May be what St Paul mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews chapter 7 help us understand the case we are dealing with. He mentioned that the Levi had paid the tithes with Abraham to Melchisedec; How?
“And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him”.
We can apply the same situation here; all humans, past, present and future was in Adam’s loins when he had sinned and transgressed against God. All of us carry the same sentence that “we have all sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God”.
There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003] There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
This has nothing to do with holocaust or Hitler.
You are guilty because you are Adam's descendant just as you are justified because you are Christ's son by adoption.
Adam's sin brought sin to his descendants through his disobedience. The second Adam brought righteousness through His obedience.
With the first Adam we do not have a choice because we are all his descendants, with the second Adam we have a choice to receive justification.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003] There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler. .
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003] There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler. . Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159375#msg159375 date=1346192940] Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
Um... No. Ambrose is not at the same level of credency as St. Cyril and St. Sevirus. What does St. ambrose have to do with the liturgies of Sts. Basil, Cyril, and Gregory?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159378#msg159378 date=1346194950] [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003] There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler. . Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159378#msg159378 date=1346194950] [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003] There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler. . Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
Severian, How you interpret the qoute from St Paul provided and Psalm 50/51 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me:.
[quote author=Sherene_Maria] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159378#msg159378 date=1346194950] [quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477] [quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003] There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler. . Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
Severian, How you interpret the qoute from St Paul provided and Psalm 50/51 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me:. Well, you didn't answer my question. But as per the quotes you provided:
This is a psalm of repentance and God's mercy, and a prophecy about salvation through baptism (vv. 2, 7). It is also a teaching about worship in spirit (vv. 17-19). Of all 150 psalms, this is the one most used in the Orthodox Church. It is a psalm of repentance said three times daily - Matins, Third Hour, and Compline - as well as in every Divine Liturgy, where it is recited by the priest as a sign of repentance while he censes before the Great Entrance. Historically, this psalm is David's prayer of confession after his sin with Bathsheba (2Sam. 12:1-15).
Verse 5 is clarified in the LXX: "Behold I was brought forth in iniquities and in sins [plural] did my mother conceive me." Far from seeing conception and childbirth as sinful in themselves, or as a means of passing on Adam's guilt, this passage tells us every action in this fallen world is accomplished by sinful people in sinful circumstances.
This psalm is a liturgical deposit of gold in the Church, prayed by clergy and laity, expressing the most basic things that need to be said by the faithful before their God. It is best learned and understood through its use in prayer.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13619.msg159379#msg159379 date=1346198196] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159375#msg159375 date=1346192940] Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
Um... No. Ambrose is not at the same level of credency as St. Cyril and St. Sevirus. What does St. ambrose have to do with the liturgies of Sts. Basil, Cyril, and Gregory?
I don't follow
ReturnOrthodoxy
Here is what St Gregory of Nyssa says regarding the Original Sin:
“Evil was mixed with our nature from the beginning… through those who by their disobedience introduced the disease. Just as in the natural propagation of the species each animal engenders its like, so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company till life’s term” On the Beatitudes
Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros.
Well, you didn't answer my question. But as per the quotes you provided:
This is a psalm of repentance and God's mercy, and a prophecy about salvation through baptism (vv. 2, 7). It is also a teaching about worship in spirit (vv. 17-19). Of all 150 psalms, this is the one most used in the Orthodox Church. It is a psalm of repentance said three times daily - Matins, Third Hour, and Compline - as well as in every Divine Liturgy, where it is recited by the priest as a sign of repentance while he censes before the Great Entrance. Historically, this psalm is David's prayer of confession after his sin with Bathsheba (2Sam. 12:1-15).
Verse 5 is clarified in the LXX: "Behold I was brought forth in iniquities and in sins [plural] did my mother conceive me." Far from seeing conception and childbirth as sinful in themselves, or as a means of passing on Adam's guilt, this passage tells us every action in this fallen world is accomplished by sinful people in sinful circumstances.
This psalm is a liturgical deposit of gold in the Church, prayed by clergy and laity, expressing the most basic things that need to be said by the faithful before their God. It is best learned and understood through its use in prayer.
-The Orthodox Study Bible
With all due respect Severian . the Orthodox bible Study was translated by Eastern Orthodox theologians who reject the Original Sin dogma and their commentaries are not a source we rely on in defining our faith.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159383#msg159383 date=1346200538] With all due respect Severian . the Orthodox bible Study was translated by Eastern Orthodox theologians who reject the Original Sin dogma and their commentaries are not a source we rely on in defining our faith.
I agree. But there is nothing in this explanation which I really find disagreeable, and Sherene_Maria was asking how I interpreted the provided Bible verses. I thought this explanation was sufficient so I used it, rather than writing a lengthy explanation of my own. Sherene_Maria has not yet addressed my question, however.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159382#msg159382 date=1346200349] Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros. St. Cyril and St. Severus never teach we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. They quite clearly say just the opposite.
