A
AlNg
Guest
That was my original question. Is it inconsistent to say that the story of the sin of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally, but that other stories in Genesis are not to be taken literally?
How does God bring good out of evil: When a 5 year old girl is raped and murdered?
- Status
S
StAugustine
Guest
Ok, typical modern Orthodox interpretation.
Read the Pedalion and look at St. Nikodemos commentary on the canons of Carthage-
“Interpretation This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam,74 such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Synod in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the Catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the propatorical sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.”
Read the Pedalion and look at St. Nikodemos commentary on the canons of Carthage-
“Interpretation This view too was a product of the heretical insanity of the Pelagians this refers to their saying that newly begotten infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, as the Orthodox Church believes and maintains, but, instead, if anyone say that they are baptized for the remission of sins, yet the infants themselves have not incurred any taint from the original (or primordial) sin of Adam,74 such as to require to be removed by means of baptism (since, as we have said, those men believed that this original sin is not begotten with the human being, simply because this was not any offense of nature, but a mischoice of the free and independent will). So the Synod in the present Canon anathematizes the heretics who say this: First, because the form of the baptism for the remission of sins which is given to infants is not true according to them, but false and factitious, since, according to them, those infants have no sins to be pardoned. Secondly, because the Apostle in what he says makes it plain that sin entered the world through a single human being, namely, Adam, and that death entered through sin, and thus death passed into all human beings, since all of them have sinned just like Adam. This passage, I say, cannot be taken to mean anything else than what the Catholic Church of the Orthodox has understood and believed it to mean, to wit, that even the newborn infants, notwithstanding the fact that they have not sinned by reason of any exercise of their own free and independent will, have nevertheless entailed upon themselves the propatorical sin from Adam; wherefore they need to be purified through baptism necessarily from that sin: hence they are truly, and not fictitiously, being baptized for the remission of sins.”
J
JanetF
Guest
Based on her age, I believe we can assume she is enjoying spending her time with Jesus in Heaven
S
StAugustine
Guest
And on the basis of Gods goodness we can count on the reception of perfect justice on the last day. There’s this weird creeping fear in the death of the young that they won’t really obtain what they have deserved.
That weird fear is godless and atheistic.
That weird fear is godless and atheistic.
P
pacloc
Guest
I said nothing of a “modern Orthodox Interpretation.” I think you should read St. John of Damascus and St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian on the topic before calling what I said modern. St. Nikodemos said nothing contrary to what I said. I clearly was trying to explain that what we inherit from our parents is sin, but is very different than our personal sins. I was merely explaining that the term “washing” would refer more to our personal sins, and that a rebirth is needed for the other sin, which is more associated with an absence of Life and Light, which is God. There is more than one thing going on in Baptism. St. Nikodomos is attacking anyone that would say that we do not inherit any taint from the original or primordial sin of Adam that would not need to be removed by Baptism. Even this could be seen as being washed, but in the context of the conversation with the Jewish poster, I was making a distinction between what we do and what we inherit.
G
goout
Guest
How is it inconsistent to have different genres of literature in the bible? The bible is a collection of books in different genres. Poetry, narrative, prophecy, biography. Lot’s of different stuff in there.goout:
That was my original question. Is it inconsistent to say that the story of the sin of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally, but that other stories in Genesis are not to be taken literally?
S
STT
Guest
The crime is done. No one can make any good from it.
P
pacloc
Guest
From St. Gregory the Theologian’s Oration 40:
VII. “For since to be utterly sinless belongs to God, and to the first and uncompounded nature (for simplicity is peaceful, and not subject to dissension), and I venture to say also that it belongs to the Angelic nature too; or at least, I would affirm that nature to be very nearly sinless, because of its nearness to God; but to sin is human and belongs to the Compound on earth (for composition is the beginning of separation); therefore the master did not think it right to leave His creature unaided, or to neglect its danger of separation from Himself; but on the contrary, just as He gave existence to that which did not exist, so He gave new creation to that which did exist, a diviner creation and a loftier than the first, which is to those who are beginning life a Seal, and to those who are more mature in age both a gift and a restoration of the image which had fallen through sin, that we may not, by becoming worse through despair, and ever being borne downward to that which is more evil, fall altogether from good and from virtue, through despondency; and having fallen into a depth of evil (as it is said) despise Him; but that like those who in the course of a long journey make a brief rest from labour at an inn, we should be enabled to accomplish the rest of the road fresh and full of courage. Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin.”
