Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin-Redemption

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hello Michael,

As always, God bless you. We do seem to disagree. Can you show Biblically through Paul or the Gospels where your view is evident? I always keep an open mind…

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

 

[Hesychios]

Hello Michael,

As always, God bless you. We do seem to disagree. Can you show Biblically through Paul or the Gospels where your view is evident? I always keep an open mind…

I would refer you to the very same passages . One must recognize that by narrowing the citation one is in danger of misinterpreting the meaning. Romans 5 has been contentious between the east and the west since Augustine, and Orthodox are convinced that he misread it (possibly through faulty translation).

Here is a fuller relevant text (from a Catholic Bible):
Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us.

For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.

Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life. Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law.

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come. But the gift is not like the transgression. For if by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:3-19 NAB

Saint Peter himself, warns us that some of Paul is difficult to interpret

2 Peter 3:15-17
And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

Therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, be on your guard not to be led into the error of the unprincipled and to fall from your own stability.

The Orthodox reading of Romans 5 is that the first sin (of Adam) introduced the conditions which made it possible for the rest to sin as well. It is not that we are born with sin, but that we all are committing sins against God. That was what made the first Christians (converts) and their people un-Godly before the advent of Christ.

Interestingly, he then goes on the explain (Romans 5:14) that death reigned, even over those who did not sin. For Paul, sin is not a condition or a possession, it is something one does (and some people, perhaps like Enoch, will not do).

Here are a couple of quotes from Orthodox/Eastern Catholic saints which are only given to show that this is an early Christian understanding:

“Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit”
Third Baptismal Instruction St. John Chrysostom

“Since Adam produced children in his fallen state, we , his descendants are corruptible as coming from a corrupt source. The curse of mortality was transmitted to his seed after him, for we are born of mortal substance… Corruption and death are the universal and general consequences of Adam’s transgression”…
Selected letters vi St Cyril of Alexandria

Please note that there is no mention of guilt, or an accountability, for the First sin of Adam.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thank you for providing the Orthodox reading of the text, Hesychios.

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 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. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I realize, of course, that interpretation issues are going to be at play here. Be that as it may, however, one can follow Paul’s line of argumentation beginning with the phrase “because all sinned” in verse 12. The force of the verb tense; it is likely a historic aorist (past tense referring back to the sin of Adam). If it is simply referring to individual sins that people commit, the present tense would have been a much better choice for Paul in this context. Then it would naturally read, “Because all sin.” Then we could answer the question “Why are all people condemned?” with “Because all people sin.” But this is not the case here. The force of the verb has caused every translation that I know, except the NJB, to translate this passage “all sinned” with the implied referent being Adam’s sin. Therefore, we are connected with the past sin of Adam. If this is correct, what Paul is saying is that when Adam sinned, we all sinned. The aorist [tense] points to one act, the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect [tense] if the Apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people.

Verse 12 attempts to begin the comparison of Adam with Christ but Paul then breaks off on one of his all-too-common parenthetical statements in verses 13-14 to defend his statement “because all sinned.” This is important because Paul’s understanding of what “all sinned” means is wrapped up in his defense which follows. Verse 13 begins with the conjunction “for” (gar). This links it with the previous statement, “because all sinned.” At this point (v. 13), Paul says that before the Law, there was sin. But people did not die on account of these personal sins, because they were not imputed as sin (”but sin is not imputed when there is no law” v. 13). Then the objection may be “How do you explain that all people still died before the law?” Paul is saying that the reason people died before they commit an act of sin is because they are suffering the consequences of a sin already committed. They died not for personal sin, but for imputed sin. This sin was the sin of Adam. All people die because of the one sin of Adam. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that all people die? Physical death is the first and most visible evidence of our identification with the condemnation of Adam.

With death being introduced through the avenue of Adam’s sin, we need to understand what death means. This death is most certainly to be seen as both spiritual and physical considering Pauline theology (Eph. 2:2ff). Therefore, the condemnation to which all suffer as a result in our participation in Adam’s sin is both spiritual and physical with the spiritual being evidenced by the physical (v. 13).

