I have literally never said that.

There is a difference between "the hypothetical sinless human would still be mortal" and "it is hypothetically possible for a human to be sinless".

Zobel said:

---

I have literally never said that.

There is a difference between "the hypothetical sinless human would still be mortal" and "it is hypothetically possible for a human to be sinless".

---

I didn't accuse you of saying it? I said it was a realization that I had as we were going back and forth.

I still contend that this all stems from not having participated in the pelagian controversies which has led to is an underdeveloped concept of sin.

Look at what you posted above, it's not about sin. Sin is not relevant to the equation, but it's all about mortality. So even though we know passages exist that mean we cannot be sinless, that option has to be left open for cases like Mary. Roman Catholics understood they had a similar issue and so we get the immaculate conception of Mary to explain away how she could be sinless in order to give birth to Jesus.

So this still really comes down to the concept of sin and whether it is rightly understood or not.

The Church as a whole participated in the Pelagian controversies. There was no separation between east and west. Pelagianism was condemned at Carthage and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus. St John Cassian wrote against it as did St Jerome. He was condemned by the Romans as well.

The error of Pelagius was teaching that people had the potential to be sinless and that there was no damage to the human nature due to Adam's sin.

Sin damaged to human nature, which is why humans are born mortal (under sin) and is why humans all sin (each sins).

I don't think you're on the right track here.

Zobel said:

---

The Church as a whole participated in the Pelagian controversies. There was no separation between east and west. Pelagianism was condemned at Carthage and the third ecumenical council at Ephesus. St John Cassian wrote against it as did St Jerome. He was condemned by the Romans as well.

The error of Pelagius was teaching that people had the potential to be sinless and that there was no damage to the human nature due to Adam's sin.

Sin damaged to human nature, which is why humans are born mortal (under sin) and is why humans all sin (each sins).

I don't think you're on the right track here.

---

I'm sorry, but the first part just doesn't hold water. No difference between the east and the west? When it comes to pelagianism, do you think the entire church holds St. John Cassians to the standard that the east does? Or is it far more likely that the west followed the writings of St. Augustine?

Both the east and west may have had a response to Pelagius, but it was not a unified response.

-------------------------------
I do think I'm on the right track, and honestly, should have gone back to the Book of Concord to see what their response was because to no surprise, "there's nothing new under the sun."

Quote:

---

For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or burden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt of another [namely, Adam's sin], and without any depravity of their own. Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an innate evil, but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace].

Therefore, when they speak of the sin of origin, they do not mention the more serious faults of human nature, to wit, ignorance of God, contempt for God, being destitute of fear and confidence in God, hatred of God's judgment, flight from God [as from a tyrant] when He judges, anger toward God, despair of grace, putting one's trust in present things [money, property, friends], etc...

---

They then make the same argument that I just made:

Quote:

---

These diseases, which are in the highest degree contrary to the Law of God, the scholastics do not notice; yea, to human nature they meanwhile ascribe unimpaired strength for loving God above all things, and for fulfilling God's commandments according to the substance of the acts, nor do they see that they are saying things that are contradictory to one another. For what else is the being able in one's own strength to love God above all things, and to fulfil His commandments, than to have original righteousness [to be a new creature in Paradise, entirely pure and holy]? But if human nature have such strength as to be able of itself to love God above all things as the scholastics confidently affirm, what will original sin be? For what will there be need of the grace of Christ if we can be justified by our own righteousness [powers]? For what will there be need of the Holy Ghost if human strength can by itself love God above all things, and fulfil God's commandments? Who does not see what preposterous thoughts our adversaries entertain?

---

Ok, so all of that is in the book of concord written when exactly? None of that came from the pen of St Jerome or St John Cassian or St Augustine.

All we've established is that Lutherans in 1580 understand original sin differently than the Orthodox do and have since the 5th century.

And ... for folks who affirm sola scriptura there's a lot of opinions there that need citation.

That last paragraph is not applicable to me or the Orthodox position. It's the same thing I keep telling you, but you keep repeating as if I'm saying the opposite. There is no good apart from God. God give grace to all - so when people do good it is by participating with God, co-working with Him, as He works in His creation. This doesn't mean a person could do good apart from God. It doesn't mean that human nature has an unimpaired strength to love God or whatever.

A good metaphor is a realtor. When you buy a house a realtor does the legwork. They file papers. They "buy" the house. Who is really buying the house? You. They're just an agent, they do whatever you say, the thing you want them to do. They bought nothing, they own nothing. But, the realtor also derives benefit from doing what you want.

