Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
In the same place that Kosta describes in 5,208. While St. Augustine is much admired in the West and less so in the East, his view on original sin is at times referred to as "augistinianism" and is not dogmatic. No, Original sin in itself does not condemn to hell. In fact, I doubt if Augustine in fact taught that. He wrote so much that at times he can be read in contradiction to the totality of his views. If he really taught that originial sin condemns to hell, he would not have developed the doctrine of Limbo that teaches differently.
I did some more digging and it looks like you're right. "Philia", or brotherly love, is the word that helps me, not so much "agape".
Let me try it this way, if you do not see personal love from God, do you see it in your Church? Does your Church give you something that is greater than what God gives you?
Or, if God does not love us personally then how do you explain this:
Gal 5:22-23 : 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
If you would agree that all of these are personal, then how can God give us something He doesn't have?
I would suggest we look closely at the following text:
Please note Paul states that all sinned through Adam. We are not simply tainted with the desire to do evil. According to Rom 5:12 we have actually sinned, which is the way God views the matter. God charged Adam's sin to all humanity. All men are guilty of the sin of Adam and therefore all men die.
Sin is what condemns us to hell. Original sin does mean that all are condemned to hell. Death is the evidence of us being sinners, not simply that we are tainted with a desire to sin. Otherwise premature babies would never die since, theoretically, they haven't sinned.
But this is the part that intrigued me:
Protestants believe that since the Holy Spirit resides in us, we don't try to avoid sin; rather the Spirit makes it repugnant to us. That is not to say we don't sin for, like Peter, the flesh is weak. But when we grieve or quench the Spirit, we know about it and He leads us to repentance.
9 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Unfortunately as a result of secular humanism, liberalism, moral relativism it is becoming the rule again....even to the point of re instituting human sacrifice.
That is not what Romans states:
The comparison between Adam and Christ cannot be overlooked. Otherwise you would have to say that not everyone in Christ is made righteous. Death comes into the world through "...one man's offense...". Death can only come to those who sinned. Likewise, much more do they receive abundance of grace through Christ. It is simple logic.
I can think of no greater explanation of original sin than Romans 5.
As Aruanan explained, what we have in Romans 5 is what we also have in Genesis 3:
16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. 17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. 20 And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them. 22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. 23 And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. 24 And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
The consequence of original sin is toil, pain, death, and exile. The consequence of actual sin is condemnation to hell.
Please note that this is a matter of dispute. First, +Paul did not use commas or punctuation marks, so, depending where you place a comma or a period or a semi-colong or colon, changes the meaning of the whole sentence. This is actually quite common in the Bible, and ultimately leaves the reader to decide what the Holy Spirit meant.
The statement "ef w panteV hmarton " is not perfectly clear:
This text, which formed the Churchs basis of her teaching on original sin, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as because all men sinned but also in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned.
Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what original sin means.
If we accept the first translation, this means that each person is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adams transgression. Here, Adam is merely the prototype of all future sinners, each of whom, in repeating Adams sin, bears responsibility only for his own sins.
Adams sin is not the cause of our sinfulness; we do not participate in his sin and his guilt cannot be passed onto us.
However, if we read the text to mean in whom all have sinned, this can be understood as the passing on of Adams sin to all future generations of people, since human nature has been infected by sin in general. The disposition toward sin became hereditary and responsibility for turning away from God sin universal. [Consequences of the Adam's Sin, An Online Orthodox Catechism]
According to Rom 5:12 we have actually sinned, which is the way God views the matter
Wow, that's pretty bombastic! The Greeks who read the original in their language disagreed then and do so to this day. This is a perfect example how translations can affect theology and lead to completely divergent conclusions that go to the very heart of our disposition towards faith.
I believe that until this moment no one ever called your attention to the fact that Romans 5:12 do not with any certainty say we have sinned through Adam and bear his guilt for it.
One thing is certain: the words in Rom 5:12 are sloppily wirtten and ambiguous enough to cause different opinions (one more reason to believe that the Holy Spirit may did nto write them!).
All men are guilty of the sin of Adam and therefore all men die.
Are you sure? HD, man was created neither mortal nor immortal, but potentially either one. Through the sin of Adam (and Eve), human nature became mortal and mortal parents have mortal children. Our mortality is a consequence of their sin, not the sin itself. Our mortality is not the penalty, because we bear no guilt for their doing.
A drug-addicted mother gives birth to drug-addicted infants. The infants have the craving for the drug but no guilt for their addition. They are born "wounded" and their will craves the sin of their mother but it is none of their doing, guilt or responsibility. Those who have no guilt are innocent and penalizing the innocent is not in God's realm because it is a vice.
Original sin does mean that all are condemned to hell. Death is the evidence of us being sinners, not simply that we are tainted with a desire to sin. Otherwise premature babies would never die since, theoretically, they haven't sinned.
This is an fine example of how grotesque misinterpretation of the original text can become! It is not the work of the Holy Spirit, for sure. It has human error written all over it.
