Original Sin, Eastern Style! pt. 1

[Ryan1976]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This was a hot topic in chat. Thought I'd offer the Eastern Orthodox perspective of Original Sin for those of you that are curious or want a more comprehensive explanation. It's beefy so I chopped it into 2 parts. [/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rags of Mortality: Original Sin and Human Nature[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by Archpriest Alexander Golubov, Ph.D.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It was St. Paul who first connected the events surrounding the temptation and fall of Adam in Paradise, as recounted in Genesis 3, to the events surrounding the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem, and established between them a logical and direct inner relationship. To his mind, Adam's transgression in Paradise became the doorway through which sin and death entered into the world: "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men for all have sinned" (Rom. 5:12).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Commenting on this and related passages, St. John Chrysostom explains: "But what does it mean, 'for all have sinned' (Rom. 5.12) This: he having once fallen, yet they that had not eaten of the tree inherited mortality . . . From this it is clear that it was not Adam's sin, his transgression--that is of the Law--but by the virtue of his disobedience that all have been marred. What is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: 'for death reigned,' St. Paul says, 'from Adam to Moses, even over them who had not sinned' (Rom 5:14). How did it 'reign'? After the manner of Adam's transgression, he who is 'the type of Him that was to come.' Thus, when the Jews ask, how was it possible for one Person to have saved the world? you will be able to reply, in the same way that the disobedience of one person, Adam, brought its condemnation" (Commentary on Romans, X).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Explaining Christ's redemptive role, St. Paul recapitulated this thought in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, where he proclaimed: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection from the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:21-22).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Following St. Paul, the Holy Fathers teach that the state of general sinfulness and death is not man's original state of being, that man was not created by God to naturally live like this. Rather, this miserable condition in which we now find ourselves is the natural result of the moral disaster that occurred in Paradise with our ancient forefathers, Adam and Eve. The human race, writes St. Justin Martyr, "from the time of Adam had been subject to death and deceit of the serpent, each of us having committed sins of our own" (Dialogue with Trypho, 88). "When [Adam] transgressed the Commandment of God," teaches St. Methodius of Olympus, "he suffered the terrible and destructive fall. He was reduced to a state of death" (Banquet of the Virgins, III).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Before their fall in Paradise, however, writes St. Athanasius of Alexandria, our forefathers "did not die and did not decay, escaped death and corruption. The presence of the Word with them shielded them from natural corruption, as also the Book of Wisdom says, God created man for incorruption and as an image of His own eternity; but by the envy of the devil death entered into the world (Wis. 2:23f.) When this happened, men began to die, and corruption spread unchecked among them and held sway over men to more than a natural degree, because it was the penalty concerning which God had forewarned would be the reward of transgressing the commandment" (On the Incarnation of the Word).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thus, according to the Fathers, our present condition is the result of a freely-willed choice, the natural consequences of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, the penalty for failure to heed God's warning that death, indeed, will be the catastrophic outcome of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It might occur to some, however, that it is exceedingly cruel of God to condemn the entire human race for the sin of two individuals. Why, indeed, should we, who were not around at the time of Adam's transgression, have to pay the rather stiff penalty for something that we did not, of ourselves, do? Isn't this guilt by association?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The source of this moral problem is not God, of course, as the author of evil and death, for God is not such. "We must understand," writes St. Gregory Palamas, "that God 'did not make death' (Wisdom 1:13), whether of the body or of the soul. For when He first gave the command, He did not say, 'On the day you eat of it, die,' but 'In the day you eat of it, you will surely die' (Gen. 2:17). He did not say afterwards, 'return now to the earth,' but 'you shall return' (Gen. 3:19), foretelling in this way what would come to pass" (One Hundred Fifty Chapters). Neither is the source, explains St. Theophilos of Antioch, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. For it is not, he writes, "as if any evil existed in the tree of knowledge, but from the fact of his disobedience did man draw, as from a fountain, labor, grief and, at last, fell prey to death" (To Autolycus, II, 25).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The problem, rather, has to do with the nature of Divinely-mandated freedom and the autonomous functioning of the natural law of creation, directly pertaining to issues of heredity and genetics, being analogous to something which contemporary medicine would define as "fetal addiction syndrome" or "fetal AIDS syndrome." In such a case, a mother who carries a gene for hemophilia, for instance, will transmit it to her offspring by the biological laws of heredity, though the processes of meiosis and mitosis, by means of which cell division naturally occurs. Or, in a similar way, a mother addicted to either drugs or alcohol, or who is HIV-positive, by virtue of the fact that from the moment of conception she shares with the child in her womb both blood and other bodily fluids, will naturally transmit to her child what she herself carries in her own blood. We easily understand that in this case, the child that is in the womb of the mother, will, of course, without any movement of the will, without agreement or disagreement with the particular moral choices of the mother, and, importantly, without any guilt on his part, participate in the affliction of the mother ("Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," Ps. 50[51].5). It is in this vein, indeed, that the Fathers explain the concept of what has become known in theology as "original sin."