Original Sin: Differences b/w RC and EO

[belgianwaffles9]

This post left me very sad… I do not understand why th Orthodox seem to hate us so much, when he have made every effort to be charitable and accomodating. How lamentable it is that our divisions persist!

Meaning that if you don’t believe actual sin is transmitted you are anathema. How can we inherit actual sin from our fathers? A just God would not allow that. In fact holding us accountable for the sins of another is the height of injustice. That is why we oppose Catholic teaching on this matter.** It teaches a vengeful and hateful God that has no basis whatsoever in Apostolic Tradition. You can see the final product of Catholic thought on this subject in Calvin and his total depravity.**

I got that idea from reading pre Vatican II documents. Apparently what I thought was the unchanging rock of Catholic doctrine is in fact maleable depending on the situation you find yourselves in. I think the onus is on you to prove to me that the plain language of the text doesn’t mean what it says. Show me from period documents or writings that it doesn’t mean what it says.

First off, to blame Catholicism for Calvin’s beliefs is absolutely absurd! Do you forget that Calvin was anathema also, and one of the most vile and despicable protestant reformists? We have always rejected the protestantnotion of total depravity. I made it clear in my very first post, which started this thread, that we did not beleive in total depravity. That was an uncharitable and dishonest thing to accuse us of. I also find it ridiculous that you accuse us of changing our beliefs; is it not possible that you simply do not understand what the beliefs said before, or that you are misinterpreting the current statements? This is what i hope to show.

Anywyays, on to your reguest… you didnt explicitly give which period you wanted these documents to be from, but i believe i can offer some. The Catholic Encycolpedia was written well before Vatican II, and well before the Catechism whose quotations you rejected as just reflecting som imaginary wishy-washy change. So, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam.” That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as “a moral deformity”, “a separation from God”, as “the death of the soul”, original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the “stain” which St. Thomas defines as “the privation of grace” (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, “takes away all that is really and properly sin”, for concupiscence which remains “is not really and properly sin”, although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). **Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense. **

Catholic Encyclopedia:

This is a difficult point and many systems have been invented to explain it: it will suffice to give the theological explanation now commonly received. Original sin is the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam. This solution, which is that of St. Thomas, goes back to St. Anselm and even to the traditions of the early Church, as we see by the declaration of the **Second Council of Orange **(A.D. 529): one man has transmitted to the whole human race not only the death of the body, which is the punishment of sin, but even sin itself, which is the death of the soul [Denz., n. 175 (145)]. As death is the privation of the principle of life, the death of the soul is the privation of sanctifying grace which according to all theologians is the principle of supernatural life. Therefore, if original sin is “the death of the soul”, it is the privation of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent, although it did not make this solution obligatory by a definition, regarded it with favour and authorized its use (cf. Pallavicini, “Istoria del Concilio di Trento”, vii-ix). Original sin is described not only as the death of the soul (Sess. V, can. ii), but as a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). But the Council calls “justice” what we call sanctifying grace (Sess. VI), and as each child should have had personally his own justice so now after the fall he suffers his own privation of justice.

So, in summary, we are not personally resposnible for Adam’s sin; it is not a “Personal sin” Catholic theology puts personal sin and original sin in two completely seperate categories. Original Sin is passed on because, when Adam sinned, he altared th eveyr nature of human beings, because he lost sanctifying grace, and eternal life. This changed human nature is passed on through all of his children to us. But by the sacrament of baptism, instituted by Christ, sanctifying grace is restored, and the possibility of eternal life is reopened to us.

In this, i see no difference between the Orthodox and Catholic views.

You people are impossible to figure out. Why don’t you just say what you mean? So now “guilt from original sin” doesn’t actually mean guilt it means “absence of justice.” **(1)**Proceeds from the Father and the Son doesn’t actually mean “from the Father and the Son” it means from the Father through the Son. **(2)**No salvation outside the Catholic Church doesn’t actually mean no salvation outside the Catholic Church is means that everyone who has been baptized is “mysteriously” part of the Church and may indeed be saved.

This saddens me, because it is a perfect example of what happens when we say the same things but use different words. First off, i find it incredibly uncharitable to bring all of these up in a thread that has nothing to do with them. It seems you are upset over something and lashing out at us. Maybe that is why you find us hard to understand. I am trying to explain it to you. Just as i started this thread to try to understand the eastern view or original sin, please try very hard to at least understand what we are saying, even if you do not agree with it.

