Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LutheransLookingEast] Re: Incarnation

Expand Messages
  • Timothy Jackon
    Ben and Oruaseht, Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the reference to 1st Corinthians 15. I have read those verses before of
    Message 1 of 33 , Jun 17, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Ben and Oruaseht,

      Thank you for your replies. Oruaseht, I particularly appreciated the
      reference to 1st Corinthians 15. I have read those verses before of course
      but hadn't caught what looks like now, in my mind, to be Paul contradicting
      himself. I'm curious, how have you reconciled this apparent contradiction
      in Paul's own writings about the relationship between sin and death?

      Ben, I appreciate the invite for further conversation. What shall be done,
      from the EO perspective about Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one
      man sin entered the world, and death *through* sin, and thus death spread to
      all men, *because* all sinned"?

      Additionally, I stumbled across a verse that addresses a question you asked
      earlier when you wrote: is it's His wrathful justice that needs to be
      satisfied, or is it the release of man from bondage and his healing? Romans
      5:9 "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be
      saved from wrath through Him." (NKJV)

      It's pretty clear from this and other threads that the so called
      courtroom/juridical p.o.v. of Western theology doesn't sit well in the
      Eastern p.o.v. But it seems to me, just from a short look at Romans, that
      there is support for it, namely the juridical perspective. Maybe it's the
      fault of my NKJV Bible and it's translation, maybe it isn't. Do English
      speaking Orthodox Christians use a particular translation that doesn't word
      these verses in a juridical manner, if so what is this translation called?

      Looking forward to the replies.

      In Christ,
      Timothy

      On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Harju <benjamin.harju@...>wrote:

      >
      >
      > Timothy,
      >
      > What Oruaseht said is pretty much what I would say. If you want a
      > good resource, I suggest reading Gustaf Wingren's "Man and the
      > Incarnation." It is a good summary of St. Irenaeus' theology, and
      > also that of the early Church. Of course, St. Irenaeus' chiliasm
      > isn't to be accepted but the rest is a good place to start. Another
      > good resource is "Ancestral Sin" by Fr. Romanides. Some Orthodox rely
      > on it heavily, some not heavily, but either way it is a good place to
      > begin.
      >
      > If you have other passages that seem to suggest sin is the root
      > problem and death the result, please send them on out and we can talk
      > about them.
      >
      > In Christ,
      > Benjamin Harju
      >
      >
      > On 6/16/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@... <oruaseht%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
      > > Timothy - I cannot speak on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox church and
      > won't
      > > try to. But as a Lutheran Pastor looking East, studying and reading about
      > > her in books for years, I can offer a glimpse of my limited understanding
      > on
      > > this "inverse" relationship of sin & death.
      > >
      > > Like you, I also have understood the "cause & effect" relationship of sin
      > > and death. Sin happened, wrecked everything and death followed with it.
      > > Seems clear enough from Romans 6. But then I was pointed to 1 Corinthians
      > > 15:56 (ESV)
      > > "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law."
      > >
      > > The sting of death is sin. If we recall what God's words were to Adam &
      > Eve
      > > (Gen 2:17 ESV) they were: "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and
      > evil
      > > you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely
      > die."
      > >
      > > When you eat of it you will surely die. Life will cease and indeed it did
      > as
      > > people rejected the Creator for the created. Relationship with God is cut
      > > off. This relationship must be healed and restored as mortality came and
      > > abundant sin followed with it.
      > >
      > > In our Lutheran understanding, that is tremendously legal/courtroom
      > biased,
      > > we understand the breaking of God's commandment "not to eat" in a
      > juridical
      > > context. The Orthodox view, (what I understand of it at least), starts
      > out
      > > more with the cessation of life vs. guilt and blame for breaking the law.
      > >
      > > Both of these view points are the foundational starting points for all
      > other
      > > doctrines and how both East and West understand salvation. For the East,
      > it
      > > seems to be a return to life through the destruction of death and
      > liberation
      > > from the bondage to sin. For the West, it seems to be an appeasement of
      > the
      > > wrath of God and the demands of the law.
      > >
      > > I find that how we understand the garden is really programmatic of our
      > whole
      > > "system" of theology. I hope this sheds some light on the differences.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Benjamin Harju
      Regarding the Romans 5:12 comment from the Orthodox Study Bible: How do you think this contradicts your previous post? The commentary from the OSB says that
      Message 33 of 33 , Jun 21, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Regarding the Romans 5:12 comment from the Orthodox Study Bible:

        How do you think this contradicts your previous post? The commentary
        from the OSB says that 1) Adam and Eve sinned, 2) this introduced
        death, 3) this death passed to all men [read death as
        mortality/corrupting agent], 4) from this condition of
        death/corruption all men sin. 5) All men bear guilt only for their
        own sins, not Adam's sin.

        Is this not what we've been saying is the Orthodox teaching? Death is
        passed on, not original guilt, but the corruption of mortality which
        finds its origin in Adam's original sin.

        Regarding Fr. Meyendorff's work "Byzantine Theology" I have found an
        online selection of excerpts from this work at

        http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/byzantine_theology_j_meyendorf.htm.

