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.
Fine, Genghis Khan. the man had so many children that only God knows if I am his child. At least someone somewhere is... Does that mean they carry the sins of Genghis Khan?
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.
Fine, Genghis Khan. the man had so many children that only God knows if I am his child. At least someone somewhere is... Does that mean they carry the sins of Genghis Khan?
ReturnOrthodoxy
RO,
You are missing the point.
Adam's disobedience had a certain punishment through which the human race itself changed from being holy to being sinful.
All the examples you would come up with are already sinful since they fell under Adam's judgment.
If you say that Adam's punishment does not apply to you, then you do not need salvation since you put yourself outside the realm of God's punishment.
So you believe that, if a father sinned, his offspring would be guilty of the sin (not as in they would not suffer as a result, but that they should feel guilty and God would hold it against them)?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159413#msg159413 date=1346250378] Those who deny the dogma of Original Sin, like you, by default support the heresy of immaculate conception.
I already explained that this was not the case. Not only did you completely ignore what I had to say on the matter, but you still persist in falsely accusing us of heresy.
I said:
"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.'"
You still haven't answered any of the quotes I have provided, and you have not addressed the fact that many of our learned Clergy and Theologians also disagree with the inherent guilt doctrine. You also did not address my arguments that I made to rebut your claims regarding God's justice or lack thereof.
Until you address my points (in posts #47, #49, & #52) I am not going to participate in this discussion any further. Because clearly all of the references we have provided from the Theologians, Clergy, Patristics, and the Scriptures are null and void.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim. You asked a question after you implied that the Orthodox church believes in Latin/Western concept of original sin and inherited guilt and I know nothing about Orthodox theology. I already stated Severian showed how the Orthodox church doesn't believe in these things and you respond "Back up your claim". Severian just did. You refuse to read past the first sentence in any of any post.
Regarding immaculate conception: Read it so you may understand how I used the heresy of Immaculate conception to support the here heresy of denying the Original Sin.
So denying original sin is a heresy? Well, here's an excerpt from a Roman Catholic Vatican approved document, Vatican approved a document called, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, on an Orthodox Wiki website. "Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. . ."
The Orthodox Wiki site comments "In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience." Notice, there is no mention of guilt inherited. There is no mention of an individual condemnation, rather a subjection of human nature toward sin.
If one calls "Original sin" and means "ancestral sin", then there is no problem. But advocating Adam's sin with Adam's guilt and Adam's personal judgment is passed on a particular person and not humanity or human nature, then it is completely divergent from the Orthodox concept of ancestral sin.
^ I agree with Remnkemi that one can use the phrase "original sin" so long as by "original sin" they are teaching the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, and not the Latin doctrine.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian] A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ? It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
You asked a question after you implied that the Orthodox church believes in Latin/Western concept of original sin and inherited guilt and I know nothing about Orthodox theology. I already stated Severian showed how the Orthodox church doesn't believe in these things and you respond "Back up your claim". Severian just did. You refuse to read past the first sentence in any of any post.
You seem you only focused on St Ambrose and ignore the many quotes I provided.
You used St Ambrose to state that what I stated was wrong because St Ambrose is Western. So, you negated my argument using one quote to support your claim.
In contrast I used St Ambrose to show that the Fathers from the different churches do support my claim.
If you only focus on one quote to negate an argument and claim that the teaching in this quote is heterodox because the Father that wrote it is rejected by the other Orthodox fathers, then you need to back up your claim.
You are evading the question. I suspect you cannot back up your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox. Thus, his quote on original Sin stands.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159423#msg159423 date=1346259968] ^ I agree with Remnkemi that one can use the phrase "original sin" so long as by "original sin" they are teaching the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, and not the Latin doctrine.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian link=topic=6004.msg794920#msg794920 date=1345541272] A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ? It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159425#msg159425 date=1346260276] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159423#msg159423 date=1346259968] ^ I agree with Remnkemi that one can use the phrase "original sin" so long as by "original sin" they are teaching the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, and not the Latin doctrine.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian link=topic=6004.msg794920#msg794920 date=1345541272] A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ? It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
You need to support your argument from the Church Fathers. Using modern theologians do not strengthen your argument.
Just as you reject Met. Bishoy argument, I reject the explanation of these modern theologians. Could you please just read them anyway and give them a try? And don't you think that these modern Theologians understand the Fathers a bit more than we do? I don't reject Met. Bishoy's views because he is a modern Theologian (even though he has not received any formal Theological training, AFAIK). I reject his explanations because they are often backed up only with skewed reasoning and proof texts from the Fathers and Scripture. The references I provided weren't from a bunch of random individuals on the Internet. They were from learned Theologians whose views are officially endorsed by the Episcopates of the Indian-Syriac and Indian Orthodox Churches. I would also like you to address the arguments that I made in posts #47, #49, & #52.
If one calls "Original sin" and means "ancestral sin", then there is no problem. But advocating Adam's sin with Adam's guilt and Adam's personal judgment is passed on a particular person and not humanity or human nature, then it is completely divergent from the Orthodox concept of ancestral sin.
Do you really read and understand what you are copying and pasting.
" advocating Adam's sin with Adam's guilt and Adam's personal judgment is passed on a particular person and not humanity or human nature .."
What does this statement really mean?
