coptichymns.net :: Spiritual Coptic Orthodox Forums and Discussions

Coptic Forums

The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.

Coptic Forums » Religion and Faith » Spirituality » Bible Study and Contemplations

Another original sin discussion

Post new topic Reply to topic

Previous 1, 2

Fr.Kyrillos

posted on Aug 31, 2010 - 04:33 PM

Can you elaborate on what you mean by these terms?

I believe I already did by saying:

I understand the Fall in terms of a number of things that happened as a result of the first sin...I would describe these as death, corruption, separation from God, loss of the knowledge of God and of man himself, loss of the Holy Spirit in man, a sick or diseased nature, a weakened will...the ushering in of the passions, and so on. And I see that redemption and salvation include God's aid in the person of Christ reversing all these things.

So, Original Sin is the original sin committed by Adam and Eve which has a result the consequences I listed above.

I find support for the above in the prayers of the Church. You suggested I was prooftexting the liturgies but I actually went through the entire Liturgy of Baptism and pasted every relevant portion which describes what is it we are praying will happen to the baptized.

I have no problem with the prayers of the church that say:

"no one is pure and without blemish even though his life on earth be a single day..." (litany of the departed)

But I don't see your language in the liturgies. Again, it is my argument that more than any single Father, our liturgies are indeed the consensus of the Fathers, their mind...that which is approved as the ultimate expression of the church.

As a priest, when I pray over the waters to be "transformed by the word," then the words become critical. Same with the liturgy of the eucharist where we find the expression that "Christ gave Himself up unto death, which reigned over us...". The enemy here seems to be Death. Christ gave Himself as a ransom unto Death.

It is a matter of emphasis. All kinds of language are used by St. Paul and the Fathers to talk of Atonement. Some in very juridical terms and this DOES have a place in our theology. But the Eastern emphasis is not on the juridical, but on the "exchange" that I spoke if earlier. Its a matter of emphasis and synthesis.

"He took what is ours and gave us what is His."

Perhaps this is what we both mean:

“Therefore His Only-Begotten Word has become a partaker of flesh and blood (), that is, He has become man, though being Life by nature, and begotten of the Life that is by nature, that is, of God the Father, so that, having united Himself with the flesh which perishes according to the law of its own nature…He might restore it to His own life and render it through Himself a partaker of God the Father…And He wears our nature, refashioning it to His own life.”
(St. Cyril of Alexandria)

Here St. Gregory ties atonement also with exchange:

“To whom was that blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and glorious blood of God, the blood of the High Priest and of the Sacrifice…If to the devil, it is outrageous! …But if the price is offered to the Father, I ask first of all, how? For it was not the Father who held us captive. Why then should the blood of His only-begotten Son please the Father, who would not even receive Isaac when he was offered as a whole burnt offering….Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or because He felt any need for it but on account of economy: because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, and God Himself must deliver us by overcoming the tyrant, through His own power, and drawing us to Himself by the mediation of the Son, who effects this all for the honour of God, to whom He was obedient in everything…. What remains to be said shall be covered in a reverent silence… We needed an incarnate God put to death, that we might live….Nothing can equal the miracle of my salvation: a few drops of blood recreate the whole world.” (St. Gregory the Theologian)

Again, look at the richness of the language used in Baptism in the quotes I provided from the Liturgy of Baptism.

Joined: May 19, 2007 | Posts: 25

Truth.Seeker

posted on Aug 31, 2010 - 05:31 PM

From Fr. Kyrillos:

From Truth.Seeker:Can you elaborate on what you mean by these terms?

I believe I already did by saying:

I understand the Fall in terms of a number of things that happened as a result of the first sin...I would describe these as death, corruption, separation from God, loss of the knowledge of God and of man himself, loss of the Holy Spirit in man, a sick or diseased nature, a weakened will...the ushering in of the passions, and so on. And I see that redemption and salvation include God's aid in the person of Christ reversing all these things.

So, Original Sin is the original sin committed by Adam and Eve which has a result the consequences I listed above.

That is your description of what you understand the Fall to be, it is not an elaboration on what you mean by the terms "thing" and "condition".

From Fr. Kyrillos:
I find support for the above in the prayers of the Church. You suggested I was prooftexting the liturgies but I actually went through the entire Liturgy of Baptism and pasted every relevant portion which describes what is it we are praying will happen to the baptized.

I did not suggest you were prooftexting the Liturgies. You suggested I was prooftexting the Fathers, but you did not tell me how, you made a general statement about Protestants being able to do it. So, I pointed out that I could just as easily say a Protestant can prooftext our Liturgies. That was my way of saying that saying the general proposition carries no weight whatsoever unless you are going to specifically tell me how I prooftexted the Fathers.

