[quote author=Severian link=topic=9585.msg158727#msg158727 date=1344561167] As I said on OC.Net:
[quote author=Severian on OC.Net] You see, the problem with this is that far too many OO Clergy and Theologians argue in favor of the wrong beliefs of total depravity and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. Met. Bishoy has argued for it, I have been told that Pope Shenouda (memory eternal!) has argued for it. And an encyclical letter from Pat. Mar Ignatius Zaka also seems to show support for this erroneous innovation. How do we address the spread of this wrong belief within our Communion? My whole life I have believed in this Augustinian teaching; until a few years ago I listened to an EO speaker say that Orthodoxy denies it. When I talked to my own Priest about the issue, he confirmed what I had heard. That is, we do not believe we inherit Adam's guilt. How do you suggest we prevent this wrong belief from leading others astray?
Severian is pointing out the fact that the teaching that we inherit the guilt and actual SIN of Adam and Eve is becoming far too rampant in the Church and is directly stated in the letter of H.H Mar Ignatius' letter.
I think the issue of "innovation in our Church" is a problem that has been getting worse and worse as time goes on. I think the solution is to seek the truly Orthodox teachers within our church and learn from them. The issue is that you have Bishops who are innovating and changing things in the church as they please without having any knowledge of patristics. We need to pray that God grant us a pope who lead us back to Orthodoxy. The other problem is that people are careless, if we cared about our Orthodox faith we would take time to learn it. It comes down to the individual level, when we see the leaders of our church coming up with these innovations it is up to us, laymen, to learn what true Orthodoxy is. Once we learn it we can pass it on to our kids and so on. If we don't then we will be handing down these innovations to the future generations. Thankfully there are still some sound Orthodox priests like Father Athanasius who are defending our faith and who are teaching us what is truly Orthodox and what is an innovation.
This is an email Father Athanasius sent to Anba Bishoy explaining to him why his article on Original Sin is incorrect.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158742#msg158742 date=1344625204] Severian is pointing out the fact that the teaching that we inherit the guilt and actual SIN of Adam and Eve is becoming far too rampant in the Church and is directly stated in the letter of H.H Mar Ignatius' letter.
How can we view the verse (Psalm 50/51): "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"?
How can we interpret the liturgical prayer (St Basil Liturgy): "We have fallen through the seduction of the serpent" ?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158744#msg158744 date=1344627501] [quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158742#msg158742 date=1344625204] Severian is pointing out the fact that the teaching that we inherit the guilt and actual SIN of Adam and Eve is becoming far too rampant in the Church and is directly stated in the letter of H.H Mar Ignatius' letter.
How can we interpret the liturgical prayer (St Basil Liturgy): "We have fallen through the seduction of the serpent" ? I do plan on responding to your PM... I would interpret that as meaning that we have fallen into a corrupt nature, inclined towards sinfulness, by virtue of Satan's seduction.
I was about to link Fr. Athanasius' article as well! Fr. Athanasius is a truly blessed man and we are so luck to have a theologian of his caliber in our church and just a short 25 minutes from where i live!! :D.
Oh and imikhail, the idea that we inherit Adam and Eve's sin and the guilt of said sin is entirely novel to the Orthodox and not Orthodox at all. When i have more time later i will post a few quotes from St. Cyril, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Severus of Antioch on the matter if need be. But i think the article of the reverend father Athanasius should be enough.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158744#msg158744 date=1344627501] How can we view the verse (Psalm 50/51): "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"?
From the Orthodox Study Bible (Chalcedonian):
[b]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.
It did take me by surprise to see that too, i wonder what H.E's claim was, because abouna proceeded to ask who the other 3 were. hmmm. Albeit H.E. did say (in H.E.'s 'concise explanation of the canons") that H.E. was nominated to 'defend the true and upright Orthodox faith', which would tend to lend support for the notion that H.E. believes himself to be one of the foremost theologians of the church.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158752#msg158752 date=1344631275] Can we please refrain from talking about personal matters of the current clergy and instead focus on the topic at hand?
Just a suggestion. Agreed.
What are your thoughts, then, concerning this issue?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=9585.msg158754#msg158754 date=1344634919] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158752#msg158752 date=1344631275] Can we please refrain from talking about personal matters of the current clergy and instead focus on the topic at hand?
Just a suggestion. Agreed.
What are your thoughts, then, concerning this issue?
Dear Severian,
As I indicated in my pm, it is critical that in any theological or dogmatic discussion that we define what we are talking about.
It is not enough to say the Original Sin is not compatible with the Orthodox teaching. I have to first define what I mean by such a term. Otherwise we could go in circles and then find out that we are talking about different things.
This mode of discussion happens over and over again between theologians. One thing we can learn from the Council of Ephesus is that Pope Cyril spent a tremendous amount of time during the council to define the theological terms before discussing anything.
I do not think any Orthodox believes that we committed the same sin of disobedience, i.e. eating from the tree, as Adam and Eve had done in the garden.
However, we bear in our flesh the consequences of that sin. The disease of sinfulness has migrated from our first parents to all humanity. We may call this the Original Sin and this is ok with the Orthodox teaching.
So, with that said I am still at a loss what are we discussing here. Is there certain teaching that you are concerned with?
^When we say "original sin" we are referring to the belief that we inherit Adam's actual guilt or sin. I would go as far as to say that it is okay to use the term "original sin", so long as we clarify that by this we do not mean we inherit Adam's guilt or sin itself, and merely his inclination towards sinfulness. The preferred term is probably "ancestral sin" as it is primarily associated with the belief that we inherit the corrupt nature and not the sin/guilt/depravity of Adam himself. Unfortunately, many Copts, both laymen and clergy alike, adhere to the wrong definition of Adam's sin. Met. Bishoy has an English article on his site defending the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, rejected by the Orthodox Fathers.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=9585.msg158763#msg158763 date=1344652553] ^When we say "original sin" we are referring to the belief that we inherit Adam's actual guilt or sin. I would go as far as to say that it is okay to use the term "original sin", so long as we clarify that by this we do not mean we inherit Adam's guilt or sin itself, and merely his inclination towards sinfulness. The preferred term is probably "ancestral sin" as it is primarily associated with the belief that we inherit the corrupt nature and not the sin/guilt/depravity of Adam himself. Unfortunately, many Copts, both laymen and clergy alike, adhere to the wrong definition of Adam's sin. Met. Bishoy has an English article on his site defending the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, rejected by the Orthodox Fathers.
