Original Sin

[Rusty T]

I'm tired of all the confusion about the definition of Original Sin. This is my thread, so let me say firstly that I don't want any rabbit trails. If you can't state your position or the position your church without demeaning another's church, then your post is worthless to me. That doesn't mean we can't challenge one another with questions, but please keep the anti-(insert confession/direction/movement) out of your posts.

That being said, let me put a question to whomever wants to participate under the above guidelines.

What is original sin?

To keep things simple, please don't go off on tangents that aren't related to this particular question. If you can answer it in one or two sentences, it would be great.

Thanks,

Rusty

[Macarius]

Original Sin is the first sin - committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Beyond that, I have no idea.

I know that I inherrited my mortality from my parents (and they from theirs) so one could say mortality began with original sin. I know that I've grown up in a culture soaked in sin, where righteous people to imitate are few and far between, making it far easier to sin than to not, and that I bear the guilt of my sins and the responsibility for them.

That seems to comprise a lot of what people say when they talk about original sin, but expanding that into a full anthropology seems dangerous to me, because I don't want to get caught judging others and calling guilty those over whom I have no authority.

[Rusty T]

Thanks for the reply Macarius.

Now, for my first challenging question on this thread:

The decedents of Adam inherited nothing but mortality? Nothing, for example, like a 'darkened nous' as the East puts it?

rusty

[Macarius]

I have darkened my own nous through my own fallenness and sin. Whether the nous of others is darkened I leave to God to judge and heal. Whether my darkened nous was the result of Adam's sin is irrelevant - it is by far more the result of my own sin, for which, regardless of what effect Adam may have had on me, I am entirely responsible and accountable.

[Maxentius]

Macarius,

I have darkened my own nous through my own fallenness and sin. Whether the nous of others is darkened I leave to God to judge and heal. Whether my darkened nous was the result of Adam's sin is irrelevant - it is by far more the result of my own sin, for which, regardless of what effect Adam may have had on me, I am entirely responsible and accountable.

I am sort of aware of Orthodox ideas regarding the "nous". Correct me if I am wrong, but the "nous" is the origin of the will so to speak. St. Paul speaks of the mind of Christ, where he actually said "nous". (If my memory serves)

Now, if I am correct about the nous, I believe that not only are we born mortal, but that we are born with a twisted nous, so that our thoughts and actions are turned against godliness from our birth. Now, if we are born with a twisted nous, and our nous is twisted because of Adam's sin, doesn't that become relevant?

I believe St. Paul addresses this in 1 Corinthians 2:14-16:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ."

If we cannot accept the things of the Holy Spirit, if they are folly to us, if we cannot comprehend these things unless we have the mind of Christ, then isn't original sin a wound toour very will, so that our will is darkened against Godliness?

[Abelard]

Original sin is the fact that we are born separated from God and lost in our own egocentric focus, unaware of even the existence of God.

[Rusty T]

Whether the nous of others is darkened I leave to God to judge and heal. Whether my darkened nous was the result of Adam's sin is irrelevant

I think it's *very* relevant. It's no secret why I put this question in the Ecclesiology forum. I want to get to the bottom of the differences between East and West on this very important issue. An Orthodox Catechism which is online states that one of the consequences of the sin of Adam was "the shattering and distortion of the 'image.'That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then 'the imagination of man's heart is evil'." I can't see how this is irrelevant.

rusty

[Rusty T]

I forgot to state what I believe Original Sin to be. And as a good Catholic-wanna-be, I'll let the catechism speak for me.

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

[Solly]

Original sin is the covenant breaking act of Adam and Eve. Covenants are central to the Bible, and the Genesis account can be read in covenant terms. God placed humanity in a covenant position: I am your God, you are my people, I will do this, and you will do that; but if you don't then this is what I will do. Covenant penalty includes death, therefore death is a punishment for us. It is not originally about morality, but about our calling before God. The morality issues come in later, as with Cain and Abel, and even Adam and Eve's lies, once they have broken tryst with God. It is not an inheritable substance, but a matter of our environment and teaching (and the effects of Satan, and the principalities and powers of a now disordered world now that God's regent is not running the show), once separate from a connection with God. Hence God's work in Christ, to restore us to covenant - which he never forsook - and to heal us (make us holy).

My tuppenceworth *slly

[Rusty T]

Original sin is the covenant breaking act of Adam and Eve. Covenants are central to the Bible, and the Genesis account can be read in covenant terms.

I definitely agree with this. It's a central theme in Catholic understanding of salvation history.

God placed humanity in a covenant position: I am your God, you are my people, I will do this, and you will do that; but if you don't then this is what I will do. Covenant penalty includes death, therefore death is a punishment for us. It is not originally about morality, but about our calling before God.

Might need a bit more clarity on that last sentence.

*snip*

It is not an inheritable substance, but a matter of our environment and teaching (and the effects of Satan, and the principalities and powers of a now disordered world now that God's regent is not running the show), once separate from a connection with God.

I do agree that original sin is not an 'inheritable substance. I would call it, rather, an inherited want. 'Could you equate 'connection with God' with God's grace in some way?

rusty

[popaface]

There are in fact many interpretations of what the original sin was. There's the theory that they are in fact disobedience to God, there's the theory that the original sin was sloth, or letting someone else be in control of your life, then there's the theory which looks at what Adam and Eve did, it concentrates on the "Knowing both Good and Evil" part of what the serpent says to Eve, considering this, the primal act could be seen as a birth of consciousness, the final theory is the primal act as pride, it concentrates on "become like God". I personally don't see Genesis 3 as a record of actual events which occurred some time in history. I see them as events which occur in the life of each and every single person alive. In true fact there was no "fall" until 400 CE when Augustine penned it.

Cheers all, Allan.

[Solly]

Might need a bit more clarity on that last sentence.

Sorry, I meant in the sense of vocation, election, mission.

I do agree that original sin is not an 'inheritable substance. I would call it, rather, an inherited want. 'Could you equate 'connection with God' with God's grace in some way?

rusty

Yes. Although I would see grace in a functional way, a package deal concept covering all the things God does. god's grace goes before us though, in the above mentioned election and calling, and brings the responsiblity of covenant faithfulness and mission. Israel were called to such, for instance. It's not about just getting in and being glad you're in, after all!!

The new covenant is connected with the 'old' yet there is an inclusive discontinuity with it, in that it overcomes the failures of the old - our failures. But I still think it brings covenant responsibility; yet I am stil inclined to some view of the perseverance of the saints, as long as you locate it in Christ, not ourselves, and functionally, not as some deposit of the Spirit we are all supposed to receive.

[Rusty T]

Solly,

In your view, is human nature, 'darkened' (or whatever equivalent terminology you wish to use) by the lack of covenental relationship with God? I'd say, "Yes." I've been enjoying your blog entries by the way.

Rusty

[Shazard]

I go with Maxentius. But I guess nobody is surprised about it.
I gues personally my veiw of original sin is shaped by St. Augustine. In other words. Original Sin is the root from which actual sin grows. Original Sin is "potential" of actual sin.

[George Blaisdell]

What is original sin?
It is the sin of first man [Adam] and first woman [Eve] in the Garden of Eden, where against the commandment of God, they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowing good AND evil...

The result was their death, which followed their expulsion from the garden and their prohibition from re-entering it, and the condemnation they incurred to bring forth in pain, for the woman, and labors for both... And their being clothed in skins...

We inherit NOT the original sin, but the results... And in these results, which are death, skin that is subject to pleasure and pain, a passable body, and a mind no longer turned to God but fallen and tended toward these cares and labors of life and death, pleasure and pain, good and evil, enmity and harmony, duality of mind and body...

WE do NOT inherit original sin... That sin was Adam's... We inherit the RESULTS of that sin, and in those results, we sin and further darken our nous and further corrupt our bodies, and die...

Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

I think this is a good verse to start with.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
My view of original sin (edit to clarify: when I say original sin, I am just trying to use Catholic terms to describe my reasoning; if this was up to me I would call it "fallen nature" rather than original sin) is that we inherit a tendency to sin (though it doesn't mean we will inevitability sin). The mind is clouded, but not totally depraved (we're born with the choice of what to do with this clouding; we can either fight against it or go with it). I believe Christ chose to be born with all of these things but chose not to sin. (It is also my personal opinion, which I can't substantiate, that this 'tendency to sin' is learned, not passed down genetically [for a lack of a better term] from Adam. In other words, it is passed down by example; Cain and Abel saw their parents sinning, and it was for them like a living example of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. And just as Adam and Eve ate from the tree and learned right and wrong, when Cain and Abel watched their parents they learned right and wrong. Then they taught their kids this same way, etc. I prefer this belief because instead of making it look like God now programs us all to think corruptly, we are instead all responsible, as a whole race, being that we don't live perfectly and therefore teach the knowledge of sin to our offspring. You can see then that I believe all people are born blank slates, just like Adam and Eve, though as I said, I have nothing to prove this with.)

Original sin also includes more:
We confess then, that He assumed all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He assumed the whole man and all man’s attributes save sin. For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the result of a further implantation by the devil, though it cannot prevail over us by force. For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man.
St. John is saying that the only things which Christ did not take upon Himself as a man are only those things which are not natural to a human being. For example, because sin requires outside influence, Christ did not have sin. However, Christ took on the natural weaknesses of man, including hunger, thirst, temptation, etc. However, only post-fall human beings suffer these things. This suggests that Christ imitated post-fallen man, rather than pre-fallen man.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
And this verse shows even further that Christ was imitating post-fall man by saying He was "in the likeness of sinful flesh". By playing by the rules, being under the curse of Adam (original sin), Christ beat sin at its own game and defeated it. And since the effects of sin are sinful flesh, Christ conquered it at the same time. This includes death and sadness and temptation and all that stuff which St. John talked about. Now, does that mean the effects of His conquest are in effect now? I don't think so, at least fully (since Christ did break the prisoners out of Hades, but He did not restore them to bodies). I believe this will be accomplished on the Last Day:
And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
When death and Hades are thrown away, that is when its causer, sinful nature from Adam, is thrown away. So right now it is conquered and in submission to Christ, but on the last day, death will depart from God's restored creation. And that's when,
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." And he who was seated on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." Also he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true." And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
On that day, the effects of original sin will only last for those who are the enemies of God. They will continue to anguish and think with clouded minds.

I have to admit, though: what George just said in the other thread confused me. I can see that Florovsky definitely doesn't agree with me, but I feel St. John and the Bible do. George, if you're reading this, can you tell us why you believe the way you do about original sin?

[Rusty T]

WE do NOT inherit original sin... That sin was Adam's... We inherit the RESULTS of that sin, and in those results, we sin and further darken our nous and further corrupt our bodies, and die...

I don't see anywhere to disagree with this. I do not, however, think that it's inappropriate to use the term 'original sin' to describe what it is we inherited - or rather what it is we did not inherit from Adam. In an Orthodox Catechism which is printed online it is stated, "As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."(1) In Orthodox Apologetic Theology, Ivan M. Andreyev uses the term in much the same way: "The inclination toward evil is like a buckle on cardboard: it makes a sheet defective, because cardboard always folds along it. Science cannot explain why good tendencies coexist with bad ambitions. The Bible’s explanation for this is original sin."(2)

Sergey Bulgakov, in his work The Orthodox Church, says, "Original sin means general corruption of human nature which has been diverted from its proper norm. Its first consequence was the loss of the state of Grace. Then came the general corruption of human nature, which, after it turned itself from life in God, became mortal." (3) So, it's not ununsual for Orthodox theologians to use the term in much the same way that it is used in the West.

rusty



1.http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm
2.http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/apologetics.htm
3.http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_church_s_bulgakov.htm (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_church_s_bulgakov.htm)

[Rusty T]

Jawa,

It was the teaching of St. Gregory of Nyssa that Christ did assume our human weaknesses, but not our 'vicious weaknesses' (or moral weaknesses). He discusses this at length in the Great Catechism - I believe around chapters 9 and 10.

God bless until later,

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

I don't see anywhere to disagree with this.

Well Glory to God!

I do not, however, think that it's inappropriate to use the term 'original sin' to describe what it is we inherited - or rather what it is we did not inherit from Adam.

The treachery is in the Roman understanding that to have a fallen human nature MEANS having sin. And indeed, they believe that this sin is imparted at conception, through the pleasure of the procreative act. [As in straight out of Ps. 50 lxx] This is why there can be [and indeed was] no pleasure in the conception of Christ by the Virgin... For this would have placed our Savior under her sin by having defiled the purity of her womb... Indeed, a womb defiled by the pleasure of the act of procreation could not have contained the Uncontainable... And one can even understand that it is in the pleasure of procreation that curse is passed on to us all... But the curse was death, for that is what we inherit... And the sting of death is sin, you see... And the wages of sin is death, and the cycle repeats throughout humanity... So that it is death that we inherit, and this in turn causes us to sin, which causes us to pass on death to our descendents...

In an Orthodox Catechism which is printed online it is stated, "As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."(1) In Orthodox Apologetic Theology, Ivan M. Andreyev uses the term in much the same way: "The inclination toward evil is like a buckle on cardboard: it makes a sheet defective, because cardboard always folds along it. Science cannot explain why good tendencies coexist with bad ambitions. The Bible’s explanation for this is original sin."(2)

That is how many Orthodox understand the matter, yet when they use words in this manner, of "inheriting" and "participating in" original sin, they mean not the inheritance of Adam's sin, or the participation in it, but of our own sins through the inheritance of Adam's death which is what entered the world through sin. [You know the Pauline passage - Or are you gonna make me look it up for you and prove it to you with actual quotes?? :-)] Yet when Rome talks like this, the meaning becomes different, for they seem to understand that original SIN itself is what is passed on, and sin is a moral issue of the doing of what is wrong and known so... Is this not true? Are we not, in the Roman understanding, BORN guilty? And in the Orthodox, we are born dead, so to speak...

Yet it was the virgin birth that overcame all the issues of transmission, for a virgin conceived who had not known man and had been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit following an unimaginably virtuous life in preparation for her work... This BROKE the cycle, for the advent of Christ, you see... For He was NOT conceived in sins... But in purity...

Sergey Bulgakov, in his work The Orthodox Church, says, "Original sin means general corruption of human nature which has been diverted from its proper norm. Its first consequence was the loss of the state of Grace. Then came the general corruption of human nature, which, after it turned itself from life in God, became mortal." (3) So, it's not ununsual for Orthodox theologians to use the term in much the same way that it is used in the West.

You are right in this, Rusty... The difference is in the understanding of the two traditions when the same terms are being used. We run into that all the time in dialog with Protestants as well... We think we are understanding one another when we are not, because the same words mean different things to each of us... And I think that this is why you opened this thread...

I am a little dismayed that your Roman mentors have not yet checked in to explain their point of view...

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

Read my OP, George. Keep the anti-Catholicism down. Just explain your position, challenge mine. Stop making wide assertions.

rusty

[Rusty T]

s this not true? Are we not, in the Roman understanding, BORN guilty? And in the Orthodox, we are born dead, so to speak...

You tell me, George. Does the Roman Catholic church teach that we are born guilty?

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

You tell me, George. Does the Roman Catholic church teach that we are born guilty?... Stop making wide assertions.

May I decline?

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

May I decline?