Paul returns to his comparison to expound further. This comparison is between two things:

1. The effects of Adam’s sin
2. The effects of Christ’s righteousness

Whatever one does with Christ’s righteousness, one must do with Adam’s sin. First let us draw out the comparison so that it might be better seen.

Judgment (16) | Free Gift (16)
Condemnation (16) | Justification (16)
Death Reigned (17) | Life Reigned (17)
One Transgression = Condemnation of all (18) | One Act of Righteousness = Justification of all (18)
Adam’s disobedience = Many were made sinners (19) | Christ’s obedience = Many were made righteous (19)

(continued)

 

[TriuneUnity]

The comparison is unmistakable. Whatever we do to inherit the free gift is the same thing we did to inherit judgment (v. 16). This is the force of the “just as” (hosper) in v. 12. Whatever we do to receive justification is the same thing we did to receive condemnation (v. 16). The effects of the “one act of righteousness” are brought about by the same means as the “condemnation of all men” (v. 18). The way in which believers are made righteous is analogous to the way all mankind was made sinners (v. 19). In order to answer the question as to how it is that “all sinned” and all were condemned in Adam, we must answer the question as to how Christ’s righteousness is applied to us to the end that we are justified by that righteousness.

If we were to adopt the view that Adam’s sin has no effect upon us whatsoever, this means that Christ’s righteousness has no effect upon us either. But this is not what the text teaches. It states that the many were made sinners and that the many were made righteous.

If we were to say, as some Arminians do, that we have Adam’s sin imputed to us only when we act in the same manner as Adam did, then we must state that we have Christ’s righteousness imputed to us only when we act as Christ acted. This cannot be true seeing as how we inherit Christ’s righteousness while we are sinners (Rom 5:8, 10).

Paul is attempting to explain our relationship to Christ’s righteousness by comparing it to the imputation of Adam’s sin to us. This relationship, in my opinion, is best seen in the federal headship view of imputation. Throughout this whole passage what Adam did and what Christ did are steadily held over against each other. Now salvation in Christ does not mean that we merit salvation by living good lives; rather, what Christ has done is significant. Just so, death in Adam does not mean that we are being punished for our own evil deeds; it is what Adam has done that is significant.

Adam, as our chosen federal head, has represented us and passed on sin and all of its consequences. Christ, as the second Adam, represents those who believe and passes on righteousness along with all its benefits. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us without any participation of our own, just as Adam’s sin is imputed to us without our consent.

 

[Hesychios]

… Protestantism would see Orodoxy has having an inadequate view of sin. …

I think that I have made my position clear.

Holy Orthodoxy does not revise it’s understanding based upon renewed analysis of scriptures. The religion is a revelation of God, and it’s understanding is received and never tampered with. Those scriptures which have been accepted into the canon are only used as a support for the church’s Faith tradition.

As it has been said “necessity is the mother of invention” and of course that can apply in a theological context. Scripture taken out of the context of Received Truth has been used throughout history to support any number of new notions. As such it cannot be the primary source of understanding for a revealed religion, it must support the Apostolic teaching or the reading is flawed. It is the same for philosophical notions and visions, if they do not support the Received Truth without adding or detracting, they must be set aside.

My principal purpose here on this thread was to explain what Orthodox believe, which even in my most inadequate simplified attempt I think I have done. You may take it or leave it as you wish, Orthodox understandings are there for the taking, free to anyone, but are not for reinterpretation by us.

The church’s understanding of Sin and Salvation has kept us together and saved souls for nearly 2000 years running now. There are internet resources (many of which I can no longer access from here in China) if anyone is curious and wants to know more. Google is your friend, in this case.

