Original Sin Question.

[pilgrimgal]

What is Anglican belief regarding "original sin" and how does it differ from Roman Catholic belief..or the teaching of the Orthodox Church on original sin? Comments and reflections gratefully received. I am new to Anglicanism, genuinely seeking, and here to learn. Thanks. :)

[Naomi4Christ]

Why don't you tell us what the Roman Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are, and we can say whether we agree with them or not. (Some people will inevitably agree - just because...)

[TomUK]

I accept i more Eastern understanding of original sin.

"O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants."
2 Esdras

[Naomi4Christ]

We have a sinful nature (no arguments there, presumably) - and we believe that this was inherited from Adam.

We don't really dwell on how we came to have a sinful nature, though. It's more of an issue for the theologians to debate. The important thing is that we are prone to sin, and that Jesus came to redeem these sins. We must confess our sins and repent, in order to have a right relationship with God.

[TomUK]

We have a sinful nature (no arguments there, presumably) - and we believe that this was inherited from Adam.



The RC doctrine of original sin states that not only have we inherited a sinful nature due to Adam's sin, we have also inherited the guilt from his sin. That is where i begin having a problem.

If i am incorrect in my assertions than please correct me.

[Naomi4Christ]

The RC doctrine of original sin states that not only have we inherited a sinful nature due to Adam's sin, we have also inherited the guilt from his sin. That is where i begin having a problem.

If i am incorrect in my assertions than please correct me.

I would have problem with that too.

[PaladinValer]

Through Adam and Eve, all humanity has Fallen. Original Sin broke the human soul.

However, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that. We are not guilty because we have broken souls. The guilt is their's and their's alone.

[AngCath]

Original Sin created a seperation between God and His creation. We have inherited this seperation and continue it by committing sins.

[gtsecc]

We have a sinful nature (no arguments there, presumably) - and we believe that this was inherited from Adam.
Oh Naomi - look at you touting Romish doctrine. ;)
I doubt it leads you to believing the Immaculate Conception.

I don't - the IC is anti scriptural.

Anyway, I tend to like the Eastern Understanding.

[gtsecc]

Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin.

Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.

[AngCath]

In the 1979 ECUSA BCP there is no mention of "Original Sin" in the catechism [see p. 848-849, Sin and Redemption]. The only descriptions of sin itself are:

Q.What is sin?A.Sin is the seeking of our own will instead of the will of
God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other
people, and with all creation.

and

Q.How does sin have power over us?A.Sin has power over us because we lose our liberty when
our relationship with God is distorted.





Article IX of the Articles of Religion does deal with Original Sin though.
IX. Of Original or Birth Sin.

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it
is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the
offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his
own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and
therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation.
And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust
of the flesh, called in Greek, Φρόυημα σαρκός, (which some do expound the wisdom, some
sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of
God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the
Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

But, the Articles of Religion are not binding and are controversial as we residents of STR can attest.

[gtsecc]

The reason Anglicans are nto Roman Catholic is because we believe Roman Catholics have added to the deposite of faith. They have done this by over reacting to things. For example, the Immaculate Conception.
Liekwise, we fall into this same error when we listen to the 39 articles - they are just an over reaction. That might not have been clear at teh time, but looking back, we can see how it is.

[pmcleanj]

The reason Anglicans are nto Roman Catholic is because we believe Roman Catholics have added to the deposite of faith. They have done this by over reacting to things. For example, the Immaculate Conception.
Liekwise, we fall into this same error when we listen to the 39 articles - they are just an over reaction. That might not have been clear at teh time, but looking back, we can see how it is.

Used as intended -- that is, as general propositions that clergy are not to teach against, and not as a confession of faith or a set of dogmatic proclaimations -- the 39Articles provide a balanced set of guidelines that avoid teetering too far to either extreme that lies precipitously alongside the high ground of the Middle Way.

They allow room for variant interpretations, provided one does not choose to wander too far toward those extremes. They can even be stretched. But I'd hesitate to do away with them. It would be too much like doing away with the guard rails on the Tunnel Mountain hiking trail: the sensible well balanced folk would still be fine, but the youngsters and those with inner-ear problems could find themselves tumbling helplessly into the errors of extremism.