That said, i will address some of what you brought up. I have already touched on what you said about sin, so i will move on to the other two points.

(1) The filoque: this is purely an issue of translation. The Latin Church has NEVER held that the holy spirit has a double-procession. We have always held that the spirirt proceeds from the father, through the son. That is what is stated in the Latin language of the creed. However, when the words were translated into Greek, they seemed to imply a double procession. That is purely an unfortunate accident of translation and linguistics. While we can discuss whether the Church had the authority to alter the creed, there is absolutely no difference in beliefs between the Latin and Eastern versions.

(2): The way I understand it, the Catholic Church is the only church; neither protestants nor the Orthodox are a “seperate church.” Therefore, whenever anyone is baptised, they are baptised into the one church. However, if, after their baptism, they are brought up protestant, they are guilty of many heresies. If they are brought up Orthodox… well, personally i dont believe all Orthodox are heretics, although they are in schism, from our perspective.

As to the rest of what you said, ridiculous! It was so hateful and uncharitable that i do not even find it fit to reply to.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

FROM THE CATECHISM:

This seems to square with the Orthodox teaching (Its hard to find specific quotes since they lack a "catechism’ of sorts, and Its a bit impracticle to read through every council right now).

So…What are the subtle differences that i seem to be missing? Do the Orthodox believe that Catholics believe in Protestant notions such as Total Depravity which we actually condemn?

(please try to keep it academic and just explain the differences… I’m not interested in apologetics from either side, and I certainly want no arguing… That being said, let the arguing begin… )

Your not confusing guilt with concupisence? I dont see any disagreement from the Catholic view than the way St. Paul describes original sin. If there is another it cannot conflict with Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition for it to be true. The Catholic view does agrees with both. Here’ s St. Paul

Romans 5:12
4 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned 5 – (this is talking about original sin after the fall of Adam)
13
for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law.
14
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.
15
But the gift is not like the transgression.( the gift is the grace God gives in his saving sacraments which infuses us with his Love, Mercy and grace) 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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon all, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all.
19
For just as through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.
20
The law entered in 6 so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more,
21
7 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justification for eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[josephdaniel29]

This post left me very sad… I do not understand why th Orthodox seem to hate us so much, when he have made every effort to be charitable and accomodating. How lamentable it is that our divisions persist!

I’ll respond only as far as this statement is concerned. So now if we disagree with you that means we hate you? That’s no different than an African American politician accusing you of racism if you disagree with one of their positions. It’s nothing but playing to peoples emotions instead of addressing the issue. It also shows an amazing amount of arrogance on your part to assume the only reason a rational person could possibly disagree with you is if they “hate” you. Not even allowing for the tiniest possibility that maybe just maybe you might be wrong.

The only good news is at least it’s an attitude I normally don’t get from any of my Catholic friends who I supposedly hate.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[AMDGtoo]

You might also consider asking about the differences about the concept of “original sin” that exist between the Western Rite (Latin Rite) and the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Although both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites make up one Catholic Church, I understand that there is a difference in concept (but not so great that it would warrant the rupture of the unity Jesus prayed for.)

As to why the EO (or any body) hates Catholics, well, I believe that there is a song in the old musical South Pacific that answers that very question. The song indicates that a person must be carefully taught to hate. (Sometimes truth can be found in the strangest places. )

 

[josephdaniel29]

You might also consider asking about the differences about the concept of “original sin” that exist between the Western Rite (Latin Rite) and the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church. Although both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rites make up one Catholic Church, I understand that there is a difference in concept (but not so great that it would warrant the rupture of the unity Jesus prayed for.)

As to why the EO (or any body) hates Catholics, well, I believe that there is a song in the old musical South Pacific that answers that very question. The song indicates that a person must be carefully taught to hate. (Sometimes truth can be found in the strangest places. )

Carefully taught to hate? I’ll be honest with you the only time I’ve even heard the Catholic Church mentioned at my parish is when my priest says how much he loves the Roman Church. When I was a catechumen and receiving instruction in class on a weekly basis he wouldn’t allow any comments that were the least bit polemical or hateful. I know for a fact that he suggested one of our parishioners stop attending an Orthodox parish and go to a Catholic parish with his wife because it was causing too much friction in the relationship. I suspect that if hate was an issue he would have never recommended that.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[reen12]

quote: inJesus

Indeed I was born with iniquity, with sin my mother conceived me. (Pslam 51)

As to seeing ‘original sin’ in Psalm 51:5 -

see Rahsi’s commentary on this line, in the following link.

