Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin-Redemption

[Hesychios]

This post will unfortunately be very brief, I may post later if I am able.

My purpose is not to contend against Lutheran beliefs so much as to simply explain Orthodox belief, and perhaps we can explore why these may differ, if in fact they do. I will take the Lutheran claim that it is a representative extension of the medieval Catholic church at face value, others can dispute it if they wish. I would only state what I might know to be an Orthodox understanding, if I know it.

The question of this thread revolves around the concept of First Sin, and what impact that ultimately has for us.

First Sin is the sin of Adam. It was this mistake which wounded us. The effects of Original Sin are mortality, weakness and frailty (Catholics should recognize this). I think that we can see from this that humankind is really a victim here. First Sin is Adam’s sin, and he alone is accountable for that, he alone will burn in hell (if that is the punishment God deems appropriate) for his sins. The rest of us are innocent of Adam’s sin, we have to account for our own.

Human being are basically good by nature, God made us so and nothing can change that. But the effects of Adam’s sin make us more subject to err in our lives, for instance temptation may grip us at an awkward moment or we may lose our good sense of propriety. When we do, we know that we will be held accountable before God.

This has led us to see things a bit differently than western Christians. For one thing (as has been mentioned elsewhere) we in the east don’t have big debates over justification. The Patristic witness in the east has not come down strongly in one way or another, and individuals over the centuries have had divergent personal opinions. Orthodox have not formally damned unbaptized infants, and because we never damned the innocent we never had to develop a theory of Limbo for infants that makes the situation seem a bit more merciful.

Likewise, this attitude has never led the Orthodox to look to Saint Mary as some special exception in her birth circumstances. She was born like the rest of us and died like the rest of us. Is she immaculate? Well yes! considering that we were all born sinless and she (unlike most people) remained so throughout her entire life

We also don’t think of baptized Christians as dunghills covered in snow (as one great western thinker is alleged to have called us ).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If the Atonement is not for Original Sin, the sin that we inherit from Adam, Michael, what is the Atonement for from an Orthodox perspective? If all we inherit is death, Christ was crucified and, as we are told by Scripture, “made to be sin” and that “the Law” was nailed to the Cross, then what was the point of the Cross? It seems the Augustinian view of Original Sin makes far more sense than the Orthodox? Is death and not sin being atoned for? I’d appreciate your insights. God bless.

This post will unfortunately be very brief, I may post later if I am able.

My purpose is not to contend against Lutheran beliefs so much as to simply explain Orthodox belief, and perhaps we can explore why these may differ, if in fact they do. I will take the Lutheran claim that it is a representative extension of the medieval Catholic church at face value, others can dispute it if they wish. I would only state what I might know to be an Orthodox understanding, if I know it.

The question of this thread revolves around the concept of First Sin, and what impact that ultimately has for us.

First Sin is the sin of Adam. It was this mistake which wounded us. The effects of Original Sin are mortality, weakness and frailty (Catholics should recognize this). I think that we can see from this that humankind is really a victim here. First Sin is Adam’s sin, and he alone is accountable for that, he alone will burn in hell (if that is the punishment God deems appropriate) for his sins. The rest of us are innocent of Adam’s sin, we have to account for our own.

Human being are basically good by nature, God made us so and nothing can change that. But the effects of Adam’s sin make us more subject to err in our lives, for instance temptation may grip us at an awkward moment or we may lose our good sense of propriety. When we do, we know that we will be held accountable before God.

This has led us to see things a bit differently than western Christians. For one thing (as has been mentioned elsewhere) we in the east don’t have big debates over justification. The Patristic witness in the east has not come down strongly in one way or another, and individuals over the centuries have had divergent personal opinions. Orthodox have not formally damned unbaptized infants, and because we never damned the innocent we never had to develop a theory of Limbo for infants that makes the situation seem a bit more merciful.

Likewise, this attitude has never led the Orthodox to look to Saint Mary as some special exception in her birth circumstances. She was born like the rest of us and died like the rest of us. Is she immaculate? Well yes! considering that we were all born sinless and she (unlike most people) remained so throughout her entire life

We also don’t think of baptized Christians as dunghills covered in snow (as one great western thinker is alleged to have called us ).

