What is the Orthodox Perspective on Original Sin?

What is the Orthodox perspective on Original Sin? What is Original Sin? How does it affect theology in general and what is the difference between the Eastern Orthodox approach and the Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding? Watch our latest video with Fr. Panayiotis, Ph.D. as he answers these questions and discusses the teachings of St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom.
TRISAGION FILMS NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT
1. SUPPORT: If you enjoy our videos, please consider supporting our effort via PayPal or on Patreon.
PayPal at - www.paypal.com...
Patreon at - / trisagionfilms .
2. SUBSCRIBE: To be notified about future videos:
www.youtube.co...
3. CONNECT: Join the discussion on our other social media channels.
Facebook - / trisagionfilms
Instagram - / trisagionfilms
Twitter -- / trisagion_films
Website - www.trisagionf...
4. CONNECT FOR MORE: Subscribe to any of our Channels:
FILMS & DOCUMENTARIES: www.youtube.co...
LIVE STREAMING: www.youtube.co...
CHILDREN'S VIDEOS: www.youtube.co...
PODCASTS: / trisagionfilmspodcasts
5. THANK YOU: TrisagionFilms is a non-profit 501(c)3 organization whose mission is to bring the Orthodox faith to all by presenting tangible theology through original videos and articles, all to the glory of God. We cover aspects of Orthodox worship and practice, pilgrimage, the lives of the saints, iconography and the sacred arts, and recordings of homilies, interviews, and special events.

[@KnoxEmDown]

2:00 "[Saint Augustine] was based" Thank you Fr. Panayiotis, very cool.

[@shamusson]

Based.

[@CHURCHISAWESUM]

Based

[@hinglemccringleberry9494]

Based and red pilled

[@MachoMaamRandallSandwich]

B-b-b-b-BASED

[@TheRealRealOK]

Baste

[@moses4208]

I just returned to this video. This video started my love for Orthodoxy, and thus, my conversion from Evangelical Protestantism. Im now a ROCOR Catechumen!

[@Trisagionfilms]

You don't know what that means to us. Glory to God for all things.

[@MPFXT]

@@Trisagionfilms Thank you for this, I'm amidst graduate studies from a Catholic University presently studying the notion of original sin and this video highlights issues that I find problematic from the Catholic teaching on original sin. However, could someone please explain - as there does indeed seem to be support from the Fathers, both Eastern & Western, as well as, Sacred Scripture, for the Immaculate Conception (the terminology in the East being different, but the meaning?) - how is Orthodox teaching contrary to Catholic teaching on the Immaculate Conception? It seems that objections to Roman Catholic theology on original sin from the Orthodox perspective on ancestral sin might offer a correction & clarification. But I'm not at all convinced that the Dogma on the Immaculate Conception is an innovation as it seems to be clearly a part of the Liturgical, Scriptural and Eastern & Western teaching from the Fathers, i.e. the Immaculate Conception is a teaching deeply rooted in Tradition - Revelation from God. Please advise your thoughts on this issue as I'm confident in our mutual love (that comes from God Himself) for the Theotokos!

[@cjnoffz3351]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYDTn3-IialspKc This will help you immensely I think.

[@greymane2090]

@@MPFXT I would be happy to have this conversation with you. Would you please give the verse that you believe supports immaculate, conception? As stated, in the video when one has a clear understanding of sin, the necessity of an immaculate, conception becomes moot. I do not mean to insult your intelligence, nor do I feel that I am in any way qualified, but I continue to be happy to exchange thoughts with you.

