| Author |
 Topic  |
|
A Clever Disguise
Starting Member
USA
6 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2006 : 11:11:42
|
I read through the discussion, but it never answers my question satisfactorily.
I am willing to believe that Christ did not inherit our fallen nature; however, I think in order to support that thesis we need to show two things:
1) That fallenness is not essential to our nature
2) That fallenness is transmitted seminally
I think the first is easy: Christ assumed only that which is essential to our human nature, and voluntarily underwent those things that are the result of the fallen nature - emotional distress, mental anguish, ultimately death. Since these things are not part of our nature, per se, they were not necessary for Christ to assume to become fully human. Still, in his love, He underwent voluntarily them and conquered them for our sakes. This I have no problem with. It actually reconciles quite nicely with the teaching that Christ is "the second [or last] Adam." Truly, He is the second Adam in every way, having even Adam's pre-fallen nature, and deifying it with His divinity.
Now I am willing to accept the idea that fallenness is transmitted seminally, but I am going to need some Patristic support for that one.
God took on the life of men so that men could participate in the life of God. |
 |
|
|
Rae Stephenson
Starting Member
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 11:53:29
|
Why would "fallenness be transmitted seminally" be the necessary option? Could it be that because humans are born cut off from the life of God due to the original, Ancestral Sin, this is why we all sin and fall short of the glory of God and are in need of redemption and a New Birth? That would not be "transmitted seminally." Christ was not born cut off from the God (being God Himself!) and therefore did not "inherit" a fallen nature.
I think you might find more Patristic support for this position.
Rae |
|
|
|
Rae Stephenson
Starting Member
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 12:01:12
|
Also this would account for why the Theotokos needed a Redeemer, in that she was born cut off from the life of God just as we all are.
Rae |
|
|
|
Lover of Monasticism
Average Member
USA
919 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 12:08:22
|
Well ACD, I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with what I was trying to say in your last post.
Rae, we were never "cut off from the life of God." That is an Augustinian teaching, and is not accepted by our Faith. This line of thought leads into St. Augustin's further teaching on this matter, that Man could do absolutely nothing to get it back, and that God simply preordained some people to be saved, and others to be condemned.
Rather, we believe that the image of God in us was darkened, but not lost completely. The curse of fallen nature (not "original sin") was passed on from generation to generation, because their forefathers bore the curse. It is not part of out nature, but it became something that is automatically inhereted through procreation. And it enters the cycle through the complete process of procreation, which would include conception through sexual intercourse. Since Christ managed to skip some of what would normally happen in conception and just got right into His taking on flesh in the womb, He also skipped the part where the fallenness would have been transferred to Him.
Kyrie Iesou Christe eleison me. |
|
|
|
Rae Stephenson
Starting Member
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 12:58:26
|
Lover of Monasticism,
To be honest, my answer is in accord with what I have been told the Orthodox position is. I could have expressed it badly. I'm always open to learning more, so could you provide the basis for what you are saying? I had thought the concept that the curse was transmitted through sexual intercourse was the Augustinian position and not the Orthodox.
Rae |
|
|
|
A Clever Disguise
Starting Member
USA
6 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 14:17:30
|
Rae said: "I had thought the concept that the curse was transmitted through sexual intercourse was the Augustinian position and not the Orthodox."
That has been my understanding as well, but it could be that where Augustine and later the Reformers went wrong was to say that sin and depravity (and not simply death and corruption) were transmitted seminally - hence the doctrine of original sin, or inherited guilt. The doctrine might well be Orthodox, and might have been distorted by Augustinism.
Rae, I agree with Lover of Monasticism that saying we are "born cut off from the life of God" is not quite accurate; the problem, I think, is that this statement treats our fallenness as an essential aspect of our nature, instead of something that is accidental, or foreign, to our nature. Infants are not cut off from the life of God, though they inherit death and corruption; if they were cut off from the life of God, then an infant that dies before baptism would go to hell, and that is indeed the Augustinian error (which led the Roman Catholics to speculate about a place called "limbo"). Instead, we baptize infants into Christ, so that they may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as well; in baptism they are transferred into the kingdom of God, so that they, along with us, may partake of the mysteries.
I think now that fallenness must in some way be seminally transmitted (though I have yet to study enough to find all the Scriptural and Patristic support, still it seems in accordance with what the holy Fathers teach) - again, as an aspect that is accidental and not essential to our nature. Reading back through St. Athanasios's "On The Incarnation" earlier this morning, I found that the reading which says that Christ experienced suffering and death not naturally but voluntarily is more in line with this teaching than is the teaching which says He inherited our fallenness.
God took on the life of men so that men could participate in the life of God. |
|
|
|
Rae Stephenson
Starting Member
USA
12 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2006 : 15:09:52
|
"Rae, I agree with Lover of Monasticism that saying we are "born cut off from the life of God" is not quite accurate; the problem, I think, is that this statement treats our fallenness as an essential aspect of our nature, instead of something that is accidental, or foreign, to our nature. Infants are not cut off from the life of God, though they inherit death and corruption; if they were cut off from the life of God, then an infant that dies before baptism would go to hell, and that is indeed the Augustinian error (which led the Roman Catholics to speculate about a place called "limbo"). Instead, we baptize infants into Christ, so that they may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as well; in baptism they are transferred into the kingdom of God, so that they, along with us, may partake of the mysteries."
