www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Orthodox objections to Original Sin ?

Dear ByzCathDad,

By your wrting here it appears you are very much influenced and persuaded by the Latin position. I have no problem with this. But if you really want to get a balanced perspective on the Eastern position, there's plenty of opportunity to do this. For instance, since the Latin Church names St. Augustine "the Doctor of Grace," a study of the differences between he and St. John Cassian would give you some good background on the historic differences in understandings of original sin between East and West.

Also on the Conception of the Mother of God and her Dormition, I have a short study on this on my web-site if you are interested. It addresses some of your concerns written above. Let me know if these suggestions are helpful or not.

Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

If interested see:
"The Conception of the Holy Mother of God" at:
http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/tradition.html

Dear Ghazar,

Just popped in for a moment when I saw your link to your article - excellent!

Thank you, my Miaphysite Brother in Christ!

Alex

Dear Brother Alexander the "Orthodox Catholic,"

Thanks for your encouragement. If I wrote you after every inspiring thing of yours I read, your mail box would be constantly full! Thank you for your continued witness and enlightenment.

Ghazar

p.s. If the Churches which accepted Chalcedon are typically called "Chalcedonian Orthodox" I think "Ephesian Orthodox" is a fitting title for our Churches. Do you think this is at all antagonistic or trouble-some to anyone?

Dear Brother Ghazar,

Forgive me for just one more post here . . .

I've heard the term "Ephesian" used with respect to the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

One problem in calling attention to Chalcedon in this way is that it tends to almost "ignore
" the other Councils that the Byzantine Churches accept as well.

And the fact is that the Oriental Churches, in their ecumenical discussions, have indeed no problem with those other Councils, even though they were not present at them and so do not accept them.

Another pitfall both our families of Churches can get themselves into is to define each other "negatively" in terms of the Christological controversies generated at the Councils.

And that would be unfortunate, especially since contemporary theologians from both our ecclesial families have shown that we have always shared the same understanding of the Person of Christ, even though we've been separated for hundreds of years.

So I would stick with "Eastern Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox."

And, of course, "Orthodox Catholic" in my case!

I'll go now!

Alex

Brother Alexander,

Why rush off? Are you trying to avoid hitting 15,000 posts before the new year? Why stop now? I'd still like to hear any further thoughts you might have on my post (if any).

I think you made some good points. By the title "Ephesian Orthodox," I meant no offense. I only meant it to point out that for us, "Ephesus" said it all. It was/is our rallying point in Christology. I even dedicated a webpage on my site on this topic:

http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/chalcedon.html

But I like your suggestion of using "Eastern Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox" because they mean the same thing! If anything this underlines the fact that we do indeed share the same Eastern/Oriental Orthodox Faith. This reminds me of an excellent article by Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan of blessed memory. Some day I hope to get an electronic version of it on my site. His Grace Tiran shows in so many different ways the depth of unity we really share between us. Of course, I'd include Orthodox Catholics as well.

Glory to Jesus Christ !

Dear Ghazar,

With apologies for the extended delay in my reply, in a way you're probably right about "my Latin sensibilities" coloring my view of the "Immaculate Conception". However, the article you posted - as well as other postings relating to the Orthodox view of Original Sin - lead me to believe that my view of Original Sin as a Catholic was actually more Orthodox than Catholic.

I never before realized that Catholic doctrine teaches that all of mankind inherits the actual guilt of Adam and Eve. To me, it makes more sense to say we've inherited concupiscence and its consequences - first being death - from our original parents than to say we assume the guilt for their original act of rebellion against God.

Regarding the Orthodox concept of ancestral / familial sin, I see no discrepancy between that concept and Sacred Tradition. As is usual for me, I have not a clue as to the actual book / chapter / verse, but I know that somewhere in Scripture - the Old Testament, I believe - it says something to the effect that the "sins of the fathers will be visited on the sons".

Maybe what I thought were my Catholic beliefs were in fact my Orthodox beliefs. Oh well, guess it's a good thing my wife and I are on our way to becoming "Orthodox Catholics".

Sam

Glory to Him Forever !

Dear ByzCathDad (Sam),

Good to hear from you. Far from trying to sway you from one side to another, I was simply trying to offer some information relating to the questions you raised. I respect your openess and willingness to consider both traditions. I certainly respect them both although I hold to the Eastern tradition. I'm glad you found some of the information helpful. To help you further your research here's a helpful link. Although this site is rather polemical and anti-Catholic, there is still some good information on it. See the article about St. John Cassian to learn more of the historic Eastern position on Original Sin.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspx

reply: As the Latin Catholic translators (or paraphrasers) of the New Jerusalem Bible put on the lips of the Psalmist: "remember I was born guilty, a sinner from the moment of my conception" (Ps 51:5).

This verse is understood very differently in the Orthodox tradition which translates it literally from the Septuagint, "For behold I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me" (Ps 50:7 LXX) as even St. Jerome translated this in Latin. We believe we are born damaged but certainly not "totally depraved" or guilty.

May God's Spirit allow this to be true for us all!