[@Quantum1008]

The Immaculate Connception is not dependent on a particular definition of sin. Nor is it defined to be necessary because of the need to isolate the Savior from the taint of original sin. Rather it is fitting. You see, original sin is the loss of original grace. Adam and Eve lost this original grace and communion with God. And since you cannot give what you don’t have, they can not give it to their descendants. But God does restore us to grace through the sacraments. God wanted to have an immaculate mother, not because it was necessary to keep Jesus from being infected by original sin, but because it was appropriate that the Mother of God and mother of the church would be from the first moment of her existence in the closest union and theosis with God and so that she who is the terror of demons would never for one instant be under the dominion of the evil one. Therefore, as Gregory Palamas explained, Mary we “pre-purified” and thus fully pure, sinless, and immaculate from the first moment of her existence, never having experienced any of the effects of original sin, mainly the deprivation of original grace, which she was full of from her beginning. Nothing heterodox about that!

[@All-shall-say-Jesus-is-Lord]

I am still a protestant, but in my years long battle with Calvinism and searching deeper into church history to find the truth, I am very drawn to Orthodoxy. The rise of calvinism seems to be pushing many into orthodoxy.

[@marcokite]

Orthodoxy is the way!

[@Christo-ortho]

Bro whatever denomination you choose just know that Calvinism ain't it. God bless you I hope you find your way

[@erics7004]

Idol Killer, a KZbin channel of a former calvinist talks a lot about these augustinian issues. He is stil protestant but he always make videos with orthodox theologians as guests. This is why I'm searching more for orthodox theology to learn.

[@Isthishandletakenalready]

Same here

[@scygnius]

Truly, the more I look into Orthodox christology, theology, etc, the more amazed I am and the more convinced I am by Orthodoxy

[@chriswest6652]

" im begining to see the light". here here. got onto this from david bently Hart brilliant guy. perhaos my initial suspision and hostility to us inheriting o.s. was correct. So that devil Augustine started it eh? Amazing. Im begining to understand too all the theological baggage we in the west inherited over the centurys. Great too in that hell looks like its lost some of its steam.Only half the reason now it seems. It does cheapen the sacrifice though, does it not? Christ died for A and Eves o.s. All the airs gone out of the ballon hasnt it? Gotta xheck out E O some more. And Ithought they were were just Catholic clones. peace brother.

[@mh7008]

me too...

[@xmc7189]

Me too

[@joseonwalking8666]

@@chriswest6652 Saint Augustine isn't a devil he is a Saint. Saint's can have errors and still be saints he did a lot to combat many types of heresies. Also Augustines later writings were much more cohesive. So many people just take snippets of Augustine ignoring the whole. :) hope that helps.

[@dewd9327]

I have the same experience. I was born a Buddhist and until I discovered Orthodoxy I never understood Christianity and I was practically anti Christian because it seemed so strange and neither Roman Catholicism nor various Protestant denominations held the answers I sought but now I am proudly an Orthodox Christian.

[@Nihit_Arora_Eagle]

The more I learn orthodox teachings, doctrines & history the more I fell in love with it. I'm a prostant pentecostal from india converted from hinduism 11 years back and now on my way to become an orthodox christian. Looking any nearest orthodox church to me. I have embraced orthodox faith☦️❤️ - brother nihit arora

[@m.p.bailey6785]

This channel has been a great blessing to me in my journey from Pentecostalism back to the True, original church of The Apostles and thus Christ our Lord. Bless these fathers.

[@johntsirakidis9544]

AMHN

[@corvus_king3282]

As a Protestant I always struggled with the whole concept with Original Sin. After studying theology in university and reading the Orthodox perspective I have threw out Original Sin and believe I am living a more faithful life because I did.

[@kj-my7se]

Original Sin doesn't apply to everyone in all circumstances.

[@franciscafazzo3460]

I need help to see the truth of this

[@datchet11]

Do you have to teach a child to steal, lie or be selfish?

[@jd3jefferson556]

@@franciscafazzo3460 the way I see it is that, once sin was introduced into the world mankind would never be the same, and we have trouble resisting our base passions (the 7 deadly sins) and are more susceptible to temptations. When we sin we only add to more distraction in the world.

[@eeaotly]

@@jd3jefferson556 Your last line is so deep! I am sometimes wondering if what we do bad (even the smallest things) reverberate somehow and add to the "entropy" of our world. I would think so, otherwise we wouldn't have the notions of "cursed place" or "holy place". What we do - good or bad - adds up and influences the "quality" of the whole.