 

[Bluegoat]

If the Atonement is not for Original Sin, the sin that we inherit from Adam, Michael, what is the Atonement for from an Orthodox perspective? If all we inherit is death, Christ was crucified and, as we are told by Scripture, “made to be sin” and that “the Law” was nailed to the Cross, then what was the point of the Cross? It seems the Augustinian view of Original Sin makes far more sense than the Orthodox? Is death and not sin being atoned for? I’d appreciate your insights. God bless.

I don’t think that Orthodoxy really talks about atonement. They talk about God overcoming death. The Crucifixion allows God to die, which isn’t really possible, and thus defeats death. It also presumably tells us something about God and also what we are supposed to be, since we are meant to conform ourselves to Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t think that Orthodoxy really talks about atonement. They talk about God overcoming death. The Crucifixion allows God to die, which isn’t really possible, and thus defeats death. It also presumably tells us something about God and also what we are supposed to be, since we are meant to conform ourselves to Christ.

"By death He conquered death"

I may be wrong here, but I think the satisfaction theory (transactional debt - payment) Catholics basically follow is a development from Anselm, a post-schism Lombard about eleventh century.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I don’t think that’s satisfactory. We are told by Scripture that Christ was made to be sin and that the Law was nailed to the Cross along with its legal claims against us. Death is squashed, yes, but because of the Atonement. We obviously hear Paul talk about “Death, where is your sting?” etc. because Christ overcomes death but isn’t Original Sin, Christ’s salvific act on the Cross, related to the overcoming of death? We are credited as righteous according to Romans and Paul’s use of legal language seems to contradict the mere notion that death was destroyed. There’s much more, isn’t there?

I don’t think that Orthodoxy really talks about atonement. They talk about God overcoming death. The Crucifixion allows God to die, which isn’t really possible, and thus defeats death. It also presumably tells us something about God and also what we are supposed to be, since we are meant to conform ourselves to Christ.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t think that Orthodoxy really talks about atonement. They talk about God overcoming death. The Crucifixion allows God to die, which isn’t really possible, and thus defeats death. It also presumably tells us something about God and also what we are supposed to be, since we are meant to conform ourselves to Christ.

One of the mistakes that can be made is to isolate the atonement to only one theme. It would be as much of a mistake to do with the substitutionary view, as it is for the Christus Victor view in Orthodoxy. One, I think, must combine all of the classical views on the atonement. They are all true, not an either/or. The dominant theme, I believe, is the substitutionary-satisfaction view, because it forms the basis of all the others. Without it, there is no basis for death’s defeat, or the demonstration of God’s love.

 

[TriuneUnity]

"By death He conquered death"

I may be wrong here, but I think the satisfaction theory (transactional debt - payment) Catholics basically follow is a development from Anselm, a post-schism Lombard about eleventh century.

Anselm certainly developed it a great deal… It would be a mistake to think, however, that those in the early church did not clearly understand the satisfaction elements. I marvel, sometimes, when reading the following quote from the Epistle to Diognetus (A.D. 150-225), just how consistent this view is with the later views developed by Augustine, Anselm, and Luther:

". . . when our unrighteousness was fulfilled, and it had been made perfectly clear that its wages—punishment and death—were to be expected, then the season arrived during which God had decided to reveal at last his goodness and power

(oh, the surpassing kindness and love of God!).

He did not

    hate us,

    or reject us,

    or bear a grudge against us;

instead

    he was patient and forbearing;

    in his mercy he took upon himself our sins;

    he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us,

        the holy one for the lawless,

        the guiltless for the guilty,

        the just for the unjust,

        the incorruptible for the corruptible,

        the immortal for the mortal.

For what else but his righteousness could have covered our sins?

In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone?

    O the sweet exchange,

    O the incomprehensible work of God,

    O the unexpected blessings,

        that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person,

        while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!"

(Imputation, anyone?)

 

[Hesychios]

Anselm certainly developed it a great deal… It would be a mistake to think, however, that those in the early church did not clearly understand the satisfaction elements. I marvel, sometimes, when reading the following quote from the Epistle to Diognetus (A.D. 150-225), just how consistent this view is with the later views developed by Augustine, Anselm, and Luther:

There is nothing wrong about the text here, it is perfectly Orthodox and I like it. Christ redeems us from the sinful world in His singular act of sacrifice. So I do not think the term atonement does not apply, we don’t refer to it in the same way, it is just assumed.

The problem comes in when one marries this concept to the western notion that one is born condemned (‘original’ sin). One then arrives at a derivative set of notions which western thinkers have been at pains to resolve in their own ways, leading down a string of developers from Augustine to Anselm and Luther.

