Augustine's problem was that he had been a Manichaean Gnostic prior to his conversion to Christianity. Unfortunately, he never completely gave up all of its tenants.
St Augustine was always considered one of the gretest Church teachers by other Fathers, Popes, and ecumenical councils. Only the condemned pelagian heretics have accused him of manicheism, but in reality his teaching is deeply rooted in the Bible and is in line with the Church Fathers before him.
Sin entered the world. That means we have the ability to sin. We are responsible for our own sins. Ezekiel 18 says the sins of the Father do not carry to the son. My views line up with Orthodox very much as it is Biblical. Original sin is but one. Thank you guys!
@@GreekOrthodoxTV thanks for the reply, I saw the part of it and I know that Fr John Romanedes rejects the idea, but does all eastern orthodox believe like him?
Fr John Romanides did not reject the Orthodox Christian teaching of Ancestral Sin. He rejects the Augustinian concept of "Original Guilt", as it was taught by the Carolingian Franks and their progeny. All men do inherit a fallen condition from Adam. But all men are not guilty of Adam's (original) sin. The program we pointed you to explains this very clearly. We suggest you watch it all the way through, or watch it again, this time more carefully.
43:10 the idea of sin being passed through the father (i.e. semen) came from Augustine. Not all Protestants believe in this. Baptist Traditionalists firmly reject this notion.
The DOCTRINE of "ORIGINAL SIN", as referring to "SPIRITUAL DEATH" of man-kind, being transferred to every Human being, is a FALSE representation of the meaning of the word "Sin", and the meaning of the word "Death" !!! The Apostle PAUL'S outlook on ADAM'S Sin, is declared by PAUL in Rom.5:12, as follows;...."Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" What the apostle PAUL is conveying here, Is that SIN, ( the disobedience to God's Command and God's word ) was FIRST Done by ADAM, in his Disobedience of God's Command, to NOT EAT of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and Evil. And as Such This disobedience, ( that is called SIN ) was FIRST Contrived by ADAM, and as Such said to have "ENTERED INTO THE WORLD", because there was to be CONSEQUENCES of "Physical DEATH" of the body, as a result of the JUDGMENT for this DISOBEDIENCE Of ADAM !! Prior to ADAM'S Willful taking of the fruit, ( remember, Eve was deceived by the Serpent, and Only knew from ADAM telling her, that they were NOT to eat of the fruit of that tree. But ADAM was the One that was given the Direct Command by God, BEFORE Eve was created !! ) So prior to their Committing this SIN, ADAM and EVE, were Created ETERNAL BEINGS !! They were going to live forever in the garden of EDEN , and have ETERNAL offspring, according to the scriptures, as they were commanded to "replenish the earth", ( that means to "Fill -Up", with what existed in the previous Social System ) This is something that today's debauched modern Theology, does Not understand. So in Gen.1:28, BEFORE any disobedience was committed, ADAM and EVE are told to have Offspring, that obviously from the text, would likewise LIVE ETERNALLY, just like ADAM and EVE' who were originally created ETERNAL BEINGS !! But, then in Gen.2:17 we read, that God said to ADAM, ...." But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely DIE." This Curse of "DEATH", that God warned ADAM About, Concerned the Consequence of "PHYSICAL DEATH", and NOT "Spiritual Death" as falsely proclaimed by modern THEOLOGY, as well as the false doctrines of CALVINISM !! ADAM and EVE were told that their ETERNAL Existence on EARTH, Would Cease ! And it was THIS CURSE of "Physical Death", that was "passed on" to their Off-Spring, and on to Every human being since THAT TIME !! This is What the apostle PAUL is trying to convey in Rom.5:12 when he declares;..."Wherefore as by One man, ( ADAM )...SIN , ( Disobedience to God's LAW ) entered into the world, ( was FIRST practiced in defiance of God's Command )...and DEATH ( physical death ) by SIN, ( by the Disobedience to God's Law )...so "DEATH" ( physical Death ) passed upon All Men". The words at the end of that passage;..."for all have sinned", only emphasizes, that All persons, as they grow-up, and pass the "Age of Accountability", will in their lifetime commit SIN. ( Nothing More, and nothing Less, The speculations of modern Theology to the contrary, notwithstanding ! ) So this idea of "ORIGINAL SIN" Supposedly being SPIRITUAL DEATH, that is passed on to all of us from ADAM, is a FALSE and HERETICAL teaching, that is void of scriptural linguistics as well as Common Sense !! As "ORIGINAL SIN" was nothing more than DISOBEDIENCE to GOD'S COMMAND , and the Resulting "DEATH" concerns PHYSICAL DEATH that has passed upon All of us !! Meaning ADAM and EVE Now CEASED to be IMMORTAL BEINGS, and as such would now suffer the consequences of their disobedience !! Morgan Sorensen ( Biblical Theologian )
@@GreekOrthodoxTV I did not take time to listen but 2 or 3 minutes of the presentation, and just assumed that it was along the lines of the Debauched scholasticism of our day. So if your guests echoed the same fundamental thoughts as I presented, then they are CORRECT , and Yes I am in AGREEMENT with them !! And your disagreement is therefore HERETICAL, and provable so !! Morgan Sorensen ( Biblical Theologian )
God has revealed himself through the prophets and finally through the Life and Death of his only Son. There are mysteries by which human limitation is incapable of complete understanding. This limitation must be accepted by Faith. We follow Abraham who believed God, and so was accepted as righteous by Him.
Must adherents to the EOC believe in the fall? If yes - that Adam and Eve lost Grace? Must EOC adherents believe that people would not suffer physical death but for the fall? Does anyone else apart from Romanides and the Saker think we sin because we fear death?
To be afraid of death was to be still under the power of the devil-II Timothy 1:7: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of sound mind." We suggest you read the essay that our program discusses. orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx If you yourself read it you may better understand where the participants in the discussion on the program were accurately interpreting the author's thesis, and where they were not being accurate. Also, Romanides' essay has many footnotes that back up his thesis. But who or what is 'the Saker'?
A viewer wrote us, "I can't seem to make sense of your presentation of original sin in light of the council of Carthage 419. You teach the effects being physical death, not spiritual death. However, the council states: "Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. "For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration. "Any insight would be greatly appreciated." Michael Hallford responds: The decisions of the councils at Carthage during the 400s never played the same role in the eastern Roman world that they played in the Latin churches. Augustine's interpretations of scripture passages based on Jerome's juridical vulgate translation, which he developed in his disputes against Pelagius, were largely unknown in the Roman east, primarily because of language barriers - Greek versus Latin. The vulgate vocabulary lent itself to an overtly legalist interpretation, rather than the more therapeutic tradition based on Greek vocabulary in the east. Just because the decisions of the Carthage Councils were accepted at the Council of Trullo, a local council, doesn't mean they were widely accepted in the east or understood in the same way. Augustine, whose writings in Latin were never widely known by the eastern fathers, espoused doctrines divergent from the eastern fathers, especially St. John Cassian, St. John Chrysostom and St. Isaac the Syrian. Judgement as it is understood in the Latin west does not mean the same thing as Krisis means in Greek.
Strange that this is not the way I was taught Protestantism (which constitutes the majority of church attendants in the West nowadays in spite of the fake statistics). I think there's a serious misconception especially in the way our attitude to righteousness is perceived. In the Protestant theology with most of its affiliations, there is a cute awareness that we are called to reflect God, to become righteous and to be restored to God, through Jesus Christ. The only difference I see here is a question of method rather than of the core issue. Based on Paul, the more one strives to reach righteousness, the more the flesh will wage war against him/her. Trying hard not to sin is the very thing that makes one sin all the more. However, relaxing in God's grace and focusing our gaze on Jesus and on his work is truly helpful. It helps us both; to be redeemed and forgiven in the eyes of God, and to be lifted up to the level of righteousness required by Him. When the fear stops, we're no longer striving. And when the striving stops, the peace of God fills the believer's heart. At this moment, the joy of God (the Holy Spirit) will be received as a result of the assurance of our salvation by faith. All these factos will act psychologically speaking as healers to our wounds and sins. This assurance also is what opens the person's heart to love God fully, for whoever is forgiven much, loves much. There is also the factor of humility of the process. Pride is ranked top vice in God's eyes. Striving and achieving cannot take place without a certain aspect and level of pride building up in the process. When we take our eyes off our sins and focus them on the perfection of Jesus Christ, we will spontaneously follow suit without becoming aware of our gains and achievements, because in truth they are his, not ours. This exactly why the Catholics and Orthodox think that Protestants don't care about righteousness, because the latter don't make such a big fuss about it. They just get on with it!