They both say we do *not* inherit the guilt, and that we are *not* responsible for the state we are born into.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159385#msg159385 date=1346201130] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159382#msg159382 date=1346200349] Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros. St. Cyril and St. Severus never teach we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. They quite clearly say just the opposite.
They both say we do *not* inherit the guilt, and that we are *not* responsible for the state we are born into.
It depends on your understanding of what Original Sin is. They do clearly say that we are sinners as a result of Adam's disobedience.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159386#msg159386 date=1346201345] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159385#msg159385 date=1346201130] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159382#msg159382 date=1346200349] Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros. St. Cyril and St. Severus never teach we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. They quite clearly say just the opposite.
They both say we do *not* inherit the guilt, and that we are *not* responsible for the state we are born into.
It depends on your understanding of what Original Sin is. They do clearly say that we are sinners as a result of Adam's disobedience. Yes. We are all sinners by virtue of the sinful inclination which has been engrained into our nature, this is not to say we are responsible or guilty of Adam's disobedience or that we inherit that disobedience. Rather, we are subject to the law of that sin or disobedience, which is to say it's effects.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159387#msg159387 date=1346202007] .. this is not to say we are responsible or guilty of Adam's disobedience or that we inherit that disobedience.
If you are not guilty of Adam's sin, then why were you punished by inheriting a corrupt nature?
It seems to me, following your logic, that Adam's descendants inherit something that should not belong to them; namely corruption and death. This is injustice and makes God unjust.
However, this logic is contrary to the Scripture, Patristic thought, and the liturgical prayers.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159388#msg159388 date=1346205800] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159387#msg159387 date=1346202007] .. this is not to say we are responsible or guilty of Adam's disobedience or that we inherit that disobedience.
If you are not guilty of Adam's sin, then why were you punished by inheriting a corrupt nature?
It seems to me, following your logic, that Adam's descendants inherit something that should not belong to them; namely corruption and death. This is injustice and makes God unjust.
However, this logic is contrary to the Scripture, Patristic thought and the liturgical prayers. No. St. Severus says quite clearly that Adam's sin is *not* mixed with our ousia:
"The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally (kata phusin) mixed with our substance (ousia), as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians, in other words the Manichees, claims, but because they (Adam and Eve) had lost the grace of immortality the judgment and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition. We are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents, but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
Your argument is the same skewed reasoning used by Met. Bishoy. If anything, God is more unjust if we inherit the guilt of a sin we were not there to commit. By your line of argument, a child born with HIV without being guilty of sexual plurality makes God unjust in the same way a human who is born with Adam's corruption yet without his guilt makes God unjust. It does not make any sense.
And concerning the Liturgical prayers, the Fathers (like Sts. Cyprian, Cyril, Severus, etc.) who wrote those prayers, along with Fr. Athanasius Iskander, Fr. Peter Farrington, HG Bishop Youssef, my own Priest, and our sister Churches clearly understand those prayers differently than you. And I am sure they understand those prayers more than you do.
Also, how do you reconcile your view with Scripture?
(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
It says that we do *not* pay for the sins of our Fathers, nor are we responsible for their iniquity. If I inherit Adam's sin, why don't I inherit all of my father's sins? Why just that one sin?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159390#msg159390 date=1346207188] No. St. Severus says quite clearly that Adam's sin is *not* mixed with our physis.
You have to read the quote in context. He is saying this in reference to whether God created the evil nature of man.
He says:
"The reason for which we are said to have become heirs of the curse and of condemnation and of death is not that the sin and condemnation and death passed to us, as if these fell to our nature by lot, for man's nature was from the beginning free from all these things"
Then he continues to explain how man's nature became corrupt; through procreation:
"but that the method by which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as I have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal from a mortal father."
St Cyril follows the same line of thinking when he talks about Adam's disobedience:
"Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
St. Cyril. Sermon 42, on the Gospel of St. Luke
He also writes regarding the punishment that befell the human race as the result of Adam's sin:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
St Cyril continues on Adam's disobedience:
"the grief to which disobedience has brought us. We have been driven from a paradise of delights, and have also fallen under the condemnation of death; "
Sermon 42, on the Gospel of St. Luke
St Cyril again talks about how we fell under the curse and how we inherited the original sin:
"For it would have been in a manner absurd, that the sentence of condemnation should fall upon all men through one man, who was the first, I mean Adam; and that those who had not sinned at that time, that is, at which the founder of our race transgressed the commandment given unto him, should wear the dishonourable image of the earthy; and yet that when Christ came among us, Who was the Man from heaven, those who were called through Him to righteousness, the righteousness of course that is through faith, should not all be moulded into His Image. And, just as we say that the unlovely image of the earthy is seen in types, and in a form bearing the defilement of sin, and the weakness of death and corruption, and the impurity of fleshly lusts and worldly thoughts; so also, on the other hand, we think that the Image of the heavenly, that is, Christ, shines forth in purity and sincerity, and perfect incorruption, and life, and sanctification. It was, perhaps, impossible for us who had once fallen away through the original transgression to be restored to our pristine glory, except we obtained an ineffable communion and unity with God; for the nature of men upon the earth was ordered at the beginning."