Is a person different than human nature, are they different entities. If judment is passed on human nature by default it is passed on the persons who constitute this human nature.
Here is what St Cyril writes on this issue: "Human nature has, therefore, contracted the malady of sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam. 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"
Human nature was punished by eternal death. This death reached everyone because they inherited this nature from Adam. Adam's nature became sinful, this sinful nature reached everyone of Adam's descendants. We are born sinners because we inherited this sinful nature.
St. Mary inherited this sinful nature. If it were not for the Holy Spirit Who purified her from this sinful nature, Christ would have been born a sinner not able to save us. However, the Son united with a pure human nature; free from the original sin that was passed down through Adam.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159426#msg159426 date=1346260492] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159425#msg159425 date=1346260276] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159423#msg159423 date=1346259968] ^ I agree with Remnkemi that one can use the phrase "original sin" so long as by "original sin" they are teaching the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, and not the Latin doctrine.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian link=topic=6004.msg794920#msg794920 date=1345541272] A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ? It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
You need to support your argument from the Church Fathers. Using modern theologians do not strengthen your argument.
Just as you reject Met. Bishoy argument, I reject the explanation of these modern theologians. Could you please just read them anyway and give them a try? And don't you think that these modern Theologians understand the Fathers a bit more than we do? I don't reject Met. Bishoy's views because he is a modern Theologian (even though he has not received any formal Theological training, AFAIK). I reject his explanations because they are often backed up only with skewed reasoning and proof texts from the Fathers and Scripture. The references I provided weren't from a bunch of random individuals on the Internet. They were from learned Theologians whose views are officially endorsed by the Episcopates of the Indian-Syriac and Indian Orthodox Churches. I would also like you to address the arguments that I made in posts #47, #49, & #52. I am responding to you now because you actually seem interested in engaging in the issues at hand.
I already provided what the Fathers wrote on the issue, verses from the Bible, liturgical prayers.
They all support that we do inherit the sinful nature that resulted of Adam's disobedience. We are born sinners not because we fell in the same exact sin of wanting to be like God, but because human nature was condemned and we inherited this human nature.
If you still wish to ignore them in favor of the Neo theologians who deny that we are free from Adam's sin, then it is your choice. But I do not know how can you pray the liturgies because they do support the teaching of the Original sin.
@Imikhail How does inheriting a sinful nature (a nature which inclines us towards sin) make us born sinners? Sin is the mis-use of free will in a manner which falls short of God's grace. "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
And none of the quotes you provided directly support your thesis. And you still have not gone through posts #47. #49, & 52 where I address your arguments.
No one is denying the Orthodox doctrine of original/ancestral sin. And clearly all of the learned Theologians I have provided, who understand the Bible, Fathers, and Liturgies on a much deeper level than any of us, are also wrong.
"One plant there was, from which You forbade me to eat. This of which You said to me: "From this only do not eat!" I ate of my own free will. I laid aside Your law by my own opinion. I neglected Your commandments. I brought upon myself the sentence of death"
Who ate? Was it me? The priest (praying)? The Congregation? Adam? Human nature?
Certainly Adam. But the consequence of his disobedience brought condemnation on him and his descendants.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159429#msg159429 date=1346261623] @Imikhail How does inheriting a sinful nature (a nature which inclines us towards sin) make us born sinners? Sin is the mis-use of free will in a manner which falls short of God's grace. "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
And none of the quotes you provided directly support your thesis. And you still have not gone through posts #47. #49, & 52 where I address your arguments. And what about St. Cyprian of Carthage who says the infants are not born sinners?
“No one is precluded from baptism and grace, ... [so] ought not and infant be forbidden, who, being newly born, has in no way way sinned, but only having contracted the contagion of death.”
No one is denying the Orthodox doctrine of original/ancestral sin. And clearly all of the learned Theologians I have provided, who understand the Bible, Fathers, and Liturgies 1000x better than you do, are also wrong.
How convenient you did not include the whole quote.
Here is the whole quote in context: "not to forbid the baptism of an infant who, scarcely born, has sinned in nothing apart from that which proceeds from the flesh of Adam. He has received the contagion of the ancient death through his very birth, and he comes, therefore, the more easily to the reception of the remission of sins in that it is not his own but the sins of another that are remitted”.
Here St. Cyprian clearly states that those infants, though not committed any sin of their own, were sinners on account of Adam's sin.
This also agrees with the quote from St Sawiros you included: "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
The infants are passed the sin of Adam and that is why St Cyprian decreed that they need to be baptized.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13619.msg159416#msg159416 date=1346252582] 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. Physically, I was neither in Hitler's loins nor Adam's. I hate to break the news to you imikhail. You were not physically in Adam's sperm and DNA when he ate from the tree. Only Cain, Abel, Seth and his anonymous daughters were the only one's physically and literally in Adam's loins. Since St Paul uses that language (ie, Adam's loins) metaphorically, then metaphorically I can be in anyone's loins since we are not talking literally and physically anymore.
Fine, Genghis Khan. the man had so many children that only God knows if I am his child. At least someone somewhere is... Does that mean they carry the sins of Genghis Khan?
