Original Sin among Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants

@jongarvey

And so, to be clear on what you mean here:

By “orthodox” you do not mean “orthodoxy”, but rather you mean texts from Eastern Orthodox traditions?

The Eastern Orthodox communions do accept the inheritance of death … by means
of inheriting the nature to inevitable transgress God’s law.

They are quite clear on this matter. But the transgressions are those made by each individual,
inheriting Adam’s fate … but not inheriting Adam’s unique sins, which are his alone.

When you comment on the Eastern Orthodox enthusiasm for contradicting Augustine,
you cannot simply waive off their reasoning for why they reject his position. They are
most earnest on the matter … and actively proclaim a theology that supports their
rejection.

You may not agree with their theology… but that’s okay, because I do not agree with
Augustine’s theology.

Ahh, that is an important distinction. Factoring this in could help one avoid stepping on a theological landmine. I doubt it is the only one on this issue. Perhaps it would be best not to get into too much detail telling theologians the historical position on the transmission of original sin.

I do think it is important to stress that none of us are challenging the doctrine of original sin itself. The question is the method by which sin and true death is transmitted given that there was a population of humans outside the garden. The research of Dr. Swamidass suggests that inheritance is not ruled out as a mechanism so long as the appropriate events are at least 6,000 years ago. Those are the facts. What is made of them regarding the question of transmission should be up to the theologians to decide after taking a fresh look at the text in view of a population outside the garden.

2 Likes

@anon46279830

Whoah there cowboy. I reject the doctrine. I just don’t require rejection of the doctrine.
But I do reject statements that say it is a requirement.

But by having a de novo Adam & Eve, I get to sidestep the issue, and allow each person’s inclination to include Original Sin or not, as his denomination or personal belief requires.

Naturally, insisting on Original Sin would be awkward in my viewpoint. While pointing out that @swamidass’ scenario’s fully accommodate it would certainly be a true statement, and acceptable to me.

@anon46279830

I do concur with the wording of yours that I quote immediately above… with or without the bracketed word “individual” that I inserted.

2 Likes

@gbrooks9 no one is requiring you to accept it. However, it is legitimate to say that “a doctrine of original sin is required within traditional theology.” Such a statement, if it were correct, would only be clarifying that you do not hold to traditional theology.

1 Like

@anon46279830:

Unitarian Univeralists are a merged denomination… coming from two very old New England protestant groups.

We reject Hell as a punishment for humans. We see Jesus as a human adopted by God as his son.

The original Pilgrim church in Plymouth plantation became Universalist in the 1800’s … along with hundreds of other New England churches.

Over time, the two denominations kept bumping into each other at gatherings seeking greater perfection of American society … and a joke was born:

“We merged because Unitarians thought God was too loving to send mankind to hell, and Universalists thought humans were too lovable for God to want to.”

I have a strong interest in interpreting the New Testament with a historical perspective that the primitive Christiain church might have been distinctly “Binitarian” before the doctrine of the Trinity became mainstream in the 300’s CE.

Which is to say that UU do not hold to traditional doctrine, for better or for worse.

@swamidass

I accept the statement as you write it above… with the key qualifier being “within traditional theology”.

1 Like

@swamidass

Correct.

But I am rather protective of the Eastern Orthodox communions… who do not adhere to specific parts of traditional Roman doctrine - - namely, Original Sin.

Except @jongarvey makes an excellent case that they do. Have you read his article yet?

http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2012/05/17/irenaeus-and-others-on-original-sin/

What, then, has the Eastern Church rejected about original sin? Here my reading, as an outsider to Eastern Orthodoxy, suggests that all is not as it is often portrayed. An article by Orthodox writer Vladimir Moss, unfortunately no longer online, argues strongly that the tendency in Orthodoxy to deny the transmission of sin down the generations is a recent change initiated primarily by publications of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (1926) and Fr. John Romanides’ (1957), who argued that Orthodoxy had fallen into its own bondage to the Augustian tradition by accepting his erroneous translation of Romans 5.12. Moss, as a traditionalist, disputes their modern translation of this verse, their conclusion and their re-writing of history, and says that their teaching itself is not Orthodox (remember the high regard given to tradition in Orthodoxy – one can draw such conclusions in a way impossible within Protestantism).

@swamidass (and @jongarvey ):

The article, and especially the section you quote, is as I have described.

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/biography/

One: “Vladimir Moss was born Anthony Moss in London on April 4, 1949 into the family of a British diplomat.” Later in the biography, you see that he affiliates closely with the Russian Orthodox community. The Russian communion is the ONE exception I have been able to identify on a “modified” position regarding Augustinian doctrine.

Two: Though he is not a priest or bishop, he accurately represents the Russian Orthodox view.

Three: His position that the rest of the Orthodox Communion only recently rejected Augustine’s view of Original Sin is, well, I don’t know how else to say it but to say: “amusing”.