St John Chrysostom: "“For I bear the yoke of ancestral sin and am poisoned by the serpent’s venom. I need to be washed of the defilement of the ancient transgression.” “Homily on the Day of Holy Illumination”,
There are many Patristic quotes that affirm the Orthodox understanding of the Original Sin among these Fathers are St Gregory the Theologian (the Great), St Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, St Augustine.
There is nothing from those Fathers which I would disagree with. You still did not address my other points, though.
I also want to talk about this quote:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
The bolded part is just the crux of my argument. We are not born transgressors, because we did not transgress with Adam, because we did not yet exist. Rather we are made sinners because we are born under a law of sin, that is a tendency or "law" engrained within our cognition, which inclines us toward sinfulness.
Also, Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty, one of our Church's greatest modern theologians, in his book "Man and Redemption" mentions Saint Clement of Alexandria as having denied that we inherit Adam's guilt but only his perverted sensuality.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159394#msg159394 date=1346209439] There is nothing from those Fathers which I would disagree with. You still did not address my other points, though.
I also want to talk about this quote:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
The bolded part is just the crux of my argument. We are not born transgressors, because we did not transgress with Adam, because we did not yet exist. Rather we are made sinners because we are born under a law of sin, that is a tendency or "law" engrained within our cognition, which inclines us toward sinfulness.
Also, Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty, one of our Church's greatest modern theologians, in his book "Man and Redemption" mentions Saint Clement of Alexandria as having denied that we inherit Adam's guilt but only his perverted sensuality.
You chose an excerpt of all the quotes I provided .... Your choice, your belief.
“For I bear the yoke of ancestral sin and am poisoned by the serpent’s venom. I need to be washed of the defilement of the ancient transgression.”
St John Chrysostom: “Homily on the Day of Holy Illumination”
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159395#msg159395 date=1346209620] Those who deny the Original sin support the Latin heresy of the Virgin's Immaculate Conception.Not only did you not address my arguments, but you are falsely accusing me of heresy. And I am not denying the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, rather the Latin teaching regarding it. If anything, affirming the inherent guilt doctrine makes it easier to fall into the IC dogma. The IC dogma was created to explain how the Virgin was without "original sin", so the Roman Pope created this teaching. The Orthodox who deny the inherent guilt doctrine by default deny the IC dogma because it is a moot point to begin with. Deacon Zach of the Syriac Orthodox Church puts it best when he says:
"In the Syriac Orthodox and other Orthodox Churches, the concept of Mary being immaculately conceived is not accepted. The Orthodox Church does not accept the Augustinian view of original sin. It accepts the consequences of Adam's sin upon everyone (death and separation from God, thereby the capacity to sin). Hence the need for Mary to be "immaculate" is irrelevant. The church holds quite dearly that Mary was pure, but not a different species. The Theotokos needs Jesus too!"
Plus, the IC dogma also teaches the Virgin was born without a corrupt nature, which is something we would all disagree on.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159395#msg159395 date=1346209620]Why did the Holy Spirit descend on the Virgin? St. Gregory the Theologian answers:
“The Son of God was conceived of the Virgin, who had been purified beforehand [obviously, from sin] in soul and body by the Holy Spirit.”
This is why the human nature that the Son took was free from Adam's sin. Why did He descend upon the Virgin? So that her son would not inherit ancestral sin.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159396#msg159396 date=1346209773] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159394#msg159394 date=1346209439] There is nothing from those Fathers which I would disagree with. You still did not address my other points, though.
I also want to talk about this quote:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - [b]not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
The bolded part is just the crux of my argument. We are not born transgressors, because we did not transgress with Adam, because we did not yet exist. Rather we are made sinners because we are born under a law of sin, that is a tendency or "law" engrained within our cognition, which inclines us toward sinfulness.
Also, Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty, one of our Church's greatest modern theologians, in his book "Man and Redemption" mentions Saint Clement of Alexandria as having denied that we inherit Adam's guilt but only his perverted sensuality.
You chose an excerpt of all the quotes I provided .... Your choice, your belief.
“For I bear the yoke of ancestral sin and am poisoned by the serpent’s venom. I need to be washed of the defilement of the ancient transgression.”
St John Chrysostom: “Homily on the Day of Holy Illumination” And there is nothing St. John said which I would disagree with either. I already said that. And you are the one who is ignoring all of my arguments and falsely accusing me of heresy. Please address my arguments.
