[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=13627.msg159131#msg159131 date=1345469101] Forgive me. One final question: was Christ born with a sinful nature?
To me this question is irrelevant to the discussion.
If you please, can you make the connection of how Christ's birth is similar to the rest of us?
Pardon my inquiry, but I feel that it is essential to know. I'm sure the reason for my question will be revealed in coming posts. I ask the question to you humbly, my brother.
[quote author=childoforthodoxy link=topic=13627.msg159133#msg159133 date=1345469988] Pardon my inquiry, but I feel that it is essential to know. I'm sure the reason for my question will be revealed in coming posts. I ask the question to you humbly, my brother.
hi, this seems like it was continued from another thread; i don't understand if there was a link.
but Jesus was miraculously conceived (incarnated) and took on a mortal human nature with the capacity to commit sin. He did not inherit any sins (nor do we), but He did take on our corruptible nature.
he redeemed it by His sinless life, death and resurrection and raised us up with Him, so that we can become like Him.
i realise this is a simple (simplified) answer, but this is the way i understand it. i'll never have a PhD in theology; for the long answer, ask anyone else! :)
[quote author=mabsoota link=topic=13627.msg159139#msg159139 date=1345495034] hi, this seems like it was continued from another thread; i don't understand if there was a link.
but Jesus was miraculously conceived (incarnated) and took on a mortal human nature with the capacity to commit sin. He did not inherit any sins (nor do we), but He did take on our corruptible nature.
he redeemed it by His sinless life, death and resurrection and raised us up with Him, so that we can become like Him.
i realise this is a simple (simplified) answer, but this is the way i understand it. i'll never have a PhD in theology; for the long answer, ask anyone else! :) Actually according to St. Severus (and Maximus of Constantinople, oddly enough), Christ is not capable of sinning.
Your quotes mean nothing to me. You didnt answer to the writings of the fathers i gave, your ignored them. You didnt even provide any context for St. Severus' writing against your heretical belief, you simply said that I dont know the context (which you arent justified in saying).
For one: "We have gone astray from the womb, we err from our birth" is piety reflecting that fact humanity itself has gone astray and the Psalmist is reflecting
2; St. John Chrysostom was previously quoted to you as regards his exegesis of Romans 5:12, go back and read that. I will not sit here and refute points that have been shown to be against your understanding
3; I am offended that you insinuate that St. Athanasius taught original sin by proof texting him. It is St. Athanasius' paradigm that makes the idea of original sin so foreign to Orthodox thought.
4; Your quote of St. Cyril is ineffectual and disproves your own points. Yes we didnt sin along with Adam, and yes we all fell under the law of sin, ie becoming subject to death, nothing in this quote proves your idea that we are born sinners.
We are not born sinners; the Bible is clear,
"Wisdom 2:23 For God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through the envy of the devil came death into the world.
Wisdom 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
Ezekiel 18: 19,20 But you will say, What has not the son borne the iniquity of the father? Because the son has wrought judgement and mercy, has kept all my statutes, and done them, he shall surely live. But the soul that sins shall die: and the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the iniquity of the transgressor shall be upon him."
I think even the scripture is clear that we are not held accountable for a forefathers sin.
The other thing is this, the fathers are rather clear that Christ became FULLY human with everything that entails,
". Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become God’s for His sake, since He for ours became Man. He assumed the worse that He might give us the better; He became poor that we through His poverty might be rich;2537He took upon Him the form of a servant that we might receive back our liberty; He came down that we might be exalted; He was tempted that we might conquer; He was dishonoured that He might glorify us; He died that He might save us; He ascended that He might draw to Himself us, who were lying low in the Fall of sin. Let us give all, offer all, to Him Who gave Himself a Ransom and a Reconciliation for us. But one can give nothing like oneself, understanding the Mystery, and becoming for His sake all that He became for ours." St. Gregory the Theologian Page 423 NPNF Oration 1.
"to His own Image, and took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul’s sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man."