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]St. Cyril of Alexandria, for instance, observes: "Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam's curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God's commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a mortal source . . . So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam's transgression" (Doctrinal questions and answers, 6). Elsewhere, commenting on St. Paul's teaching, he explains: "Human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin . . . Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man's very passions" (On Romans 5.18).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summarizing this patristic teaching, the Greek theologian John Karmiris writes that "the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, 'no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day.' . . . Original Sin not only constitutes 'an accident' of the soul; but its results, together with its penalties, are transplanted by natural heredity to the generations to come . . . And thus, from the one historical event of the first sin of the first-born man, came the present situation of sin being imparted, together with all of the consequences thereof, to all natural descendants of Adam."[1][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Held, in general, as Orthodox teaching by both Eastern and Western Fathers, the theological concept, or doctrine, of "original sin," as the Russian theologian Fr. Michael Pomazansky points out, "has great significance in the Christian world-view, because upon it rests a whole series of other dogmas."[2] As a distinct concept of Christian theology, however, it was first defined and introduced in the fifth century by Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius in Northern Africa.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Blessed Augustine developed his doctrine in the context of a rather hot polemical confrontation with the heretic Pelagius, who, fleeing Rome after its sack in 410 by Alaric, chieftain of the Western Goths, had the misfortune, together with some of his followers, to settle in Africa, where his preaching came under the intense scrutiny of the bishop of Hippo. Pelagius, who was not a theologian, but essentially an itinerant ascetic preacher and moralist, whose chief interest was in correcting the moral laxity of contemporary Christians, had the further misfortune of permitting a local lawyer named Coelestius, who was seeking ordination to the priesthood, to become his disciple and interpreter of his views. In the view of the Pelagians, the low level of morality and rampant moral laxity had its source not only in what they saw as the denial of individual moral responsibility in the teaching about the consequences of Adam's sin, but also in the definition of the clergy as an elite group in the church, which in their eyes permitted the laity to abjure their moral responsibilities and adopt unacceptably low standards of Christian living. Some time later, after Pelagius had already left for Palestine (where he had yet the further misfortune of running afoul of the hot-tempered Blessed Jerome, translator of the Bible into Latin), Coelestius and his followers began preaching and explicating the views of their teacher, and in the process questioned the practice of infant baptism, the efficacy of the Incarnation and redemptive death of Christ on the cross, and denied the inheritance of Adam's sin. While man does indeed follow Adam into death, they taught, man sins only by example, through imitation of Adam, not through an endemic, hereditary defect of his nature. Despite the facts of sin and death, man's nature nonetheless remains as he was originally created, innocent and pure, as was first-created Adam himself. Disease and death are thus not consequences of original sin, but are characteristic of human nature from creation.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Blessed Augustine very correctly noted the dangerous implications of this argument for Orthodox theology. The total dismissal of the concept of an original, systemic sin inherited from Adam and present in human nature by virtue of genetic heritage results not only in an overly high valuation of man's physical and spiritual capabilities apart from God, but more importantly, perhaps, places in doubt the entire economy of our salvation by Christ, by obviating such essential Christian doctrines as the Incarnation and Redemption.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It should be remembered that the Pelagian controversy, which originally sparked the theological debate, was essentially a Western, more specifically, a Northern African controversy, which only incidentally involved Palestine and the East.[3] While Pelagius himself died in obscurity some years after his condemnation by the Council of Carthage in 416 and the Local African Council of 418, and before the Council of Ephesus in 431, the theological controversy to which he involuntarily lent his name was to involve quite a few Latin Fathers, and was to have far-reaching effects on the formulation of doctrines of sin and grace, free will and predestination. Thus, the theological debate that arose out of these issues eventually was to involve, directly or indirectly, not only Blessed Augustine and Blessed Jerome, but also Augustine's disciples Caesarius of Arles and Prosper of Aquitaine, as well as John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, Gennadius of Marseilles, Faustus of Riez, and Arnobius the Younger, not to mention the later "augustinians"[4] and scholastics, and eventually the Protestant Reformers as well.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Technically speaking, in their writings the Eastern Fathers and Orthodox theologians do not use the Latin term introduced by Blessed Augustine in his treatise "De Peccato originali," but instead translate this concept by means of two cognate terms in both Greek and Russian, namely, progoniki amartia (= pervorodnyi grekh in Russian) and to propatorikon amartima (= praroditel'skii grekh), which is properly translated "ancestral sin." These terms allow for a more careful nuancing of the various implications contained in the one Latin term.[/FONT]