Mainstream Orthodox metaphysics has rejected the Augustinian concept for generations and for centuries. They reject it to such an extent, they have even developed their own robust view of the traditions by which families should seek infant baptism (cultural reasons, traditional reasons, familial reasons and for psychological reasons - - but not for metaphysical reasons).

George are you a Unitarian in the sense of “No Trinity” or a Universalist Unitarian which is something very different?

1 Like

@anon46279830

You’ll have to follow the split made by @swamidass to find my answer. His split has some deadends… here is the specific link to my answer:

Joshua

I don’t want to get in a text-war with George on this. As I said to you, it’s easy to find Greek references to ancestral sin as referring to the inheritance of death, even in contrast to Augustine’s view, such as this.

George himself speaks of the inheritance of a tendency to sin, which is enough for your purposes, and all I have seen possibly implied in Irenaeus. Genealogy from Adam undoubtedly bears on the Orthodox view of human sin and/or death.

It is interesting how universally the name of Romanides comes up in support of the stark contrast between East and West on original sin (even in the linked article), but forget all that - yet consider the Orthodox baptismal formula, based on the Nicene Creed, in relation to their univeral practice of infant baptism: “We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.”

1 Like

@jongarvey ( and @swamidass ):

In keeping with your good nature and a desire not to go to war, I offer the texts below as a “corrective” for the misunderstandings you have about the non-Russian branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church. For example,
your quote about Baptism is one of those things which, when Westerners get the full discussion about Baptism,
can only shake one’s head gently and wonder “I didn’t know anyone could look at it like that.” Baptism for the Orthodox has a very different context than for the Western denominations. It is for the “Remission of Sins”, but this sentence is not construed in the way Western Christians do; it “remits” sins, without implying that infants yet have sin.

As for the definition of Original Sin, the Eastern Orthodox use two definitions, much like you have discussed two kinds of Original Sin: it can refer to the original sins of Adam & Eve, or it can refer to the flawed nature of humanity which was delivered to us by being human. Since the Eastern Orthodox are quite insistent that God has made each of us, they do not accept that God intentionally made us with sin that we didn’t incur ourselves!

I’m sure you and others will find it a little “odd” compared to what you are used to… but I’m hoping that these pages (with links that go to more pages) will do the trick! Onward in Peace.

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/original-sin/

The pages below are from the link to the Orthodox Christian Resource Center, which I believe is based out of Chicago:

[ Part 1 of 2: Be sure to click on the image to maximize the font size ! ]

[ Part 2 of 2: Be sure to click on the image to maximize the font size ! ]

So that there is some searchable text on these pages, I provide the text that is highlighted on the pages (in the post above) with yellow boxes.

http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/original-sin/

[From Part 1 of 2 Parts]

ie in short:

We Only inherited Adam’s punishment—Mortality(death).
We dont inherit sin, only Adam’s deficiency(death)
“Original Sin is understood differently by the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church denies that a sin committed by someone else (in this case, Adam) can be somehow “transmitted” to the rest of humanity.
Adam’s personal sin of rebellion against God was his alone to atone for.

The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind. The Church does not agree with this teaching. Original sin is the “sinful state” of our nature with which we are born. Because of the fall, human nature is disposed toward sinfulness: human nature is corrupt and that which we refer to as man, is really less than man: human nature has been weakened, therefore, the ability to resist every temptation (without the special Graces of God) has been taken away.

The Church teaches that when man fell he did not receive Adam’s sin and guilt – but his punishment, which is corrupt human nature…
He also lost physical immortality. And since the bond between the individual soul and God was broken, there occurred an eternal separation between God and man.”

[From Part 2 of 2 Parts]

The doctrine of original sin is false: it slanders and libels the character of God, it shocks man’s god-given consciousness of justice, and it flies in the face of the plainest teachings of God’s holy Word.
The doctrine of original sin is not a Bible doctrine. It is a grotesque myth that contradicts the Bible on almost every page.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
INFANT BAPTISM
But notice what Jesus said: “to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven.” The Lord did not require them to make a conscious decision.
He says that they are precisely the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.

So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said “let them come unto me,” who are we to say “no,” and withhold baptism from them?

This is why we Orthodox Christians believe in Baptising Infants and in giving the Holy Communion(Qurbana) to them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

@jongarvey & @swamidass

Here’s another article, which is cited in the page presented above, but which is not immediately recognizable as a page where Orthodox Theology is discussed.

You will see that Orthodox theologians do refer to Original Sin, but not with the same meaning as Augustine and many Western denominations use.

http://www.jmm.org.au/articles/17547.htm

“Here we must caution when speaking of Original Sin. The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind. The Church does not agree with this teaching. Original sin is the “sinful state” of our nature with which we are born. Because of the fall, human nature is disposed toward sinfulness: human nature is corrupt and that which we refer to as man, is really less than man: human nature has been weakened, therefore, the ability to resist every temptation (without the special Graces of God) has been taken away.”
.
.
.