ReturnOrthodoxy, first of all you're falling into the trap of describing a physical offspring when the language is clearly metaphoric. But now that you mention it, 85-90% of Egypt's population is Muslim. Mohammed's second wife, Mariyya al-Qibtiya, was Coptic. It's stands to reasons that most of Christian Copts are Muhammad's children. Maybe you are a direct descendant of Mohammad. Maybe you're a direct descendant of Adam, Ginghas Khan, and Mohammad. If I think about it some more, I could probably add Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kacynzky, and Osama Bin Ladin to your ancestry. And yes. You personally carry all these sins and your personally are guilty of serial murder, serial rape, serial genocide and many other atrocities.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159433#msg159433 date=1346265830] [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13619.msg159416#msg159416 date=1346252582] 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. Physically, I was neither in Hitler's loins nor Adam's. I hate to break the news to you imikhail. You were not physically in Adam's sperm and DNA when he ate from the tree. Only Cain, Abel, Seth and his anonymous daughters were the only one's physically and literally in Adam's loins.
So are you an alien? Not a human being? :o
You keep raising peripheral issues and have not addressed the main topic.
You used St Ambrose to state that what I stated was wrong because St Ambrose is Western. So, you negated my argument using one quote to support your claim.
In contrast I used St Ambrose to show that the Fathers from the different churches do support my claim.
If you only focus on one quote to negate an argument and claim that the teaching in this quote is heterodox because the Father that wrote it is rejected by the other Orthodox fathers, then you need to back up your claim.
You are evading the question. I suspect you cannot back up your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox. Thus, his quote on original Sin stands.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159430#msg159430 date=1346261749] In the liturgy of St Gregory we pray:
"One plant there was, from which You forbade me to eat. This of which You said to me: "From this only do not eat!" I ate of my own free will. I laid aside Your law by my own opinion. I neglected Your commandments. I brought upon myself the sentence of death"
Who ate? Was it me? The priest (praying)? The Congregation? Adam? Human nature?
Certainly Adam. But the consequence of his disobedience brought condemnation on him and his descendants.
Literally and physically, Adam. Metaphorically all humans ate the from the tree. If St Gregory wanted to use literal language he would have used the third person singular tense and said, "One plant there was, from which You forbade Adam to eat....He ate of his own free will....." Obviously, if St Gregory meant "me, the priest, the congregation" or even St Gregory himself personally ate from a plant that didn't exist when they were born, he would be a liar. Certainly Adam who metaphorically represents all mankind ate from the tree. So the answer is both - Adam personally and mankind metaphorically.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159434#msg159434 date=1346266415] So are you an alien? Not a human being? :o Yes I am alien - alien to your logic and argument
You keep raising peripheral issues and have not addressed the main topic.
I already did respond. But it was in the second sentence of multiple posts that you refuse to read.
You used St Ambrose to state that what I stated was wrong because St Ambrose is Western. So, you negated my argument using one quote to support your claim.
You brought up St Amborse to prove inherited guilt. Try to read this next sentence.....His concept of inherited guilt is foreign to the Orthodox mind as I showed from Orthodox Wiki.
You are evading the question. I suspect you cannot back up your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox. Thus, his quote on original Sin stands.
I am not evading the question. I just refuse to repeat everything. Like I said before nothing anyone says will change your mind on original sin. Why repeat again?
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
Repeating your request for an answer doesn't motivate me to repeat my response.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159436#msg159436 date=1346266974] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159434#msg159434 date=1346266415] So are you an alien? Not a human being? :o Yes I am alien - alien to your logic and argument
Not just me but the Church Fathers, the Scriptures and the liturgical prayers.
You keep raising peripheral issues and have not addressed the main topic.
I already did respond. But it was in the second sentence of multiple posts that you refuse to read.
Then give me the post # where you proved your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox.
BTW if you consider St Ambrose's quote is heterodox so you consider the liturgy of St Gregory.
You used St Ambrose to state that what I stated was wrong because St Ambrose is Western. So, you negated my argument using one quote to support your claim.
You brought up St Amborse to prove inherited guilt. Try to read this next sentence.....His concept of inherited guilt is foreign to the Orthodox mind as I showed from Orthodox Wiki.
Orthodox wiki is not a patristic resource.
You are evading the question. I suspect you cannot back up your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox. Thus, his quote on original Sin stands.
I am not evading the question. I just refuse to repeat everything. Like I said before nothing anyone says will change your mind on original sin. Why repeat again?
You do not need to repeat. You have not said anything to repeat it.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
Repeating your request for an answer doesn't motivate me to repeat my response.
St Ambrose says: “In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of paradise, in Adam I died. How shall God call me back, except He find me in Adam? For just as in Adam I am guilty of sin and owe a debt to death, so in Christ I am justified.”
The same thought as the Liturgy of St Gregory: "I ate of my own free will. I laid aside Your law by my own opinion. I neglected Your commandments. I brought upon myself the sentence of death"
The same thought as the Liturgy of St Basil: "O Lord our God, who formed us, created us, and placed us in the paradise of joy, when we disobeyed Your commandment by the deception of the serpent, we fell from eternal life and were exiled from the paradise of joy."
If, as Reminkimi claims, St Ambrose quote is heterodox, then our Coptic liturgies are heterodox as well. Absurd!!
You think by wearing a person down with constant replies, you're going to win in the end?
