Original Sin and the Atonement

[hazcompat]

2 Corinthians 5: [15] And Christ died for all; that they also who live, may not now live to themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.[16] Wherefore henceforth, we know no man according to the flesh. And if we have known Christ according to the flesh; but now we know him so no longer. [17] If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new. [18] But all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Christ; and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. [19] For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation. [20] For Christ therefore we are ambassadors, God as it were exhorting by us. For Christ, we beseech you, be reconciled to God.

drbo.org/chapter/54005.htm

peace

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have to admit that it really, really bothers me when Eastern (Byzantine) people say we don’t believe in Original Sin, especially since such comments are almost immediately followed by a description of nothing else but Original Sin.

We are born in a state of damage and distance from God (sin) by virtue of our origins in Adam and Eve (original). We inherit this fallen, damaged state from our first parents, and we are brought back to God (at one) through the saving actions of Christ, and this Grace is imparted to us through a new birth, a new origin, in Baptism.

If there is no Original Sin, then there is no need for Christ’s death, and Baptism is a lie. If we are separated from our intended relationship with God, then there must be atonement, which simply means to bring together what has been separated, to reconcile.

Peace and God bless!

But we do not believe in a stain that is removed by baptism. We believe that there is the original sin of Adam and Even, that there was a Fall not only of our first parents but all of nature. When we say we do not believe, or follow, the teaching on “Original Sin”, its the Western praxis of it.

 

[Vico]

The stain of original sin (Latin) is the lack of sanctifying grace at our birth, although babies are born without actual sin, and are not capable of sin until at least the age of reason. Death is two-fold: physical and spiritual. In the Latin terminology there is the natural and the preternatural and the supernatural. The gift of sanctifying grace is supernatural.

The consequences of ancestral sin are death, which includes the fear and anxieties and more temptation to make worldly things more important, because of it: the tendency to sin. Baptism brings the sanctification of Holy Spirit, nurturing us that we may live in the image of Christ, and needed by babies, born sinless, and who are not capable of sin until at least the age of reason.

 

[dvdjs]

But we do not believe in a stain that is removed by baptism.

The ontological deficit, the lack of communion that is the legacy of the sin of Adam, is overcome through baptism. How different is this from the Latin perspective?

 

[Ghosty]

The ontological deficit, the lack of communion that is the legacy of the sin of Adam, is overcome through baptism. How different is this from the Latin perspective?

Precisely.

ConstantineTG: Our tradition even uses similar language to the original Latin when it comes to the stain of Original Sin. St. Gregory Palamas, for example, speaks of our Divine Image being “tarnished” by the actions of Adam and Eve, while the Latin term which is rather imprecisely translated as “stain” in English is macula, or blemish. Both refer to the darkening and distortion of our nature, using the most appropriate words of their respective languages, words that are, in fact, quite similar in meaning.

We absolutely inherit this tarnished/darkened nature from our parents, and we are born anew with an adopted parent through Baptism. This is precisely what has always been taught in the Latin tradition. I would argue that not only is there very little difference in language (tarnish versus blemish), there is almost no difference in praxis because the Latin tradition has never taught that we are guilty of the sin of Adam and Eve, but only that we are subject to the guilt (consequences) of their sin.

Unfortunately there has been a distorted view of the Latin teaching on the part of many Eastern theologians, and in their writings they often spend as much time mistakenly describing what they think the Latin teaching is as they do describing what the Byzantine teaching is. In the end it makes us Easterners look foolish and heretical, railing against a false image of Latin teaching which in reality is almost identical to ours, and in doing so it sounds like we denounce orthodox (and Orthodox) tradition. Latins rightly scratch their heads at the “comparative” theological discussions held on the part of Eastern Faithful.

As for atonement, if one takes a broad view of the term, all it means is having our relationship with God restored through the life and death of Christ, and all Apostolic Christians believe in this. There are various theories of atonement, some of which are more popular in certain traditions than others, but that’s a different matter. If we say we don’t believe in atonement and the stain of Original Sin, we are saying that we don’t believe that human nature was at all tarnished by the Fall, and that we are born in a state of Communion with God. Obviously this is incorrect, but I have seen Easterners make these statements because they’ve been taught that “we don’t believe in atonement and Original Sin” and they knew enough about the actual meaning of those terms (unlike the theologians they were learning from) to make the logical leap into outright heresy. That’s the very real danger of us making such statements, and why I have such a visceral reaction to it; in an effort to “not be Latin”, we so easily throw our own Fathers and tradition under the bus.

BTW, I have no personal ill feelings towards you, ConstantineTG. I actually really enjoy your posts and thoughts. This is just a general theological point I’m trying to make, nothing personal at all.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ConstantineTG]

The ontological deficit, the lack of communion that is the legacy of the sin of Adam, is overcome through baptism. How different is this from the Latin perspective?