Job 14:4 does not agree with your statement (Septuagint and Coptic translations). By the way, this verse is used in the litany of the departed in the Coptic church.
St Cyril disagrees for he says that through Adam transgression, " ... the many have been made sinners"
He also says: ""Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
Job 14:4 does not agree with your statement. By the way, this verse is used in the litany of the departed in the Coptic church.
St Cyril disagrees for he says that through Adam transgression, " ... the many have been made sinners"
He also says: ""Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
and so on. Could you please at least address what I have said in my previous posts? I may log in tomorrow, but I have a ton of paperwork to finish tonight.
Job 14:4 does not agree with your statement. By the way, this verse is used in the litany of the departed in the Coptic church.
St Cyril disagrees for he says that through Adam transgression, " ... the many have been made sinners"
He also says: ""Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
and so on. Could you please at least address what I have said in my previous posts? And sorry if I lashed out earlier. I am very stressed out as of late. I may log in tomorrow, but I have a ton of paperwork to finish tonight.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159375#msg159375 date=1346192940] Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
I don't appreciate the subtle ad hominem attack. Severian showed you that the Orthodox Church doesn't accept St Ambrose guilt and RC Immaculate conception teaching in post #47, 49 and #52. Nothing anyone says will ever change your mind, nor make you stop claiming your erroneous statements are not Orthodox.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477] Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Here is the verses in question: "Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." What does St Paul mean when he says "so to speak"?
Here's what the dictionary says: so to speak as one might say; said a certain way, even though the words are not exactly accurate. John helps me with my taxes. He's my accountant, so to speak.
met·a·phor (mt-fôr, -fr) n. 1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison,
Any comparasion is a metaphor. St Paul compared Abraham to Christ and the Levitic priesthood with the Melchizedekian priesthood. The whole passage is a metaphor. A metaphor does not mean false doctrine or imagination. By using the phrase "so to speak", St Paul indicated that the metaphor is not to be taken literally. Levi was not in Abraham's sperm or loins. He was metaphorically stating the Levitical priesthood is a descendant of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler.
Yes it does apply. You want to extend a metaphorical comparison of Abraham and Levi to Adam and particular humans, not humanity in general. If such is the case, then logically one can extend the same metaphorical language to Hitler and a particular humans. But since the metaphor doesn't apply to Adam and specific humans, neither is Adam's sin extend to particular humans but rather the human nature which Adam represents.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159410#msg159410 date=1346246510] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159375#msg159375 date=1346192940] Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
I don't appreciate the subtle ad hominem attack. Severian showed you that the Orthodox Church doesn't accept St Ambrose guilt and RC Immaculate conception teaching in post #47, 49 and #52. Nothing anyone says will ever change your mind, nor make you stop claiming your erroneous statements are not Orthodox.
I asked a sincere question.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
Is he not considered a saint in all the Traditional churches? Was St Ambrose excommunicated? Were his teachings found to be heterodox by some council?
In short, explain your claim instead of making it convenient to support your position.
Regarding immaculate conception: You obviously have not read my post. I never said that we support it. Read it so you may understand how I used the heresy of immaculate conception to support the heresy of denying the Original Sin.
Those who deny the dogma of Original Sin, like you, by default support the heresy of immaculate conception.
Yes it does apply. You want to extend a metaphorical comparison of Abraham and Levi to Adam and particular humans, not humanity in general. If such is the case, then logically one can extend the same metaphorical language to Hitler and a particular humans. But since the metaphor doesn't apply to Adam and specific humans, neither is Adam's sin extend to particular humans but rather the human nature which Adam represents.
No it does not apply. Because you were not in the loins of Hitler when he decided to commit his atrocities. Or were you?
In contrast, we were all in Adam's loins when he fell and the punishment he incurred fell on all his descendants.
Comments
May be what St Paul mentioned in the epistle to the Hebrews chapter 7 help us understand the case we are dealing with. He mentioned that the Levi had paid the tithes with Abraham to Melchisedec; How?
“And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him”.
We can apply the same situation here; all humans, past, present and future was in Adam’s loins when he had sinned and transgressed against God. All of us carry the same sentence that “we have all sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God”.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
This has nothing to do with holocaust or Hitler.
You are guilty because you are Adam's descendant just as you are justified because you are Christ's son by adoption.
Adam's sin brought sin to his descendants through his disobedience. The second Adam brought righteousness through His obedience.
With the first Adam we do not have a choice because we are all his descendants, with the second Adam we have a choice to receive justification.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler.
.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003]
There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler.
.
Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
Um... No. Ambrose is not at the same level of credency as St. Cyril and St. Sevirus. What does St. ambrose have to do with the liturgies of Sts. Basil, Cyril, and Gregory?
