Original Sin and Baptism:

[mardukm]

In an Orthodox forum with an EO brother, I am discussing the idea that Baptism remits Original Sin. He stated that Baptism does not remit Original Sin, but only ACTUAL sin. I informed him that this is not the teaching of the Oriental Orthodox, the Oriental Catholic, or the Latin Catholic Churches. The following are representative statements from the OO (I’m sure I don’t need to quote any Latin documents, though if a Latin wants to join the discussion and wishes to provide a quote from a Magisterial document, please do so):

Coptic Orthodox:
“The story of salvation starts by faith, repentance and baptism, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk 16:16), “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), this remission includes the original sin as well as all actual sins.”
The Heresy of Salvation in a Moment, HH Pope Shenoute III

Syriac Orthodox:
“ The Sacrament of Baptism wipes away the scars of the (inherited) Original Sin and qualifies the baptized to become a member of the Holy Church.”
“Denho/Epiphany – the Baptism of Jesus Christ”, Syriac Orthodox Christian Digest (January, 2006)

Armenian Apostolic:
“ One of the aims of the Baptism is the forgiveness of
all sins, including the original sin, in which we are born to this world. As
original sin is universal, and the need for release from it is universal,
therefore the Church wisely and justly allows infants to receive the Grace
which cleanses them from the stains of the original sin and gives them, in
their innocency, the equipment to fight victoriously against sin.”
Saints and Sacraments of the Armenian Church, Bishop Kaloustian

I told him that in the Catholic Church, BOTH viewpoints (that Baptism does not remit original sin, but only actual sin; that Baptism remits BOTH original and actual sin) exist since we recognize that both viewpoints can be supported by the Fathers.

I told him that the Oriental Catholic Churches (Copts, Armenians, Indians, Syriacs, Maronites, Chaldeans, etc.), like their OO counterparts, believe as the Latin Church does. However, given that the Cappadocians taught as the Latins and Orientals do today, I am not exactly sure what the Eastern Catholic Churches believe. I am sure that some believe as this EO gentleman does, but are there Eastern Catholics who also believe as the Latins and Orientals do in this regard (in adherence to the Cappadocian Tradition)?

If both positions are acceptable among the Eastern Catholic Churches, is the belief delineated by the sui juris Church (for example, the Ruthenians might believe as the Latins and Orientals, while the Ukranians might believe as this EO gentlman expressed), or is it more of an individual thing?

Also, I would appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut from my Oriental Catholic brethren. To your knowleddge, does your particular Church follow the OO on this matter (i,e., in agreement with the Latins), or do you follow the EO belief?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

I’mn honestly not aware of any Church or Tradition that teaches that Original Sin is not remitted with Baptism. I’ve heard some Eastern Orthodox claim that only actual sin is remitted, on the grounds that Original Sin is a “Western invention”, but such a view is not supported by the Byzantine Fathers, nor by Byzantine theologians until very recently in history.

I would say that the “no Original Sin” viewpoint is actually an innovation, and a dangerous one at that. I’m not aware of it being allowed in the Catholic Communion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[bpbasilphx]

Chalcedonian Eastern Christians (called “Orthodox”) have a different understanding of Original Sin from the west.

 

[Aramis]

I’mn honestly not aware of any Church or Tradition that teaches that Original Sin is not remitted with Baptism. I’ve heard some Eastern Orthodox claim that only actual sin is remitted, on the grounds that Original Sin is a “Western invention”, but such a view is not supported by the Byzantine Fathers, nor by Byzantine theologians until very recently in history.

I would say that the “no Original Sin” viewpoint is actually an innovation, and a dangerous one at that. I’m not aware of it being allowed in the Catholic Communion.

Peace and God bless!

“No Original Sin” is NOT an innovation; it’s the Pelagian heresy!

 

[mardukm]

Chalcedonian Eastern Christians (called “Orthodox”) have a different understanding of Original Sin from the west.