Do you have a link to this article by Met. Bishoy?
Toward the end of Kamal Zakher’s article, was the following passage in defense of Max Michel in Dr. George Habib words: “Max Michel was a student in the Theological College. He studied under me for one year, in which he wrote a research on the original sin; he returned to the ancient resources and the teachings of the fathers, proving that the original sin is the inheritance of death, and not of Adam’s fault…”
Herewith we shall give our response to the mindset of Max Michel who was defended and supported by Dr. George Habib Bebawy as we have mentioned, and monk Basil of St. Macarius published the article for Dr. Bebawy in The Sunday School Magazine issue 8 of year 2002, page 11, under the title The Original Sin including their attack on this issue.
Throughout the article he defends the belief we inherit Adam's fault.
Toward the end of Kamal Zakher’s article, was the following passage in defense of Max Michel in Dr. George Habib words: “Max Michel was a student in the Theological College. He studied under me for one year, in which he wrote a research on the original sin; he returned to the ancient resources and the teachings of the fathers, proving that the original sin is the inheritance of death, and not of Adam’s fault…”
Herewith we shall give our response to the mindset of Max Michel who was defended and supported by Dr. George Habib Bebawy as we have mentioned, and monk Basil of St. Macarius published the article for Dr. Bebawy in The Sunday School Magazine issue 8 of year 2002, page 11, under the title The Original Sin including their attack on this issue.
Throughout the article he defends the belief we inherit Adam's fault.
I have read that article and I dis not find it he is speaking differently than what we just agreed on. That is we inherited the death through Adam's sin. In fact, he never mentions the word "guilt".
I am not here to defend him one way or another. The thing that we need to be cautious of is that with theological discussions, two people may read the same thing and come to different conclusions. This happens often with the Scripture.
We need to be cautious in condemning others just because they mention a term of which we may have a misconception.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=9585.msg158767#msg158767 date=1344654231] ^He explicitly defends the belief that we inherit Adam's fault, which is the same thing. I wonder what Fr. Peter has to say on the matter.
And on the website linked to in my signature, Fr. Athanasius responds to H.E.'s article from a strictly Patristic perspective.
With all due respect to Fr. Athanasius, he jumps right into disproving the Original Sin as a Western idea without first defining the term.
He uses the following quote from Met. Bishoy and build an argument around it.
"if there were no original sin there would not have been death for the rest of humanity, and the descendents of Adam would not have had need for salvation. Therefore, non-Christians who reject the doctrine of redemption also reject the doctrine of the original sin and its inheritance."
I personally do not see anything wrong with this quote. The problem is in the context of what Original Sin means.
Again, I am not taking sides. However, it is important to define the terms we are addressing.
I do think that the phrase original sin is recognizable enough that Fr. Athanasius did not feel the need to define the terms of the doctrine. From the Catholic Encyclopedia,
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam" accessed here; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Thus it can be seen that original sin is the idea that we are born, as Severian said, with the sin of our forefathers and that the guilt this very sin stains all of us.
However the idea of propagation of sin is very foreign to the eastern fathers and did in fact begin with Augustine. The major doctrinal problem of Augustine's area was that of Pelagianism and the Pelagians believed that while Adam set a bad example for humanity, his sin really did nothing for humanity. Augustine recognized the error in this and combated it, but he seems to have stepped too far. In trying to assert that the first sin did have an effect on humanity he went so far as to state that it in fact did pass on the very guilt of that sin to humanity.
A proper Orthodox view of this believes no such thing, take St. Cyril;
"Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality, was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a moral source... So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s transgression” (Doctrinal Questions and answers)
and further,
"And elsewhere he continues “human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin... Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions.”
Thus for St. Cyril we are not born with Adam and Eve's sin, how could we be, we had yet to exist! But Adam and Eve became mortal and corruptible and as the issue of a corruptible source, the rest of humanity became corruptible. St. Cyril's teaching about corruption as the major aftermath of the first sin, which was then passed onto humanity, is directly from the thought of St. Athanasius in On the Incarnation;
“ But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in the process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. “
Thus this paradigm is one that has come down to us through the line of the fathers.
St. Severus of Antioch one of the foremost theologians the church has ever had, to be regarded with St. Athanasius and St. Cyril as defenders of the faith had this to say,
"The reason for which we 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 which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as i have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal of a mortal father. These things are defined by the holy John [Chrysostom] in the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and by the holy Cyril in the letter to Succensus" Letter 78 of St. Severus in the Select Letters of Severus of Antioch republished by the Oriental Orthodox Library
and from Fr. Athansius' article,
" The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally (kata phusin) mixed with our substance (ousia), as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians, in other words the Manichees, claims, but because they (Adam and Eve) had lost the grace of immortality the judgment and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition. we are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents. but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children," [Julien d' Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d' Antioche sur I'incorruptibilite du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), pp 130-131, quoted in: John Meyendorff: Christ in Eastern Orthodox Thought, p 227]" accessed at http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
Thus it is clear and undeniable that the fathers saw no perpetuation of this 'sin' in humankind. But as the sons and daughters of one who is mortal and fallen under corruption we too are born mortal and corruptible. We inherit the human condition of Adam and Eve and not the sin of our forefathers. Much like a woman who has HIV will bear children with HIV but the children will not bear the moral responsibility for decisions made by their mother in order to contract HIV (if there be any particular moral decision made in that regard), no the children are free of this, but they are born with the mother's disease.