I don't follow
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003]
There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler.
.
Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159378#msg159378 date=1346194950]
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003]
There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler.
.
Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
Severian, How you interpret the qoute from St Paul provided and Psalm 50/51
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me:.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159378#msg159378 date=1346194950]
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159376#msg159376 date=1346193477]
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159366#msg159366 date=1346188003]
There is nothing wrong with using allegorical and metaphorical language. Metaphorically, Levi was in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. However, we must distinguish and not confuse metaphoric language with literal and ontological language. We can't say that Levi was ontologically or physically in Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met Abraham. This would be equivalent in saying Levi's entire DNA profile was physically in Abraham's sperm. (Impossible since Levi received half his DNA from his mother and only 1/64 of his DNA from Abraham). The same is true with the discussion at hand. Metaphorically, we can be considered sinners because in Adam all mankind is represented. However, ontologically, we cannot be judged and called sinner because Adam sinned. We can't be guilty of Adam's sin. The only thing we share with Adam is a fallen human nature. This is what St Cyril meant. This is what St Severus meant. St Ambrose and St Augustine advocated inherited guilt and original sin and it is rejected by the Orthodox families.
It's like saying I am guilty of the Nazi holocaust because Hitler and I were both at one time in Adam's loins. Yes ontologically and literally, all humans are sinners. All humans share a fallen human nature. But me personally? Am I guilty of the holocaust? Wouldn't it be unethical for a judge to sentence me personally to death, condemned for the Nazi holocaust just because Hitler and I are humans? I cannot be guilty of Hitler's sins.
We need to be specific in order to distinguish doctrine from heresy.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Your example does not apply to this situation. We are all descendants of Adam but not descendants of Hitler.
.
Sherene_Maria, how do you interpret the Patristic quotes provided?
Severian, How you interpret the qoute from St Paul provided and Psalm 50/51
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me:.
Well, you didn't answer my question. But as per the quotes you provided:
This is a psalm of repentance and God's mercy, and a prophecy about salvation through baptism (vv. 2, 7). It is also a teaching about worship in spirit (vv. 17-19). Of all 150 psalms, this is the one most used in the Orthodox Church. It is a psalm of repentance said three times daily - Matins, Third Hour, and Compline - as well as in every Divine Liturgy, where it is recited by the priest as a sign of repentance while he censes before the Great Entrance. Historically, this psalm is David's prayer of confession after his sin with Bathsheba (2Sam. 12:1-15).
Verse 5 is clarified in the LXX: "Behold I was brought forth in iniquities and in sins [plural] did my mother conceive me." Far from seeing conception and childbirth as sinful in themselves, or as a means of passing on Adam's guilt, this passage tells us every action in this fallen world is accomplished by sinful people in sinful circumstances.
This psalm is a liturgical deposit of gold in the Church, prayed by clergy and laity, expressing the most basic things that need to be said by the faithful before their God. It is best learned and understood through its use in prayer.
-The Orthodox Study Bible
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159375#msg159375 date=1346192940]
Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
Um... No. Ambrose is not at the same level of credency as St. Cyril and St. Sevirus. What does St. ambrose have to do with the liturgies of Sts. Basil, Cyril, and Gregory?
I don't follow
ReturnOrthodoxy
Here is what St Gregory of Nyssa says regarding the Original Sin:
“Evil was mixed with our nature from the beginning… through those who by their disobedience introduced the disease. Just as in the natural propagation of the species each animal engenders its like, so man is born from man, a being subject to passions from a being subject to passions, a sinner from a sinner. Thus sin takes its rise in us as we are born; it grows with us and keeps us company till life’s term” On the Beatitudes
Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros.
Well, you didn't answer my question. But as per the quotes you provided:
This is a psalm of repentance and God's mercy, and a prophecy about salvation through baptism (vv. 2, 7). It is also a teaching about worship in spirit (vv. 17-19). Of all 150 psalms, this is the one most used in the Orthodox Church. It is a psalm of repentance said three times daily - Matins, Third Hour, and Compline - as well as in every Divine Liturgy, where it is recited by the priest as a sign of repentance while he censes before the Great Entrance. Historically, this psalm is David's prayer of confession after his sin with Bathsheba (2Sam. 12:1-15).
Verse 5 is clarified in the LXX: "Behold I was brought forth in iniquities and in sins [plural] did my mother conceive me." Far from seeing conception and childbirth as sinful in themselves, or as a means of passing on Adam's guilt, this passage tells us every action in this fallen world is accomplished by sinful people in sinful circumstances.
This psalm is a liturgical deposit of gold in the Church, prayed by clergy and laity, expressing the most basic things that need to be said by the faithful before their God. It is best learned and understood through its use in prayer.