I suggest that if you would like to discuss this further you continue to make arguments with Arminians, Calvinists and Latin Catholics, we Orthodox shall stick with our Received Apostolic Faith tradition

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you’re just using sematics, brother Michael. “The Orthodox reading of Romans 5 is that the **first sin (of Adam) introduced the conditions which made it possible for the rest to sin **as well. It is not that we are born with sin, but that we all are committing sins against God. That was what made the first Christians (converts) and their people un-Godly before the advent of Christ.” How can we not be born with sin? We are born sinless? If we are born only with the capacity to sin, that would imply pelagianism and some sort of ability on earth to be sin-free? The Fall didn’t introduce the conditions for sin, it tattooed sin to our natures.

You quote the entirety of Romans 5. I think that’s great. I’m no cherry-picker. I just don’t like to put the entire chapter on for brevity’s sake. The entire book supports justification through faith, original sin, and the idea that we are born with the sin of Adam. Romans 5:12 is most poignant I think:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned

It’s a clear progression that seems to negate the Orthodox approach: Sin enters the world through Adam, the sin leads to death…“because all sinned” so there is no group of human beings who are sinless and holy, all sin, every man everywhere is a sinner. The sin of Adam was a capacity to sin generating event but a reverse well spring poisoning the waters of mankind’s soul. It wasn’t an opportunity-maker, it was a determining moment. You and I are both sinners as a result. It’s inherited.

I would refer you to the very same passages . One must recognize that by narrowing the citation one is in danger of misinterpreting the meaning. Romans 5 has been contentious between the east and the west since Augustine, and Orthodox are convinced that he misread it (possibly through faulty translation).

Here is a fuller relevant text (from a Catholic Bible):
Not only that, but we even boast of our afflictions, knowing that affliction produces endurance, and endurance, proven character, and proven character, hope, and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out into our hearts through the holy Spirit that has been given to us.

For Christ, while we were still helpless, yet died at the appointed time for the ungodly. Indeed, only with difficulty does one die for a just person, though perhaps for a good person one might even find courage to die. But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us.

How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath.

Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life. Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law.

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come. But the gift is not like the transgression. For if by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:3-19 NAB

Saint Peter himself, warns us that some of Paul is difficult to interpret
The Orthodox reading of Romans 5 is that the first sin (of Adam) introduced the conditions which made it possible for the rest to sin as well. It is not that we are born with sin, but that we all are committing sins against God. That was what made the first Christians (converts) and their people un-Godly before the advent of Christ.

Interestingly, he then goes on the explain (Romans 5:14) that death reigned, even over those who did not sin. For Paul, sin is not a condition or a possession, it is something one does (and some people, perhaps like Enoch, will not do).

Here are a couple of quotes from Orthodox/Eastern Catholic saints which are only given to show that this is an early Christian understanding:

 

[Bluegoat]

Thank you for providing the Orthodox reading of the text, Hesychios.

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 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. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I realize, of course, that interpretation issues are going to be at play here. Be that as it may, however, one can follow Paul’s line of argumentation beginning with the phrase “because all sinned” in verse 12. The force of the verb tense; it is likely a historic aorist (past tense referring back to the sin of Adam). If it is simply referring to individual sins that people commit, the present tense would have been a much better choice for Paul in this context. Then it would naturally read, “Because all sin.” Then we could answer the question “Why are all people condemned?” with “Because all people sin.” But this is not the case here. The force of the verb has caused every translation that I know, except the NJB, to translate this passage “all sinned” with the implied referent being Adam’s sin. Therefore, we are connected with the past sin of Adam. If this is correct, what Paul is saying is that when Adam sinned, we all sinned. The aorist [tense] points to one act, the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect [tense] if the Apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people.