If the statement that Original Sin is not washed away at Baptism in the Chalcedonian East is based on a different understanding of Original Sin than the Chalcedonian West, then it appears that it is also different from the belief of the non-Chalcedonian Orient, since the Orientals do preach and teach that Original Sin is indeed washed away at Baptism. Would you agree to that assessment?

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

It’s confusing to me. It does not seem to be a matter of the Chalcedonian East denying Original Sin (after all, they do have a concept of Ancestral Sin). However, to say that Original Sin (or Ancestral Sin) is not being washed away at Baptism seems to contradict the very essence of Original Sin (as taught by the Latins and Orientals) - that it is hereditary, and that it is an UNnatural blemish or stain or filth on human nature (unlike death and corruptibility, which are natural to human nature).

Is this all a matter of “theological language?”

The EO gentleman I was corresponding with also said the necessity of infant baptism is based on the idea that infants begin sinning soon after birth. That is such a strange concept to me. Does that mean that the Chalcedonian East thinks that infants can be condemned to hell if they die before they are baptized? That’s even worse than the Limbo theologoumenon of the Latins!

Those are just some of the things that are going through mind on this topic.

Aside from that, I would like to ask - is it OK for an Eastern Catholic to believe as the Orientals or Latins do? Or would that be considered a departure from your Eastern Byzantine Tradition. To me, it does not seem to be a departure, because the Cappadocian Fathers taught Original Sin as the Latins do. But I would like to see what my EC brethren say on the matter.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Mardukam,

The modality of sinfulness mentioned by your correspondent sounds dangerously close to Semi-Pelagianism. Pelagianism was condemed several times during the 5th century. Both in Antioch and Rome.

 

[Ghosty]

So this person believes in Original Sin, but doesn’t believe it’s washed away in Baptism? I’ve never, ever heard of such a thing. Sounds like another example of the problems of making too big of an emphasis on “Original Sin” really being the effects of Original Sin (i.e. Original Sin is death, and since we still die after Baptism we still have Original Sin).

Again, this notion is not found in traditional Byzantine/Cappadocian theology, but is something that has been popularized in recent years. A cursory reading of the Byzantine Fathers and theologians up until the 1800s will show this.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Chalcedonian Eastern Christians (called “Orthodox”) have a different understanding of Original Sin from the west.

We all know this, especially those of us who are Eastern Catholic. That being said, what passes as “Orthodox theology” in many cases today does not reflect traditional Eastern Orthodox theology. There was a thread not to long back where this was discussed in-depth; I’ll see if I can find it again.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Mardukam,

The modality of sinfulness mentioned by your correspondent sounds dangerously close to Semi-Pelagianism. Pelagianism was condemed several times during the 5th century. Both in Antioch and Rome.

That’s an interesting observation. In fact, during the initial stages of our discussion, he stated that infants are born in a state of grace. I informed him that this belief was Pelagianism. He resisted at first by a misinterpretation of some statements from the old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pelagianism. Currently, he seems to have retracted, but not in a very explicit manner (and we are going to continue the conversation later). I also asked him why infant baptism is necessary, which is an ancient and unanimous teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. And he responded by saying that infants begin sinning soon after death.

None of the EO on the forum are jumping in to correct him. In fact, a few EO actually jumped in and argued that the fact that infants are not baptized IMMEDIATELY after birth demonstrates that infant baptism is not really necessary (I countered by saying that the practice of not baptizing IMMEDIATELY after birth is based on the scriptural idea that baptism replaces circumcision, NOT that infant baptism was not seen as necessary). So I’m assuming this is something a lot of EO believe. Since the EO believe it, I am wondering if the EC believe it as well. Brother Aramis, as an EC, do you agree with the statement that infant baptism is not necessary?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

We all know this, especially those of us who are Eastern Catholic. That being said, what passes as “Orthodox theology” in many cases today does not reflect traditional Eastern Orthodox theology. There was a thread not to long back where this was discussed in-depth; I’ll see if I can find it again.