Jesus (our God) took the nails and rose again. He shares this resurrection with us.

*For if man, who had been created by God that he might live, after losing life, through being injured by the serpent that had corrupted him, should not any more return to life, but should be utterly [and for ever] abandoned to death, God would [in that case] have been conquered, and the wickedness of the serpent would have prevailed over the will of God. But inasmuch as God is invincible and long-suffering, He did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all, as I have already observed; and by means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods, and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. *
*Adversus Haereses, * book 3 cap 3 Saint Ireneus

One is not born condemned. One is trapped by the snares of Satan in this world and may sin on one’s own account, but is not answerable for anything one has neither thought nor has done (knowingly or unknowingly). Christ’s victory was in breaking the power of these traps and opening the way for us going forward, to aspire to holiness and godliness which is salvation.

The act of baptism is a dying (with Christ) to this world, and subsequently a breaking of Satan’s hold on our lives. The Holy and Precious Flesh and Blood of Christ sustains us through the vicissitudes of this life (much like nursing on holiness). We are the children of God being called.

‘Original’ Sin to us is almost invariably considered First Sin, the first human sin, and was committed by the first human (who must answer for it). Interestingly, Adam and Eve are believed to have been forgiven. If God is perfect justice and we are sensitive to it, we should see that the innocent are not accountable for what to the perpetrator has been forgiven.

http://www.conciliarpress.com/media...06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/007272.gif

 

[Hesychios]

One of the mistakes that can be made is to isolate the atonement to only one theme.

In this you are correct. There are several themes, some may have little to no validity even though they may be widely held today.

One, I think, must combine all of the classical views on the atonement. They are all true, not an either/or.

Bzzzt!

I don’t believe one can arrive at Truth by harmonizing various theories, some of which may be inherently faulty.

I do think there is some value in thinking about them, but if a theory has been developed over time (and influenced by now unclear background notions also developed over time) it does not carry an Apostolic authority, it is mere conjecture and cannot be taught or represented as Truth. Certainly the mixing of later theoretical notions and ancient Christian beliefs is as dangerous as mixing the messages of apparitions with ancient Christian beliefs.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I do think there is some value in thinking about them, but if a theory has been developed over time (and influenced by now unclear background notions also developed over time) it does not carry an Apostolic authority, it is mere conjecture and cannot be taught or represented as Truth. Certainly the mixing of later theoretical notions and ancient Christian beliefs is as dangerous as mixing the messages of apparitions with ancient Christian beliefs.

Unless, of course, the later concept was correct biblically, which I would argue the substitutionary theory is. While I respect antiquity, it is simply not a benchmark for correct theology. If the early theory was incorrect, it just means it has been incorrect for a very long time.

 

[TriuneUnity]

‘Original’ Sin to us is almost invariably considered First Sin, the first human sin, and was committed by the first human (who must answer for it). Interestingly, Adam and Eve are believed to have been forgiven. If God is perfect justice and we are sensitive to it, we should see that the innocent are not accountable for what to the perpetrator has been forgiven.

http://www.conciliarpress.com/media...06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/007272.gif

We are not held guilty for Adam’s individual sin. We are held guilty for our sin nature, which was passed down from Adam.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If we are born trapped by the snares of Satan and without grace because we don’t have Christ Jesus, then we are indeed born condemned? How can we not be? We are born without grace, born without the Lord Jesus Christ, born sinful and ego-driven, selfish and inward-thinking. Can we be saved without the Lord? Unless the answer is yes, which we know it is NOT, then we are born condemned. Jesus reverses that through the blood of the Cross, our relationship with him through baptism and sacraments, and our growing love for the Son of Man.

It seems the overemphasis on sanctification and theosis in Orthodoxy minimizes the legal aspects of our salvation; we are told in the NT multiple times that we are “credited” as righteous through Christ and the Law was nailed to the Cross with its legal condemnation toward us. Romans speaks of us being justified through faith in Christ. Sanctification seems to proceed from faith in Christ and justification, not the reverse. The reverse seems to focus too much on human beings and not enough on the Lord. Why does Orthodoxy seem to not focus on Romans and Paul’s statements in Galatians and Colossians?

Jesus (our God) took the nails and rose again. He shares this resurrection with us.

One is not born condemned. One is trapped by the snares of Satan in this world and may sin on one’s own account, but is not answerable for anything one has neither thought nor has done (knowingly or unknowingly). Christ’s victory was in breaking the power of these traps and opening the way for us going forward, to aspire to holiness and godliness which is salvation.

