We must bring this
disagreement to naught because it has become a major obstacle to re-uniting the
Church. We must achieve resolution. To this end, we examine Romans 5:12-14; 1
Corinthians 15:22; and Hebrews 7:4-10.
What
is Original Sin?
It
is sinful to believe that God assigns guilt where there is no sin. We reject the idea that any sincere Christian
makes any such claim. We do believe that
we, Adam’s children did sin in him and thus we are guilty.[1]
Romans 5:12-14
On
this account, as through one man, sin broke into the world, and death through
sin; and so death broke through to all men, in that all sinned: for until the
law sin was still in the world: but sin was not accounted where law [does] not exist; but death reigned from
Adam to Moses, even on those not sinning in the likeness of Adam's
transgression, who is a type of the One about[2]
to come.[3]
1 Corinthians
15:22
For
as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.[4]
Hebrews 7:4-10
Now
you [must] consider how great this man[5]
[was], to whom even Abraham the
patriarch gave a tenth of the spoils. And
those of the sons of Levi, who receiving the priesthood, have a commandment to accept
a tenth from the people according to the law (that is, from their brothers,
though [also] having come from the loins of Abraham); but he having no birth
record from them had received a tenth from Abraham, and had blessed him possessing
the promises.
Now
beyond any contradiction the lesser is blessed by the greater. Here mortal men receive a tenth; but there [he receives a tenth while] self-attesting
that he lives.[6] And, so to speak, through Abraham, Levi also,
[although] receiving a tenth, payed a
tenth. For he is still in the loins of the
[his] father, when Melchisedec met
him.[7]
Two
Main Viewpoints
The opposing viewpoint goes like this: Adam and Eve sinned; but their
children did not participate in Adam’s sin, are innocent of it, bear no guilt
concerning it; yet they, with the whole human race, experience death because of
it.[8]
We, on the other hand, claim that: Adam and Eve indeed sinned, their
children also participated in Adam’s sin, are not innocent of this original sin,
bear the full weight of guilt concerning original sin together with Adam, and die.[9]
So, the first issue that must be met is exactly who sinned when
Adam and Eve sinned, and what are the results of that sin?
The Facts of Scripture
Let’s look at Hebrews 7:4-10, especially verses 9 and 10. These verses literally say that Levi, the
third son of Jacob, not being yet conceived, paid a tenth through Abraham to
Melchisedec, because Levi was literally in Abraham, his great-grandfather. The logic of the passage also insists that, Levi’s
children received and paid such a tenth some four hundred years later as well, when
they received the office of the priesthood.[10] Literally, because of his “in Abraham”
relationship, Levi and all his descendents were present with, and participated
in Abraham’s one-tenth giving act.
Now, let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15:22. The relationship “in Abraham,” parallels the “in
Adam” and “in Christ” relationship.[11] How is it that we die and even decay (present
tense) in Adam, and we shall be made alive or resurrected[12]
(future tense) in Christ. No one
questions the “in Christ” relationship; nor can we explain it, but all of us accept
it as a literal reality. Yet in this
delightful sentence, “in Christ” is powerfully compared to “in Adam” by a
simile employing “as ... even so.” The
comparison driven by “even so ... so also” is nearly exact.[13] We are “in Adam” the same way we are “in
Christ,” and very much like Levi, in Abraham.
We participate in the death and decay of Adam the same way that we presently
participate in the life of Christ in Baptism, and shall someday participate in
the life of Christ in heaven.
Finally, we examine Romans 5:12-14. Verse 12 proclaims, “That all sinned.” There can be no debate about this; the only
discussion is over when and how.
An Analysis of the Facts
Because of these Scripture passages, we believe that we participate
in Adam’s sin, and therefore are guilty.
So, if we participate in Adam’s death, we also participate in Adam’s
sin, because we are present in his loins.[14] We deny that sin is ancestral or inherited in
any way.
This mystery is inexplicable, but not unacceptable. We do not expect to understand this phenomenon.
We will accept it at face value for what
it is, a mystery. There is no scientific
explanation[15]
of it; there is no rational way to understand it; yet, Scripture proclaims it
and therefore it is absolutely and indisputably true.