Of course. :smile:

edited to add: George, by 'wide assertions' I mean broad statements that imply universality of belief that aren't bulwarked with proof.

rusty

[Abelard]

Hi George - this may be OT for this thread but your statement "...Indeed, a womb defiled by the pleasure of the act of procreation could not have contained the Uncontainable... And one can even understand that it is in the pleasure of procreation that curse is passed on to us all..." was interesting.

I don't have much familiarity with Orthodoxy, but if you would please elaborate on that thought in a separate thread it would be appreciated. The idea of pleasure defiling someone is completely novel to me.

[Jawa Man]

Hey Abelard. Since I think I can give a fairly quick answer (and it is Catholic and Orthodox friendly, so I'm assuming tizz won't mind), I'd like to try this here. I can't find the passage now, but I know in ancient Israel, before a battle you weren't supposed to have sex or go to the bathroom in the camp; it was considered defiling, since God was in their midst in the camp. Today, in Orthodoxy, fast days you are technically not supposed to have sex, or before Eucharist (with times varying from Sunday morning to 6 PM the night before). This is not because sex is evil, but it is ritually defiling. On the same note, you aren't technically supposed to have communion if you are going through your period or had a nocturnal emission. These aren't evil, but they are ritually defiling. So when Mary's womb has become a sort of holy place, it would be defiling to go into her (in the biblical sense). We have a similar rule in Orthodoxy (and I bet Catholicism): when you fill up a cup with holy water, you are never supposed to use that cup for any other purpose again. Even a rag you own that's used to clean an icon becomes holy and cannot be used to clean anything else. Also, laymen are not supposed to go behind the curtain or iconostasis onto the altar because it is holy, and in Greece they will put a fence around the location of a former altar and make it a shrine, since it is permanently holy. The Jews, I've read, also discourage ever walking around the general area on the Temple Mount where the Holy of Holies was, for fear of stepping on it and defiling it.

[Macarius]

Tizz, correct me if I'm wrong (and I have been in many cases before on such things), but isn't "limbo" an official doctrine of the RCC?

Doesn't limbo stem directly from the RCC teaching, mostly from Augustine's conflict with Pelagius, that we are born guilty of Adam's sin and that, therefore, if an infant dies unbaptized they cannot go to paradise or heaven?

If I recall, Augustine actually believed that unbaptized infants go to hell, but this position was unpalatable (understandably) and got softened to limbo...

I know Erasmus didn't share that opinion, but Erasmus wasn't all that Augustinian in most of his outlook on original sin.

For those who asked me why I think the question "did I inheret Adam's sin" is irrelevant, it is because of perspective. It is relevant to theology if I'm trying to make assertions about other human beings, but for my own case - the only one I have adaquet perspective on - it is irrelevant because I know that I've darkened my own nous / will by my own sin. Whether that sin came from Adam or not doesn't matter, because I'm responsible for my own sin - I can't use Adam as an excuse (not that any of you were suggesting such a thing). So, for my own purposes - for how I stand before God - whether I inhereted guilt or sin from Adam doesn't matter.

Let me put it this way:

In world #1, Adam never sinned. I still did, and therefore am deserving of corruption and death.
In world #2, Adam sinned, and I inhereted his guilt and the consequences of his sin - namely death and a corrupted will. I still sinned, and am responsible for it, and am therefore deserving of corruption and death.
In world #3, Adam sinned, I inhereted none of it except the example of sinners around me (this is the Pleagian world). I still sinned, and am therefore deserving of corruption and death.
In world #4, Adam sinned, I inhereted only the consequences (death, a weak will, and the example of other sinners), not his guilt. I still sinnned, and am therefore deserving of corruption and death.

Do you see how regardless of our view of original sin, our approach to God is the same? The only difference is in how we view others. In world #2, which I would label as the western worldview, I HAVE to judge others because I'm theologically required to in order to keep my worldview consistent (unless I'd like to theorize that I'm the ONLY one who inhereted original sin).

In worldview #3 & #4 - which are semi-eastern and eastern respectively - I can judge my own sin, but can WITHHOLD judgment on others. This is more spiritually healthy, since it prevents my pride from becoming overgrown. I therefore say Adam's original sin, as a doctrine, is not relevant unless you use it as a tool with which to judge others, in which case it is dangerous.

Hope that helps explain what I meant!

Cheers,
Macarius

[Rusty T]

Tizz, correct me if I'm wrong (and I have been in many cases before on such things), but isn't "limbo" an official doctrine of the RCC?

You are wrong. Limbo has never been an official doctrine of the Church. I only read this first line and thought I had to respond. I'll respond to the rest of your post later (hanging out with my family for the night) if it doesn't all follow from this origin.

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

Hi George - this may be OT for this thread but your statement "...Indeed, a womb defiled by the pleasure of the act of procreation could not have contained the Uncontainable... And one can even understand that it is in the pleasure of procreation that curse is passed on to us all..." was interesting.

I don't have much familiarity with Orthodoxy, but if you would please elaborate on that thought in a separate thread it would be appreciated. The idea of pleasure defiling someone is completely novel to me.

Well, you seem to like Chief Joseph - And pleasure is no stranger to Native American spirituality... Earth based religious orientations tend to exalt the body...

Christianity is different. The body is a chief instrument of the fall, just as much as it is the essential component of a human being. We are created with bodies, yet having turned from God, we now turn toward flesh and its pleasures, to be sought, and its pains, to be avoided... And the pathway back to the Creator, in His Holy Son, Christ, is through obedience to His commandments, which disregards the mind that is of or from the flesh... And this process is called repentance... It is how we do our part in turning toward God - And this is available to us all by grace... According to our willingness...

Indeed, in Native American practices, there are some that embrace agonies in the quest to obtain a vision - and many that endure hardships... Orthodox monasticism is much akin to a permanent state of a Vision Quest in the native traditions...

When Adam sinned and entered the Fall, God clothed him in skins... And skin is sensual... Pleasure and pain are its protective features as the exterior organ of the body... Procreation is an act of pleasure, and without it, no one is born... [except Christ, of course] And it is this that CAN be understood to be the imparter of mortality unto those born of the sexual union of man and woman... Which Christ did NOT have... Yet He CONDESCENDED [kenosis is the good term] to ASSUME our death VOLUNTARILY, thereby fulfilling the Divine promise that God gave Adam in the Garden, that he would die... And He took over where Adam failed, and obeyed unto death on the cross [tree] from which Adam ate [figuratively]...

There was no death in Christ's body, yet with that body, he took on our death, and through that death defeated death, and raised Adam... So all of us, being born in Adam of pleasure, will die, and this is why in Christ we will in no wise die, even though we die in the flesh...

Any help??

Arsenios

[Jezz]

Read my OP, George. Keep the anti-Catholicism down. Just explain your position, challenge mine. Stop making wide assertions.
Seconded.

George, at least for this thread, please stick to explaining the Orthodox position, and asking for clarification on the RCC position. Rusty must be finding it very frustrating to be continually told what it is that he believes - especially when it's not quite what he believes.

[Solly]

Solly,

In your view, is human nature, 'darkened' (or whatever equivalent terminology you wish to use) by the lack of covenental relationship with God? I'd say, "Yes." I've been enjoying your blog entries by the way.

Rusty


I would say yes, Tizz. At the moment I am careful to mke distinctions between ontological and functional definitions, especially in the doctrine known as total depravity to some (including myself when a Calvinist). I am following up on the irenaean idea of Adam being placed in a pedagogical relaitonship. If you remove a child from a parental relaitonship of any kind, and leave it to its own devices, what happens?

[Solly]

I would say yes, Tizz. At the moment I am careful to mke distinctions between ontological and functional definitions, especially in the doctrine known as total depravity to some (including myself when a Calvinist). I am following up on the irenaean idea of Adam being placed in a pedagogical relaitonship. If you remove a child from a parental relaitonship of any kind, and leave it to its own devices, what happens?

Western protestantism ( and RCC to an extent form my reading, at leat in the Augutinian strand) places an overly individualisitc emphasis on original sin and original guilt. From the position I have moved to original sin is a systemic problem as much as an individual one. Christ's death and resurrection have cosmic implications, not just Jesus died for me. In sinning against God, Adam not only turned away form God, but turned to other powers. We are not free, we always have a Lord. It's just a matter of which one. Humanity has grown up under the tutelage of another lord (though thankfully God has been conducting a fifth column action!!)

[Rusty T]

Thanks, Solly, for expatiating your point for me. I can quite definitively say that I haven't drunk a drop in the ocean that's Roman Catholic theology. I do, however, thankfully have the Catechism, which definitively sets the guidelines for me. I do know that the Augustinian 'model' for Original Sin, though influencial, didn't necessarily 'win the day' in RC theology.

rusty

[Jezz]

I don't see anywhere to disagree with this. I do not, however, think that it's inappropriate to use the term 'original sin' to describe what it is we inherited - or rather what it is we did not inherit from Adam. In an Orthodox Catechism which is printed online it is stated, "As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam."(1) In Orthodox Apologetic Theology, Ivan M. Andreyev uses the term in much the same way: "The inclination toward evil is like a buckle on cardboard: it makes a sheet defective, because cardboard always folds along it. Science cannot explain why good tendencies coexist with bad ambitions. The Bible’s explanation for this is original sin."(2)
I agree.

Sergey Bulgakov, in his work The Orthodox Church, says, "Original sin means general corruption of human nature which has been diverted from its proper norm. Its first consequence was the loss of the state of Grace. Then came the general corruption of human nature, which, after it turned itself from life in God, became mortal." (3) So, it's not ununsual for Orthodox theologians to use the term in much the same way that it is used in the West.
I would say the first sentence slightly differently: "Original sin means general corruption of the human race which has been diverted from its proper nature."

This might seem picky, but there is reason for it: sin (original or otherwise) is an unnatural state. Against those who would say that "it is human nature to sin", I would argue (and I think that I generally have the backing of the Fathers on this) that human nature is to be sinless - and to "miss this mark" (ie, to sin) is in fact what is unnatural.

That little gripe aside, I think what is coming through here is that it is important to distinguish between two different types of sin:

1. That which is inherited, and not the result of a personal fault.
2. That which is the result of a personal fault.

There have been a number of sources cited in this thread, and I think that the same theme can be identified in most of them, though the terminology is different. Here are some examples of the different terminology:

The (Roman) Catholic Catechism (post #8, tizzi):
1. Original sin.
2. Personal fault.

St John of Damascus (post #16, Jawa Man):
1. Natural/innocent passions.
2. He doesn't explicitly give a name, but we may assume from the previous that he would say something like "guilty passions".

St Gregory of Nyssa (post #18, tizzi):
1. Human weakness.
2. Vicious/moral weakness.

I could probe the significance of the phrases "original holiness" and "original righteousness" which are prominent in the RCC catechism (and in post-schism Western theology in general), as I think there might be a key difference there, but for now I will gloss over it. Apart from that one issue, it would seem that the RCC definition of original sin in the catechism is more-or-less identical to the Orthodox understanding. The catechism seems to teach that Original Sin is essentially that the soul "is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence." If that is what "Original Sin" is, then I think we would more-or-less say "Amen!"

But where things get confusing with respect to what the RCC actually believes comes into play when you start talking about the Immaculate Conception. When we say "St Mary is sinless", the most we would mean by that is that she was without personal fault or vicious/moral weakness. But the IC goes further and says that it means she was without original sin. Ineffabilis Deus announced that "...in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." If, indeed, original sin is being subject to ignorance, suffering and death, as the catechism seems to teach, then we are left with no conclusion other than that the Mother of God was preserved exempt from ignorance, suffering and death.

And yet, the Catholic Encyclopedia tends to indicate that this is not the case:
The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

(From here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm).)

Thus, this article on the Immaculate Conception implicitly draws a distinction between "original sin" and the temporal penalties of Adam - including (eg) death. Indeed, there even appears to be something of a reversal of the above terminology: by the earlier definitions, "depraved emotions" from which she was allegedly exempted would fall under the scope of personal fault/moral weakness, rather than original sin (the inherited component).

I know you get frustrated when you feel that Orthodox are misrepresenting RCC views on original sin, Rusty, but with at least one official RCC document seeingly misrepresenting the RCC view, can you blame us???!!! :smile: Perhaps you know how this apparent contradiction is resolved; if so let's hear it. But at the moment, to me it simply looks to me like a contradiction. If the RCC view of original sin is truly the same as Orthodox view, then the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn't seem to make any sense.

[Rusty T]

If the RCC view of original sin is truly the same as Orthodox view, then the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn't seem to make any sense.

I'll try to get back to you later in the day. Good post, though. I definitely didn't want to get into the Immaculate Conception on this thread, as it was the Immaculate Conception thread that led me to this one! :smile: I did want to ask if you ever got around to reading that article on the Immaculate Conception by the Eastern Catholic fellow. As an aside, while receiving an imprimatur, I wouldn't call the Catholic Encyclopedia an 'official RCC document' - not to degrade it's quality or usefulness. Anyway, I'll get back to you later.

rusty

[Jawa Man]

Probably too late to respond to this now (since Jezz covered it), but I think St. John agrees with St. Gregory. In John's understanding, "vicious weaknesses" are unnatural to man, since it comes from outside influence, even in his fallen state.

I want to apologize too if my post was very long. I didn't think I could say my view in only a few sentences, though. I'm probably not the best at writing out my thoughts.

[Rusty T]

So, just as a preliminary follow up to both Jezz and Jawa (I know Jezz is probably in bed at this hour, so I won't bother to respond at length at the moment), if Christ (according to St. Gregory) took on our natural weaknesses and not our 'vicious weaknesses', does that mean he was 'tainted' (to use EO terminology) with Original Sin? I would say 'No'.

rusty

[Jawa Man]

I think He is. I think this is how He beat the curse of Adam, by submitting to it yet without sin (vicious weakness).

[maudman]

I'm tired of all the confusion about the definition of Original Sin. This is my thread, so let me say firstly that I don't want any rabbit trails. If you can't state your position or the position your church without demeaning another's church, then your post is worthless to me. That doesn't mean we can't challenge one another with questions, but please keep the anti-(insert confession/direction/movement) out of your posts.

That being said, let me put a question to whomever wants to participate under the above guidelines.

What is original sin?

To keep things simple, please don't go off on tangents that aren't related to this particular question. If you can answer it in one or two sentences, it would be great.

Thanks,

Rusty

The Original Sin is a spirit that manifested itself in an act held in suspension through the beguilment of the woman Eve. Who while confronted with a Beast of the Field peddling the religion of Re-incarnation through Pro-Creation (The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). As apposed to the Eternal Life recieved from the Treel of Life of the Spirit of God. THe act of pro-creation was against the covenant with Adam.

But then agian, How one even begins to understand the story of the Garden, you must seperate the man and woman created on the sixth day from the man Called Adam formed on the 8th day, and planted Eastward in Eden in a Garden, Because he wasn't told to be fruitful and multiply as was the man and woman Created on the 6th Day.

He was the first to recieve the breath of Life (holy spirit) breathed into his nostrils, His Purpose was to keep the tree of life, nothing else, He was a type of High Priest of the Lord his job was to tend the trees in the Garden east in Eden.


Peace
MDN

[Rusty T]

I think He is. I think this is how He beat the curse of Adam, by submitting to it yet without sin (vicious weakness).

