Which is different from Original Sin. C’mon, what’s easier to say, “Original Sin” or the 2 paragraphs explaining what Original Sin is as understood and taught by the West and how it different to the Eastern understanding of the Fall?
The problem is not the fall its the consequence of the fall. Which indicates AFTER the fall. And this “severe” break in Apostolic theology is exactly where?
Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea that the guilt of original sin is passed down through generations. It bases its teaching in part on a passage in Exodus saying a son is not guilty of the sins of his father. The Church teaches that in addition to their conscience and tendency to do good, men and women are born with a tendency to sin due to the fallen condition of the world.
[Ah but this is incorrect, regardless of if in fact you are “guilty” you did inherit this fallen state from Adam and Eve. Or as you Church states in the exact next sentence…Men and Women are born with a tendancy to sin due to the fallen condition of the World. And what does that mean further defined?] a son is not guilty of the sins of his fathers has nothing to do with this equation. For the fact is you did inherit the fallen state of Adam and Eve and the inclination to Sin. Semantics is what it is.
It follows Maximus the Confessor and others in characterising the change in human nature as the introduction of a “deliberative will” (θέλημα γνωμικόν) in opposition to the “natural will” (θέλημα φυσικόν) created by God which tends toward the good. Thus according to St Paul in his epistle to the Romans, non-Christians can still act according to their conscience.
[All good has nothing to do with where we are at]
[Now listen closely to this part here comes the contradiction to the last two paragraphs]
Nonetheless, as a “CONSEQUENCE” of Adam’s sin, seen merely as the prototype (since human nature has been degraded) of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins, humans became mortal.
[How does this relate to…a son is not guilty of the sins of his fathers]
It doesn’t. For if we were not responsible there be no consequence, the consequence is a… AS-A-RESULT of the fall in the Garden. There is NO way around this. Listen, listen heres the exact words…[each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin] No-one ever said you are repeating Adams sin, you are commiting your own. Consequense/Guilt are contingent in meaning in this defined understanding. .
[And in this paragraph are the “semantics” which simply do not differ from the West.] Guilt in the West is the same understanding as Consequence. The above paragraph contradicts the the Bibical verse stated above in that “each of whom, in repeating Adam’s sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins” Wiki-Pedia
The play on words in that you did inherit this fallen state, Guilt is irrelevant is the pure sense of the word sense you did not know Adam. So you have been judged for Adam and Eves trangressions the wording is pure “semantics” This is about equal to an innocent man being incarcerated thus an injustice. While he is not guilty of the crime he “was” found guilty, the As-A Result is still very real… and in full effect.
Adam’s sin isn’t comprehended only as disobedience to God’s commandment, but as a change in man’s hierarchy of values from theocentricism to anthropocentrism, driven by the object of his lust, outside of God, in this case the tree which was seen to be “good for food”, and something “to be desired” (see also theosis, seeking union with God)
Correct, anyway moving on.
The difference East/West is that heresy entered but again, and the Church had to speak as usual. So yes there is a little more to the story than two paragraphs. Its not about what easier its about what is in fact right.
By the end of the 6th century, Pelagianism disappeared as an organized heresy, but the questions of free will, predestination, and grace raised by Pelagianism have been the subject of theological controversy ever since. Pelagianism was condemned by East and West at the Council of Ephesus (431).
Pelagianism holds that the fall did not permanently taint human nature, and that humans are therefore capable of choosing good even without divine aid. Which is of course “impossible” since Grace preceeds all virture, and there all men have an inclination to sin…ALL! The difference is in degree not kind.