Having listened to the first about 15 minutes of this presentation, I would like to comment on the response from the "better groomed" guest, who @ minute 12:35 to minute 13:40, began with his very Erroneous analogy as the Devil being "like a Terrorist coming into your house and holding you hostage, and telling you what to do, ....or else" !! This is a very Wrong and improper analogy, as we as Human beings, are Firstly by the scriptures declared "Without Sin" from birth, as is clear from Isa.7:16, and Mt.18:2-3, as well as Ezek.18:3-18 !! Which emphasizes and exposes this False Idea of "Original Sin" as supposedly a "Spiritual DEATH" that was passed onto All men by ADAM, rather that the Biblical Fact that it concerns "Physical Death", that was passed onto all men. So when we according to the scriptures pass the "Age of Accountability" ( usually around puberty ) and we as MORTAL human beings, begin to see the acts of those committing things that we by nature know to be wrong, ( as the Bible discusses this idea, that those without the Law, yet follow a law in their nature that is according to the Law of God ) Yet those "young ones" begin to do the same wrong things,THAT is How human beings become Sinners !! As such we are Not taken Hostage by the Devil, ( he might encourage us a bit ) But WE OURSELVES By our "Lust of the Flesh" and the "Pride of life", We put ourselves in bondage to Sin, ( which is disobedience to the LAW of God ) Morgan Sorensen ( Biblical Theologian )
The "better groomed guest, Fr. Michael Hallford has been sent your critiques, which were happy to read. While we disagree with your points we always appreciate when thinking viewers such as yourself take the time to compose, and post coherent (albeit unOrthodox) responses. Fr. Michael should be sending his response within a day or two.
According to the official catechism of the catholic church published in 1992,it seems the western church has somewhat modified its position and it appears to have a more eastern flavor. Just my take.
I am a Protestant and it is a great video. Augustine seems to have led a lot down an incorrect road. Baptists Traditionalists / Provisionists I think are on the same page of original sin as the EO. Michael Heiser also agrees.
PART 1 In order to understand what is truly natural for man, it is important to discern what Adam was like before the Fall. After the Fall, this is easy enough to discern. This because we are all sinful and find ourselves like Saint Paul saying, “I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.” (Rom 7:15) In layman’s terms, we have a conscience that desires what is correct but we have this opposing desire to defy the conscience. This propensity is so strong, it is often a struggle to discern what is right or wrong. Was man like this before the Fall? How did Adam make the wrong choice if he had no desire towards evil? To answer these questions, its important to review the relevant Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves do not give us a lot of clues as to what man’s mind was like before the Fall, but perhaps the most relevant passages are as follows: Gen 3:1-13 1 Tim 2:8-15 Matt 4:1-11 (or its parallel passages in Mark and Luke) I am open to correction where I am interpreted wrongly. Nevertheless, I find the interpretation given herein the most Biblically consistent as well as compelling due to its reiteration of patristic teachings covered in future articles. Gen 3:1-13. In Genesis, we have the sole account of the Fall. I will add my own comments as we go: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” The intent of the Devil’s question is to sow doubt in the obvious interpretation of God’s commandment to Adam, which was as follows: Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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. (Gen 2:16-17) By saying, “Has God indeed,” it shows that the Devil sows doubt by asking a rhetorical question. Indeed, God did not say, “You shall not eat of every tree of the garden,” because God in fact said, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.” The purpose of asking the rhetorical question is for Eve to think the answer is simply, “No.” Rhetorical questions do not demand serious answers, they presuppose an answer merely by being asked. Hence, they are rhetorical devices that can be used deceivingly to get people to agree with you on an issue they would otherwise not agree about. For example, let’s use the issue of Universal Healthcare. Which question is deceptive because of its rhetorical nature? Is Universal Healthcare a human right? Do you think its right for people without health insurance to be left to die on the streets? Obviously the latter. So, just like the latter question demands the answer “no,” Satan’s question of, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?,” likewise demands the same automatic answer. However, if this is truly the case, then the latter part of the commandment (“…but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat…”) is not meant to be taken literally, because it contradicts the former part of the commandment (“of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.”) Can we know see the cunning of the serpent in his line of questioning? And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” The woman’s response is to emphasize the latter part of God’s commandment in Gen 2:16-17, showing that as far as she understood the commandment, she may eat all the fruit of the trees other than from that tree. Hence, she iterates a literal interpretation of what God said-over against the implications of Satan’s rhetorical question to her. A lot can be made of “nor shall you touch it,” being that God never actually said that. However, being that the Fall had not occurred yet, it is safe to interpret this gloss in a positive, instead of a negative, light. It shows that Eve was learning and interpreted rightly that to even reach for sin, even if it were not consummated, itself would be catastrophic. This is crucial, because the Fall occurred because for the first time the free will of man turned against God. The moment that will turned away from where it belonged, towards God, everything was lost. This necessitated restoration through Jesus Christ to repair this wrongful turning of the will. So, Eve gave the right answer. It would seem like “the gig is up.” However, Satan continue’s his deceit by simply saying death will not occur, but instead one will be made more like God. It’s the promise of “divinization,” something that God promises Christians now. (2 Pet 1:4) However, this would be in fact false divinization as it is obtained through defying God instead of becoming more like Him through obedience. It is not necessary to infer that Satan was trying to make it appear to Eve that God lied to Adam (i.e., “God told you not to eat that fruit, but that’s because He knows how great it is and is holding out on you.”) Most people interpret the passage this way, but as we can see in the preceding parenthetical statement, there are a lot of inferences one must make to draw the conclusion that “you surely will not die…you will be like God, knowing good and evil” can be interpreted to mean anything close to a statement tantamount to saying God is a deceiver. Such an interpretation, though taken for granted, goes for beyond what is actually stated. A more simple interpretation is that Satan is casting doubt in the mind of Eve. Either her interpretation of what God said is wrong or perhaps God never really said it. “For God knows…” presupposes that eating fruit would, in fact, be obedient. It appears to encourage Eve to eat, because it is telling her God would bless her through the fruit. Satan is saying that God knows eating the fruit is good, so why would God say not to eat the fruit? So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. Eve, taking to heart what Satan told her (that God knows eating the fruit is allegedly good) approaches the tree simplistically. The fruit looked like edible fruit. It looked nice. It was called “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:17), so it would make one wiser. God would not name it that for no good reason. Never having been lied to before, what Satan told Eve, considering all the preceding data, actually made sense. Hence, given this data, Eve must have figured she was mistaken in her interpretation or Adam relayed to her wrongly what God said. Due to the fact Eve questioned the Serpent, it is clear that the prelapsarian mind is capable of questioning and assessing probability. Having completed her examination, with no nagging conscience (because this comes only after the Fall), she ate the fruit. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Eve gave the fruit to Adam and he ate only after she convinced him. We know this is true, because God told Adam he was cursed, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife.” (Gen 3:17) We can only imagine what was “taught” by Eve to Adam in that this is the prime example as to why women are disallowed from teaching or holding authority over men. (cf 1 Tim 2:8-15) I think it is reasonable to infer that Eve reiterated to Adam what Satan told her. “Did God really say that, Adam?,” she might have said. “Yes, I am sure of it!,” replied Adam. “No, you must be mistaken, because I did not die eating this fruit. You must have heard incorrectly or misinterpreted what God, because I did not die. And look, the fruit is good to the eyes, pleasant for food, and desirable to make one like God. You want to be like God, right?” “I do!” Then the eyes of both of them were opened… This is an interesting statement. Only after Adam ate, the eyes of both were opened. How so? Why weren’t Eve’s eyes opened the moment she ate the fruit, leading to period of time when her eyes were opened and Adam’s eyes weren’t before he ate the fruit? Here’s what I think occurred. Eve had in fact defied God when she ate the fruit, but there is a difference in accountability between those who break an overt command (“sin is not imputed when there is no law,” Rom 5:13) and those who knowingly break a law (“the likeness of the transgression of Adam,” Rom 5:14). However, she was Adam’s “helper” (Gen 2:18) and came from Adam, the significance of this being: I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God…[H]e is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. (1 Cor 11:3, 7-8) Eve’s sin is that she overturned the creative order, exercising headship over Adam by teaching him what God said. Hence, her wrong doing was actually contingent upon Adam’s concession. Her actions could have been undone by Adam exercising headship and maintaining God’s teaching, just as a woman’s oath can be undone by her male head (Num 30:3-16). This is because Eve thought she was doing something good, but Adam abrogated his duty by taking heed instead of reiterating to her what God told him. So, Adam’s sin was more strictly one of disobedience while Eve’s sin was that of subversion. Her continued pestering-I mean-convincing of Adam was truly serious, just as holding privately to heresy is not the same as teaching it, which has “stricter judgement.” (James 3:1)