In Discourses on Man and God, found here (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/on_god_and_man.htm) the author states:

This sin is called “original sin,” (1) because it is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) because it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) because it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man. We should guard against the mistake of thinking that the term in any way implies that the sin designated by it belongs to the original constitution of human nature, which would imply that God created man as a sinner.

In Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, it is stated:

The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned the false teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which stated that the Lord Jesus Christ was not deprived of inward temptations and the battle with passions. If the word of God says that the Son of God came: “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), it is thereby expressing the idea that this flesh was true human flesh, but not sinful flesh; rather, it {human nature of Christ} was completely pure of every sin and corruption, both of the ancestral sin and of voluntary sin. In His earthly life, the Lord was free of any sinful desire, of every inward temptation; for the human nature in Him does not exist separately, but is united hypostatically to the Divinity.

I hope I'm not coming across as difficult.

rusty

[Rusty T]

But where things get confusing with respect to what the RCC actually believes comes into play when you start talking about the Immaculate Conception. When we say "St Mary is sinless", the most we would mean by that is that she was without personal fault or vicious/moral weakness.

Since the subject is broached . . . . Is it truly the 'most' you can say - that Mary 'was without personal fault'?

His Holiness Bartholomew I stated:

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. source

Now, I realize that in that very same interview HH Bartholomew (mistakenly in my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion) elucidates the differences in understanding original sin - yet he makes a statement like the one above, where it seems that he is saying that Mary was placed in the 'condition' of that prior to the Fall.

But the IC goes further and says that it means she was without original sin. Ineffabilis Deus announced that "...in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." If, indeed, original sin is being subject to ignorance, suffering and death, as the catechism seems to teach, then we are left with no conclusion other than that the Mother of God was preserved exempt from ignorance, suffering and death.

The catechism doesn’t say that Original Sin is ‘being subject to ignorance, suffering and death.’ It says that Original Sin is the “state of deprivation of original holiness and justice.” Ignorance, suffering, and death are consequences of this deprivation. Now, how Mary was still subject to death, ignorance, and suffering, I’ll leave to better men than I to contemplate. I do know, however, that I firmly believe that she was formed in holiness, as the hymns of her birth indicate. The how, the mechanics, I’ll leave to those ‘scholastics’ we hear so much about. I’m not one of ‘em.

Thus, this article on the Immaculate Conception implicitly draws a distinction between "original sin" and the temporal penalties of Adam - including (eg) death. Indeed, there even appears to be something of a reversal of the above terminology: by the earlier definitions, "depraved emotions" from which she was allegedly exempted would fall under the scope of personal fault/moral weakness, rather than original sin (the inherited component).

I know you get frustrated when you feel that Orthodox are misrepresenting RCC views on original sin, Rusty, but with at least one official RCC document seeingly misrepresenting the RCC view, can you blame us???!!! Perhaps you know how this apparent contradiction is resolved; if so let's hear it. But at the moment, to me it simply looks to me like a contradiction. If the RCC view of original sin is truly the same as Orthodox view, then the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception doesn't seem to make any sense.

I don’t mind contradictions or paradoxes. They don’t bother me as much as they used to. When dealing with an ineffable God, I can’t believe I’m allowed to even know Him, much less His ways. That He can and does reveal Himself to us is amazing. That being said, I do know that I believe that Christ assumed our human nature, but that He didn’t assume the ‘vicious passions’. I do not think that you can map ‘vicious passions’ to personal sin. St. Gregory the Great, in the work already referenced, in Chapter 16 says,

But if it asserts that God laid hold on this nature of ours, the production of which in the first instance and the subsistence afterwards had its origin in Him, in what way does this our preaching fail in the reverence that befits Him? Amongst our notions of God no disposition tending to weakness goes along with our belief in Him. We do not say that a physician is in weakness when he is employed in healing one who is so. For though he touches the infirmity he is himself unaffected by it. . . . But the feeling of sensual pleasure does go before the human birth, and as to the impulse to vice in all living men, this is a disease of our nature. But then the Gospel mystery asserts that He Who took our nature was pure from both these feelings. If, then, His birth had no connection with sensual pleasure, and His life none with vice, what “weakness” is there left which the mystery of our religion asserts that God participated in? But should any one call the separation of body and soul a weakness, far more justly might he term the meeting together of these two elements such.

This is just how I see the issue.

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

Seconded.

George, at least for this thread, please stick to explaining the Orthodox position, and asking for clarification on the RCC position. Rusty must be finding it very frustrating to be continually told what it is that he believes - especially when it's not quite what he believes.

I will do my best - Please forgive my failures...

For a while at least, I will just lurk...

Sorry...

Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

In Discourses on Man and God, found here (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/on_god_and_man.htm) the author states:

This sin is called “original sin,” (1) because it is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) because it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) because it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man. We should guard against the mistake of thinking that the term in any way implies that the sin designated by it belongs to the original constitution of human nature, which would imply that God created man as a sinner.
But right after the author says, "1. Historical review. According to the Greek Fathers there is a physical corruption in the human race, which is derived from Adam, but this is not sin and does not involve guilt. The freedom of the will was not affected directly by the fall, but is affected only indirectly by the inherited moral corruption." IMO, the passage you quoted does not go against the Orthodox view. (2) doesn't even quite contradict my personal view on how we inherit a darkened mind, because that's not all that makes up original sin - I believe we inherit mortality and pain and suffering, etc. despite the things we do.

In Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, it is stated:

The Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned the false teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which stated that the Lord Jesus Christ was not deprived of inward temptations and the battle with passions. If the word of God says that the Son of God came: “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3), it is thereby expressing the idea that this flesh was true human flesh, but not sinful flesh; rather, it {human nature of Christ} was completely pure of every sin and corruption, both of the ancestral sin and of voluntary sin. In His earthly life, the Lord was free of any sinful desire, of every inward temptation; for the human nature in Him does not exist separately, but is united hypostatically to the Divinity.
I wish this guy said where in the Fifth Council this can be found! I skimmed through the Acts of the Council and didn't see anything about this. I guess I just have to say I disagree. I think this more modern work (late 1800s-ish?) does not maintain what the Fathers taught, at least in this passage. I found the location (thanks to a friend in seminary) of the ever-popular Orthodox quote, "what is not assumed is not healed" and want to post the context here. Speaking about the Apollinarians (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iv.ii.iii.html):
If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.
St. Gregory is speaking about the idea that Christ possessed a body without possessing/making a human mind. Since He does not imitate humanity in each aspect, then, He could not save them. Christ can only save what He assumes. So, He assumes a fallen nature in order to redeem fallen nature. This includes everything associated with a fallen nature, including death, suffering, and whatever your exhaustive list may be. However, He does not assume sin, because as St. John of Damascus pointed out, sin comes from outside of man. So Christ imitates man in everything except sin.

An OCA instruction book agrees with me here (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=19):
As a man Jesus experienced all normal and natural human experiences such as growth and development, ignorance and learning, hunger, thirst, fatigue, sorrow, pain, and disappointment. He also knew human temptation, suffering, and death. He took these things upon himself "for us men and for our salvation."

Since, therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage. For surely it was not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect ... to make expiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted (Heb 2:9-18).

I hope I'm not coming across as difficult.

rusty
Actually, I'm relieved to know that's how you feel, because I always think I am being difficult in your eyes! No, I'm not bothered at all. You have made me re-check my beliefs.

[Rusty T]

But right after the author says, "1. Historical review. According to the Greek Fathers there is a physical corruption in the human race, which is derived from Adam, but this is not sin and does not involve guilt. The freedom of the will was not affected directly by the fall, but is affected only indirectly by the inherited moral corruption." IMO, the passage you quoted does not go against the Orthodox view. (2) doesn't even quite contradict my personal view on how we inherit a darkened mind, because that's not all that makes up original sin - I believe we inherit mortality and pain and suffering, etc. despite the things we do.

"The Orthodox view" that you've expressed seems to contradict 'the Orthodox view' expressed by many I've quoted. The above passage does seem to pose some problems to your position. The author states several things:

1. One consequence of original sin is physical corruption.
2. Freedom of the will was not affected directly.
3. Freedom is affected indirectly by a corrupted morality.

I have posed, and I believe I am right (or I wouldn't pose it :smile:), that rather than equating St. Gregory of Nyssa's 'vicious passions' with personal sin, we should equate them with 'corrupted morality'. If this is true, then with the Fathers we can say that Christ did not possess our corrupted morality. If one only looks at other sources for Orthodox Christians, similar statements seem to exist. For example, in the Orthodox Catechism I've referenced before:

And its consequences? A.) Spiritual death. That is, the separation of man from God, the source of all goodness. B.) Bodily death. That is, the separation of the body from the soul, the return of the body to the earth. C.) The shattering and distortion of the "image." That is, darkness of mind, depravity and corruption of the heart, loss of independence, loss of free will, and tendency towards evil. Since then "the imagination of man's heart is evil "(Genesis 8:21). Man constantly thinks of evil. D.) Guilt. That is, a bad conscience, the shame that made him want to hide from God. E.) Worst of all, original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin. We all of us participate in original sin because we are all descended from the same forefather, Adam. This creates a problem for many people. They ask, Why should we be responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve? Why should we have to pay for the sins of our parents? they say. Unfortunately, this is so, because the consequence of original sin is the distortion of the nature of man. Of course, this is unexplainable and belongs to the realm of mystery, but we can give one example to make it somewhat better understood. Let us say that you have a wild orange tree, from which you make a graft. You will get domesticated oranges, but the root will still be that of the wild orange tree. To have wild oranges again, you must regraft the tree. This is what Christ came for and achieved for fallen man, as we shall see in the following sections. source (http://biserica.org/Publicatii/Catechism/catorsin.htm)

The consequences of Original Sin according to this Catechism:

1. Spiritual death
2. Bodily death
3. Moral corruption of human nature
4. Guilt - not juridically of course
5. Heriditary effects

The same catechism states:

We must state here in very simple terms that although the Son and Word of God became Perfect Man, He became truly perfect, which means He became man without sin, just as Adam and Eve were originally created as sinless beings. Christ has no connection with sin, which entered man through the intervention of Satan.


I wish this guy said where in the Fifth Council this can be found! I skimmed through the Acts of the Council and didn't see anything about this. I guess I just have to say I disagree. I think this more modern work (late 1800s-ish?) does not maintain what the Fathers taught, at least in this passage.

He's simply saying what St. Gregory of Nyssa says: Christ did not assume the 'vicious passions'. I think the Fathers are consistent on this issue.

St. Gregory is speaking about the idea that Christ possessed a body without possessing/making a human mind. Since He does not imitate humanity in each aspect, then, He could not save them. Christ can only save what He assumes. So, He assumes a fallen nature in order to redeem fallen nature. This includes everything associated with a fallen nature, including death, suffering, and whatever your exhaustive list may be. However, He does not assume sin, because as St. John of Damascus pointed out, sin comes from outside of man. So Christ imitates man in everything except sin.

Firstly, let us be clear in what St. Gregory N. is arguing against: the idea that Christ did not have a human rational mind. NewAdvent has a good article on the heresy of Apollinarianism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm). The issue being was raised was Christological, and being Christological, it has its visible and hidden parts - a fact well accounted for in the fathers of the Church. The Councils and definitions set boundaries. We know for example that Christ was both God and man, but one person. That He was all Man and all God, but united in such a way that with St. Gregory we say, "If any introduce the notion of two sons . . . may he lose his part in the adoption . . . ." But the 'how' is often a mystery, and contrary to what is often asserted, Catholics know the boundaries exist. Within the boundaries, let us debate. But outside the boundaries there exists innumerable pitfalls. We know that Christ suffered temptation, hunger, thirst, weariness and myriad other conditions of humanity. This can't be denied, and it can't be assigned to his 'human person' - for this would be dividing that which was unified in the Incarnation. But we are never told that Christ suffered from our 'vicious passions'. We are told that Christ assumed our nature in order to deify it. However, at what point in His life did his happen? Was it at some point in the midst of his life, where suddenly He 'put down' those rising desires of the flesh? Or was it at the moment of the Incarnation, when humanity and man united? I'm only asking these questions, because they are mysteries that I think deserve trepidation. The Tome of St. Leo the Great says:

Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. [B][U]By "ours" we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in the Saviour; and the fact that he took on himself a share in our infirmities did not make him a partaker in our transgressions. He assumed "the form of a servant" without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine

So, we're given our borders. Christ was truly human. He truly assumed our nature. Yet He did not assume the 'vicious passions' common to each of us. These are our borders, let us discuss the intricacies wthin, but not venture out.

An OCA instruction book agrees with me here (http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=19):

I find it slightly ironic that you dismissed a 'modern' Orthodox author of the 19th century, but use an OCA booklet as a source. :smile:. The source, modern though it be, is acutely right, as it doesn't address Christ' non-assumption of our 'vicious passions'.

God bless.

rusty

[Rusty T]

This thread hasn't died, has it? Jawa, how do *you* interpret the words of St. Leo I cited above?

rusty

[apostoli]

Hi Guys,

I've only browsed this thread, So if the following opinion has already been covered - sorry.

Ezekiel 18 makes it clear that we do not inherit personal sin. And Genesis tells us man was made in God's image, so it is apparent that mankind is not inherentantly sinful. However...

In another thread I raised the point that "original" sin comes through the male line of mankind. My reasoning based on A.Paul's comment that through one man sin came into the world and the teaching that while Eve was deceived, Adam followed Eve instead of God (Gen 3:12). Adam put the desires of the flesh (Eve) above God (Gen 3:17). So his sin is not directly one of the flesh, but he directly sinned in the spirit. It is the later that we inherit from Adam. In scripture it seems the Adamic inheritence is the inclination to exclude God from our lives. And thus we are inclined to cater to the whims of our own fleshly pursuits.

Imo the term "original sin" simply refers to the fist example of man sinning. Not to a sin passed from one generation to another. In contrast I do believe that the penalty applied by God, was passed to each generation of the children of Adam and Eve as an education tool. After all, God always planned to give us an out!

Peace and all the best.

[George Blaisdell]

From "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky:

This is the way in which the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs" defines the result of the fall into sin:

""Fallen through the transgression, man became like the irrational creatures. That is, he became darkened and was deprived of perfection and dispassion. But he was not deprived of the nature and power which he had received from the All-Good God. For had he been so deprived, he would have become irrational, and thus not a man. But he preserved that nature with which he had been created, and the free, living and active natural power, so that, according to nature, he might choose and do the good, and flee and turn away from evil." [par. 14]

Out of this dispute [Pelagian] in the West there subsequently were formed two tendencies, one of which was followed by Roman Catholicism, and the other by Protestantism. Roman Catholic theologians consider that the consequence of the fall was the removal from men of a super-natural gift of God's grace, after which man remained in his "natural" condition, his nature not harmed but only brought into disorder because the flesh, the bodily side, has come to dominate over the spiritual side; original sin in this view consists in the fact that the guilt before God of Adam and Eve passed on to all men.

This concept of inherited guilt was affirmed in the fifth session of the Council of Trent [1546], which, in defining the Roman teaching on original sin, referred to "the guilt of original sin." In the 17th and 18th centuries, some Roman Catholic theologians continued to develop Blessed Augustine's teaching on inherited guilt. However, it was in Protestantism rather than Roman Catholicism that the doctrine of inherited guilt, also known as the doctrine of "imputed sin", was given its most extreme formulations. [eg total depravity]

[Rusty T]

Please, let's engage each other with questions, answers, etc - on topic. Anything else is just going to muddy the waters.

rusty

[Johnny MacManky]

Hi tizz... Here're a couple of Nazarene views on Original Sin. We are in the Arminian/Wesleyan/Holiness tradition.