 

[Ryan1976]

Pt. 2

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the East, then, the concept of original sin has come to mean, as Fr. Michael Pomazansky very succinctly defines it, "the sin of Adam, which was transmitted to his descendants and weighs upon them."[5] Or, as John Karmiris puts it in an expanded definition, original sin is " 'sin-sickness,' the sinful situation of human nature which deprived man of Divine Grace, and subjected him to death, to departure from the Divine life, [and] has been transmitted by means of natural heredity to all of the descendants of the first-born, along with the stigma, the consequences, the fruits of that Original Sin."[6] Indeed, Karmiris reminds us, "it was for this reason that the ancient Church instituted the Baptism of infants, specifically that they might be freed from the stigma of sin of their ancestors, although the infants possessed no guilt of 'actual sin.'"[7][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the West, however, the concept of original sin is tied up with and all too often even confused with an equally Western concept of "original guilt." The misconceptions resulting from this Western theological ambivalence are daunting, obscuring, as they do, the divine potential in man. It is, in fact, the particular assumptions about guilt and punishment, about human nature in general, as well as the specific mode of transmission of original sin from generation to generation[8] that constitute the historical and theological differences in interpretations of the doctrine of original sin. We can see two different, perhaps even opposing, trends develop with respect to these assumptions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]St. Anastasius of Sinai, for example, argues: "you must examine how the first-born, our father, transposed upon us his transgression. He heard that 'dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return'; and his incorruption was changed into corruption, he became subject to the bondage of death. Since Adam fathered children only after his Fall, we become heirs of his corruption. We are not punished for his disobedience to the Divine Law. Rather, Adam being mortal, sin entered into his very seed. We receive mortality from him . . . The general punishment of Adam for his transgression is corruption and death" (Questions and Answers on Various Chapters, 143). Likewise, defending the issue of infant baptisms, St. Cyprian of Carthage also maintains that since "no one is precluded from baptism and grace, . . . [so] ought not an infant be forbidden, who, being newly born, has in no way sinned, but only having contracted the contagion of death" (Letter to Fidus, LVIII, 2). Blessed Augustine, on the other hand, writing of those predestined by God, as he believed, to eternal death, holds that "they are punished not on account of the sins which they add by the indulgence of their own will, but on account of the original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they had added nothing to that original sin" (On the Soul and its Origin, IV, 16).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Western temptation to define the doctrine of original sin too precisely has historically led to overstatements and exaggerations on both sides of the issue, of both definition and reaction. Because they framed their arguments in the context of and in response to the Pelagian position, Blessed Augustine and his disciples tended to exaggerate the sinfulness and depravity of human nature, and their teaching thus tends to emphasize the "punitive aspect" of the consequences of the fall, leading also to exaggeration and overstatement on the question of free will. Interestingly enough, both extreme tendencies in Western interpretation can be seen to be rooted in the writings of Bl. Augustine: first, that man suffers death because he is guilty for the sin of Adam, and second, that the nature of man is so corrupt as to render man incapable of exercising free will in the work of salvation (the doctrine of predestination).[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Historically, these two extreme Western tendencies have themselves developed in two variants: Roman Catholic and Protestant. The Roman Catholic position, as defined by augustinian scholastics, sees original sin essentially in terms of the wrath of God directed at man for his guilt in disobedient submission of the spiritual principle to the fleshly principle. This is an offense against God which results in the loss of "supernatural" grace and demands expiation, or "satisfaction," by the shedding of blood, in accordance with the medieval chivalry code of feudal knights. This position tends to reject the efficacy of free will on the part of man in choosing and working for his own salvation, and obscures the fact that within original sin are contained also sins of the spiritual order, not only those of the flesh.[9][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Protestant reformation, in reaction to the extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, has itself engendered two opposing views. On the one hand, in varying degrees, it amplifies the teaching of Bl. Augustine on predestination, postulating a complete perversion of human nature and corruption to its very foundations (Calvin is more severe in this regard, Luther less so). On the other hand, in certain contemporary Protestant sects we see, once again, a complete denial of original, inherited sin, that is to say, a return to Pelagianism.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In juxtaposition with the view that is prevalent in the Western Christian tradition, Orthodox fathers and theologians are perhaps more circumspect in not "dotting the i's," as it were, in relation to things that we cannot possibly know about the specific nature of Adam's sin. Thus, instead of discussing or stressing the many possible secondary and fleshly aspects of original sin, the Orthodox prefer to see it primarily in spiritual terms, as being rooted in spiritual pride and disobedience. "The Original Sin," writes Karmiris, "was a free transgression of our First Parents which grew out of egoism and boasting. Thus, through the envy and influence of Satan, directed against our First Parents, 'the sin and transgression entered,' and our First Parents transgressed the Law of God, motivated by a desire to be equal with God, or, as Chrysostom says, the 'anticipation to become God'; man wanted to become independent from God, finding, by means of sin, divine knowledge, blessedness, and perfection."[10][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In a similar vein, Fr. Michael Pomazansky observes:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The eating of the fruit was only the beginning of moral deviation, the first push; but it was so poisonous and ruinous that it was already impossible to return to the previous sanctity and righteousness; on the contrary, there was revealed an inclination to travel farther on the path of apostasy from God. Blessed Augustine says: 'Here was pride, because man desired to be more under his own authority than under God's; and a mockery of what is holy, because he did not believe God; and murder, because he subjected himself to death; and spiritual adultery, because the immaculateness of the human soul was defiled through the persuasion of the serpent; and theft, because they made use of the forbidden tree; and the love of acquisition, because he desired more than was necessary to satisfy himself.' Thus, with the first transgression of the commandment, the principle of sin immediately entered into man--'the law of sin' (monos tis amartias). It struck the very nature of man and quickly began to root itself in him and develop. . . . The sinful inclinations in man have taken the reigning position; man has become the servant of sin (Rom. 6:7) . . . With sin, death entered into the human race. Man was created immortal in his soul, and he could have remained immortal also in body if he had not fallen away from God. . . . Man's body, as was well expressed by Blessed Augustine, does not possess 'the impossibility of dying,' but it did possess 'the possibility of not dying,' which it has now lost.[11][/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam's personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity,[12] we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. "The imparting of Original Sin by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos [13] of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: 'Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption'" [St. Cyril of Alexandria].[14][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Orthodox view of fallen human nature is remarkably sober and balanced, gravitating neither to the unwarranted optimism of the Pelagian view, which sees human nature as having remained essentially in its pristine innocence and goodness, nor to the equally unwarranted pessimism of the predestinatarian view, which sees human nature as hopelessly perverted and corrupt. "Man fell unconsciously, unintentionally; he was deceived and seduced," writes the 19th-century Russian bishop and ascete, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. "For this reason his natural goodness was not destroyed, but was mixed with the evil of the fallen angels. But this natural goodness, being mixed with evil, poisoned with evil, became worthless, inadequate, unworthy of God who is perfect, purest goodness. Man for the most part does evil, meaning to do good, not seeing the evil wrapped in a mask of goodness on account of the darkening of his mind and conscience."[15][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Orthodox view of original sin is profoundly related to the Orthodox concept of theosis, deification, which is almost totally lost in the Western understanding. Thus, Pomazansky observes, while the physical, mental, and emotional faculties have become corrupted in man, the greatest loss to man was deprivation of the blessedness of Paradise and life eternal. "Both the mind and the feelings have become darkened in him, and therefore his moral freedom often does not incline towards the good, but towards evil . . . The physical consequences of the fall are diseases, hard labor and death. These were the natural result of the moral fall, the falling away from communion with God, man's departure from God. Man became subject to the corrupt elements of the world, in which dissolution and death are active. Nourishment from the Source of Life and from the constant renewal of all of one's powers became weak in men . . . However, the final and most important consequence of sin was not illness and physical death, but the loss of Paradise . . . In Adam all mankind was deprived of the future blessedness which stood before it, the blessedness which Adam and Eve had partially tasted in Paradise. In place of the prospect of life eternal, mankind beheld death, and behind it hell, darkness, rejection by God."[16].[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Theosis, or, as St. Seraphim of Sarov defines it, "the acquisition of the Holy Spirit," is both the possibility and the reality, the goal and the gift, of overcoming the stain of original sin and repossession of what has been lost through it, the sole dominant purpose of Christian life. Despite the "rags of mortality" in which the human race has clothed itself through the fall of the first Adam in Paradise, Christians live in the hope of once again "ascending to their former beauty" by virtue of their redemption by the suffering, death, and resurrection on the third day of the second Adam. Walking between hope and despair, repenting of our sins, and living a life of Christian struggle, we await the fulfillment of the promise of St. Paul, so that together with redeemed first Adam we can sing the song of victory: "So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" (1 Cor. 15: 55-56).[/FONT]