Sin is a disease which propagates through humanity and this illness has taken hold of humanity, that is the real issue for humanity. And the sacraments of the church are those which heal against the disease. Thus the church really is a hospital for sinners, because sinners have a disease, for which they need a cure or a prescription one could say. The cleansing waters of baptism, the sanctification of the Holy Chrismation, the healing Body and Blood of Christ, and the renewal of ourselves by confession and repentance all serve to combat the very illness that is sin that we succumb to. The sacraments of the church are there to renew us and to heal us.
So in sum, the term original sin could potentially be used to refer to the 'first' sin but not to this idea that the stain of the this first sin passed to all humanity, this is foreign to the fathers. Fr. Athanasius, being the true theologian and champion of the truth he is, is willing to defend the truth at any cost, and to that i owe the reverend father Athanasius great thanks and admiration.
I hope i was clear in what i wrote, i typed this out kind of quick so i might have made a bunch of grammar errors :P.
I do think that the phrase original sin is recognizable enough that Fr. Athanasius did not feel the need to define the terms of the doctrine. From the Catholic Encyclopedia,
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam" accessed here; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
It is important in any discussion to define what the problem is we are discussing, expecially when it involves terms that have various definitions.
Fr. Athanasius did not say which of these definitions or any others was he against in terms of Anba Bishoy article. (At least for me I did not pick that up)
I dont see why Fr. Athanasius would have taken offense if H.E. in using "original sin" meant "the sin that came first", thus to me it seems evident that he meant the catholic belief of original sin entailing the passing on of the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin to their children and thus to us.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158850#msg158850 date=1344904664] I dont see why Fr. Athanasius would have taken offense if H.E. in using "original sin" meant "the sin that came first", thus to me it seems evident that he meant the catholic belief of original sin entailing the passing on of the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin to their children and thus to us.
Where in Met. Bishoy does he mention the Catholic belief? I personally have not seen it. The quotation that Fr. Athanasius used from Mt. Bishoy's article is Orthodox.
I am not taking either side, I just want to understand where Fr. Athanasius coming from.
The two quotes I provided are in complete contrast to what he says at beginning, that is, we inherit Adam's guilt/fault.
Below, I will be providing Met. Bishoy's entire article, for everyone's reference.
[hr]
[center][b]"Responding to Dr. George Habib and Kama Zakher (Original sin)" [sub][b]By: Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta[/center]
[b]Kamal Zakher Moosa initiated an attack on His Holiness Pope Shenouda III several years ago in articles in The Akhbar Newspaper, pursuing in these last years with articles in independent or emerging journals; journals that have no objective except to provoke and propagate, with no fixed identity or belonging to a definite mindset.
Amazingly Kamal Zakher wrote in the second issue page 3 of The Gawhara Magazine (published by Max Michel) defending Max Michel’s ordination as bishop, although he was a clerical married deacon.
Kamal Zakher returned to defend Dr. George Habib Bebawy, the teacher who officially abandoned our church and joined the Anglican Church of England, cutting himself off from the Coptic Orthodox Church. Enclosed is the letter of his membership to the Anglican, and His Holiness’ remark, which was published in The Keraza Magazine on 6/23/1989.
Toward the end of Kamal Zakher’s article, was the following passage in defense of Max Michel in Dr. George Habib words: “Max Michel was a student in the Theological College. He studied under me for one year, in which he wrote a research on the original sin; he returned to the ancient resources and the teachings of the fathers, proving that the original sin is the inheritance of death, and not of Adam’s fault…”
Herewith we shall give our response to the mindset of Max Michel who was defended and supported by Dr. George Habib Bebawy as we have mentioned, and monk Basil of St. Macarius published the article for Dr. Bebawy in The Sunday School Magazine issue 8 of year 2002, page 11, under the title The Original Sin including their attack on this issue.
First:The doctrine of The Original Sin is one of the important corners of Christian doctrine, because, if there were no original sin there would not have been death for the rest of humanity, and the descendents of Adam would not have had need for salvation. Therefore, non-Christians who reject the doctrine of redemption also reject the doctrine of the original sin and its inheritance.
The Bible says: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). Now the question is: “Is original sin the inheritance of death only”? If this were the case, then God would be unjust (God forbid), because inheriting death would be inheriting the punishment without justification. But, sin entered the world through our forefathers’ sin, and it passed from them to all humanity who came from their seed. So, passing on death was caused by passing on sin. Otherwise, what does St. Paul mean in saying in his epistle to the Romans: “Through one man sin entered the world”? What is the intended world here, but the human race; and who is this one man but Adam.
The Bible also says: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).
As we inherited the original sin from Adam through our birth from him (he being the origin of the human race), likewise we inherited from Christ His righteousness and inherited life, because we have been born of Him in baptism through the Holy Spirit; He is the origin of all believers who put on Christ –putting on the righteousness of Christ: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27).
Original sin is the sin of Adam, and original righteousness is the righteousness of Christ.
The first Adam led humanity into sin and death, and the second Adam led humanity into righteousness and life. Everyone born of Adam and Eve says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5).
Everyone born of Christ in baptism through the Holy Spirit says, “[We are] being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24).
The term origin in the theological understanding means the source, so the term The Father means origin who is the source in the Holy Trinity, as the first church fathers explained.
If we say original sin we mean the sin from which sprang the sins of all humans, carrying with it the punishment of death, “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).
From The Saying Of The Holy Fathers:
St. Athanasius the Apostolic wrote: “For as when Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men, so, when the Lord had become man and had overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength of His is to extend through all men”.
He also wrote: “For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed”.
In his book On the Incarnation of the Word he wrote: “He [Christ] next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass”
Here we notice that St. Athanasius the Apostolic mentioned the old trespass (or original trespass) of humanity, contrary to what the monk Basil St. Macarius claimed in The Sunday School Magazine issue 8 of year 2002, that St. Augustine is the first to invent the phrase Original Sin, and that this understanding is a Catholic concept.