Verse 12 attempts to begin the comparison of Adam with Christ but Paul then breaks off on one of his all-too-common parenthetical statements in verses 13-14 to defend his statement “because all sinned.” This is important because Paul’s understanding of what “all sinned” means is wrapped up in his defense which follows. Verse 13 begins with the conjunction “for” (gar). This links it with the previous statement, “because all sinned.” At this point (v. 13), Paul says that before the Law, there was sin. But people did not die on account of these personal sins, because they were not imputed as sin (”but sin is not imputed when there is no law” v. 13). Then the objection may be “How do you explain that all people still died before the law?” Paul is saying that the reason people died before they commit an act of sin is because they are suffering the consequences of a sin already committed. They died not for personal sin, but for imputed sin. This sin was the sin of Adam. All people die because of the one sin of Adam. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that all people die? Physical death is the first and most visible evidence of our identification with the condemnation of Adam.

With death being introduced through the avenue of Adam’s sin, we need to understand what death means. This death is most certainly to be seen as both spiritual and physical considering Pauline theology (Eph. 2:2ff). Therefore, the condemnation to which all suffer as a result in our participation in Adam’s sin is both spiritual and physical with the spiritual being evidenced by the physical (v. 13).

Paul returns to his comparison to expound further. This comparison is between two things:

1. The effects of Adam’s sin
2. The effects of Christ’s righteousness

Whatever one does with Christ’s righteousness, one must do with Adam’s sin. First let us draw out the comparison so that it might be better seen.

Judgment (16) | Free Gift (16)
Condemnation (16) | Justification (16)
Death Reigned (17) | Life Reigned (17)
One Transgression = Condemnation of all (18) | One Act of Righteousness = Justification of all (18)
Adam’s disobedience = Many were made sinners (19) | Christ’s obedience = Many were made righteous (19)

(continued)

Hey Triune,

I think that some of what you are saying here is the same as what Hesychios is saying. Specifically you said

Paul is saying that the reason people died before they commit an act of sin is because they are suffering the consequences of a sin already committed. They died not for personal sin, but for imputed sin. This sin was the sin of Adam. All people die because of the one sin of Adam. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that all people die? Physical death is the first and most visible evidence of our identification with the condemnation of Adam.

I don’t think (please correct me if I’m wrong Orthodox posters) that the Orthodox would not deny that we all have death as a result of Adam’s sin. We are connected in that way, the consequences of that sin are imputed to us. (which is death which makes it almost impossible for us to avoid sinning.) But that isn’t the same at all as being held accountable for the guilt of the sin.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hey Triune,

I think that some of what you are saying here is the same as what Hesychios is saying. Specifically you said

I don’t think (please correct me if I’m wrong Orthodox posters) that the Orthodox would not deny that we all have death as a result of Adam’s sin. We are connected in that way, the consequences of that sin are imputed to us. (which is death which makes it almost impossible for us to avoid sinning.) But that isn’t the same at all as being held accountable for the guilt of the sin.

I agree that there will certainly be some overlap, Blue. What makes the difference in the view is that it isn’t the consequences per se that are imputed to us. The guilt of the sin is imputed to us, which results in death as a consequence of that imputed guilt. It is the same as Christ’s imputed righteousness, but in a negative sense.

 

[Bluegoat]

I agree that there will certainly be some overlap, Blue. What makes the difference in the view is that it isn’t the consequences per se that are imputed to us. The guilt of the sin is imputed to us, which results in death as a consequence of that imputed guilt. It is the same as Christ’s imputed righteousness, but in a negative sense.

Well, that is certainly what you are arguing.

But I don’t think the passages you quoted are a slam dunk for that view - it seems to me they could just as easily support Hesychios’ reading.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think you’re just using sematics, brother Michael. “The Orthodox reading of Romans 5 is that the **first sin (of Adam) introduced the conditions which made it possible for the rest to sin **as well. It is not that we are born with sin, but that we all are committing sins against God. That was what made the first Christians (converts) and their people un-Godly before the advent of Christ.” How can we not be born with sin? We are born sinless? If we are born only with the capacity to sin, that would imply pelagianism and some sort of ability on earth to be sin-free? The Fall didn’t introduce the conditions for sin, it tattooed sin to our natures.

Well, I think Pelagianism says we can remain sin free through our own efforts, which is rather different.