 

[MahogonySnail]

Could you perhaps paraphrase or summarise that in a shorter version and explain how it differs from current understanding of original sin?

 

[Ryan1976]

Oh, this will be dangerous but yer a cool guy Mahogony....

West says that from the time we are born, deep down in the DNA, we inherit sin (and in some denoms/sects - mortality). Out of this belief this is why some in the West believe that babies should be baptized, otherwise they will burn in hell. Others in the West believe that babies won't burn and use a doctrine of "the age of accountability" in order to not send babies to hell. So, (and I'm really making blanket statements here) West generally believes that we inherit sin guilt from the very start of our lives. Some in the West even believe that the image of God in which all men are made, is totally destroyed until you accept Christ.

East says, from the time we are born, deep down in the DNA, we inherit corruption. This is sin sickness. Makes it much easier to sin. We also inherit death. Mortality. Death is the door through which sin enters. However, we do not believe the image of God to be completely destroyed. Babies etc. are not totally depraved. They're innocent in many regards, "like little children" are not totally depraved or evil. God does not count Adam and Eve's sin against the individual but the sins of the individual against the individual.

Again, I made a ton of blanket statements here. This happens in chat. We have to reduce our theologies down to a few crude sentences and suddenly it appears as if we're building the tower of babel all over again.

Another interesting observation is the humanity of Jesus. Jesus is, of course, fully man and fully God. However, to be fully man, he too would have to fall under Original Sin. If Jesus was born under the West's model of Original Sin, then they would be saying that he was born with sin. This is why the Roman Catholics pretty much came up with Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with virgin birth). They knew Jesus couldn't be born with Sin or he'd be a sinner, which is impossible. So, if Mary is Immaculate (ie, without sin) then she can give birth to Jesus, purifying him and he still remains fully man and fully God. This is also one of the reasons some RC traditions believe Mary never died. Because if she had not sinned (which is what happens in Christ for all believers) she would have lived forever. So some say she was taken up like Enoch/Elijah.

In the East, Jesus, fully man and fully God, can inherit the corruption but because he never sinned (I'm sort of jumping around theologically here), not ever be guilty of any sin. He remains fully man/fully God.

Ezekiel 18:20

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.