Trusting in the Holy Spirit's Illumination,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee
www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

Dear Sam,

The issue is really complex and it is all but impossible to retell briefly what exactly is the point to theologically dispute and discuss for the Orthodox and Roman Catholics concerning the original sin. But, just a few notices far from scholastic details can be made.

We, the Orthodox, insist that the problem of so called Adam�s fall lies not in the sphere of his disobedience, or at least not only in it, but in his, and therefore in the whole mankind, being cut off from God. We strictly oppose the idea that that God so to speak �punished� Adam through the expulsion because of the disobedience, but we profess the being out of the divine source as such naturally and inevitably created human mortality. No true Orthodox ever says that we inherit the Adam guilt, but he/she would rather say that we inherit mortality or �mortal illness� created by the infinite profound between the creation and its Creator. Our death became inevitable because of the fact of our infinite foreignness to the non-created eternal nature rather than God�s condemnation. We are �sick�, but not guilty. This deadlock cannot be solved and the illness had to be resulted in death. But against all hopes the Son of Man has converted His death to ours. So in Jesus we have died and now live immortally again in God.

The Roman Catholicism says (or probably had said before Vatican II changed a lot of things) that we were destined to die as a punish after Adam�s fall, but the self-sacrificing of Christ allegedly satisfied God�s justice and He agreed to deprive us of deserved death. The Orthodox Christians of today regard this concept as heretic one though for a long while it paradoxically influenced the eastern theology. Now we believe, as the Holy Fathers did, that the Christ ministry was not a matter of the satisfaction of God�s justice, but a matter of healing us. We were not acquitted as we were not guilty, but we were healed, renewed, and changed. In Jesus we have killed our human mortality so as to lead new divine immortal life in eternal God. So, in our opinion, it is not correct to comprehend the original sin juridically as a crime. Perhaps, the stealing of the forbidden fruit committed by Adam can be regarded like this, but not the consequent fate of humanity. The original sin was a kind of illness, the illness of being out of God, which was diagnosed by endless sufferings and the eventual death. God loving the whole creation was never angry of Adam or somebody else. It was we, people, who willingly discontinued the covenant with God and in this way lost the Giver of Life. But the Messiah died instead of us and the new divine and human covenant has come to existence. This is the Orthodox point of view though expressed non-scientifically.

Valerius

Hi folks,

This is my first time posting on this board so let me introduce myself. My name is Daniel Jones and I live in Fort Worth, TX. I'm a traditional Tridentine Catholic, and attend an FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) Church in the area. I have a growing love for Byzantine Theology and Spirituality. Currently, I'm an engineer at Lockheed Martin working on the JSF program. However, this fall I'm going back to school to pursue post-graduate degree(s) in theology. The most amount of work that I've done has been in Augustinian studies. So, if you would give me your indulgence, let me see if I could lend some help to this thread.

From my estimation, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what Augustine believed about original sin and inherited guilt by Eastern Christians. For Augustine, there are two elements that constitute original sin: the material and the formal. The formal element of original sin is the absence of original justice. This is the personal part of original sin (the inherited guilt shall we say), and as Augustine understands, it is an absence of good that should be there . Without this justice, man cannot stand before a Holy and just God; the person is no longer pleasing to God. Because of the fall, Adam could no longer pass this justice to all of posterity. This is what Augustine means when he says that "we were all in Adam" because "we would all come from him." This is why Augustine in his work against the Pelagian Bishop Julian: Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian quotes St. John Chrysostom that Adam condemned the whole human race by his transgression. All of this is built on the back of a robust exegesis of Romans 5:18-19 "Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just." And not just merely his understanding Romans 5:12 as many have implied in the past. So, to conclude "inherited guilt" is not some sort of personal liability for what Adam did, but the charge of "guilty" because of the absence of justice not passed onto posterity, by Adam and all his descendants, to stand before a Holy God and to be pleasing to God.

Now the material element of original sin is concupiscence. The key here is not to confuse the material with the formal. The formal truly is original sin. The material element, that being concupiscence, is the evidence that original sin exists in the person. This is the one of the errors of Reformed Protestantism. Luther and Calvin equated concupiscence as original sin itself. With this understanding of the Reformers, man can never be free from sin in this life (since in the Roman Catholic view, concupiscence remains after Baptism as the "moral proving ground" for virtue; but concupiscence is not a sin in and of itself, but only when consented to. This is Augustinian teahing.), they have an understanding of justification as "imputed" or merely "credited" with Christ's righteousness to your account. It can be a thought as a ledger book: one one side the person has all his sins, on the other side the righteous of Christ is credited and covers that all up. Whereas the Roman Catholic view, sees justification as a freedom from sin and being transformed and made righteous. I know I'm going into other issues, but I hope I've given some clarification to the Augustinian view of original sin.

Daniel Jones

Hi folks,

This is my first time posting on this board so let me introduce myself. My name is Daniel Jones and I live in Fort Worth, TX. I'm a traditional Tridentine Catholic, and attend an FSSP (Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) Church in the area. I have a growing love for Byzantine Theology and Spirituality. Currently, I'm an engineer at Lockheed Martin working on the JSF program. However, this fall I'm going back to school to pursue post-graduate degree(s) in theology. The most amount of work that I've done has been in Augustinian studies. So, if you would give me your indulgence, let me see if I could lend some help to this thread.