It seems to me that the Orthodox position says that we cannot, because of the effects of Adam’s sin. On our own, we are not able to not sin. With God’s grace it might be possible to never actually sin, as in the case of the BVM and perhaps a few others. So Christ wipes out the guilt for our actual sins, and also makes it possible for us to avoid sinning.

And remember also that the CC also teaches that the BVM never actually sinned, so clearly that is a possibility even from Catholic perspective.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, that is certainly what you are arguing.

But I don’t think the passages you quoted are a slam dunk for that view - it seems to me they could just as easily support Hesychios’ reading.

In the Orthodox view, mankind dies because we share the death of Adam. Lets look at the time period between the fall and the giving of the law. Paul lays out his case here in Romans 5 (he does this in Romans 6, too. “The wages of sin is death.”) that the reason men die is because of sin. I don’t think that very important point can be escaped. Death is a consequence of something. If men died between Adam and the giving of the law, but the law was not present to condemn them, which Paul argues, then they had to die for something other than personal sin. What would that have been? Paul had already answered it in v. 12, “Because all sinned,” and he links this with Adam. Therefore, men between Adam and the law died for Adam’s sin. Which would have to mean that Adam’s sin is imputed to all men.

 

[Bluegoat]

In the Orthodox view, mankind dies because we share the death of Adam. Lets look at the time period between the fall and the giving of the law. Paul lays out his case here in Romans 5 (he does this in Romans 6, too. “The wages of sin is death.”) that the reason men die is because of sin. I don’t think that very important point can be escaped. Death is a consequence of something. If men died between Adam and the giving of the law, but the law was not present to condemn them, which Paul argues, then they had to die for something other than personal sin. What would that have been? Paul had already answered it in v. 12, “Because all sinned,” and he links this with Adam. Therefore, men between Adam and the law died for Adam’s sin. Which would have to mean that Adam’s sin is imputed to all men.

No, it could just as easily mean that the effects of Adam’s sin were imputed to them without the guilt.

As an analogy. A mother uses illegal drugs while pregnant, and steals to buy them, and goes to prison. She has her baby.

The mother is guilty of theft, abusing her body, harming her child. She also suffers a variety of consequences - ill health, emotional pain, loss of freedom, and so on.

The child is not guilty but still feels the effects. She has brain damage. She is in foster care. She feels unloved. She lacks good parental role models and feels angry.

There is a highly increased chance that she will be guilty of some serious, and perhaps similar, sins herself as a result of these effects.

 

[TriuneUnity]

No, it could just as easily mean that the effects of Adam’s sin were imputed to them without the guilt.

Without the guilt, there is no punishment. Even worse, if there were no guilt, the punishment would be unjust. The Orthodox view would be consistent if Scripture did not emphatically teach that death is a punishment for sin. Paul argues this in Romans 5. It is also replete in other areas of Scripture, Rom. 6:23, Ezek. 18:4, Prov. 11:4, 1 John 5:16.

Yet Paul says that because the revealed law was not present between the time of Adam and Sinai, sin did not reign, because where there is no law, there is no sin. So, if we know that death is the punishment for sin, then what sin was man punished for? The sin of Adam, because in Adam, all sinned. Paul draws this out further by comparing the disobedience of Adam to the obedience of Christ, as I demonstrated in an earlier post. In the same manner that Adam’s guilt was imputed to mankind, which resulted in death and personal sin, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who believe, which results in eternal life and personal sanctification.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Faith Vs Works is foreign to me also and i think foreign to the Catholic Church.

I think some non Catholics of the west see devotions and sacraments as works and believe that the Catholic Church places these ‘works’ above faith as some sort of ‘free pass’ into Heaven.

“Good Works”, are doing those things which are pleasing to God or the “Fruits of the Holy Spirit” : love, joy, charity, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control and so on… And, the Seven Sacraments flow from those “Fruits”, Baptism, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick, which mean they are also “good works”. The act of prayer and asking for forgiveness can also be consider, “good works” and “fruits of the Holy Spirit“…

If we are “Saved by Faith Alone” , or “Once Saved Always Saved” (OSAS) after be “Born-Again”, what would be the need for any “acts“ or “ceremonies“ like baptism or marriage?