PART 2 Just as Adam disobeyed God, which was the sole commandment given to him, Eve disobeyed Adam-whom she was supposed to help-by supplanting his headship and teaching against his teaching. I am not going to pretend the preceding is a perfect answer to the question, but I believe it to be consistent. …and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?” So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.” And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Obviously, God knew what had occurred. He merely asked the questions to be instructive so that they may be aware of what they had done. Knowledge of sin is the beginning of repentance. Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” Adam give his defense to God, which is in fact truthful. Most people read this as Adam simply casting blame (man, what a misogynist!), but I do not think that’s the thrust of this passage. Rather, he is telling God that Eve gave him the fruit so he obliged. He does not say much else. He does not appear to be blaming Eve at all, or he would have accused her of deceiving him. In my interpretation, Adam appears convinced by Eve’s logic (of whatever she “taught” him), but confused as to how his helper turned him wrong. It is almost as if Adam is saying, “What’s wrong, I thought what I did was good, didn’t my helper You make for me help me?” This is not impenitence, but rather a sobbing child (which Adam was) not understanding what had occurred. And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” From God’s reply, we may infer that He accepts Adam’s explanation. He’s only a day old or so, what can we expect? He can be deceived by his wife. And so Eve’s reply makes sense in this context and is apparently more defensive: The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” This is Eve’s way of saying, “I did not deceive Adam on purpose, because the serpent deceived me.” God accepts this explanation, which explains why in verse 14 God curses the serpent, “Because you have done this.” The curses God gives to Eve (childbearing and submission to one’s husband) are obviously meant to correct what caused her to make Adam fall. Adam’s curses, endless labor, appear to teach Adam obedience through endless work. He allowed himself to be convinced by Eve’s shortcut to deification. Well, worse than writing “do not eat the fruit” on the chalkboard a million times, Adam will toil and die-no amount of toiling for the fruit of the earth will allow him to be deified. In this sense, both curses reorient man and woman towards their prelapsarian roles. This opens them to the grace of God to transform them-something that God intended for them before the Fall occurred. 1 Tim 2:8-15. I already know most readers will interpret the preceding to be a stretch. But, if you have read this far, you have at least kept an open mind. Allow me to show that 1 Tim in fact substantiates that both Adam and Eve were deceived in the sense described previously. I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Saint Paul begins this passage with an admonition to women to have propriety by adorning themselves with humility. They are to be like men who must also show propriety, albeit differently, by “lifting up holy hands.” This is apparently a reference to worshiping without hypocrisy (“wrath and doubt.”) Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. On the topic of propriety, Paul adds that a woman should “learn in silence with all submission” and not “teach or to have authority over a man.” This is to prevent “wrath and doubt” among men as referenced in verse 8. This is a two-way street as men, not objectifying women, would do much to mitigate against female vanity that Paul here forbids. Why do women have a different sort of propriety? Why cannot women lift holy hands and men be extra careful with how they dress? For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression. Paul’s justification is the same we see in 1 Cor 11. Adam was first and therefore not to be subjugated by Eve. God curses Eve for desiring to be first: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16) “Transgression” is a single Greek word, a feminine, singular noun. This clearly pertains to Eve alone within the context. Clearly, Paul is not teaching Adam did not sin, but only Eve did. What he is teaching is obvious. When Eve was deceived by the serpent, she fell into transgression (Gen 3:13). This transgression was consummated when she taught Adam and he ate the fruit. Therefore, Adam’s transgression was in believing what Eve taught him and eating the fruit as a result. Any other interpretation makes Paul’s application here nonsensical. If the issue was not Adam transgressing due to Eve’s teaching and exercising authority over him, why cite it as an example why women today should not do so within the Church? Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. Paul then gives a teaching as to what women can do to be saved. It’s not by exercising authority, but actually dealing with the curse in Gen 3:16. Childbearing (“in pain”) and implicitly allowing men to exercise authority (“he shall rule over you.”) Matt 4:1-11. Jesus’ temptations from Satan are important, because they demonstrate to us what a temptation looks like when posed to someone sinless and thereby prelapsarian. The Biblical passage will be read within the lens of Saint John of Damascus, who makes the following observations about Adam and Jesus: For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man… The wicked one , then, made his assault [on Jesus] from without, not by thoughts prompted inwardly, just as it was with Adam. For it was not by inward thoughts, but by the serpent that Adam was assailed. But the Lord repulsed the assault and dispelled it like vapour, in order that the passions which assailed him and were overcome might be easily subdued by us, and that the new Adam should save the old. Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it: but they were above nature because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is contemplated in Him but all is voluntary. For it was with His will that He hungered and thirsted and feared and died. (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chap 20) The preceding is very important, because in short Adam like Jesus could not be tempted by invoking passions-he did not have them. Temptation was “not by inward thoughts” but “from without.” It is for this reason, Jesus experienced even blameless passions “above nature,” because Jesus did not have to hunger (due to being sinless). He willed to hunger as “all is voluntary.” Hence, Adam likewise did not hunger until the transgression. In light of the preceding, let’s look into how Jesus was tempted and what that shows us about the prelapsarian mind: Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.” As we can see, Jesus was inwardly tempted by hunger, because Christ assumed this hunger voluntarily. On top of this temptation, Satan assaults Jesus with the suggestion that in order to prove that He is God, He should turn the stones into bread. What would the harm be in this? Satiating oneself is not a sin. Jesus satisfied His own thirst on the cross. (John 19:28-29) And sure, proving that He is good (“if you are the Son of God”) is also good, because “the very works I do bear witness of me.” (John 5:36) Jesus wanted to testify of the veracity of His claims as it glorified the Father. As we can see, Satan did not pose Jesus with anything explicitly bad. This is similar to Eve, who was not tempted with literally disobeying God and death-she was tempted with life and, allegedly, doing what God really wanted. And so, why didn’t Jesus just oblige? But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