From Fr. Kyrillos:
It is a matter of emphasis. All kinds of language are used by St. Paul and the Fathers to talk of Atonement. Some in very juridical terms and this DOES have a place in our theology. But the Eastern emphasis is not on the juridical, but on the "exchange" that I spoke if earlier. Its a matter of emphasis and synthesis.

I'm not so much concerned with emphasis as I am with emphasizing the renewal of nature to a point where it drowns the significance of sin. We had a long discussion on the thread I referred to about whether the root of the problem is death or sin. It is in connectioin with this issue that I pasted the quote from St. Cyril about death being the offshoot of sin. I have no issue with emphasizing the renewal of nature, as long as within that, we recognize that we need this renewal of nature because sin has stained our nature.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

Fr.Kyrillos

posted on Aug 31, 2010 - 07:50 PM

I am satisfied with a basic definition from the dictionary:

Condition - a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.

Thing - an action, deed, event, or performance

I would say that the first sin, the Original Sin is a thing. What we inherit is a condition. Do you agree or disagree?

You said:

"I did not suggest you were prooftexting the Liturgies. You suggested I was prooftexting the Fathers, but you did not tell me how, you made a general statement about Protestants being able to do it. So, I pointed out that I could just as easily say a Protestant can prooftext our Liturgies. That was my way of saying that saying the general proposition carries no weight whatsoever unless you are going to specifically tell me how I prooftexted the Fathers."

I said that just quoting the Fathers could be like just quoting the Scriptures. How we test that is against the official and public teaching of the Church; i.e. the Liturgies, the Councils and the Creeds. I then showed the language of the liturgies as the par excellence manifestation of church's teachings. Only the sayings and teachings of the Fathers that are within that context can be used and proclaimed. For the Fathers also had opinions which could be holy and good, but not incorporated into the church's worship and public teaching.

Joined: May 19, 2007 | Posts: 25

Truth.Seeker

posted on Aug 31, 2010 - 09:15 PM

From Fr. Kyrillos:
I would say that the first sin, the Original Sin is a thing. What we inherit is a condition. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree that the term "Original Sin" as used with respect to everyone who came after Adam and Eve is a condition, not an action. The phrase "law of sin" is another term for that condition. Do you agree that that condition is sinful in and of itself and deserves punishment? This is where the issue is.

From Fr. Kyrillos:
I said that just quoting the Fathers could be like just quoting the Scriptures. How we test that is against the official and public teaching of the Church; i.e. the Liturgies, the Councils and the Creeds. I then showed the language of the liturgies as the par excellence manifestation of church's teachings. Only the sayings and teachings of the Fathers that are within that context can be used and proclaimed. For the Fathers also had opinions which could be holy and good, but not incorporated into the church's worship and public teaching.

That's all fine. Find me something I said that contradicts any of the quotes you posted and we can discuss it. Unless you are claiming we cannot teach anything beyond the words to be found in our Liturgies, at which point we would have to stop saying that there is no such thing as the Immaculate Conception of Virgin Mary or Papal Infallibility, etc.

You think that our Liturgies emphasize the renewal aspect. My point is that if someone like St. Cyril, who has one of the Liturgies named after him, presumes that any mention of renewal presupposes a cleansing from sin, then saying the Liturgy emphasizes renewal in baptism and not cleansing of sin does not carry much weight. It would be like saying someone is excluding California by talking about the United States.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

Fr.Kyrillos

posted on Aug 31, 2010 - 11:42 PM

From Truth.Seeker:

I agree that the term "Original Sin" as used with respect to everyone who came after Adam and Eve is a condition, not an action. The phrase "law of sin" is another term for that condition. Do you agree that that condition is sinful in and of itself and deserves punishment? This is where the issue is. .

"When we disobeyed Your commandment by the seduction of the serpent, we fell from eternal life and were exiled from the paradise of joy" (Liturgy of St. Basil)

If what we inherent is a condition, then baptism is the beginning of changing that condition (renewal, rebirth, etc...) rather than the removal of the "thing" that you agree refers to Adam's sin. To say that it is deserving punishment can be interpreted as to mean that there is another action apart from the action of a new personal sin that deserves punishment. The punishment is already there..."we were exiled from the paradise of joy" and "death which entered into the world through the envy of the devil". We are born into this punishment of exile and death.