-The Orthodox Study Bible
With all due respect Severian . the Orthodox bible Study was translated by Eastern Orthodox theologians who reject the Original Sin dogma and their commentaries are not a source we rely on in defining our faith.
With all due respect Severian . the Orthodox bible Study was translated by Eastern Orthodox theologians who reject the Original Sin dogma and their commentaries are not a source we rely on in defining our faith.
I agree. But there is nothing in this explanation which I really find disagreeable, and Sherene_Maria was asking how I interpreted the provided Bible verses. I thought this explanation was sufficient so I used it, rather than writing a lengthy explanation of my own. Sherene_Maria has not yet addressed my question, however.
Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros.
St. Cyril and St. Severus never teach we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. They quite clearly say just the opposite.
They both say we do *not* inherit the guilt, and that we are *not* responsible for the state we are born into.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159382#msg159382 date=1346200349]
Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros.
St. Cyril and St. Severus never teach we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. They quite clearly say just the opposite.
They both say we do *not* inherit the guilt, and that we are *not* responsible for the state we are born into.
It depends on your understanding of what Original Sin is. They do clearly say that we are sinners as a result of Adam's disobedience.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159385#msg159385 date=1346201130]
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159382#msg159382 date=1346200349]
Same thought as St Cyril, St Ambrose, St Augustine, and St Sawiros.
St. Cyril and St. Severus never teach we inherit Adam's sin or guilt. They quite clearly say just the opposite.
They both say we do *not* inherit the guilt, and that we are *not* responsible for the state we are born into.
It depends on your understanding of what Original Sin is. They do clearly say that we are sinners as a result of Adam's disobedience.
Yes. We are all sinners by virtue of the sinful inclination which has been engrained into our nature, this is not to say we are responsible or guilty of Adam's disobedience or that we inherit that disobedience. Rather, we are subject to the law of that sin or disobedience, which is to say it's effects.
.. this is not to say we are responsible or guilty of Adam's disobedience or that we inherit that disobedience.
If you are not guilty of Adam's sin, then why were you punished by inheriting a corrupt nature?
It seems to me, following your logic, that Adam's descendants inherit something that should not belong to them; namely corruption and death. This is injustice and makes God unjust.
However, this logic is contrary to the Scripture, Patristic thought, and the liturgical prayers.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159387#msg159387 date=1346202007]
.. this is not to say we are responsible or guilty of Adam's disobedience or that we inherit that disobedience.
If you are not guilty of Adam's sin, then why were you punished by inheriting a corrupt nature?
It seems to me, following your logic, that Adam's descendants inherit something that should not belong to them; namely corruption and death. This is injustice and makes God unjust.
However, this logic is contrary to the Scripture, Patristic thought and the liturgical prayers.
No. St. Severus says quite clearly that Adam's sin is *not* mixed with our ousia: Your argument is the same skewed reasoning used by Met. Bishoy. If anything, God is more unjust if we inherit the guilt of a sin we were not there to commit. By your line of argument, a child born with HIV without being guilty of sexual plurality makes God unjust in the same way a human who is born with Adam's corruption yet without his guilt makes God unjust. It does not make any sense.
And concerning the Liturgical prayers, the Fathers (like Sts. Cyprian, Cyril, Severus, etc.) who wrote those prayers, along with Fr. Athanasius Iskander, Fr. Peter Farrington, HG Bishop Youssef, my own Priest, and our sister Churches clearly understand those prayers differently than you. And I am sure they understand those prayers more than you do.
Also, how do you reconcile your view with Scripture? It says that we do *not* pay for the sins of our Fathers, nor are we responsible for their iniquity. If I inherit Adam's sin, why don't I inherit all of my father's sins? Why just that one sin?
No. St. Severus says quite clearly that Adam's sin is *not* mixed with our physis.
You have to read the quote in context. He is saying this in reference to whether God created the evil nature of man.
He says:
"The reason for which we are said to have become heirs of the curse and of condemnation and of death is not that the sin and condemnation and death passed to us, as if these fell to our nature by lot, for man's nature was from the beginning free from all these things"
Then he continues to explain how man's nature became corrupt; through procreation:
"but that the method by which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as I have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal from a mortal father."