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/16272/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-51.htm

[Rashi was the Thos. Aquinas of Judaism.]

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/rashi.html

---

It cannot have escaped the notice of each adult human being,
that human beings sin and do evil.

This is why there is a day of atonement [Yom Kippur]

Indeed I was born with iniquity, with sin my mother conceived me.
Psalm 51: 5

The psalmist is noting two realities, in Psalm 51: [see Rashi’s commentary]

-his mother and father had sinned, in their lives, like any other adults,
having given in to the inclination to do evil.

The psalmist is saying that he was born in sin - in the sense that
both of his parents were sinners - and, having grown to manhood,
the psalmist recognizes that all men and women sin, himself included.

Judaism refers to two inclinations, in a human being.
An inclination toward good, and an inclination to do evil.

jewfaq.org/human.htm#Yetzer

The psalmist, in psalm 51, notes the reality ------> human beings sin.

This has nothing whatever to do with that which Christianity asserts,
in terms of the existance of original sin.

reen12

 

[reen12]

quote: inJesus

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? Jeremiah 17:9

Jermiah was writing at a time in Jewish history, where the turn to idols was taking place.
Giving into this inclination to do evil, ignoring both the covenant and Torah - in worshipping idols - truly did make for both ‘deceit’ and a ‘desperately sick heart.’ Sin has a way of generating both realities.

We are not talking, here, of a religion that denies that sin exists.

It is the source of this sin that is in question.

jewfaq.org/human.htm#Yetzer

Christianity will point to these biblical references, overlaying Christian doctrine
[a sin in man’s very being, at conception = original sin.]

When one gets the ‘effects’ of sin, ‘desperately sick heart’ and 'a deceit[ful] heart]
confused with the source of sin, this is a well-spring of error.

reen12

 

[belgianwaffles9]

I’ll respond only as far as this statement is concerned. So now if we disagree with you that means we hate you? That’s no different than an African American politician accusing you of racism if you disagree with one of their positions. It’s nothing but playing to peoples emotions instead of addressing the issue. It also shows an amazing amount of arrogance on your part to assume the only reason a rational person could possibly disagree with you is if they “hate” you. Not even allowing for the tiniest possibility that maybe just maybe you might be wrong.

The only good news is at least it’s an attitude I normally don’t get from any of my Catholic friends who I supposedly hate.

Yours in Christ
Joe

I don’t think you hate us, personally. You took time and effort to explain the Eastern view when i asked for it, for which i am very grateful. But your post did seem very venemous towards the Catholic church. And there is a fair number of Orthodox posters who are far more venemous than you when it comes to Catholics. I did not mean to personally accuse you of hating me personally, or my church. But your post did show me once again that Catholics seem to like the Orthodox a lot better than the Orthodox like Catholics, both on an individual basis and in teachings.

Now, to accuse me of trying to avoid the issue and merely play to emotions is ludicrous, because the one paragraph you decided to quote was followed by a pretty academic post on the Latin view of original sin, with multiple encyclopedic citations. I don’t think anyone could believably accuse me of avoiding the issue.

In fact, i would appreciate a response to the issues I raised in the rest of my thread, because I think i make a strong case that our beliefs are the same, and i should like to hear what you have to say in response. I would like to extend you a very sincere invitation to respond, lest you should avoid the issue.

 

[LoveofGod]

Attending an Orthodox Bible Study recently, the difference was summarized as follows:

Augustine, under partial influence of his gnostic upbringing in his early years, wrongly thought that the body is sinful especially when acting out sex. Disconnected by lanugage and cultural barriers, Augustine did not read Greek, and had wrong translations in latin of the Bible. He came up with a doctrine he popularized called original sin, whereby “evil” sex within marriage transmits from generation to generation.