From Truth.Seeker:

That's all fine. Find me something I said that contradicts any of the quotes you posted and we can discuss it. Unless you are claiming we cannot teach anything beyond the words to be found in our Liturgies, at which point we would have to stop saying that there is no such thing as the Immaculate Conception of Virgin Mary or Papal Infallibility, etc.

You think that our Liturgies emphasize the renewal aspect. My point is that if someone like St. Cyril, who has one of the Liturgies named after him, presumes that any mention of renewal presupposes a cleansing from sin, then saying the Liturgy emphasizes renewal in baptism and not cleansing of sin does not carry much weight. It would be like saying someone is excluding California by talking about the United States

I never contended that your quotes contradicted the liturgy, I only wanted to point that they must be interpreted in light of the liturgies of the church and her public teaching through councils and creeds.

I never said that baptism does not inherently deal with the cleansing of sin...my quotes from the baptismal rite of our church are full of those references - "we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." But this is the language of the church - baptism for the remission of sins - I don't dare to change it. Why didn't the church prefer to say "baptism for removal of the law of sin"?

Joined: May 19, 2007 | Posts: 25

Fr.Kyrillos

posted on Sep 01, 2010 - 01:21 AM

Dear TruthSeeker,

I want to apologize for something.

I started out by saying that I had not read the previous thread.

Well, I just skimmed the previous thread and realized there were 9 pages of discussion by many learned people who have already touched on these points, both from what I have said and what you have said. Therefore, I am not sure what is the point of continuing as I don't think anything new can be added and I will likely just force you to repeat yourself from what you said there.

I don't think we will solve this divergent understanding here and now. I will stick with my understanding and respect your understanding and zeal.

Fr. Kyrillos

Joined: May 19, 2007 | Posts: 25

Truth.Seeker

posted on Sep 01, 2010 - 03:55 PM

Fr. Kyrillos,

From Fr. Kyrillos:
Therefore, I am not sure what is the point of continuing as I don't think anything new can be added and I will likely just force you to repeat yourself from what you said there.

I agree with you. That said, a long post follows, but none of it is in my words, I was just reading the quotes I inserted below yesterday and I thought they were very on-point to the points you brought up. The response to your second quoted statement ties into your first quoted statement, so I think reading it all together is the best approach.

From Fr. Kyrillos:
"When we disobeyed Your commandment by the seduction of the serpent, we fell from eternal life and were exiled from the paradise of joy" (Liturgy of St. Basil)

If what we inherent is a condition, then baptism is the beginning of changing that condition (renewal, rebirth, etc...) rather than the removal of the "thing" that you agree refers to Adam's sin. To say that it is deserving punishment can be interpreted as to mean that there is another action apart from the action of a new personal sin that deserves punishment. The punishment is already there..."we were exiled from the paradise of joy" and "death which entered into the world through the envy of the devil". We are born into this punishment of exile and death.

Let me put it in the words of Metropolitan/Archbishop Panteleimon (Greek Orthodox), Metropolitan of Pilousion (Egypt) and retired Archbishop of Antinoe (Egypt) -

From Metropolitan Panteleimon:

"In the classical statement of St Paul in his Epistle to the Romans: “...through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because all sinned...” humanity not only became partakers of death through the Offence of Adam but they also became guilty of his sin. Initially sin entered man as a violent tyrant and death was its fruit."

...

Original Sin consists of true and real guilt, not only in the punishment imposed as a result of Adam’s Offence. Adam’s sin was not committed by his descendants, and consequently for them it had nothing to do with their own will, merely being inherited as a sinful condition. Sin is not only the separate inner or external acts (“peccatum actuale”). It is especially the condition of sin (“peccatum habituale”), due to specific sinful deeds that further strengthens and cultivates it.

...

Original Sin is the heritage of a sinful condition for all mankind, which is imputed to us not as personal sin (direct imputation), but as the sinful condition of each person (“vitiositas”). Between Adam’s guilt and the guilt of his descendants there '...exists a great difference: ... in Adam the Offence of God‟s Law was committed by his own will whereas in his descendants it is by inheritance and unavoidable.' 'The Original Sin in the First-created should be understood as their own sin as well as the sinful condition of their nature in which the Offence led them. Whereas in Adam's descendants it is the sinful condition of man's nature with which he is born into the world.'

http://www.orthodox-mitropolitan-of-ant ... OT/022.pdf

From Fr. Kyrillos:
I never said that baptism does not inherently deal with the cleansing of sin...my quotes from the baptismal rite of our church are full of those references - "we believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." But this is the language of the church - baptism for the remission of sins - I don't dare to change it. Why didn't the church prefer to say "baptism for removal of the law of sin"?

