Hereditary guilt?

JLatimer

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,202
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Apotheoun said:
we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.
Just as we know you propositions concerning ancestral sin are false based upon the teaching of Scripture itself.

BTW, if we do not contract Adam's sin, why on earth do we contract his mortality? If it is not fair for God to impute Adam's sin to us, is it then fair for God to punish us with Adam's death? No, it is less fair and less reasonable; for it is one thing for one who has sinned to receive the penalty of death, but for one who is without sin to be so punished is an outrage.
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
JLatimer said:
Apotheoun said:
we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.
Just as we know you propositions concerning ancestral sin are false based upon the teaching of Scripture itself.

BTW, if we do not contract Adam's sin, why on earth do we contract his mortality? If it is not fair for God to impute Adam's sin to us, is it then fair for God to punish us with Adam's death? No, it is less fair and less reasonable; for it is one thing for one who has sinned to receive the penalty of death, but for one who is without sin to be so punished is an outrage.
When you get so "specialized"  :D at proving your own point at ALL costs:  well:  Other aspects of the same truth are bound to suffer.

 

Kasatkin fan

High Elder
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
636
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Location
Western Canada
If a mother drinks during pregnancy, and her child is born with FAS, who bears the guilt of the sin? Who bears the consequences?
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
hamartia
Greek, lit. “fault, failure, guilt,” from hamartanein "to fail of one's purpose; to err, sin," originally "to miss the mark."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hamartia&allowed_in_frame=0

Why does the guilt argument never die?

A) You believe this!
B) No we don't...
A) Yes, you do. SEE!
B) That's not what it means.
A) Yes, it does. CLEARLY... see.
B) No, that's not what it means.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
elijahmaria said:
Apotheoun said:
In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.
My formal theology lessons never came from a secular school.  Perhaps that is the difference.
Its good to have both approaches, I am also academically trained in the field of historical research and I feel it has added many benefits to my religious studies. In history we look for three key ingredients, 1) factual accuracy based on primary source evidence [this usually insinuates in the original languages as well),  2) identified biases,  3) thorough analysis of all contributing factors.  So when I study the Church, I automatically do all of this, and it is very enlightening about the Councils specifically.  A lot of politics, economics, baggage, historical circumstances, etc etc have their influence within Church canons, histories, and texts.  Examining for them only conveys the deeper Truth within, as God indeed cooperates within a real world, just as King David's theocracy had as much drama as a pulpy  TV Novella..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

elijahmaria

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
6,515
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
irenikontheskete.blogspot.com
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
elijahmaria said:
Apotheoun said:
In graduate school I was taught to examine the sources, and not to blindly follow a given position.  Perhaps you were taught to accept any and all claims uncritically, and if that is the case - so be it.
My formal theology lessons never came from a secular school.  Perhaps that is the difference.
Its good to have both approaches, I am also academically trained in the field of historical research and I feel it has added many benefits to my religious studies. In history we look for three key ingredients, 1) factual accuracy based on primary source evidence [this usually insinuates in the original languages as well),  2) identified biases,  3) thorough analysis of all contributing factors.  So when I study the Church, I automatically do all of this, and it is very enlightening about the Councils specifically.  A lot of politics, economics, baggage, historical circumstances, etc etc have their influence within Church canons, histories, and texts.  Examining for them only conveys the deeper Truth within, as God indeed cooperates within a real world, just as King David's theocracy had as much drama as a pulpy  TV Novella..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
I agree with you and am similarly trained.  My comment was that my theology teachers were/are faithful sons of the Church, and prayerful monks who also have studied history and philosophy and a range of other subjects in science and mathematics: in other words I have formal seminary training, not secular training in theology.  Now I could have had seminary training from more liberal seminaries that are not much better at being faithful to the teachings of the Church than secular instructors.  But I did not.
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My little thread is all grown up! Too bad I don't have the time to read it, though.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,115
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
41
William said:
My little thread is all grown up! Too bad I don't have the time to read it, though.
Don't worry, just read the first page and you should be good. Don't forget the third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Asteriktos said:
William said:
My little thread is all grown up! Too bad I don't have the time to read it, though.
Don't worry, just read the first page and you should be good. Don't forget the third law of forumdynamics: as a thread progresses the substance of posts will decrease at the same rate that the number of posts increase.
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,115
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
41
I'm sorry, you must have been socioeconomically disadvantaged and forced to go to a school that was not in compliance with all the markers of a beneficial and productive educational experience. As a 21st century caucasian male, who is aware of the importance and strength in diversity, and also aware of the negative impact of cultural and ideological prejudice against people such as yourself, allow me to acknowledge my sorrowful guilt and express my apologies for our failures, which have caused you such problems.
 

Azurestone

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
36
Website
deum-quaerens.blogspot.com
Asteriktos said:
I'm sorry, you must have been socioeconomically disadvantaged and forced to go to a school that was not in compliance with all the markers of a beneficial and productive educational experience. As a 21st century caucasian male, who is aware of the importance and strength in diversity, and also aware of the negative impact of cultural and ideological prejudice against people such as yourself, allow me to acknowledge my sorrowful guilt and express my apologies for our failures, which have caused you such problems.
Meh.