Much like us. They're God's work (energies) He does in and through us. We can cooperate (which is literally the Latin form of synergia - co is syn or with and operate is work or ergon) or we can resist. That's why He can look at the work and call it good - it's His work. And we derive benefit from doing it.

Never apart from Him, never by our own means or effort alone.

I think you rushed your response.

First, it implies that the Reformers made new arguments. The argument was never made about novelty. It was always supported by quotation of the fathers and/or scripture.

Second, it implies that the Roman Catholics disagreed with Reformers to the extent that negates the Reformers position. They didn't.

Third, it implies that St. Augustine didn't speak on this and/or that the Reformers were not fully aware of what he said.

-------------------
Taking Point 2 first:

Rome in fact said the following around original sin in their initial "confutation of the Augsburg Confession."

"For the Apostolic See has already condemned two articles of Martin Luther concerning sin remaining in a child after baptism, and concerning the fomes of sin hindering a soul from entering the kingdom of heaven. But if, according to the opinion of St Augustine, they call the vice of origin concupiscence, which in baptism ceases to be sin, this ought to be accepted, since indeed according to the declaration of St. Paul, we are all born children of wrath Eph. 2:3, and in Adam we all have sinned Rom.5:12."

So it wasn't that Rome had an issue with original sin, but they argued that the sacrament of Baptism, would wash away the effects of it and that this is what St. Augustine wrote.

-------------------

Further, Lets see the talk of Augustine:

"Of the same import is the definition which occurs in the writings of Augustine, who is accustomed to define original sin as concupiscence [wicked desire]. For he means that when righteousness had been lost, concupiscence came in its place. For inasmuch as diseased nature cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal things. God's judgment it either contemns, when at ease, or hates, when thoroughly terrified. Thus Augustine includes both the defect and the vicious habit which has come in its place. Nor indeed is concupiscence only a corruption of the qualities of the body, but also, in the higher powers, a vicious turning to carnal things. Nor do those persons see what they say who ascribe to man at the same time concupiscence that is not entirely destroyed by the Holy Ghost, and love to God above all things.

and also:

"In the same-manner, Augustine also speaks, who says: Sin is remitted in Baptism, not in such a manner that it no longer exists, but so that it is not imputed. Here he confesses openly that sin exists, i.e., that it remains, although it is not imputed. And this judgment was so agreeable to those who succeeded him that it was recited also in the decrees. Also against Julian, Augustine says: The Law, which is in the members, has been annulled by spiritual regeneration, and remains in the mortal flesh. It has been annulled because the guilt has been remitted in the Sacrament, by which believers are born again; but it remains, because it produces desires, against which believers contend."

---------------------------

I can also provide a couple quotes of St. Augustine, though I'm not at my house, so limited.

""For, surely, he who is still being renewed from day to day, is not yet wholly renewed. And to the extent that he is not renewed, to that extent he is still in the old state, etc""

"" The old infirmity is not taken away the moment a person is baptized, but the renewal begins with the remission of all sins. For although total and full remission of sins is made in Baptism, nevertheless, if there should occur at once also a total and full transformation of the person into permanent newness, I do not say also in the body, but if a perfect renewal could occur in Baptism in the soul, which is the inner man, the apostle would not have said: 'Although our outer man is corrupted, nevertheless, the inner man is renewed from day to day."

""Our vices which resist the law of the mind through the law of sin; their guilt, indeed, has vanished in Baptism, but the infirmity has remained."

And so forth.

So we are still back to what I said above that the east and west did not agree on this and took very different paths. The west understood that concupiscence (evil lust) was with us at birth (and before) and the question was really about what role did Baptism play in removing/negating it. All of which seems foreign to what you've said.

St Augustine != the west.

And concupiscence ain't in the scriptures, near as I can tell.

Also didn't say anything about reformers disagreeing with Rome. Just that by 1580 Lutherans held something different than the Orthodox did in the 5th century. If Rome agrees with the Lutherans, then Rome also held something different than the Orthodox did in the 5th century. I dono.

In specific even the first quote doesn't correctly address the Orthodox position.

Quote:

---

For some contend that original sin is not a depravity or corruption in the nature of man, but only servitude, or a condition of mortality [not an innate evil nature, but only a blemish or imposed load, or burden], which those propagated from Adam bear because of the guilt of another [namely, Adam's sin], and without any depravity of their own.

