an idea for a discussion

[Davidnic]

I think that a helpful place to go with this discussion...actually it might be a different thread is:

The influence of the theology of St. Augustine on the West. And an East/West discussion of his theology and how it has formed a huge amount of Western thought.

We can look at this as well as how it infulences our development and our current differences (views like aspects of Original sin and such).

We can juxtapose the discussion with the views of great Eastern comtemporaries such as John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Gergory the Illuminator and others.

This might be fruitful in seeing the root of our disagreements by looking at those we all consider saints and great men. Much of our reflexive cultural thought is informed by these men...a study of them might be just the ticket.

It might be many different threads...but it could be useful.

I bring it up like this and not in it's own thread for two reasons.

I might not be around CF much longer (depends if we are a pro-life site or not and how much we as a site embrace relativism) and I don't want to start a series of threads and walk away.

And it might be best if we organized the threads first. Sub topics and such to break down such a large theological discussion into workable chunks.


Thoughts? And if we broke it down...what topics?

[Fish and Bread]

I think it's a great idea. Ideas for threads might be to break down eastern and western thinkers each into their own threads while examining their ideas from both eastern and western perspectives and their historical impact.

Another thing to do might be to have a thread examining how the pre-Christian psychology of the Romans and Greeks enters into their Christian psychology. In other words, what pre-existing cultural elements entered into liturgies traditions, and patterns of thought in each church? Could it be that in some respects our differences actually go back to pagan times long before Christ?

[Don5925]

Great ideas. Somebody throw a bone.

[WarriorAngel]

Baptism...is a start (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1408.htm)

Baptism leads to the concept of original sin. ;)
Whereas there wouldnt be a need for Baptism.

[xristos.anesti]

Baptism leads to the concept of original sin. ;)
Whereas there wouldnt be a need for Baptism.

So, the Christ had original sin as He WAS baptised, and you say that there wouldn't be a need for baptism without Original sin?

;)

[xristos.anesti]

Anyone?!

[WarriorAngel]

So, the Christ had original sin as He WAS baptised, and you say that there wouldn't be a need for baptism without Original sin?

;)


You could read what Augustine says...per my post.
I think this is where the debate would start from. [Starting point]

I dont know where you get that Christ HAD to have original sin, He was unlike us since He didnt have sin, but like us in that He became as Adam was the perfect human...prior to the fall.

[xristos.anesti]

You could read what Augustine says...per my post.
I think this is where the debate would start from. [Starting point]

I dont know where you get that Christ HAD to have original sin, He was unlike us since He didnt have sin, but like us in that He became as Adam was the perfect human...prior to the fall.

God helps,

wait a second - YOU SAID that:

"Baptism leads to the concept of original sin.
Whereas there wouldnt be a need for Baptism."

As a proof of total absurdity of your statement - i.e. lack of any sense, total wrongness of what you said, absolute lack of truth, incorrect theology etc. - that "Baptism leads to the concept of original sin. Whereas there wouldnt be a need for Baptism." and wishing to make you re-think what you said I asked you:

So, the Christ had original sin as He WAS baptised, and you say that there wouldn't be a need for baptism without Original sin?

So, if you are right - and I do not think that you are - I am asking you: WHY WAS CHRIST BAPTISED if, as you say: "Baptism leads to the concept of original sin.
Whereas there wouldnt be a need for Baptism."

Obviously I am not saying that Christ had any original sin - I am merely pointing on absurdity and wrongness of your statement by saying that Christ was baptised and He did not have original sin - that is why I said what I said.

I do not know where YOU get that I thought that Christ had any Original Sin -

en contraire Mon Chéri - it is YOU who is suggesting that Christ had to have Original sin - as he was baptised and you said that: "Baptism leads to the concept of original sin.
Whereas there wouldnt be a need for Baptism.".

You see what I mean ;)?

Original sin is a western creation and has nothing to do with Baptism - we are told to do so:

The institution of the mysterion of the Holy Baptism came after our Lord’s Resurrection as a farewell commandment just before his Ascension to heaven, with these words: “Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all things I have commanded you..” (Matthew 28,19-20)


Baptism is the gateway into the Christian Church; the saving action of God who through water and the Spirit recreates His creation; the initial sacrament through which he who is immersed in water three times in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is cleansed from all sin and regenerated spiritually. As our Lord himself stated: “..no on can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” John 3,5

No one ever mentioned words Original Sin connected to Baptism until Blessed Augustine - and he was wrong.

Many years.

[xristos.anesti]

Bump.