St Cyril follows the same line of thinking when he talks about Adam's disobedience:
"Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
St. Cyril. Sermon 42, on the Gospel of St. Luke
He also writes regarding the punishment that befell the human race as the result of Adam's sin:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
St Cyril continues on Adam's disobedience:
"the grief to which disobedience has brought us. We have been driven from a paradise of delights, and have also fallen under the condemnation of death; "
Sermon 42, on the Gospel of St. Luke
St Cyril again talks about how we fell under the curse and how we inherited the original sin:
"For it would have been in a manner absurd, that the sentence of condemnation should fall upon all men through one man, who was the first, I mean Adam; and that those who had not sinned at that time, that is, at which the founder of our race transgressed the commandment given unto him, should wear the dishonourable image of the earthy; and yet that when Christ came among us, Who was the Man from heaven, those who were called through Him to righteousness, the righteousness of course that is through faith, should not all be moulded into His Image. And, just as we say that the unlovely image of the earthy is seen in types, and in a form bearing the defilement of sin, and the weakness of death and corruption, and the impurity of fleshly lusts and worldly thoughts; so also, on the other hand, we think that the Image of the heavenly, that is, Christ, shines forth in purity and sincerity, and perfect incorruption, and life, and sanctification. It was, perhaps, impossible for us who had once fallen away through the original transgression to be restored to our pristine glory, except we obtained an ineffable communion and unity with God; for the nature of men upon the earth was ordered at the beginning."
St John Chrysostom:
"“For I bear the yoke of ancestral sin and am poisoned by the serpent’s venom. I need to be washed of the defilement of the ancient transgression.”
“Homily on the Day of Holy Illumination”,
There are many Patristic quotes that affirm the Orthodox understanding of the Original Sin among these Fathers are St Gregory the Theologian (the Great), St Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, St Augustine.
I also want to talk about this quote:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
The bolded part is just the crux of my argument. We are not born transgressors, because we did not transgress with Adam, because we did not yet exist. Rather we are made sinners because we are born under a law of sin, that is a tendency or "law" engrained within our cognition, which inclines us toward sinfulness.
Also, Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty, one of our Church's greatest modern theologians, in his book "Man and Redemption" mentions Saint Clement of Alexandria as having denied that we inherit Adam's guilt but only his perverted sensuality.
Why did the Holy Spirit descend on the Virgin?
St. Gregory the Theologian answers:
“The Son of God was conceived of the Virgin, who had been purified beforehand [obviously, from sin] in soul and body by the Holy Spirit.”
Homily 44, On Pascha.
This is why the human nature that the Son took was free from Adam's sin.
There is nothing from those Fathers which I would disagree with. You still did not address my other points, though.
I also want to talk about this quote:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
The bolded part is just the crux of my argument. We are not born transgressors, because we did not transgress with Adam, because we did not yet exist. Rather we are made sinners because we are born under a law of sin, that is a tendency or "law" engrained within our cognition, which inclines us toward sinfulness.
Also, Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty, one of our Church's greatest modern theologians, in his book "Man and Redemption" mentions Saint Clement of Alexandria as having denied that we inherit Adam's guilt but only his perverted sensuality.
You chose an excerpt of all the quotes I provided .... Your choice, your belief.
“For I bear the yoke of ancestral sin and am poisoned by the serpent’s venom. I need to be washed of the defilement of the ancient transgression.”
St John Chrysostom: “Homily on the Day of Holy Illumination”
Those who deny the Original sin support the Latin heresy of the Virgin's Immaculate Conception.Not only did you not address my arguments, but you are falsely accusing me of heresy. And I am not denying the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, rather the Latin teaching regarding it. If anything, affirming the inherent guilt doctrine makes it easier to fall into the IC dogma. The IC dogma was created to explain how the Virgin was without "original sin", so the Roman Pope created this teaching. The Orthodox who deny the inherent guilt doctrine by default deny the IC dogma because it is a moot point to begin with. Deacon Zach of the Syriac Orthodox Church puts it best when he says:
"In the Syriac Orthodox and other Orthodox Churches, the concept of Mary being immaculately conceived is not accepted. The Orthodox Church does not accept the Augustinian view of original sin. It accepts the consequences of Adam's sin upon everyone (death and separation from God, thereby the capacity to sin). Hence the need for Mary to be "immaculate" is irrelevant. The church holds quite dearly that Mary was pure, but not a different species. The Theotokos needs Jesus too!"
Plus, the IC dogma also teaches the Virgin was born without a corrupt nature, which is something we would all disagree on.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159395#msg159395 date=1346209620]Why did the Holy Spirit descend on the Virgin?
St. Gregory the Theologian answers:
“The Son of God was conceived of the Virgin, who had been purified beforehand [obviously, from sin] in soul and body by the Holy Spirit.”
This is why the human nature that the Son took was free from Adam's sin.
Why did He descend upon the Virgin? So that her son would not inherit ancestral sin.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159396#msg159396 date=1346209773]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159394#msg159394 date=1346209439]
There is nothing from those Fathers which I would disagree with. You still did not address my other points, though.
I also want to talk about this quote:
"It is in this way that the many have been made sinners - [b]not as though they had transgressed with Adam (for they did not yet exit), but because they are of his nature, the nature that fell beneath the law of sin"
The bolded part is just the crux of my argument. We are not born transgressors, because we did not transgress with Adam, because we did not yet exist. Rather we are made sinners because we are born under a law of sin, that is a tendency or "law" engrained within our cognition, which inclines us toward sinfulness.