Tell me something, if you personally were literally cast out of paradise of joy, or ate the plant, tell me how did the fruit of the tree taste like and where is the geographical coordinates of the paradise of joy? If you were literally in Adam's bosom when he ate the fruit of the tree, how old would that make you?
All the references you have given do not speak of literal participation in these events. If you can't recognize the liturgies of St Basil and St Gregory (and even Ambrose's quote) was allegorical, then there is NOTHING more I can say.
Since I know you're going to respond over and over, don't forget to answer my specific questions above without evading them.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159431#msg159431 date=1346262071] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159429#msg159429 date=1346261623] @Imikhail How does inheriting a sinful nature (a nature which inclines us towards sin) make us born sinners? Sin is the mis-use of free will in a manner which falls short of God's grace. "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
And none of the quotes you provided directly support your thesis. And you still have not gone through posts #47. #49, & 52 where I address your arguments. And what about St. Cyprian of Carthage who says the infants are not born sinners?
“No one is precluded from baptism and grace, ... [so] ought not and infant be forbidden, who, being newly born, has in no way way sinned, but only having contracted the contagion of death.”
No one is denying the Orthodox doctrine of original/ancestral sin. And clearly all of the learned Theologians I have provided, who understand the Bible, Fathers, and Liturgies 1000x better than you do, are also wrong.
How convenient you did not include the whole quote.
Here is the whole quote in context: "not to forbid the baptism of an infant who, scarcely born, has sinned in nothing apart from that which proceeds from the flesh of Adam. He has received the contagion of the ancient death through his very birth, and he comes, therefore, the more easily to the reception of the remission of sins in that it is not his own but the sins of another that are remitted”.
Here St. Cyprian clearly states that those infants, though not committed any sin of their own, were sinners on account of Adam's sin.
This also agrees with the quote from St Sawiros you included: "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
The infants are passed the sin of Adam and that is why St Cyprian decreed that they need to be baptized. This I will try to address later. But, I do not think what you are saying is consistent with what St. Severus says. He says quite clearly that sin is not passed on from ancestors to children. I fail to see how you could possibly read him that way.
[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,
In the beginning God created all human, and they were in Adams ‘loins. Nothing were added after that as the Holy Scripture says; “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him”. So when Adam sinned and transgressed against God we were all with him. We were there when God said if you sin you would die, “As the wages of sin is death”. And as St Paul said “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression”. Why would God apply the sentence of death upon the human race? Unless the whole race is stained with the law of sin; otherwise God would be unjust, far be it from Him. We became sinners on account of Adam's sin, the law of sin first then followed by the law of death. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin.
St Sawiros w writes: 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, but that the method by which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin,St Cyril on the Original Sin: Human nature has, therefore, contracted the malady of sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam. It is in this way that the many have been made sinners
St Cyril on the Original Sin: Human nature has, therefore, contracted the malady of sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam. It is in this way that the many have been made sinners
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159381#msg159381 date=1346199961] [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.
-The Orthodox Study Bible
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim. *Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge. Be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
[quote author=Remnkemi link=topic=13619.msg159442#msg159442 date=1346269194] You think by wearing a person down with constant replies, you're going to win in the end?
This is what you think. To you it is just a contest a winner and a loser.
To me this is explaining the correct understanding of the faith.
Tell me something, if you personally were literally cast out of paradise of joy, or ate the plant, tell me how did the fruit of the tree taste like and where is the geographical coordinates of the paradise of joy? If you were literally in Adam's bosom when he ate the fruit of the tree, how old would that make you?
I am assuming that you were baptized Orthodox. If so, then answer this first before I will answer your question.
How was the death, you participated with Christ, taste like? How is wearing Christ differ from wearing the old man?
Was your death a metaphor? Was you wearing the new man an allegory?
Instead of using the word METAPHOR, use the word MYSTICAL.
All the references you have given do not speak of literal participation in these events. If you can't recognize the liturgies of St Basil and St Gregory (and even Ambrose's quote) was allegorical, then there is NOTHING more I can say.
Allegorical to you ... literal to me.
If you cannot explain it, you make it allegorical, metaphor, ... Instead of mystical and sacramental.
Since I know you're going to respond over and over, don't forget to answer my specific questions above without evading them.
Why don't you explain to us how St Ambrose's teaching is rejected by the Orthodox families.
Note: Use a real reference not some writing on OrthodoxWiki.
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!! "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
Rem,
Severian should appreciate you being defending him, but you are wrong because the quote I used is from King James which no one can dispute its accuracy. "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”.
The quote from the study bible is to suite their fault doctrine and the translation is completely wrong. I can make a search for the other translations, but I am sure they have the same meaning. It is the translation that all the Orthodox Coptic used it in their Aghbeya and other liturgical services. You can ask Abouna Athanasious which translation he uses in the church with his congregation. He can enlighten us too for what did King David mean by it, since both of you failed to interpret the true meaning.
Comments
In contrast, we were all in Adam's loins when he fell and the punishment he incurred fell on all his descendants.
Fine, Genghis Khan. the man had so many children that only God knows if I am his child. At least someone somewhere is... Does that mean they carry the sins of Genghis Khan?
ReturnOrthodoxy
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159414#msg159414 date=1346250634] 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.
Fine, Genghis Khan. the man had so many children that only God knows if I am his child. At least someone somewhere is... Does that mean they carry the sins of Genghis Khan?
