Two Original Sin Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qwikness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qwikness

Guest
Original Sin. Catholics believe its a stain inherited by man, Orthodox believe not in a stain but death came as a result of the fall.
What do the Jewish believe?
Do Protestants believe in a stain since they broke off the Western church?
 
Qwikness said:
Original Sin. Catholics believe its a stain inherited by man, Orthodox believe not in a stain but death came as a result of the fall.
What do the Jewish believe?
Do Protestants believe in a stain since they broke off the Western church?
Click to expand...
Interesting queston [red highlight below mine].

I’d be hard pressed to differentiate this from Catholic Teaching.

“The term Original Sin (or first sin) is used among all Christian churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the man whom through death came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man’s “inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors” and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience.”

orthodoxwiki.org/Original_sin

From the Glossary of the CCC:

“Original Sin: The sin by which the first human beings disobeyed the commandment of God, choosing to follow their own will rather than Gods will. As a consequence they lost the grace of original holiness, and became subject to the law of death; sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes the fallen state of human nature which affects every person born into the world, and from which Christ, the new Adam, came to redeem us (396-412).”

Chuck
 
That is what I meant by Stain in the west and Death in the East.
Adam is identified as the man whom through* death ***came into the world. How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches.
Click to expand...
sin became universally present in the world. Besides the personal sin of Adam and Eve, original sin describes *the fallen state of human nature which affects every person *born into the world
Click to expand...
but what does the Jewish believe and do the Protestants see it as a stain or death?
 
Qwikness said:
That is what I meant by Stain in the west and Death in the East.

but what does the Jewish believe and do the Protestants see it as a stain or death?
Click to expand...
And this part, also from the same orthodox source: ‘man’s “inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors” and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man’s image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam’s disobedience."’

They obviously teach more than just “death”. This seem very much like a “stain” to me.

What Judiasm teaches we can probably find.

I’m sure the other non-Catholic teachings are quite varied.

Chuck
 
A few quick reading seem to indicate that Judiasm teaches that we are morally neutral.

Adam and Eves actions left us a sinful world, but not inherrently sinful people.

Now where’s a decendent of Israel when you need one? [That sound right?]

Chuck

“Jews believe that man enters the world free of sin, with a soul that is pure and innocent and untainted. While there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon mankind on account of Adam’s sin, the dominant view by far was that man sins because he is not a perfect being, and not, as Christianity teaches, because he is inherently sinful.”

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Original_Sin.html

"Judaism is emphatic that a person is born innocent - not evil, not good either, but innocent. We are given a clean slate. But we are not born into an innocent world. The world we are born into is one of challenge, difficulty, pain and evil. But all these are merely means to an end: it is through facing challenges that we grow as human beings, through going through difficulty we bring out deeper resources from within, through pain we become stronger and by combatting evil we create a world of good. So all negativity in the world is just a facade - behind it is ultimate goodness.

That’s how reality is now. But it was not like that in the beginning. Adam and Eve were pure beings who entered a perfect world. There was no challenge, pain or death in their world. The “knowledge of good and evil” was a tree that they were told to stay away from in order to maintain this perfect world. “On the day you eat from the tree you will become mortal” said G-d. Eve picked up on a nuance in this warning. Here is my reconstruction of Eve’s thought process:"

en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-Judaism-952/Original-Sin.htm
 
Here’s another one that get’s a bit closer to “Original Sin”?

This one is presented as the “orthodox” view. Those above seem to reflect the reformed or conservative view and are discussed in this article as well.

This article also discuss other religious views on the subject. Islam and different non-Catholic communities.