---

So, Orthodoxy does believe that man's nature is corrupted. And part of this corruption is mortality. We do teach that, according to the scripture, guilt is of the person who sins. Depravity means corruption, so again this doesn't really apply. This is arguing against someone else.

Quote:

---

Besides, they add that no one is condemned to eternal death on account of original sin, just as those who are born of a bond-woman are slaves, and bear this condition without any natural blemish, but because of the calamity of their mother [while, of themselves, they are born without fault, like other men: thus original sin is not an innate evil, but a defect and burden which we bear since Adam, but we are not on that account personally in sin and inherited disgrace].

---

Since the first isn't addressed to us, the second isn't either (as it's in addition to). But again, we never say that people are born without fault. Or that people are not born into sin, but there is a difference between being born under sin and born with guilt. And this means that people are born with a natural blemish - a blemish to their nature, which causes mortality and inclination to sin.

When they start throwing around terms like innate evil it gets weird. Human nature was created good, and corrupted. So what is innate? And disgrace *seems* like a loaded term with some theological definition there. Shame? Humiliation?

Either way again, this is pointed to someone that believes something different than me.

Sorry for the delay. Drove home yesterday and was too tired to really look at theological matters.

------------------

Quote:

---

St Augustine != the west.

And concupiscence ain't in the scriptures, near as I can tell.

---

This is shifting the goalposts. Your initial claim above was that none of the quotes came from St. Augustine. So I provided those quotes.

Yes of course, St. Augustine doesn't equate to the west, but he is a far more prominent figure in the west and on topics like this he certainly is a primary source.

In terms of concupiscence, Romans 7 is the general go to verses.

Other verses would be:

Jeremiah 17:19: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it?"
1 Corinthians 2:14 - The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Romans 6:6 - No longer slave to sin.
Ephesians 2:1-5 - "By nature children of wrath."

and so forth.

As an EO, you should absolutely recognize it though because of the focus on asceticism. Concupiscence would be the cause of why you have to learn to control your passions or impulses, because your those aren't inherently ordered toward God, but against.

----------------------

Quote:

---

Also didn't say anything about reformers disagreeing with Rome. Just that by 1580 Lutherans held something different than the Orthodox did in the 5th century. If Rome agrees with the Lutherans, then Rome also held something different than the Orthodox did in the 5th century. I dono.

---

Your last sentence actually hits the nail on the head and what I've been saying. The Church did not unify in their response to pelagianism and that's important.

What Rome and the Reformers then argued about was not original sin. There was agreement there. The question was really about the "so what" of Original Sin in terms of application and removal of it (timing).

-----------------------

Quote:

---

So, Orthodoxy does believe that man's nature is corrupted. And part of this corruption is mortality. We do teach that, according to the scripture, guilt is of the person who sins. Depravity means corruption, so again this doesn't really apply. This is arguing against someone else

---

I'm not saying that this was specific to the Orthodox. Maybe it was, I actually don't know who they had in mind. The point I was making was that there has been robust debate on the issue of sin vs morality since the Reformation. And utilizing saints such as Augustine, there were challenges to the concept that you could be sinless and have the focus on morality.

Quote:

---

Either way again, this is pointed to someone that believes something different than me.

---

The intent was not to say this was a direct rebuttal of Orthodox, but instead that the concept that the concept of there actually being the possibility of a sinless person is problematic.

And yet, once again, the only one talking about the possibility of a sinless person in this conversation is you.

Zobel said:

---

And yet, once again, the only one talking about the possibility of a sinless person in this conversation is you.

---

Did Mary sin?

I don't believe that she was sinless, both on the original sin aspect or in the personal sin or guilt aspect.

There is no dogmatic teaching on this point in the Church, in contrast to the RCC. Their doctrine requires her to be exempted from original sin because of all the guilt and depravity in human nature you say you agree with them on. Much like I asked the other guy earlier - if human nature was totally corrupt, then from where did Christ receive His humanity? RCC answer: immaculate conception. I don't know what the Lutheran answer to this question is.

The Orthodox Church rejects the immaculate conception - she was born into the same human nature we were, in need of a savior. The Church has opposed this and view it as a dangerous teaching.