ReturnOrthodoxy
RO,
You are missing the point.
Adam's disobedience had a certain punishment through which the human race itself changed from being holy to being sinful.
All the examples you would come up with are already sinful since they fell under Adam's judgment.
If you say that Adam's punishment does not apply to you, then you do not need salvation since you put yourself outside the realm of God's punishment.
So you believe that, if a father sinned, his offspring would be guilty of the sin (not as in they would not suffer as a result, but that they should feel guilty and God would hold it against them)?
Those who deny the dogma of Original Sin, like you, by default support the heresy of immaculate conception.
I already explained that this was not the case. Not only did you completely ignore what I had to say on the matter, but you still persist in falsely accusing us of heresy.
I said:
"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.'"
You still haven't answered any of the quotes I have provided, and you have not addressed the fact that many of our learned Clergy and Theologians also disagree with the inherent guilt doctrine. You also did not address my arguments that I made to rebut your claims regarding God's justice or lack thereof.
Until you address my points (in posts #47, #49, & #52) I am not going to participate in this discussion any further. Because clearly all of the references we have provided from the Theologians, Clergy, Patristics, and the Scriptures are null and void.
I asked a sincere question.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
You asked a question after you implied that the Orthodox church believes in Latin/Western concept of original sin and inherited guilt and I know nothing about Orthodox theology. I already stated Severian showed how the Orthodox church doesn't believe in these things and you respond "Back up your claim". Severian just did. You refuse to read past the first sentence in any of any post. So denying original sin is a heresy? Well, here's an excerpt from a Roman Catholic Vatican approved document, Vatican approved a document called, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, on an Orthodox Wiki website.
"Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a different view of the present condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, as the consequence of Adam's sin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and mortality, from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt - common in Western tradition - was foreign to this perspective, since in their view sin could only be a free, personal act. . ."
The Orthodox Wiki site comments "In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience." Notice, there is no mention of guilt inherited. There is no mention of an individual condemnation, rather a subjection of human nature toward sin.
If one calls "Original sin" and means "ancestral sin", then there is no problem. But advocating Adam's sin with Adam's guilt and Adam's personal judgment is passed on a particular person and not humanity or human nature, then it is completely divergent from the Orthodox concept of ancestral sin.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian]
A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ?
It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
http://www.malankara.com/church/faithfaq.html#t4n338
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
http://www.malankara.com/church/baptism.html
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
http://www.neamericandiocese.org/orthodoxy/original-sin.aspx
You used St Ambrose to state that what I stated was wrong because St Ambrose is Western. So, you negated my argument using one quote to support your claim.
In contrast I used St Ambrose to show that the Fathers from the different churches do support my claim.
If you only focus on one quote to negate an argument and claim that the teaching in this quote is heterodox because the Father that wrote it is rejected by the other Orthodox fathers, then you need to back up your claim.
You are evading the question. I suspect you cannot back up your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox. Thus, his quote on original Sin stands.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
^ I agree with Remnkemi that one can use the phrase "original sin" so long as by "original sin" they are teaching the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, and not the Latin doctrine.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian link=topic=6004.msg794920#msg794920 date=1345541272]
A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ?
It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
http://www.malankara.com/church/faithfaq.html#t4n338
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
http://www.malankara.com/church/baptism.html
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
http://www.neamericandiocese.org/orthodoxy/original-sin.aspx
But then again, I guess they're wrong too. ::)
With all due respect.
You need to support your argument from the Church Fathers. Using modern theologians do not strengthen your argument.
Just as you reject Met. Bishoy argument, I reject the explanation of these modern theologians.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159423#msg159423 date=1346259968]
^ I agree with Remnkemi that one can use the phrase "original sin" so long as by "original sin" they are teaching the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, and not the Latin doctrine.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian link=topic=6004.msg794920#msg794920 date=1345541272]
A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ?
It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
http://www.malankara.com/church/faithfaq.html#t4n338
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
http://www.malankara.com/church/baptism.html
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
http://www.neamericandiocese.org/orthodoxy/original-sin.aspx
But then again, I guess they're wrong too. ::)
With all due respect.
You need to support your argument from the Church Fathers. Using modern theologians do not strengthen your argument.
Just as you reject Met. Bishoy argument, I reject the explanation of these modern theologians.
Could you please just read them anyway and give them a try? And don't you think that these modern Theologians understand the Fathers a bit more than we do? I don't reject Met. Bishoy's views because he is a modern Theologian (even though he has not received any formal Theological training, AFAIK). I reject his explanations because they are often backed up only with skewed reasoning and proof texts from the Fathers and Scripture. The references I provided weren't from a bunch of random individuals on the Internet. They were from learned Theologians whose views are officially endorsed by the Episcopates of the Indian-Syriac and Indian Orthodox Churches. I would also like you to address the arguments that I made in posts #47, #49, & #52.
" advocating Adam's sin with Adam's guilt and Adam's personal judgment is passed on a particular person and not humanity or human nature .."
What does this statement really mean?
Is a person different than human nature, are they different entities. If judment is passed on human nature by default it is passed on the persons who constitute this human nature.
