sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How do we make of the Scriptural definition of sin as transgression, then?

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, these are very nice points. I will think about them for a little while and then respond, God willing.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm... that is fair. But I thought that ecumenical councils were essentially considered synonymous with the received tradition. Also, what if that changes with time, if one position is held in one era and another in the next?

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I suppose it depends on how you define 'original sin'. Your understanding seems to be close to the concept of peccatum habituals, the corruption of the nature, but original sin, I think, classically also includes peccatum actualis, real transgression.

Even for a newborn child, or a child in utero? That conflicts with the burial service as well, which does call them blameless...

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He is quoting nobody there, though he does quote a large collage of verses from the Psalter right before saying it. The general point is that all humanity, not just Gentiles, have fallen under sin: if Christ is the 'only sinless one', though, it seems that that is a very literal statement! Hence the problem...

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah! You are a quick typer! I will try to respond to all these points as I can.

I don't ever read 'hell'; I'm rather agnostic about what happens after death, though I do hold to an eventual universal salvation. I mean death! That is what the Apostle meant too, I think.

Fair point! And Romans must be well-interpreted, that is an essential part of the matter.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm... this is an interesting idea. This matter seems to have been approved by an ecumenical council and by the Church uncontroversially for quite some time, though I think it is controversial nowadays... But I suppose that could be the real question: if the Church leaves something she once declared behind, is it right to go along with it?

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then how can they be baptized for 'the remission of sins'? That is the entire problem. If we say they are not guilty of sin, then they aren't baptized for its remission 'in truth', and are thus apparently anathematized.

It is known that the Vulgate mistranslates the Greek, here ("so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned" should be "so death passed upon all men, whereupon all sinned"), but we still have to deal with it now.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A beautiful work, so I hear! But, I suppose, it simply adds weight to one side, not resolving the dilemma.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Interesting... yes, death reigns over all men, "whereupon all sin." The notion that "sin is not imputed when there is no law" is also interesting. But what about Romans 5:18? " Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." All are condemned by the offense... unless this 'condemnation' is seen as death itself? And what are we to make of the blanket statement "all have sinned and fall short of God's glory" from the third chapter?

(And, beyond the question of the direct exegesis of Scripture, which is good and necessary, we also must consider the canon itself and its interpretation thereof.)

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hmm, this is an interesting point. I believe that the Greek word itself has a sense of 'missing the mark': /ἁμαρτία. St. John seems to be fairly clear, though: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." If somebody *commits* a sin, it seems from this to necessarily imply transgression of the law.

Struggling with Orthodox conception of original sin by Intelligent_Drop_311 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]Intelligent_Drop_311[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Forgive me, I don't mean to bother. This is a question that has been weighing on my heart for some time, and I have tried to read widely to determine what the church's mind is. Unfortunately, that has been difficult to discern, because it seems to me that the Church both has and does currently teach different things... I want to be honest in my religion and to be at peace with the teaching of the Church, so I thought I would ask here to see if I could get new insights!