What confirms the annulment of the claim of the monk Basil St. Macarius is what was mentioned in the teachings of St. Cyril the Great, where he mentioned the phrase Original Sin of humanity: “For it is the time of holiness, when our old (original) sin (VVV) having departed to utter destruction, the soul of each is renewed to a habit of virtue unwavering.”
So, St. Athanasius the Apostolic is not alone, but St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith mentioned the Original Sin… and St. Ambrose and St. Augustine thereafter… so now what!
Second: The Difference between Personal Responsibility and Inheriting Original Sin
It is understandable that each person has a personal responsibility in determining his fate; therefore the Lord arranged salvation for all humans who inherited the original sin, to whom death passed as a result of sin coming to them.
Though the descendents of Adam were not personally responsible for the Original Sin, they inherited the state of sin into which Adam and Eve fell. However, they have the opportunity, along with Adam, to choose the way of salvation and gain adoption to God, by accepting God’s gift in Christ.
An individual person’s responsibility is what determines his fate; therefore, there are people who chose the path of fellowship with Satan, and there are others who chose the path of fellowship with God.
The Old Testament saints slept in hope of salvation, and the Lord Christ went to them and preached to them the fulfillment of redemption, saved them from Hades, and transferred them to Paradise. This is what St. Peter the apostle clarified in his first epistle when he spoke of the Lord Christ, “being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1Pe 3:18-19).
And the New Testament saints are the ones who accepted the faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, and accepted the new birth in baptism: “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4).
St. Cyril the Great pointed to the question of personal responsibility in light of the verse that says, “The soul who sins shall die” (Ez 18:4), and why sin passed from Adam to all humans although they did not exist at the time of his fall, and did not personally will to share in his actions at that point in time. He said: “Yes, ‘the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.’ But we have become sinners through the disobedience of Adam in this way. Adam, you see, had been made for incorruption and life. Moreover, the life he led in the paradise of delight was suited to saints; his mind was ever absorbed by the vision of God; his body was perfectly at peace, all base lust at rest; for unbecoming emotions did not disturb him. But when he fell subject to sin and sank down to corruption, from that time forth impure lusts invaded the nature of the flesh and the law of sin blossomed which rages in our members. 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 grew ill with corruption in Adam because of the act of disobedience, and so the passions entered in…”. [In Romanos, Rom 5:18-19 (Pusey, In Ioannem 3, 186-87)].”
Third: His Holiness Pope Shenouda III (may the Lord preserve his life) said: “The judgment of death passed against Adam and Eve was passed against every cell in their bodies, which includes the cells from which we as humans came thereafter.” Therefore no one is exempt from this judgment of death. The matter was in need of renewing the nature, and salvation from the judgment of death –through the death of Christ instead of us, as our teacher St. Paul the apostle said, “If One died for all, then all died” (2 Cor 5:14).
Fourth: Theological Terminology for the Unity of the Human Race
The Biblical and Church Patrological understanding allowed for a person to have a general sense of union with all believers from Adam until the present, such that the one represents the whole and the whole represents the one without canceling out the fate of each individual according to his personal faith and works.
In the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Theologos, he says, addressing the Son the Logos: Of one plant have You forbidden me to eat… but according to my will, I did eat. I put Your law behind me by my own counsel, and became slothful towards Your commandments, I plucked for myself the sentence of death.
He continues: You, O my Master, have turned for me the punishment into salvation. As a good shepherd, You have sought after that which had gone astray. As a true father, You have labored with me, I who had fallen. You have bound me with all the remedies that lead to life. You are He who have sent to me the prophets for my sake, I the sick. You have given me that Law as a help. You are He who ministered salvation to me when I disobeyed Your Law. As true light, You have shone upon the lost and the ignorant.
In all this we notice that St. Gregory spoke in the tongue of a man from Adam until the Savior’s coming, passing through the era of the law and prophets; as if he personally is Adam, and he personally is the individual of the era of the law, and he personally is the individual of the New Testament, although he did not live in all these eras.
The same method of speech appears in St. Paul the apostle’s words in his epistle to the Romans where he speaks in the tongue of a person before the law, and a person after the law, then he speaks in the tongue of a person in the era of grace. He says successively: I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. (Rom 7:9) O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom 7:24) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:1)
After this entire Biblical and patristic presentation, I consider it shameful for someone to continue negotiations on the issue of Original Sin in church assemblies, playing on words on one of the most important corners of the Christian church doctrines –the doctrine of redemption. Kamal Zakher Moosa needs to stop publishing doctrines that contradict the upright church doctrines, under the deceitful heading Church Reform. The Coptic Orthodox Church is not a church of the Witch Trials of the Middle Ages who burned her children in Europe, thus producing the Protestant Reformation. Our church is the church who carried her cross through the centuries. Her congregation very well knows her love for them, and her care for their well being in facing all dangers and sacrifices. What did Kamal Zakher Moosa accomplish in order to bear the attested cross with the church?!…
Original sin is a well acknowledged title and designation for the catholic doctrine that we inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve. What Fr. Athanasius was then doing was to point out that not only is original sin WRONG but that H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy was trying to claim that this WRONG doctrine was a cornerstone of faith.
Having said that, you seem to desire some proof that H.E. teaches this so here you are,
"Now the question is: “Is original sin the inheritance of death only”? If this were the case, then God would be unjust (God forbid), because inheriting death would be inheriting the punishment without justification. But, sin entered the world through our forefathers’ sin, and it passed from them to all humanity who came from their seed. So, passing on death was caused by passing on sin."
and later
"As we inherited the original sin from Adam through our birth from him (he being the origin of the human race), likewise we inherited from Christ His righteousness and inherited life, because we have been born of Him in baptism through the Holy Spirit; He is the origin of all believers who put on Christ –putting on the righteousness of Christ"
One can CLEARLY see from the writing of the fathers that H.E. is simply not teaching was is in accordance with the consensus of the fathers. In fact, this is the apparent heresy that H.E. was responding to,
"Toward the end of Kamal Zakher’s article, was the following passage in defense of Max Michel in Dr. George Habib words: “Max Michel was a student in the Theological College. He studied under me for one year, in which he wrote a research on the original sin; he returned to the ancient resources and the teachings of the fathers, proving that the original sin is the inheritance of death, and not of Adam’s fault…”
It seems that H.E. is in fact attacking a patristic teaching and this is what the reverend Fr. Athanasius so vehemently takes issue with.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158856#msg158856 date=1344911831] Wow Severian, way to steal my thunder :P;) Sorry. :P
From your own experiences, is the inherent guilt doctrine common among Copts in your area? Thankfully, my own Priest does not believe in this doctrine.