Under that premise, the augustinian monk, Martin Luther, and subsequent western theologians in the west from post split Roman catholicism, under heavy influence of thomas aquinas and anselm of canterbury’s sad legal definitions led most baptists, presbyterians and westernized views of the Bible in this regards. They wrongly deemphasize 100s of Biblical passages and the united voice of our Christian fathers that speak against such false views of sex in marriage and instead promote a gnostically influenced original sin theory popularized by augustine and later theologians without giving credit to the source, but rather falsely assuming it is there in Scripture or the majority of the fathers. Instead this doctrine is isolated to a few writers in Christian theology of the earlier church and contradicts the One voice of God The Holy Spirit as found within the One Christian Orthodox Church found around the world for almost 2000 years now.

It’s not in the Bible, but when someone puts a lense under which they are taught “original sin” as true, they unfortunately read certain passages and automatically assume certain Bible verses are saying what they believe. This form of private interpretation goes against God The Holy Spirit’s guidance, who wants us to follow ALL Inspired Scripture and the united voice of God to the One faithful Church, rather than read into a few isolated verses of the Bible what we want it to say because “my pastor” or teacher taught me so.

In contrast to Augustinian worldview, the Holy Scriptures teach that sex is a blessing from God given to man and woman in marriage. It is a means of pleasure and at times procreation within marriage and helps curb lusts outside of God’s desire, as a man and woman enter into a blessed physical and spiritual union. Most western nonRoman catholic Bible believers kept this understanding but sadly continued to popularize the augustinian original sin heresy that has blinded us in the west away from our apostolic and spiritual roots of understanding.

The doctrine of original sin is considered blasphemy by most Orthodox, because it is not based upon the unified understanding of The Holy Spirit who guided the One Church in its theology. There is One Faith, One LORD, and One Baptism; therefore, Orthodox theologians, love their brethren in the west (whether they are post schimatic Roman catholics, or post-post schismatic Roman catholic children guided by Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the other modern “great” preachers of the west). It’s just that Orthodox theologians want the worldwide Church to return to its Oneness it had before there were so many splits that are now numbering upwards of 22,000 denominations. They believe that God The Holy Spirit has faithfully guided Christ’s One Bride, The faithful Holy Church of Christ, to always have its theology rightly interpret God’s Word according to the Author’s intent and want us Christians to not be misled into the lands of private interpretations guided by Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, or any of the other western theologians who privately misinterpreted the Bible to teach a false augustinian doctrine of “original sin”.

Hope this highlights a summary of what I have understood so far about the difference between the apostolic understanding of sexual purity in marriage and the false gnostic teaching that led to a blasphemous presentation of original sin as taught popularly by almost all western theologians disconnected from 2000 years of faithful guidance of The Holy Spirit.

A series of 12 part audio series entitled imputed righteousness, by a Bible believing pastor of 43 years who discovered original Orthodox apostolic understanding (Matthew Gallatin) is found on the ancientfaithradio site that you might find helpful on the topic - ancientfaithradio.com ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/P56/

humbly in Christ,
Anthony

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Attending an Orthodox Bible Study recently, the difference was summarized as follows:

Augustine, under partial influence of his gnostic upbringing in his early years, … … …

Sadly, this is the type of misinformation and even lies (though unintential for the most part) which plague Orthodox teaching. That whole quote was founded upon misinformation and continued to build upon it and tear down its strawmen. On top of that, it presented an overly simplified account of the “true” Biblical understanding, indicating the author didn’t really know what he was talking about it.
Augustine is the classical buzz word, simply mention his name and you can say whatever you want about Catholic theology being deeply rooted in error, as well as guarantee whatever you say about Orthodox theology is the pure and undefiled truth.
What was said in this “Orthodox Bible Study” is on par (quality wise) with any given Bible thumping Fundamentalist Bible study. No offense to you personally of course, I direct my comments at the leader of that Bible study. Not as if he were evil and had evil intentions, but as someone who is simply badly confused and misinformed.