One is a link to part of a Systematic Theology - http://wesley.nnu.edu/holiness_tradition/wiley/wiley-2-19.htm

This is from the Articles of Faith:
V. Sin, Original and Personal
5. We believe that sin came into the world through the disobedience of our first parents, and death by sin. We believe that sin is of two kinds: original sin or depravity, and actual or personal sin.

5.1. We believe that original sin, or depravity, is that corruption of the nature of all the offspring of Adam by reason of which everyone is very far gone from original righteousness or the pure state of our first parents at the time of their creation, is averse to God, is without spiritual life, and inclined to evil, and that continually. We further believe that original sin continues to exist with the new life of the regenerate, until the heart is fully cleansed by the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

5.2. We believe that original sin differs from actual sin in that it constitutes an inherited propensity to actual sin for which no one is accountable until its divinely provided remedy is neglected or rejected.

5.3. We believe that actual or personal sin is a voluntary violation of a known law of God by a morally responsible person. It is therefore not to be confused with involuntary and inescapable shortcomings, infirmities, faults, mistakes, failures, or other deviations from a standard of perfect conduct that are the residual effects of the Fall. However, such innocent effects do not include attitudes or responses contrary to the spirit of Christ, which may properly be called sins of the spirit. We believe that personal sin is primarily and essentially a violation of the law of love; and that in relation to Christ sin may be defined as unbelief.

(Original sin: Genesis 3; 6:5; Job 15:14; Psalm 51:5; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Mark 7:21-23; Romans 1:18-25; 5:12-14; 7:1-8:9; 1 Corinthians 3:1-4; Galatians 5:16-25; 1 John 1:7-8)

(Personal sin: Matthew 22:36-40 {with 1 John 3:4}; John 8:34-36; 16:8-9; Romans 3:23; 6:15-23; 8:18-24; 14:23; 1 John 1:9-2:4; 3:7-10)
Source~http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/visitorcenter/articles/display.aspx


The part I've highlighted is perhaps one of the doctrinal views unique to the Church of the Nazarene.

[Abelard]

Here is the last part of Book II in Augustine's Confessions where he describes the action of original sin in his childhood behavior.

Theft is punished by Thy law, O Lord, and the law written in the
hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not. For what thief
will abide a thief? not even a rich thief, one stealing through
want. Yet I lusted to thieve, and did it, compelled by no hunger,
nor poverty, but through a cloyedness of well-doing, and a
pamperedness of iniquity. For I stole that, of which I had enough, and
much better. Nor cared I to enjoy what I stole, but joyed in the theft
and sin itself. A pear tree there was near our vineyard, laden with
fruit, tempting neither for colour nor taste. To shake and rob this,
some lewd young fellows of us went, late one night (having according
to our pestilent custom prolonged our sports in the streets till
then), and took huge loads, not for our eating, but to fling to the
very hogs, having only tasted them. And this, but to do what we
liked only, because it was misliked. Behold my heart, O God, behold my
heart, which Thou hadst pity upon in the bottom of the bottomless pit.
Now, behold, let my heart tell Thee what it sought there, that I
should be gratuitously evil, having no temptation to ill, but the
ill itself. It was foul, and I loved it; I loved to perish, I loved
mine own fault, not that for which I was faulty, but my fault
itself. Foul soul, falling from Thy firmament to utter destruction;
not seeking aught through the shame, but the shame itself!

For there is an attractiveness in beautiful bodies, in gold and
silver, and all things; and in bodily touch, sympathy hath much
influence, and each other sense hath his proper object answerably
tempered. Wordly honour hath also its grace, and the power of
overcoming, and of mastery; whence springs also the thirst of revenge.
But yet, to obtain all these, we may not depart from Thee, O Lord, nor
decline from Thy law. The life also which here we live hath its own
enchantment, through a certain proportion of its own, and a
correspondence with all things beautiful here below. Human
friendship also is endeared with a sweet tie, by reason of the unity
formed of many souls. Upon occasion of all these, and the like, is sin
committed, while through an immoderate inclination towards these goods
of the lowest order, the better and higher are forsaken,- Thou, our
Lord God, Thy truth, and Thy law. For these lower things have their
delights, but not like my God, who made all things; for in Him doth
the righteous delight, and He is the joy of the upright in heart.

When, then, we ask why a crime was done, we believe it not, unless
it appear that there might have been some desire of obtaining some
of those which we called lower goods, or a fear of losing them. For
they are beautiful and comely; although compared with those higher and
beatific goods, they be abject and low. A man hath murdered another;
why? he loved his wife or his estate; or would rob for his own
livelihood; or feared to lose some such things by him; or, wronged,
was on fire to be revenged. Would any commit murder upon no cause,
delighted simply in murdering? who would believe it? for as for that
furious and savage man, of whom it is said that he was gratuitously
evil and cruel, yet is the cause assigned; "lest" (saith he)
"through idleness hand or heart should grow inactive." And to what
end? that, through that practice of guilt, he might, having taken
the city, attain to honours, empire, riches, and be freed from fear of
the laws, and his embarrassments from domestic needs, and
consciousness of villainies. So then, not even Catiline himself
loved his own villainies, but something else, for whose sake he did
them.

What then did wretched I so love in thee, thou theft of mine, thou
deed of darkness, in that sixteenth year of my age? Lovely thou wert
not, because thou wert theft. But art thou any thing, that thus I
speak to thee? Fair were the pears we stole, because they were Thy
creation, Thou fairest of all, Creator of all, Thou good God; God, the
sovereign good and my true good. Fair were those pears, but not them
did my wretched soul desire; for I had store of better, and those I
gathered, only that I might steal. For, when gathered, I flung them
away, my only feast therein being my own sin, which I was pleased to
enjoy. For if aught of those pears came within my mouth, what
sweetened it was the sin. And now, O Lord my God, I enquire what in
that theft delighted me; and behold it hath no loveliness; I mean
not such loveliness as in justice and wisdom; nor such as is in the
mind and memory, and senses, and animal life of man; nor yet as the
stars are glorious and beautiful in their orbs; or the earth, or
sea, full of embryo-life, replacing by its birth that which
decayeth; nay, nor even that false and shadowy beauty which
belongeth to deceiving vices.

For so doth pride imitate exaltedness; whereas Thou alone art God
exalted over all. Ambition, what seeks it, but honours and glory?
whereas Thou alone art to be honoured above all, and glorious for
evermore. The cruelty of the great would fain be feared; but who is to
be feared but God alone, out of whose power what can be wrested or
withdrawn? when, or where, or whither, or by whom? The tendernesses of
the wanton would fain be counted love: yet is nothing more tender than
Thy charity; nor is aught loved more healthfully than that Thy
truth, bright and beautiful above all. Curiosity makes semblance of
a desire of knowledge; whereas Thou supremely knowest all. Yea,
ignorance and foolishness itself is cloaked under the name of
simplicity and uninjuriousness; because nothing is found more single
than Thee: and what less injurious, since they are his own works which
injure the sinner? Yea, sloth would fain be at rest; but what stable
rest besides the Lord? Luxury affects to be called plenty and
abundance; but Thou art the fulness and never-failing plenteousness of
incorruptible pleasures. Prodigality presents a shadow of
liberality: but Thou art the most overflowing Giver of all good.
Covetousness would possess many things; and Thou possessest all
things. Envy disputes for excellency: what more excellent than Thou?
Anger seeks revenge: who revenges more justly than Thou? Fear startles
at things unwonted and sudden, which endangers things beloved, and
takes forethought for their safety; but to Thee what unwonted or
sudden, or who separateth from Thee what Thou lovest? Or where but
with Thee is unshaken safety? Grief pines away for things lost, the
delight of its desires; because it would have nothing taken from it,
as nothing can from Thee.

Thus doth the soul commit fornication, when she turns from Thee,
seeking without Thee, what she findeth not pure and untainted, till
she returns to Thee. Thus all pervertedly imitate Thee, who remove far
from Thee, and lift themselves up against Thee. But even by thus
imitating Thee, they imply Thee to be the Creator of all nature;
whence there is no place whither altogether to retire from Thee.
What then did I love in that theft? and wherein did I even corruptly
and pervertedly imitate my Lord? Did I wish even by stealth to do
contrary to Thy law, because by power I could not, so that being a
prisoner, I might mimic a maimed liberty by doing with impunity things
unpermitted me, a darkened likeness of Thy Omnipotency? Behold, Thy
servant, fleeing from his Lord, and obtaining a shadow. O
rottenness, O monstrousness of life, and depth of death! could I
like what I might not, only because I might not?

What shall I render unto the Lord, that, whilst my memory recalls
these things, my soul is not affrighted at them? I will love Thee, O
Lord, and thank Thee, and confess unto Thy name; because Thou hast
forgiven me these so great and heinous deeds of mine. To Thy grace I
ascribe it, and to Thy mercy, that Thou hast melted away my sins as it
were ice. To Thy grace I ascribe also whatsoever I have not done of
evil; for what might I not have done, who even loved a sin for its own
sake? Yea, all I confess to have been forgiven me; both what evils I
committed by my own wilfulness, and what by Thy guidance I committed
not. What man is he, who, weighing his own infirmity, dares to ascribe
his purity and innocency to his own strength; that so he should love
Thee the less, as if he had less needed Thy mercy, whereby Thou
remittest sins to those that turn to Thee? For whosoever, called by
Thee, followed Thy voice, and avoided those things which he reads me
recalling and confessing of myself, let him not scorn me, who being
sick, was cured by that Physician, through whose aid it was that he
was not, or rather was less, sick: and for this let him love Thee as
much, yea and more; since by whom he sees me to have been recovered
from such deep consumption of sin, by Him he sees himself to have been
from the like consumption of sin preserved.

What fruit had I then (wretched man!) in those things, of the
remembrance whereof I am now ashamed? Especially, in that theft
which I loved for the theft's sake; and it too was nothing, and
therefore the more miserable I, who loved it. Yet alone I had not done
it: such was I then, I remember, alone I had never done it. I loved
then in it also the company of the accomplices, with whom I did it?
I did not then love nothing else but the theft, yea rather I did
love nothing else; for that circumstance of the company was also
nothing. What is, in truth? who can teach me, save He that
enlighteneth my heart, and discovereth its dark corners? What is it
which hath come into my mind to enquire, and discuss, and consider?
For had I then loved the pears I stole, and wished to enjoy them, I
might have done it alone, had the bare commission of the theft
sufficed to attain my pleasure; nor needed I have inflamed the itching
of my desires by the excitement of accomplices. But since my
pleasure was not in those pears, it was in the offence itself, which
the company of fellow-sinners occasioned.

What then was this feeling? For of a truth it was too foul: and
woe was me, who had it. But yet what was it? Who can understand his
errors? It was the sport, which as it were tickled our hearts, that we
beguiled those who little thought what we were doing, and much
disliked it. Why then was my delight of such sort that I did it not
alone? Because none doth ordinarily laugh alone? ordinarily no one;
yet laughter sometimes masters men alone and singly when on one
whatever is with them, if anything very ludicrous presents itself to
their senses or mind. Yet I had not done this alone; alone I had never
done it. Behold my God, before Thee, the vivid remembrance of my soul;
alone, I had never committed that theft wherein what I stole pleased
me not, but that I stole; nor had it alone liked me to do it, nor
had I done it. O friendship too unfriendly! thou incomprehensible
inveigler of the soul, thou greediness to do mischief out of mirth and
wantonness, thou thirst of others' loss, without lust of my own gain
or revenge: but when it is said, "Let's go, let's do it," we are
ashamed not to be shameless.

Who can disentangle that twisted and intricate knottiness? Foul is
it: I hate to think on it, to look on it. But Thee I long for, O
Righteousness and Innocency, beautiful and comely to all pure eyes,
and of a satisfaction unsating. With Thee is rest entire, and life
imperturbable. Whoso enters into Thee, enters into the joy of his
Lord: and shall not fear, and shall do excellently in the
All-Excellent. I sank away from Thee, and I wandered, O my God, too
much astray from Thee my stay, in these days of my youth, and I became
to myself a barren land.

[Jezz]

Tizz, I apologise for the delay.

I have a couple of quick comments, seeing as how you are trying to keep the thread alive. The rest will require a little more thought from me and might require me to go back to the original books (again)...

Since the subject is broached . . . . Is it truly the 'most' you can say - that Mary 'was without personal fault'?
No, that's not quite what I said. I said that the most we would mean by the term sinless, as applied to the Theotokos, is that she was without personal sin. We would say more about her in general, but that's not generally what we mean when we talk about her "sinlessness".

His Holiness Bartholomew I stated:

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. source

Now, I realize that in that very same interview HH Bartholomew (mistakenly in my sometimes-not-so-humble opinion) elucidates the differences in understanding original sin - yet he makes a statement like the one above, where it seems that he is saying that Mary was placed in the 'condition' of that prior to the Fall.
Sure Tizz, but everyone who receives the Mystery of Baptism is placed in the 'condition' of that prior to the Fall. Everyone who rises from the waters of Baptism is sinless in this sense. This type of sinlessness is thus not unique to the Theotokos - so when we say "the Theotokos is sinless" as though we are saying something that is unique to her, clearly we must be talking about something else.

I do know, however, that I firmly believe that she was formed in holiness, as the hymns of her birth indicate. The how, the mechanics, I’ll leave to those ‘scholastics’ we hear so much about. I’m not one of ‘em.
There is nothing particularly with this sort of attitude that we would disagree with, Rusty. We would be quit happy if the RCC took the attitude that you have taken. Indeed, as you are no doubt aware one of the biggest criticisms we have of the RCC in general (and on this point in particular) is this obsession with speculating as to the mechanics, and then announcing their speculations as dogma.

I don’t mind contradictions or paradoxes. They don’t bother me as much as they used to. When dealing with an ineffable God, I can’t believe I’m allowed to even know Him, much less His ways. That He can and does reveal Himself to us is amazing.
This is a copout.

It's one thing to accept that you don't know the answer to a question - that's humility, and as you say that's what we should expect when dealing with an ineffable God.

However, what you are advocating is not humbly accepting ignorance - but accepting two mutually incompatible answers to the same question, at the same time! That's not being humble - that's just being plain irrational.

As I have remarked before to Max, if you are happy to accept contradictions, then this makes it next to impossible to have a rational argument with you. Ultimately, the only way to show someone the error of their way of thinking by reason only is to show them the contradictions in their view - if all you're going to say is "I know about the contradictions; I just don't care that they exist"... well, basically what you're saying to me is "no matter what you say to me, I'm going to continue to believe what I believe".

That being said, I do know that I believe that Christ assumed our human nature, but that He didn’t assume the ‘vicious passions’. I do not think that you can map ‘vicious passions’ to personal sin. St. Gregory the Great, in the work already referenced, in Chapter 16 says,

But if it asserts that God laid hold on this nature of ours, the production of which in the first instance and the subsistence afterwards had its origin in Him, in what way does this our preaching fail in the reverence that befits Him? Amongst our notions of God no disposition tending to weakness goes along with our belief in Him. We do not say that a physician is in weakness when he is employed in healing one who is so. For though he touches the infirmity he is himself unaffected by it. . . . But the feeling of sensual pleasure does go before the human birth, and as to the impulse to vice in all living men, this is a disease of our nature. But then the Gospel mystery asserts that He Who took our nature was pure from both these feelings. If, then, His birth had no connection with sensual pleasure, and His life none with vice, what “weakness” is there left which the mystery of our religion asserts that God participated in? But should any one call the separation of body and soul a weakness, far more justly might he term the meeting together of these two elements such.