Uhm i would say it is in fact relatively common. I would say many of the Copts in my church believe the catholic doctrine. In fact i took quite a few of my own high school sunday school class by surprise when i (new servant at this point) blew all idea of inherited guilt out of the water. My own priest does not hold to the inherited guilt idea, thank God :) (although some like to argue he used to but i never heard him state it explicitly).
It is troublesome though, how widespread the idea is. I know that H.G Bishop Moussa's mahragan curriculum this year, which i was to teach the kids, contained this teaching and the sunday school curriculum we had been using also explicitly stated it (not developed by our own church).
Having said all this, my church is relatively close to Abouna Athanasius'!
Comments
As I said on OC.Net:
[quote author=Severian on OC.Net]
You see, the problem with this is that far too many OO Clergy and Theologians argue in favor of the wrong beliefs of total depravity and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin. Met. Bishoy has argued for it, I have been told that Pope Shenouda (memory eternal!) has argued for it. And an encyclical letter from Pat. Mar Ignatius Zaka also seems to show support for this erroneous innovation. How do we address the spread of this wrong belief within our Communion? My whole life I have believed in this Augustinian teaching; until a few years ago I listened to an EO speaker say that Orthodoxy denies it. When I talked to my own Priest about the issue, he confirmed what I had heard. That is, we do not believe we inherit Adam's guilt. How do you suggest we prevent this wrong belief from leading others astray?
Mar Ignatius' letter:
http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/patriarchal-encyclical-letters/true-repentance/
And forgive me if this post seems to be written out of emotion, I am just sort of in a bad mood today.
P.S. [b]Thread resurrection!
How do you all suggest we deal wth this innovation in our Church?
Dear Severian,
Can you please summarize what innovation are you referring to?
I think the issue of "innovation in our Church" is a problem that has been getting worse and worse as time goes on. I think the solution is to seek the truly Orthodox teachers within our church and learn from them. The issue is that you have Bishops who are innovating and changing things in the church as they please without having any knowledge of patristics. We need to pray that God grant us a pope who lead us back to Orthodoxy. The other problem is that people are careless, if we cared about our Orthodox faith we would take time to learn it. It comes down to the individual level, when we see the leaders of our church coming up with these innovations it is up to us, laymen, to learn what true Orthodoxy is. Once we learn it we can pass it on to our kids and so on. If we don't then we will be handing down these innovations to the future generations. Thankfully there are still some sound Orthodox priests like Father Athanasius who are defending our faith and who are teaching us what is truly Orthodox and what is an innovation.
This is an email Father Athanasius sent to Anba Bishoy explaining to him why his article on Original Sin is incorrect.
http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
please keep me in your prayers
Severian is pointing out the fact that the teaching that we inherit the guilt and actual SIN of Adam and Eve is becoming far too rampant in the Church and is directly stated in the letter of H.H Mar Ignatius' letter.
How can we view the verse (Psalm 50/51): "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"?
How can we interpret the liturgical prayer (St Basil Liturgy): "We have fallen through the seduction of the serpent" ?
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=9585.msg158742#msg158742 date=1344625204]
Severian is pointing out the fact that the teaching that we inherit the guilt and actual SIN of Adam and Eve is becoming far too rampant in the Church and is directly stated in the letter of H.H Mar Ignatius' letter.
How can we interpret the liturgical prayer (St Basil Liturgy): "We have fallen through the seduction of the serpent" ?
I do plan on responding to your PM... I would interpret that as meaning that we have fallen into a corrupt nature, inclined towards sinfulness, by virtue of Satan's seduction.
How can we view the verse (Psalm 50/51): "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me"?
From the Orthodox Study Bible (Chalcedonian):
[b]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.
Just a suggestion.
Can we please refrain from talking about personal matters of the current clergy and instead focus on the topic at hand?
Just a suggestion.
Agreed.
What are your thoughts, then, concerning this issue?
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=9585.msg158752#msg158752 date=1344631275]
Can we please refrain from talking about personal matters of the current clergy and instead focus on the topic at hand?
Just a suggestion.
Agreed.
What are your thoughts, then, concerning this issue?
Dear Severian,
As I indicated in my pm, it is critical that in any theological or dogmatic discussion that we define what we are talking about.
It is not enough to say the Original Sin is not compatible with the Orthodox teaching. I have to first define what I mean by such a term. Otherwise we could go in circles and then find out that we are talking about different things.
This mode of discussion happens over and over again between theologians. One thing we can learn from the Council of Ephesus is that Pope Cyril spent a tremendous amount of time during the council to define the theological terms before discussing anything.
I do not think any Orthodox believes that we committed the same sin of disobedience, i.e. eating from the tree, as Adam and Eve had done in the garden.
However, we bear in our flesh the consequences of that sin. The disease of sinfulness has migrated from our first parents to all humanity. We may call this the Original Sin and this is ok with the Orthodox teaching.
So, with that said I am still at a loss what are we discussing here. Is there certain teaching that you are concerned with?
^When we say "original sin" we are referring to the belief that we inherit Adam's actual guilt or sin. I would go as far as to say that it is okay to use the term "original sin", so long as we clarify that by this we do not mean we inherit Adam's guilt or sin itself, and merely his inclination towards sinfulness. The preferred term is probably "ancestral sin" as it is primarily associated with the belief that we inherit the corrupt nature and not the sin/guilt/depravity of Adam himself. Unfortunately, many Copts, both laymen and clergy alike, adhere to the wrong definition of Adam's sin. Met. Bishoy has an English article on his site defending the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, rejected by the Orthodox Fathers.