Others disagree. They have
a right to their opinion. They look to
expressions like, “so
to speak,” “death through sin,” and, “those not sinning in the likeness of
Adam's transgression,” or even the word, “type,” to interpret these three “in” relationships
as figures of speech.[16] But if one of these is a figure of speech,
and not literally true; then, how is it true that we are “in” Christ? Treating these “in” relationships as figures
of speech leads to a two-pronged argument; let’s deal with the first prong now.
Honest
translators must admit that expressions like, “so
to speak,” could indicate the existence of a figure of speech. Levi and sons are not necessarily in the
loins of Abraham. Thus, we must agree,
that if this is indeed our factual condition, it is extremely blasphemous to
accuse God of assigning guilt where no actual sin exists. Adam and Eve are guilty, but we would
necessarily be innocent. We, on the
other hand, insist that this is not a figure of speech and the passage should
be treated literally. We did sin in
Adam, and are necessarily guilty. But we
in no way approve of the idea that God would ever assign guilt where no actual
sin exists.
The
second prong of the argument suggests that, “death through sin,” makes no
mention of guilt, so guilt is not present, and it is wrong to insert it. But this is a mere subterfuge. Guilt is merely a legal classification
assigned where sin exists. Are we to
assume that Adam’s children sinned, and are somehow not guilty? No, the whole issue is, when and where did
they sin, and when and where they are guilty, for God cannot assign guilt where
no actual sin exists. So if we sinned in
Adam, we are guilty in Adam. But if we
sinned outside of Adam, we are guilty outside of Adam.
The
debate will probably remain unresolved.
We are not trying to persuade our opponents to change their minds. We concede, it could be a figure of speech:
although we firmly believe that, it is not.
We are trying to obliterate the idea that we, somehow or other, believe
that God assigns guilt where no actual sin exists. This is false.
Our Objections
We
object to being accused of assigning guilt without a basis in sin. We are saying, with supporting evidence, that
we do not believe that God assigns guilt where no sin exists. We are asking our opponents to stop accusing
us of this sin, which we most emphatically did not commit. We hope that all would see that no issue
remains here, for our communion tables to be separated.
We
object to the assertion that our idea is not Orthodox, when the idea is found
among the Holy Fathers, even though they may have been divided over the
issue. If the Holy Fathers can divide; without
accusing God of assigning guilt to the innocent; and still embrace one
communion table; then so may we.
We
protest the frequent tarring of Augustine’s name over this. The idea of original sin may have originated
with Irenaeus (d 202).[17] Augustine (d 430)[18]
may have coined the term as well, but his thought concerning original sin
appears to be the same as, and to support our idea, “participation in Adam.”
We protest the claim of some who seek to tear down Augustine to
support their point; namely, that Augustine knew no Greek and therefore strayed
widely from Orthodox theology.[19] Such a statement can only be made from a
foundation of ignorance, for Augustine shows in his letters that, called to
office by his Greek mentor, he was chosen for his linguistic and theological
skill. Working closely with his Greek mentor,
the two ensured that Greek theology would be accurately expressed in
Latin. This would be impossible if his
mentor knew no Latin, or if Augustine knew no Greek. Augustine was also a supporter of the LXX,
and wrote several letters to Jerome defending its primacy. We conclude that Augustine knew a great deal
of Greek language and theology, though he was modest about his gifts, and
readily tipped his hat to the greater linguistic genius of Jerome.
We protest the idea that ancestral or inherited sin accurately
expresses the Orthodox view of sin. Either
we sinned in Adam, or we did not. Even
if we did not, the cosmology changes, not the children. It is now easy to sin, and difficult to do
good. We agree that man can no longer
grow in his likeness of God. The image
of God in man is marred, but not destroyed.
But in either case, each man must sin for himself. To model sin after some disease, and make it
inevitable through ancestry or inheritance, seems to posit a cruel God who
forces his creation to sin. We continue
in sin because we all sinned once, either in Adam or out of Adam.
Additional Problems
If we first sinned outside of
Adam, there remains the possibility, no matter how improbable, that someone
could live his or her entire life sinlessly,
without any help from God. Sin, under
this view is a strong probability, but not a necessity. The facts seem to be that no such person ever
has existed. This idea also seems to fly
in the face of numerous Scriptures that appear to assert otherwise; namely that
it is impossible for any mere
human to live without sin.[20] So the flaw looks as if it is
insurmountable. However, we do not desire
to misrepresent our detractors. So we are
eager to hear an explanation. Our only
motive is to find the path of reconciliation by earnest interaction.