"And He Who gives riches becomes poor, for He assumes the poverty of my flesh, that I may as-sume the richness of His Godhead. He that is full empties Himself, for He empties Himself of His glory for a short while, that I may have a share in His Fulness. What is the riches of His Goodness? What is this mystery that is around me? I had a share in the image; I did not keep it; He partakes of my flesh that He may both save the image and make the flesh immortal. He communicates a second Communion far more marvellous than the first, inasmuch as then He imparted the better Nature, whereas now Himself partakes of the worse. This is more godlike than the former action, this is loftier in the eyes of all men of understanding." St. Gregory the Theologian on Theophany, NPNF page 706.
"If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." St. Gregory the Theologian To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius NPNF Page 871
"These things being thus demonstrated, it is superfluous to touch upon the other points, or to enter upon any discussion relating to them, since the body in which the Word was is not coessential with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary, while the Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh. For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ has this meaning, as we may see by a similar passage; for it is written in Paul: ‘Christ has become a curse for us.’ And just as He has not Himself become a curse, but is said to have done so because He took upon Him the curse on our behalf, so also He has become flesh not by being changed into flesh, but because He assumed on our behalf living flesh, and has become Man" St. Athanaius Letter to Epictus Page 1395 NPNF.
Its clear from the fathers the Christ assumed all of fallen human nature. Our sinful, fallen human nature became His and it is due to this the He deified it.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=13627.msg159147#msg159147 date=1345524612] Dear Imikhail,
Your quotes mean nothing to me. You didnt answer to the writings of the fathers i gave, your ignored them. You didnt even provide any context for St. Severus' writing against your heretical belief, you simply said that I dont know the context (which you arent justified in saying).
For one: "We have gone astray from the womb, we err from our birth" is piety reflecting that fact humanity itself has gone astray and the Psalmist is reflecting
2; St. John Chrysostom was previously quoted to you as regards his exegesis of Romans 5:12, go back and read that. I will not sit here and refute points that have been shown to be against your understanding
3; I am offended that you insinuate that St. Athanasius taught original sin by proof texting him. It is St. Athanasius' paradigm that makes the idea of original sin so foreign to Orthodox thought.
4; Your quote of St. Cyril is ineffectual and disproves your own points. Yes we didnt sin along with Adam, and yes we all fell under the law of sin, ie becoming subject to death, nothing in this quote proves your idea that we are born sinners.
We are not born sinners; the Bible is clear,
"Wisdom 2:23 For God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through the envy of the devil came death into the world.
Wisdom 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
Ezekiel 18: 19,20 But you will say, What has not the son borne the iniquity of the father? Because the son has wrought judgement and mercy, has kept all my statutes, and done them, he shall surely live. But the soul that sins shall die: and the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the iniquity of the transgressor shall be upon him."
I think even the scripture is clear that we are not held accountable for a forefathers sin.
The other thing is this, the fathers are rather clear that Christ became FULLY human with everything that entails,
". Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become God’s for His sake, since He for ours became Man. He assumed the worse that He might give us the better; He became poor that we through His poverty might be rich;2537He took upon Him the form of a servant that we might receive back our liberty; He came down that we might be exalted; He was tempted that we might conquer; He was dishonoured that He might glorify us; He died that He might save us; He ascended that He might draw to Himself us, who were lying low in the Fall of sin. Let us give all, offer all, to Him Who gave Himself a Ransom and a Reconciliation for us. But one can give nothing like oneself, understanding the Mystery, and becoming for His sake all that He became for ours." St. Gregory the Theologian Page 423 NPNF Oration 1.
"to His own Image, and took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul’s sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man."
"And He Who gives riches becomes poor, for He assumes the poverty of my flesh, that I may as-sume the richness of His Godhead. He that is full empties Himself, for He empties Himself of His glory for a short while, that I may have a share in His Fulness. What is the riches of His Goodness? What is this mystery that is around me? I had a share in the image; I did not keep it; He partakes of my flesh that He may both save the image and make the flesh immortal. He communicates a second Communion far more marvellous than the first, inasmuch as then He imparted the better Nature, whereas now Himself partakes of the worse. This is more godlike than the former action, this is loftier in the eyes of all men of understanding." St. Gregory the Theologian on Theophany, NPNF page 706.