My little paraphrasing fiasco will likely backfire but I hope it's easier to handle than the chunk of text above. However, even that article above is by no means exhaustive. The implications of our (both West/East) theology on Original Sin reaches far and wide. It effects the way we view baptism and faith and the purpose of humanity, justification, on and on. So it's a good thing to work out - with much fear and trembling.

added note: the reason some believe baptism will save an infant from hell is because of the verse (for as many have been baptized have put on Christ). But that's a whole other issue.

 

[MahogonySnail]

ok thanks. Well you know I personally agre more with the inherit corruption view (East's). That is the only viewpoint that can allow a doctrine of accountability. Because if infants are born sinners, no sin can enter heaven, they can never go to heaven. But sinless and innocent yet corrupted in nature would allow a child to go to heaven without accepting Jesus. But sort of contradicts doctrine of infant baptism if you believe infant baptism is necessary so a child won't go to hell. If the East believes in simply corruption and that children are innocent, where is the need to baptise them as an infant?

I should add, that we need to be careful relying upon the early church writers. Didn't Augustine believe the original sin was Adam and Eve having sex?

 

[Jair]

Oringinal Sin:
Our will is weakened
and
our intellect is blurred

or
It is harder for us to know the truth and love the good
than it was for Adam and Eve.

p.s.
Nothing you said about Catholics and the immaculate conception is true.

 

[doubleedge]

We can never TRULY understand the dynamics of good & evil (Genesis 2:17, 3:5,22)... which is why Christ says that the child is the greatest in The Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:1-6). As children, our choices can be corrected with minimum collateral damage... but "wilful" disobedience to God is evil no matter the age!!! When acting by our own will, choosing God's Will or not... we are held accountable for the actions of our will!!! Use wisdom here... as sin is learned behavior... one can only "choose" to sin if one already knows which choice is a sin. Having said that... its important to remember that not all choices are what they seem to be, or even as simple as they seem to be. Thats why its so important to obey The Lord God!!! Anything else is a deception of the devil (1 Thessalonians 5)!!!

 

[Ryan1976]

ok thanks. Well you know I personally agre more with the inherit corruption view (East's). That is the only viewpoint that can allow a doctrine of accountability. Because if infants are born sinners, no sin can enter heaven, they can never go to heaven. But sinless and innocent yet corrupted in nature would allow a child to go to heaven without accepting Jesus. But sort of contradicts doctrine of infant baptism if you believe infant baptism is necessary so a child won't go to hell. If the East believes in simply corruption and that children are innocent, where is the need to baptise them as an infant?

I should add, that we need to be careful relying upon the early church writers. Didn't Augustine believe the original sin was Adam and Eve having sex?

Hm... This gets hairy because the theological language of the East is often so different from that of the West. So many presuppositions stand between us.

In regards to your statement about allowing a doctrine of accountability: there isn't a separate doctrine of accountability. The doctrine of Original Sin is comprehensive enough to include infants and so there's no need to tack on an extra doctrine of accountability.

In regards to the statement that follows about infants not going to hell: yes, we don't believe that baptism is necessary for infants to avoid going to hell. This is often a tenant of some of the faiths in the West. Though, I should put a disclaimer here. Many of those tenants are dated and have either faded or are altogether vanished. If I remember correctly, Roman Catholics no longer believe that only baptized babies will go to hell. And when those views were held it was much later in the historical record and I'm not sure when it died out.

The topic of infant baptism is huge. Hm...

Here's a excerpt from a blog post on infant baptism by a friend of mine who saw infant baptism as one of the reasons for becoming Orthodox. He does a pretty good job of bridging the gap. It is by no means a comprehensive explanation.

From the blog:

"Kyrie Eleison, A blog about the Christian Faith..."




For those who like to argue otherwise on both sides, let me begin by saying that the historical record is silent as to whether or not the Church of the first century and a half baptized infants and the very young. One can neither make a case from the "silence of Scripture" on the issue nor from the "household baptisms" in Acts nor from even the writings of Justin or Polycarp (etc.) to either really prove or disprove what was happening on the ground. What we can say is that there is compelling evidence from around 200 A.D. to suggest that infant baptism was being practiced at that time.

So given the fact that we are indeed left with no immediate legacy to tell us whether or not this practice is biblical from a historical standpoint, we must turn to theology and a bit of historical reason for answers.

The first thing that ought to be glaringly obvious (but is not to most people due to the intellectual trends of the age) is that early Christianity was a deeply "sacramental" or "ritualistic" religion. That is, early Christianity had its locus not merely around the reading of a sacred text and its exegesis (as in Pharisaic, synagogal Judaism), but rather encompassed a way of life composed of rituals as well (as in OT Temple religion).

Moreover, these rituals were not for the most part seen as what one might call "simple" or "symbolic" rituals, they were in fact seen as complex actions in which God responded to human actions by positive, definite outlays of grace. So for instance in the Old Covenant, when the priest sacrificed a bull as a part of the sin offering, quite obviously the action itself could by no means effect the outcome. Honestly, how does killing a bull actually "make atonement" for sin? Killing a bull really only accomplishes one thing in physical terms: it makes a living bull a dead bull. Likewise, anointing various things with oil or blood really only does one thing physically: make said objects either bloody or slimy. There is no direct connection between sacramental OT actions such as these and their true, spiritual effects. If God does not act in some way in response to these things, then they are simply meaningless rituals.

