May 29, 2002
delgado ?
Delgado brought it up
In April, Michael Delgado (the second most talented writer I am fortunate enough to know) wrote the following:
I just finished reading a concise critique of the Eastern Orthodox , published by the Christian Research Institute. It gives a good breakdown on the Orthodox view of God, Creation, Man and Justification. I think one of the most frigtening elements in the article is when Professor Negrut writes about the Orthodox view of man:
"The rebellion of Adam and Eve against God was their personal sin. This resulted in no inherited guilt for their descendants. Although the Orthodox emphasize the unity of humankind, this unity includes only hereditary death and not inherited guilt. Sinfulness is a consequence of mortality. By becoming mortal, man acquired a greater urge to sin because he is subject to the needs of the body (food, drink, etc.) which are absent in immortal beings."
In response, I think it important to point out that the Orthodox do not deny "Original Sin"
per se.Bishop Ware:
"...The consequences of Adam's disobedience extended to all his descendants. We are members of one another, as Saint Paul never ceased to insist, and if one member suffers the body suffers. In virtue of this mysterious unity of the human race, not only Adam but all mankind became subject to mortality. Nor was the disintegration which followed from the fall merely physical. Cut off from God, Adam and his descendants passed under the domination of sin and of the devil. Each new human is born into a world where sin prevails everywhere...Man's will is weakened and enfeebled by what the Greeks call "desire" and the Latins "concupiscence." We are all subject to these, the spiritual effects of sin."
He goes on...
"Orthodox teach that men automatically inherit Adam's corruption and mortality, but not his guilt; they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam."
Take the words of Christoforos Stavropoulos:
"[After Adam's fall] Humanity loses the divine gift. Human nature becomes distorted. Death comes. Our subjugation to the tyranny of the devil follows. And thus, we human beings ourselves stand in the way of the divine grace which is poured out upon us. The image of God within us is weakened. We oursleves preclude the possibility of our union with God."
Consider a couple Orthodox prayers from early in the Church's history-- prayers, mind you, that are not archaic nor in seldom use, but prayers that are prayed nearly everday by many Orthodox Christians.
St. Antiokh (fifth century):
Oh Jesus, Good Shepard of thy sheep, let me not fall into the disobedience of the serpent, nor leave me to the will of Satan, for the seed of corruption is in me."
St. John Damascene (d. 777)
"...But upon me a sinner show the wonder of Thy mercy...let not my evil nature overcome thy grace and kindness that cannot be told; and as thou wishest, order my goings aright."
One can see from the passages above that the Church does not take a Pelagian view of Sin-- we are certainly born in need of the Saviour.
My Calvinist friends, how do you like that last part of John's prayer: "as thou (Heavenly Father) wishest, order my goings aright"? Sounds very keen to the sovereignty of God, if you ask me.
Posted by at May 29, 2002 10:24 PM
Good post, Jer. One small request, though: Might you consider including references when quoting from various sources? With at least half of the passages you quote I find myself pulling my hair saying, "Ah! If only I knew where I might find this quote!" :-)
I know where the Ware quote came from, but Christoforos Stavropoulos? Who is that?
Signed,
Your Guardian Webmaster
wayne oh (oh webmaster guardian extraordinaire),
Good call. I'll be more mindful of that.
The Stavropoulos quote is taken from the Clendenin reader chapter eleven, "Partakers of the Divine Nature" (page 187).
The two prayers came from the Manual of Eastern Orthodox Prayers page 14 and 18. That book sound familiar? :-)
God bless you.
This blog world cracks me up. I'm never quite sure the proper place to respond to someone.
Do I tell you to click back to my site for a response? Do I comment in the comment section on the blog you wrote? Do I comment back on the comment section on my bog-- where you asked for a comment? Should I just post a blog on my site and have a link back to your comment? Should I forget the comment and write an email?
We need to devise some sort of "Blog Etiquette" manual or something.
* * * *
Thanks for trying to explain the Orthodox position to my feeble mind. I'm still a bit confused:
"Orthodox teach that men automatically inherit Adam's corruption and mortality, but not his guil--they are only guilty in so far as by their own free choice they imitate Adam."
I know it's a complicated issue--perhaps I should just read the sources.
Interesting stuff. So the Orthodox do not state original sin in the same way Protestants do. Is a child conceived in sin and born in sin? (Note: no, I'm not saying that sex is sinful.)
If it turned out that the Orthodox denied original sin, as in we not only inhereit Adam's sin but are guiltly from conception because of it (which I think is Paul's position in Romans 5) how would you deal with that? Would you be required to agree with the Church or could you deny this and still be part of the Orthodox Church?
Seems to me that this is a pretty big one. Strikes me as odd that you are trying to defend a Protestant (and I believe biblical) understanding of the concept despite what someone else said of the Orthodox position. The CRI guy could be wrong, but what if he's right?