"If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." St. Gregory the Theologian To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius NPNF Page 871
"These things being thus demonstrated, it is superfluous to touch upon the other points, or to enter upon any discussion relating to them, since the body in which the Word was is not coessential with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary, while the Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh. For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ has this meaning, as we may see by a similar passage; for it is written in Paul: ‘Christ has become a curse for us.’ And just as He has not Himself become a curse, but is said to have done so because He took upon Him the curse on our behalf, so also He has become flesh not by being changed into flesh, but because He assumed on our behalf living flesh, and has become Man" St. Athanaius Letter to Epictus Page 1395 NPNF.
Its clear from the fathers the Christ assumed all of fallen human nature. Our sinful, fallen human nature became His and it is due to this the He deified it.
Instead of mixing things up and confusing the points.
Let's take one by one.
What say you of psalm 50 and 48?
They clearly mention that we are born sinners. If you disagree, I wish for your explanation.
Imikhail, what do you think of Met. Bishoy's teaching that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist? Even though this is the teaching of Sts. Jerome, Cyril, and John Chrysostom?
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13627.msg159163#msg159163 date=1345584133] Imikhail, what do you think of Met. Bishoy's teaching that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist? Eben though this is the teaching of Sts. Jerome, Cyril, and John Chrysostom?
I do not agree with his Eminence.
Tradition and Scriptural evidence point to the fact that Judas dis partake of the body and the blood of the Lord.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13627.msg159167#msg159167 date=1345599659] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13627.msg159163#msg159163 date=1345584133] Imikhail, what do you think of Met. Bishoy's teaching that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist? Eben though this is the teaching of Sts. Jerome, Cyril, and John Chrysostom?
I do not agree with his Eminence.
Tradition and Scriptural evidence point to the fact that Judas dis partake of the body and the blood of the Lord. Thank you.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13627.msg159168#msg159168 date=1345600513] [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13627.msg159167#msg159167 date=1345599659] [quote author=Severian link=topic=13627.msg159163#msg159163 date=1345584133] Imikhail, what do you think of Met. Bishoy's teaching that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist? Eben though this is the teaching of Sts. Jerome, Cyril, and John Chrysostom?
I do not agree with his Eminence.
Tradition and Scriptural evidence point to the fact that Judas did partake of the body and the blood of the Lord. Thank you.
My understanding of both of these Psalms stems from the understanding of anthropology according to the fathers, and according them this is the definitive viewpoint; "We are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents, but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
-Saint Severus of Antioch
In light of that, the way i am apt to understand Psalm 50 is the way i quoted Fr. Peter as understanding it. Or perhaps to give another analogy would to explain that if a woman had contracted HIV aids due to being a prostitute and then at some later point she became pregnant (whether by prostitution or not), i would understand that the child would quite naturally be born with HIV aids (the contagion of death in our case). The child would not be born with the moral responsibility of the acts his/her mother committed in being infected with HIV aids NOR would the child be born a prostitute. The child, through the natural processes of mitosis, meiosis and the like, would be born with a disease, with a condition to be treated. BUT this precludes the child being in any way a prostitute or even being morally acocuntable for the actions of the prostitute mother. I understand this is a crude example but this is the manner in which one is apt to understand the anthropological effects of the first sin and the condition which we fall into because of it.
[quote author=The least of all link=topic=13627.msg159203#msg159203 date=1345660980] My understanding of both of these Psalms stems from the understanding of anthropology according to the fathers, and according them this is the definitive viewpoint; "We are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents, but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
-Saint Severus of Antioch
In light of that, the way i am apt to understand Psalm 50 is the way i quoted Fr. Peter as understanding it. Or perhaps to give another analogy would to explain that if a woman had contracted HIV aids due to being a prostitute and then at some later point she became pregnant (whether by prostitution or not), i would understand that the child would quite naturally be born with HIV aids (the contagion of death in our case). The child would not be born with the moral responsibility of the acts his/her mother committed in being infected with HIV aids NOR would the child be born a prostitute. The child, through the natural processes of mitosis, meiosis and the like, would be born with a disease, with a condition to be treated. BUT this precludes the child being in any way a prostitute or even being morally acocuntable for the actions of the prostitute mother. I understand this is a crude example but this is the manner in which one is apt to understand the anthropological effects of the first sin and the condition which we fall into because of it.
No one said that we are accountable of Adam's sins. Yet we are all born under the law of sin. Our members, thoughts, desires are all sinful.