Here is what St Cyril writes on this issue:
"Human nature has, therefore, contracted the malady of sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam. 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"
Human nature was punished by eternal death. This death reached everyone because they inherited this nature from Adam. Adam's nature became sinful, this sinful nature reached everyone of Adam's descendants. We are born sinners because we inherited this sinful nature.
St. Mary inherited this sinful nature. If it were not for the Holy Spirit Who purified her from this sinful nature, Christ would have been born a sinner not able to save us. However, the Son united with a pure human nature; free from the original sin that was passed down through Adam.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159425#msg159425 date=1346260276]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159423#msg159423 date=1346259968]
^ I agree with Remnkemi that one can use the phrase "original sin" so long as by "original sin" they are teaching the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin, and not the Latin doctrine.
Here are some references from the Indian/Malankara Archdiocese of the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch which, while using the term "original sin", clearly means "ancestral sin" as taught by the Orthodox:
[quote author=Severian link=topic=6004.msg794920#msg794920 date=1345541272]
A Syriac Orthodox take on the so-called original sin:
What about Original Sin ?
It is since Augustine that the phrase original sin has become a common usage in the church. The phrase does not appear in the Bible. Rom. 5: 12-21 is a description of the Adamic sin and not original sin. In the Pauline chapter on Resurrection, the contrast is not between original sin and salvation, but between death, and life. "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 21). In Pauline theology, all have become sinners in the sin of Adam and the free grace available in Christ is much more than what is needed to atone for the trespasses of Adam. The problem with the title original sin is that it gives the false idea that cohabitation of the married couple is a sinful act. The biblical basis for this is found in Ps. 51: 5, 'behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,' is not a Christian idea, but an O. T. idea not in line with the sacrament of marriage and the Christian theology of the sexual coitus of the married couple as a sacred act of co-creation with God. The Christian teaching on the universality of sin, the inborn inclination towards sinning are all taken care of by the phrase Adamic sin. The question whether man commits sin because he is a sinner or whether he commits sin and become a sinner is only theoretical. The being and doing of sin go together.
http://www.malankara.com/church/faithfaq.html#t4n338
Interestingly enough, elsewhere on this website the authors use terminology such as "inheriting/being in the state of original sin", but I think when contextualized with the above statement it is clear they basically mean "inheriting/being in the state of ancestral sin."
"This is now the common teaching in the church. The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell, infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin."
http://www.malankara.com/church/baptism.html
So even though they are using Latin imagery to describe the Ancestral sin, they do not seem to teach inherent guilt theology in that they deny that an infant is born guilty with any actual sin.
It's refreshing to see this.
Here is an article from the Indian Orthodox Reader Tenny Thomas where he discusses the Orthodox doctrine of Adamic sin:
http://www.neamericandiocese.org/orthodoxy/original-sin.aspx
But then again, I guess they're wrong too. ::)
With all due respect.
You need to support your argument from the Church Fathers. Using modern theologians do not strengthen your argument.
Just as you reject Met. Bishoy argument, I reject the explanation of these modern theologians.
Could you please just read them anyway and give them a try? And don't you think that these modern Theologians understand the Fathers a bit more than we do? I don't reject Met. Bishoy's views because he is a modern Theologian (even though he has not received any formal Theological training, AFAIK). I reject his explanations because they are often backed up only with skewed reasoning and proof texts from the Fathers and Scripture. The references I provided weren't from a bunch of random individuals on the Internet. They were from learned Theologians whose views are officially endorsed by the Episcopates of the Indian-Syriac and Indian Orthodox Churches. I would also like you to address the arguments that I made in posts #47, #49, & #52. I am responding to you now because you actually seem interested in engaging in the issues at hand.
I already provided what the Fathers wrote on the issue, verses from the Bible, liturgical prayers.
They all support that we do inherit the sinful nature that resulted of Adam's disobedience. We are born sinners not because we fell in the same exact sin of wanting to be like God, but because human nature was condemned and we inherited this human nature.
If you still wish to ignore them in favor of the Neo theologians who deny that we are free from Adam's sin, then it is your choice. But I do not know how can you pray the liturgies because they do support the teaching of the Original sin.
And none of the quotes you provided directly support your thesis. And you still have not gone through posts #47. #49, & 52 where I address your arguments.
No one is denying the Orthodox doctrine of original/ancestral sin. And clearly all of the learned Theologians I have provided, who understand the Bible, Fathers, and Liturgies on a much deeper level than any of us, are also wrong.
"One plant there was, from which You forbade me to eat. This of which You said to me: "From this only do not eat!" I ate of my own free will. I laid aside Your law by my own opinion. I neglected Your commandments. I brought upon myself the sentence of death"
Who ate? Was it me? The priest (praying)? The Congregation? Adam? Human nature?
Certainly Adam. But the consequence of his disobedience brought condemnation on him and his descendants.
@Imikhail How does inheriting a sinful nature (a nature which inclines us towards sin) make us born sinners? Sin is the mis-use of free will in a manner which falls short of God's grace. "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
And none of the quotes you provided directly support your thesis. And you still have not gone through posts #47. #49, & 52 where I address your arguments. And what about St. Cyprian of Carthage who says the infants are not born sinners?
“No one is precluded from baptism and grace, ... [so] ought not and infant be forbidden, who, being newly born, has in no way way sinned, but only having contracted the contagion of death.”
