{{expert}}{{stub}}{{cleanup}}

The term '''Original Sin''' (or ''first sin'') is used among all Christian groups churches to define the doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and 1 corinthians Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the man whom through death came into the world. It has mainly been adopted How this is interpreted is believed by many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Western Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic Church who's catechism theologians would claim that the basic anthropology is actually almost identical, and that the difference is only in the explanation of what happened in the Fall. In the [[AdamOrthodoxy|Orthodox Church]] and the term '''[[Eveancestral sin]] committed a ''peronsal sin'' (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and that the term is only used in an analogical sense to describe define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through [[baptism]]. St. [[Gregory Palamas]] taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as contracted and not committeda consequence of Adam's disobedience.

<!---==Discussion==mainly in In the Western Church and it defines the doctrine that the "first" sin was committed by [[Book of Genesis]], Chapter 3, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] (see committed a sin, the ''original sin''. The [[Book of GenesisOrthodoxy|Eastern Orthodox]] Chapter 3) and Church teaches that while no one is guilty for the actual sin they committed but rather everyone bears inherits the consequences of the first sin, this act; the foremost of which this is physical death (in this world), . This is the reason why the original fathers of the Church over the centuries have preferred the term '''onlyancestral sin''' Adam . The consequences and Eve penalties of this ancestral act are guilty transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human is a descendant of Adam then 'no one is free from the implications of that this sin ' (see [[Book of Ezekiel]] Chapter 18which is human death)and that the only way to be freed from this is through baptism. The origins While mortality is certainly a result of the Fall, along with this teaching lend themselves to also what is termed "concupiscence" in the writings of St [[Augustine of Hippo]] who based it on Romans 5:12. In -- this is the [["evil impulse" of Judaism, and in Orthodoxy|Orthodox church]] the term '''[[Ancestral Sin]]''' (Gr, we might say this is our "disordered passion. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is used to define the doctrine of man" It isn's "inclanation towards sint only that we are born in death, or in a heritage state of distance from God, but also that we are born with disordered passion within us. Orthodoxy would not describe the sin human state as one of our progenitors" and that this is removed through total depravity" (see [[baptismCyril Lucaris]]however).

==Orthodox Interpretations==In contrast to Jewish exegesis 2007, the Vatican approved a document called, ''The Hope of GenesisSalvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized'', Christianity has a Christological see link below under Sources and further reading. We understand This document is actually very helpful both in tracing the history of the depth doctrine of Original Sin within the Fall Roman Catholic Church and in reading a reasonable summary of the light teaching of redemptionthe Greek Fathers. It is While the document deals with infants, nevertheless it must incorporate a doctrine and definition of Ancestral or Original Sin in order to talk about the contrast salvation of infants. Among the old and new Adams that we understand what helpful comments in the significance of original sin has been.document are:

Mortality is certainly "Very few Greek Fathers dealt with the destiny of infants who die without Baptism because there was no controversy about this issue in the East. Furthermore, they had a result different view of the Fallpresent condition of humanity. For the Greek Fathers, but along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" in Augustineas the consequence of Adam's writings -- this is the "evil impulse" of Judaismsin, human beings inherited corruption, possibility, and in Orthodoxymortality, we might say this is our "disordered passion" from which they could be restored by a process of deification made possible through the redemptive work of Christ. The idea of an inheritance of sin or guilt -common in Western tradition - it isn't only that we are born in deathwas foreign to this perspective, or since in their view sin could only be a state of distance from Godfree, but also that we are born with disordered passion within uspersonal act. . ."

Orthodoxy would not describe "Alone among the Greek Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa wrote a work specifically on the destiny of infants who die, De infantibus praemature abreptis libellum. The anguish of the Church appears in the questions he puts to himself: the destiny of these infants is a mystery, 'something much greater than the human state mind can grasp'. He expresses his opinion in relation to virtue and its reward; in his view, there is no reason for God to grant what is hoped for as a reward. Virtue is not worth anything if those who depart this life prematurely without having practiced virtue are immediately welcomed into blessedness. Continuing along this line, Gregory asks: 'What will happen to the one who finishes his life at a tender age, who has done nothing, bad or good? Is he worthy of "total depravity" a reward?' He answers: 'The hoped-for blessedness belongs to human beings by nature, and it is called a reward only in a certain sense'. Enjoyment of true life (see [[Cyril Lucaris]] howeverzoe and not bios)corresponds to human nature, and is possessed in the degree that virtue is practiced. Since the innocent infant does not need purification from personal sins, he shares in this life corresponding to his nature in a sort of regular progress, according to his capacity. Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes between the destiny of infants and that of adults who lived a virtuous life. 'The premature death of newborn infants does not provide a basis for the presupposition that they will suffer torments or that they will be in the same state as those who have been purified in this life by all the virtues'. Finally, he offers this perspective for the reflection of the Church: 'Apostolic contemplation fortifies our inquiry, for the One writer who has said that "if Latin babies are born blinddone everything well, and Pelagian babies are born with 20/20 visionwisdom (Psalm 104: 24), then is able to bring good out of evil'. . . . The profound teaching of the Greek babies are born Fathers can be summarized in need the opinion of Anastasius of spectaclesSinai: 'It would not be fitting to probe God’s judgments with one's hands'. . . ." (ref?).