 

[LoveofGod]

I did a quick search and found the following source you may find helpful as well:

book 3 , chapter 9 of augustine’s “on free choice of the will”

This source quoted in 12 minute Orthodox audio part 7 on original sin ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/sola_scriptura_and_philosophical_christianity_part_7/

• focused on God’s judgement in anger to take punishment on erring man to take him to original sin. It is shown that plato’s ungodly influence on augustine led the west to a wrong path. augustine’s “perfect order” platonic theology. “all human beings bear guilt of adam’s sin” " in genetic sense, we were all present with adam, therefore, we all have this in our genes" is the same original sin doctrine that was useful to hold all human beings culpable based on adam and eve’s sin. Made it easier to deal with us collectively , rather than individually with billions of individuals, since it was much trickier to have to deal with some more corrupt than others and easier to just call us all cursed and bearing adam’s guilt. augustine was understandably influenced to mesapakate (one big lump of sin) since it fit well on augustine’s understanding that God created man because the orderly universe required it. Most scholars agree that only 5 passages (Psalm 50:5 (grk), 51:5, Job, john 3:5, romans 5:12, eph 2:3 are obviously exegeted horribly to match the stoics seminal reasons philosophical presupppostion that all existing things preexist as potentials. augustine simply christianized this philosophy, by falsely coming up with the teaching that Adam’s semen includes us all, therefore we are all in Adam. From Holy Scripture is was clear that this is not God’s heart (i.e. 2kings 14:6- God commands Israel that children shall not be put to death for their fathers’ sins and vice versa. Obviously contradicts original sin viewpoint, but does make it for a tidy view of why infants die since it is taught that infants who have had no opportunity to sin, die because of Adam’s sin punishable unto them; however, this was all founded on serious misunderstanding of what happened in garden of eden. Part 8 continued the disucssion from original historic Christian faith viewpoint as taught by Orthodox theologians.

I don’t have time right now to go deeper into the following great links, but there are 4 Orthodox theologians dealing specifically with original sin doctrine on this page: geocities.com/jej89/orthodoxlinks.html under Original sin. Afanasy Bailey, Inherited Guilt? Fr. Gregory Hallam, Ancestral Sin and Salvation Fr. John Romanides (d. A.D. 2001), Original Sin According to St. Paul and Fr. Georges Florovsky (d. A.D. 1979), The Darkness of Night look like great resources for understanding of why Orthodox original Christians have such a hard time with this westernized private interpretation

 

[AMDGtoo]

But all that is talking about “original guilt” (and of course blaming Augustine for the concept). It is not about original sin–which is simply a lack (and it’s obvious that you can’t pass on what you no longer have.) IMO the EO are like Protestants who believe in “original guilt” while the Catholics are talking about *inheriting *“original sin” (actually a lack because of Adam’s deed). IMO they are two different concepts.

BTW, I believe the Catholic idea of “original sin” is upheld in the Bible–Romans 5:14-19. And Augustine didn’t write those words.

 

[LoveofGod]

:angel1: I hope that the following words will be of encouragement to us all in our journey of Love in Christ our God and as a partial answer on why it is so important to our walk in the LORD to have a Biblical and historically accurate understanding of our faith in regards to the latin version of original sin that permeates much of the western Bible believing and papal supremacists thought processes today:

"A proper approach to the New Testament teaching of St. Paul concerning original sin cannot be one-sided. It is incorrect, for example, to emphasize, in Romans 5:12, the phrase, eph’ho pantes hemarton, by trying to make it fit any certain system of thought concerning moral law and guilt without first establishing the importance of St. Paul’s beliefs concerning the powers of Satan and the true situation not only of man, but of all creation. It is also wrong to deal with the problem of the transmission of original sin within the framework of dualistic anthropology while at the same time completely ignoring the Hebraic foundations of St. Paul’s anthropology. "- Romanides

Hopefully this helps enlighten us unto possibilities of reading Romans 5:12 in light of The Holy Spirit’s guidance to the original Church, rather than our modernized unfortunate reading into the verse what is inherently not there.

1Tim4:4- All things created by God are good, yet NOT ONLY man, but ALL Creation has fallen (Romans 5:12 alongside of Romans 8:20). In Romans 8:21-23, we see that not only man, but ALL of Creation is awaiting full redemption.