No one is denying the Orthodox doctrine of original/ancestral sin. And clearly all of the learned Theologians I have provided, who understand the Bible, Fathers, and Liturgies 1000x better than you do, are also wrong.
How convenient you did not include the whole quote.
Here is the whole quote in context:
"not to forbid the baptism of an infant who, scarcely born, has sinned in nothing apart from that which proceeds from the flesh of Adam. He has received the contagion of the ancient death through his very birth, and he comes, therefore, the more easily to the reception of the remission of sins in that it is not his own but the sins of another that are remitted”.
Here St. Cyprian clearly states that those infants, though not committed any sin of their own, were sinners on account of Adam's sin.
This also agrees with the quote from St Sawiros you included: "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
The infants are passed the sin of Adam and that is why St Cyprian decreed that they need to be baptized.
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.
Physically, I was neither in Hitler's loins nor Adam's. I hate to break the news to you imikhail. You were not physically in Adam's sperm and DNA when he ate from the tree. Only Cain, Abel, Seth and his anonymous daughters were the only one's physically and literally in Adam's loins. Since St Paul uses that language (ie, Adam's loins) metaphorically, then metaphorically I can be in anyone's loins since we are not talking literally and physically anymore. ReturnOrthodoxy, first of all you're falling into the trap of describing a physical offspring when the language is clearly metaphoric. But now that you mention it, 85-90% of Egypt's population is Muslim. Mohammed's second wife, Mariyya al-Qibtiya, was Coptic. It's stands to reasons that most of Christian Copts are Muhammad's children. Maybe you are a direct descendant of Mohammad. Maybe you're a direct descendant of Adam, Ginghas Khan, and Mohammad. If I think about it some more, I could probably add Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Kacynzky, and Osama Bin Ladin to your ancestry. And yes. You personally carry all these sins and your personally are guilty of serial murder, serial rape, serial genocide and many other atrocities.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13619.msg159416#msg159416 date=1346252582]
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.
Physically, I was neither in Hitler's loins nor Adam's. I hate to break the news to you imikhail. You were not physically in Adam's sperm and DNA when he ate from the tree. Only Cain, Abel, Seth and his anonymous daughters were the only one's physically and literally in Adam's loins.
So are you an alien? Not a human being? :o
You keep raising peripheral issues and have not addressed the main topic.
You used St Ambrose to state that what I stated was wrong because St Ambrose is Western. So, you negated my argument using one quote to support your claim.
In contrast I used St Ambrose to show that the Fathers from the different churches do support my claim.
If you only focus on one quote to negate an argument and claim that the teaching in this quote is heterodox because the Father that wrote it is rejected by the other Orthodox fathers, then you need to back up your claim.
You are evading the question. I suspect you cannot back up your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox. Thus, his quote on original Sin stands.
You claimed that the Orthodox families do not support St Ambrose teachings. Back up your claim.
In the liturgy of St Gregory we pray:
"One plant there was, from which You forbade me to eat. This of which You said to me: "From this only do not eat!" I ate of my own free will. I laid aside Your law by my own opinion. I neglected Your commandments. I brought upon myself the sentence of death"
Who ate? Was it me? The priest (praying)? The Congregation? Adam? Human nature?
Certainly Adam. But the consequence of his disobedience brought condemnation on him and his descendants.
Literally and physically, Adam. Metaphorically all humans ate the from the tree. If St Gregory wanted to use literal language he would have used the third person singular tense and said, "One plant there was, from which You forbade Adam to eat....He ate of his own free will....." Obviously, if St Gregory meant "me, the priest, the congregation" or even St Gregory himself personally ate from a plant that didn't exist when they were born, he would be a liar. Certainly Adam who metaphorically represents all mankind ate from the tree. So the answer is both - Adam personally and mankind metaphorically.
So are you an alien? Not a human being? :o
Yes I am alien - alien to your logic and argument I already did respond. But it was in the second sentence of multiple posts that you refuse to read. You brought up St Amborse to prove inherited guilt. Try to read this next sentence.....His concept of inherited guilt is foreign to the Orthodox mind as I showed from Orthodox Wiki. I am not evading the question. I just refuse to repeat everything. Like I said before nothing anyone says will change your mind on original sin. Why repeat again? Repeating your request for an answer doesn't motivate me to repeat my response.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13619.msg159434#msg159434 date=1346266415]
So are you an alien? Not a human being? :o
Yes I am alien - alien to your logic and argument
Not just me but the Church Fathers, the Scriptures and the liturgical prayers. Then give me the post # where you proved your claim that St Ambrose is heterodox.
BTW if you consider St Ambrose's quote is heterodox so you consider the liturgy of St Gregory.
Orthodox wiki is not a patristic resource. You do not need to repeat. You have not said anything to repeat it.
It is because you cannot prove your claim.
“In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of paradise, in Adam I died. How shall God call me back, except He find me in Adam? For just as in Adam I am guilty of sin and owe a debt to death, so in Christ I am justified.”
The same thought as the Liturgy of St Gregory:
"I ate of my own free will. I laid aside Your law by my own opinion. I neglected Your commandments. I brought upon myself the sentence of death"
The same thought as the Liturgy of St Basil:
"O Lord our God, who formed us, created us, and placed us in the paradise of joy, when we disobeyed Your commandment by the deception of the serpent, we fell from eternal life and were exiled from the paradise of joy."