[@guspapadopoulos945]

Father Panayiotis, you explained this so clearly and in such a way that I can such explain this to others, thank you.

[@candyclews4047]

I found my way here having read a book on Celtic Christianity, where a man called Pelagius challenged the concept of original sin. In 415 AD, Augustine tried Pelagius for heresy and ultimately Rome banished and excommunicated him. I agree with Pelagius in that when we look at the face of a newborn, we are looking into the face of God, freshly come amongst us. Living and breathing proof of God's love, compassion, dignity and beauty and to have turned it into something vile, is to my mind, unforgivable.

[@christology9688]

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

[@Eagle1349]

Thank you!

[@johnstanp9692]

Why then do Adam's sons and daughters die ? When your mother brought you to this world, she did it probably with a great deal of pain... Did she eat too of the forbidden fruit ? Do you believe that God punished your mother for eating a fruit she never did eat, or should we understand that all humanity was condemned in the garden of Eden ?

[@christhayer5034]

@@johnstanp9692 you may not be guilty but you can suffer the consequences

[@OrthodoxInquirer]

@@johnstanp9692 Interestingly, I've read that the Orthodox belief is that God allowed men to die so we would not permanently be condemned like the fallen angels. Adam and Eve experienced soul death upon sinning, but God transformed their bodies from glowing, radiant bodies into more animalistic bodies that procreated as animals did. Previously, they were more like the angels and looked like Christ's transfigured body on Mt. Tabor. Not allowing them to eat from the tree of life and stationing the angel there to guard paradise actually saved them and their offspring from permanent condemnation. I believe Father Seraphim Rose wrote a book about it. I'm an Inquirer into Orthodoxy, and not an expert by any means. Orthodoxy wades deep into waters I have never dreamed of previously. Blessings!

[@janettedavis6627]

@@johnstanp9692 All humanity was condemned in the Garden of Eden we die and go back to the earth because of the disobedience of Adam and Eva. We are not fully saved until end of time the Consumation of the world. The soul rejoins the resurrected body. Baptism cleanses us of Original sin. Three types of sin Original, Venial and Mortal.

[@lesgensquinoientlespoisson5010]

Great man I agree almost all about the orthodox church I think I will lean into the orthodox church soon I am an evangelical Protestant Gbu brother for providing more interesting subject like this , your channel deserve more subscriber bro

[@rocio8851]

I'm an Evangelical but on original sin I'm on the Ortodox side

[@R11-o8l]

You’re only on the Eastern Orthodox side because you hate Román Catholics. But they condemn all of your teachings.

[@paulathomas.graham7693]

Roman Catholicism is the fly in the ointment not the Orthodox Church. They caused the division by breaking of the ten commandments that says "thou shall not bear false witness" look back to pre 11th century Christianity.

[@zayan6284]

@@paulathomas.graham7693 updating a creed is not false-witness- if this were the case, the Nicene Creed *you* recite would be a false witness, as it was originally formulated in 325 and the version you profess was updated in 381. To this, you reply, that one was updated in a council of Bishops and the other by the Roman Patriarch acting alone. Fine, let this be as you say, then the question is the authority of the Roman patriarch, not this nonsense about violating commandments.

[@natee3888]

@@zayan6284 RCs didn’t simply “update” the creed. They modified its entire theology which was strictly forbidden.

[@paulwarner8986]

Your exchange here makes me want to be neither RC or EO. But I do not hate either. Thank you to the makers of this video to aid my learning 🙏 May the schisms of the church be healed and heresies rooted out and love for God and neighbor prevail.

[@rob5462]

Thank you, an increasing number od evangelical Christians in the west are rejecting Augustine's teaching on original sin.