Just questions. I love being exposed to traditions I'm not familiar with.
Delgado,
I highly recommed reading for yourself the primary source texts, rather than relying on "apologetic literature."
It is no surprise that reading Protestant material will have a Protestant bias...just as reading Orthodox material will have an Orthodox bias. With that said, the nice thing about Orthodoxy, as opposed to Protestantism, is that one can study the whole of Orthodoxy from "primary sources" by simply reading the Church fathers, the councils, and church history in general.
I know that once I began actually reading Orthodox sources about Orthodoxy I found many of my prior beliefs about Orthodoxy to be straw men. Or at least I found the Orthodox doctrine on a particular point to be quite in line with Holy Writ.
If I could put in short form a response to what you described as a remaining confusion...let me say this. The Orthodox believe that Adam alone was guilty for his own sin, but Adam's act of rebellion changed the tenor/composition/nature/essence of humanity's relationship/fellowship with God Almighty-- this latter change is part of what we do inherit from Adam.
That's an extremely simplified answer..but I hope it speaks to your question. There are other aspects to what we have inherited from Adam: corruption, and death to name two. More can be said soon.
Tim writes:
Interesting stuff. So the Orthodox do not state original sin in the same way Protestants do.
No, the Orthodox do not state Original Sin identically to Protestants.
Is a child conceived in sin and born in sin? (Note: no, I'm not saying that sex is sinful.)
Children born are in need of Christ's work on the cross. They are not considered "innocent" such that they, apart from Christ's grace would enter the gates of Heaven. Another way, Children are believed to be born into the corruption, and separation brought about by Adam's act...it's just the children are not
guilty per se for Adam's sin.
If it turned out that the Orthodox denied original sin, as in we not only inhereit Adam's sin but are guiltly from conception because of it (which I think is Paul's position in Romans 5) how would you deal with that?
First off, the Orthodox do not deny Original Sin, even Original Sin as explained in Romans chapter five. Orthodox would affirm 100% Paul's words in Romans. The difference is, between Protestants and Orthodox, is NOT the reality of Original Sin, it is the
interpretation of what Original Sin means.
With that said, I would posit that a close reading of Romans five reveals that Paul does pronounce death, corruption, transgression, "made sinners" to all through Adam's sin, but does not, even once, use the word "guilt" as passed on to each member of humanity.
Now, you might respond by saying the absence of the word "guilt" does not deny it's proper inference from the chapter. I would argue that the Orthodox interpretation accounts for Chapter five in full, and that "guilt" (in the Protestant sense) is not implied in the passage.
Seems to me that this is a pretty big one. Strikes me as odd that you are trying to defend a Protestant (and I believe biblical) understanding of the concept despite what someone else said of the Orthodox position. The CRI guy could be wrong, but what if he's right?
Just questions. I love being exposed to traditions I'm not familiar with.I love questions, and I'm happy to offer my meager attempts at answering your questions. And no, I don't think the CRI guy is right on this point.
May God have mercy on me, a sinner.
Jeremy,
With that said, I would posit that a close reading of Romans five reveals that Paul does pronounce death, corruption, transgression, "made sinners" to all through Adam's sin, but does not, even once, use the word "guilt" as passed on to each member of humanity.
Now, you might respond by saying the absence of the word "guilt" does not deny it's proper inference from the chapter. I would argue that the Orthodox interpretation accounts for Chapter five in full, and that "guilt" (in the Protestant sense) is not implied in the passage.
I think both positions are present in the passage and I almost didn't refer to it for that reason.
I think the "death reigned from Adam to Moses" statement (there's more than what I just quote) can be used to show that men died because of Adam's sin means that they were guilty of it. I also think that it can be read without implying guilt and no harm is done to the passage.
What we want to avoid is a Pelagian "bad example" nonesense.
~~What we want to avoid is a Pelagian "bad example" nonesense.~~
Amen to that!
Kyrie eleison
6:20 AM - Oh yea, this just hit me. There is nothing really "wrong" with Adam's sin being imputed to us. The concept is biblical after all; our sin was imputed to Jesus (Isa 53, "He was pierced for our transgressions" etc).
Still, even within evangelicalism there are those who don't like the notion that Adam's sin is imputed to us. Some adamantly (unintended pun but I’ll take it) reject the Covenant of Grace/Covenant of Works framework that such imputation operates under.
Jonathan Edwards, I understand, believed that we are guilty of Adam's sin in two ways. By imputation but also because we were physically "in Adam" when he sinned just like the tribe of Levi was "in Abraham" when Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe (Heb 7).
In the end, I guess it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. For me, I think the imputation is more biblical but there are certainly other possibilities within the realm of orthodoxy.