"Historic" is NOT another word for "obsolete". Our history is where we came from; it necessarily determines where we are. It remains relevant as long as we do.

[karen freeinchristman]

Used as intended -- that is, as general propositions that clergy are not to teach against, and not as a confession of faith or a set of dogmatic proclaimations -- the 39Articles provide a balanced set of guidelines that avoid teetering too far to either extreme that lies precipitously alongside the high ground of the Middle Way.

They allow room for variant interpretations, provided one does not choose to wander too far toward those extremes. They can even be stretched. But I'd hesitate to do away with them. It would be too much like doing away with the guard rails on the Tunnel Mountain hiking trail: the sensible well balanced folk would still be fine, but the youngsters and those with inner-ear problems could find themselves tumbling helplessly into the errors of extremism.

"Historic" is NOT another word for "obsolete". Our history is where we came from; it necessarily determines where we are. It remains relevant as long as we do.

Well said, Madame! :)

[AngCath]

"Historic" is NOT another word for "obsolete".
I love the way you said that.

[gtsecc]

Are they compatible with Christianity?
What would the Church fathers think - Good job, or over reaction to Rome?
The guard rail analogy is really nice and clear, but I wonder if the guard rails were centered on the path, or if it forces us slightly off course.

Like it or not, they are a reaction against Rome.
The Orthodox don't have any guard rails like this, and they have not wandered off the path like a child with an inner ear problem.

Is it necessary for us simply because we have no way of censuring disobedient Bishops?

I have another idea for a guard rail - why not let what has always and everywhere been believed by the guard rail?
The result would be folks on all sides of the issues giving up benediction of the blessed sacrament, the 39 articles, and the immaculate conception, etc.
And, some folks woud have to take on doctrine, like the perpetual virginity of Mary.

[pmcleanj]

The Orthodox don't have any guard rails like this, and they have not wandered off the path like a child with an inner ear problem.

Yes, actually, they have.

They have a florid, excessive style of worship that separates the laity from the clergy and creates artificial divisions. Their form of hierarchicalism has resulted in Orthodox laypeople experiencing demands for fasting and other disciplines as oppressive and authoritarian. They are rife with cultural accomodations that create barriers along ethnic divides. They have added an insistance on non-scriptural adiaphora, insisting on things that have NOT always and everywhere been believed -- things like Mary's Perpetual Virginity which is NOT incumbent on all Christians to believe.

Christians have indeed in many times and places since their authorship, believed the 39 Articles. Therefore, any thing that denies the 39 articles is NOT "what has always and everywhere been believed". It's only "what has sometimes and somewhere been believed".

I'll stick with "what has generally, by Anglicans, been believed".

[Simon_Templar]

I could be mistaken here...

BUT..

I think that the Roman Catholic position is not that we have inherited guilt from Adam's sin. I believe in my studies I've seen RCC doctrine teach that individuals have personal guilt only from their own sins.

The difference between RCC and EO position is not in inherited guilt but in the twisting of human nature. RC's believe that all people have inherited a "sinful" nature from Adam, meaning that our natural state is sin, and we can not of our own power avoid sinning.

The Eastern Orthodox position on the other hand is simple mortality. We inherited mortality, but our nature was not inherintly twisted into something sinful which makes it impossible for us not to sin.

Of the two positions I think the RC is more correct biblically, and I think Anglican Tradition leans more toward the Roman view. Indeed virtually all protestant churches do derive their view on original sin from the Roman view.

[gtsecc]

Tom Hopko has some some extensive writing on this topic, especially comparing the EO and RC positions.

[gtsecc]

I can't find his writing on this, but maybe somethign in this will help.