Note the distinction between the Seal for infants and a Restoration for Adults, and at the end distinguishing between the purifications of individual sins and a cleansing from the bruises and stains of sin. The latter being for all man, including infants.
VII. “For since to be utterly sinless belongs to God, and to the first and uncompounded nature (for simplicity is peaceful, and not subject to dissension), and I venture to say also that it belongs to the Angelic nature too; or at least, I would affirm that nature to be very nearly sinless, because of its nearness to God; but to sin is human and belongs to the Compound on earth (for composition is the beginning of separation); therefore the master did not think it right to leave His creature unaided, or to neglect its danger of separation from Himself; but on the contrary, just as He gave existence to that which did not exist, so He gave new creation to that which did exist, a diviner creation and a loftier than the first, which is to those who are beginning life a Seal, and to those who are more mature in age both a gift and a restoration of the image which had fallen through sin, that we may not, by becoming worse through despair, and ever being borne downward to that which is more evil, fall altogether from good and from virtue, through despondency; and having fallen into a depth of evil (as it is said) despise Him; but that like those who in the course of a long journey make a brief rest from labour at an inn, we should be enabled to accomplish the rest of the road fresh and full of courage. Such is the grace and power of baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin.”
Note the distinction between the Seal for infants and a Restoration for Adults, and at the end distinguishing between the purifications of individual sins and a cleansing from the bruises and stains of sin. The latter being for all man, including infants.
Last edited:
R
Rabbi
Guest
A joke of mine: why did Jesus not rise on Saturday, but Sunday?
Christian answer: he wanted to show us that the Law of Moses was finished, that we shouldn’t observe the Shabbat anymore.
Jewish answer: dude, what are you saying? Jesus was a good Jew and he died a good Jew. He even didn’t rise on Shabbat!
On a more serious note… how do we interpret David’s words in Psalm 51:7, and is it an alibi for the doctrine of Original Sin?
Poetically:
“Behold, with iniquity I [David] was formed, and in sin did my mother conceived me.”
This verse sounds very much like Original Sin, but Christians somehow miss this clause: “in sin did my mother. . . [form me].” In other words, David himself was not born in sin, rather, his mother sinned during the act of procreation. Besides, the verse itself is full of poetic hyperbole, and one cannot insert their theology on a metaphorical text like Psalm 51:7.
Perhaps an analogy would better help you understand. For instance, let us entertain for the moment that David said, “In anger my father hit me.” Now I’m almost certain you wouldn’t dare think twice about calling the child the vengeful one, right? Then why is it different when it comes to this supposed proof-text?
If we realize that David was comparing himself to a world full of sin, and that this is the meaning of the text, then the Hebrew Bible never mentions a word regarding original sin. In that respect, no one is born into sin. Remember Isaiah 7:15-16? A matured child, when he or she has reached the age of spiritual responsibility, can reason between good and evil. Prior to that, they are not responsible for their actions.
We find a similar situation in Psalm 58:4, “The wicked become estranged [even] from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth.”
Again, this has nothing to do with the concept of primordial sin. It is once more affirming us the idea of the youthful nature to rebel. Hence, why the Torah heeds us to uphold our father and mother (Deuteronomy 5:16).
Christian answer: he wanted to show us that the Law of Moses was finished, that we shouldn’t observe the Shabbat anymore.
Jewish answer: dude, what are you saying? Jesus was a good Jew and he died a good Jew. He even didn’t rise on Shabbat!