Jesus set the example -

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened (for him), and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove (and) coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom** I am well pleased**.”

Matthew 3:13-17

“a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law . . . not by faith alone . . . for faith apart from works is dead . . . but faith working through love” (Rom. 3:28, Jas. 2:24, 26, Gal. 5:6).

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII
When the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, “without which it is impossible to please God” and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, “if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise,” as the Apostle says, “grace is no more grace.”

The Council also reiterated the relationship of good works to man justified by faith.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. XVI
Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: “Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name”; and “Do not lose confidence, which hath a great reward.” Hence, to those who work well “unto the end” and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The wages of SIN is death indeed. Nobody is debating the opening of the gates of death from Adam’s sin, but rather the fact that is “all” that happened was people started dying? What’s the root cause of death? SIN…and if that sin isn’t in us, we don’t die…so it’s obviously in us all.

As far as the time between Adam/Eve and the giving of the Law by Moses, we are told by Paul that people have always had the “law written on their hearts” and that God handed over people of the flood age to a reprobate mind. Sin was affecting everyone day one through the flood through Israel to Jesus’s time until now. We die thanks to sin, we rise thanks to the Atonement of Christ Almighty who Paul tells us nailed the Law to the Cross with its legal claims against us. No original sin = no need for an atonement. Christ didn’t just die for the mission of stopping death, but to heal us of sin to make sure death isn’t our master anymore. The Orthodox view of just looking at death without Original Sin is like looking at a cure for a virus and not seeing a virus.

In the Orthodox view, mankind dies because we share the death of Adam. Lets look at the time period between the fall and the giving of the law. Paul lays out his case here in Romans 5 (he does this in Romans 6, too. “The wages of sin is death.”) that the reason men die is because of sin. I don’t think that very important point can be escaped. Death is a consequence of something. If men died between Adam and the giving of the law, but the law was not present to condemn them, which Paul argues, then they had to die for something other than personal sin. What would that have been? Paul had already answered it in v. 12, “Because all sinned,” and he links this with Adam. Therefore, men between Adam and the law died for Adam’s sin. Which would have to mean that Adam’s sin is imputed to all men.

 

[Bluegoat]

Without the guilt, there is no punishment. Even worse, if there were no guilt, the punishment would be unjust. The Orthodox view would be consistent if Scripture did not emphatically teach that death is a punishment for sin. Paul argues this in Romans 5. It is also replete in other areas of Scripture, Rom. 6:23, Ezek. 18:4, Prov. 11:4, 1 John 5:16.

Yet Paul says that because the revealed law was not present between the time of Adam and Sinai, sin did not reign, because where there is no law, there is no sin. So, if we know that death is the punishment for sin, then what sin was man punished for? The sin of Adam, because in Adam, all sinned. Paul draws this out further by comparing the disobedience of Adam to the obedience of Christ, as I demonstrated in an earlier post. In the same manner that Adam’s guilt was imputed to mankind, which resulted in death and personal sin, Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who believe, which results in eternal life and personal sanctification.

Is death a punishment or just a fact? My translation says “wages” which is not the same thing at all - the implications could be understood quite differently. It seems to me you are trying to fit discrete bits of the Orthodox position into an otherwise Western viewpoint, and of course it won’t work. You have to look at any theological system as a whole before you compare it to something else.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Aside from the Catholic teaching on Mary (which Aquinas, Bernard and many others rejected but that’s neither here nor there) do you seriously think anyone has ever been born who has not sinned? The NT tells us all are sinners, we all fall short of the Glory of God, and that he who believes he is without sin is fooling himself. IMO to believe a person can go without sinning one must be pelagian or have a god complex.

Well, I think Pelagianism says we can remain sin free through our own efforts, which is rather different.