The act of baptism is a dying (with Christ) to this world, and subsequently a breaking of Satan’s hold on our lives. The Holy and Precious Flesh and Blood of Christ sustains us through the vicissitudes of this life (much like nursing on holiness). We are the children of God being called.

‘Original’ Sin to us is almost invariably considered First Sin, the first human sin, and was committed by the first human (who must answer for it). Interestingly, Adam and Eve are believed to have been forgiven. If God is perfect justice and we are sensitive to it, we should see that the innocent are not accountable for what to the perpetrator has been forgiven.

http://www.conciliarpress.com/media...06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/007272.gif

 

[Hesychios]

We are not held guilty for Adam’s individual sin. We are held guilty for our sin nature, which was passed down from Adam.

That doesn’t make any sense!

 

[TriuneUnity]

That doesn’t make any sense!

Why?

 

[TriuneUnity]

That doesn’t make any sense!

In Romans 5, after his lengthy exposition culminating with our peace with God because we have been justified by faith in Christ, Paul launches into his discussion of the “two Adams” and their roles as the representative heads of all humanity. Each one of us is either “in Adam” (and consequently spiritually dead; see 1 Cor. 15:22) or “in Christ” (and consequently spiritually alive; see Rom. 6:11). Moreover, our union with Adam or Christ–our being “in Adam” or “in Christ”–is both federal and organic. By “federal” I mean legal and covenantal. Just as Thomas Jefferson spoke and acted for all Americans, born and yet unborn, when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, so God at creation appointed Adam to speak and to act for the entire human race. In other words, God made Adam the legal and covenantal head of the human race. So when Adam chose to disobey God, he acted not only for himself and his immediate family, but also for all of his descendents, for all human beings. God’s resulting legal judgment indicted the entire human race. “Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation …” (Rom. 5:18). But this union with Adam is not just a matter of law and covenantal order; it also has an organic aspect. Just as a branch of an apple tree is part of that tree and consequently shares that tree’s botanical strengths and weaknesses, so we as Adam’s children not only legally bear his guilt but also organically share his corruption. As his heirs, Adam’s disobedience is not only legally imputed to us but his fallenness is also organically imparted to us. And so the law’s righteous demands not only go unfulfilled by the children of Adam, but also are actively suppressed.

The contrast with those who are “in Christ” could not be greater. Paul elsewhere calls Christ the “last Adam” in order to stress that he (rather than the first Adam) is the representative head of all who believe (see 1 Cor. 15:45-49). Just as his resurrection is the dawn of the future glorification of our bodies (see 1 Cor. 15:20-22, 35-56; Rom. 6:5), so Christ’s vindication before the Father in his triumphant ascension secures for us our full acceptance before God (see 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 4:7-8). “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Rom. 5:15). The verdict of the last day is rendered here and now. For us, judgment day is a settled affair. We are legally justified by virtue of Christ’s perfect obedience credited to us (see also 2 Cor. 5:21), and we are organically united to Christ in such a way that the most relevant metaphors drawn throughout the New Testament are those of a vine and its branches (see John 15:1-8), a head and the rest of the body (see Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19), the temple and its constituent “living stones” (see 1 Pet. 2:4-5), and so forth. By union through faith with Christ we not only inherit Christ’s legal vindication before the throne of God, we also become so vitally connected to him by the mysterious work of the Spirit that his very life becomes the source of the transformation of our own lives (see Rom. 8:9-11; Gal. 2:20). We live because he lives. We feed on Christ through Word and Sacrament, as the powers of the age to come break in on this present evil age.

 

[Bluegoat]

In Romans 5, after his lengthy exposition culminating with our peace with God because we have been justified by faith in Christ, Paul launches into his discussion of the “two Adams” and their roles as the representative heads of all humanity. Each one of us is either “in Adam” (and consequently spiritually dead; see 1 Cor. 15:22) or “in Christ” (and consequently spiritually alive; see Rom. 6:11). Moreover, our union with Adam or Christ–our being “in Adam” or “in Christ”–is both federal and organic. By “federal” I mean legal and covenantal. Just as Thomas Jefferson spoke and acted for all Americans, born and yet unborn, when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, so God at creation appointed Adam to speak and to act for the entire human race. In other words, God made Adam the legal and covenantal head of the human race. So when Adam chose to disobey God, he acted not only for himself and his immediate family, but also for all of his descendents, for all human beings. God’s resulting legal judgment indicted the entire human race. “Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation …” (Rom. 5:18). But this union with Adam is not just a matter of law and covenantal order; it also has an organic aspect. Just as a branch of an apple tree is part of that tree and consequently shares that tree’s botanical strengths and weaknesses, so we as Adam’s children not only legally bear his guilt but also organically share his corruption. As his heirs, Adam’s disobedience is not only legally imputed to us but his fallenness is also organically imparted to us. And so the law’s righteous demands not only go unfulfilled by the children of Adam, but also are actively suppressed.