If we first sinned outside of
Adam, so that there is no Adamic guilt, it is difficult to conceive of Adamic
death, which is indisputably and obviously present. But, we must leave this discussion for another
essay and another week.
Conclusions
We conclude that:
·
God cannot assign guilt or punishment without the existence of
real sin, for this would contradict His revealed nature: namely, that it is
impossible for God to be unjust.
·
All men sin in Adam, but we concede that many Christians disagree
with this view. So we seek
reconciliation without coercing the consciences of those that differ. We believe that the restoration of communion
is possible without resolving this difference.
·
We do not change prior to our first act of sin. We all sinned in Adam, and thus caused both the
change in our nature and cosmology. It
is now easy to sin, and difficult to do good.
We in our altered nature cannot grow in the likeness of God; the image
of God in man is marred, but not destroyed.
·
The possibility of any mere man being sinless in the flesh is a
grievous and seemingly insurmountable flaw, and we look for any reasonable
explanation.
·
We must bring this disagreement to naught because it has become a
major obstacle to re-uniting the Church.
We must achieve resolution.[21]
It is sinful to
believe that God assigns guilt where there is no sin. We reject the idea that any sincere Christian
makes any such claim. We do believe that
we, Adam’s children did sin in him and thus we are guilty.
Yours
in Christ,
Herb Swansonaka Augie, short for Augustine
[1]
For further discussion, see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm, http://www. catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8782, http://www.religionandtheology.org/OriginalSin.
html, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/original.html, http://carm.org/questions/
about-doctrine/are-we-punished-adams-sin, http://bama.ua.edu/~msa/adam.html, http://
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/original-sin.html. A full list of sources is encyclopedic.
[2]
This is most likely a reference to the First Coming of Christ, “the One Who was
about to come.” But the possibility that
Paul refers to the Second Coming of Christ, “the One Who is about to come.”
cannot be ruled out completely. Or even
that, in Mystery, he refers to both.
[3]
Our translation: For a smoother result, consult the New King James Version.
[4]
King James Version
[5]
Melchisedec
[6]
Abraham, Levi, and all their descendents died; but there is no evidence that Melchisedec ever died.
Certainly, with reference to the type (Romans 5:14) of the Resurrected
Christ, He cannot die.
[7]
Our translation: For a smoother result, consult the New King James Version.
[8]
Some authorities call this the correct view of Original Sin, while others deny
that any view of Original Sin exists in Scripture. This theory is sometimes labeled tabula rasa
or blank slate, as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_Rasa). Tabula rasa is the theory that people are
born without any mental content, hence no memory of sin, no guilt, each person
starts over with a clean slate. While
this theory or any other theory of innocence at birth may seem logical and
reasonable, the question remains: namely, will any of these theories stand up
to the scrutiny of Scripture? Whatever
tag is placed on this perspective both of these authorities are naming the same
opposing viewpoint expressed here.
[9]
Our view is sometimes termed “original guilt” by our opponents, because they
insist that we impose guilt without the existence of sin.
[10]
Acts 7:7 (four hundred years evil bondage); Galatians 3:17 (four hundred thirty
years from the giving of the covenant to Abraham to the giving of the Law to
Moses).
[11]
Hebrews 7:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:22
[12]
The whole of 1 Corinthians 15 is focused on the topic of resurrection.
[13]
The Greek contrast can be translated as either “as
... even so” or as “even so ... so also”
[14]
Hebrews 7:10.
[15]
An abundance of theories exist that attempt to explain this fact
rationally. We reject all of these. Either Levi participated in Abraham’s act or
he did not. If we take Scripture
literally, as we should, we are forced to accept the fact that Levi did participate
in Abraham’s act. If we are willing to
make this into a figure of speech, we will be compelled to reject the reality.
[16]
Hebrews 7:9; Romans 5:12, 14, 14
[17]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus. Irenaeus was a hearer of Polycarp, and it is
very doubtful that he made a serious error in his received Greek theology.
[18]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
[19]
V. Rev. A. James Bernstein, Surprised by Christ (Conciliar Press
Ministries, Ben Lomond, California, 2009) p. 223
[20]
Psalm 130:3; Romans 3:23; 5:19
[21]
This task of seeking the reunification of the Church on earth is the primary
motive driving all of our essays.
No comments:
Post a Comment