Sin is not merely actual sinful acts, rather it is both the sinful nature as well as the actual committed sins.
This is why infants are baptized to wash away the sinful nature and bestow on them the freedom from the aw of sin.
Comments
Forgive me. One final question: was Christ born with a sinful nature?
To me this question is irrelevant to the discussion.
If you please, can you make the connection of how Christ's birth is similar to the rest of us?
Pardon my inquiry, but I feel that it is essential to know. I'm sure the reason for my question will be revealed in coming posts. I ask the question to you humbly, my brother.
In that case, please read my post #26
May God have mercy on us.
but Jesus was miraculously conceived (incarnated) and took on a mortal human nature with the capacity to commit sin.
He did not inherit any sins (nor do we), but He did take on our corruptible nature.
he redeemed it by His sinless life, death and resurrection and raised us up with Him, so that we can become like Him.
i realise this is a simple (simplified) answer, but this is the way i understand it.
i'll never have a PhD in theology; for the long answer, ask anyone else!
:)
He did not inherit any sins (nor do we), but He did take on our corruptible nature.
He did not inherit the sinful natur, we do.
hi, this seems like it was continued from another thread; i don't understand if there was a link.
but Jesus was miraculously conceived (incarnated) and took on a mortal human nature with the capacity to commit sin.
He did not inherit any sins (nor do we), but He did take on our corruptible nature.
he redeemed it by His sinless life, death and resurrection and raised us up with Him, so that we can become like Him.
i realise this is a simple (simplified) answer, but this is the way i understand it.
i'll never have a PhD in theology; for the long answer, ask anyone else!
:)
Actually according to St. Severus (and Maximus of Constantinople, oddly enough), Christ is not capable of sinning.
Your quotes mean nothing to me. You didnt answer to the writings of the fathers i gave, your ignored them. You didnt even provide any context for St. Severus' writing against your heretical belief, you simply said that I dont know the context (which you arent justified in saying).
For one: "We have gone astray from the womb, we err from our birth" is piety reflecting that fact humanity itself has gone astray and the Psalmist is reflecting
2; St. John Chrysostom was previously quoted to you as regards his exegesis of Romans 5:12, go back and read that. I will not sit here and refute points that have been shown to be against your understanding
3; I am offended that you insinuate that St. Athanasius taught original sin by proof texting him. It is St. Athanasius' paradigm that makes the idea of original sin so foreign to Orthodox thought.
4; Your quote of St. Cyril is ineffectual and disproves your own points. Yes we didnt sin along with Adam, and yes we all fell under the law of sin, ie becoming subject to death, nothing in this quote proves your idea that we are born sinners.
We are not born sinners; the Bible is clear,
"Wisdom 2:23 For God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through the envy of the devil came death into the world.
Wisdom 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
Ezekiel 18: 19,20 But you will say, What has not the son borne the iniquity of the father? Because the son has wrought judgement and mercy, has kept all my statutes, and done them, he shall surely live. But the soul that sins shall die: and the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the iniquity of the transgressor shall be upon him."
I think even the scripture is clear that we are not held accountable for a forefathers sin.
The other thing is this, the fathers are rather clear that Christ became FULLY human with everything that entails,
". Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become God’s for His sake, since He for ours became Man. He assumed the worse that He might give us the better; He became poor that we through His poverty might be rich;2537He took upon Him the form of a servant that we might receive back our liberty; He came down that we might be exalted; He was tempted that we might conquer; He was dishonoured that He might glorify us; He died that He might save us; He ascended that He might draw to Himself us, who were lying low in the Fall of sin. Let us give all, offer all, to Him Who gave Himself a Ransom and a Reconciliation for us. But one can give nothing like oneself, understanding the Mystery, and becoming for His sake all that He became for ours." St. Gregory the Theologian Page 423 NPNF Oration 1.
"to His own Image, and took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul’s sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man."
"And He Who gives riches becomes poor, for He assumes the poverty of my flesh, that I may as-sume the richness of His Godhead. He that is full empties Himself, for He empties Himself of His glory for a short while, that I may have a share in His Fulness. What is the riches of His Goodness? What is this mystery that is around me? I had a share in the image; I did not keep it; He partakes of my flesh that He may both save the image and make the flesh immortal. He communicates a second Communion far more marvellous than the first, inasmuch as then He imparted the better Nature, whereas now Himself partakes of the worse. This is more godlike than the former action, this is loftier in the eyes of all men of understanding."