On a more serious note… how do we interpret David’s words in Psalm 51:7, and is it an alibi for the doctrine of Original Sin?
Poetically:
“Behold, with iniquity I [David] was formed, and in sin did my mother conceived me.”
This verse sounds very much like Original Sin, but Christians somehow miss this clause: “in sin did my mother. . . [form me].” In other words, David himself was not born in sin, rather, his mother sinned during the act of procreation. Besides, the verse itself is full of poetic hyperbole, and one cannot insert their theology on a metaphorical text like Psalm 51:7.
Perhaps an analogy would better help you understand. For instance, let us entertain for the moment that David said, “In anger my father hit me.” Now I’m almost certain you wouldn’t dare think twice about calling the child the vengeful one, right? Then why is it different when it comes to this supposed proof-text?
If we realize that David was comparing himself to a world full of sin, and that this is the meaning of the text, then the Hebrew Bible never mentions a word regarding original sin. In that respect, no one is born into sin. Remember Isaiah 7:15-16? A matured child, when he or she has reached the age of spiritual responsibility, can reason between good and evil. Prior to that, they are not responsible for their actions.
We find a similar situation in Psalm 58:4, “The wicked become estranged [even] from the womb; those who speak lies go astray from birth.”
Again, this has nothing to do with the concept of primordial sin. It is once more affirming us the idea of the youthful nature to rebel. Hence, why the Torah heeds us to uphold our father and mother (Deuteronomy 5:16).
S
StAugustine
Guest
So you affirm that an infant is baptized in order to have the taint of original sin, which is the death of the soul entailed upon the infant by being from Adam, remitted and washed away?
G
Gab123
Guest
The 5 year old goes to heaven; Often times the only way people turn to God is when something terrible happens. Archbishop Sheen told the story about how a shepherd will pick up a young lamb and carry it on his shoulders and place the lamb down in order to get the flock to go to it. likewise sometimes the death of a child wakes up a family tied to earthly temporal things to think about the eternal. As the saying goes, sometimes a broken heart is the only way some hearts turn and open up to God…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
pacloc
Guest
Yes, I understand what you are saying. Even Christians such as St. Maximus the Confessor and other Fathers of the Church clearly state that it is because man is conceived in passion, that the passions are passed on to the offspring. This is why we believe it was necessary for Christ to be born of a Virgin so as not to be born in passion.
But could you touch on the idea of whether or not man would have be born the same way, born of passion and with the passions, if Adam and Eve had not sinned.
But could you touch on the idea of whether or not man would have be born the same way, born of passion and with the passions, if Adam and Eve had not sinned.
P
pacloc
Guest
Pretty much. I think it is important to word it more the way that I already have because you seem to think of it very legalistically. Obviously concupiscence does not go away with baptism, so baptism is really just a beginning and Promise/Seal of the future destruction of original sin. Being Born into Christ is the point. The Fathers speak of His Resurrection as the means by which when we die physically are able to be separated from sin and resurrected without sin. The dissolving of the body back into its elementary parts cleanses it of sin, and we are resurrected by God as members of Christ’s Body.
R
Rabbi
Guest
Interesting question indeed. Genesis says “Be fruitful and multiple.” We can then reason that mankind was to convince children in the same natural way as done today; it was always made to be such. Whether or not it would have been passionate, I ask, why not? Does that passion transfer to the child being conceived? Perhaps this is the dividing line between Christianity and Judaism, as Judaism sees the natural process (when it is man and woman), as sacred. After all, through this act, you are bringing someone into this world who might do a lot of good for others and praise the Almighty. Does that then mean one can lust after a partner? Of course not, and this was the problem Nzb’th (David’s mother) had.
I also want you to think of Adam and Eve’s sin a little differently: who placed the snake in the garden? If G-d is all-knowing, why did He place the snake? There is obviously some purpose here. Why? That question has been asked for generations, but the Jewish position is that the first sin wasn’t an accident by far. G-d knew what He was doing. I’m aware that this answer, or perspective, may be unsatisfying, disappointing, or maybe even a little gross to the Christian mindset. It is, however, not gross to the Jewish one.