From Metropolitan Panteleimon:
Accordingly, the Regeneration of man “…by water and the Spirit…”is the assurance in Baptism of the Lord that takes place. Without this Regeneration or Rebirth no one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Hence, the Holy Apostles referred to Holy Baptism as “…the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” The negative attributes of Regeneration are exalted such as the forgiveness of sins, the justification and the release from the punishments of sins while the positive aspect is exalted whereby those who are baptised vest (puts on) Christ in the Newness of Life with Him, having been raised together, becoming sons by adoption and joint heirs with Christ.

...

St John Chrysostom addressed the question of why, since Baptism frees us from all our sins, is it not called “….the washing of the forgiveness of sins…” rather than “…the washing of Regeneration.” He explained that it is indeed the washing of Regeneration “….not simply because it removes the offences, but it creates and makes us from Above, not forming us again from the earth…” as once God made the body of
Adam out of dust “…but creating us from the element of the water‟s nature.” Therefore, it is the washing of Regeneration because “…it does not clean the vessel, but refines it once again completely.”

...

According to the forementioned, the Regeneration of Baptism consists of a deep and total change in human nature. It is a new birth that removes the relics of sin which are put to death in the Sanctified water. What remains is the desire to sin or “concupiscentia,” a sensitive condition in which the one who is baptised is like an invalid recovering from a long period of sickness or like the weakness of a new born infant in Christ, not having anything polluted in him, but going from strength to strength and slowly progressing. This condition does not carry the guilt of ancestral sin, but consists of the reason for cultivating virtues and simultaneously being strengthened by Divine Grace.

http://www.orthodox-mitropolitan-of-ant ... OT/049.pdf

Thank you for taking a look at the other thread (at least to see how long it was!). I'd be happy to stop with this post, or if you would like to keep discussing - up to you Father.

Here's a link to the full Catechesis by Metropolitan Panteleimon Lampadarios, if anyone is interested: http://www.orthodox-mitropolitan-of-ant ... 53&lang=en .

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

Fr.Kyrillos

posted on Sep 03, 2010 - 07:25 AM

TruthSeeker,

Thank you for that link which has some rich resources.

There is also a wonderful account of a beautiful miracle that happened with the bishop here:

http://www.orthodox-mitropolitan-of-ant ... OT/022.pdf

I think the following quote from Vladimir Moss explains well the point that may unite us or at least confirm some mutual understanding:

Actually, Romanides is not as extreme – at any rate, in this early work of his – as many of his contemporary followers. Thus he writes: “Death is not from God; nor is it caused by personal sins of a newborn child but by an inherited sinful condition and the devil.” This is true; but what is this “inherited sinful condition” if not original sin in the traditional sense? We may call this condition a “disease” – several Holy Fathers call it that. But it should be understood that whereas an ordinary physical disease is morally neutral, so to speak, this disease is far from being such: it is a sinful condition, which therefore requires, not simply treatment, but also expiation. If this point is accepted, then we remain within the bounds of Orthodoxy.

Taken from "The New Soteriology":

http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/d ... IOLOGY.pdf

Joined: May 19, 2007 | Posts: 25

Truth.Seeker

posted on Sep 03, 2010 - 09:35 PM

Fr. Kyrillos,

I appreciate that you take the time and look at the references provided. Most people don't.

If you agree with the bolded part of the text you quoted above, we are in large agreement. I'd like to highlight: "this disease ... is a sinful condition, which therefore requires, not simply treatment, but also expiation". It is because the condition we are born in is sinful and carries the guilt of not being morally neutral that it requires expiation. That is why those who emphasize original sin emphasize it - we can never get to the renewal of our nature unless this guilt is expiated (through Baptism) first.

That is what I aimed to show from the following quotes from St. Cyril:

From St. Cyril:
Thus has the guilt of the disobedience that is by Adam been remitted: thus has the power of the curse ceased, and the dominion of death been brought to decay. And this too Paul teaches, saying, "For as by the disobedience of the one man, the many became sinners, so by the obedience of the One, the many became righteous." For the whole nature of man became guilty in the person of him who was first formed.

St. Cyril. Sermon 42, on the Gospel of St. Luke
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefat ... _39_46.htm

From St. Cyril:For since we were in many sins, and therefore due to death and corruption, the Father hath given the Son a redemption for us, One for all, since all are in Him, and He above all. One died for all, that all should live in Him. For death having swallowed up the Lamb for all, hath vomited forth all in Him and with Him. For all we were in Christ, Who on account of us and for us died and rose again. But sin being destroyed, how could it be that death which was of it and because of it should not altogether come to nothing? The root dying, how could the shoot yet survive? wherefore should we yet die, now that sin hath been destroyed? therefore jubilant in the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God we say: O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? For all iniquity, as the Psalmist sings somewhere, shall stop her mouth, no longer able to accuse those who have sinned from infirmity. For it is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth? Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, that we might escape the curse from transgression.