PART 3 Now we have our answer. Jesus refused to disobey the ideal of not living by “bread alone.” To obey His hunger, under the guise of demonstrating that He was God to Satan, would have been gluttony. He would have hungered more for food than upholding the ideal of Deut 8:3. Jesus recognized that food, even if it appears “good to the eyes,” is not so if it leads one to break the command of God (“every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”) Hence, this undoes the Fall in the garden, as obedience is chosen instead of disobedience-and true wisdom (fearing the Lord, cf Job 28:28) instead of food. Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ” Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” Again, Satan tempts Jesus to show that He is God, which to reiterate is something that is both good and what Jesus intends to do. This time Satan quotes the Scripture, unlike before. In layman’s terms, Satan was saying, “You did not eat because that would have abrogated a command of God, well prove that you are God by permitting the angels to save your Body-because the Scriptures promise that no harm will come to you.” Why didn’t Jesus oblige? To simply spite Satan? Of course not. Jesus knew the Scripture was being appropriated wrongly. Because His human nature grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), Satan confused this with potential ignorance, such as Adam’s. However, even “before the Child shall know good or evil, he refuses evil, to choose the good” (Is 7:15 LXX)-meaning that Jesus’s human will, even before it was fully informed before the “age of reason,” cooperated with the divine will to always choose good. Hence, Jesus’ human ignorance was deified and could not make evil decisions, unlike Adam’s. Hence, Jesus reflexively knew that the Scripture Satan quoted (Ps 91, 90 LXX) did indeed promise that no harm, ever falls upon the faithful. Even though the Psalm literally says this, to take the promise of the Psalm literally betrays misunderstand the promise. It is meant to be taken figuratively. This is literally the inverse of God’s command in the garden, which was literal. Jesus, with deified human wisdom, rightly identified that listening to Satan’s admonition would in fact break another commandment of the Lord, which was “not [to] tempt the Lord your God.” (Deut 6:16) This is unlike Adam and Eve, who knew God’s command, but were not able to identify whether the literal or figurative interpretation was appropriate. Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’” Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him. Satan’s last temptation is certainly less sly than the previous two, perhaps indicating at this point Satan was just pestering Jesus rather than seriously attempting to get Him to sin at this point. He simply shows Jesus every Kingdom of the world and being the “prince of the world” (John 14:30), he had the capacity to hand them over to Jesus. The desire to rule justly over the nations would have been good, but to fall down and worship Satan was clearly not. Seemingly insulted by this temptation as insulting to His intelligence, Jesus dismissively responds, “Away with you!” Conclusion. The reason I finished last with Jesus’ temptations is because it helps us frame what temptations Adam and Eve could face or not face. Jesus could seriously contemplate hunger (the bread) and self-preservation (not throwing Himself off the Temple), because He voluntarily assumed blameless passions. Satan could only try to cunningly slip a temptation to sin within an otherwise benign, if not good (in some respects) suggestion. When Satan poses Jesus with something overtly evil, Jesus dismisses it out of hand. With Adam and Eve, we see something similar. Eve was posed with something good, being like God. And she was deceived into thinking that God really never forbade eating the fruit. Adam permitted himself to be deceived by his eyes, not seeing Eve dead, and by what she told him. Then he too ate the fruit. Hence, their sin was one of ignorance and not a purposeful disobedience. There are plenty of speculations already here, but I will make one last one. Eve’s sin was only complete when she unknowingly deceived Adam by what she told him. Eve’s suggestions led to Adam presuming he must have been mistaken. So, the Fall occurred when Eve then knowingly contradicted what Adam reiterated was the command of God-and when Adam, believing His eyes and not God’s words, believED what Eve told him was valid. Upon eating the fruit, the wills of Adam and Eve have turned from obedience, to ignorance, to outright disobedience. Since the Fall, the free will of man is constantly reliving this oscillation and we have inherited the consequences.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV you did not say anything about inheriting sin at birth ,sin is in the mind and the remedy is to renew our mind ,we learn how to sin and that is how it is past on
You may have it right that Jerome had problems with translating some of Romans. You however are dead wrong in saying the Cristian faith in the West is different than that in the east as concerning "I'm not afraid of you go ahead and kill me". Both deposits of faith teach the same thing. When you talk about the west you speak of the secular culture of the west, When you speak of the east you speak of the church faithful.You compare apples to oranges. Only the strong in Christ are able to stand to Martyrdom. Fear of physical death is universal. Standing for Christ when prosecuted is the call of all Christians. If you think the Christians of the East have this VIRTUE by some special "Understanding" related to or unrelated to Paul's letter to the Romans look to the Eastern Apostles who all but John scattered during Christ Trial Mat:26;31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same. Eastern Christians fled because of the stoning of Great St. Stephen Acts: 8;1And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. The Eastern Christian never fared any better than did the Western Christians during the Emperors persecutions . I'm a Western Christian who is very fond of Easter Christianity with it richness and the truths it has preserved that west has left behind. The teaching of surrendering ones self to Christ is a very basic Christian teaching one that ALL Christians understand East or West. Its not a teaching of man its a teaching by the Holy Spirit that becomes apparent via regeneration.
The East and West were one Church --- the Orthodox Church --- not two in communion. They had a common Faith. The same Fathers --- Sts Ambrose, Gregory the Dialogist, Hilary of Poitiers, Faustus of Riez, Ignatius of Antioch, John Chrysostom, Basil, John of Damascus, etc. It was Augustine of Hippo who altered the Apostolic Tradition, that is, in the time of Charlemagne. Augustine gave us "original sin," filioque, predestination, and, yes, rationalism, etc. Also, he converted the Redemption from the conquest of death to the forgiveness of sins. On the Cross, Augustine, Anselm, Luther, etc. taught that Christ made satisfaction to God for man's offense. He was punished by God in our place for our sins--- no, He overcame death by His death. To tell you the truth, I do not understand your complaint. You would not have made it, if you had made further inquire into "church history."
The wages of sin is eternal death, not physical death. The tree of life proves man was always destined for death. Nature also proves this out in the consumption of one DNA structure by another DNA structure for survival of the prevailing DNA. In Revelation 2:7 we still will eat of the tree of life, so instead of eternal physical death, the probability is that the tree of life would translate us into a glorified body and heavenly bound body.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV - I have never been comfortable with the concept of our bearing the eternal consequence of Adam's sin, born in sin. It was Adam's world, and by his earning the curse on his world, we definitely still have weeds. The physical consequences remain. Having been inclined towards man being born innocent and then guilty by committing sin, and seeing this in the whole of the scriptures, and then being interested in hearing views like this video to help flesh out my inclinations, I am now thinking the death Adam earned was the removal of our access to the tree of life. Spiritual death being no more access to eternal life.
We suggest this book: www.amazon.com/Ancestral-Sin-Comparative-Augustinian-Formulation/dp/0970730314/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1587847757&refinements=p_27%3AJohn+S.+Romanides&s=books&sr=1-1&text=John+S.+Romanides
Augustine's problem was that he had been a Manichaean Gnostic prior to his conversion to Christianity. Unfortunately, he never completely gave up all of its tenants.
Thank you for commenting. We appreciate it.
St Augustine was always considered one of the gretest Church teachers by other Fathers, Popes, and ecumenical councils.
Only the condemned pelagian heretics have accused him of manicheism, but in reality his teaching is deeply rooted in the Bible and is in line with the Church Fathers before him.
Baptist Traditionalists also reject Augustine's Original Sin. They way I learned it is that we are all born with a death nature. Sin reigns in death.
HI, JUST FOUND THIS VIDEO - wondering if you have any further resources from these two gentleman Timothy Fisher and Michale Halford. thank you
th-cam.com/video/EoIQfzCqohA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Q72VnUdkWrE/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/CG_4VLYh6g8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/play/PLFF75775B30E35D25.html
th-cam.com/video/VvL5h6s6rqA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/hYyUWTPpMXU/w-d-xo.html
39:00 Is it implied here thst Augustine didn't believe in free will? Because that certainly was not the case.
It is well known that Augustine believed in pre-destination.
Sin entered the world. That means we have the ability to sin. We are responsible for our own sins. Ezekiel 18 says the sins of the Father do not carry to the son. My views line up with Orthodox very much as it is Biblical. Original sin is but one. Thank you guys!
:-)
I’m an oriental orthodox and in the coptic church we believe in original sin, Does the eastern orthodox reject that we inherited the sin of adam?
Dear Mr. Marley, a long time ago we did a program that answers your very question. We invite you to watch it: th-cam.com/video/Gh13dboKX34/w-d-xo.html
@@GreekOrthodoxTV thanks for the reply, I saw the part of it and I know that Fr John Romanedes rejects the idea, but does all eastern orthodox believe like him?
Fr John Romanides did not reject the Orthodox Christian teaching of Ancestral Sin. He rejects the Augustinian concept of "Original Guilt", as it was taught by the Carolingian Franks and their progeny. All men do inherit a fallen condition from Adam. But all men are not guilty of Adam's (original) sin. The program we pointed you to explains this very clearly. We suggest you watch it all the way through, or watch it again, this time more carefully.