The way I understand it is this:

The Latins believe that there is something there that shouldn’t be there (original sin) and it is washed away by Baptism.

The Byzantines believe that there is something that should be there but it isn’t (indwelling of the Holy Spirit) and by Baptism we die and are reborn in Christ thus opening ourselves to graces from God which includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Correct?

 

[Ghosty]

The way I understand it is this:

The Latins believe that there is something there that shouldn’t be there (original sin) and it is washed away by Baptism.

The Byzantines believe that there is something that should be there but it isn’t (indwelling of the Holy Spirit) and by Baptism we die and are reborn in Christ thus opening ourselves to graces from God which includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Correct?

Incorrect. The Latin teaching is and always been the same as Byzantine tradition you describe. In Latin theology it is impossible for evil to add anything; sin only corrupts and takes away. In fact, Latin theology is perhaps the most explicit about this idea of all traditions, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

 

[jam070406]

Incorrect. The Latin teaching is and always been the same as Byzantine tradition you describe. In Latin theology it is impossible for evil to add anything; sin only corrupts and takes away. In fact, Latin theology is perhaps the most explicit about this idea of all traditions, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

Isn’t there also the understanding that by Christ conquering death we are freed from the bondage of Satan inquired by the fall? That is why there is an exorcism and a renouncing of Satan involved during Baptism. Which the parents and God parents express on the behalf of babies. That’s why the early Church was so urgent in having babies born as quickly as possible. Because although created good we are born into bondage (spiritual death ). Hence the need to be reborn.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Incorrect. The Latin teaching is and always been the same as Byzantine tradition you describe. In Latin theology it is impossible for evil to add anything; sin only corrupts and takes away. In fact, Latin theology is perhaps the most explicit about this idea of all traditions, IMO.

Peace and God bless!

Thats what I was taught in (Roman) Catholic School

 

[Ghosty]

Thats what I was taught in (Roman) Catholic School

I believe you, but rest assured such a thing is nowhere to be found in any catechism or major theologian. Even the old Baltimore Catechism explains Original Sin as a privation. Perhaps you misunderstood, or had teachers that weren’t up on theology?

I know that I’ve never once come across such a notion in any source of Catholic teaching. The first thing that is usually laid out is that Original Sin is the absence of Original Justice and Sanctifying Grace.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alfonsus]

The way I understand it is this:

The Latins believe that there is something there that shouldn’t be there (original sin) and it is washed away by Baptism.

The Byzantines believe that there is something that should be there but it isn’t (indwelling of the Holy Spirit) and by Baptism we die and are reborn in Christ thus opening ourselves to graces from God which includes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Correct?

Now, of course we can say the same thing with different language.
For instance if we say man is the icon of God, then because Adam lost that perfect communion with God, dirt (stain, blemish, whatever) blurs the icon.
Baptism washed the dirt so the icon can shine once more.
In this sense, it is like something was added that once was not there: dirt.

But I think one thing is clear, we are not inheriting Adam’s personal and actual sin (culpa).

 

[Ghosty]

Now, of course we can say the same thing with different language.
For instance if we say man is the icon of God, then because Adam lost that perfect communion with God, dirt (stain, blemish, whatever) blurs the icon.
Baptism washed the dirt so the icon can shine once more.
In this sense, it is like something was added that once was not there: dirt.

But I think one thing is clear, we are not inheriting Adam’s personal and actual sin (culpa).

Except that sin doesn’t add “dirt”. It takes away light, and hence the language of “stain”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

Below is the Latin statement from Trent on baptism and original sin, showing the phrase “reatum originalis peccati”. Note that there is no word culpa in that statement. People have been translating the Latin word reatum as “guilt of” which is ambiguous.

See The Biblical Doctrine of Sin By James Stuart Candlish, p. 88, which states that the English word guilt is used by theologians to represent two different words, culpa and reatus, but in English literature guilt only corresponds to culpa.

Latin reatus means liability or obligation to suffer punishment. Candlish states that this practice of translating reatus as guilt has lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Inherited original sin is reatus poena and is without reatus culpa; we inherit only the sentence of our ancestor, i.e., the consequences.

Sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum
Sessio V. De Peciato Originali. p. 16

*“5. Si quis per JESU Chirsti Domini nostri gratiam, quae in Baptismate confertur, reatum originalis peccati remitte negat; aut etiam afferit non tolli totum id, quod veram & propriam peccati rationem habet: sed illud dicit tantum radi, aut non imputari; anathema sit.” *

This is verified today in the Catholic Catechism 405 “Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.”