[@Trisagionfilms]

Thank God

[@karenbartlett1307]

Thank you, Father Panayiotis! I converted to Catholicism a few years ago (from Baptist) because I thought it was the original Church. But the priest talked about Augustine all the time so I had to find out who Augustine was. This began my research into church history, the Schism and the actual original Church, which is the Orthodox Church. I've so far only gone to one Orthodox Church service and it seemed really strange since I wasn't used to it at all. I did wear a veil and long skirt, though. I would like to go back sometime soon. I no longer go to Catholic church services since finding out about the filioque and other heresies and how Catholicism deviated from original Church teachings.

[@connorblasing3969]

St. Augustine is a great Saint in Orthodoxy, but he wasn't infallible.

[@terriblycleverchannelname5620]

Come back to the Catholic Church! The Filioque isn't a heresy. The western bishops had widespread heresies that needed to be addressed directly. We should have convened another council. That being said, didn't Jesus breathe on his Apostles and say "receive the Holy Spirit " didn't the Holy Spirit literally flow from the Son?

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

"Venerable" or "Blessed" Augustine is celebrated in the Christian Orthodox calender among the other saints and martyrs. Before his death he asked for forgiveness for any errors in his views. I understand that his view on the Original Sin was the main one that deviated from Orthodoxy, or even the only one.

[@acts413biblecollege8]

I’m a Pentecostal but I completely agree with the Orthodox on this. Of course, I believe in credo baptism, but scripture is clear that we are punished for our sins, not Adam’s

[@R11-o8l]

You only agree with the East because you hate Catholicism. But the East condemns your teachings too.

[@thekingofsomewhere]

@@R11-o8l I think you missed the "on this" part.

[@danielespejo375]

@@R11-o8l Evengelicals live rent free in yo head huh? Lol

[@janettedavis6627]

Roman Catholicism teaches Baptism takes away original sin. God did condemn the world . Unless you are baptised of water and the Holy Ghost you cannot enter heaven.

[@scaradim]

@Janette @Acts As (gratefully) Orthodox, I have a problem with "we are punished for our sins" and "condemn the world" in your messages around this... I would kindly replace them with John 3:16. Sins are just that we are missing targets and smash the walls like kids or sick/ill people. We should heal and grow. I know Someone Who an help with Grace. Put a step at a time in right direction and fall in His hands not aside.

[@user-sv5bn8ql7j]

Fr. Panayiotis, thank you so much for this crystal-clear explanation! This makes things so much easier to understand and helps me enormously, to get the knowledge I need. As having been prostestant in my past, having realized how false sola scriptura is, I am looking hardly for the true church, that Jesus founded, and hopefully I will find it in the orthodox church. Thank you and your team very much for your efforts with this channel. God bless you all.

[@markschmitz5038]

Me too

[@bradenglass4753]

Perfectly said. Much love for the greek orthodox from a protestant brother in christ.

[@diananoonen2262]

Thank you Father, learning the history and the nuances certainly bring our understanding into the light.

[@beowulf.reborn]

Would a fair analogy be, that Original Sin is like a child whose mother is addicted to Heroin? The child is born, also addicted, but no one could or should attribute the guilt of the mother's actions upon the child. The child did not choose to do the drugs, they merely suffer the consequences of their mother's actions.

[@MrThehellyousay]

I think ur on to something here!

[@georgemcnally4473]

Thank you for a very clear explanation of a concept that had troubled me for a long time.

[@danielferreiraaraujo8359]

I’m catholic and I’m happy to see a honest intelectual and polite discussion about the topic. Today, many works have been studied Augustine thought and some scholars defend that people radicalize some points. Also, Augustine was combating pelagianism and this influenced negatively on theology

[@ambrosemooney5978]

Father, I have just discovered your videos and am using then fairly frequently on internet forums. Thank you.