Yes, brother Ghosty. I do realize that modern EO (though not all of them) often argue things just as long as it’s against Catholicism, not exactly for the purpose of asserting the genuine Eastern Orthodox faith, and this unthinking anti-Catholicism often puts them at odds with historic EO’xy. But sometimes I wonder just how prevalent these viewpoints are in the Byzantine East (including Catholics, as well). I hope I am not insulting my EC brethren for asking these questions.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

As I was pondering this, I think I have finally come to understand the difference between the Byzantine (on the one hand) and the Oriental/Latin (on the other) concepts of Original Sin.

Orientals/Latins distinguish between the spiritual effects of Original Sin (the stain/blemish/filth/scar [this last one according to the quote from the Syriac Orthodox Christian Digest above]) and the physical consequences of Original Sin.

Byzantines don’t really do so.

This distinction can be reflected in the use of two different terms - Original Sin, on the one hand, and Ancestral Sin, on the other.

Thus, when Orientals and Latins say that Original Sin is being washed away, we are referring to the the spiritual effects of Original Sin being washed away (which are UNnatural to our nature), as distinct from the physical consequences (which are NATURAL to our nature).

On the other hand, since Byzantines don’t distinguish between the effects (or at least modern Byzantines), Byzantines cannot say that Ancestral sin is being washed away because death/corruptibility still remains.

However, can Byzantines actually say that NOTHING is being washed away at Baptism? Is not the Old Man being washed away at Baptism - isn’t that what Scripture itself says? Can they admit to that?

I guess my main point is that despite the different TERMINOLOGIES (and the differing definitions), there does not seem to be a difference in the FAITH at all (i.e., that something is being washed away at Baptism), despite the contentions of some modern EO polemicists.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

The problem with the different terminology in this case is that it can readily lead to the error of Pelagianism or semi-pelagianism.

 

[mardukm]

Who is Vladimir Moss? I know I’ve read his name around here a few times. I’m sorry for my ignorance. Is he a “traditionalist” EO? He is accusing a lot of modern EO of a departure from the traditional Orthodox Faith because of this very topic we are discussing:

orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/258/-new-soteriology-(1)-original-sin/

According to him, the modern EO view of ancestral sin is more drastic than I had previously thought. He claims that modern EO teach that physical death is the SOURCE of sinful actions. I previously thought that modern EO simply EMPHASIZED physical death over the other consequences of Original Sin, while STILL admitting that the other consequences are a DIRECT result of the Original Sin. Vladimir Moss, on the other hand, says that modern EO’xy actually claims that physical death.itself is the direct cause of all other consequences of the Original Sin, which, he states, is a departure from patristic teaching AND historic EO’xy…

Is Vladimir Moss’s assessment correct?

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. If this topic has been discussed before, just provide a link. Thanks.

 

[mardukm]

The problem with the different terminology in this case is that it can readily lead to the error of Pelagianism or semi-pelagianism.

I’ll agree with you there, with a slight caveat. For the sake of understanding and giving the benefit of the doubt, I would assume that despite the statement “Original Sin is not washed away,” these modern EO still believe SOMETHING is being washed away (i.e. ,the “Old Man”). In that sense, I would not think there is a difference in the FAITH. Of course, if these modern EO do not believe even the “Old Man” is being washed away in Baptism, then I will agree with your statement completely.

In any case, Vladimir Moss’s statements have introduced a new dimension to the matter for me. IIRC, Father Ambrose (the very same one who used to post here) told me about a month ago that Vladimir Moss does not represent true Orthodoxy. So I never bothered to read what Vladimir Moss wrote (or bothered to find out anything about him). This is the first time I actually read his work on the matter, and it is pretty — revealing.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

According to him, the modern EO view of ancestral sin is more drastic than I had previously thought. He claims that modern EO teach that physical death is the SOURCE of sinful actions. I previously thought that modern EO simply EMPHASIZED physical death over the other consequences of Original Sin, while STILL admitting that the other consequences are a DIRECT result of the Original Sin. Vladimir Moss, on the other hand, says that modern EO’xy actually claims that physical death.itself is the direct cause of all other consequences of the Original Sin, which, he states, is a departure from patristic teaching AND historic EO’xy…

Vladimir Moss’ criticism is exactly what I’m talking about; there is a new theological teaching that says that death is the source of the “consequences of original sin”. Basically, many recent EO theologians have departed from traditional teaching and have begun to say that what is passed on is simply mortality (mortality itself becomes “Original Sin” as we would traditionally regard it), and this mortality is what leads us further sins and turning away from God.