I also want you to think of Adam and Eve’s sin a little differently: who placed the snake in the garden? If G-d is all-knowing, why did He place the snake? There is obviously some purpose here. Why? That question has been asked for generations, but the Jewish position is that the first sin wasn’t an accident by far. G-d knew what He was doing. I’m aware that this answer, or perspective, may be unsatisfying, disappointing, or maybe even a little gross to the Christian mindset. It is, however, not gross to the Jewish one.
Last edited:
M
minux
Guest
Man, it is not for God to bring good out of this situation. It is for us to bring good out of this situation. If we do in the future, maybe, our righteousness, will prevent these incidents. Let us pray for everyone tonight to find peace in horror.
God just wants your love. Anyone who loves God would not do such a thing. God wants you to choose his love.
God just wants your love. Anyone who loves God would not do such a thing. God wants you to choose his love.
S
StAugustine
Guest
Again, this is another Orthodox claim, that the west is legalistic. It’s not that I choose to be legalistic, it’s simply that this is the way some of the fathers and the scriptures themselves speak. There is a tendency amongst the Romanidean Orthodox of the ancient and venerable 1960’s to redefine Orthodox theology as something more spiritual and “enlightened” than boring old scholasticism. Nevermind that scholasticism began in the east and was embraced by Byzantium by many Orthodox saints and patriarchs and theologians.
The language I emphasized to you was that of one of the Kollyvades fathers. He is one of your saints. It is important that you conform your mind and will to not only the terminology of the venerable Florovsky and Romanides, but that you also choose to know the writings of Peter Mohila, the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem under Dositheus, the 1666 Pan-Orthodox synod, the history of Pre-Athonite Russia (Before Paisius Velichkovsky).
As well as the excessive and gross adulterations of St. Dimitri of Rostov, and his love of the Sacred Heart, The Rosary and the Stations of the Cross (Tongue in cheek!)
Have you read Fr. Seraphim Rose’s letters about super-correctness and those who think the “Latin Captivity” of the Orthodox Church was like a real thing?
It’s the inability for Orthodoxy to really be Catholic in its theology and conclusions that caused me to revert from it back to Catholicism, because the Scholastics themselves did greater justice to ALL the fathers in doing theology as opposed to a Cappadocian slice. Aquinas allows himself to be equally shaped by Augustine and Dionysius, Damascene and Cyril, Ambrose and Chrysostom. Orthodoxy seems to be generally stuck in the east, more concerned about preserving a particular patristic thread of thought than weaving a wider tapestry of patristic theology.
The language I emphasized to you was that of one of the Kollyvades fathers. He is one of your saints. It is important that you conform your mind and will to not only the terminology of the venerable Florovsky and Romanides, but that you also choose to know the writings of Peter Mohila, the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem under Dositheus, the 1666 Pan-Orthodox synod, the history of Pre-Athonite Russia (Before Paisius Velichkovsky).
As well as the excessive and gross adulterations of St. Dimitri of Rostov, and his love of the Sacred Heart, The Rosary and the Stations of the Cross (Tongue in cheek!)
Have you read Fr. Seraphim Rose’s letters about super-correctness and those who think the “Latin Captivity” of the Orthodox Church was like a real thing?
It’s the inability for Orthodoxy to really be Catholic in its theology and conclusions that caused me to revert from it back to Catholicism, because the Scholastics themselves did greater justice to ALL the fathers in doing theology as opposed to a Cappadocian slice. Aquinas allows himself to be equally shaped by Augustine and Dionysius, Damascene and Cyril, Ambrose and Chrysostom. Orthodoxy seems to be generally stuck in the east, more concerned about preserving a particular patristic thread of thought than weaving a wider tapestry of patristic theology.