Whether the Theotokos sinned personally or not is pious opinion, a theologoumenon. Some fathers (St Gregory Palamas, St Silouan the Athonite) say that through the grace of the Holy Spirit she chose not to sin in her free will. St Ephraim says "He purified the Virgin also and then was born, so as to show that where Christ is, there is manifest purity in all its power. He purified the Virgin, having prepared Her by the Holy Spirit..." She is the model in this way of the Christian life. Not that she was somehow special, but that she did what we can and should all do - cooperate with the divine grace, assent to God's will in our life. But as I said, there's no dogmatic issue here.

This is actually a more interesting response because basically every google search I've done says she did not sin.

OCA.org

Quote:

---

I can say, in short, that the Orthodox Church believes that Mary, as a human being, could indeed have sinned, but chose not to.

---

Wikipedia.org

Quote:

---

The Eastern Orthodox Churches teach that while Mary "inherited the same fallen nature, prone to sin" as with other humans, "she did not consent to sin through her free will."

---

St. John Orthodox Church

Quote:

---

The Virgin Mary inherited the same fallen nature, prone to sin, to weakness and passion that we have. She was born in the grip of death and corruption needing to be delivered by our Savior, her Son. This is why she called God her "Savior" in the Magnification (cf. Luke 1:46-47). However, unlike us, she did not consent to sin through her free will.

---

Orthodoxwiki.org

Quote:

---

The Orthodox Church calls Mary "immaculate," "pure," or "spotless" (achrantos in Greek). Some Orthodox state that she was free from actual sin, some say she never sinned, and others just say she died sinless.

---

That's why I said it is theologoumenon. It is not dogmatic. There is nothing in our hymnography, liturgical texts, or dogmatic statements (creeds, anathemas, council documents etc) that I have seen that say it. The last link matches what I have seen.

The Lutheran answer is pretty straight forward (and is not necessarily in agreement with Luther) that Mary was not free from Original Sin and so was not sinless.

Ok, then the immediate follow-on is what does original sin actually mean? Because if you preach total depravity, there's a real question mark about what Christ actually took from her.

Zobel said:

---

That's why I said it is theologoumenon. It is not dogmatic. There is nothing in our hymnography, liturgical texts, or dogmatic statements (creeds, anathemas, council documents etc) that I have seen that say it. The last link matches what I have seen.

---

This is an interesting response which does tend to make what the Reformers said more correct in their response since you effective are saying that the EO leaves the concept of sin and it's role in the humans life up to private judgement.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

That's why I said it is theologoumenon. It is not dogmatic. There is nothing in our hymnography, liturgical texts, or dogmatic statements (creeds, anathemas, council documents etc) that I have seen that say it. The last link matches what I have seen.

---

This is an interesting response which does tend to make what the Reformers said more correct in their response since you effective are saying that the EO leaves the concept of sin and it's role in the humans life up to private judgement.

---

I have no clue how you got from what Zobel said to this conclusion.

This is how the Reformers defined Original Sin in the Augsburg Confession:

Quote:

---

Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost. They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

---

-------------------------
The spend a lot more words in the Apology on the definition though:

Quote:

---

Therefore the ancient definition, when it says that sin is the lack of righteousness, not only denies obedience with respect to man's lower powers [that man is not only corrupt in his body and its meanest and lowest faculties], but also denies the knowledge of God, confidence in God, the fear and love of God or certainly the power to produce these affections [the light in the heart which creates a love and desire for these matters]. For even the theologians themselves teach in their schools that these are not produced without certain gifts and the aid of grace. In order that the matter may be understood, we term these very gifts the knowledge of God, and fear and confidence in God. From these facts it appears that the ancient definition says precisely the same thing that we say, denying fear and confidence toward God, to wit, not only the acts, but also the gifts and power to produce these acts [that we have no good heart toward God, which truly loves God, not only that we are unable to do or achieve any perfectly good work].

24 Of the same import is the definition which occurs in the writings of Augustine, who is accustomed to define original sin as concupiscence [wicked desire]. For he means that when righteousness had been lost, concupiscence came in its place. For inasmuch as diseased nature cannot fear and love God and believe God, it seeks and loves carnal things. God's judgment it either contemns, when at ease, or hates, when thoroughly terrified. Thus Augustine includes both the defect and

25 the vicious habit which has come in its place. Nor indeed is concupiscence only a corruption of the qualities of the body, but also, in the higher powers, a vicious turning to carnal things. Nor do those persons see what they say who ascribe to man at the same time concupiscence that is not entirely destroyed by the Holy Ghost, and love to God above all things.