From my estimation, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what Augustine believed about original sin and inherited guilt by Eastern Christians. For Augustine, there are two elements that constitute original sin: the material and the formal. The formal element of original sin is the absence of original justice. This is the personal part of original sin (the inherited guilt shall we say), and as Augustine understands, it is an absence of good that should be there . Without this justice, man cannot stand before a Holy and just God; the person is no longer pleasing to God. Because of the fall, Adam could no longer pass this justice to all of posterity. This is what Augustine means when he says that "we were all in Adam" because "we would all come from him." This is why Augustine in his work against the Pelagian Bishop Julian: Unfinished Work in Answer to Julian quotes St. John Chrysostom that Adam condemned the whole human race by his transgression. All of this is built on the back of a robust exegesis of Romans 5:18-19 "Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just." And not just merely his understanding Romans 5:12 as many have implied in the past. So, to conclude "inherited guilt" is not some sort of personal liability for what Adam did, but the charge of "guilty" because of the absence of justice not passed onto posterity, by Adam and all his descendants, to stand before a Holy God and to be pleasing to God.

Now the material element of original sin is concupiscence. The key here is not to confuse the material with the formal. The formal truly is original sin. The material element, that being concupiscence, is the evidence that original sin exists in the person. This is the one of the errors of Reformed Protestantism. Luther and Calvin equated concupiscence as original sin itself. With this understanding of the Reformers, man can never be free from sin in this life (since in the Roman Catholic view, concupiscence remains after Baptism as the "moral proving ground" for virtue; but concupiscence is not a sin in and of itself, but only when consented to. This is Augustinian teahing.), they have an understanding of justification as "imputed" or merely "credited" with Christ's righteousness to your account. It can be a thought as a ledger book: one one side the person has all his sins, on the other side the righteous of Christ is credited and covers that all up. Whereas the Roman Catholic view, sees justification as a freedom from sin and being transformed and made righteous. I know I'm going into other issues, but I hope I've given some clarification to the Augustinian view of original sin.

Daniel Jones

I have also studied the issue of original sin extensively. My conclusion is that what Eastern Christianity often criticizes about the Western concept of original sin is NOT the Catholic concept of original sin, but the PROTESTANT concept of original sin foisted onto Catholicism.

Comments? (I'm preparing to be flayed alive! )

Blessings,
Marduk

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am NOT saying that the Eastern objections against the Western view of original sin is invalid. I am only saying that the Eastern objections are not against the Western CATHOLIC view of original sin, but only against the Western PROTESTANT view.

Blessings,
Marduk

I was baptized and brought up as an Episcopalian, where I remained officially if not devoutly, until my wife and I entered the Catholic Church together at Easter Vigil 1996. However, from what I learned of Protestant - particularly Lutheran - teachings on sin is that Luther taught we remain depraved with God's grace covering (hiding) our sin "like snow covers a pile of dung". Sorry for the indelicate analogy, but that's how it was described.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches that our sins are truly washed away by God's grace. I guess kind of like the Eastern concept of theosis, we are genuinely freed from our sin and made Christ-like by His grace.

+Blessing of Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ !

Sam

Again, I would point to the differences between St. Augustine and St. John Cassian as indicative of the REAL differences between the historic East and West on Original Sin.

Yes, St. Augustine caused it all!

In any case, I want to add that Western Catholics and Protestants both appeal to St. Augustine, but they come up with different conclusions. I have realized that it is the PROTESTANT interpretation of Augustine that Orthodox really have a problem with.

Case in point (among others) is the Protestant doctrine of imputation. In Protestantism, Adam's actual guilt for his personal sin is imputed to the whole human race in some legal fashion. In distinction, Catholicsm understands that the guilt we have is from our own sin due NOT to inherited guilt or sin, but an inherited fallen nature. BOTH concepts are derived from Augustine. However, one sees that the Protestant interpretation of Augustine, in this particular respect (as in others) is what is actually detestable to Orthodox. However, I often find Orthodox apologists and polemicists act as if the Protestant understanding is the Catholic understanding.

The doctrine of original sin is not as dogmatically defined as in the West. Thus there are certain theologoumenon that exists in the Eastern milieu that the West might perhaps consider objectionable. For instance, the notion that death is not a punishment for sin is NOT absent in some Orthodox circles (I can think specifically of Fr. Romanides). The Cappadocian Fathers are as close to the West as the East will get regarding a developed understanding of original sin; even then, there are other Fathers in the East that have notions on original sin that may contradict the Cappadocians on some points. In any case, the general mindset of the East is to appreciate mystery and not to dogmatize. We in the East need to appreciate this. In truth, there is no one set dogmatic viewpoint on original sin in Eastern Christianity. I think what is common to all the different Eastern viewpoints is also common to the Western Catholic viewpoint.

It is the Western PROTESTANT errors that we all detest (not to malign their individual Christianity).

Blessings,
Marduk