[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] teaches that everyone bears not only "But most of the consequencelater medieval authors, but also the guiltfrom Peter Abelard on, of that sin. This difference between underline the two [[Church]]es in their understanding goodness of God and interpret Augustine's “mildest punishment” as the original sin was one privation of the doctrinal reasons that led the Catholic Church to devise their [[dogma]] beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of the '[[Immaculate Conception]]' in the 19th centuryobtaining it, a dogma that is completely rejected by the Orthodox Churchbut with no additional penalties.</strike>(If this is historic RC This teaching, it needs to be documented -- quotes from [[John Swhich modified the strict opinion of St. Romanides|Romanides]] are not sufficient here. Certainly it is not Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the teaching today, see privation of the CCC. Modern Orthodox polemics can be traced back to Frvision of God. John Meyendorff (?)... earlier explanations tended to have a scholastic tone, both in Russia and in Greece)"

For decades"Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at leastall, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Orthodox teaching has often been contrasted Duns Scotus). The contribution of this last theological thesis consists especially in its recognition of an authentic joy among children who die without sacramental Baptism: they possess a true form of union with God proportionate to traditional Roman Catholic teaching on original sintheir condition. . . . Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. . . . "

Modern [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic teaching]] is best explicated in As one continues to read the document, one realizes that there was a swing back towards Saint Augustine''Catechism s opinion on the 16th century such that it again began to be stated that unbaptized babies go to hell, though only with the mildest of the Catholic Church''punishments. By Vatican Council I, which includes opinion has begun to switch away from this sentence: hardened a view towards "natural happiness."original sin does not have By the character of a personal fault in any of Adam20th century, it begins to be argued more strongly that unbaptized infants may indeed receive "Christ's descendantsfull salvation. It is " This actually appears to be a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted" (§405)partial return towards the Pelagian doctrine that Saint Augustine so hated.

As one reads the document, one can see that the Eastern and Western Fathers shared the idea that baptism was a necessity for salvation. However, all the Church Fathers had to deal with the problem of the unbaptized infant, whether of Christian or non-Christian parents, and in dealing with that they let us see their understanding of Ancestral or Original Sin. In Saint Gregory of Nyssa, one can see what becomes the Eastern thought on Ancestral or Original Sin. On the one hand, the infant needs no cleansing for personal sins and is thus not to be thought of as one who will be sent to punishment. On the other hand, neither has the infant either received baptism or tried to live a virtuous life, so the infant does not merit heaven. Yet God is able to bring good out of evil. Thus, it is clear in Saint Gregory of Nyssa that Ancestral or Original Sin contains no imputation of personal guilt, but rather a certain damage to the likeness of God, a damage so widespread and deep-seated that one must labor and rely on the overflowing grace of God and the Mysteries in order to begin to conquer the damage inherited from Adam and Eve. The Roman Catholic Church has defined doctrine of Ancestral or Original Sin is harder to pin down because of the development and pendulum swings of its teaching development. It is clear from the Vatican's own documents that Ancestral or Original Sin did include both the imputation of the guilt of original Adam and Eve's sin and a widespread and deep-seated damage to the imagio dei, at least during a good part of its history. Thus the infant is worthy of punishment in multiple councilshell according to both Saint Augustine and St. The first Gregory the Dialogist. In the medievalists, this is ameliorated to a deprivation of the beatific vision, which is still considered a punishment, though the infant will only experience happiness. At the time of these was the Enlightenment, there is a return to a [[w:Councils more Augustinian and Gregorian definition of Ancestral or Original Sin. But, by the time of Orange|Vatican Council of Orange]] I, the change is in 529full swing, which expanded upon and Ancestral or Original Sin begins to be seen as the [[w:Augustine deprivation of Hippo#Doctrine original holiness. This change in the definition of Ancestral or Original Sin|teachings]] is found in documents such as the aforecited Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the Hope of Salvation document. --[[Augustine of HippoUser:Orthocuban|Orthocuban]]20:26, whose interpretation of "all dying in Adam"March 4, 2010 (UTC)

 ===From Ephrem Hugh Bensusan's [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com Razilaženje]===* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/03/original-sin-in-eastern-orthodox.html Original Sin in the Eastern Orthodox Confessions and Catechisms]* [http://razilazenjewww.blogspotstmaryorthodoxchurch.comorg/2006orthodoxy/12articles/ancestral-vs2004-originalhughes-sin-false.html php Ancestral vs. Versus Original Sin: A False Dichotomy]* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-sin-quotations-from-orthodox.html Ancestral Sin - Quotations From Orthodox Holy Fathers and Contemporary Authors]* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/fr-george-mastrantonis-on-ancestral-sin.html Fr. George Mastrantonis on Ancestral SinAn Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy], excerpted from ''A New-Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults'' by FrV. George Mastrantonis (StRev. Louis, MO: The OLOGOS MissionAntony Hughes, 1969 [1977])M.* [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2007/01/original-sin-west-haters-strike-backDiv.html Original Sin: The West-Haters Strike Back]