[@ThaB1987]

Dear Trisagion films, thank you for this nice, clear, and very respectful movie on original sin! As an R.Catholic convert from Calvinism, I am all too well familiar with some of the detrimental effects of these theological lines of thought. I would say I'd totally agree with Chrystosom and the Orthodox church than children cannot inherit sin from their parents. I personally have understood the Catholic position to be rather than the original sin of Adam has left us with an intrinsic inclination to sin, which leads us to inevitably follow our passions and fall into sin. Limbo is actually never recognized as church dogma in the church, although commonly referred to right up to the second Vatican council. Pope John Paul II actually commissioned a study by an international theological commission to study this question and published a report, signed and agreed upon by pope Benedict XVI which concluded: "the many factors that we [the commission] have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us.[33] We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy." I therefore wholeheartedly hope that one-day through dialogue between the two churches we will find a common agreement and understanding on the topic of (original)sin.

[@rob5462]

The Roman Church changes its doctrine like the weather.

[@vasiliskaranos605]

@@rob5462 😂😂😂

[@hiuszenoom809]

Bergoglio is a heretic, he gives Pelosi communion and restrict sacred liturgy, how to agree with Orthodox Church when Catholics can’t behold moral values?

[@DinaraDivision]

This was great. Short and crystal clear. You should make more of these short and clear ones with yourself speaking pictures as you did about people you mentioned. God bless you and your Subscribers. Please Pray for us sinners Father

[@tallmikbcroft6937]

Bless Father. Thank you for explaining this. ... Next time I will watch the entire video before posting a question.... As you answered everything in full. Thank you Bless me Father

[@lightning9279]

Came for the topic, but stayed for the beard. Stellar beard. 👍

[@Matt-ck3pp]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that in "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 ... original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed"-a state and not an act" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 404). This "state of deprivation of the original holiness and justice ... transmitted to the descendants of Adam along with human nature" (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 76) involves no personal responsibility or personal guilt on their part (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405). Personal responsibility and guilt were Adam's, who because of his sin, was unable to pass on to his descendants a human nature with the holiness with which it would otherwise have been endowed, in this way implicating them in his sin. The doctrine of original sin thus does not impute the sin of the father to his children, but merely states that they inherit from him a "human nature deprived of original holiness and justice", which is "transmitted by propagation to all mankind"

[@Trisagionfilms]

This is a good recent development and correction on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. The reference in this video is about the historical events which had affected the Roman Catholic Church and her teachings. We are glad to hear that this has been corrected.

[@clark5363]

You must not know how much Catholic theology is based off the early understanding of original sin. It’s a rabbit hole.

[@sergio7917]

@@Trisagionfilms the "Old" Catechism says the same thing, though in different words. Why can our Orthodox brothers accept that humanity inherits the physical consequences of Adam's sin (death and suffering) but not the stain of his sin which deprive all humans of natural sanctity and justice? Thank you!

[@sergio7917]