Yes, a denial of original sin is one of eastern "orthodox" latest heresies. In reality, all of the Church Fathers believed in original sin.
43:10 the idea of sin being passed through the father (i.e. semen) came from Augustine. Not all Protestants believe in this. Baptist Traditionalists firmly reject this notion.
The DOCTRINE of "ORIGINAL SIN", as referring to "SPIRITUAL DEATH" of man-kind, being transferred to every Human being, is a FALSE representation of the meaning of the word "Sin", and the meaning of the word "Death" !!!
The Apostle PAUL'S outlook on ADAM'S Sin, is declared by PAUL in Rom.5:12, as follows;...."Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
What the apostle PAUL is conveying here, Is that SIN, ( the disobedience to God's Command and God's word ) was FIRST Done by ADAM, in his Disobedience of God's Command, to NOT EAT of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and Evil.
And as Such This disobedience, ( that is called SIN ) was FIRST Contrived by ADAM, and as Such said to have "ENTERED INTO THE WORLD", because there was to be CONSEQUENCES of "Physical DEATH" of the body, as a result of the JUDGMENT for this DISOBEDIENCE Of ADAM !!
Prior to ADAM'S Willful taking of the fruit, ( remember, Eve was deceived by the Serpent, and Only knew from ADAM telling her, that they were NOT to eat of the fruit of that tree. But ADAM was the One that was given the Direct Command by God, BEFORE Eve was created !! )
So prior to their Committing this SIN, ADAM and EVE, were Created ETERNAL BEINGS !! They were going to live forever in the garden of EDEN , and have ETERNAL offspring, according to the scriptures, as they were commanded to "replenish the earth", ( that means to "Fill -Up", with what existed in the previous Social System ) This is something that today's debauched modern Theology, does Not understand.
So in Gen.1:28, BEFORE any disobedience was committed, ADAM and EVE are told to have Offspring, that obviously from the text, would likewise LIVE ETERNALLY, just like ADAM and EVE' who were originally created ETERNAL BEINGS !!
But, then in Gen.2:17 we read, that God said to ADAM, ...." But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely DIE."
This Curse of "DEATH", that God warned ADAM About, Concerned the Consequence of "PHYSICAL DEATH", and NOT "Spiritual Death" as falsely proclaimed by modern THEOLOGY, as well as the false doctrines of CALVINISM !!
ADAM and EVE were told that their ETERNAL Existence on EARTH, Would Cease ! And it was THIS CURSE of "Physical Death", that was "passed on" to their Off-Spring, and on to Every human being since THAT TIME !!
This is What the apostle PAUL is trying to convey in Rom.5:12 when he declares;..."Wherefore as by One man, ( ADAM )...SIN , ( Disobedience to God's LAW ) entered into the world, ( was FIRST practiced in defiance of God's Command )...and DEATH ( physical death ) by SIN, ( by the Disobedience to God's Law )...so "DEATH" ( physical Death ) passed upon All Men".
The words at the end of that passage;..."for all have sinned", only emphasizes, that All persons, as they grow-up, and pass the "Age of Accountability", will in their lifetime commit SIN.
( Nothing More, and nothing Less, The speculations of modern Theology to the contrary, notwithstanding ! )
So this idea of "ORIGINAL SIN" Supposedly being SPIRITUAL DEATH, that is passed on to all of us from ADAM, is a FALSE and HERETICAL teaching, that is void of scriptural linguistics as well as Common Sense !!
As "ORIGINAL SIN" was nothing more than DISOBEDIENCE to GOD'S COMMAND , and the Resulting "DEATH" concerns PHYSICAL DEATH that has passed upon All of us !!
Meaning ADAM and EVE Now CEASED to be IMMORTAL BEINGS, and as such would now suffer the consequences of their disobedience !!
Morgan Sorensen ( Biblical Theologian )
You seem to agree with the guests.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV I did not take time to listen but 2 or 3 minutes of the presentation, and just assumed that it was along the lines of the Debauched scholasticism of our day. So if your guests echoed the
same fundamental thoughts as I presented, then they are CORRECT , and Yes I am in AGREEMENT with them !! And your disagreement is therefore HERETICAL, and provable so !!
Morgan Sorensen ( Biblical Theologian )
The words replenish the earth are not Biblical
God has revealed himself through the prophets and finally through the Life and Death of his only Son. There are mysteries by which human limitation is incapable of complete understanding. This limitation must be accepted by Faith. We follow Abraham who believed God, and so was accepted as righteous by Him.
Do not forget, Gregory, about God's Revelation to the human heart experienced by all the Holy Saints from antiquity down to our times.
Must adherents to the EOC believe in the fall? If yes - that Adam and Eve lost Grace?
Must EOC adherents believe that people would not suffer physical death but for the fall?
Does anyone else apart from Romanides and the Saker think we sin because we fear death?
To be afraid of death was to be still under the power of the devil-II Timothy 1:7: "For
God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of sound
mind." We suggest you read the essay that our program discusses.
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx
If you yourself read it you may better understand where the participants in the discussion on the program were accurately interpreting the author's thesis, and where they were not being accurate. Also, Romanides' essay has many footnotes that back up his thesis.
But who or what is 'the Saker'?
A viewer wrote us,
"I can't seem to make sense of your presentation of original sin in light of the council of Carthage 419. You teach the effects being physical death, not spiritual death. However, the council states:
"Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema.
"For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith (regulam fidei) even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.
"Any insight would be greatly appreciated."
Michael Hallford responds: The decisions of the councils at Carthage during the 400s never played the same role in the eastern Roman world that they played in the Latin churches. Augustine's interpretations of scripture passages based on Jerome's juridical vulgate translation, which he developed in his disputes against Pelagius, were largely unknown in the Roman east, primarily because of language barriers - Greek versus Latin. The vulgate vocabulary lent itself to an overtly legalist interpretation, rather than the more therapeutic tradition based on Greek vocabulary in the east. Just because the decisions of the Carthage Councils were accepted at the Council of Trullo, a local council, doesn't mean they were widely accepted in the east or understood in the same way. Augustine, whose writings in Latin were never widely known by the eastern fathers, espoused doctrines divergent from the eastern fathers, especially St. John Cassian, St. John Chrysostom and St. Isaac the Syrian. Judgement as it is understood in the Latin west does not mean the same thing as Krisis means in Greek.
We appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts! Please share our program, and click "like".
Strange that this is not the way I was taught Protestantism (which constitutes the majority of church attendants in the West nowadays in spite of the fake statistics). I think there's a serious misconception especially in the way our attitude to righteousness is perceived. In the Protestant theology with most of its affiliations, there is a cute awareness that we are called to reflect God, to become righteous and to be restored to God, through Jesus Christ. The only difference I see here is a question of method rather than of the core issue. Based on Paul, the more one strives to reach righteousness, the more the flesh will wage war against him/her. Trying hard not to sin is the very thing that makes one sin all the more. However, relaxing in God's grace and focusing our gaze on Jesus and on his work is truly helpful. It helps us both; to be redeemed and forgiven in the eyes of God, and to be lifted up to the level of righteousness required by Him. When the fear stops, we're no longer striving. And when the striving stops, the peace of God fills the believer's heart. At this moment, the joy of God (the Holy Spirit) will be received as a result of the assurance of our salvation by faith. All these factos will act psychologically speaking as healers to our wounds and sins. This assurance also is what opens the person's heart to love God fully, for whoever is forgiven much, loves much. There is also the factor of humility of the process. Pride is ranked top vice in God's eyes. Striving and achieving cannot take place without a certain aspect and level of pride building up in the process. When we take our eyes off our sins and focus them on the perfection of Jesus Christ, we will spontaneously follow suit without becoming aware of our gains and achievements, because in truth they are his, not ours. This exactly why the Catholics and Orthodox think that Protestants don't care about righteousness, because the latter don't make such a big fuss about it. They just get on with it!
www.archangelsbooks.com/articles/scripture/solascriptura.asp
Having listened to the first about 15 minutes of this presentation, I would like to comment on the response from the "better groomed" guest, who @ minute 12:35 to minute 13:40, began with his very Erroneous analogy as the Devil being "like a Terrorist coming into your house and holding you hostage, and telling you what to do, ....or else" !!