Do you have a link to this article by Met. Bishoy?
^Here: http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/papersarticles/Max Mishel.doc Throughout the article he defends the belief we inherit Adam's fault.
I have read that article and I dis not find it he is speaking differently than what we just agreed on. That is we inherited the death through Adam's sin. In fact, he never mentions the word "guilt".
I am not here to defend him one way or another. The thing that we need to be cautious of is that with theological discussions, two people may read the same thing and come to different conclusions. This happens often with the Scripture.
We need to be cautious in condemning others just because they mention a term of which we may have a misconception.
And on the website linked to in my signature, Fr. Athanasius responds to H.E.'s article from a strictly Patristic perspective.
http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
^He explicitly defends the belief that we inherit Adam's fault, which is the same thing. I wonder what Fr. Peter has to say on the matter.
And on the website linked to in my signature, Fr. Athanasius responds to H.E.'s article from a strictly Patristic perspective.
http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
With all due respect to Fr. Athanasius, he jumps right into disproving the Original Sin as a Western idea without first defining the term.
He uses the following quote from Met. Bishoy and build an argument around it.
"if there were no original sin there would not have been death for the rest of humanity, and the descendents of Adam would not have had need for salvation. Therefore, non-Christians who reject the doctrine of redemption also reject the doctrine of the original sin and its inheritance."
I personally do not see anything wrong with this quote. The problem is in the context of what Original Sin means.
Again, I am not taking sides. However, it is important to define the terms we are addressing.
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam" accessed here; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Thus it can be seen that original sin is the idea that we are born, as Severian said, with the sin of our forefathers and that the guilt this very sin stains all of us.
However the idea of propagation of sin is very foreign to the eastern fathers and did in fact begin with Augustine. The major doctrinal problem of Augustine's area was that of Pelagianism and the Pelagians believed that while Adam set a bad example for humanity, his sin really did nothing for humanity. Augustine recognized the error in this and combated it, but he seems to have stepped too far. In trying to assert that the first sin did have an effect on humanity he went so far as to state that it in fact did pass on the very guilt of that sin to humanity.
A proper Orthodox view of this believes no such thing, take St. Cyril;
"Since [Adam] produced children after falling into this state, we, his descendants, are corruptible as the issue of a corruptible source. It is in this sense that we are heirs of Adam’s curse. Not that we are punished for having disobeyed God’s commandment along with him, but that he became mortal and the curse of mortality, was transmitted to his seed after him, offspring born of a moral source... So corruption and death are the universal inheritance of Adam’s transgression” (Doctrinal Questions and answers)
and further,
"And elsewhere he continues “human nature became sick with sin. Because of the disobedience of one (that is, of Adam), the many became sinners; not because they transgressed together with Adam (for they were not there) but because they are of his nature, which entered under the dominion of sin... Human nature became ill and subject to corruption through the transgression of Adam, thus penetrating man’s very passions.”
Thus for St. Cyril we are not born with Adam and Eve's sin, how could we be, we had yet to exist! But Adam and Eve became mortal and corruptible and as the issue of a corruptible source, the rest of humanity became corruptible. St. Cyril's teaching about corruption as the major aftermath of the first sin, which was then passed onto humanity, is directly from the thought of St. Athanasius in On the Incarnation;
“ But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in the process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. “
Thus this paradigm is one that has come down to us through the line of the fathers.
St. Severus of Antioch one of the foremost theologians the church has ever had, to be regarded with St. Athanasius and St. Cyril as defenders of the faith had this to say,
"The reason for which we 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 which intercourse takes place derived its origin from sin, as i have said, a method which cut away the blessing of immortality, so that the race of men is preserved from dissolution by the procreation of children. We therefore were in consequence born mortal of a mortal father. These things are defined by the holy John [Chrysostom] in the commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and by the holy Cyril in the letter to Succensus" Letter 78 of St. Severus in the Select Letters of Severus of Antioch republished by the Oriental Orthodox Library
and from Fr. Athansius' article,
" The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is not naturally (kata phusin) mixed with our substance (ousia), as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians, in other words the Manichees, claims, but because they (Adam and Eve) had lost the grace of immortality the judgment and the sentence reach down to us, when, following a natural disposition. we are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents. but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children,"
[Julien d' Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d' Antioche sur I'incorruptibilite du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), pp 130-131, quoted in: John Meyendorff: Christ in Eastern Orthodox Thought, p 227]" accessed at http://canon15.nicaea.ca/index.php/discussion-with-h-e-anba-bishoy/52-fr-athanasius-on-original-sin
Thus it is clear and undeniable that the fathers saw no perpetuation of this 'sin' in humankind. But as the sons and daughters of one who is mortal and fallen under corruption we too are born mortal and corruptible. We inherit the human condition of Adam and Eve and not the sin of our forefathers. Much like a woman who has HIV will bear children with HIV but the children will not bear the moral responsibility for decisions made by their mother in order to contract HIV (if there be any particular moral decision made in that regard), no the children are free of this, but they are born with the mother's disease.
Sin is a disease which propagates through humanity and this illness has taken hold of humanity, that is the real issue for humanity. And the sacraments of the church are those which heal against the disease. Thus the church really is a hospital for sinners, because sinners have a disease, for which they need a cure or a prescription one could say. The cleansing waters of baptism, the sanctification of the Holy Chrismation, the healing Body and Blood of Christ, and the renewal of ourselves by confession and repentance all serve to combat the very illness that is sin that we succumb to. The sacraments of the church are there to renew us and to heal us.
So in sum, the term original sin could potentially be used to refer to the 'first' sin but not to this idea that the stain of the this first sin passed to all humanity, this is foreign to the fathers. Fr. Athanasius, being the true theologian and champion of the truth he is, is willing to defend the truth at any cost, and to that i owe the reverend father Athanasius great thanks and admiration.