By the way, this is what the "Old" Catechism says on original sin and Baptism: "35 Q. In what state did God place our first parents, Adam and Eve? A. God placed our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the state of innocence and grace; but they soon fell away by sin. 36 Q. Besides innocence and sanctifying grace did God confer any other gifts on our first parents? A. Besides innocence and sanctifying grace, God conferred on our first parents other gifts, which, along with sanctifying . grace, they were to transmit to their descendants; these were: (1) Integrity, that is, the perfect subjection of sense . reason; (2) Immortality; (3) Immunity from all pain and sorrow; (4) A knowledge in keeping with their state. 37 Q. What was the nature of Adam's sin? A. Adam's sin was a sin of pride and of grave disobedience. 38 Q. What chastisement was meted out to the sin of Adam and Eve? A. Adam and Eve lost the grace of God and the right they had to Heaven; they were driven out of the earthly Paradise, subjected to many miseries of soul and body, and condemned to death. 39 Q. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would they have bee exempt from death? A. If Adam and Eve had not sinned and if they had remained faithful to God, they would, after a happy and tranquil sojourn here on earth, and without dying, have been transferred by God into Heaven, to enjoy a life of unending glory. 40 Q. Were these gifts due to man? A. These gifts were in no way due to man, but were absolutely gratuitous and supernatural; and hence, when Adam disobeyed the divine command, God could without any injustice deprive both Adam and his posterity of them. 41 Q. Is this sin proper to Adam alone? A. This sin is not Adam's sin alone, but it is also our sin, though in a different sense. It is Adam's sin because he committed it by an act of his will, and hence in him it was a personal sin. It is our sin also because Adam, having committed it in his capacity as the head and source of the human race, it was transmitted by natural generation to all his descendants: and hence in us it is original sin. 42 Q. How is it possible for original sin to be transmitted to all men? A. Original sin is transmitted to all men because God, having conferred sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts on the human race in Adam, on the condition that Adam should not disobey Him; and Adam having disobeyed, as head and father of the human race, rendered human nature rebellious against God. And hence, human nature is transmitted to all the descendants of Adam in a state of rebellion against God, and deprived of divine grace and other gifts. 43 Q. Do all men contract original sin? A. Yes, all men contract original sin, with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, who was preserved from it by a singular privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ our Saviour. 44 Q. Could not men be saved after Adam's sin? A. After Adam's sin men could not be saved, if God had not shown mercy towards them. 45 Q. What was the mercy shown by God to the human race? A. The mercy shown by God to the human race was that of immediately promising Adam a divine Redeemer or Messiah, and of sending this Messiah in His own good time to free men from the slavery of sin and of the devil." 1 Q. What is the sacrament of Baptism? A. Baptism is a sacrament by which we are born again to the grace of God, and become Christians. 2 Q. What are the effects of the sacrament of Baptism? A. The sacrament of Baptism confers first sanctifying grace by which original sin is washed away, as well as all actual sin if any such exists; it remits all punishment due on account of such sins; it imprints the character of a Christian; it makes us children of God, members of the Church, and heirs to Paradise, and enables us to receive the other sacraments.

[@cindymiller3416]

Makes so much more sense. Well said!

[@SonuYadav-hd5qk]

This is amazing.

[@TheDallasDwayne]

Anglican here really appreciating this view on original sin.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

In a garden long ago, the two majestic beings God had created used their capacities for purposes other than reflecting the goodness of their Creator. Adam and Eve commandeered their design to worship themselves instead of God. Their children and grandchildren have been doing the same ever since.

[@xmc7189]

Best explanation ever on this topic!

[@adrineabassian4517]

A scripture passage on original sin is found in Ephesians 2:3: "Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." We see here a very clear reflection of Catholic teaching in the Bible. Ephesians 2:3 is, in a nutshell, the Catholic teaching on original sin: We were by nature children of wrath. That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.

[@krillejonasson]

@@toythief1633 When writing what you do, you can not take into mind that we get our natura from our parents. Our nature is passed in from parents to children. Our nature is passed on by a mortal Adam and later also sin trough him. That is what this vers is mentioning and not what ever you tried to say.

[@MyChaz2]

Through one man Adam came sin to the world so Jesus the second Adam cleansed man

[@ariversideview5775]

But that does not lead to Adam's sin being our problem. It's our sin that is.

[@tyrothrock256]

The ability to sin. Adams sin does not account to me. I am condemned by my own sin. Sin entering the world was the ability such as when God instructs Cain to do what is right if not then your liable to sin.

[@aneeshjoseph9323]

I am a catholic priest, but for me the orthodox theology sounds more strong and solid.

[@jlouis4407]

The only problem is the whole Church adopted this canon from the Council of Carthage in 418 at the Council of Nicea II, which said that all anathemas of regional councils were also being adopted. Canon 2 of Council of Carthage (418): “Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.”

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

Baptism is the admission into the Christian Church. Through the Christian Church one may be saved. I assume the meaning of baptism in the Catholic Church may be different. That one may not need to live as a Christian to be saved after admission into the Christian Church..