26 We, therefore, have been right in expressing, in our description of original sin, both namely, these defects: the not being able to believe God, the not being able to fear and love God; and, likewise: the having concupiscence, which seeks carnal things contrary to God's Word, i.e., seeks not only the pleasure of the body, but also carnal wisdom and righteousness, and, contemning God, trusts in these as good things.

27 Nor only the ancients [like Augustine and others], but also the more recent [teachers and scholastics], at least the wiser ones among them, teach that original sin is at the same time truly these, namely, the defects which I have recounted, and concupiscence. For Thomas says thus: Original sin comprehends the loss of original righteousness, and with this an inordinate disposition of the parts of the soul; whence it is not pure loss, but a corrupt habit [something positive].

28 And Bonaventura: When the question is asked, What is original sin? the correct answer is, that it is immoderate [unchecked] concupiscence. The correct answer is also, that it is want of the righteousness that is due. And in one of these replies the other is included.

29 The same is the opinion of Hugo, when he says that original sin is ignorance in the mind and concupiscence in the flesh. For he thereby indicates that when we are born, we bring with us ignorance of God, unbelief, distrust, contempt, and hatred of God.

---

Probably not worded right on my part. Let me try again.

The west, at least at the time of the Reformation, was united around the concept that we are sinful at birth and that the debate was around whether that concupiscence was removed with Baptism.

What I think I read from above is that when it comes to the role of sin in a persons life, whether it is inherent to our soul or if our soul has the ability to actively and willfully not sin, that is more of a private judgement and has not been dogmatically ruled on by the east.

Did I do a better job of summarizing it?

No worries. I think I'm starting to track a bit. I'm trying to see if I can understand the argument. I think what you and Zobel have been discussing is the answer to the question about how much humanness is left in our race after the fall. And, leaving aside the original vs ancestral issue for the moment, the two positions are:

Some (more than 0, less than 100%)

None (0%)


Is this an adequate description up to this point? I don't have the depth of theological vocabulary so I have to use basic English, which may not be good enough.

I'll try to help. What you mention is definitely part of it, but the argument revolves around what exactly became corrupted during the Fall. From the Orthodox perspective, only our bodies are corrupted. So now we are mortal and our bodies incline toward sin. However, our human will is not corrupted. We have the same ability to sin or not sin as Adam did. So it is theoretically possible for a person to go their whole life without sinning, but it still wouldn't matter. Their body is still corrupted and they will still die. It is also more difficult for us than Adam because our body inclines toward sin, and his original body did not.

The Catholic/Reformed position is that mankind's body and will are both corrupted from the Fall. Our body perishes and our will inclines toward evil at every opportunity. Only direct divine intervention can fix these two problems. So before we can desire anything good or do anything good, God must fix our will. This act is unilateral on God's part. After that our will can incline toward goodness. After death and resurrection He then fixes our body. Therefore it is impossible for someone to go their entire life without sin. In this formulation, being human is entirely synonymous with being corrupt until God fixes the matter for each person individually.

Thanks for trying, but I'm actually more confused now. Part of the reason I used the term humanness and percentages was to avoid complicating terms until later (i.e. body vs. will). Leaving those terms out, it looks to me like some vs. none is still a correct distillation, then you would discuss what the some and none is. What's really jumping out at me is a big gap between how we answer the question "What is a human?" It's difficult to even have that discussion withoutp infecting it with Cartesian dualism.

Also, something is tingling my spidey senses in your description of the Orthodox position. I'll wait for it to manifest.

Sorry. I'll shut up now!

Couple of things.

I don't believe people are born with sin in a way that is "condemning and bringing eternal death" upon them. That would truly be punishing children for the sins of the father. So any definition of original sin that teaches a sort of default position of eternal death as a consequence for Adam's sin seems to me to be at extreme variance with the view we get in the OT. Namely, that people who die, die and go down to Sheol. For some this is bad, for others they are in the bosom of Abraham. Some are just dead. But eternal death is to come, after the Judgment.

Next, I don't see how we could also argue that people are born utterly incapable of having the knowledge of God. Again this seems at odds with both the OT and teaching of St Paul in Romans 1-2. I would say that the capability to know God is part of the human nature, and if we lost this capability we would consequently no longer be human. It seems that most of the systems which teach this kind of complete abolition of the human ability to know or fear God affirm that it is only removed at baptism. But this leaves a big question about the righteous of the OT and how they were able to please God (which they certainly did).