I hope i was clear in what i wrote, i typed this out kind of quick so i might have made a bunch of grammar errors :P.
Pray for me, a sinner
Fr. Athanasius did not say which of these definitions or any others was he against in terms of Anba Bishoy article. (At least for me I did not pick that up)
I dont see why Fr. Athanasius would have taken offense if H.E. in using "original sin" meant "the sin that came first", thus to me it seems evident that he meant the catholic belief of original sin entailing the passing on of the guilt of Adam and Eve's sin to their children and thus to us.
Where in Met. Bishoy does he mention the Catholic belief? I personally have not seen it. The quotation that Fr. Athanasius used from Mt. Bishoy's article is Orthodox.
I am not taking either side, I just want to understand where Fr. Athanasius coming from.
Click
The two quotes I provided are in complete contrast to what he says at beginning, that is, we inherit Adam's guilt/fault.
Below, I will be providing Met. Bishoy's entire article, for everyone's reference.
[hr]
[center][b]"Responding to Dr. George Habib and Kama Zakher (Original sin)"
[sub][b]By: Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta[/center]
[b]Kamal Zakher Moosa initiated an attack on His Holiness Pope Shenouda III several years ago in articles in The Akhbar Newspaper, pursuing in these last years with articles in independent or emerging journals; journals that have no objective except to provoke and propagate, with no fixed identity or belonging to a definite mindset.
Amazingly Kamal Zakher wrote in the second issue page 3 of The Gawhara Magazine (published by Max Michel) defending Max Michel’s ordination as bishop, although he was a clerical married deacon.
Kamal Zakher returned to defend Dr. George Habib Bebawy, the teacher who officially abandoned our church and joined the Anglican Church of England, cutting himself off from the Coptic Orthodox Church. Enclosed is the letter of his membership to the Anglican, and His Holiness’ remark, which was published in The Keraza Magazine on 6/23/1989.
Toward the end of Kamal Zakher’s article, was the following passage in defense of Max Michel in Dr. George Habib words: “Max Michel was a student in the Theological College. He studied under me for one year, in which he wrote a research on the original sin; he returned to the ancient resources and the teachings of the fathers, proving that the original sin is the inheritance of death, and not of Adam’s fault…”
Herewith we shall give our response to the mindset of Max Michel who was defended and supported by Dr. George Habib Bebawy as we have mentioned, and monk Basil of St. Macarius published the article for Dr. Bebawy in The Sunday School Magazine issue 8 of year 2002, page 11, under the title The Original Sin including their attack on this issue.
First:The doctrine of The Original Sin is one of the important corners of Christian doctrine, because, if there were no original sin there would not have been death for the rest of humanity, and the descendents of Adam would not have had need for salvation. Therefore, non-Christians who reject the doctrine of redemption also reject the doctrine of the original sin and its inheritance.
The Bible says: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). Now the question is: “Is original sin the inheritance of death only”? If this were the case, then God would be unjust (God forbid), because inheriting death would be inheriting the punishment without justification. But, sin entered the world through our forefathers’ sin, and it passed from them to all humanity who came from their seed. So, passing on death was caused by passing on sin. Otherwise, what does St. Paul mean in saying in his epistle to the Romans: “Through one man sin entered the world”? What is the intended world here, but the human race; and who is this one man but Adam.
The Bible also says: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22).
As we inherited the original sin from Adam through our birth from him (he being the origin of the human race), likewise we inherited from Christ His righteousness and inherited life, because we have been born of Him in baptism through the Holy Spirit; He is the origin of all believers who put on Christ –putting on the righteousness of Christ: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27).
Original sin is the sin of Adam, and original righteousness is the righteousness of Christ.
The first Adam led humanity into sin and death, and the second Adam led humanity into righteousness and life. Everyone born of Adam and Eve says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5).
Everyone born of Christ in baptism through the Holy Spirit says, “[We are] being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24).
The term origin in the theological understanding means the source, so the term The Father means origin who is the source in the Holy Trinity, as the first church fathers explained.
If we say original sin we mean the sin from which sprang the sins of all humans, carrying with it the punishment of death, “For the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23).
From The Saying Of The Holy Fathers:
St. Athanasius the Apostolic wrote: “For as when Adam had transgressed, his sin reached unto all men, so, when the Lord had become man and had overthrown the Serpent, that so great strength of His is to extend through all men”.
He also wrote: “For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but henceforward our origin and all infirmity of flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed”.
In his book On the Incarnation of the Word he wrote: “He [Christ] next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass”
Here we notice that St. Athanasius the Apostolic mentioned the old trespass (or original trespass) of humanity, contrary to what the monk Basil St. Macarius claimed in The Sunday School Magazine issue 8 of year 2002, that St. Augustine is the first to invent the phrase Original Sin, and that this understanding is a Catholic concept.
What confirms the annulment of the claim of the monk Basil St. Macarius is what was mentioned in the teachings of St. Cyril the Great, where he mentioned the phrase Original Sin of humanity: “For it is the time of holiness, when our old (original) sin (VVV) having departed to utter destruction, the soul of each is renewed to a habit of virtue unwavering.”
So, St. Athanasius the Apostolic is not alone, but St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith mentioned the Original Sin… and St. Ambrose and St. Augustine thereafter… so now what!
Second: The Difference between Personal Responsibility and Inheriting Original Sin
It is understandable that each person has a personal responsibility in determining his fate; therefore the Lord arranged salvation for all humans who inherited the original sin, to whom death passed as a result of sin coming to them.
Though the descendents of Adam were not personally responsible for the Original Sin, they inherited the state of sin into which Adam and Eve fell. However, they have the opportunity, along with Adam, to choose the way of salvation and gain adoption to God, by accepting God’s gift in Christ.
An individual person’s responsibility is what determines his fate; therefore, there are people who chose the path of fellowship with Satan, and there are others who chose the path of fellowship with God.