[@ArchangelsBookClub]

Also; you said that the transmission of responsibility was only in the west, not in the East, but I would point you to the book of Hebrews, where Saint Paul says that Aaron and Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the looms of Abraham, and that was indicative that Melchizedek’s priesthood was better than the Levitical Priesthood. If Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek through Abraham, then certainly, I could have eaten of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil through Adam. Also; I am convinced, that if I were presented with the same temptation as Adam, I would have fallen as well. So; Adam is the “every man” not just the “first man.” Father Bless in the name of the Lord!

[@Trisagionfilms]

Again, my friend, you are right, that it is as if we all ate with Adam from the forbidden fruit, because we all inherited his fallen condition. The refined point in this conversation which we need to pay attention to carefully, is that, even though we inherited the fallen condition of Adam, we did not inherit his responsibility for what he did. We did not inherit his sin (the so called "Original Sin")! This is the great divide between the Eastern Fathers and what St. Augustine said, which affected the Western Church until today. In other words, a child born does not inherit the sin of Adam, even though he/she is born into the fallen condition which is the result of the sin of Adam. Hence, a child will not go to hell, if the child were to die before baptism, because the child has no sin accounted against it. This is made very clear by St. John Chrysostom. (Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou)

[@bwfackler]

@@Trisagionfilms original sin is not guilt but the effects of the sin of adam. if it had guilt attached to it, it would be a personal sin like any other. this like many other issues which supposedly divide byzantines and roman catholics is an issue of semantics, not an actual disagreement.

[@Michel-ov1sv]

Thank you Father, you explained it veery well. But can you give us a video about the theological reasons of death that followed the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

[@SonuYadav-hd5qk]

Very good explanation ,thank u.

[@mlvlnc]

thank you very much

[@robwagnon6578]

It is weird that so many people just assume the teaching of original sin is valid without ever looking into the history. I think part of 'loving the Lord your God with all your.......Mind" is to show some interest where ideas come from especially when they just are not found in scripture!!

[@josephconder9074]

Respectfully, what about the Creed: "We believe in one baptism *for the remission of sins*"?

[@nicolehendrix5632]

Excellent question. We will all be tempted to sin and fall into sin at some point in our lives. Yet, Christ stills forgives us. So baptism would be a forgiveness of inevitable sin done by our own actions. That is different from assuming we are automatically guilty of Adams sin at birth; we suffer the consequences of death because of his sin, but are only guilty of our sin.

[@stutterstudios4731]

Nicole Hendrix I was reading a book by Scott Hahn, and he said that from the Catholic perspective, we’re born deprived of everlasting life, but we’re not depraved by any means. And I think we would agree on the concupiscence (inclination to sin) because of the fall of Adam and Eve.

[@A.Mageddon]

Nicole Hendrix but we’re not forgiven for inevitable sins. That’s why we go to Confession.

[@ΓιάννηςΑντωνιάδης-θ3ε]

our own sins, not Adam's

[@Bidion]

@@nicolehendrix5632 if the sin is inevitable how is that any different from the curse of having an original sin? I believe it boils down to language and how Latin and Greek differ slightly in translation. The effect of being caused to sin must have an origin, the western church has rationalized this as the cost of being granted free-will, the freedom to choose to be bad because without the choice there is no freedom.

[@jamesregli4754]

I was hoping for him to tackle some of the verses that seem to draw contrasts between Christ and Adam and see Orthodox interpretation of them

[@lookman-2844]

An absolutely brilliant explanation of the Catholic/Protestant heresy of Original Sin. If I had not followed my Jewish roots to become a Muslim I would have become Orthodox. There is a big problem in the West that everyone hears the Catholic heresies, and believe it is what all Christians believe. You need to make a louder voice for the Greek Bible over the Latin one.

[@CrossTimbersSon]

Thank you for clearing this confusing topic up. It’s strange how “sinful nature” was added to the NIV Bible translation in 1984 to represent the word “Sarx” or “flesh” and then later removed.

