Lutheran critique of Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin-Redemption

[TriuneUnity]

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.

No, I am not holding Orthodoxy to the Western tradition, but to what Scripture states regarding the subject. To say that Paul’s usage of legal terms to describe condemnation and justification is a development in Western theology, is to avoid the fact that Paul uses legal terms no matter whether we’re Eastern or Western! Paul is transporting the concept of “work=payment” to describe condemnation. To work sin is to be paid sins wages, which is death. Paul is clearly indicating here that the one leads to the other. So, yes, death is the punishment for sin.

 

[Bluegoat]

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.

I don’t think so. But I find their theological model very persuasive in many ways. And I like systems of any kind.

There was a point when I was thinking about both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but that was mostly because I was stuck in an Anglican parish with terrible music and a banal liturgy, and I became a bit addled.

But really, with both the CC and the OC, I can’t buy into the “we are the only True Church” thing. It doesn’t work for me theologically or historically or in what I observe around me.

 

[Hesychios]

… How can we not be born with sin? We are born sinless?

We are born able to sin, but not with sin.

Adam is responsible for his own sin, and he would be roasting in hell before any innocent babe, alternatively (following a later western theory) he would be permanently committed to Limbo (if one thinks Limbo is real) before any innocent babe was committed to that place.

In fact, Orthodox see Adam and Eve rescued from Sheol by Jesus Christ at the harrowing of hell, and this is depicted iconographically in the well known image of Jesus grasping at the arms of both Adam and Eve and pulling them up to heaven This image appears in churches all over the Christian East, including my old Eastern Catholic parish.

http://www.conciliarpress.com/media...06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005116.gif

The original sinners have been forgiven, are touched by Him and raised to heaven by Him.

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?

No, it does not satisfy the conditions for the charge of Pelagianism (which may or may not have been what Pelagius thought, anyway), it is a common charge leveled by western Catholics. I have answered this elsewhere but lack the time to go into it today. Bluegoat actually made a very good set of comments on this subject.

Interestingly enough, Saint John Cassian opposed Saint Augustine’s thought as well. He expounded the Orthodox understanding quite well, many of his writings and prayers survived. Following the early church practice, he was canonized in the church of Marseille and was accepted by all of the eastern (now considered Orthodox) dioceses. But he did not find a place on the universal Roman calendar (when that was made the rule), probably because of the later Augustinian dominance in the western church. His western Catholic public veneration is still limited to the church at Marseilles.

Pelagius the man may have been misunderstood. What was condemned is not Orthodox teaching, Grace (which is God Himself) is necessary for salvation. I found it interesting that two Popes were also named Pelagius. I had always assumed that this was before the ‘heretic’ Pelagius was condemned, for there were no others.

But no, largely forgotten now these two Popes lived after Pelagius the ‘heretic’, and they are both from the Orthodox/Byzantine period of Papacy. I can’t imagine any children today Christened with the name Pelagius, given it’s associations in the modern minds of Catholics, but then so close to his own day there we have it. I don’t see any Popes named Augustine in the lists, perhaps I missed it.

I copped this out of Wiki, the quote is referenced so I supply that. I usually don’t think of Wiki as reliable because people can actually delete or rewrite the part one is referencing.

Due to his status as a heretic, little of his work has come down to the present day except in the quotes of his opponents. However, more recently some have defended Pelagius as a misunderstood orthodox: Recent analysis of his thinking suggests that it was, in fact, highly orthodox, following in the tradition established by the early fathers and in keeping with the teaching of the church in both the East and the West… From what we are able to piece together from the few sources available… it seems that the Celtic monk held to an orthodox view of the prevenience of God’s grace, and did not assert that individuals could achieve salvation purely by their own efforts…
Rev. Dr. Ian Bradley, The Celtic Way, 1993, p. 62

The opinion is the author’s, but I find it interesting.

The Fall didn’t introduce the conditions for sin, it tattooed sin to our natures.

I of course disagree. It wounded us and we need healing, it weakened us and we need strengthening.

It is because of the western notion of depravity and sin that the Catholic church had to insist on a special exemption for Saint Mary of Nazareth. It was a patch, a ‘bug fix’ to a faulty program.

The reformers, recognizing this claim as unsupported Biblically often just say she had to have been sinful (according to your common understanding). Both are wrong.

The entire book supports justification through faith, original sin, and the idea that we are born with the sin of Adam.

It is not Faith, as in belief, but rather faithfulness and a living out of the covenant in trust. Our complete trust and confidence in the good news of the Lord as well as our desire to live rightly in His lights will always be manifested in the activity and choices of our lives. If the deeds are not manifested the presumed faithfulness is not genuine. I am probably not explaining this well.