        I include the following relevant portion here:

        The scriptural text, which played a decisive role in the polemics
        between Augustine and the Pelagians, is found in Romans 5:12 where
        Paul speaking of Adam writes, "As sin came into the world through one
        man and through sin and death, so death spreads to all men because all
        men have sinned [eph ho pantes hemarton]" In this passage there is a
        major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated
        in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt ("in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men
        have sinned"), and this translation was used in the West to justify
        the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his
        descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original
        Greek — the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. The form eph ho —
        a contraction of epi with the relative pronoun ho — can be translated
        as "because," a meaning accepted by most modern scholars of all
        confessional backgrounds.22 Such a translation renders Paul’s thought
        to mean that death, which is "the wages of sin" (Rm 6:23) for Adam, is
        also the punishment applied to those who like him sin. It presupposed
        a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but did not say that his
        descendants are "guilty" as he was unless they also sinned as he did.

        A number of Byzantine authors, including Photius, understood the eph
        ho to mean "because" and saw nothing in the Pauline text beyond a
        moral similarity between Adam and other sinners in death being the
        normal retribution for sin. But there is also the consensus of the
        majority of Eastern Fathers, who interpret Romans 5:12 in close
        connection with 1 Corinthians 15:22 — between Adam and his descendants
        there is a solidarity in death just as there is a solidarity in life
        between the risen Lord and the baptized. This interpretation comes
        obviously from the literal, grammatical meaning of Romans 5:12. Eph
        ho, if it means "because," is a neuter pronoun; but it can also be
        masculine referring to the immediately preceding substantive thanatos
        ("death"). The sentence then may have a meaning, which seems
        improbable to a reader trained in Augustine, but which is indeed the
        meaning which most Greek Fathers accepted: "As sin came into the world
        through one man and death through sin, so death spread to all men; and
        because of death, all men have sinned..."

        Mortality, or "corruption," or simply death (understood in a
        personalized sense), has indeed been viewed since Christian antiquity
        as a cosmic disease, which holds humanity under its sway, both
        spiritually and physically, and is controlled by the one who is "the
        murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). It is this death, which makes
        sin inevitable and in this sense "corrupts" nature.

        I hope this helps. Btw, the site linked above is well worth the time
        to read it.

        In Christ,
        Benjamin Harju


        --
        Oruaseht wrote:
        Further, a point in the Orthodox Study Bible says this on 5:12 -

        " For Adam and Eve, sin came first, and this led to death. This death
        then spread to all men. The rest of humanity inherits death, and then
        in our mortal state, we all sin. Thus, all mankind suffers the
        consequences of Adam's "original sin." However, the Orthodox Church
        rejects any teaching that would assign guilt to all mankind for Adam's
        sin. We indeed suffer the consequences of others' sins, but we carry
        guilt only for our own sins. "

        This basically contradicts what I originally posted (and by extension,
        1 Cor 15:56) about how the Orthodox view the progression of sin/death
        (or death/sin) in the Garden. However, maybe there is something I'm
        missing. Perhaps the mind of the Church could further illuminate us on
        this passage.
        --

        On 6/21/10, Oruaseht <oruaseht@...> wrote:
        > I agree that the next step in our discussion is a thorough study of the
        > differences in Lutheran and Orthodox fallen/free will understanding.
        >
        > However, before that jump, I need to clarify some of my Confessional
        > friend's comments here.
        >
        > In the FC, we have it said that God made and still makes people holy, pure,
        > and sinless. Yet, people are so "thoroughly corrupted" by sin that for all
        > intents and purposes, Lutherans believe in *total depravity* (true, a
        > Calvinist distinction, but essentially, Lutherans believe it to be true -
        > explanation of the third article Apostles' Creed in the Small Catechism). Is
        > there then, within the Confessions, a contradiction, theological smudge on
        > this issue? Or is what my friend said correct? Humanity on this side of
        > heaven is a paradox of good and corruption that renders us *totally
        > depraved*?
        >
        > Is this just simply a concern about semantics (Lutherans using Calvinist
        > terms, fogging the issue) or are the Confessions wrong?
        >
        > --- In LutheransLookingEast@yahoogroups.com, Benjamin Harju
        > <benjamin.harju@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> From what I learned and researched as a Lutheran, that's exactly spot
        >> on. As far as Lutheran theology being fairly represented, that is as
        >> fair as it gets. The issue in the Lutheran Confessions regarding
        >> inherited sin is always corruption of what God made good. In the
        >> context of our conversation here, though, the issue is not about man's
        >> depravity, but his *total* depravity, a term that reflects Calvinistic
        >> teachings. To say that the nature that is entirely corrupted is
        >> actually Totally Depraved is to mix specific terminology from the
        >> Calvinist camp into the Lutheran camp, which may confuse the issue.
        >>
        >> Someone has hinted to me that the issue at hand - is Total Depravity
        >> really a Lutheran doctrine? - lies in the area of the fallen will.
        >>
        >> In Christ,
        >> Benjamin Harju
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.