This is just how I see the issue.
Just a note: that was not St Gregory the Great (of Rome), that was St Gregory of Nyssa, and the work was the Great Catechism.

[Rusty T]

No, that's not quite what I said. I said that the most we would mean by the term sinless, as applied to the Theotokos, is that she was without personal sin. We would say more about her in general, but that's not generally what we mean when we talk about her "sinlessness".


Sure Tizz, but everyone who receives the Mystery of Baptism is placed in the 'condition' of that prior to the Fall. Everyone who rises from the waters of Baptism is sinless in this sense. This type of sinlessness is thus not unique to the Theotokos - so when we say "the Theotokos is sinless" as though we are saying something that is unique to her, clearly we must be talking about something else.

Indeed, we are saying something different.


There is nothing particularly with this sort of attitude that we would disagree with, Rusty. We would be quit happy if the RCC took the attitude that you have taken. Indeed, as you are no doubt aware one of the biggest criticisms we have of the RCC in general (and on this point in particular) is this obsession with speculating as to the mechanics, and then announcing their speculations as dogma.

I don't think the RCC definition of the Immaculate Conception is too 'mechanic' or endlessly speculative. Contrary to popular misconceptions, the RCC does leave much to wonder.


This is a copout.

No, it's simply an acknowledgment. I've read similar sentiments from Orthodox theologians.

It's one thing to accept that you don't know the answer to a question - that's humility, and as you say that's what we should expect when dealing with an ineffable God.

Yep.

However, what you are advocating is not humbly accepting ignorance - but accepting two mutually incompatible answers to the same question, at the same time! That's not being humble - that's just being plain irrational.

Ha! 100% Man and 100% God! I'm almost reeling at the irrationality.

As I have remarked before to Max, if you are happy to accept contradictions, then this makes it next to impossible to have a rational argument with you.

I didn't say that it was a contradiction - only that I am able to accept contradiction better than I used to. I didn't concede the point you made. You said, "Indeed, there even appears to be something of a reversal of the above terminology: by the earlier definitions, "depraved emotions" from which she was allegedly exempted would fall under the scope of personal fault/moral weakness, rather than original sin (the inherited component)." As I've discussed at length since that post, 'depraved emotions' are not under 'the scope' of personal fault. So, no contradiction exists.

Ultimately, the only way to show someone the error of their way of thinking by reason only is to show them the contradictions in their view - if all you're going to say is "I know about the contradictions; I just don't care that they exist"... well, basically what you're saying to me is "no matter what you say to me, I'm going to continue to believe what I believe".

Faith works like that sometimes.


Just a note: that was not St Gregory the Great (of Rome), that was St Gregory of Nyssa, and the work was the Great Catechism.

Quite aware. Gregory the Great just rolls off the fingers too easily.

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

Rusty,

Did Original Sin, in the Roman tradition, result in the removal from Adam of the "supernatural divine grace" which he had possessed prior to his sin?

And if yes, are we in that understanding to see our natural state as that which we now have on earth, and the only cure for it as an infusion of supernatural grace?

And if yes, then are we to understand this infusion of supernatural grace by God as the infusion of a grace that God creates for us?

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

Did Original Sin, in the Roman tradition, result in the removal from Adam of the "supernatural divine grace" which he had possessed prior to his sin?

I've been thinking about this off and on all day, as I went about my normal Saturday laziness. After turning it over and over, I thought it best to just cite the relevant passages in the catechism.

375. The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".

376. By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man's life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. (http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=376&FNoteNum=252)The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called "original justice".

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".


399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.
(http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=399&FNoteNum=281)

(http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getnote.cfm?ParNum=399&FNoteNum=281)
400 The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay". Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground", for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.



rusty

[Jezz]

Indeed, we are saying something different.
Glad we can agree on something! :smile:

I don't think the RCC definition of the Immaculate Conception is too 'mechanic' or endlessly speculative.
The argument agains the Immaculate Conception is not that it is "endlessly" speculative. It is that it is speculative, period. I would grant that the RCC doctrine is not "endlessly" speculative - the speculation is limited in its extent (so far). However, it does contain speculation - and that's what we are against. Humbly accept our ignorance of the answer rather than speculating on the answer and then dogmatising the results of our speculation.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, the RCC does leave much to wonder.
Contrary to your misconception :smile:, I wasn't arguing that the RCC doesn't leave much to wonder. I was arguing that they don't leave to wonder many things that God hasn't revealed to us.

No, it's simply an acknowledgment. I've read similar sentiments from Orthodox theologians.
I have read many Orthodox theologians say they are willing to accept ignorance and mystery. I haven't heard many say that they are willing to accept blatant contradiction.

Ha! 100% Man and 100% God! I'm almost reeling at the irrationality.
That's not a contradiction. A contradiction would be: "100% man and 0% man."

I didn't say that it was a contradiction - only that I am able to accept contradiction better than I used to. I didn't concede the point you made.
And I never claimed that you conceded the point that I made. It was the general principle I was arguing against: the whole "I can accept contradiction". If you really are willing to accept contradiction, then there really is no point discussing with you.

Faith works like that sometimes.
Faith is not accepting contradictions. Faith is accepting that the contradiction is merely apparent, rather than real.

Quite aware. Gregory the Great just rolls off the fingers too easily.
That was not so much for your benefit as for those reading. I had assumed you meant Pope Gregory, and it threw me when I discovered it was actually St Gregory of Nyssa.

[Rusty T]

Glad we can agree on something! :smile:

We probably agree more than we disagree. We just tend to focus on the disagreements.

The argument agains the Immaculate Conception is not that it is "endlessly" speculative. It is that it is speculative, period. I would grant that the RCC doctrine is not "endlessly" speculative - the speculation is limited in its extent (so far). However, it does contain speculation - and that's what we are against. Humbly accept our ignorance of the answer rather than speculating on the answer and then dogmatising the results of our speculation.

I don't think it's speculative. I believe it's a holy and right conclusion. That you disagree with that conclusion - I can live with.

Contrary to your misconception :smile:, I wasn't arguing that the RCC doesn't leave much to wonder. I was arguing that they don't leave to wonder many things that God hasn't revealed to us.

And I would argue that the IC is part of Catholic tradition. This isn't the thread for that, but that would be my position.

I have read many Orthodox theologians say they are willing to accept ignorance and mystery. I haven't heard many say that they are willing to accept blatant contradiction.

Then you and I haven't been reading the same people :smile:. A better word for me to use would probably be 'paradox'. You're the logician, so correct me if I mischaracterize a paradox as a self-contradiction.

That's not a contradiction. A contradiction would be: "100% man and 0% man."

As I said, you're the logician.

And I never claimed that you conceded the point that I made. It was the general principle I was arguing against: the whole "I can accept contradiction". If you really are willing to accept contradiction, then there really is no point discussing with you.

I'm willing to accept perceived contradiction. That's simply the case. It's not the case in this particular discussion.

Faith is not accepting contradictions. Faith is accepting that the contradiction is merely apparent, rather than real.

As often happens, you say what I meant to say.

rusty

[Rupert Pupkin]

I don't think that there is any such thing as "original sin" transmitted to us. We all re-enact the fall when we reach an age of understanding due to separation or lack of communion with God - which is the reason that Adam and Eve fell. We all become sinners. The story of Adam and Eve is re-enacted in each individual; it is true existentially for each of us. Each of us is born in a state of innocence and then falls by sinning when God is absent and we then gain the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam and Eve could only sin when God was absent from the garden. God withdrew himself in order to allow it to happen. So at some stage when we reach a certain age God withdraws himself for the same reason (to allow our fall) and we sin.

Infants are not sinners and they do not have "original sin". An infant is innocent fully; that is why Christ said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven". Children carry no guilt. They are not condemned. Away with all theologies that say otherwise!

[Solly]

Me again.

What do the Orthodox, and informed about orthodoxy think of Romanides?

Ancestral Sin
by Dr. John S. Romanides

Excerpts from: Translator's Introduction by Dr. George S. Gabriel

Before "The Ancestral Sin" became widely acclaimed for its unprecedented exposition of the patristic and scholastic traditions in conflict, this work was the doctoral thesis of Fr. John Romanides. For this reason, the author wrote the Introduction primarily as an historic overview of the theological themes that the subsequent chapters examine in considerable detail. In this Translator's Introduction, I offer a theological summary of some of the main themes.

The transgression of Adam and Eve was first called "original sin" (Latin: peccato originali) by Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (d. 430). With its new name, Adam's sin also received a new theology. The term "original sin" is known to everyone in the Western…Christian world today...What the world generally understands about original sin dates from the formulations begun by Augustine…and systematized by the post-Augustinian Theologians...

The Fathers simply could not have called Adam's transgression the original, generic, or first sin, nor could they have imagined God imposing legal guilt for it on all human beings at the moment of their conception. The Fathers assigned responsibility solely to the transgressors: Adam and Eve. Original Sin posed a massive dilemma for the cosmological, [and all]...paradigms of Augustine and the post-Augustinian theologians. After all, in the following scheme of Augustinian...theology, the first man's sin had disturbed the self-contented happiness...of the Unmoved Mover, a philosophically-conceived (Aristotelian) deity that is neither moved by nor moves toward things outside His Divine essence. Moreover, the first man...came into perfection [in this Augustinian world]) and happiness, enjoying the beatific vision of the Divine Essence [unheard of in the Fathers].

Thus the post-Augustinian West saw the Sin of Adam as a fall from the greatest height and an offense of the highest order against the Divine Nature and the very honor of God. Necessity [a pagan idea] in the Divine Nature Itself, dictated certain adjudications: the retributive death of Adam; the imposition of guilt for Adam's Sin and, therefore, the just penalty of death on the entire human race; the Incarnation, suffering, and death of the Son of God for the Infinite Satisfaction of Divine Justice and the restoration of the Divine Honor; the appeasing of the just "wrath" of the Father by the merits of His Son's suffering and death on the Cross, enabling God to absolve men of their sins; and, at the Second Coming of Jesus, to finally lift the penalty of death. In this scheme, the expiatory nature of redemption and of spiritual life is consequent to and built on the presuppositions of the Latin teaching of Original sin. Virtually all of the Western influences that have entered into Eastern Orthodox thought in the last four centuries spring from these cosmological, anthropological, and soteriological doctrines.

http://www.descentoftheholyspirit.org/excerpt4.html

[Rusty T]

Virtually all of the Western influences that have entered into Eastern Orthodox thought in the last four centuries spring from these cosmological, anthropological, and soteriological doctrines.

I'd say, "Fie." The author seems to have forgotten about Tertullian's Treatise on the Soul - among other blatant teachings in the Church Fathers. In other words, "West is bad, bad, bad. Anything in the East that looks like the West, doesn't really (so don't worry your little head about that, ok?) - after all, the West, with it's nefarious ways has infiltrated the East."

rusty

[Solly]

Right. Your not an expert are you. :wink:

Seriously though, i have just read his article on original sin in paul - on the net somewhere - and it matches my own thinking, although I would generally say that Orthodox doctrine needs translating into a functional, from a mystical, language. He outlines a monist understanding of human being, for a start.

[Rusty T]

Right. Your not an expert are you. :wink:

Not sure what you meant by that, but nope, I'm not an expert. In anything.

Seriously though, i have just read his article on original sin in paul - on the net somewhere - and it matches my own thinking, although I would generally say that Orthodox doctrine needs translating into a functional, from a mystical, language. He outlines a monist understanding of human being, for a start.[/quote]

Even when I was on my way to the Orthodox Church, I would read Romanides and shake my head. He falls too easily into the anti-Westernism that pervades the Orthodox Church today.

[George Blaisdell]

What do the Orthodox, and informed about orthodoxy think of Romanides?

Father John is [was] a very traditional Orthodox teacher, a professor of theology, and profoundly pro-Orthodox Holy Tradition, and very much against the western scholastic tradition that he saw as infiltrating Orthodox thought... To the traditional wing of Orthodoxy, he is dear... To the liberal wing, he is problematic... His focus is on the discipleship that leads one to God through purification of the heart, enlightenment of the mind [nous], and theosis. And indeed, this is what the Faith is about. It is not about religion and the imposition of Church authority, but is all about preparing oneself in discipleship such that one will receive the saving grace of Christ through the Holy Spirit. And this takes as its starting point, not the theological ideas of Christianity from the ages, and their exposition, and their assessment, and one's choosing of the best ones according to one's intellectual lights, but instead requires purification of the heart, and this by repentance, and this by seeking obedience from the Church. This in direct opposition to the Roman view that the Church is the AUTHORITY to which authority's imposition one must SUBMIT... Obedience is instead something granted [or not] by request - It is never imposed... Free will is the fundamental precept, and Fr. Romanides is very clear on what it takes to get from where one is to where God wants one to be...

And it was from him that I learned of the epistemological prerequisite of repentance unto enlightenment of the nous, to the understanding theology... Theology is simply not understood intellectually, but its understanding can be intellectively expressed... AND, it can be spiritually taught in silence... And this understanding is profoundly foreign to most western ears, yet easily finds a home among Greek and Russian and other eastern Orthodox Christians... Indeed, the Eastern approach is apophatic, both in theology, and subsequently in discipleship...

Western neo-scholastic intellectuals who have not attained illumination of the nous through repentance tend to try to trivialize Fr. John by attacking his anti-western bias, which he does have... And all I can say to that, as a guy with a degree in Greek Philosophy, is that when I ran out of everything in my scholastic road to perdition, and received the illumination of the nous by divine intervention, all I could excalim at the time was: "THIS changes EVERYTHING..." My whole ultra-rationally understood world turned inside out, backwards, and upside down... Nothing was the same at all... And I had no idea that this was a Christian experience at the time - I just knew that no Christians I knew understood it, and certainly none knew how to disciple it... Nor did I... Yet Orthodoxy does disciple it to all... It was from this event that I RECOGNIZED Orthodoxy as the truth... For what happened to me is common in Orthodoxy...

And as a fellow witness to this truth, I offer St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who upon having the same thing happen to him late in life, during one of his times of prayer, cancelled his classes and retired to the cloister of his room, never to write again or to teach. And when asked why, his response was: "Everything I have written is straw..." I understand he died a year and a half later... What happened to him is what is normally discipled in Orthodoxy, by Traditionalists like Fr. John, who speaks from knowledge...

If discipleship does not lead you to know God, it is not worth having... Not in Christianity... And this is what Fr. John Romanides never lost sight of...

I love the man...

Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

This thread hasn't died, has it? Jawa, how do *you* interpret the words of St. Leo I cited above?

rusty
Sorry, for most of this time I was in Belgium! I saw some cool Catholic Churches by the way. I even visited my first Marian grotto!