It seems to me that the Orthodox position says that we cannot, because of the effects of Adam’s sin. On our own, we are not able to not sin. With God’s grace it might be possible to never actually sin, as in the case of the BVM and perhaps a few others. So Christ wipes out the guilt for our actual sins, and also makes it possible for us to avoid sinning.

And remember also that the CC also teaches that the BVM never actually sinned, so clearly that is a possibility even from Catholic perspective.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Just a question, Blue, and keep in mind it’s a respectful one and not a barb or malicious one, are you considering Orthodoxy or do you buy into their theology a great deal? You have vigorously defended (and there’s nothing wrong with that mind you!) their positions in here with far more gusto than Orthodox have? You always seem to be very very open to Orthodox modes of understanding Biblican exegeses, are you considering becoming Orthodox? Again, not a slam or a dig, a sincere question.

Is death a punishment or just a fact? My translation says “wages” which is not the same thing at all - the implications could be understood quite differently. It seems to me you are trying to fit discrete bits of the Orthodox position into an otherwise Western viewpoint, and of course it won’t work. You have to look at any theological system as a whole before you compare it to something else.

 

[TriuneUnity]

The wages of SIN is death indeed. Nobody is debating the opening of the gates of death from Adam’s sin, but rather the fact that is “all” that happened was people started dying? What’s the root cause of death? SIN…and if that sin isn’t in us, we don’t die…so it’s obviously in us all.

As far as the time between Adam/Eve and the giving of the Law by Moses, we are told by Paul that people have always had the “law written on their hearts” and that God handed over people of the flood age to a reprobate mind. Sin was affecting everyone day one through the flood through Israel to Jesus’s time until now. We die thanks to sin, we rise thanks to the Atonement of Christ Almighty who Paul tells us nailed the Law to the Cross with its legal claims against us. No original sin = no need for an atonement. Christ didn’t just die for the mission of stopping death, but to heal us of sin to make sure death isn’t our master anymore. The Orthodox view of just looking at death without Original Sin is like looking at a cure for a virus and not seeing a virus.

Amen, brother. Yes, there was sin in between Adam and Moses. What Paul is getting at here is not whether personal sin existed. Of course it does. What he is getting at is that there were no revealed commandments. In between Adam and Sinai the only commandment God had given verbally was “do not eat from the tree that is in the midst of the garden, for on the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.” The disobedience of failing to adhere to that commandment is the sin that was imputed to all of mankind, and this is why Paul addresses because it is his main argument in demonstrating that just as Adam’s sin was imputed to mankind unto death, so Christ’s righteousness is imputed to those who believe unto life.

As you said, the legal understanding not only in Paul’s language, but in all the books of Scripture is unavoidable. To say that the legal understanding was merely a development in the Western Church that springs from no revealed source is to be blind to what the revealed source actually says. Guilt, impute, credit, reckon, acquit, innocent, justify, charged, etc. All of these are legal terms, showing us that God’s judgment is a legal, courtroom judgment (where do we think the legal system in the mind of man comes from, anyway!?).

 

[Bluegoat]

Aside from the Catholic teaching on Mary (which Aquinas, Bernard and many others rejected but that’s neither here nor there) do you seriously think anyone has ever been born who has not sinned? The NT tells us all are sinners, we all fall short of the Glory of God, and that he who believes he is without sin is fooling himself. IMO to believe a person can go without sinning one must be pelagian or have a god complex.

Well, the Orthodox also teach that she didn’t sin I believe. They just didn’t require the whole structure of the Immaculate Conception to make it work because they didn’t have to account for original sin. In a way I think that is in it’s favour, it has a kind of Ockham’s razor advantage.

In fact, I think they also suggest that several other individuals may, through God’s Grace, avoided sin. Enoch maybe? I don’t know much about that though.

Myself, I find the idea of an individual avoiding sin entirely almost incomprehensible. On the other hand, I don’t doubt God could give someone such a grace. And I am very disinclined to easily dismiss a belief held by both the CC and the OC.