Now as I have argued in previous posts, the early Christian community definitely saw baptism as a "sacramental" action. And baptism was not alone amongst sacramental actions in the Early Church. For instance, early Christians practiced anointing with oil for the healing of the sick (cf. James 5:14). Quite obviously here again, putting oil on a sick person's body does absolutely nothing to physically effect the cure. What needs to take place for healing to occur is for God to act. Why God ordains certain physical actions as conduits for grace in his Temple (both OT and NT) and not others is no doubt a subject for another post.

This fundamental insight helped pave the way both for me to reaffirm my natal Methodism's commitment to infant baptism and ultimately proved to be one of the most significant steps I took on the road to Orthodoxy.

If baptism is a sacramental act of God's grace, and not merely a personal, symbolic remembrance, then is it out of the question to assume that God would not concretely DO something to children who were baptized? Let us turn again for illustration to the Old Covenant. In the Old Covenant, male children were circumcised on the eighth day after their birth in order to be made heirs of God's covenant with Abraham. Quite obviously, they had no choice in the matter. Nevertheless, regardless of their volition, any person that was not circumcised was considered in violation of the covenant. "Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant" (Genesis 17:14).

Thus, what is patently obvious is that by God's design, the ritual of circumcision accomplished both a "sign of the covenant" and the establishment/continuation of the covenant itself. In response to physical actions which in and of themselves had no power to effect the outcome, God dispensed grace, even on those who had no power to request it, by making them heirs to his promise to Abraham.

Likewise, the Church believed and continues to believe that infant participation in sacramental actions actually does open the door for God to impart real, sacramental grace to infants. So for instance the Church opens the door for infants to be "born again" into Christ (in the context of believing families - as in OT circumcision) and to experience personal union with Jesus Christ in baptism and holy communion. (Yes, we actually commune all infants that we baptize on the day that we baptize them.) We anoint and lay hands on baptized infants for the receipt of the Holy Spirit (because we believe that infants can in fact be filled with the Spirit, though we "rational" adults can only barely discern this, cf. Luke 1:41). We sometimes anoint infants with oil while praying for them when they are sick. In a nutshell, we believe that they don't necessarily need to "understand" grace to receive it.

Prior to understanding these things, I struggled a great deal with various Western theologies which I was afraid "depersonalized" infants and the mentally retarded. That is, I felt that there was something deeply wrong with saying that the only way to receive God's salvific grace was "by faith alone" (to allude to Luther's famous mistranslation of Romans 3:28). I think part of my problem with this notion was that it placed a certain preeminence of humanity on those who are adult and intelligent, able to cognitively comprehend and respond to the tenants of some complicated theological "system." But I see Christ in the gospel telling people that "anyone who does not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it" (and note that Christ says this almost immediately after his disciples have tried to turn away people who are bringing infants to him, Luke 18:15-17).

Now I am not trying to say here that faith is not an absolute requirement for the salvation of most adults. Under normal circumstances, salvation is worked out in a complementary union of faith and sacrament. However, I do believe that either one or the other can make a way for salvation in various circumstances. For instance, a babe can be fully saved, justified, sanctified, and however else you might want to parse it by baptism alone. Likewise, an unbaptized person who has faith in Christ and who dies before baptism has nothing to fear, as in the case of the "good thief" (Luke 23:40-43). God has certainly established normal patterns for us to follow, but I fully suspect that he not infrequently reaches out beyond these patterns to exercise his radical love in radical grace.

One thing that I find particularly refreshing about Orthodoxy is that there are no "partial members" among us. Whereas in Roman Catholicism and classical Protestantism, infants have been baptized but were not permitted to receive Holy Communion, here there is no separation. Baptism is incomplete without the Eucharist. Being born from heaven seems useless unless one is allowed to eat the food from heaven. If anyone has "put on Christ" in baptism, can he really be denied the union with Christ which comes from being united to his flesh and blood? Roman Catholicism and its Protestant children all suffer from the same (conscious or unconscious) preference for the "reasoning" adult to the "unreasoning" child. Jesus seems not to do this, and so neither can I.


---

As for the Early Church Fathers: I agree! Yeah, that's something that a lot of people misunderstand too. Not all of these Church Fathers wrote and believed things that are (Catholic) according to the whole. The litmus for Catholicity is, as I understand it, if it's not believed by the whole, not only today but throughout all history, then it's probably* not according to the whole, ie. Catholic. Some of the early Church Fathers were more Catholic in their writing/theology than others.

St. John Chrysostom is a pretty safe bet in regards to Orthodoxy but some of the Church Fathers are much less so. Origen's writings is a good example of what is not Catholic, though there are some here and there things in his writings that are.

 

[Ryan1976]

Oringinal Sin:
Our will is weakened
and
our intellect is blurred

or
It is harder for us to know the truth and love the good
than it was for Adam and Eve.

p.s.
Nothing you said about Catholics and the immaculate conception is true.

I agree with those statements on Original Sin. Where were you earlier? I could have avoided trouble.

In regards to my misinformation about Catholics (I assume you mean Roman Catholics) feel free to correct me. I'm not sure where I'm wrong or how I'm wrong.


