# Does this blog post accurately characterize the doctrine of original sin?



## Mr. Bultitude (Jul 17, 2014)

It's common, when speaking to Eastern Orthodox adherents, to hear them criticize original sin in favor of their own doctrine "ancestral sin." But here's a counterpoint from another Eastern Orthodox fellow: Ancestral vs. Original Sin: A False Dichotomy. A couple key quotes (but I encourage you to read the whole thing!):



> The sharp distinction between Original and Ancestral is not a historical distinctive of Orthodox teaching. ... The reality is that the Western confessions, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, say nothing about inheriting the personal guilt of Adam’s personal act of sin, but rather concentrate on the effects of that sin, which are transmitted to the entire race of man, which forms an ontological unity with Adam – something we Orthodox also teach. The one document that discusses imputation of guilt, the Westminster Confession, does so in the context of the ontological corruption of mankind, not simply as an unconnected act of transgression by the federal head of the race. In other words, the basis of imputation is not an unjust transfer of guilt-by-association, but a reality rooted in the effect of one man’s sin on the whole race. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the language of the Orthodox in this regard has, historically, been much the same.



When interacting with the various western confessions, particularly our own, is he accurate?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 17, 2014)

> *WSC Question 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?*
> Answer. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in
> the guilt of Adam’s first sin,
> the want of original righteousness, and
> ...



We would agree that the *corruption of the whole nature* is inextricably connected with our ontological, biological connection to Adam in one race of humanity. That is but one signal part of the complex that is our natural, human taint. We are sinners through transmission, indeed, and we act the same as all our fellow men working out that intrinsic evil. But it is frankly of greater significance that we are "guilty by association" through the guilt of Adam's first sin imputed to all of us; because we are reckoned "righteous by association" through the righteousness of One, even Christ, Rom.5:17-18. 

Imputation is more significant than ontological solidarity, even if the latter category describes mankind as a one-in-origin. God made a covenant-separation between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent. And again, between the seed of Abraham, and the rest of mankind. God's legal categories break up the biological unity of man. His legal declarations give rise to new ontological categories.

In the east, as much as in the west, the dominant church teaches *salvation by means of transformation*. The EO teach eventually there is a subsuming of that human nature of ours in something else, the expectation of theosis (which is not simply another way of explaining our doctrine of final sanctification or glorification). Eastern Christianity, by not giving the legal-aspect of salvation its due--by downplaying it and by giving room for gnostic philosophy to penetrate the church's categories--ended up with salvation as more of an attainment (a level) for our persons to arrive unto, than a rightly re-ordered relationship, creature to Creator.

The right-relation for us means "salvation!," now, regardless of the estate, pre- or post-glory. It is defined by being "in Christ," and that is fundamentally federal theology. That ontological transference from one kind of humanity to another is not something we are waiting for, once theosis has occurred. Instead it is a present reality, 2Cor.3:18, "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another."


----------



## KeithW (Aug 10, 2014)

The problem here is _original sin_ has been defined in Western Christianity with various wording since the early centuries. The description however has remained remarkably consistent even through the time of the canons and confessions of the Protestant reformation. 

The article mentions the "Canons of the Council of Carthage" of 418 AD. The first few articles in the canon describes original sin and uses the phrase _original sin_. You can also look at the "Canons of the Council of Orange" of 519 AD. So it was nice to read that the author of that article was clearing up some of the false allegations which were being applied to Western Christianity.

Even as late as Martin Luther's Large Catechism the affects of the fall are described as "He has redeemed me from sin, from the devil, from death, and all evil". And Luther refers to these things as "tyrants and jailers" meaning we are born in bondage to these.

Timewise, the Westminster Confession of Faith starts adding emphasis to the juridical guilt viewpoint. Much of reformed theology seems to have adopted this viewpoint to the exclusion of the bondage / corruption viewpoint even though the canons and confessions still maintain this latter viewpoint.



Mr. Bultitude said:


> When interacting with the various western confessions, particularly our own, is he accurate?


For the most part. I would in addition to sections of the Protestant confessions provided in the article you gave the link for also read the above two canons I mentioned. Original sin is described in the first few articles of each.

Canons of the Council of Carthage 418 AD
The Canons of the Council of Orange 529 AD


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 11, 2014)

KeithW said:


> Much of reformed theology seems to have adopted this viewpoint to the exclusion of the bondage / corruption viewpoint


Hardly.



> Q. 27. What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?
> A. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God,97 his displeasure and curse; so as we are by nature children of wrath,98 bond slaves to Satan,99 and justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to come.100
> Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?
> A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind,101 a reprobate sense,102 strong delusions,103 hardness of heart,104 horror of conscience,105 and vile affections;106 or outward, as the curse of God upon the creatures of our sakes,107 and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments;108 together with death itself.109





> The Power of Satan and the Demons
> 
> The Puritans viewed human history as one in continual conflict with evil spiritual powers. The Larger Catechism says that man fell “through the temptation of Satan” (Q. 21). The fall brought man into the misery of being “bond slaves to Satan” (Q. 27). Christ’s humiliation was a state of conflict with the temptations of Satan (Q. 48).
> The power of these invisible spiritual enemies was limited, according to Edward Reynolds (1599–1676), who wrote, “Satan hath three titles given him in the Scripture, setting forth his malignity against the church of God: a dragon, to denote his malice (Rev. 12:3); a serpent, to denote his subtlety (Gen. 3:1); and a lion, to denote his strength (1 Peter 5:8). But none of all these can stand before prayer.”15 Edwards said the devil’s remarkable knowledge of God, creation, and providence was due to his having been “educated in the best divinity school in the universe, viz. the heaven of heavens.”16
> ...


----------



## KeithW (Aug 12, 2014)

Semper Fidelis said:


> KeithW said:
> 
> 
> > Much of reformed theology seems to have adopted this viewpoint to the exclusion of the bondage / corruption viewpoint
> ...


I see what you mean. Unfortunately that has far too often been my experience of what people currently teach. And what I should have said that would have been more relevant to the original article is that it seems to be typical in Western Christianity, outside of reformed theology, to find anyone who holds to original sin, or total depravity which is a subset of original sin.

I hope my opinion does not detract from the point I was attempting to make in my first post that there are canons and confessions reformed theology holds to which do not state that original sin is a problem of juridical guilt -- the view that the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to us.


----------