If, as Reminkimi claims, St Ambrose quote is heterodox, then our Coptic liturgies are heterodox as well. Absurd!!
Tell me something, if you personally were literally cast out of paradise of joy, or ate the plant, tell me how did the fruit of the tree taste like and where is the geographical coordinates of the paradise of joy? If you were literally in Adam's bosom when he ate the fruit of the tree, how old would that make you?
All the references you have given do not speak of literal participation in these events. If you can't recognize the liturgies of St Basil and St Gregory (and even Ambrose's quote) was allegorical, then there is NOTHING more I can say.
Since I know you're going to respond over and over, don't forget to answer my specific questions above without evading them.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13619.msg159429#msg159429 date=1346261623]
@Imikhail How does inheriting a sinful nature (a nature which inclines us towards sin) make us born sinners? Sin is the mis-use of free will in a manner which falls short of God's grace. "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
And none of the quotes you provided directly support your thesis. And you still have not gone through posts #47. #49, & 52 where I address your arguments. And what about St. Cyprian of Carthage who says the infants are not born sinners?
“No one is precluded from baptism and grace, ... [so] ought not and infant be forbidden, who, being newly born, has in no way way sinned, but only having contracted the contagion of death.”
No one is denying the Orthodox doctrine of original/ancestral sin. And clearly all of the learned Theologians I have provided, who understand the Bible, Fathers, and Liturgies 1000x better than you do, are also wrong.
How convenient you did not include the whole quote.
Here is the whole quote in context:
"not to forbid the baptism of an infant who, scarcely born, has sinned in nothing apart from that which proceeds from the flesh of Adam. He has received the contagion of the ancient death through his very birth, and he comes, therefore, the more easily to the reception of the remission of sins in that it is not his own but the sins of another that are remitted”.
Here St. Cyprian clearly states that those infants, though not committed any sin of their own, were sinners on account of Adam's sin.
This also agrees with the quote from St Sawiros you included: "For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
The infants are passed the sin of Adam and that is why St Cyprian decreed that they need to be baptized.
This I will try to address later. But, I do not think what you are saying is consistent with what St. Severus says. He says quite clearly that sin is not passed on from ancestors to children. I fail to see how you could possibly read him that way.
[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,
In the beginning God created all human, and they were in Adams ‘loins. Nothing were added after that as the Holy Scripture says; “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him”. So when Adam sinned and transgressed against God we were all with him. We were there when God said if you sin you would die, “As the wages of sin is death”. And as St Paul said “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression”. Why would God apply the sentence of death upon the human race? Unless the whole race is stained with the law of sin; otherwise God would be unjust, far be it from Him.
We became sinners on account of Adam's sin, the law of sin first then followed by the law of death. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin.
St Sawiros w writes:
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, but that the method by which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin,St Cyril on the Original Sin:
Human nature has, therefore, contracted the malady of sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam. It is in this way that the many have been made sinners
St Cyril on the Original Sin:
Human nature has, therefore, contracted the malady of sin through the disobedience of one man, Adam. It is in this way that the many have been made sinners
[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.
-The Orthodox Study Bible
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159449#msg159449 date=1346272574]
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
*Thank you*, Remnkimi.
And plus, Met. Kallistos actually speaks Greek! He has translated many Patristic works from Greek to English, and accusing him of changing the text is a serious charge. Be careful next time you make an accusation like that, Sherene.
You think by wearing a person down with constant replies, you're going to win in the end?
This is what you think. To you it is just a contest a winner and a loser.
To me this is explaining the correct understanding of the faith. I am assuming that you were baptized Orthodox. If so, then answer this first before I will answer your question.
How was the death, you participated with Christ, taste like? How is wearing Christ differ from wearing the old man?
Was your death a metaphor? Was you wearing the new man an allegory?
Instead of using the word METAPHOR, use the word MYSTICAL.
Allegorical to you ... literal to me.
If you cannot explain it, you make it allegorical, metaphor, ... Instead of mystical and sacramental. Why don't you explain to us how St Ambrose's teaching is rejected by the Orthodox families.
Note: Use a real reference not some writing on OrthodoxWiki.
[quote author=sherene_maria link=topic=13619.msg159449#msg159449 date=1346272574]
Severian,
How dare you quote a reference that has changed the Word of God!!!!
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled".
The burden of prove is still on your behave to answer Psalm 50/51
Here we go again. How exactly did the Orthodox Study Bible change the Word of God? Because the Orthodox Study Bible translates the particular verses differently than the translation you provided? Severian, through the Orthodox Study Bible, has given an adequate explanation to answer your original question of Psalm 50. Your reply shifts the burden of proof to you to show how Severian or the Orthodox Study Bible changed the Word of God since YOU made the claim.
Rem,
Severian should appreciate you being defending him, but you are wrong because the quote I used is from King James which no one can dispute its accuracy.
"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”.
The quote from the study bible is to suite their fault doctrine and the translation is completely wrong. I can make a search for the other translations, but I am sure they have the same meaning. It is the translation that all the Orthodox Coptic used it in their Aghbeya and other liturgical services. You can ask Abouna Athanasious which translation he uses in the church with his congregation. He can enlighten us too for what did King David mean by it, since both of you failed to interpret the true meaning.