Also, Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty, one of our Church's greatest modern theologians, in his book "Man and Redemption" mentions Saint Clement of Alexandria as having denied that we inherit Adam's guilt but only his perverted sensuality.
You chose an excerpt of all the quotes I provided .... Your choice, your belief.
“For I bear the yoke of ancestral sin and am poisoned by the serpent’s venom. I need to be washed of the defilement of the ancient transgression.”
St John Chrysostom: “Homily on the Day of Holy Illumination”
And there is nothing St. John said which I would disagree with either. I already said that. And you are the one who is ignoring all of my arguments and falsely accusing me of heresy. Please address my arguments.
You say: "We are not born transgressors"
Psalm 50 and 48 do not agree with your statement.
Job 14:4 does not agree with your statement (Septuagint and Coptic translations). By the way, this verse is used in the litany of the departed in the Coptic church.
St Cyril disagrees for he says that through Adam transgression, " ... the many have been made sinners"
He also says: ""Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
and so on.
Dear Severian,
You say: "We are not born transgressors"
Psalm 50 and 48 do not agree with your statement.
Job 14:4 does not agree with your statement. By the way, this verse is used in the litany of the departed in the Coptic church.
St Cyril disagrees for he says that through Adam transgression, " ... the many have been made sinners"
He also says: ""Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
and so on.
Could you please at least address what I have said in my previous posts? I may log in tomorrow, but I have a ton of paperwork to finish tonight.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159399#msg159399 date=1346212089]
Dear Severian,
You say: "We are not born transgressors"
Psalm 50 and 48 do not agree with your statement.
Job 14:4 does not agree with your statement. By the way, this verse is used in the litany of the departed in the Coptic church.
St Cyril disagrees for he says that through Adam transgression, " ... the many have been made sinners"
He also says: ""Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: ...."
and so on.
Could you please at least address what I have said in my previous posts? And sorry if I lashed out earlier. I am very stressed out as of late. I may log in tomorrow, but I have a ton of paperwork to finish tonight.
I'd be happy to, please list the post #'s.
Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
I don't appreciate the subtle ad hominem attack. Severian showed you that the Orthodox Church doesn't accept St Ambrose guilt and RC Immaculate conception teaching in post #47, 49 and #52. Nothing anyone says will ever change your mind, nor make you stop claiming your erroneous statements are not Orthodox.
Are you introducing a new interpretation of the Holy Bible? St Paul was speaking about solid doctrine and this was not a metaphor. When he used the above quote he was refuting the Leviticus priesthood and declaring that Christ's priesthood is far superior. He was declaring a fact that the tribe of Levi was in the bosom of Abraham.
Here is the verses in question: "Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him." What does St Paul mean when he says "so to speak"?
Here's what the dictionary says:
so to speak
as one might say; said a certain way, even though the words are not exactly accurate. John helps me with my taxes. He's my accountant, so to speak.
met·a·phor (mt-fôr, -fr)
n.
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison,
Any comparasion is a metaphor. St Paul compared Abraham to Christ and the Levitic priesthood with the Melchizedekian priesthood. The whole passage is a metaphor. A metaphor does not mean false doctrine or imagination. By using the phrase "so to speak", St Paul indicated that the metaphor is not to be taken literally. Levi was not in Abraham's sperm or loins. He was metaphorically stating the Levitical priesthood is a descendant of Abraham.
Yes it does apply. You want to extend a metaphorical comparison of Abraham and Levi to Adam and particular humans, not humanity in general. If such is the case, then logically one can extend the same metaphorical language to Hitler and a particular humans. But since the metaphor doesn't apply to Adam and specific humans, neither is Adam's sin extend to particular humans but rather the human nature which Adam represents.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159375#msg159375 date=1346192940]
Reminkimi says that the Orthodox families do reject St Ambrose teaching.
Which family is that?
Reject St Ambrose teaching means rejecting the liturgical prayers, St Cyril's teaching and St Sawiros.
I don't appreciate the subtle ad hominem attack. Severian showed you that the Orthodox Church doesn't accept St Ambrose guilt and RC Immaculate conception teaching in post #47, 49 and #52. Nothing anyone says will ever change your mind, nor make you stop claiming your erroneous statements are not Orthodox.
I asked a sincere question.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
Is he not considered a saint in all the Traditional churches? Was St Ambrose excommunicated? Were his teachings found to be heterodox by some council?
In short, explain your claim instead of making it convenient to support your position.
Regarding immaculate conception:
You obviously have not read my post. I never said that we support it. Read it so you may understand how I used the heresy of immaculate conception to support the heresy of denying the Original Sin.
Those who deny the dogma of Original Sin, like you, by default support the heresy of immaculate conception.
In contrast, we were all in Adam's loins when he fell and the punishment he incurred fell on all his descendants.