Thus, according to St. Paul, creation as it is is not what God intended it to be–“For the creature was made subject to vanity…by reason of him who hath subjected the same.”(Romans 8:20)

For St. Paul, there is now no such thing as a natural world with an inherent system of moral laws, because all of creation has been subjected to the vanity and evil power of Satan, who is ruling by the powers of death and corruption. 1cor 15:56) For this reason all men have become sinners. ( Romans 3:9-12 and 5:19) There is no such thing as a man who is sinless simply because he is living according to the rules of reason or the Mosaic law. Romans 5:13] The possibility of living according to universal reason entails, also, the possibility of being without sin. But for Paul this is a myth, because Satan is no respecter of reasonable rules of good conduct II Cor. 4:3; 11:14; Eph. 6:11-17; II Thes. 2:8] and has under his influence all men born under the power of death and corruption. Romans 8:24]

“In regard to the power of Satan to introduce sin into the life of every man, St. Augustine in combating Pelagianism obviously misread St. Paul. by relegating the power of Satan, death, and corruption to the background and pushing to the foreground of controversy the problem of personal guilt in the transmission of original sin, St. Augustine introduced a false moralistic philosophical approach which is foreign to the thinking of St. Paul Col2:8 ] and which was not accepted by the patristic tradition of the East. St. Cyrill of Alexandria, Migne, P.G.t. 74, c. 788-789 ]”

:hug3: Where I find the biggest difference between Orthodox original apostolic understanding and the modern western misunderstandings are in this specific area:

“On the other hand, it is a grave mistake to make the justice of God responsible for death and corruption. Nowhere does Paul attribute the beginnings of death and corruption to God. On the contrary, nature was subjected to vanity and corruption by the devil, II Cor. 11:13; I Tim 2:14 ] who through the sin and death of the first man managed to lodge himself parasitically within creation, of which he was already a part but at first not yet its tyrant. For Paul, the transgression of the first man opened the way for the entrance of death into the world, Rom. 5:12 ] but this enemy I Cor. 15:26 ] is certainly not the finished product of God. Neither can the death of Adam, or even of each man, be considered the outcome of any decision of God to punish.”

To the original Orthodox understanding, “original sin” doctrine attacks the basic understanding of the apostles about salvation:

"Salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin, nor can it come by any payment of satisfaction to the devil (Origen) or to God (Rome). Salvation can come only by the destruction of the devil and his power. Col. 2:15; I Cor. 15:24-26; 15:53-57; Rom. 8:21 ]

Part of the Orthodox Christian understanding is that the dogma of “original sin” is clearly refuted by a right reading of The Holy Scriptures in regards to gentiles:

"This giving up by God of people who have already become hardened in their hearts against His works is not restricted to the gentiles, but extends, also, to Jews. Rom. 9:6 ] “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13 ] And, “For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” Rom. 2:12 ] The gentiles, however, even though they are not under the Mosaic law, are not excused from the responsibility of personal sin, for they, “having not the law, are a law unto themselves, who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and amongst themselves accusing or else excusing their thoughts.” Rom. 2:14-15 ] "

Scripturally, if all were subject to the powers of original sin, The Word of God according to the apostolic undersanding would not have spoken of the conscience of the unbeliever bearing witness, if he was “totally depraved” (subsequent calvinistic and western mindset started by the Roman catholic understanding espoused by Augustine, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas). It is wonderful that some in the modern Roman Church are returning to our mutual Biblical understanding of our One Faith, but unfortunately, much of the western theology today is still governed by misreading of a few isolated Bible passages apart from ALL of Scripture in the context of apostolic understanding as revealed by the Mind of The Holy Spirit to Christ’s One Church.

 

[LoveofGod]

Why are Augustine’s views so exalted in the western churches of Rome, and among Lutherans, Calvinists and majority of evangelical scholars, eventhough his Original sin doctrine is so antithetical to the Scriptural view of the holiness of sex in marriage as well as against the faithful apostolic teaching we have from 100s of other Orthodox fathers of our faith?

 

[AMDGtoo]

Why are Augustine’s views so exalted in the western churches of Rome, and among Lutherans, Calvinists and majority of evangelical scholars, eventhough his Original sin doctrine is so antithetical to the Scriptural view of the holiness of sex in marriage as well as against the faithful apostolic teaching we have from 100s of other Orthodox fathers of our faith?

Perhaps it’s because he (and the Early Fathers) speak of “original sin” and not “original guilt”. And perhaps it’s because it isn’t considered that his thoughts are antithetical to the Scriptural view of the holiness of sex in marriage (can’t even figure out how you came up with that one) or against the apostolic teaching . And perhaps it’s because Augustine is considered to be one of the great theologians.