This is not the traditional Byzantine theology, and you won’t find it in any writings older than the 1800s (and very rarely before the 1900s) that I’m aware of. There have been many writings that speak of spiritual death and corruption being the foundation of all our problems, but that simply falls in line with the Latin and Oriental traditions but with slightly different terminology.

The notion that physical mortality is “Original Sin”, and the source of our human faults, rather than it being the result of Original Sin and being one of our human faults, is a novel teaching and extremely problematic. It means that “Original Sin” is not wiped away at Baptism, because we are still mortal. It also reinforces the notion that Mary was not sinless, because she was mortal. It fails to deal with the fact that Jesus Himself was mortal, however, and therefore leaves itself open to all kinds of errors and heresies, as Aramis has pointed out. Personally I agree completely with Vladimir Moss on this issue; I think modern Eastern Orthodox are being seriously misled on the issue of Original Sin, going against even the Byzantine Fathers. After all, if St. Gregory Palamas had believed that death is the true source of sin, he would not have believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, since he affirmed that she was mortal.

Peace and God bless!

P.S. I found the thread which touched on this subject recently. It’s here.

 

[Aramis]

I’ll agree with you there, with a slight caveat. For the sake of understanding and giving the benefit of the doubt, I would assume that despite the statement “Original Sin is not washed away,” these modern EO still believe SOMETHING is being washed away (i.e. ,the “Old Man”). In that sense, I would not think there is a difference in the FAITH. Of course, if these modern EO do not believe even the “Old Man” is being washed away in Baptism, then I will agree with your statement completely.

Blessings,
Marduk

Semi-pelagians also baptized. Just because they believe Baptism is essential doesn’t mean they are accepting the conciliar definition of the sin of Adam.

 

[mardukm]

Semi-pelagians also baptized. Just because they believe Baptism is essential doesn’t mean they are accepting the conciliar definition of the sin of Adam.

OK. You’ve got me there as far as the conciliar DEFINITION of Original Sin (since Pelagius’s denial that original sin exists in infants that needed to be taken away by Baptism is one of the points dogmatically rejected by the Third Ecumenical Council and two other Ecumenical Councils after that). Well, some better mind than mine hopefully will be able to reconcile the modern EO teaching with patristic dogma, or (short of repudiating their novelty) it would be that much more difficult to reunite with them. But I don’t think this modern EO belief is completely accepted by all EO, so perhaps there is hope they will discard it.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

OK. I did some research.

Here is Canon 110 of the African Code that was accepted by the Third Ecumenical Council (in their condemnation of Pelagius and Celestius) and the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils:

Likewise, it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.

You’re absolutely correct, brother Aramis. How modern EO can possibly reconcile their teaching that infants are only baptized for actual sin (since they soon, as they claim, begin to sin after birth), and not original sin, with this teaching of the Ecumenical Councils is beyond me.

Blessings

 

[Aramis]

Mardukam:
I have (for a role-play gaming supplement I’ve been working on) been examining the heresies of the 4th through 6th centuries. Since the game is set in 6th C Britain ca 500-550, Pelagianism is a major part of that research. The last Gasp of Pelagianism seems to have been his students who fled to Britain. (So is Gnosticism and Arianism.) You just got lucky and hit a heresy I’m readily familiar with.

And given the harsh condemnations of the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian heresies, it is shocking how an orthodox Christian could come to that conclusion, especially if they have ever attended a baptism!