[Jawa Man]

Hey, tizz. Your first part of your post I don't have a response to right now. It seems to me that this catechism, and others that you have quoted elsewhere, hold a view of original sin I disagree with. Maybe I am wrong. Strangely enough, I own the catechism that you quoted in your post, and when I first read it I had the same reaction when I got to the part about original sin! I'm going to bring the catechism with me and ask my priest, hopefully, tomorrow.
The Tome of St. Leo the Great says:

Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours. By "ours" we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore; for of that which the deceiver brought in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in the Saviour; and the fact that he took on himself a share in our infirmities did not make him a partaker in our transgressions. He assumed "the form of a servant" without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine

So, we're given our borders. Christ was truly human. He truly assumed our nature. Yet He did not assume the 'vicious passions' common to each of us. These are our borders, let us discuss the intricacies wthin, but not venture out.
I don't see your understanding of original sin in the Tome (as in, inheriting a corrupted morality). I think a person could, as easily, say that Leo was talking about personal sin, not inherited sin.

I find it slightly ironic that you dismissed a 'modern' Orthodox author of the 19th century, but use an OCA booklet as a source. :smile:. The source, modern though it be, is acutely right, as it doesn't address Christ' non-assumption of our 'vicious passions'.
I mentioned the OCA booklet as a source only to show that there are Orthodox authors, who do not support your source's view, also around today. I am still unconvinced about your interpretation of vicious passions, though right now my mind is in a stalemate over the issue.

[Rupert Pupkin]

And as a fellow witness to this truth, I offer St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who upon having the same thing happen to him late in life, during one of his times of prayer, cancelled his classes and retired to the cloister of his room, never to write again or to teach. And when asked why, his response was: "Everything I have written is straw..." I understand he died a year and a half later... What happened to him is what is normally discipled in Orthodoxy, by Traditionalists like Fr. John, who speaks from knowledge...

Hi George. Let me explain my problem with this. I am sure that Fr. John and many Orthodox people throughout history have received the kind of "mystical enlightenment" that you are talking about. But I do not think it follows from this that their teaching or doctrine was subsequently necessarily perfect or inerrant.

I can't see any good reason for assuming that at all, and I can see a lot of evidence against it. Indeed, I seriously doubt that St. Thomas suddenly became convinced of the truth of Eastern Orthodoxy - if he did, why did he remain within the Roman Catholic Church? It sounds more to me like he came to the conclusion from his mystical experience that all expressions of theology, doctrine, and dogma are unable to capture the divine essence.

What I think is happening with EO folks, is they have a mystical experience of God, and this confirms for them the rightness of Eastern Orthodoxy. But that is not evidence for the rightness of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is just that the mystical experience has a "confirming" character on what they already believe. To a Roman Catholic, the same mystical experience would confirm Roman Catholicism, to a Protestant it would confirm Protestantism.

There obviously has to be some boundaries somewhere - unless we are complete religious pluralists we wouldn't want to say that a mystical experience of God can legitimately "confirm", say, Islam. That is, if a Muslim claims such mystical confirmation, we would want to say that they are mistaken. But I also don't think we want to get too "narrow" in what an encounter with God can confirm. That is, mystical union with God is possible for people from many different Christian traditions and just isn't definitive in relation to doctrine.

[George Blaisdell]

Hi George. Let me explain my problem with this. I am sure that Fr. John and many Orthodox people throughout history have received the kind of "mystical enlightenment" that you are talking about. But I do not think it follows from this that their teaching or doctrine was subsequently necessarily perfect or inerrant.

I can't see any good reason for assuming that at all, and I can see a lot of evidence against it. Indeed, I seriously doubt that St. Thomas suddenly became convinced of the truth of Eastern Orthodoxy - if he did, why did he remain within the Roman Catholic Church? It sounds more to me like he came to the conclusion from his mystical experience that all expressions of theology, doctrine, and dogma are unable to capture the divine essence.

What I think is happening with EO folks, is they have a mystical experience of God, and this confirms for them the rightness of Eastern Orthodoxy. But that is not evidence for the rightness of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is just that the mystical experience has a "confirming" character on what they already believe. To a Roman Catholic, the same mystical experience would confirm Roman Catholicism, to a Protestant it would confirm Protestantism.

There obviously has to be some boundaries somewhere - unless we are complete religious pluralists we wouldn't want to say that a mystical experience of God can legitimately "confirm", say, Islam. That is, if a Muslim claims such mystical confirmation, we would want to say that they are mistaken. But I also don't think we want to get too "narrow" in what an encounter with God can confirm. That is, mystical union with God is possible for people from many different Christian traditions and just isn't definitive in relation to doctrine.


We do not ascribe inerrancy to anyone...

As to spiritual experience, I can only say that I wandered for almost 20 years looking for some confirmation of what had happened with me, and found it not, until Orthodoxy, which is full of that very kind of experience, which I clearly recognized upon initial apprehension.

I don't know what else I can say...

I did NOT affirm the belief system I had in possession when the 'experiences' first came... You are right, this is what many do...

Arsenios

[Rupert Pupkin]

Thanks for your response George. I always appreciate your honesty.

I also have experienced God in a powerful way in my life over a period of time. That journey has led me to agree with Eastern Orthodoxy on many things, but it has not led me to embrace it completely, nor have I abandoned many Protestant distinctives. But I certainly respect your position, thinking and faith.

[Abelard]

God entered my life during a period when 'apostate' would have been a polite classification. I identified with John Wesley and his Aldersgate experience when I was introduced to proper Methodism years later.

[George Blaisdell]

Thanks for your response George. I always appreciate your honesty.

I also have experienced God in a powerful way in my life over a period of time. That journey has led me to agree with Eastern Orthodoxy on many things, but it has not led me to embrace it completely, nor have I abandoned many Protestant distinctives. But I certainly respect your position, thinking and faith.

I did not, and do not, have the luxury of picking and choosing "my" faith... Nor of inventing it... I am pretty much a slave to my very voluntary servitude in Orthodoxy... And this because of the abyss that is ever alongside of me... Paul was much under a similar onus, in that he had done so much that was evil to Christ through persecuting Christians, that when the Truth came to Him, and he embraced it, he had no grounds for resisting the sufferings that God placed him under, that he be an Apostle to the Ethnoi... Had he turned away from Christ, it would have gone VERY badly for him... Indeed, he even says so in one of his epistles... So he learned to embrace and rejoice in his sufferings for the Ekklesia... And they were many and prolonged... And Paul, when he was blinded, was sent to the Church, to Ananias, to be given through his hands the Holy Spirit via baptism and anointing... I feel much the same in the leading I have had... I tried hanging out in Protestant and even a Catholic Church, but it wasn't happening... Not after what had happened with me... I only met one guy in some 15 years who had gone through what I had, and we recognized each other immediately - He was passing through town and locked himself out of his car, and I came to get him in... Love at first sight! I haven't thought of him in a while... But he knew...

So I wish you well in your deliberations in ecclecticism... I can tell you I have lived with five awesome women in my lifetime, being an ecclectic in relationships, and never married... Yet marriage is what is needed with Christ... So I am married now at last... And celibate in the end, Glory to God! It has been some kind of a ride! So I would challenge you to question your ecclecticism... Because it puts you, instead of God, in charge of your faith...

And with that, I will quit meddling...

Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

Hey tizz- since I posted what I did I asked my priest and a seminarian friend, and both weren't sure if Christ inherited our fallen nature fully. I'm beginning to think this is an area that isn't strictly defined. It reminds me once of stories I heard from some Orthodox source that Christ never got sick: this suggests He did not have original sin at all, barring Him from even death, and so His own death was completely by His own will. However, I've also seen Orthodox criticisms of this view. Just want you to know that I haven't forgotten.

[Anoetos]

I believe with Augustine that all Adam's progeny have inherited his guilt as well as the penalty of death.

I do believe that this is too often expressed in juridical language and prefer to understand concupiscence as a more generalized tendency to sin which is itself sinful since it reflects a heart-state which is at enmity with God.

[Rusty T]

Hey tizz- since I posted what I did I asked my priest and a seminarian friend, and both weren't sure if Christ inherited our fallen nature fully. I'm beginning to think this is an area that isn't strictly defined. It reminds me once of stories I heard from some Orthodox source that Christ never got sick: this suggests He did not have original sin at all, barring Him from even death, and so His own death was completely by His own will. However, I've also seen Orthodox criticisms of this view. Just want you to know that I haven't forgotten.

:smile: thanks for getting back to me . . . I, too, am coming to better understand my own position on this topic thanks to this discussion. I'm glad, at least, to see that you are at least understanding a bit of why I developed a twitch when hearing, "the Orthodox position" concerning Original Sin.

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

:smile: thanks for getting back to me . . . I, too, am coming to better understand my own position on this topic thanks to this discussion. I'm glad, at least, to see that you are at least understanding a bit of why I developed a twitch when hearing, "the Orthodox position" concerning Original Sin.

rusty

Rusty, I doubtless owe you more apologies than my larynx could handle, but the more we have been talking here, the more I am coming to realize, that you are right. The "Orthodox Understanding" on a whole ton of Roman Catholic doctrinal stances is a myth, and the reason is that the east never addressed the questions that the Roman west did, in the pursuit of the Reformation of the Papacy in the 9th century... The whole idea of codifying the tenets of Scripture authoritatively and legalisticly [eg scholastically] simply never occurred in the east... The whole matter of systematizing the Faith... It simply was a non-event in the east, but a necessary one in the west given their Reformation of the Papacy...

So that I am going to have to modify, thanks to your wonderful persistence, my way of referring to the way the Eastern Christian phronema approaches the issues raised in the Roman defense of Her Reformation in the 1000s... I don't exactly know how I will manage to do so, but the whole approach is different... The eastern approach is very much non-scholastic, and non-philosophical... It is patristic and experientially descriptive... Universities have never been the hotbed of theological discovery and knowledge in the east... But the ascetic deserts of their monasteries sure are... Even to this very day and hour... So we have differences that are more profound, I should imagine, than I had initially envisioned...

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

So we have differences that are more profound, I should imagine, than I had initially envisioned...

Well, ain't that the most depressing thing I've heard all day.

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

Well, ain't that the most depressing thing I've heard all day.
rusty

Well, I have been putting forth this idea that there is a real difference between the eastern and the western mind-set, only to have it peppered with charges of "East=good, West=bad prejudiciating... And so I had kind of backed off, because I was only apprehending it intuitively - I can tell the difference in about 10 words normally... - And because I was just taking someone's word for it who was Orthodox, and because the acquisition of the Orthodox spiritual way of life is so much the objective of our every effort, and especially if that effort is to be successful, in the actual acquiring of the Faith... So I kind of back-slid a bit, and especially so if all it is going to do is irritate folks...

And then I start reading about the Papal reform movement in the RCC in the 9th century, and how the spectacular success of it came through both great need and great dedication of its founders, and how the west came to see itself in terms of this newly defined Papacy that was going to be a huge political factor in the west, and how it was that the western scholastic tradition became the apologetic arm of the Papacy, and the whole of it conceived in very legalistic terms, with the Curia actually being a judiciary, staffed by highly trained, and theologically trained as well, mind you, corps of very competent lawyers, and how the faith and the canons all became systematized and a matter of proof... And this is the birth of the west... And how profoundly at odds it is with the non-legalistic east, which never saw the Church as primarily an organizational entity, but a mystical one...

It is two entirely different worlds, Rusty...

Depression is but the first fruit of dis-illusionment, my brother...

The second is lack of illusion...

Forgive me my presumption...

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

Oh, I'm not disillusion, George. I merely disagree. You have a tendency to begin a work on one subject then buy hook and sinker.

Regardless, you're off-topic.

rusty

[George Blaisdell]

Oh, I'm not disillusioned, George.
rusty

Well, I am...

It took me some time to learn to pray for dis-illusionment...

You see, if you are not dis-illusioned...

Then you are illusioned...

So if you like, I will pray for YOUR dis-illusionment...

And how do you make your mouth to say that I have a tendency to ramble??

:rofl:

Arsenios the Rambler...

[Solly]

Father John is [was] a very traditional Orthodox teacher, a professor of theology, and profoundly pro-Orthodox Holy Tradition, and very much against the western scholastic tradition that he saw as infiltrating Orthodox thought... To the traditional wing of Orthodoxy, he is dear... To the liberal wing, he is problematic... His focus is on the discipleship that leads one to God through purification of the heart, enlightenment of the mind [nous], and theosis. And indeed, this is what the Faith is about. It is not about religion and the imposition of Church authority, but is all about preparing oneself in discipleship such that one will receive the saving grace of Christ through the Holy Spirit. And this takes as its starting point, not the theological ideas of Christianity from the ages, and their exposition, and their assessment, and one's choosing of the best ones according to one's intellectual lights, but instead requires purification of the heart, and this by repentance, and this by seeking obedience from the Church. This in direct opposition to the Roman view that the Church is the AUTHORITY to which authority's imposition one must SUBMIT... Obedience is instead something granted [or not] by request - It is never imposed... Free will is the fundamental precept, and Fr. Romanides is very clear on what it takes to get from where one is to where God wants one to be...

And it was from him that I learned of the epistemological prerequisite of repentance unto enlightenment of the nous, to the understanding theology... Theology is simply not understood intellectually, but its understanding can be intellectively expressed... AND, it can be spiritually taught in silence... And this understanding is profoundly foreign to most western ears, yet easily finds a home among Greek and Russian and other eastern Orthodox Christians... Indeed, the Eastern approach is apophatic, both in theology, and subsequently in discipleship...

Western neo-scholastic intellectuals who have not attained illumination of the nous through repentance tend to try to trivialize Fr. John by attacking his anti-western bias, which he does have... And all I can say to that, as a guy with a degree in Greek Philosophy, is that when I ran out of everything in my scholastic road to perdition, and received the illumination of the nous by divine intervention, all I could excalim at the time was: "THIS changes EVERYTHING..." My whole ultra-rationally understood world turned inside out, backwards, and upside down... Nothing was the same at all... And I had no idea that this was a Christian experience at the time - I just knew that no Christians I knew understood it, and certainly none knew how to disciple it... Nor did I... Yet Orthodoxy does disciple it to all... It was from this event that I RECOGNIZED Orthodoxy as the truth... For what happened to me is common in Orthodoxy...

And as a fellow witness to this truth, I offer St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who upon having the same thing happen to him late in life, during one of his times of prayer, cancelled his classes and retired to the cloister of his room, never to write again or to teach. And when asked why, his response was: "Everything I have written is straw..." I understand he died a year and a half later... What happened to him is what is normally discipled in Orthodoxy, by Traditionalists like Fr. John, who speaks from knowledge...

If discipleship does not lead you to know God, it is not worth having... Not in Christianity... And this is what Fr. John Romanides never lost sight of...

I love the man...

Arsenios

Hi George/Arsenios

Thanks for this. I had forgotten about this thread, so belated thanks.

As for his anti-Western we-have-it-right bias, well, I've come across that before, but strangely, i have also come across similar anti-Protestant bias in the RCC, and anti-RCC bias in the Protestant church. It's par for the course it seems, and easily ignored, but this thread almost got derailed on its appearance here, whereas his view on original sin lead to little discussion. I do think we need to go outside the western legal tradition to get a handle on original sin, as well as adopt some of the therapeutic terminology of the East in looking at Christ's work in relation to it. But as i said, being a die hard modernist protestant, we need something different in the West than a simple importation of Eastern Orthodoxy. Something functionalist, rather than essentialist; more psychological than mystical; more secular than religious, but that's another thread...