I don't see a hard split between human bodies and human will. Our bodies are part of our nature, what we are is body, soul, and mind. A disembodied soul is no longer human any more than a body without a soul can be human. Likewise the will. I would say a being without free will is consequently no longer human.

/////

I would say the positions are - to what extent is the human nature, that is, the entirety of whatever it is that makes humans actually human, corrupted by the fall?

You have the Pelagian position which is a soft "some" - to the extent that the person is capable in and of their own nature of doing good without divine grace, with the aim to condemn any sin as a completely personal failure and guilt. Capable but unwilling, is how I'd describe this.

Then the Orthodox position which is a hard "almost all" - humans are wholly incapable of doing good in and of their own (fallen) nature without divine grace. The will is both free and damaged, and humans are therefore responsible for any individual sin they commit as a personal guilt and self-harm, and are also inclined to sin. (We deliberate on sin).

Then there is the Calvinist position which is a hard "completely" - humans are wholly incapable of doing good period without baptismal regeneration; the will is completely enslaved; grace is irresistible; those who are not saved are not drawn.

////

With what Ramblin said I don't really see a practical difference between saying "anyone can not sin if they accept the grace of God" and saying "only direct divine intervention can fix the will inclined toward evil."

You're just saying this kind of grace vs that kind of grace. In either case human beings are both mortal and inclined to sin, and the only solution in any case is grace. The real difference to me is the concept of a special will-fixing kind of grace that wasn't available to anyone (I suppose?) until after the cross. I don't think that makes sense.

People had the Holy Spirit come upon them just as Christians do in the old covenant. The difference was the Holy Spirit didn't come and dwell in them forever, and it didn't come and dwell in everyone in the covenant community. But the practical action of God is always to work in His creation for good, and that work in all forms is grace.

Quote:

---

You have the Pelagian position which is a soft "some" - to the extent that the person is capable in and of their own nature of doing good without divine grace, with the aim to condemn any sin as a completely personal failure and guilt. Capable but unwilling, is how I'd describe this.

---

I have to say that my conception of Pelagianism is a bit more radical than that. Not only did it include the inherent ability to avoid sin and evil, but also the ability to attain eternal life and a measure of divinity without the need for divine grace. It is quite literally pulling yourself up to divinity by your bootstraps. I would hazard a far eastern influence here, as both Buddhism and Hinduism teach this to a certain extent.

Pelagius was a British monk, so dunno about the eastern side. My understanding is this teaching was made popular as Christianity became more mainstream, because it became more liberalized. It was especially popular with ascetics who thought the general direction was too lax.

We can probably get a good idea of Pelagius' teaching from the anathemas of the council of Carthage. It seems, by negating the anathemas, he taught:

• Adam was created by God subject by death and would have died even without sin
• Infants don't have original sin, and infants who maybe die go to some "middle" place but not the kingdom
• That baptism is for sins committed but not original sin, so infants have no need of baptismal regeneration
• That humans can avoid sin without grace
• That grace aids us to not sin by providing knowledge and understanding of commandments, but doesn't directly help us
• That humans can do good without grace, and justification only makes it easier to perform what we were already commanded to do, only with more effort
• That not all sin and people like St John only said "we deceive ourselves" out of humility
• That the Lord's prayer "forgive us our trespasses" is said communally and the saints say it for others because they don't need it (forgive me vs forgive us)

He was British but famously well traveled. And I agree it's difficult to pin him down since we don't have any of his direct writings, only the various refutations of him which may have exaggerated his positions. I base my opinion on the widespread sentiment in the West that "if people didn't sin they wouldn't need Jesus". If Pelagius taught that people could avoid sin on their own and still needed Jesus for salvation, I don't think we'd hear that sentiment, and I don't think Pelagius would end up as reviled as he is. Lot's of other prominent Christians taught wacky stuff that didn't catch on without their names becoming epithets.

None of that is a disagreement, just the reasons why I think his heresy goes beyond the stated anathemas

Makes sense

Another thing I was thinking about this idea of good works. When we do something good, like giving to the poor, we are not doing it because it's a good thing for us to do. God is doing it, and we have the opportunity to be the instrument by which He does it. *He* is establishing justice in the world, and we get to participate, co-operate, have synergy with Him.

That's why we work, nevertheless not us but He works in us.

I don't think that's quite how the west frames the discussion about good works and merit.