[ Be sure to click on the image to maximize font size. ]

Hi @gbrooks9, @jongarvey and @swamidass ,

I’d like to draw your attention to the following article by Fr. Aidan F. Kimmel, titled, The Ecumenical Stain of Original Sin on his blog, Eclectic Orthodoxy, which suggests that there may be no appreciable difference between the Catholic and Orthodox positions on original sin. It’s irenic in tone and well worth reading. Cheers.

1 Like

@vjtorley,

Fr. Kimmel’s article includes this appeal:

"Again I ask, Is there anything in this presentation to which an Eastern Orthodox theologian would strongly object? I acknowledge that the conceptuality of sanctifying grace, developed in the medieval West, is alien to Orthodox reflection. Scholasticism’s concern was to explicate the impact of God’s gratuitous self-communication on the human being. But the Roman Catholic Church can hardly insist that the Eastern Church must think in scholastic categories."

I have to wonder if the last sentence (in bold above) is agreeable to the Roman Catholic Church as it is presently constituted!

He quotes Pope John Paul II:

In one of his 1986 catechetical teachings, Pope John Paul II elaborated upon the “sin” of original sin:
“Therefore original sin is transmitted by way of natural generation. This conviction of the Church is indicated also by the practice of infant baptism, to which the [Tridentine] conciliar decree refers. Newborn infants are incapable of committing personal sin, yet in accordance with the Church’s centuries-old tradition, they are baptized shortly after birth for the remission of sin. The decree states: “They are truly baptized for the remission of sin, so that what they contracted in generation may be cleansed by regeneration” (DS 1514).”

While this sounds very much like much of what we read from Eastern Orthodox theologians, there is a subtle difference. You will note that on Part 2 of 2 Parts, one of the final sections is highlighted in a yellow box. It points out that babes are the ones that the New Testament specifically welcomes into the presence of God.

Children are baptized “for the remission of sins”, but this is not specifically explained in the particular articles I posted. What is this “remission of sins” from the Orthodox perspective?

If the Orthodox view of “Original Sin” is re-defined as “having a sin-inclined nature” (one sentence mentions a weakening of the human will because of Adam’s transgression), clearly baptism does not “cleanse” this kind of weakening. For babes and toddlers grow up to young adults and full adulthood, still bearing the full load of being inclined to sin. So, for the purpose of this discussion, “remission of sins” is a mysterious invocation in the Orthodox theological view, perhaps only in a symbolic sense.

Whatever this means exactly (and I look forward to examining that question), from a practical viewpoint, Baptism does not change a child’s sin-prone nature. Based on the pages I located, it would seem that the Orthodox would reject the need for “Purgatory” or “Limbo” for children, because they are not yet guilty of their own sin. They are merely (or not so merely) still and inevitably inclined to sin.

What, then, is the ultimate answer? I think that is completely up to how the Roman Catholic Church would amend (or not amend) the common interpretation of Augustine’s views. Has the Roman Church actually made these amendments? Or are they making “test runs” of narrative that would retreat somewhat from the harshness of conventional Original Sin proclamations? If they have privately made such amendments, it is pretty much up to the Vatican leadership to make this plain… rather than to simply write a Papal Bull that is Twice as long as usual… starting with the new narrative on “sinfulness” … and then sneaking in a paragraph towards the end that merely re-states the original hard-core interpretation of Augustine that states that ALL humans are guilty of Adam’s guilt.

We have seen these kinds of treatments … where much of it sounds promising and broadly receptive … only to be hung on a single sentence, confirming that no real change in the rules is being proposed.

Kimmel writes:

“The Catechism’s presentation of original sin is open to interpretation. It does not seek to resolve the differences between the various Catholic schools. The catechetical doctrine excludes the Pelagian reduction of original sin to “the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example,” on the one hand, and the Reformation exaggeration of original sin as the radical perversion of human nature and destruction of human freedom, on the other (§406). Between these two boundaries lies the mystery of human iniquity and the fall of man.”

Yep! That’s where we are. Somewhere between the Pelagian reduction of original sin AND the Reformation exaggeration of original sin as the radical perversion of human nature.

Firstly, until the Church strikes down and eliminates the more grave boundary line, I doubt the Orthodox Church would take such articles as Kimmel as very serious.

Secondly, even should the Catholic Church eliminate the presence of the more terse moral interpretation, we sill have the Protestant denominations that are not exactly enthusiastic about following rulings from the Vatican.

@jongarvey is the only “old school protestant” I know (so far) that is willing to define Original Sin as merely a statement of “sin-inclined nature”. Everybody with whom I’ve discussed the matter at BioLogos is not so flexible on the matter. They believe infants “carry the actual sin of Adam”… and they are so strong in that belief, they cannot even fathom the idea of how the Orthodox denominations can have some other view!