This is a very Wrong and improper analogy, as we as Human beings, are Firstly by the scriptures declared "Without Sin" from birth, as is clear from Isa.7:16, and Mt.18:2-3, as well as Ezek.18:3-18 !!
Which emphasizes and exposes this False Idea of "Original Sin" as supposedly a "Spiritual DEATH" that was passed onto All men by ADAM, rather that the Biblical Fact that it concerns
"Physical Death", that was passed onto all men.
So when we according to the scriptures pass the "Age of Accountability" ( usually around puberty ) and we as MORTAL human beings, begin to see the acts of those committing things that we by nature know to be wrong, ( as the Bible discusses this idea, that those without the Law, yet follow a law in their nature that is according to the Law of God )
Yet those "young ones" begin to do the same wrong things,THAT is How human beings become Sinners !! As such we are Not taken Hostage by the Devil, ( he might encourage us a bit ) But WE OURSELVES By our "Lust of the Flesh" and the "Pride of life", We put ourselves in bondage to Sin, ( which is disobedience to the LAW of God )
Morgan Sorensen ( Biblical Theologian )
The "better groomed guest, Fr. Michael Hallford has been sent your critiques, which were happy to read. While we disagree with your points we always appreciate when thinking viewers such as yourself take the time to compose, and post coherent (albeit unOrthodox) responses. Fr. Michael should be sending his response within a day or two.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV , I am still waiting for Michael Hallford's
response to me. Did he vanish ??
Morgan Sorensen ( Theologian )
does OC believe in the original sin of adam? does OC believe in atonement?
Mr. Oaks, did you watch the program?
Wow man this is deep and I love it
We are glad you may have been edified by our program. Please subscribe to our channel.
According to the official catechism of the catholic church published in 1992,it seems the western church has somewhat modified its position and it appears to have a more eastern flavor. Just my take.
To the extent that this is true it could be attributed in part to the True Witness of Orthodox Theology.
Excellent work. G-d bless!
+Ayios Georgios God bless YOU.
Love it 💒
We appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts. Please share our program, and click the "like" tab.
baptism does not save us but is an act of a good conscience toward God
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/baptism.aspx
That is not what the bible says.
The video is great. The comment section is 🥸.
Thanks! 😃
I am a Protestant and it is a great video. Augustine seems to have led a lot down an incorrect road. Baptists Traditionalists / Provisionists I think are on the same page of original sin as the EO. Michael Heiser also agrees.
Jesus born in a fallen state ?one person is born in a fallen state,Romans 5.12 death spread to all men ,because all have sinned ,(made the choice)
PART 1
In order to understand what is truly natural for man, it is important to discern what Adam was like before the Fall. After the Fall, this is easy enough to discern. This because we are all sinful and find ourselves like Saint Paul saying, “I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.” (Rom 7:15) In layman’s terms, we have a conscience that desires what is correct but we have this opposing desire to defy the conscience. This propensity is so strong, it is often a struggle to discern what is right or wrong.
Was man like this before the Fall? How did Adam make the wrong choice if he had no desire towards evil? To answer these questions, its important to review the relevant Scriptures.
The Scriptures themselves do not give us a lot of clues as to what man’s mind was like before the Fall, but perhaps the most relevant passages are as follows:
Gen 3:1-13
1 Tim 2:8-15
Matt 4:1-11 (or its parallel passages in Mark and Luke)
I am open to correction where I am interpreted wrongly. Nevertheless, I find the interpretation given herein the most Biblically consistent as well as compelling due to its reiteration of patristic teachings covered in future articles.
Gen 3:1-13. In Genesis, we have the sole account of the Fall. I will add my own comments as we go:
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
The intent of the Devil’s question is to sow doubt in the obvious interpretation of God’s commandment to Adam, which was as follows:
Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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. (Gen 2:16-17)
By saying, “Has God indeed,” it shows that the Devil sows doubt by asking a rhetorical question. Indeed, God did not say, “You shall not eat of every tree of the garden,” because God in fact said, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.”
The purpose of asking the rhetorical question is for Eve to think the answer is simply, “No.” Rhetorical questions do not demand serious answers, they presuppose an answer merely by being asked. Hence, they are rhetorical devices that can be used deceivingly to get people to agree with you on an issue they would otherwise not agree about.
For example, let’s use the issue of Universal Healthcare. Which question is deceptive because of its rhetorical nature?
Is Universal Healthcare a human right?
Do you think its right for people without health insurance to be left to die on the streets?
Obviously the latter. So, just like the latter question demands the answer “no,” Satan’s question of, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?,” likewise demands the same automatic answer.
However, if this is truly the case, then the latter part of the commandment (“…but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat…”) is not meant to be taken literally, because it contradicts the former part of the commandment (“of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.”) Can we know see the cunning of the serpent in his line of questioning?
And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”
Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
The woman’s response is to emphasize the latter part of God’s commandment in Gen 2:16-17, showing that as far as she understood the commandment, she may eat all the fruit of the trees other than from that tree. Hence, she iterates a literal interpretation of what God said-over against the implications of Satan’s rhetorical question to her.
A lot can be made of “nor shall you touch it,” being that God never actually said that. However, being that the Fall had not occurred yet, it is safe to interpret this gloss in a positive, instead of a negative, light. It shows that Eve was learning and interpreted rightly that to even reach for sin, even if it were not consummated, itself would be catastrophic.
This is crucial, because the Fall occurred because for the first time the free will of man turned against God. The moment that will turned away from where it belonged, towards God, everything was lost. This necessitated restoration through Jesus Christ to repair this wrongful turning of the will.
So, Eve gave the right answer. It would seem like “the gig is up.” However, Satan continue’s his deceit by simply saying death will not occur, but instead one will be made more like God. It’s the promise of “divinization,” something that God promises Christians now. (2 Pet 1:4) However, this would be in fact false divinization as it is obtained through defying God instead of becoming more like Him through obedience.
It is not necessary to infer that Satan was trying to make it appear to Eve that God lied to Adam (i.e., “God told you not to eat that fruit, but that’s because He knows how great it is and is holding out on you.”) Most people interpret the passage this way, but as we can see in the preceding parenthetical statement, there are a lot of inferences one must make to draw the conclusion that “you surely will not die…you will be like God, knowing good and evil” can be interpreted to mean anything close to a statement tantamount to saying God is a deceiver. Such an interpretation, though taken for granted, goes for beyond what is actually stated.
A more simple interpretation is that Satan is casting doubt in the mind of Eve. Either her interpretation of what God said is wrong or perhaps God never really said it. “For God knows…” presupposes that eating fruit would, in fact, be obedient. It appears to encourage Eve to eat, because it is telling her God would bless her through the fruit. Satan is saying that God knows eating the fruit is good, so why would God say not to eat the fruit?
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.
Eve, taking to heart what Satan told her (that God knows eating the fruit is allegedly good) approaches the tree simplistically. The fruit looked like edible fruit. It looked nice. It was called “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:17), so it would make one wiser. God would not name it that for no good reason. Never having been lied to before, what Satan told Eve, considering all the preceding data, actually made sense.
Hence, given this data, Eve must have figured she was mistaken in her interpretation or Adam relayed to her wrongly what God said. Due to the fact Eve questioned the Serpent, it is clear that the prelapsarian mind is capable of questioning and assessing probability. Having completed her examination, with no nagging conscience (because this comes only after the Fall), she ate the fruit.
She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
Eve gave the fruit to Adam and he ate only after she convinced him. We know this is true, because God told Adam he was cursed, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife.” (Gen 3:17) We can only imagine what was “taught” by Eve to Adam in that this is the prime example as to why women are disallowed from teaching or holding authority over men. (cf 1 Tim 2:8-15)
I think it is reasonable to infer that Eve reiterated to Adam what Satan told her. “Did God really say that, Adam?,” she might have said. “Yes, I am sure of it!,” replied Adam.