Again, I disagree on the reading that we are born with the sin of Adam (unless you have another meaning of sin than I), and most especially insist that we are not capable of reinterpreting the Apostolic witness because we think we know better than the Fathers of the early church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Michael. Thanks for your post as always. I disagree. We are more than able to sin…we DO sin, and we do it constantly. When we get angry, when we lust, when we covet, when we get impatient, when we wish ill on others, when we’re impatient, when we lie (which is more often than we realize), when we gossip, when we do so many things. I think it is contrary to the Early Fathers to think we are capable of human perfection on this earth. Augustine, as I said, was right in pointing to a child to see firsthand the effects of sin and that we are indeed born with it. We don’t need to be taught to be selfish, it’s innate! We need to be taught the reverse–to share and care. We are not born without lust, we need to be taught to love perfectly and try not to lust. We are born wishing to see our enemies vanquished. We need to be taught to pray for them and wish them well. To say that we are born just with the capability to sin and not the definite glue of sin all over us ignores Paul terribly. All sin, all fall short of the glory of God. He who tells himself he is without sin is fooling himself. Paul even speaks of a thorn in his side that constantly causes him sin and torment but it is there to remind him of the need for Christ. We sin constantly. Can you produce a consistently New Testament line of teaching that we are just born “capable” of sinning? Nowhere have I seen it anywhere in Scripture. And despite my respect for the Fathers, they are not above Scripture by any means. And I consider Augustine a Father. While he was a few hundred years later into the game, he did more to analyze the atonement, salvation, and the dynamics of theology than the earliest Fathers.

You mention St. John Cassian and how he opposed Augustine, which of course you’re correct about, and how he has been respected in the East but not so much in the West. Keep in mind the reverse for St. Augustine, an intellectual and spiritual titan who has not garnered half the respect in the East that he so richly deserved because his brilliance, his own faith journey, and his works City of God and Confessions alone should saint the man. He’s absolutely brilliant. The West was most right to elevate his memory for all time.

We are born able to sin, but not with sin.

Adam is responsible for his own sin, and he would be roasting in hell before any innocent babe, alternatively (following a later western theory) he would be permanently committed to Limbo (if one thinks Limbo is real) before any innocent babe was committed to that place.

In fact, Orthodox see Adam and Eve rescued from Sheol by Jesus Christ at the harrowing of hell, and this is depicted iconographically in the well known image of Jesus grasping at the arms of both Adam and Eve and pulling them up to heaven This image appears in churches all over the Christian East, including my old Eastern Catholic parish.

http://www.conciliarpress.com/media...06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005116.gif

The original sinners have been forgiven, are touched by Him and raised to heaven by Him.

No, it does not satisfy the conditions for the charge of Pelagianism (which may or may not have been what Pelagius thought, anyway), it is a common charge leveled by western Catholics. I have answered this elsewhere but lack the time to go into it today. Bluegoat actually made a very good set of comments on this subject.

Interestingly enough, Saint John Cassian opposed Saint Augustine’s thought as well. He expounded the Orthodox understanding quite well, many of his writings and prayers survived. Following the early church practice, he was canonized in the church of Marseille and was accepted by all of the eastern (now considered Orthodox) dioceses. But he did not find a place on the universal Roman calendar (when that was made the rule), probably because of the later Augustinian dominance in the western church. His western Catholic public veneration is still limited to the church at Marseilles.

Pelagius the man may have been misunderstood. What was condemned is not Orthodox teaching, Grace (which is God Himself) is necessary for salvation. I found it interesting that two Popes were also named Pelagius. I had always assumed that this was before the ‘heretic’ Pelagius was condemned, for there were no others.

I of course disagree. It wounded us and we need healing, it weakened us and we need strengthening.

It is because of the western notion of depravity and sin that the Catholic church had to insist on a special exemption for Saint Mary of Nazareth. It was a patch, a ‘bug fix’ to a faulty program.

The reformers, recognizing this claim as unsupported Biblically often just say she had to have been sinful (according to your common understanding). Both are wrong.
It is not Faith, as in belief, but rather faithfulness and a living out of the covenant in trust. Our complete trust and confidence in the good news of the Lord as well as our desire to live rightly in His lights will always be manifested in the activity and choices of our lives. If the deeds are not manifested the presumed faithfulness is not genuine. I am probably not explaining this well.

Again, I disagree on the reading that we are born with the sin of Adam (unless you have another meaning of sin than I), and most especially insist that we are not capable of reinterpreting the Apostolic witness because we think we know better than the Fathers of the early church.