The Old Testament saints slept in hope of salvation, and the Lord Christ went to them and preached to them the fulfillment of redemption, saved them from Hades, and transferred them to Paradise. This is what St. Peter the apostle clarified in his first epistle when he spoke of the Lord Christ, “being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison” (1Pe 3:18-19).
And the New Testament saints are the ones who accepted the faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, and accepted the new birth in baptism: “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4).
St. Cyril the Great pointed to the question of personal responsibility in light of the verse that says, “The soul who sins shall die” (Ez 18:4), and why sin passed from Adam to all humans although they did not exist at the time of his fall, and did not personally will to share in his actions at that point in time. He said:
“Yes, ‘the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.’ But we have become sinners through the disobedience of Adam in this way. Adam, you see, had been made for incorruption and life. Moreover, the life he led in the paradise of delight was suited to saints; his mind was ever absorbed by the vision of God; his body was perfectly at peace, all base lust at rest; for unbecoming emotions did not disturb him. But when he fell subject to sin and sank down to corruption, from that time forth impure lusts invaded the nature of the flesh and the law of sin blossomed which rages in our members. 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 grew ill with corruption in Adam because of the act of disobedience, and so the passions entered in…”. [In Romanos, Rom 5:18-19 (Pusey, In Ioannem 3, 186-87)].”
Third: His Holiness Pope Shenouda III (may the Lord preserve his life) said: “The judgment of death passed against Adam and Eve was passed against every cell in their bodies, which includes the cells from which we as humans came thereafter.” Therefore no one is exempt from this judgment of death. The matter was in need of renewing the nature, and salvation from the judgment of death –through the death of Christ instead of us, as our teacher St. Paul the apostle said, “If One died for all, then all died” (2 Cor 5:14).
Fourth: Theological Terminology for the Unity of the Human Race
The Biblical and Church Patrological understanding allowed for a person to have a general sense of union with all believers from Adam until the present, such that the one represents the whole and the whole represents the one without canceling out the fate of each individual according to his personal faith and works.
In the Liturgy of St. Gregory the Theologos, he says, addressing the Son the Logos:
Of one plant have You forbidden me to eat… but according to my will, I did eat. I put Your law behind me by my own counsel, and became slothful towards Your commandments, I plucked for myself the sentence of death.
He continues:
You, O my Master, have turned for me the punishment into salvation. As a good shepherd, You have sought after that which had gone astray. As a true father, You have labored with me, I who had fallen. You have bound me with all the remedies that lead to life. You are He who have sent to me the prophets for my sake, I the sick. You have given me that Law as a help. You are He who ministered salvation to me when I disobeyed Your Law. As true light, You have shone upon the lost and the ignorant.
In all this we notice that St. Gregory spoke in the tongue of a man from Adam until the Savior’s coming, passing through the era of the law and prophets; as if he personally is Adam, and he personally is the individual of the era of the law, and he personally is the individual of the New Testament, although he did not live in all these eras.
The same method of speech appears in St. Paul the apostle’s words in his epistle to the Romans where he speaks in the tongue of a person before the law, and a person after the law, then he speaks in the tongue of a person in the era of grace. He says successively:
I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. (Rom 7:9)
O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? (Rom 7:24)
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:1)
After this entire Biblical and patristic presentation, I consider it shameful for someone to continue negotiations on the issue of Original Sin in church assemblies, playing on words on one of the most important corners of the Christian church doctrines –the doctrine of redemption. Kamal Zakher Moosa needs to stop publishing doctrines that contradict the upright church doctrines, under the deceitful heading Church Reform. The Coptic Orthodox Church is not a church of the Witch Trials of the Middle Ages who burned her children in Europe, thus producing the Protestant Reformation. Our church is the church who carried her cross through the centuries. Her congregation very well knows her love for them, and her care for their well being in facing all dangers and sacrifices. What did Kamal Zakher Moosa accomplish in order to bear the attested cross with the church?!…
Having said that, you seem to desire some proof that H.E. teaches this so here you are,
"Now the question is: “Is original sin the inheritance of death only”? If this were the case, then God would be unjust (God forbid), because inheriting death would be inheriting the punishment without justification. But, sin entered the world through our forefathers’ sin, and it passed from them to all humanity who came from their seed. So, passing on death was caused by passing on sin."
and later
"As we inherited the original sin from Adam through our birth from him (he being the origin of the human race), likewise we inherited from Christ His righteousness and inherited life, because we have been born of Him in baptism through the Holy Spirit; He is the origin of all believers who put on Christ –putting on the righteousness of Christ"
Both of these are from H.E.'s website linked here, http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/english/Confronting heresies.htm, in the article "Responding to Dr. George Habib and Kama Zakher (Original sin)"
One can CLEARLY see from the writing of the fathers that H.E. is simply not teaching was is in accordance with the consensus of the fathers. In fact, this is the apparent heresy that H.E. was responding to,
"Toward the end of Kamal Zakher’s article, was the following passage in defense of Max Michel in Dr. George Habib words: “Max Michel was a student in the Theological College. He studied under me for one year, in which he wrote a research on the original sin; he returned to the ancient resources and the teachings of the fathers, proving that the original sin is the inheritance of death, and not of Adam’s fault…”
It seems that H.E. is in fact attacking a patristic teaching and this is what the reverend Fr. Athanasius so vehemently takes issue with.
Pray for me, a sinner
Abouna Athanasius for Pope!!! :D.
Wow Severian, way to steal my thunder :P ;)
Sorry. :P
From your own experiences, is the inherent guilt doctrine common among Copts in your area? Thankfully, my own Priest does not believe in this doctrine.
It is troublesome though, how widespread the idea is. I know that H.G Bishop Moussa's mahragan curriculum this year, which i was to teach the kids, contained this teaching and the sunday school curriculum we had been using also explicitly stated it (not developed by our own church).
Having said all this, my church is relatively close to Abouna Athanasius'!
Uhm i would say it is in fact relatively common.
What a shame. :(