S
StAugustine
Guest
There is no good you will attempt that God does not first inspire in you to do. Everything is his initiative, our response. And our response is also at his initiative. He will bring good out of it through others.
P
pacloc
Guest
We will have to just agree to disagree about whether or not the Holy King David was speaking about the passion involved in procreating in general or actually accusing his own mother of the sin of lust.
As for your second paragraph, I as an Orthodox Christian, view the scenario in the Garden similarly. We definitely agree that God knew all that would happen and that there was a purpose in God allowing it all to happen. We know that it was not an accident in the sense of something unexpected happened. The difference I think is that we still take other parts of Scripture more literally, that make it clear that God did not create death and that He does not tempt us. We are able to see that when other Scripture seems to say the opposite, those sayings are trying to demonstrate God’s Almighty Providence in that nothing happens without His permission. So in a way He is in control of the events, but we dare not say that He performed the event if it is wicked.
But I still ask the question about the state of man’s proclivity to sin due to the fall. Did Adam and Eve have a different communion with God before the Sin that protected them in a greater way from the desire to sin or not?
As for your second paragraph, I as an Orthodox Christian, view the scenario in the Garden similarly. We definitely agree that God knew all that would happen and that there was a purpose in God allowing it all to happen. We know that it was not an accident in the sense of something unexpected happened. The difference I think is that we still take other parts of Scripture more literally, that make it clear that God did not create death and that He does not tempt us. We are able to see that when other Scripture seems to say the opposite, those sayings are trying to demonstrate God’s Almighty Providence in that nothing happens without His permission. So in a way He is in control of the events, but we dare not say that He performed the event if it is wicked.
But I still ask the question about the state of man’s proclivity to sin due to the fall. Did Adam and Eve have a different communion with God before the Sin that protected them in a greater way from the desire to sin or not?
P
pacloc
Guest
I have no idea who you are battling with here because I did not bring up any of the people or thoughts that you are attacking. You seem to have serious issues that you need to seek either spiritual or professional help with. You have attacked a stranger because of the hatred you have for your conceived idea of what an Orthodox Christian is.
The legalism I was talking about was your wanting a pretty and simple answer for being saved. Not much different from Protestantism (which came directly from Roman Catholicism) wanting to pray the sinner’s prayer and ask Christ to come into their heart and be saved. The difference being of course that your way at least has the Holy Sacrament that is clearly part of the ancient Church, and the Protestant way is definitely a modern innovation all together. But both are very superstitious and more similar to what Christ accused the majority of Jews of his days of, performing the act of the Law without sacrificing themselves and their will that was opposed to God’s. The Sacrament of Baptism needs repentance and a determination to die to this world and her desires, and to do the will of God for it to mean anything. That is why I said that you can’t just say a simple, “You are baptized and original sin is remitted”, it just sounds crazy, and if you don’t think so, you need to rethink Christianity, and I would avoid any writing East or West that isn’t at least 1400 years old.
The legalism I was talking about was your wanting a pretty and simple answer for being saved. Not much different from Protestantism (which came directly from Roman Catholicism) wanting to pray the sinner’s prayer and ask Christ to come into their heart and be saved. The difference being of course that your way at least has the Holy Sacrament that is clearly part of the ancient Church, and the Protestant way is definitely a modern innovation all together. But both are very superstitious and more similar to what Christ accused the majority of Jews of his days of, performing the act of the Law without sacrificing themselves and their will that was opposed to God’s. The Sacrament of Baptism needs repentance and a determination to die to this world and her desires, and to do the will of God for it to mean anything. That is why I said that you can’t just say a simple, “You are baptized and original sin is remitted”, it just sounds crazy, and if you don’t think so, you need to rethink Christianity, and I would avoid any writing East or West that isn’t at least 1400 years old.
M
minux
Guest
That is precisely the point. You can not look at an incomprehensible situation and wonder where God is. That choice was made by man. It is not up to God to determine good will of man. It is up to us.
- Status