“The consequences affected Adam and Eve’s descendants. People are not intrinsically condemned and sinful, but nevertheless begin life at a spiritual and metaphysical level inherited from Adam and Eve, far lower than Adam’s original level. The course of history is meant to return humanity to Adam’s original level, and then allow it to surpass that level by completing the task that Adam failed to complete. The curses and changes imposed on mankind and womankind following their sin are meant to facilitate this return to glory.”

experiencefestival.com/a/Original_sin_-_The_original_sin_the_Fall/id/597029
 
clmowry said:
They obviously teach more than just “death”. This seem very much like a “stain” to me.
Click to expand...
This Orthodox explanation in a Immaculate Conception article
The Orthodox Church has kept alive the original understanding of the early Church as regards “original sin.” The early Church did not understand “original sin” as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment
Click to expand...
antiochianarch.org.au/Orthodox-view-on-Immaculate-Conception.aspx

also an Orthowiki Immmaculate Conception article
Most Orthodox reject the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unnecessary. Because Orthodoxy does not see ancestral sin as an inheritance of guilt or a stain,
Click to expand...
orthodoxwiki.org/Immaculate_Conception
 
Protestants, at least those following in the theology of Martin Luther on this topic view Original Sin not as a stain or privation, but as a complete corruption of nature. Human nature is actually fundamentally altered for Luther such that justification and salvation are simply held in legalistic terms of Christ choosing not to see our true wickedness. The analogy most famously used to describe the process is a dung hill covered with snow. Even after justification, we are still utterly corrupt by nature, but God chooses not to see that.

In Catholic theology, Original Sin alters the condition of man, but does not fundamentally change his nature. Man is still good by nature, but is inclined toward sin by condition. Luther’s theology leads to the conclusion that man is totally depraved. (This also is related to his denial of Free Will and the efficacy of Good Works).
 
Can anyone explain to me how a soul that is 100 percent spirit, no matter at all, can be stained. Similarly the indelible marks made by Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. Are we using stain, mark, etc. as a metaphor for some form of change in the essence or manner of being of the soul?:confused:
 
rwoehmke said:
Can anyone explain to me how a soul that is 100 percent spirit, no matter at all, can be stained. Similarly the indelible marks made by Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. Are we using stain, mark, etc. as a metaphor for some form of change in the essence or manner of being of the soul?:confused:
Click to expand...
Original Sin is in fact a privation of a condition which is supposed to be present, most especially Santifying Grace. We are indeed using “stain” as a metaphor. Sin is not a physical thing, but a lack of something that is supposed to be there. The metaphor of stain is used because a stain corrupts a garment in a conditional way. It doesn’t change the nature of the garment, but changes its condition for the worse. Yet it remains a condition that can be changed and the original purity of the garment restored.
 
Qwikness said:
This Orthodox explanation in a Immaculate Conception article
Click to expand...
Is there an Orthodox Catechism out there? The “Orthodox” definition of “original sin” seems to vary to the degree that the particular article is trying to differentiate their teaching from Catholic doctrine.

Chuck
 
Kaninchen said:
We don’t have the concept of ‘original sin’.
Click to expand...
Yeah some one who might know!

Alternativey then “What affect did Adam and Eves ‘fall’ [or whatever term is appropriate] have on humanity [or creation.]”

Would you call your understanding in this area “Orthodox”?

Chuck
 
clmowry said:
Yeah some one who might know!

Alternativey then “What affect did Adam and Eves ‘fall’ [or whatever term is appropriate] have on humanity [or creation.]”

Would you call your understanding in this area “Orthodox”?

Chuck
Click to expand...
Yup, quite orthodox.

The message of Adam and Eve? Disobedience tends to make life harder.
 
clmowry said:
Is there an Orthodox Catechism out there? The “Orthodox” definition of “original sin” seems to vary to the degree that the particular article is trying to differentiate their teaching from Catholic doctrine.

Chuck
Click to expand...
As a general rule, one shouldn’t look to Orthodox sources (especially orthodoxoinfo.com) to get a good description of Catholic beliefs (and vice-versa). The idea that the Catholic understanding of original sin is that we inherit the guilt of Adam is waaaaaay off the mark.

It should also be noted that several Eastern Fathers in the early Church described Original Sin as a “stain” or “blemish” or some such similar descriptive (e.g., St. Athanasius et al).

The Orthodox and Catholic understanding of original/ancestral sin is more alike than polemicists (naturally) on both sides are willing to admit. Sadly, it’s the polemicists that often get more publicity.

Blessings
 
Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Original Sin and Us
is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When one enters a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then clicks on the opening line,
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 one will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»
»
»
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top