Quote:

---

I don't believe people are born with sin in a way that is "condemning and bringing eternal death" upon them. That would truly be punishing children for the sins of the father. So any definition of original sin that teaches a sort of default position of eternal death as a consequence for Adam's sin seems to me to be at extreme variance with the view we get in the OT. Namely, that people who die, die and go down to Sheol. For some this is bad, for others they are in the bosom of Abraham. Some are just dead. But eternal death is to come, after the Judgment.

---

Original Sin certainly doesn't teach that, and I don't think the definitions I've provided claim this.

However, I don't think it's a stretch to say that when we are born, we aren't born with a correct understanding of God.

Whether in the east or west, we all acknowledge that our "original" state isn't sufficient. The concept of asceticism would seem to imply that our impulses are not ordered correctly towards God and so we have to actively "train ourselves" to overcome them (though the Holy Spirit).

The Reformers (and this is where Patriot was wrong on Luther) would say that this is evidence that our will is not ordered correctly towards God and that only at our death, those who believed faithfully, would be fully restored to union with God.

----------------------------

Quote:

---

Next, I don't see how we could also argue that people are born utterly incapable of having the knowledge of God. Again this seems at odds with both the OT and teaching of St Paul in Romans 1-2. I would say that the capability to know God is part of the human nature, and if we lost this capability we would consequently no longer be human. It seems that most of the systems which teach this kind of complete abolition of the human ability to know or fear God affirm that it is only removed at baptism. But this leaves a big question about the righteous of the OT and how they were able to please God (which they certainly did).

---

I was listening to a discussion the other day with Matt Fradd and I really like the example he brought up.

He used the example of a 3 story mansion as a description of how he viewed Catholic theology.

The first floor is what we would call theism. This floor would be man simply coming to knowledge of God.

The second floor would be christian theology. So concepts such as the Law, Gospel, Jesus, His death resurrection, etc, etc.

The third floor is Catholic theology. This is then coming to the specific beliefs and teaching of the Catholic Church.

It's a good example because it does make the point clear that coming to the realization of a "God" is something that most anyone can do. Plato/Aristotle I believe both believed in a God. This doesn't mean they believe in the christian God, but simply that they understood the necessity of a God.

But coming to the realization that there had to be a "God" does not equate to the understanding of the Christian God and I would argue that nobody could come to that understanding simply on their own. The concept that God sent his Son to die for us so that all who believe will be saved is not something that one can learn without actually hearing the Word of God (whether it be a preacher, the Scriptures or Jesus himself coming to that person).

But it's in your definition?

"...all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost."

americathegreat1492 said:

---

No worries. I think I'm starting to track a bit. I'm trying to see if I can understand the argument. I think what you and Zobel have been discussing is the answer to the question about how much humanness is left in our race after the fall. And, leaving aside the original vs ancestral issue for the moment, the two positions are:

Some (more than 0, less than 100%)

None (0%)


Is this an adequate description up to this point? I don't have the depth of theological vocabulary so I have to use basic English, which may not be good enough.

---

I started to reply to this a couple times and deleted what I had typed as I wasn't sure it was sufficient, and I'm not sure this response will be either.

I think part of what I'm struggling with on this is what is your definition of "humanness?"

I think rambling did a good job of explaining some of the key differences that exist with original and ancestral sin.

Both agree on the conclusion. Our mortal bodies will die because of the sin of Adam (unless Jesus returns first).

Where there's disagreement is on the cause of death.

The west, at least at the time of the Reformation noted that the cause of death our sinful nature. That the concupiscence that came with the fall led us to not being capable of fearing God correctly.

What I think I've heard from Zobel is that in the east, this is not as important, and really left to private judgement. So to the question of whether someone could in fact be sinless is not relevant because the end result is still death. So Zobel can believe that Mary sinned and that's ok. Others within the EO can believe Mary did not sin and that's ok as well.

So I think your definition of humanness will be important.

Zobel said:

---

But it's in your definition?

"...all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost."

---

I have two different questions for you:

First, Do you think there's a difference between someone being born condemned to eternal death and someone choosing eternal death?

Because this presupposes the second choice. God desires to save all and so all will have the option to receive his Grace or they can choose death.


Second, Can one live this life and not believe in Jesus or even God and be saved?

There is absolutely a difference between being born condemned to eternal death and eternal death resulting from the choice to sin. Absolutely.

Second question - no. There are many ways but only one Way, as St Gregory said. But believe needs to be understood as beyond intellectual assent.