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

The term '''Original Sin''' (or "''first") Sin'sin'' ) is used mainly in among all Christian churches to define the Western Church doctrine surrounding Romans 5:12-21 and it defines 1 Corinthians 15:22, in which Adam is identified as the doctrine that man through whom death came into the "first" sin was committed world. How this is interpreted is believed by [[Adam]] many Orthodox to be a fundamental difference between the Eastern Orthodox Church and [[Eve]] (see [[Book of Genesis]] Chapter 3) and that while everyone bears the consequences of the first sinWestern Churches. In contrast, modern Roman Catholic theologians would claim that the foremost of which basic anthropology is physical death (in this world)actually almost identical, ''only'' Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin (see [[Book the difference is only in the explanation of Ezekiel]] Chapter 18). The origins of this teaching lend themselves to [[Augustine of Hippo]] who based it on Romans 5:12what happened in the Fall. In the [[Orthodoxy|Orthodox churchChurch]] the term '''[[Ancestral Sinancestral sin]]''' (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclanation 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 a consequence of Adam's disobedience.

==Orthodox InterpretationsDiscussion==In contrast to Jewish exegesis the [[Book of Genesis]], Christianity has Chapter 3, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]] committed a Christological readingsin, the ''original sin''. We understand The [[Orthodoxy|Eastern Orthodox]] Church teaches that no one is guilty for the depth actual sin they committed but rather everyone inherits the consequences of this act; the Fall foremost of 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 '''ancestral sin'''. The consequences and penalties of this ancestral act are 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 light implications of redemptionthis sin' (which is human death) and that the only way to be freed from this is through baptism. It While mortality is certainly a result of the Fall, along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" in the contrast writings of St [[Augustine of Hippo]] -- this is the old "evil impulse" of Judaism, and new Adams in Orthodoxy, we might say this is our "disordered passion." It isn't only that we understand what are born in death, or in a state of distance from God, but also that we are born with disordered passion within us. Orthodoxy would not describe the significance human state as one of original sin has been"total depravity."

Mortality is certainly a result of Orthodox Christians have usually understood [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] as professing St. Augustine's teaching that everyone bears not only the Fallconsequence, but along with this also what is termed "concupiscence" the guilt, of Adam's sin. This teaching appears to have been confirmed by multiple councils, the first of them being the [[w:Councils of Orange|Council of Orange]] in 529. This difference between the two [[Church]]es in Augustinetheir understanding of the original sin was one of the doctrinal reasons underlying the Catholic Church's writings -- this declaration of its [[dogma]] of the [[Immaculate Conception]] in the 19th century, a dogma that is rejected by the "evil impulse" of JudaismOrthodox Church. However, and contemporary [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic teaching]] is best explicated in Orthodoxythe ''Catechism of the Catholic Church'', we might say which includes this is our sentence: "disordered passion" -- it isnoriginal sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam't only that we are born in death, or in s descendants. It is a state deprivation of distance from Godoriginal holiness and justice, but also that we are born with disordered passion within ushuman nature has not been totally corrupted" (§405).

Orthodoxy would not describe In 2007, the human state as one Vatican approved a document called, ''The Hope of "total depravity" (Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized'', see [[Cyril Lucaris]] however)link below under Sources and further reading. One writer has said that "if Latin babies are born blind, This document is actually very helpful both in tracing the history of the doctrine of Original Sin within the Roman Catholic Church and Pelagian babies are born in reading a reasonable summary of the teaching of the Greek Fathers. While the document deals with 20/20 visioninfants, then Greek babies are born nevertheless it must incorporate a doctrine and definition of Ancestral or Original Sin in need order to talk about the salvation of spectacles" (ref?)infants.Among the helpful comments in the document are:

[[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] teaches that everyone bears not only "Alone among the consequenceGreek Fathers, but also Gregory of Nyssa wrote a work specifically on the guiltdestiny of infants who die, De infantibus praemature abreptis libellum. The anguish of that sin. This difference between the two [[Church]]es appears in their understanding the questions he puts to himself: the destiny of these infants is a mystery, 'something much greater than the human 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 original sin was one who finishes his life at a tender age, who has done nothing, bad or good? Is he worthy of 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 (zoe and not bios) corresponds to human nature, and is possessed in the doctrinal reasons degree that led virtue is practiced. Since the Catholic Church 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 devise their [[dogma]] his capacity. Gregory of Nyssa distinguishes between the destiny of infants and that of adults who lived a virtuous life. '[[Immaculate Conception]]' 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 19th centuryvirtues'. Finally, a dogma that is completely rejected by he offers this perspective for the reflection of the Orthodox Church.</strike>: 'Apostolic contemplation fortifies our inquiry, for the One who has done everything well, with wisdom (If this Psalm 104: 24), is historic RC teaching, it needs able to be documented -- quotes from [[John Sbring good out of evil'. . . Romanides|Romanides]] are not sufficient here. Certainly it is not the The profound teaching today, see of the CCC. Modern Orthodox polemics Greek Fathers can be traced back summarized in the opinion of Anastasius of Sinai: 'It would not be fitting to Frprobe God’s judgments with one's hands'. John Meyendorff (?)... earlier explanations tended to have a scholastic tone, both in Russia and in Greece)"

For decades"The fate of unbaptized infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. . . . In countering Pelagius, at least, Orthodox teaching has often been contrasted Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to traditional Roman Catholic teaching on hell. . . . Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sinon their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. . . . "

Modern [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic teaching]] is best explicated in "But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine''Catechism s “mildest punishment” as the privation of the Catholic Church''beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties. This teaching, which includes this sentencemodified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: ""original sin does not have little children suffer no penalty except the character privation of a personal fault in any the vision of Adam's descendantsGod. . . . It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted" (§405).

"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 all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, 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 their condition. . . . Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. . . ." As one continues to read the document, one realizes that there was a swing back towards Saint Augustine'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 punishments. By Vatican Council I, opinion has begun to switch away from this hardened a view towards "natural happiness." By the 20th century, it begins to be argued more strongly that unbaptized infants may indeed receive "Christ's full salvation." This actually appears to be a 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. 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. The first 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]