Premature babies die because their nature is mortal. All Adam's descendants are mortal because human nature became mortal as a consequence of Adam's sin.
Amen, Well, put.
You mean sort of like a reasonably independent adult, one who is capable of deciding what is best for himself? This is the same analogy I was talking with MD about recently. Reformers don't see it that way at all. We see man as little more than a toddler next to God. We are totally dependent on Him for everything. We believe that many of the true OT stories of the Israelites reveal this.
...... but it is much more important to come to God freely than to be forced, because forced love in no love.
All Christians DO come to God freely. The difference appears to be with what heart do we come. You appear to come with the fallen heart you were born with. We come to God with a new heart that God GAVE us. Did you choose to be born with your fallen heart? Neither did we choose our new heart. That new heart is the only thing that allows us to freely come to Christ. Reformers are grateful to God that this new heart is of such high quality that God's wishes are accomplished every time. Your side appears to hold the position that it is unfair to use a God-given heart to come to God UNLESS it is defective. :)
I've heard of it and ran across it when I did a little reading on Hinduism. But I would never compare it to the Biblical concept of "God-breathed". In my limited reading, I found no claim of any kind that sporoi could come close to passing the test in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. For one thing, that verse says "all scripture" and I found no claim that sporoi ever encompass all scripture of any particular faith. I don't see how snippets here and there could compare to a complete and self-contained belief system.
The Church teaches that God speaks through the consensus patrum. And FK, in Orthodoxy, the hierarchy is not even remotely the final word on dogma, the People of God, the laity, are. You have to get this straight, FK! Its a very important point.
I remembered that, but I reasoned that the way it probably works is that the consensus patrum DECLARES first what God says, and then LATER that is either accepted or rejected by the laity. Is that fair? If so, then I think my original statement stands.
Individual Church Fathers never claimed that, FK.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise, but apparently I did. :) I meant "they" in the plural, and then to be sure added the clause in parenthesis.
FK: "If any other group gets together and comes up with "dogma" or "doctrine", then it has less weight, but when the Church Fathers did it (with others of the hierarchy), you claim it was from God."
What "other group?" Heretics? Look, the Church allowed theological opinions, but there are limits. Just as there are some things your tradition will not allow and still consider someone a Baptist. Those other groups as you call them taught things that are not in conformity with what the belief concerning the Holy Trinity and Christ.
I wasn't really thinking along the lines of major heretics, just local churches who may have come to agreement locally on some matter. At least in Orthodoxy, even many Councils were local, weren't they, and thus not "officially" consensus patrum?
And, conversely, it doesn't mean it is prima facie evidence that it is of God! Remember, the party that makes the claim must provide the evidence (the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence is required). Doubt is justified until proof is established.
But if the Bible says it is of God, and it doesn't make immediate sense to us, that still IS prima facie evidence that it is of God. The Bible IS proof. Now, I know we part company here, but it occurred to me that I hadn't restated that in a while. It's a position statement I shouldn't neglect. :)
The presupposition is that there is God and now we proceed to prove the presupposition by all means. That's not how one gets to the truth, FK. The cause is established by working retroactively towards the cause, based on available evidence.
Although I offered the possible presupposition that "there is a God", the even better argument is that we don't even have to start with "There is a God". All we really need to start with is the presuppositions of absolutes and antithesis. If we can start with only that, then "a" God being "there" must follow. Trouble is, in our modern, relativistic world, we can't even start there with many people.
Works can strengthen faith, absolutely.
Ah, I misunderstood. When you said "produce" I thought you meant "create" or "originate". I agree with your above.
Faith is the instrument by which we receive grace.
Not for salvational purposes it isn't. Without grace first there can be no faith later. Wouldn't the alternative be Pelagian? Plus, look at the words of your quote below. How are we saved? Grace. Yes, but how does God dispense this grace to save us, is it grace creating and going through works? No, it is grace creating and going through faith.
Works is something we are to "walk in". Your translation, not surprisingly, obfuscates this passage.
Note that "of yourselves" (ex ymon) and "of works" (ex ergon) are in the same grammatical case, and both refer to grace, which is controlled by "by" (gar). Your translation made grace and works appear in parallel and controlled by "by", while separating "yourself" and "God" by making these two nouns controlled by different prepositions, contrary to the original grammar.
I'm not sure I am following. Since the topic is salvation, the "it" is "grace through faith", not just grace. Salvation does NOT happen by grace of ourselves, or faith of ourselves, or works of ourselves. Grace through faith is the gift of God. I don't see why your Douay should have any problem with that.
If everyone just imitated Christ, the world would be restored.
Maybe that's the "problem." We (Orthodox/Catholic) follow the Gospels. Being a Christian means imitating Christ, or those appointed by Him. That's hardly a parent-toddler relationship.
All Christians DO come to God freely. The difference appears to be with what heart do we come.
The Church is made up of sinners, not saints. We come to Christ with wounded hearts in need of healing, and Christ said He would heal them, not replace them.
And what exactly are the criteria spelled out in 2 Tim 3? Answer: none!. In other words, whatever your heart desires!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.