[Jawa Man]

Hey again, tizz. I started a thread about Christ inheriting human nature on monachos, and I thought you'd be interested to see it. http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=43116#post43116

[Solly]

Father John is [was] a very traditional Orthodox teacher, a professor of theology, and profoundly pro-Orthodox Holy Tradition, and very much against the western scholastic tradition that he saw as infiltrating Orthodox thought... To the traditional wing of Orthodoxy, he is dear... To the liberal wing, he is problematic... His focus is on the discipleship that leads one to God through purification of the heart, enlightenment of the mind [nous], and theosis. And indeed, this is what the Faith is about. It is not about religion and the imposition of Church authority, but is all about preparing oneself in discipleship such that one will receive the saving grace of Christ through the Holy Spirit. And this takes as its starting point, not the theological ideas of Christianity from the ages, and their exposition, and their assessment, and one's choosing of the best ones according to one's intellectual lights, but instead requires purification of the heart, and this by repentance, and this by seeking obedience from the Church. This in direct opposition to the Roman view that the Church is the AUTHORITY to which authority's imposition one must SUBMIT... Obedience is instead something granted [or not] by request - It is never imposed... Free will is the fundamental precept, and Fr. Romanides is very clear on what it takes to get from where one is to where God wants one to be...

And it was from him that I learned of the epistemological prerequisite of repentance unto enlightenment of the nous, to the understanding theology... Theology is simply not understood intellectually, but its understanding can be intellectively expressed... AND, it can be spiritually taught in silence... And this understanding is profoundly foreign to most western ears, yet easily finds a home among Greek and Russian and other eastern Orthodox Christians... Indeed, the Eastern approach is apophatic, both in theology, and subsequently in discipleship...

Western neo-scholastic intellectuals who have not attained illumination of the nous through repentance tend to try to trivialize Fr. John by attacking his anti-western bias, which he does have... And all I can say to that, as a guy with a degree in Greek Philosophy, is that when I ran out of everything in my scholastic road to perdition, and received the illumination of the nous by divine intervention, all I could excalim at the time was: "THIS changes EVERYTHING..." My whole ultra-rationally understood world turned inside out, backwards, and upside down... Nothing was the same at all... And I had no idea that this was a Christian experience at the time - I just knew that no Christians I knew understood it, and certainly none knew how to disciple it... Nor did I... Yet Orthodoxy does disciple it to all... It was from this event that I RECOGNIZED Orthodoxy as the truth... For what happened to me is common in Orthodoxy...

And as a fellow witness to this truth, I offer St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who upon having the same thing happen to him late in life, during one of his times of prayer, cancelled his classes and retired to the cloister of his room, never to write again or to teach. And when asked why, his response was: "Everything I have written is straw..." I understand he died a year and a half later... What happened to him is what is normally discipled in Orthodoxy, by Traditionalists like Fr. John, who speaks from knowledge...

If discipleship does not lead you to know God, it is not worth having... Not in Christianity... And this is what Fr. John Romanides never lost sight of...

I love the man...

Arsenios

I'm not at work today George, but this has stayed with me overnight, and I can't shake it off, like a burr caught in a woollen jumper, so i have come down to the library to post. Tell me more. I didn't get no edjumacation, but I had been reading philosophy for over ten years when God came in. But all I had to turn to was firstly a Charismatic church, which was all about the gay abandon of the senses, and then Calvinism, thinking that returning to an intellectual path was probably what I required. But always there have been things that pointed elsehwere, Therese of Lisieux, Henri Nouwen, even Iris Murdoch. So please tell me more; online resources would be good. i have an electronic edition of the ECF's if that is any help, and i know abut St Pachomius Library. The Philokalia, maybe?

Bless *slly

[George Blaisdell]

I'm not at work today George, but this has stayed with me overnight, and I can't shake it off, like a burr caught in a woollen jumper, so i have come down to the library to post. Tell me more. I didn't get no edjumacation, but I had been reading philosophy for over ten years when God came in. But all I had to turn to was firstly a Charismatic church, which was all about the gay abandon of the senses, and then Calvinism, thinking that returning to an intellectual path was probably what I required. But always there have been things that pointed elsehwere, Therese of Lisieux, Henri Nouwen, even Iris Murdoch. So please tell me more; online resources would be good. i have an electronic edition of the ECF's if that is any help, and i know abut St Pachomius Library. The Philokalia, maybe?

Bless *slly

My brother, I have a degree in Aristotelian philosophy... I followed Ayn Rand for many years, teaching her ideas... And I took, from that, the low road into the darkness at the bottom of my soul, and having spent 2 and 1/2 years there, God came to this old athiest at age 37, and much like you, I looked around for some accounting for what had happened to me, and found nothing. Protestant churchmen had no idea of how to talk with me at all, and most figured I was just deceived. And the Romans wanted me with open arms, but were far far to gnostic and new age at that time [they are tightening up their ship these days]... And the whole new age movement was endlessly shallow and did not touch what I had experienced...

So when I first started reading the Philokalia, I was shocked to RECOGNIZE men writing who knew what I had experienced, and who had experienced the same themselves, and who knew how to disciple what God had led me through in my sinfulness... I struggled with Orthodoxy until I read Father John, and he makes it very simple - Purification of the heart, unto the enlightening of the nous [mind] by God, and then union with God [Theosis] in power [personal Pentecost]... Or as the Orthodox sing every Liturgy: "In Thy Light shall we see Light..."

A good page on line with Romanides is: http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm You can read many articles of his there, and books even - Metropolitan Hierotheos is another wonderfully simple and traditional Orthodox writer... Way of the Pilgrim is a wonderful book to start with the Jesus Prayer, and there are many, many good books...

Also online is the Pelagius site... http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/index.htm You can read like every OTHER chapter in selected books there...

My brother, I can feel your anguish for the sense of holiness that you experienced in your awakening and calling, and how it just is not there in the services you attend and the churches you go to... That anguish is good news indeed... You need the genuine article... Both intellectually, and ontologically... In holiness and sacred reality...

Glory to God!

Arsenios

[Solly]

My brother, I have a degree in Aristotelian philosophy... I followed Ayn Rand for many years, teaching her ideas... And I took, from that, the low road into the darkness at the bottom of my soul, and having spent 2 and 1/2 years there, God came to this old athiest at age 37, and much like you, I looked around for some accounting for what had happened to me, and found nothing. Protestant churchmen had no idea of how to talk with me at all, and most figured I was just deceived. And the Romans wanted me with open arms, but were far far to gnostic and new age at that time [they are tightening up their ship these days]... And the whole new age movement was endlessly shallow and did not touch what I had experienced...

So when I first started reading the Philokalia, I was shocked to RECOGNIZE men writing who knew what I had experienced, and who had experienced the same themselves, and who knew how to disciple what God had led me through in my sinfulness... I struggled with Orthodoxy until I read Father John, and he makes it very simple - Purification of the heart, unto the enlightening of the nous [mind] by God, and then union with God [Theosis] in power [personal Pentecost]... Or as the Orthodox sing every Liturgy: "In Thy Light shall we see Light..."

A good page on line with Romanides is: http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm You can read many articles of his there, and books even - Metropolitan Hierotheos is another wonderfully simple and traditional Orthodox writer... Way of the Pilgrim is a wonderful book to start with the Jesus Prayer, and there are many, many good books...

Also online is the Pelagius site... http://www.vic.com/~tscon/pelagia/htm/index.htm You can read like every OTHER chapter in selected books there...

My brother, I can feel your anguish for the sense of holiness that you experienced in your awakening and calling, and how it just is not there in the services you attend and the churches you go to... That anguish is good news indeed... You need the genuine article... Both intellectually, and ontologically... In holiness and sacred reality...

Glory to God!

Arsenios


Wow, another long lost twin brother (the other being Hegemon). I started with Ayn Rand too!! Then on into Aristotle, widening into economics (von Mises, Hayek etc) and politics (libertarianism). But even then something else came in - since I got into Ayn Rand via SF (Harlan Ellison and Robert heinlein actually) and Star Trek - and initially that came from the SF novels The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. Not that I recommend it, but it was like frost acting on the wall of my rationalism. Eventually I ended up at Nietzsche - and again, for those who know how to look, there is a lot there, but only in embryo, for he never stayed sane long enough to see the project through; but he knew philosophy should be lived! And of course he was reacting against rationalist Lutheranism, as was Kierkegaard. pace any one else here, but the church culture I got involed in eventually struck me as just so much busyness and excitement for bored midle classites; the turn to Calvinism gave the patina of self-righteousness - we are right and will be saved, though all the world go to hell - that we took to be the mark of the elect - you just have to read some of its representatives here. But the spirituality - if one can use that word - just ends up as too moralistic, too legalistic, and not focused on being changed from glory to glory: not that it isn't there, but you sometimes have to dig through a lot of rock to find the ore.

Thanks for the links, i will check them out.

[George Blaisdell]

Wow, another long lost twin brother (the other being Hegemon). I started with Ayn Rand too!! Then on into Aristotle, widening into economics (von Mises, Hayek etc) and politics (libertarianism). But even then something else came in - since I got into Ayn Rand via SF (Harlan Ellison and Robert heinlein actually) and Star Trek - and initially that came from the SF novels The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. Not that I recommend it, but it was like frost acting on the wall of my rationalism. Eventually I ended up at Nietzsche - and again, for those who know how to look, there is a lot there, but only in embryo, for he never stayed sane long enough to see the project through; but he knew philosophy should be lived! And of course he was reacting against rationalist Lutheranism, as was Kierkegaard. pace any one else here, but the church culture I got involed in eventually struck me as just so much busyness and excitement for bored midle classites; the turn to Calvinism gave the patina of self-righteousness - we are right and will be saved, though all the world go to hell - that we took to be the mark of the elect - you just have to read some of its representatives here. But the spirituality - if one can use that word - just ends up as too moralistic, too legalistic, and not focused on being changed from glory to glory: not that it isn't there, but you sometimes have to dig through a lot of rock to find the ore.

Thanks for the links, i will check them out.

Stunning... I loved "Time Enough for Love"... Knew NB by the name Nathan, in his home and offices in Los Angeles - Knew his first wife Barbara, and not so much [very little, in fact] his second wife, Devers... For by then, I was discovering that the healing my soul needed was not going to be found in "Objectivist Psychotherapy"... And indeed, the rift between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Brandon tells the whole story of the bankruptcy of that philosophy... [My senior thesis was on Ayn Rand and Aristotle and the theory of universals]...

In the course of tracking down my demons, I waded through more psychological turf, my own soul-turf, than the law should allow - Some that it doesn't! - And came to the end of that trail, and had failed... And was miserable... And without hope of any kind... I accepted that I had failed, and that the trail was at the end... I was not even suicidal, having left depression far behind in the quest... I just knew for an absolute fact that I would not be alive in 6 months, and that it was over, and I was not angry, or sad, or anything. Just beat, and simply over it...

And as you doubtless know, whenever someone gets to this hinge in the chiasmus, even if he has not read Psalm 50's "A heart that is broken and humbled Thou wilt not despise," that is precisely the very time that one either goes very bad, or God steps in... And after a week of the temptations of a valueless life [they are scary], God entered...

So yes, we are on the same track - And there are a surprising number of Ayn Rand followers who have become Orthodox... And every one of them through direct divine intervention, and not through being "witnessed to" by "born-agains"... The love of truth in that following has much to say for it...

Utterly stunning...

Glory to God!

Arsenios

[spiritmech]

I have found this to be the case as well. I have never read Romanides but I can say without joking that I have gotten better since I have become Orthodox.

I have found the same sort of ... experience ... ladder ... progress? in the West. If someone is curious, I can pm them where I've found it in the West. It has very little to do with propositional truth and very much to do with experiencing the power of God's work on the heart.

Yet even as I feel "better" I see now (without delusion) the deepness of my depravity in God, while holding on to the hope that God can heal all, if I let Him.

In addition, I've found this sort of truth in the Orthodox Church not so much by reading, but even moreso by just attending church. Show up. Listen. Receive the Body and Blood. One cannot really learn Orthodoxy by a book, even though I was profoundly affected by Orthodoxy even before I walked into a Divine Liturgy.

sm
p.s. Enjoying life much more than when he was reading Nietzsche.


Father John is [was] a very traditional Orthodox teacher, a professor of theology, and profoundly pro-Orthodox Holy Tradition, and very much against the western scholastic tradition that he saw as infiltrating Orthodox thought... To the traditional wing of Orthodoxy, he is dear... To the liberal wing, he is problematic... His focus is on the discipleship that leads one to God through purification of the heart, enlightenment of the mind [nous], and theosis. And indeed, this is what the Faith is about. It is not about religion and the imposition of Church authority, but is all about preparing oneself in discipleship such that one will receive the saving grace of Christ through the Holy Spirit. And this takes as its starting point, not the theological ideas of Christianity from the ages, and their exposition, and their assessment, and one's choosing of the best ones according to one's intellectual lights, but instead requires purification of the heart, and this by repentance, and this by seeking obedience from the Church. This in direct opposition to the Roman view that the Church is the AUTHORITY to which authority's imposition one must SUBMIT... Obedience is instead something granted [or not] by request - It is never imposed... Free will is the fundamental precept, and Fr. Romanides is very clear on what it takes to get from where one is to where God wants one to be...

And it was from him that I learned of the epistemological prerequisite of repentance unto enlightenment of the nous, to the understanding theology... Theology is simply not understood intellectually, but its understanding can be intellectively expressed... AND, it can be spiritually taught in silence... And this understanding is profoundly foreign to most western ears, yet easily finds a home among Greek and Russian and other eastern Orthodox Christians... Indeed, the Eastern approach is apophatic, both in theology, and subsequently in discipleship...

Western neo-scholastic intellectuals who have not attained illumination of the nous through repentance tend to try to trivialize Fr. John by attacking his anti-western bias, which he does have... And all I can say to that, as a guy with a degree in Greek Philosophy, is that when I ran out of everything in my scholastic road to perdition, and received the illumination of the nous by divine intervention, all I could excalim at the time was: "THIS changes EVERYTHING..." My whole ultra-rationally understood world turned inside out, backwards, and upside down... Nothing was the same at all... And I had no idea that this was a Christian experience at the time - I just knew that no Christians I knew understood it, and certainly none knew how to disciple it... Nor did I... Yet Orthodoxy does disciple it to all... It was from this event that I RECOGNIZED Orthodoxy as the truth... For what happened to me is common in Orthodoxy...

And as a fellow witness to this truth, I offer St. Thomas Aquinas himself, who upon having the same thing happen to him late in life, during one of his times of prayer, cancelled his classes and retired to the cloister of his room, never to write again or to teach. And when asked why, his response was: "Everything I have written is straw..." I understand he died a year and a half later... What happened to him is what is normally discipled in Orthodoxy, by Traditionalists like Fr. John, who speaks from knowledge...

If discipleship does not lead you to know God, it is not worth having... Not in Christianity... And this is what Fr. John Romanides never lost sight of...

I love the man...

Arsenios

[Rusty T]

Chalk one up for Rome for a former Ayn Rand fan and a current Heinlein fan.

rusty

[Frog]

We are born with the original sin committed by adam and eve, and through baptism we are forgiven of that sin.

[Solly]

Hi guys.

