Romans 5:12 original sin question

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: c43af7d2d8df4b6⋯.jpg (249.33 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 2016-building-August-Icons….jpg)

Romans 5:12 original sin question Christanon 08/01/18 (Wed) 09:54:38 ce482b No.682706

"Διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος, καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον—"

(My own translation:)

"Thus therefore, just as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so to all men death passed…

"in whom all have sinned"

"because of which all have sinned"

????

Come on guys this is important for me to determine if the western or eastern idea of original sin is correct. How this verse is understood and translated is detrimental to the doctrine.

Christanon 08/01/18 (Wed) 09:57:14 e947fd No.682708

>>682706

they don't seem mutually exclusive, so both.

Christanon 08/01/18 (Wed) 10:08:15 ce482b No.682715

>>682708

It is mutually exclusive though because the second one implies we sin because of death, which is the eastern view, and not unto death, which the first translation implies and which is held in the western doctrine of original sin guilt.

Christanon 08/01/18 (Wed) 10:15:17 76bb35 No.682716

File: a0c6911ae2f3597⋯.jpeg (186.93 KB, 1000x466, 500:233, image.jpeg)

>>682706

Second one is correct.

>From what has been observed, the famous expression, eph'ho pantes hemarton [(ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον)], can be safely interpreted as modifying the word, thanatos [(θάνατος)], which precedes it, and which grammatically is the only word which fits the context. Eph'ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to Adam is both grammatically and exegetically impossible. Such an interpretation was first introduced by Origen, who obviously used it with a purpose in mind, because he believed in the pre-existence of all souls whereby he could easily say that all sinned in Adam. The interpretation of eph'ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as "because" was first introduced into the East by Photius,2 who claims that there are two interpretations prevalent—Adam and thanatos [(θάνατος)]—but he would interpret it dioti ([διότι,] because). He bases his argument on a false interpretation of II Corinthians 5:4 by interpreting eph'ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)], here again, as dioti [(διότι)]. But here it is quite clear that eph'ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] refers to skenei [σκήνει] ([ἐφ’ ᾧ (σκήνει) οὐ θέλομεν ἐκδύσασθαι], eph'ho (skenei) ou thelomen ekdysasthai). Photius is interpreting Paul within the framework of natural moral law and is seeking to justify the death of all men by personal guilt. He claims that all men die because they sin by following in the footsteps of Adam.3 However, neither he nor any of the Eastern Fathers accepts the teaching that all men are made guilty for the sin of Adam.

>From purely grammatical considerations it is impossible to interpret eph'ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] as a reference to any word other than thanatos [(θάνατος)]. Each time the grammatical construction of the preposition epi [(ἐπί)] with the dative is used by Paul, it is always used as a relative pronoun which modifies a preceding noun4 or phrase.5 To make an exception in Romans 5:12 by making St. Paul use the wrong Greek expression to express the idea, "because," is to beg the issue. The correct interpretation of this passage, both grammatically and exegetically, can be supplied only when eph'ho [(ἐφ’ ᾧ)] is understood to modify thanatos [(θάνατος)]—kai houtos eis pantas anthropous ho thanatos dielthen eph'ho (thanato) pantes hemarton [(καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν, ἐφ’ ᾧ (θάνατο) πάντες ἥμαρτον)]—"because of which" (death), or "on the basis of which" (death), or "for which (death) all have sinned." Satan, being himself the principle of sin, through death and corruption involves all of humanity and creation in sin and death. Thus, to be under the power of death according to Paul is to be a slave to the devil and a sinner, because of the inability of the flesh to live according to the law of God, which is selfless love.1

ITT: Scholastic Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists on suicide watch.

Christanon 08/01/18 (Wed) 11:41:07 e947fd No.682731

>>682715

I think people get caught up in the use of the term guilt but its only used in a analogical sense, even if it doesn't answer your question it might clear up some misunderstanding, here is the Catechism on it:

>But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

>405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Christanon 08/01/18 (Wed) 11:59:40 e947fd No.682738

^^^

also here is a good article on the topic of 'guilt' that further clarifies

http://taylormarshall.com/2011/07/does-original-sin-guilty-babies.html

Christanon 08/01/18 (Wed) 12:02:38 5241f9 No.682740

Ver. 12. As by one man . . . in whom all have sinned. That is, in which man all sinned, (not in which death all sinned) as it must be the construction by the Greek text: so that these words are a clear proof of original sin against the Pelagian heretics, as S. Aug. often brings them. Nor does S. Chrys. deny original sin, though in this place he expounds it that all by Adam's sin were made guilty of death and punishments. But how could they deserve these, had they not sinned in Adam?