nearing the end of the Great Fast.

The Fast is tiring; last night I put the lads to bed, had dinner, and went to bed, exhausted. (Not to worry -- "He said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for My strength is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9, KJV) My priest tells me that this is by no means unusual, that he is often weary at the end of the Great Fast too.

The upside of this weariness is that I am less inclined to leap up and get contentious over matters that are actually trivial ...

The downside is that I might sound "whiny" when explaining what's going on. Ah well. "My strength etc." But at least you know I'm not deliberately ignoring your request.

Disciple, the language we EOs would use would come from God's remarks in the context of the story of the Flood: "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5) and "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Gen. 8:21). Our imagination readily seizes evil thoughts, dwells upon them, and then incites us to carry them out.

The rabbis speak of "yetzer HaRa", our "inclination to (do) evil." My own imagination pictures this as an inclined plane -- a ramp -- angled downward. The easy thing is to relax and do the evil thing; we must work (with God's help) to resist this inclination and not do it.

(To be complete, I should add that the rabbis also speak of "yetzer HaTov", our "inclination to (do) good." I don't know what sort of balance they strike between the two inclinations.)

My point is that the term "original sin" is a specific term applied to a specific *version* of the revelation, granted to Jews as well as all Christians thanks to the narrative of the Fall of Adam and Eve, that Things Have Gone Wrong, Badly Wrong.

It is the position of many EOs that this specific term, and this specific version, are unique to Western Christianity; that they have led Western Christianity down some unfortunate roads; and that they were not what Christ taught His apostles and not what the Holy Apostles taught the first (or should it be called "second"?) generation of Christians.

And it is because OrthoKid brought up that position, that ML started this thread, to discuss the nuances of the term-and-version called "original sin," in order to examine the claim of Orthokid (and many other EOs) that "original sin" is a flawed understanding of the Gospel insight.

As I've said, this hasn't been a focus of my own studies in Orthodoxy, so I'm not especially well-read or fluent in this subject.

In practice, which is where I've mostly been for the last few years, Orthodoxy simply acknowledges that our nous (Greek word, hard to translate with another single word) is ill, and that we need Christ and the Holy Spirit to heal it; while They in turn need our cooperation if They are to heal it fully. Not "into" detailed pick-it-apart analysis, sorry; hard to put back together after picked apart, even harder to get the heart beating again afterward.

[Darth_Bill]

Found this

Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity - Maxwell Institute Papers

Is it true that because Latter-day Saints deny the doctrine of original sin, they are not Christian?
The notion of original sin as it is usually understood today in traditional Christianity is a distinctly late invention that evolved from the controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. Tertullian (second century A.D.), who was very concerned with the idea of sin, says nothing of the doctrine of original sin. Indeed, very few of the Church Fathers up to the fourth century show any interest in it at all. It was not clearly enunciated until Augustine (fourth/fifth century) needed it in his battle with the Christian Pelagians, who denied the doctrine, and it came to be associated with the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418.20
As Norbert Brox points out, "Pelagian theology was the traditional one, especially in Rome. But the Africans, under the theological leadership of Augustine, managed to make their charge of heresy stick within the church, thereby establishing the Augustinian theology of grace as the basis of the Western tradition."21 Some modern scholars now raise the issue that Augustine, and not Pelagius, was the real heretic.22

I really need to read some of Augustine's stuff. I like heretics.