“No, you must be mistaken, because I did not die eating this fruit. You must have heard incorrectly or misinterpreted what God, because I did not die. And look, the fruit is good to the eyes, pleasant for food, and desirable to make one like God. You want to be like God, right?”
“I do!”
Then the eyes of both of them were opened…
This is an interesting statement. Only after Adam ate, the eyes of both were opened. How so? Why weren’t Eve’s eyes opened the moment she ate the fruit, leading to period of time when her eyes were opened and Adam’s eyes weren’t before he ate the fruit?
Here’s what I think occurred. Eve had in fact defied God when she ate the fruit, but there is a difference in accountability between those who break an overt command (“sin is not imputed when there is no law,” Rom 5:13) and those who knowingly break a law (“the likeness of the transgression of Adam,” Rom 5:14). However, she was Adam’s “helper” (Gen 2:18) and came from Adam, the significance of this being:
I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God…[H]e is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. (1 Cor 11:3, 7-8)
Eve’s sin is that she overturned the creative order, exercising headship over Adam by teaching him what God said. Hence, her wrong doing was actually contingent upon Adam’s concession. Her actions could have been undone by Adam exercising headship and maintaining God’s teaching, just as a woman’s oath can be undone by her male head (Num 30:3-16). This is because Eve thought she was doing something good, but Adam abrogated his duty by taking heed instead of reiterating to her what God told him. So, Adam’s sin was more strictly one of disobedience while Eve’s sin was that of subversion. Her continued pestering-I mean-convincing of Adam was truly serious, just as holding privately to heresy is not the same as teaching it, which has “stricter judgement.” (James 3:1)
PART 2
Just as Adam disobeyed God, which was the sole commandment given to him, Eve disobeyed Adam-whom she was supposed to help-by supplanting his headship and teaching against his teaching. I am not going to pretend the preceding is a perfect answer to the question, but I believe it to be consistent.
…and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.
And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”
And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”
Obviously, God knew what had occurred. He merely asked the questions to be instructive so that they may be aware of what they had done. Knowledge of sin is the beginning of repentance.
Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
Adam give his defense to God, which is in fact truthful. Most people read this as Adam simply casting blame (man, what a misogynist!), but I do not think that’s the thrust of this passage. Rather, he is telling God that Eve gave him the fruit so he obliged. He does not say much else. He does not appear to be blaming Eve at all, or he would have accused her of deceiving him. In my interpretation, Adam appears convinced by Eve’s logic (of whatever she “taught” him), but confused as to how his helper turned him wrong.
It is almost as if Adam is saying, “What’s wrong, I thought what I did was good, didn’t my helper You make for me help me?” This is not impenitence, but rather a sobbing child (which Adam was) not understanding what had occurred.
And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
From God’s reply, we may infer that He accepts Adam’s explanation. He’s only a day old or so, what can we expect? He can be deceived by his wife. And so Eve’s reply makes sense in this context and is apparently more defensive:
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
This is Eve’s way of saying, “I did not deceive Adam on purpose, because the serpent deceived me.” God accepts this explanation, which explains why in verse 14 God curses the serpent, “Because you have done this.”
The curses God gives to Eve (childbearing and submission to one’s husband) are obviously meant to correct what caused her to make Adam fall. Adam’s curses, endless labor, appear to teach Adam obedience through endless work. He allowed himself to be convinced by Eve’s shortcut to deification. Well, worse than writing “do not eat the fruit” on the chalkboard a million times, Adam will toil and die-no amount of toiling for the fruit of the earth will allow him to be deified. In this sense, both curses reorient man and woman towards their prelapsarian roles. This opens them to the grace of God to transform them-something that God intended for them before the Fall occurred.
1 Tim 2:8-15. I already know most readers will interpret the preceding to be a stretch. But, if you have read this far, you have at least kept an open mind. Allow me to show that 1 Tim in fact substantiates that both Adam and Eve were deceived in the sense described previously.
I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
Saint Paul begins this passage with an admonition to women to have propriety by adorning themselves with humility. They are to be like men who must also show propriety, albeit differently, by “lifting up holy hands.” This is apparently a reference to worshiping without hypocrisy (“wrath and doubt.”)
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.
On the topic of propriety, Paul adds that a woman should “learn in silence with all submission” and not “teach or to have authority over a man.” This is to prevent “wrath and doubt” among men as referenced in verse 8. This is a two-way street as men, not objectifying women, would do much to mitigate against female vanity that Paul here forbids.
Why do women have a different sort of propriety? Why cannot women lift holy hands and men be extra careful with how they dress?
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression.
Paul’s justification is the same we see in 1 Cor 11. Adam was first and therefore not to be subjugated by Eve. God curses Eve for desiring to be first: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16) “Transgression” is a single Greek word, a feminine, singular noun. This clearly pertains to Eve alone within the context.
Clearly, Paul is not teaching Adam did not sin, but only Eve did. What he is teaching is obvious. When Eve was deceived by the serpent, she fell into transgression (Gen 3:13). This transgression was consummated when she taught Adam and he ate the fruit.
Therefore, Adam’s transgression was in believing what Eve taught him and eating the fruit as a result. Any other interpretation makes Paul’s application here nonsensical. If the issue was not Adam transgressing due to Eve’s teaching and exercising authority over him, why cite it as an example why women today should not do so within the Church?
Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
Paul then gives a teaching as to what women can do to be saved. It’s not by exercising authority, but actually dealing with the curse in Gen 3:16. Childbearing (“in pain”) and implicitly allowing men to exercise authority (“he shall rule over you.”)
Matt 4:1-11. Jesus’ temptations from Satan are important, because they demonstrate to us what a temptation looks like when posed to someone sinless and thereby prelapsarian. The Biblical passage will be read within the lens of Saint John of Damascus, who makes the following observations about Adam and Jesus:
For the natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the nature, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man…
The wicked one , then, made his assault [on Jesus] from without, not by thoughts prompted inwardly, just as it was with Adam. For it was not by inward thoughts, but by the serpent that Adam was assailed. But the Lord repulsed the assault and dispelled it like vapour, in order that the passions which assailed him and were overcome might be easily subdued by us, and that the new Adam should save the old.
Of a truth our natural passions were in harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it: but they were above nature because that which was natural did not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no compulsion is contemplated in Him but all is voluntary. For it was with His will that He hungered and thirsted and feared and died. (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III, Chap 20)
The preceding is very important, because in short Adam like Jesus could not be tempted by invoking passions-he did not have them. Temptation was “not by inward thoughts” but “from without.” It is for this reason, Jesus experienced even blameless passions “above nature,” because Jesus did not have to hunger (due to being sinless). He willed to hunger as “all is voluntary.” Hence, Adam likewise did not hunger until the transgression.
In light of the preceding, let’s look into how Jesus was tempted and what that shows us about the prelapsarian mind:
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry. Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”
As we can see, Jesus was inwardly tempted by hunger, because Christ assumed this hunger voluntarily. On top of this temptation, Satan assaults Jesus with the suggestion that in order to prove that He is God, He should turn the stones into bread.
What would the harm be in this? Satiating oneself is not a sin. Jesus satisfied His own thirst on the cross. (John 19:28-29) And sure, proving that He is good (“if you are the Son of God”) is also good, because “the very works I do bear witness of me.” (John 5:36) Jesus wanted to testify of the veracity of His claims as it glorified the Father.
As we can see, Satan did not pose Jesus with anything explicitly bad. This is similar to Eve, who was not tempted with literally disobeying God and death-she was tempted with life and, allegedly, doing what God really wanted. And so, why didn’t Jesus just oblige?
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”
PART 3
Now we have our answer. Jesus refused to disobey the ideal of not living by “bread alone.” To obey His hunger, under the guise of demonstrating that He was God to Satan, would have been gluttony. He would have hungered more for food than upholding the ideal of Deut 8:3. Jesus recognized that food, even if it appears “good to the eyes,” is not so if it leads one to break the command of God (“every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”) Hence, this undoes the Fall in the garden, as obedience is chosen instead of disobedience-and true wisdom (fearing the Lord, cf Job 28:28) instead of food.