Commentary on Gospel of John, Book 2
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril ... _book2.htm

and

From St. Cyril:
“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).

_ _ _

So, what is the issue with St. Augustine?

Let me re-quote the text that resulted in this discussion:

From St. Augustine:
No doubt the two are generated simultaneously—both nature and nature’s corruption; one of which is good, the other evil. The one comes to us from the bounty of the Creator, the other is contracted from the condemnation of our origin; the one has its cause in the good-will of the Supreme God, the other in the depraved will of the first man; the one exhibits God as the maker of the creature, the other exhibits God as the punisher of disobedience: in short, the very same Christ was the maker of man for the creation of the one, and was made man for the healing of the other… Where God did nothing else than by a just sentence to condemn the man who willfully sins, together with his stock; there also, as a matter of course, whatsoever was even not yet born is justly condemned in its sinful root.

St. Augustine. On Original Sin.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

childoforthodoxy

posted on Sep 14, 2010 - 09:50 PM

Perhaps we can glean some information from a Father of the Church who spoke directly on the issue, without the trouble of extracting the semantical meaning of his diction.

St. Mark the Ascetic writes the following:

"Question: Have we not necessarily received Adam's transgression, that is, sin occasioned by our thought?

Answer: It is not Adam's transgression but rather a reproach directed at each of us for our love of pleasure. But not even then have we inherited the transgression since, if that were the case, we would all be transgressors because of what we had inherited by necessity and would not be accused by God of being transgressors because of what was inherently due to our own nature. But this is not the case at present: We do not all transgress the commandment, nor do all of us keep it. From this it is clear that the transgression is not the result of necessity but is the result of the love of pleasure. If you say that the Lord came because of this transgression, why did he not remove it through baptism? No, it is still a fact that each of us now has it in his power to transgress or not to transgress.

Thus, since this transgression is something freely chosen, as has been demonstrated, no one has inherited it by necessity but we have, as a result of it, inherited death, which is compulsory. Death is alienation from God. When the first human being died, that is, when he was alienated from God, we too were unable to live in God. On account of this the Lord came in order to give us life through the washing of new birth [Titus 3.5] and to reconcile us to God [Rom 5.10; 2 Cor 5.18], which he has done. Therefore, we have not inherited transgression, since even Adam himself was not forced to transgress, but did so willingly. We have by necessity inherited death, since death by necessity prevailed over Adam. Death ruled even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam [Rom 5.14]."

And later, he more succinctly says, "we have not inherited Adam's transgression, but rather death."

childoforthodoxy

Joined: Nov 21, 2008 | Posts: 16777215

Truth.Seeker

posted on Sep 14, 2010 - 10:11 PM

childoforthodoxy,

Okay ... let's ignore St. Cyril the Great, the Pillar of Faith, and THEOLOGIAN, and get our theology from St. Mark the ASCETIC. Did you get this text from the English translation of the Philokalia? Is St. Mark the Ascetic even a saint in the Coptic Orthodox Church?

You call him a "Father of the Church" - no he is not.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

childoforthodoxy

posted on Sep 14, 2010 - 10:43 PM

In no way have I suggested that we ignore the writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Let us also bear in mind that "the theologian is one who prays truly, and one who prays truly is a theologian."

I sense that this discussion will not result in any change in each of our stances, and as such, that we pray for one another for our struggles.

Joined: Nov 21, 2008 | Posts: 16777215

Truth.Seeker

posted on Sep 15, 2010 - 12:43 AM

I showed you that St. Cyril disagrees with you, and you have not commented. You maintained silence, then randomly posted a quote from a random guy found in the Philokalia. If that is what you mean by this discussion not resulting in much, I fully agree.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 956

Post new topic

Return to the Forum Index

Total		Daily
Topics:	7750	2.57
Users:	6195	2.05
Posts:	64548	21.39

coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Navigation

RSS Syndication

Coptic Forums

Another original sin discussion

Fr.Kyrillos

Truth.Seeker

Fr.Kyrillos

Truth.Seeker

Fr.Kyrillos

Fr.Kyrillos

Truth.Seeker

Fr.Kyrillos

Truth.Seeker

childoforthodoxy

Truth.Seeker

childoforthodoxy

Truth.Seeker

Forum Statistics

Online Members