The contrast with those who are “in Christ” could not be greater. Paul elsewhere calls Christ the “last Adam” in order to stress that he (rather than the first Adam) is the representative head of all who believe (see 1 Cor. 15:45-49). Just as his resurrection is the dawn of the future glorification of our bodies (see 1 Cor. 15:20-22, 35-56; Rom. 6:5), so Christ’s vindication before the Father in his triumphant ascension secures for us our full acceptance before God (see 2 Cor. 5:14-21; Eph. 4:7-8). “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Rom. 5:15). The verdict of the last day is rendered here and now. For us, judgment day is a settled affair. We are legally justified by virtue of Christ’s perfect obedience credited to us (see also 2 Cor. 5:21), and we are organically united to Christ in such a way that the most relevant metaphors drawn throughout the New Testament are those of a vine and its branches (see John 15:1-8), a head and the rest of the body (see Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:19), the temple and its constituent “living stones” (see 1 Pet. 2:4-5), and so forth. By union through faith with Christ we not only inherit Christ’s legal vindication before the throne of God, we also become so vitally connected to him by the mysterious work of the Spirit that his very life becomes the source of the transformation of our own lives (see Rom. 8:9-11; Gal. 2:20). We live because he lives. We feed on Christ through Word and Sacrament, as the powers of the age to come break in on this present evil age.

The trouble with this is no one holds descendants or members of a group responsible in quite this way. Most would think it most unjust to hold the members of a family guilty for the crime of its head, even if they were left to bear the consequences.

To say we are held guilty for our sin nature seems about as sensible as saying I am held guilty for my blue eyes. I don’t think it is surprising that people find this legal simile does not really speak to them.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The trouble with this is no one holds descendants or members of a group responsible in quite this way. Most would think it most unjust to hold the members of a family guilty for the crime of its head, even if they were left to bear the consequences.

To say we are held guilty for our sin nature seems about as sensible as saying I am held guilty for my blue eyes. I don’t think it is surprising that people find this legal simile does not really speak to them.

Before I propose a resolution, I would like to say something important. You and I do not have a vote in truth. Whether or not something is palatable does not determine whether or not it is true. We do not create God in our image. God could have been an evil God and He would still be God. He has never asked for a raise of hands on anything. He did not create a democracy which determines His attributes or actions. If He were to create each person and send them directly to Hell just for fun, then the truth of such circumstances, while grotesque, would still be true. In short, there is nothing you or I can do to change anything.

Having said this, I am thankful that God is not such a God. I am thankful that without my vote, He is a loving, gracious, and merciful Father.

Now, I would like to propose a possible answer to the concern you raise by using St. Thomas Aquinas’ hierarchy of angels as an illustration. Aquinas developed a system of angels in which every angel is created with a distinct nature. According to Aquinas, there is no distinct species named “angels.” What we refer to collectively as angels are all actually individual distinct creations of God. Because they do not reproduce of themselves there is no spiritual or physical relation to one another. This is why Aquinas believed that there is no redemption for angels (Heb 2:16). According to Aquinas, if Christ were to redeem the angels, He would have to identify with the angels in every way. Seeing as how each angel is a distinct species, He could not become one single species called “angels” in order to redeem the entire group. In order to redeem them, in theory, He would have to become each individual angel and die for them one at a time. Why? Because there is no solidarity found in angels for there to be a representation.

Whether or not Aquinas’ proposal about angels has any truth to it makes no difference for our present discussion; it is simply being used as a illustration. What is important is that Christ could become the species “man.” Since man’s being is linked with that of Adam in both physicality and spirituality, Christ could represent mankind all at once. Because we are vitally linked to the first Adam, we can be vitally linked to the second Adam, Jesus Christ.