George, I wasn't witnessed to either, and for me, although I had left depression behind at that point, I hed settled down to what I hoped would be a burst of Nietzschean self-creation - pause for knowing chuckles - and it was then God came in. If i had been feeling bad or down i don't think I could have trusted the experience, but since it happened when i was pretty happy, and writing a book (never written), and I had the clarity of mind to follow what was happening - and importantly, no one was pushing me that way - it has stayed with me. But the quest to find an explanation for it leads me on, not to repeat it, but to see it properly come into flower.

SM, i would like a pm, but I do not have an orthodox church near me; it's mostly in the cities in the UK.

[George Blaisdell]

Hi guys.

George, I wasn't witnessed to either, and for me, although I had left depression behind at that point, I hed settled down to what I hoped would be a burst of Nietzschean self-creation - pause for knowing chuckles - and it was then God came in. If i had been feeling bad or down i don't think I could have trusted the experience, but since it happened when i was pretty happy, and writing a book (never written), and I had the clarity of mind to follow what was happening - and importantly, no one was pushing me that way - it has stayed with me. But the quest to find an explanation for it leads me on, not to repeat it, but to see it properly come into flower.

SM, i would like a pm, but I do not have an orthodox church near me; it's mostly in the cities in the UK.

You are knocking me OUT! I mean, I waded through the whole New Age fiasco and walked away, with the last teacher of it still a friend, who could tell you what you were thinking, and what you were hiding in thought, and all that, yet divorced 6 times and still looking for a mate [he finally has one now], and miserable... And Orthodoxy comes along and says "It is NOT about THIS world, but the NEXT one, that life is about... Tribulation in this world is a symptom of salvation!" And I said, looking at my old age coming, with aches, pains, debilities, diseases, suffering and death already beginning their encroachments, and I said to myself, "You don't say!" I mean, it made sense out of suffering, exalted it, made it a vehicle for salvation, and not mere punishment for wrongs committed, or merely senseless...

I mean, my 50th birthday had a theme: "In 30 years I SHALL be 80!" It was almost a joke... But not quite... And I have NEVER been happier... Never more radiant... Never more involved with friends... Never more loving nor loved... And I weep every day, and pray every night, and every morning, and throughout the day, and sometimes in the wee hours [I call them the wee-wee hours, being in the land known to all the elderly as the Uri Nation...] There is a service that recites the 18th Kathisma of the Psalter called the Midnight Service, and it is lovely, and beautiful, and it is SO hard to get back to sleep after reading it aloud before the icons of my prayer corner, and the beeswax candles, with clothes piled on me in the cool night air... And I get to pray for everyone! Even for Ayn Rand admirers who have jumped ship to Rome!!

Yes, I read von Mises, and Murray Rothsbard, and all the required stuff, and it is all straw! And so was all the self-re-creation stuff I had been doing since I was 18, in my efforts to normalize a very abnormal soul... [to little avail, I should add!]

Solly, you might have to take a trip and go to a Church and enter a liturgy on a Sunday, and talk with a priest... This faith is entered, not proven... You find the proof in the lives of her faithful...

Arsenios

[Solly]

Remember A Course in Miracles? that is a prime example of doing stuff in your head, but it never reaching the heart. I was part of a group called the MetaInformaiton network, we had objectivists, Libertarians, re-birthers, you name it. It collapsed, and the leader, when I last met him, decided to go back to South Africa and concentrate on his gambling technique, because he got so frustrated with all the so-called change-your-lifers, in that they didn't really change.

It's my 50th in 4 years, and I feel that I have wasted so much of my life and energy on frivolous things, things that don't remain.

We only have a small greek congregation nearest to me, and their website is all community stuff - teaching the children greek, kebab nights, etc. I might try and get there one day, but i am not hopeful at the moment, since I have had enough to do with groups small enough to be sects. Maybe I will be proved wrong...

God bless

[George Blaisdell]

Remember A Course in Miracles? that is a prime example of doing stuff in your head, but it never reaching the heart. I was part of a group called the MetaInformaiton network, we had objectivists, Libertarians, re-birthers, you name it. It collapsed, and the leader, when I last met him, decided to go back to South Africa and concentrate on his gambling technique, because he got so frustrated with all the so-called change-your-lifers, in that they didn't really change.

Yes, I remember - The whole new age movement thing fed off the sterility of the Protestant worship... Roman Catholics picked up on it, as they used to be able to do, and tried to encompass it, and claim its spirituality... Just like they did with Pentecostals... And shamanism... But now, with the conservatives back at the helm, they cannot get away with it anymore...

They failed - The whole thing failed... And when the likes of you and I were visited by God, THAT was the only place we had to go that was willing to talk about what had happened...

It's my 50th in 4 years, and I feel that I have wasted so much of my life and energy on frivolous things, things that don't remain.

Roger THAT!

We only have a small greek congregation nearest to me, and their website is all community stuff - teaching the children greek, kebab nights, etc. I might try and get there one day, but i am not hopeful at the moment, since I have had enough to do with groups small enough to be sects. Maybe I will be proved wrong...

Call ahead and ask to speak with the priest, and tell him what you are doing, and would he recommend you coming... All in Greek will be daunting, but certainly in line with the liturgies of our early Church Fathers... What you should get there, even in another language, is a deep sense of reverence and worship that accompanies the Orthodox service of worship... I would hope so... Size matters not at all... This Faith does just as well with a priest and a single penitent as it does with thousands in the great cathedrals... For BOTH are participants in the worship in the heavenlies at the Throne of the Lamb...

How's Romanides coming along, and Hierotheos?

Arsenios

[spiritmech]

"It's my 50th in 4 years"

50th what? Sorry, I couldn't find the noun. Please help me! 50th group?
sm

[George Blaisdell]

"It's my 50th in 4 years"

50th what? Sorry, I couldn't find the noun. Please help me! 50th group?
sm

When you turn 50, you can finally say with conviction:

"In 30 years I shall be 80!"

A.

[spiritmech]

When you turn 50, you can finally say with conviction:

"In 30 years I shall be 80!"

A.

Wow. Solly is totally old. I had no clue.
sm

[Rusty T]

So, my thread was officially hijacked how many posts ago?

:tongue:

rusty

[spiritmech]

So, my thread was officially hijacked how many posts ago?

:tongue:

rusty

1 million.
sm

[Solly]

Sorry Rusty, but we get so few of these Cor ad Cor Loquitor threads that I had to keep OP for the time being *sbls

[Solly]

Yes, I remember - The whole new age movement thing fed off the sterility of the Protestant worship... Roman Catholics picked up on it, as they used to be able to do, and tried to encompass it, and claim its spirituality... Just like they did with Pentecostals... And shamanism... But now, with the conservatives back at the helm, they cannot get away with it anymore...

Yes; I started in a slightly charismatic baptist church, then went to a full charismatic church - got out just as the Toronto blessing hit. But by then I had gone over to Calvinism. I had questioned my conversion, not understanding it in their terms. An elder said, If you haven't had a sure experience of being saved, go get one. So I went and found books and the most explanatory were calvinist - calvinism does spiritual experiences very well, drawing on the whole of church experience in a non-controversial way. That's why i stayed for so long. But what went with it began to tell on me, and I found i couldn't swallow it unquestioned anymore.

Call ahead and ask to speak with the priest, and tell him what you are doing, and would he recommend you coming... All in Greek will be daunting, but certainly in line with the liturgies of our early Church Fathers... What you should get there, even in another language, is a deep sense of reverence and worship that accompanies the Orthodox service of worship... I would hope so... Size matters not at all... This Faith does just as well with a priest and a single penitent as it does with thousands in the great cathedrals... For BOTH are participants in the worship in the heavenlies at the Throne of the Lamb...

I'll try and do that then.

How's Romanides coming along, and Hierotheos?

Still looking through them at the moment; finding things I am prepared for, and things that are a surprise.

blessings
*gdhi

[George Blaisdell]

Yes; I started in a slightly charismatic baptist church, then went to a full charismatic church - got out just as the Toronto blessing hit. But by then I had gone over to Calvinism. I had questioned my conversion, not understanding it in their terms. An elder said, If you haven't had a sure experience of being saved, go get one. So I went and found books and the most explanatory were calvinist - calvinism does spiritual experiences very well, drawing on the whole of church experience in a non-controversial way. That's why i stayed for so long. But what went with it began to tell on me, and I found i couldn't swallow it unquestioned anymore.

I was actually confirmed at 14 in a Calvinist church [Presbyterian] even though they knew I did not believe in God... And this after being sprinkled as an infant... I tell ya, all I ever saw as a kid looking at Protestants was hippocracy and judgementalism... The big 60s sexual revolution had been well founded in the churches and their culture prior to its blossoming forth...

I'll try and do that then.

It is so simple to just be honest and straight-forward... But you know, the early Church of the Koine Bible worshiped in the Greek language - If that is an established Greek Church, you should experience a hauntingly beautiful service of worship, even if you understand not a word... And remember, it is now the time of the Lenten fast, and they have the weekly service of the Presanctified Liturgy, which is a Vesperal Liturgy, and one of the most beautiful, and is only to be found during Lent in the Church... And Lent will soon be over, so hurry! It is done in the early evening, at the lighting of the lamps, by candlelight...

And Solly?

Would you do me a big favor?

When you enter that Church, would you purchase a small prayer candle, light it off of one of the other candles, and place it before an icon that appeals to you, and pray for me quietly in the holy silence of your heart?

Still looking through them at the moment; finding things I am prepared for, and things that are a surprise.

I was trying to just get some kind of a grip of understanding from somewhere as I entered Orthodoxy - God sent me there, and my only job was to acquire the Faith, not to try to evaluate it particularly - And I really did not have an overall view until Romanides, where he describes the classical path of the disciple in the purification of the heart, the illumination of the nous, and the union in oneness with God in power [what the Orthodox disciple as one's personal Pentecost]... Some of his efforts as an historian may be more questionable, but not his theological understanding of the Orthodox Faith... And that theology is the theology of the Cross, and thereby an ascetic theology...

blessings
*gdhi

gdhi???

Arsenios

[Solly]

I found the website for the church; they only have a fortnightly service at midday, so i don't know what I will find as and when i get there. I will honour your request.

gdhi is meant to be a personal smilie. perhaps it didn't come up on yours.

[Solly]

On the topic of this thread, here's a word from Vlachos bearing on the subject:
Man, according to Scripture, has been created "after the image of God". (Col. 3. 10) God is Trinity, that is, one essence in three hypostases (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Thus the soul, being created in the image of God, is single as well as manifold. She has three powers: the appetitive power, the intelligent power and the irascible power. All three must be united and be directed to God. According to St. Maximos their development according to nature is for the intelligent power to have the knowledge of God, for the appetitive power to desire and love only God, and for the irascible power to carry out the will of the Lord. In this way the commandment is fulfilled: "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength". (Mk. 12. 30) When the nous* remains in God, it raises the appetitive power to love Him and the irascible power to fight against the evil spirit and seek for purification. So, union exists because an impetus towards God exists. Well then! Sin tears up the union of the three powers of the soul. The nous comes to ignore God, the appetitive power loves the creatures and not the Creator and the irascible power is submitted to the tyranny of the passions. Thus, we have the complete enslavement of the soul. St. Gregory Palamas describes this state very well.

Firstly, the nous moves away from God and turns to other creations: "whenever we open a door to the passions, the nous is immediately scattered, wandering all the time over carnal and worldly things, over the manifold pleasures and the impassioned thoughts which go with them".
Secondly, the nous, fallen away from God, leads desire astray from God and His commandments: "when the nous rebels, desire is also scattered in fornication and foolishness".
Thirdly, the will is submitted to the passions and is tormented and becomes enraged: "man, who has been destined to be a child of God, becomes a murderer, becoming comparable not only to the wild beasts, but also to the reptiles and venomous animals, he becomes a scorpion, a snake, an offspring of vipers".
Therefore, the three powers of the soul depart from God but at the same time, they lose their unity with each other. The appetitive power wants to return to God but the irascible power does not allow it; desire wants the return but the nous, not believing in God, does not want to love God.
...

You know that the unity of human nature was divided immediately after the Fall of Adam. After the creation of Adam, God created Eve from his side. Eve's creation gave joy to Adam and he felt her as his own (from his body) and so he said: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh..." (Gen. 2. 23). After his fall - when God asked him - Adam said: "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree and I ate" (Gen. 3 . 12). Before the Fall, Eve was 'bone' from his bones after the Fall she became 'the woman' that God gave him! It is obvious here the division of human nature after sin, as it can be seen later in the children of Adam, in all the history of Israel and in all the history of humanity. This is natural. Since man was estranged from God, he was also estranged from himself and separated from other people. This constituted complete alienation and enslavement.

* Nous: The word has various uses in Patristic teaching. It indicates either the soul or the heart or even an energy of the soul. Yet, the nous is mainly the eye of the soul; the purest part of the soul; the highest attention. It is also called noetic energy and it is not identified with reason.

A NIGHT IN THE DESERT OF THE HOLY MOUNTAIN (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b01.en.a_night_in_the_desert_of_the_holy_mountain.00.htm), Archimandrite Hierotheos Vlachos

It's not a milion miles from what I tried to say in my first post on page 1 of this thread. The nous turned to the snake; desire followed, and then the Will acts.

[stephen goswami]

From our Indian philosophy and Christ’s prodigal son parable it is clear that we all fell from heaven-the eternal love association of souls. It is just blasphemy to say that God forced us to share the terminal sin of Adam. Christiany is returning to Father. We had rebelled against fatherhood or rather parenthood in heaven and taken the religion of irresponsible lordhood of devil. So we fell from heaven. But, it is the certain way to suicide. So the heavenly parent sent Christ to turn us from suicide to the true love responsibility. only by saving others we are saved and vice varsa.

[Solly]

Well, swap out heaven for paradise, and you're pretty much there.

[stephen goswami]

[quote=Solly;1911340]Well, swap out heaven for paradise, and you're pretty much there.

My three years of Indian theology and then three years of xtian theology coupled with 30 years of mission work have given me a concept of a fruit bearing heaven of repentance. Christ is creating that new heaven by cross bearing. No infantile fairy land heaven! See my posts in <persecution.com>

Advertising within a post is not allowed. You may put a website in your signature.

[Solly]

OK. Perhaps you could elaborate elsewhere, as it would be off topic here.

[stephen goswami]

Original sin is going against omnipotent God, the law of love

This law of love creates, integrates and maintains everything soul, parson, society, nation and paradises etc. Those nearest the law personify it, as in human society government officers and judge personifies human laws. But power coming from love-integration generates pride in careless people to corrupt them. So becoming cold in their first love they run for glory and more power.(the original sin of power following) So, disintegration starts producing more energy. The person, nation and paradises turn to become devil and hell in slow disintegration process of eternal death receding away from love more and more.
But the good souls resisting pride continue following the law of love. Persecuted by the proud, but responsibly warning, they become the sages, prophets and martyrs. The best of them takes the whole blame and responsibility of the degeneration on himself and becomes Christ. So in the perfect law of cross-bearing-love, he begins to form a new heaven (spiritual association of loving souls) in the spiritual world and a shadow of it in this world too. We have to know things of the spiritual world from the things of this world. We know that in the same way here, the upright souls of a decadent disintegrating nation, society, civilization build up new nation and civilization by tremendous sacrifices under persecution. That way New world nations were built from the debris of old European civilization. Our new India was built from the debris of old disintegrated India. Every good and fecund new comes that way.