The Vatican newspaper Thirty Days ran a story about the 150th anniversary of the Roman proclamation of the Immaculate Conception as dogma. As part of that, they interviewed Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew about the Orthodox Akathist to the Theotokos — a truly beautiful prayer/poem/song — and in passing asked him about the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The Patriarch politely told them that it was wrong, and correctly identified its roots as being in the notion of original sin. It is a brief but excellent presentation of the Orthodox position:

(Question): The Catholic Church this year celebrates the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. How does the Eastern Christian and Byzantine Tradition celebrate the Conception of Mary and her full and immaculate holiness?

Bartholomew I: The Catholic Church found that it needed to institute a new dogma for Christendom about one thousand and eight hundred years after the appearance of the Christianity, because it had accepted a perception of original sin — a mistaken one for us Orthodox — according to which original sin passes on a moral stain or a legal responsibility to the descendants of Adam, instead of that recognized as correct by the Orthodox faith, according to which the sin transmitted through inheritance the corruption, caused by the separation of mankind from the uncreated grace of God, which makes him live spiritually and in the flesh. Mankind shaped in the image of God, with the possibility and destiny of being like to God, by freely choosing love towards Him and obedience to his commandments, can even after the fall of Adam and Eve become friend of God according to intention; then God sanctifies them, as he sanctified many of the progenitors before Christ, even if the accomplishment of their ransom from corruption, that is their salvation, was achieved after the incarnation of Christ and through Him.

In consequence, according to the Orthodox faith, Mary the All-holy Mother of God was not conceived exempt from the corruption of original sin, but loved God above of all things and obeyed his commandments, and thus was sanctified by God through Jesus Christ who incarnated himself of her. She obeyed Him like one of the faithful, and addressed herself to Him with a Mother’s trust. Her holiness and purity were not blemished by the corruption, handed on to her by original sin as to every man, precisely because she was reborn in Christ like all the saints, sanctified above every saint.

Her reinstatement in the condition prior to the Fall did not necessarily take place at the moment of her conception. We believe that it happened afterwards, as consequence of the progress in her of the action of the uncreated divine grace through the visit of the Holy Spirit, which brought about the conception of the Lord within her, purifying her from every stain.

As already said, original sin weighs on the descendants of Adam and of Eve as corruption, and not as legal responsibility or moral stain. The sin brought hereditary corruption and not a hereditary legal responsibility or a hereditary moral stain. In consequence the All-holy participated in the hereditary corruption, like all mankind, but with her love for God and her purity — understood as an imperturbable and unhesitating dedication of her love to God alone — she succeeded, through the grace of God, in sanctifying herself in Christ and making herself worthy of becoming the house of God, as God wants all us human beings to become. Therefore we in the Orthodox Church honor the All-holy Mother of God above all the saints, albeit we don’t accept the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception. The non-acceptance of this dogma in no way diminishes our love and veneration of the All-holy Mother of God.



From, Ancient Church: An Eastern Orthodox blog

 

[Ryan1976]

We can never TRULY understand the dynamics of good & evil (Genesis 2:17, 3:5,22)... which is why Christ says that the child is the greatest in The Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 18:1-6). As children, our choices can be corrected with minimum collateral damage... but "wilful" disobedience to God is evil no matter the age!!! When acting by our own will, choosing God's Will or not... we are held accountable for the actions of our will!!! Use wisdom here... as sin is learned behavior... one can only "choose" to sin if one already knows which choice is a sin. Having said that... its important to remember that not all choices are what they seem to be, or even as simple as they seem to be. Thats why its so important to obey The Lord God!!! Anything else is a deception of the devil (1 Thessalonians 5)!!!

Thanks for the reply.

""Use wisdom here... as sin is learned behavior... one can only "choose" to sin if one already knows which choice is a sin.""

I don't know if I would call sin a learned behavior. Reminds me of the anti-drug commercials, "I learned it from watching you Dad. I learned from watching youuuu".

I guess that's a common defense though.

God asks Adam what the deal with eating the fruit is.

Adam: I learned it by watching Eve.

God asks Eve what the deal is.

Eve: I learned it by watching the Serpent.



I suppose if sin were a learned behavior we could just blame our teachers but if our teachers have teachers and they all go back to the Serpent.. it's not unlike blaming the devil for your sin when all you had to do is resist and or walk away from the temptation of the Serpent. Can't blame the Serpent or God for personally choosing not to listen to who we personally know is right - God.

Romans 1:19-21

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.



21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Methodist and Church of England beliefs on this are similar, and fairly similar to Orthodox IMO. Although Church of England believes in the regeneration of the infant rather than impartation of grace as a sacrament. But in practice I'd say they all are saying the same thing. When a child is prayed for there is something which happens in the life of that child. Whether they reject it later on is another matter. It is right to call it baptism because it involves immersion of the child into the Holy Spirit and into the faith and life of the church. As you said this is not too different from the Israelites circumcising infants at 8 days? old.

Now some in here have argued that the Holy Spirit will never force himself up on anyone without their permission.
I point them towards John the baptist who was filled with the Spirit from birth, as one example. Showing the Spirit does indeed come upon a person perhaps without their permission. The basic tenet of being born again (regeneration) is that the Spirit blows whether He wishes (John 3:8), and whatever God the Spirit does is not limited by the will of man.