It must be understood as a gracious act of God that we were all linked together with the first Adam. I propose that it was not a necessary act of God to link us with the first Adam. Nor do I believe that it was the natural outcome for Adam’s posterity to be linked with him in death, sin, or condemnation. God, in theory, could have let each individual person have the same chance in the Garden as he did with Adam. He could have caused each person to be born without any connection to Adam. Each would have been an individual creation who, if and when they sinned, would not be connected to anyone before or after. In this manner, the fall would come on an individual basis. Each person would be linked to only one person; himself or herself. Each person’s condemnation would be his or her own. There would be no linkage to the rest of humanity. Each person would be spiritually and physically autonomous. This being the case, Christ could not represent “mankind” because there would be no “mankind.” There would be no solidarity to make any representation functional. We would be like the angels of Aquinas’ hierarchy without a redeemer.

I believe that God, in his grace, knowing that when given the chance, each individual would follow Adam in his sin, declared all people guilty of Adam’s sin, thereby creating a solidarity. This solidarity made humanity redeemable by a representative. Christ could only redeem mankind all at once, because mankind fell in Adam all at once. Therefore, God caused all men to sin “in and with” Adam (federal headship) by an act of grace, knowing that all would choose the same as Adam. The “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 is as if Adam was in the Garden and held up the piece of fruit to a crowd which consisted of all mankind and shouted, “Should I eat it?” and the entire crowed shouted back, “Go for it!” In this, “all sinned.” God, then, in his grace, declared all guilty. The link was graciously made initially in Adam so that it might be made the second time in Christ.

If this is the case, we see that there was a unique solidarity that is found in Adam that cannot be parallel to any other. It is true, as the Bible says, that the son will not suffer for the sins of his father (Ezek. 18:20).

Yet this passage has no application to our present issues since it is dealing with individual sins, not corporate sins from a representative of the entire human race. Adam was humanity. Humanity fell. Humanity was condemned for this sin. Humanity was punished with spiritual and physical death. Humanity inherited the sinful inclination and humanity is held guilty for the fall. This is why the sins of another cannot be imputed to us the same way. But this is why Christ, being fully God and fully man, could represent the new race of humanity. This is why Christ is called the “second Adam.” (1 Cor. 15:45)

We are guilty with Adam and God had every right to turn His back on humanity and leave us in our state of death. Yet God, in mercy and grace, intervened and sent a second representative who imputes righteousness instead of condemnation, hope instead of dread, life instead of death.

 

[Hesychios]

It seems to me that either we are defining guilt in different ways, or we are fundamentally different in our beliefs.

Orthodoxy does not teach that one is accountable for the sin of Adam, Adam is accountable for the sin of Adam. One is accountable for one’s own sin.

The transgression and fall of Adam caused all subsequent humanity to labor under the handicap of mortality. This makes us in effect victims of Adam’s foolishness and Satan’s guile, not co-conspirators. This makes it harder to think and do the right things, but it is possible.

The basic fact is that we are good people in a trap.

The Good News of Christ is that we are not altogether lost, as may possibly be assumed, but that there is a path, a Way of Life in Christ. We can attain to Godliness and obtain our salvation. It is God’s wish for us to come to Him, but we must do this and we must want this, He does just ‘make it happen’ without our cooperation, desire and striving.

To Orthodox, the process is known as Theosis, or otherwise Divinization.

A lot of this concept has been lost or overlooked in the west. There seems to be more of a focus on the depravity of humankind than what is good in us, and our good potential. (Some people trace this back to Blessed Augustine, bishop of Hippo, a convert from the Manichean religion. Most of his writings date from the early Fifth century, about 400 years after the Pentecost event, perhaps 16 to 20 generations of Christian church life.)

One indicator of this shift is that penances (which are holy acts, indeed sacramental in character) have become thought of as punishments, rather than healing exercises.

Many Protestants, while rejecting much of Catholic thought on these subjects, adhere closely to the Latin Catholic concepts of depravity and condemnation. Thus they often see humankind is corrupted that no penance/punishment is severe enough, our native will is so weakened it is irrelevant and no ‘sacrament’ is efficacious and they reject these as superfluous acts.

"Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world…

… It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner. "
Father Martin Luther to Melancthon, letter 99 1521AD

I tend to think (or would prefer to believe) that Father Martin was engaging in hyperbole here, but he aptly demonstrates the result of this Latin Catholic/Augustinian notion of depravity (coupled with Latin Catholic/Anselmian ‘satisfaction’) if taken to the extreme.