I would agree with this. I can see where "born cut off from the life of God" could be confusing and not the best expression of what I meant and believe.
All of us need to be "born from above (or again)" by the Holy Spirit, so that we can be saved from death and corruption. (Even the Theotokos needed that, as I understand it and Orthodox teaching on the Theotokos.)
I'm still not sure about "seminally transmitted" particularly as Orthodox teaching. I would like to see the Patristic and Biblican basis.
Thanks.
Rae |
|
|
|
Baylumzass
Junior Member
335 Posts |
Posted - 03/12/2006 : 23:10:46
|
Genesis 1:31, "And God saw that everything that he had made, and behold, IT WAS VERY GOOD, and the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
Man was not created in a Fallen state. His fallen state was and still is an unnatural, artificial condition. The fall was a consequence of sin, Jesus did not sin, so he did not fall. He did what the first Adam failed to do, stay in a state of perfect innoscence.
As far as the seminal issue. Many Church Fathers, other than Augustine, teach that sinful tendencies do pass on generationally by conception. People inherit sinful tendencies by natural(or unnatural generation depending on how you define it) generation. BUT...
A tendency is not an action.
Mary was the top rung on a geneological ladder of progression. God watched over a breeding program throughout history, guiding it and gaurding it until after successive generations of those who served him produced a Mary. She was the first fit vessel to contain the incarnate word. She was like a tabernacle for God to dwell in.
This is why Sarah was protected by God from the Pharoah and another King. This is why she was baren until she was an old woman; so that her son would have no doubt about Abraham being the father in old age.
It is why Solomon was rejected from the lineage of the Christ, because he profaned his body by fornication and idolatry. God promised him an eternal posterity to sit on the throne if he was faithful, and also promised to tear the trone of David from his posterity if he fell away.
Conversely the Antichrist spirit oversees another breeding program in order to produce a woman depraved enough to bare the final Antichrist person. Because man is created naturally good it has taken all these generations to breed evil with evil until one is evil enough to be a vessal for the spirit of Satan and Antichrist himself.
This is the meaning of Jacob's ladder. It is the meaning of Genesis 3:15, "And I will put emnity between the and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal."
God renamed Jacob, to Israel. Jacob means heel catcher, or deciever. Israel means Prince of God. From the unconverted Jacob shall descend the Antichrist man. From Israel has already descended the true Prince of God, Jesus Christ. Here is an interesting post that shall give a little Russian flavor to the topic...
http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/theantichrist.htm
skip to the bottom half and read,The Antichrist, by Archpriest Father Boris Molchanoff.
he has some really interesting things to say about Mary, and generation. |
|
|
|
parascheva1014
Moderator
USA
1273 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 11:39:18
|
You guys are tripping over yourselves here without even realizing it. Christ does not have the fallen nature and he is also fully God. God can not sin. It isn't possible. Since sin is primarily going against the will of God and anything God does is His will, than an act of God would redefine sin. God never changes so... there you have it. Christ could not have sinned. He did not have the fallen nature, but he also could not have sined. It has absolutely nothing to do with weather the fallen nature is transmitted seminally or not.
There was a good article in The Word in January that gave a great explaination of how Christ took sin upon himself like the scape goat in leviticus when he was baptised by John the Forerunner. You should all read it. It clarifies this issue greatly and expaned my understanding of Theophany.
http://www.antiochian.org/sites/antiochian.org/files/JANUARY_2010_WORD.pdf
|
|
|
|
ICXCNIKA
Starting Member
27 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 17:23:16
|
| Ok here is where I am having difficulty. First I would say that saying that there is one unified Orthodx position seems tenous at best since I and those fellow lay people that I have gone to church with over the years in the GOA, OCA, Antiochian etc. that i contacted never even heard of this. That doesn't mean it isnt correct just means if it is correct it is not being taught effectively. Also, I came to this board from another board where this arguement was being discussed and both sides were qouting Fathers in their defense ( i do not claim to be an expert on the Fathers. Is this a case where there is no consensus rather just merely several theological opinions? Also, does anyone really think that believing one way or another is necessary for salvation? Now my real question: If the theotokos can be sinless how can we for sure say that no one else is. And since we can't because the Theotokos may be the holiest she is just like us. Then Christ's sacrificial death becomes just about defeating death and not about repentence of personal sins. Someone on this board now could based on this theory Sinless from birth. I think this needs to be debated at the next Great Council which is scheduled to take place the day after the Second Coming. Now I posted an article from St John Maximovich and if i read it correctly he was saying this is an innovation. Did anyone else read it? |
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 18:16:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by ICXCNIKA
...I think this needs to be debated at the next Great Council which is scheduled to take place the day after the Second Coming...
Say what?!? .....
Oh I get it! You're being facetious!  I'm starting to like your sense of humour! |
Edited by - Yiorgos75 on 03/08/2010 18:16:53 |
|
|
|
UnworthySlave
Starting Member
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 22:29:37
|
If anyone wants to really know about the most Holy Theotokos, then your going to listen to this very wise spiritual father on the subject:
http://www.pantocrator.info/en/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=viewdownload&cid=13
'There can be no compromise in things of the Orthodox faith'
St Mark of Ephesus
John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. |
Edited by - UnworthySlave on 03/09/2010 22:31:09 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Was Mary Sinless?