The following is from the book Life of the Virgin Mary, The Theotokos by Blessed John Maximovitch, published by Holy Apostles Convent, Buena Vista, CA:
The Heterodox Teaching
of “Immaculate Conception” and “Original Sin”
“Saint Ambrose (339-397), Bishop of Milan, comments that, ‘Of all those born of women, there is not a single one who is perfectly holy, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ...’
“The Orthodox Church teaches that the Virgin Mary was conceived by Joachim’s seed and the period of gestation was nine months. None of the ancient holy Fathers (ed.—only the Roman Catholic Church) say that God in miraculous fashion purified the Virgin Mary while yet in Anna’s womb. Only Jesus Christ is completely pure of every sin, while all men, being born of Adam, have borne a flesh subject to the law of sin. Many have correctly indicated that the Virgin Mary, just as all men, endured a battle with sinfulness, but was victorious over temptations and was saved by her Divine Son.”
Blessed John Maximovitch (1896-1966) affirms that The Church teaches that "through the fall of Adam and Eve, all of the human race inherited death, becoming enslaved to the devil through the passions. The progeny of Adam and Eve are not guilty of their first parents’ tasting of the fruit; we are not being punished for this first sin or 'original sin.' If, for the sake of argument, we maintain the invalid heterodox teaching that the Theotokos was preserved from this 'original sin,' that would make God unmerciful and unjust. If God preserved her, why then does He not purify all men? But then that would have meant saving men before their birth, apart from their will. This teaching would then deny all her virtues. After all, if Mary, even in the womb of Anna, when she could not even desire anything either good or evil, was preserved by God’s grace from every impurity, and then by that grace was preserved from sin even after her birth, then in what does her virtue consist? She would have been placed in the state of being unable to sin.
“The Virgin, as a true daughter of Adam and Eve, also inherited death. She was not in a state of never being able to die. Thus, St. John of Damascus writes on the occasion of her Dormition, ‘O pure Virgin, sprung from mortal loins, thine end was conformable to nature.’"
Blessed Archbishop John continues to comment that the Virgin was not placed in the state of being unable to sin, but continued to take care for her salvation and overcame all temptations. The righteousness and sanctity of the Virgin Mary was manifested in the fact that she, being “human with passions—like us,” so loved God and gave herself over to Him, that by her purity she was exalted above all other creatures. Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man.
The last comment made by St. John is so important -- “Mary was to become the Mother of God, the Theotokos, not because she was to give birth to divinity, but that through her the Word became true man, God-Man”. If the Holy Virgin Mary’s human will was interfered with (ed.—as in Roman Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ would not be totally man (ed.—human) and totally God.”

[sempervirens]

Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin.

Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin.

No Roman Catholics do not teach that one is personally guilty of original sin. Newman99 had a good posts summarizing the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics here - its an important distinction.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24102725&postcount=23

"Original sin is not something that we have (guilt for personal sin) but rather it is something that we do not have (the light of grace)."

From our catechism: 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".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. 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, 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.


417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

[gtsecc]

The result of the difference is most clearly manefested in the nature of Mary.
Both churches confess she gave birth to Christ, and that his humanity comes from her. For the Orthodox, that is all that is needed. For the RC, if her humanity contains sin, then the humanity of Christ would also contain sin. This leads to the corrective doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the need for Mary to be sinless, so Christ's humanity, inherited from her can also be sinless.

But scripture is clear - no one is sinless, so at least the RC doctrine of the IC, seems to me to be wrong, and a result of a corrective theology. The betetr route in my mind, is to simply hold the Orthodox position.

[sempervirens]

If the Holy Virgin Mary’s human will was interfered with (ed.—as in Roman Catholic doctrine) She would not be totally human and therefore Jesus Christ would not be totally man (ed.—human) and totally God.”

We wouldn't say that Eve's human will was interfered with would we? Mary is the new Eve, and her choice to cooperate with God's will countered Eve's choice to disobey it. Just like Eve in the Garden, or Jesus in the Desert, she could be tempted - but chose not to sin. She had the same nature from conception that we do after baptism, the immaculate conception is not a requirement for the incarnation, simply fitting and proper.

[pilgrimgal]

Such a good discussion on this topic. I have gleamed much and appreciate the time taken by several to share viewpoints on this and also the references given. Thanks and please continue.

pilgrimgal..original poster.