I agree with your statement re: infants and the mentally disabled.


"In a nutshell, we believe that they don't necessarily need to "understand" grace to receive it."

Yes, grace is to be experienced and received, not necessarily understood. This same thing was taught in an AOG church I went to.
Many times a person even an adult receives God's grace before they fully understand it. It is the period of time of God's grace that leads them to the Savior before they are saved. They may not even realise what they have experienced until after the fact.

It is the same with infant baptism. They do not know what they have received or what has happened, but over time after they grow up and look back on their lives, they should see the hand of God and His grace working in their life.

The one thing I have against protestant baptisms, particurarly the ones that hold to age of accountability, is that they generally wait until the child is in their teens or early , to pray for them to receive the Spirit or expose them to the doctrine of Christ. They mistakenly think that God is somehow limited to working in a person's life without the person's own understanding. It is putting the emphasis on man's understanding rather than on God's sovereign knowledge and care, that He knows each person even before they are born.

Anyway, this thread is not really about infant baptism but it is related. One verse I like that strongly supports the case for baptism without understanding, is the ability of babes and sucklings to praise God.

Mat 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,
Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea;haveyeneverread,Out ofthemouthofbabesandsucklingsthouhastperfectedpraise


There is nothing in scripture that says to be regenerated by a work of the Spirit who blows wherever He wishes, must occur after a certain set procedure or rules, or at a certain age in a person's life or level of understanding. Whenever it happens, that person may say "I was blind, but now I see".

 

[Ryan1976]

Methodist and Church of England beliefs on this are similar, and fairly similar to Orthodox IMO. Although Church of England believes in the regeneration of the infant rather than impartation of grace as a sacrament. But in practice I'd say they all are saying the same thing. When a child is prayed for there is something which happens in the life of that child. Whether they reject it later on is another matter. It is right to call it baptism because it involves immersion of the child into the Holy Spirit and into the faith and life of the church. As you said this is not too different from the Israelites circumcising infants at 8 days? old.

Now some in here have argued that the Holy Spirit will never force himself up on anyone without their permission.
I point them towards John the baptist who was filled with the Spirit from birth, as one example. Showing the Spirit does indeed come upon a person perhaps without their permission. The basic tenet of being born again (regeneration) is that the Spirit blows whether He wishes (John 3:8), and whatever God the Spirit does is not limited by the will of man.

I agree with your statement re: infants and the mentally disabled.


"In a nutshell, we believe that they don't necessarily need to "understand" grace to receive it."

Yes, grace is to be experienced and received, not necessarily understood. This same thing was taught in an AOG church I went to.
Many times a person even an adult receives God's grace before they fully understand it. It is the period of time of God's grace that leads them to the Savior before they are saved. They may not even realise what they have experienced until after the fact.

It is the same with infant baptism. They do not know what they have received or what has happened, but over time after they grow up and look back on their lives, they should see the hand of God and His grace working in their life.

The one thing I have against protestant baptisms, particurarly the ones that hold to age of accountability, is that they generally wait until the child is in their teens or early , to pray for them to receive the Spirit or expose them to the doctrine of Christ. They mistakenly think that God is somehow limited to working in a person's life without the person's own understanding. It is putting the emphasis on man's understanding rather than on God's sovereign knowledge and care, that He knows each person even before they are born.

Anyway, this thread is not really about infant baptism but it is related. One verse I like that strongly supports the case for baptism without understanding, is the ability of babes and sucklings to praise God.

Mat 21:15 And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the son of David; they were sore displeased,
Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea;haveyeneverread,Out ofthemouthofbabesandsucklingsthouhastperfectedpraise


There is nothing in scripture that says to be regenerated by a work of the Spirit who blows wherever He wishes, must occur after a certain set procedure or rules, or at a certain age in a person's life or level of understanding. Whenever it happens, that person may say "I was blind, but now I see".

Yeah, there are a lot of bits and pieces which are similar to Orthodoxy. No one has a monopoly on the Truth (that is, Christ) - for sure.

Great! bible verse. I haven't even considered that verse in regards to baptism. It's a stretch to try and use it to prove that infant baptism is directly supported without question in the scriptures but yeah. Good good quote.

Gotta love babies. Who doesn't love babies?

And you're right. Infant baptism isn't really about Original Sin but our understanding of Original Sin does shift our perspective on baptism. I think a healthy theology/body of doctrines is organic. Some theologies remind me of Frankenstein except when the lighting bolts come down from Heaven, Franky is not alive, just a collection of various (body) parts that look like a picture of a man created in His image. And the stitches are apparent.



God bless ya, MahogonySnail

 

[MahogonySnail]

I also think it's strange, if not hypocritical, for parents to immunise their infants with medical doctors against certain diseases. Yet they are unwilling to accept the thought of the Holy Spirit being present in the child's life due to the said prayers at infant baptism.

The use of anointing oil is a good point. There is usually nothing special about the oil itself (unless power is imparted to it by prayer and laying on of hands on the oil), but it is a 'faith contact' as I understand it. As is laying on of hands. As is water in baptism.