St. Gregory the Theologian on Theophany, NPNF page 706.
"If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole."
St. Gregory the Theologian To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius NPNF Page 871
"These things being thus demonstrated, it is superfluous to touch upon the other
points, or to enter upon any discussion relating to them, since the body in which the Word was is not coessential with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary, while the Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh. For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ has this meaning, as we may see by a similar passage; for it is written in Paul: ‘Christ has become a curse for us.’ And just as He has not Himself become a curse, but is said to have done so because He took upon Him the curse on our behalf, so also He has become flesh not by being changed into flesh, but because He assumed on our behalf living flesh, and has become Man"
St. Athanaius Letter to Epictus Page 1395 NPNF.
Its clear from the fathers the Christ assumed all of fallen human nature. Our sinful, fallen human nature became His and it is due to this the He deified it.
Dear Imikhail,
Your quotes mean nothing to me. You didnt answer to the writings of the fathers i gave, your ignored them. You didnt even provide any context for St. Severus' writing against your heretical belief, you simply said that I dont know the context (which you arent justified in saying).
For one: "We have gone astray from the womb, we err from our birth" is piety reflecting that fact humanity itself has gone astray and the Psalmist is reflecting
2; St. John Chrysostom was previously quoted to you as regards his exegesis of Romans 5:12, go back and read that. I will not sit here and refute points that have been shown to be against your understanding
3; I am offended that you insinuate that St. Athanasius taught original sin by proof texting him. It is St. Athanasius' paradigm that makes the idea of original sin so foreign to Orthodox thought.
4; Your quote of St. Cyril is ineffectual and disproves your own points. Yes we didnt sin along with Adam, and yes we all fell under the law of sin, ie becoming subject to death, nothing in this quote proves your idea that we are born sinners.
We are not born sinners; the Bible is clear,
"Wisdom 2:23 For God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless through the envy of the devil came death into the world.
Wisdom 1:13 For God made not death: neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living.
Ezekiel 18: 19,20 But you will say, What has not the son borne the iniquity of the father? Because the son has wrought judgement and mercy, has kept all my statutes, and done them, he shall surely live. But the soul that sins shall die: and the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the iniquity of the transgressor shall be upon him."
I think even the scripture is clear that we are not held accountable for a forefathers sin.
The other thing is this, the fathers are rather clear that Christ became FULLY human with everything that entails,
". Let us become like Christ, since Christ became like us. Let us become God’s for His sake, since He for ours became Man. He assumed the worse that He might give us the better; He became poor that we through His poverty might be rich;2537He took upon Him the form of a servant that we might receive back our liberty; He came down that we might be exalted; He was tempted that we might conquer; He was dishonoured that He might glorify us; He died that He might save us; He ascended that He might draw to Himself us, who were lying low in the Fall of sin. Let us give all, offer all, to Him Who gave Himself a Ransom and a Reconciliation for us. But one can give nothing like oneself, understanding the Mystery, and becoming for His sake all that He became for ours." St. Gregory the Theologian Page 423 NPNF Oration 1.
"to His own Image, and took on Him flesh for the sake of our flesh, and mingled Himself with an intelligent soul for my soul’s sake, purifying like by like; and in all points except sin was made man."
"And He Who gives riches becomes poor, for He assumes the poverty of my flesh, that I may as-sume the richness of His Godhead. He that is full empties Himself, for He empties Himself of His glory for a short while, that I may have a share in His Fulness. What is the riches of His Goodness? What is this mystery that is around me? I had a share in the image; I did not keep it; He partakes of my flesh that He may both save the image and make the flesh immortal. He communicates a second Communion far more marvellous than the first, inasmuch as then He imparted the better Nature, whereas now Himself partakes of the worse. This is more godlike than the former action, this is loftier in the eyes of all men of understanding."
St. Gregory the Theologian on Theophany, NPNF page 706.
"If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole."