I agree with him that God is merciful, and we should pray hard, but I disagree strongly that one might as well just sin since we can’t help it anyway. We can help it, and our own deliberate sins can and probably will separate us from God.

Lutherans and Catholics can go on and on together over the issue of justification (while Orthodox will just stand by in amazement). That is a family argument between Latin Catholic cousins, two sides of the same coin. It is as if we (Orthodox and western Christians) are speaking different languages, or even thinking like different creatures. It is small wonder then, that many Orthodox think of the Latin Catholic west as the first (although perhaps not fully developed) Protestant church.

I don’t exactly share that opinion (although sometimes I wonder). I prefer to believe that there is great hope for Latin Catholicism, if it should turn back to it’s Orthodox roots and rediscover the beauty of it’s ancient Faith. Lutheranism unfortunately seems to have a longer walk.

Long ago Melanchthon and other Lutheran Divines had hoped to establish dialog and fraternity with the Orthodox. The topics touched upon much more than we have here on this thread, but I think that the response of the Patriarch is instructive anyway. Patriarch Jeremiah in frustration had to finally break off communication.

These were his closing remarks:
"Therefore, we request that from henceforth you do not cause us more grief, nor write to us on the same subject if you should wish to treat these luminaries and theologians of the Church in a different manner. You honor and exalt them in words, but you reject them in deeds. For you try to prove our weapons which are their holy and divine discourses as unsuitable. And it is with these documents that we would have to write and contradict you.

Thus, as for you, please release us from these cares. Therefore, going about your own ways, write no longer concerning dogmas; but if you do, write only for friendship’s sake.

Farewell."
1 ] 2 ]

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We are indeed co-conspirators with the Fall. We are born not just with mortality but selfishness from day one. Watch a three year old and a two year old and a four year old. Augustine himself talked about this. Human instinct right off the bat seeks to be self-serving. A child is terribly ego-centric, controlling, selfish, tattling, and into his or herself. Sit in a classroom and watch these kids. Wow. Original Sin at work.

We inherited more than death but the nature of depraved selfishness. We have a desire to please God naturally but the overwhelming desire to please our senses, satiate ourselves with pleasure and comfort, and our inate need to control and manipulate to further our own gains and power, shoot, I think Augustine’s approach to Original Sin is apparent in us all. I’m more than mortal, I’m a deeply flawed sinner hard-wired to screw up but with plenty of potential to improve. That potential sanctification must be activated by God.

The Atonement, as I have stated in previous posts, would seem to have little to do with sin then and everything to do with just stopping death in the Orthodox view? Sin is the heart of the matter. Romans hits this concept hard. In Romans 3:25 we see Jesus as an “expiation through faith by his blood” and justification by faith. In Romans 4 we see Paul’s tent-maker accountant-style lingo telling us righteousness is “credited” to us.
“A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. but when one does not work, yet believes in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness…So also David declares the belssedness of the person to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.” This isn’t the language of theosis or divination but the language of a human race that is deeply flawed bearing the brunt of the Fall who are given credit they do not deserve through the virtue of faith, not a process of personal works and rituals.

In Romans 5:12 we see Paul saying:

"Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world (Adam), and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned…
and 14
“But death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam…”

In verses 16-18 we see the language of “acquittal.” Judicial language. The terms credited and acquittal are the mainstays of Romans. And from this justification and acquittal comes sanctification. Theosis as a path TO God just doesn’t seem Biblical while the notion of justification as a catalyst for sanctification seems to follow Paul’s pattern.

Original Sin is the sin of Adam upon our backs cleaving our relationship with God and inviting death. Death is a result of sin, not just death for death’s sake. We die thanks to sin, not just because Adam disobeyed and now we die. It’s the sin that is central, a continuing spiritual defect that causes the death within us.

It seems to me that either we are defining guilt in different ways, or we are fundamentally different in our beliefs.

Orthodoxy does not teach that one is accountable for the sin of Adam, Adam is accountable for the sin of Adam. One is accountable for one’s own sin.

The transgression and fall of Adam caused all subsequent humanity to labor under the handicap of mortality. This makes us in effect victims of Adam’s foolishness and Satan’s guile, not co-conspirators. This makes it harder to think and do the right things, but it is possible.

The basic fact is that we are good people in a trap.

 

[Hesychios]

Hello brother,

We are indeed co-conspirators with the Fall.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this point.