 

Papist

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
13,771
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
39
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
The teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not "teachings of the Roman Church," they are teachings of the entire Catholic Church and that includes the Eastern Catholic Churches.
You probably don't want to get into this with Todd. He is a dissenting "Catholic"
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
Papist said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
Wyatt said:
Apotheoun said:
"Blessed be God, who alone does wonderful things! You have seen how numerous are the gifts of baptism. Although many men think that the only gift it confers is the remission of sins, we have counted its honors to the number of ten. It is on this account that we baptize even infants, although they are sinless, that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit" [St. John Chrysostom, Third Baptismal Instruction, no. 6].

Baptism is not simply about the remission of sins, but about giving the person baptized a real and living participation in the divine life.
Sinless as in free of personal sin, but infants are not without original sin.
The original sin in Adam's descendants is mortality, not sin or guilt.

Adam's sin makes him subject to death, and it is the mortal condition that he passes on to his descendants.  Now because all men are mortal - in the likeness of Adam - they fall into sins as they attempt on their own power to maintain their existence without God. Baptism - in the case of an adult - washes away a man's sins, while also imparting to him the other gifts mentioned by St. John Chrysostom in his Baptismal Instruction.  While - in the case of an infant who has not sinned - the mystery of Baptism imparts the "gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places for the Spirit," as St. John said.  In other words, the holy mystery of Baptism gives children all the other gifts that St. John Chrysostom mentioned in his homily, but it does not remit sins in the case of a child because the child has no sins to remit.
Just to be clear, do you agree with the teaching on original sin as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam's sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the "death of the soul".291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
No, I do not agree with it in its entirety, although I see it as a vast improvement over the Tridentine understanding of the fall.  I do not believe that there can be such a thing as a sin "contracted" but not "committed."  As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.

Nevertheless, as I already said, I do see the new teaching of the Roman Church - i.e., as presented in the 1994 catechism - as a vast improvement over the Tridentine teaching on original sin and guilt.  I hope that answers your question.
The teachings in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are not "teachings of the Roman Church," they are teachings of the entire Catholic Church and that includes the Eastern Catholic Churches.
You probably don't want to get into this with Todd. He is a dissenting "Catholic"
I've noticed. He's one of the few people who truly are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome."
 

Melodist

Archon
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
2,522
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
38
Wyatt said:
Papist said:
Apotheoun said:
As I see it, sin is always - and by definition - personal (i.e., it is a personal act), and there can be no such thing as a "state of sin" because human nature and the natural human will remains good and complete even after the fall.  So there is no defect in human nature itself; instead, where the defect in man arises is in his personal (i.e., hypostatic) mode of willing, which is why sin is a hypostatic reality.  Moreover, because sin is a hypostatic reality (and not natural to man) it follows that Christ is sinless, because He is a divine hypostasis, and not a human hypostasis.  Christ's mode of willing in His humanity is divine and free from any form of distortion, and the nature He assumed, which is identical to our own, is also free from sin, because otherwise He would be a sinner, and we know that is a false proposition based upon the teaching of scripture itself.  It is mortality that is the end result of Adam's fall, and as Adam brought death to manking, so Christ bring life.
You probably don't want to get into this with Todd. He is a dissenting "Catholic"
I've noticed. He's one of the few people who truly are "Orthodox in Communion with Rome."
My understanding is that the presence of physical death inclines the person's will to seek self preservation and prefer one's self over others.

This is how "sin reigned in death" and "by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners".

I don't mean to say that man is born wholly opposed to God or incapable of responding to grace.
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The theology teacher I mentioned in the OP might as well be Orthodox. He's teaching us about theosis now and assigned us homework reading writings from an Orthodox Archimandrite about it. He had an icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent on the powerpoint today. He assigned us to read some St. Athanasius last night.

Best theology teacher I've ever had.
 

Severian

Taxiarches
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
6,642
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.lsocs.co.uk
William said:
The theology teacher I mentioned in the OP might as well be Orthodox. He's teaching us about theosis now and assigned us homework reading writings from an Orthodox Archimandrite about it. He had an icon of the Ladder of Divine Ascent on the powerpoint today. He assigned us to be some St. Athanasius last night.

Best theology teacher I've ever had.
I wish they had theology classes in my area... :(
 

Jonathan Gress

Taxiarches
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
5,541
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Isn't it possible that we inherit sin without inheriting guilt? It seems that the extreme anti-Westerners on the Orthodox side object to the idea of inheriting sin because they never distinguish sin and guilt, and maybe the pre-Vatican II RCs did the same thing. I don't know for sure if the RC now teach that we inherit guilt, but I've read that this was the RC teaching starting with Anselm of Canterbury (not St Augustine, who only said that children are born with sin). You could think of ancestral or original sin as a sinful condition, i.e. not some specific bad thing the infant is supposed to have committed (or even Adam's particular sin of disobedience), but nevertheless a state of spiritual impurity that needs cleansing in baptism. I don't think it's legitimate to reduce original sin entirely to mortality, either, since, as some here have pointed out, it is certainly an Orthodox dogma that death is the wages of sin, not vice versa.

I think an actual error of St Augustine (at least according to the notes on Fr Michael Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology I have before me) is the view that man apart from sacramental grace cannot do good. I think the Orthodox position is that even outside the Church, i.e. without sacramental grace, it is still possible for man to do good, aided by the charismatic grace of the Holy Spirit.

I also think this is where the whole "penal satisfaction" theory comes into play. This doctrine says that Christ atoned for humanity's collective, inherited guilt through the Cross. But the Orthodox interpretation is that, while Christ did destroy both sin and death on the Cross, there is no understanding that He took on and atoned for our collective guilt vicariously, because there was no collective guilt to begin with.
 
Top