St. Gregory the Theologian To Cledonius the Priest Against Apollinarius NPNF Page 871
"These things being thus demonstrated, it is superfluous to touch upon the other
points, or to enter upon any discussion relating to them, since the body in which the Word was is not coessential with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary, while the Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh. For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh,’ has this meaning, as we may see by a similar passage; for it is written in Paul: ‘Christ has become a curse for us.’ And just as He has not Himself become a curse, but is said to have done so because He took upon Him the curse on our behalf, so also He has become flesh not by being changed into flesh, but because He assumed on our behalf living flesh, and has become Man"
St. Athanaius Letter to Epictus Page 1395 NPNF.
Its clear from the fathers the Christ assumed all of fallen human nature. Our sinful, fallen human nature became His and it is due to this the He deified it.
Instead of mixing things up and confusing the points.
Let's take one by one.
What say you of psalm 50 and 48?
They clearly mention that we are born sinners. If you disagree, I wish for your explanation.
Imikhail, what do you think of Met. Bishoy's teaching that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist? Eben though this is the teaching of Sts. Jerome, Cyril, and John Chrysostom?
I do not agree with his Eminence.
Tradition and Scriptural evidence point to the fact that Judas dis partake of the body and the blood of the Lord.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13627.msg159163#msg159163 date=1345584133]
Imikhail, what do you think of Met. Bishoy's teaching that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist? Eben though this is the teaching of Sts. Jerome, Cyril, and John Chrysostom?
I do not agree with his Eminence.
Tradition and Scriptural evidence point to the fact that Judas dis partake of the body and the blood of the Lord.
Thank you.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=13627.msg159167#msg159167 date=1345599659]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=13627.msg159163#msg159163 date=1345584133]
Imikhail, what do you think of Met. Bishoy's teaching that Judas did not partake of the Eucharist? Eben though this is the teaching of Sts. Jerome, Cyril, and John Chrysostom?
I do not agree with his Eminence.
Tradition and Scriptural evidence point to the fact that Judas did partake of the body and the blood of the Lord.
Thank you.
"We are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents, but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
-Saint Severus of Antioch
In light of that, the way i am apt to understand Psalm 50 is the way i quoted Fr. Peter as understanding it. Or perhaps to give another analogy would to explain that if a woman had contracted HIV aids due to being a prostitute and then at some later point she became pregnant (whether by prostitution or not), i would understand that the child would quite naturally be born with HIV aids (the contagion of death in our case). The child would not be born with the moral responsibility of the acts his/her mother committed in being infected with HIV aids NOR would the child be born a prostitute. The child, through the natural processes of mitosis, meiosis and the like, would be born with a disease, with a condition to be treated. BUT this precludes the child being in any way a prostitute or even being morally acocuntable for the actions of the prostitute mother. I understand this is a crude example but this is the manner in which one is apt to understand the anthropological effects of the first sin and the condition which we fall into because of it.
My understanding of both of these Psalms stems from the understanding of anthropology according to the fathers, and according them this is the definitive viewpoint;
"We are born mortal insofar as [we are born] of mortal parents, but not sinners insofar as we are of sinful parents. For it is not true that sin is a nature (phusis) and that it naturally passes from parents to their children."
-Saint Severus of Antioch
In light of that, the way i am apt to understand Psalm 50 is the way i quoted Fr. Peter as understanding it. Or perhaps to give another analogy would to explain that if a woman had contracted HIV aids due to being a prostitute and then at some later point she became pregnant (whether by prostitution or not), i would understand that the child would quite naturally be born with HIV aids (the contagion of death in our case). The child would not be born with the moral responsibility of the acts his/her mother committed in being infected with HIV aids NOR would the child be born a prostitute. The child, through the natural processes of mitosis, meiosis and the like, would be born with a disease, with a condition to be treated. BUT this precludes the child being in any way a prostitute or even being morally acocuntable for the actions of the prostitute mother. I understand this is a crude example but this is the manner in which one is apt to understand the anthropological effects of the first sin and the condition which we fall into because of it.
No one said that we are accountable of Adam's sins. Yet we are all born under the law of sin. Our members, thoughts, desires are all sinful.
Sin is not merely actual sinful acts, rather it is both the sinful nature as well as the actual committed sins.
This is why infants are baptized to wash away the sinful nature and bestow on them the freedom from the aw of sin.