Then the devil took Him up into the holy city, set Him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down. For it is written: ‘He shall give His angels charge over you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’ ”
Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”
Again, Satan tempts Jesus to show that He is God, which to reiterate is something that is both good and what Jesus intends to do. This time Satan quotes the Scripture, unlike before. In layman’s terms, Satan was saying, “You did not eat because that would have abrogated a command of God, well prove that you are God by permitting the angels to save your Body-because the Scriptures promise that no harm will come to you.”
Why didn’t Jesus oblige? To simply spite Satan? Of course not.
Jesus knew the Scripture was being appropriated wrongly. Because His human nature grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), Satan confused this with potential ignorance, such as Adam’s. However, even “before the Child shall know good or evil, he refuses evil, to choose the good” (Is 7:15 LXX)-meaning that Jesus’s human will, even before it was fully informed before the “age of reason,” cooperated with the divine will to always choose good. Hence, Jesus’ human ignorance was deified and could not make evil decisions, unlike Adam’s.
Hence, Jesus reflexively knew that the Scripture Satan quoted (Ps 91, 90 LXX) did indeed promise that no harm, ever falls upon the faithful. Even though the Psalm literally says this, to take the promise of the Psalm literally betrays misunderstand the promise. It is meant to be taken figuratively. This is literally the inverse of God’s command in the garden, which was literal. Jesus, with deified human wisdom, rightly identified that listening to Satan’s admonition would in fact break another commandment of the Lord, which was “not [to] tempt the Lord your God.” (Deut 6:16) This is unlike Adam and Eve, who knew God’s command, but were not able to identify whether the literal or figurative interpretation was appropriate.
Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Away with you, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’”
Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him.
Satan’s last temptation is certainly less sly than the previous two, perhaps indicating at this point Satan was just pestering Jesus rather than seriously attempting to get Him to sin at this point. He simply shows Jesus every Kingdom of the world and being the “prince of the world” (John 14:30), he had the capacity to hand them over to Jesus.
The desire to rule justly over the nations would have been good, but to fall down and worship Satan was clearly not. Seemingly insulted by this temptation as insulting to His intelligence, Jesus dismissively responds, “Away with you!”
Conclusion. The reason I finished last with Jesus’ temptations is because it helps us frame what temptations Adam and Eve could face or not face. Jesus could seriously contemplate hunger (the bread) and self-preservation (not throwing Himself off the Temple), because He voluntarily assumed blameless passions. Satan could only try to cunningly slip a temptation to sin within an otherwise benign, if not good (in some respects) suggestion. When Satan poses Jesus with something overtly evil, Jesus dismisses it out of hand.
With Adam and Eve, we see something similar. Eve was posed with something good, being like God. And she was deceived into thinking that God really never forbade eating the fruit. Adam permitted himself to be deceived by his eyes, not seeing Eve dead, and by what she told him. Then he too ate the fruit. Hence, their sin was one of ignorance and not a purposeful disobedience.
There are plenty of speculations already here, but I will make one last one. Eve’s sin was only complete when she unknowingly deceived Adam by what she told him. Eve’s suggestions led to Adam presuming he must have been mistaken. So, the Fall occurred when Eve then knowingly contradicted what Adam reiterated was the command of God-and when Adam, believing His eyes and not God’s words, believED what Eve told him was valid. Upon eating the fruit, the wills of Adam and Eve have turned from obedience, to ignorance, to outright disobedience. Since the Fall, the free will of man is constantly reliving this oscillation and we have inherited the consequences.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV you did not say anything about inheriting sin at birth ,sin is in the mind and the remedy is to renew our mind ,we learn how to sin and that is how it is past on
That was discussed in the program. We insist that you watch the entire program attentively before you post another comment.
very scattered conversation. I wis it were didactic bc its a very helpful teaching. but this convo is depressing
They were not trying hard enough to be didactic. They ended up just having a conversation.
You may have it right that Jerome had problems with translating some of Romans. You however are dead wrong in saying the Cristian faith in the West is different than that in the east as concerning "I'm not afraid of you go ahead and kill me". Both deposits of faith teach the same thing. When you talk about the west you speak of the secular culture of the west, When you speak of the east you speak of the church faithful.You compare apples to oranges. Only the strong in Christ are able to stand to Martyrdom. Fear of physical death is universal. Standing for Christ when prosecuted is the call of all Christians.
If you think the Christians of the East have this VIRTUE by some special "Understanding" related to or unrelated to Paul's letter to the Romans look to the Eastern Apostles who all but John scattered during Christ Trial Mat:26;31 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’ But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” Peter answered him, “Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away.” Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.” Peter said to him, “Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!” And all the disciples said the same.
Eastern Christians fled because of the stoning of Great St. Stephen Acts: 8;1And there arose on that day a great persecution against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. The Eastern Christian never fared any better than did the Western Christians during the Emperors persecutions .
I'm a Western Christian who is very fond of Easter Christianity with it richness and the truths it has preserved that west has left behind. The teaching of surrendering ones self to Christ is a very basic Christian teaching one that ALL Christians understand East or West. Its not a teaching of man its a teaching by the Holy Spirit that becomes apparent via regeneration.
The East and West were one Church --- the Orthodox Church --- not two in communion. They had a common Faith. The same Fathers --- Sts Ambrose, Gregory the Dialogist, Hilary of Poitiers, Faustus of Riez, Ignatius of Antioch, John Chrysostom, Basil, John of Damascus, etc. It was Augustine of Hippo who altered the Apostolic Tradition, that is, in the time of Charlemagne. Augustine gave us "original sin," filioque, predestination, and, yes, rationalism, etc. Also, he converted the Redemption from the conquest of death to the forgiveness of sins. On the Cross, Augustine, Anselm, Luther, etc. taught that Christ made satisfaction to God for man's offense. He was punished by God in our place for our sins--- no, He overcame death by His death. To tell you the truth, I do not understand your complaint. You would not have made it, if you had made further inquire into "church history."
We appreciate your taking the time to comment! Please "like" and share.
Doesn't Jesus have the keys of hell and death that once belonged to Satan?
Of course.
The wages of sin is eternal death, not physical death. The tree of life proves man was always destined for death. Nature also proves this out in the consumption of one DNA structure by another DNA structure for survival of the prevailing DNA. In Revelation 2:7 we still will eat of the tree of life, so instead of eternal physical death, the probability is that the tree of life would translate us into a glorified body and heavenly bound body.
Thank you for commenting, and for being a viewer.
@@GreekOrthodoxTV - I have never been comfortable with the concept of our bearing the eternal consequence of Adam's sin, born in sin. It was Adam's world, and by his earning the curse on his world, we definitely still have weeds. The physical consequences remain. Having been inclined towards man being born innocent and then guilty by committing sin, and seeing this in the whole of the scriptures, and then being interested in hearing views like this video to help flesh out my inclinations, I am now thinking the death Adam earned was the removal of our access to the tree of life. Spiritual death being no more access to eternal life.
We suggest this book:
www.amazon.com/Ancestral-Sin-Comparative-Augustinian-Formulation/dp/0970730314/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1587847757&refinements=p_27%3AJohn+S.+Romanides&s=books&sr=1-1&text=John+S.+Romanides
@@GreekOrthodoxTV - I can not afford almost $300- for this book.
Have you looked to see if it is available at any libraries?
Pick up your cross is not a happy time .
To pick up your cross with anything less than joy simply means you have not picked up the correct Cross, and gone after Him. Thank you for commenting!
Father John Romanidis was a liberal....like most greeks today
If he was a liberal or not, how is it relevant to his thesis as presented in the program?
@@GreekOrthodoxTV Of course it does.
We are compelled to repeat ourselves: If he was a liberal or not, how is it relevant to his thesis as presented in the program?
@@GreekOrthodoxTV How do you trust a liberal in any way, shape, manner or form…..