[@sathsojourns]

Could you elaborate on this btw? I'm non denominational and looking into Eastern Orthodoxy but some things don't make sense to me. For example, I understand the belief of not being born into sin according to the doctrine of 'Original Sin' but verses like Psalm 51:5 clearly show being born into sin Psalm 51:5 NKJV "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." God bless you, stay firm in Christ in these end times

[@greenbank4800]

@@sathsojourns I do understand your question and it has an interesting explanation. The first is from the Zondervan NRSV Cultural Study Bible , a reputable and reliable Christian publisher and with 2 acknowledged experts authors collating and writing the study notes, well worth buying btw, that explains that the mix of sources for the cultural basis of many of the Hebrew writings were heavily influenced by the contact with the surrounding Mesopotamian and Sumerian cultures that held that no human could ever be sinless simply due to our human nature. It is not based on any later notion of transmitted sin by hereditary means. The second is from the the most reputable English version of the Hebrew scriptures, The Jewish Study Bible, the TANAKH Translation from the Jewish Publication Society, after all , they are Hebrew writings, that clearly shows the original writings of Psalm51:5 (verse 7 in the Jewish numbering) is best translated from the original Hebrew as an expression of utter guilt for transgressions they have committed and in no way implies original sin. The NKJV has issues for accuracy of meaning and translation as it was was written somewhat as a political translation under some pressure from the reigning monarch of the time to add religious power to a dispute with Catholicism that was on-going and violent. The most accurate translation used by most scholars for accuracy is any NRSV version. Wonderful and thoughtful question. God Bless

[@showmeanedge]

​@@sathsojournson a plain reading that Psalm seems to be saying that his mother fornicated while conceiving him and doesn't imply anything about the state of his soul.

[@d1427]

well... what is the original sin? that would be more important to clarify to begin with

[@prayunceasingly2029]

True!

[@alemberhe7609]

I am not sure how you mean. Original sin (as it is called in the west - known to us as ancestral sin), is the first transgression against God by Adam (and Eve) to eat from that which was forbidden by the Lord, plunging Adam and Eve out of heaven and into their journey towards death. Father is saying that we do not bear responsibility (guilt) for this (as is taught in the West following St. Augustine's teachings) but that we inherited death from Adam, followed by our sins, which we need to account for.

[@nancyincanada5553]

Amazing, I have not heard this before. I wonder,...how did Augustine become a saint when it seems that he made some horrendous mistakes. Thank you, Father, for these videos. God bless you.

[@maligjokica]

He is not a saint proper,his correct tittle is blessed( блажен) Augustin.

[@clark5363]

He recanted of his errors on original sin on his deathbed.

[@joshuaduncan235]

He is recognized as a saint-he has a date on the Orthodox calendar (June 15). He did make some theological errors, but he is a great model of repentance.

[@rob5462]

@@clark5363 What is your source for this claim? It is a very important fact if true.

[@colinheath1006]

Rob. It would indeed be something to know and be able to be sure about the source.

[@makethisgowhoosh]

Catholics do not believe that the children of Adam receiving the burden of original sin is equivalent to "original guilt", as Fr. Panayiotis implies here. It is the penalty of death, as well as concupiscence, that is inherited by mankind. The Latin word (per the Council of Trent) is "reatum", meaning penalty, of original sin. If guilt were meant, the Latin word would be "culpa". This is in line with Romans 5:12: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

[@culpepper7665]

Makes a lot more sense to me... but, what do you do with these scriptures? Romans 5: 17: “For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.... 19: “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

[@paulnurmi7631]

St. Athanasius was much more careful and biblical in his approach to sin. Near the beginning of On the Incarnation he was so clear. 'Had it been a case of trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough;' (to cease doing sinful actions) 'but once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What-or rather WHO was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.' (On the Incarnation, 2, 7.) So he affirmed the reality of inner corruption (Jeremiah 17:9 is one of the most obvious biblical examples) without exaggerating that to add the error of blaming the offspring of Adam for sin we did not commit. There is a subtle yet very real difference between affirming I share tendencies toward sinful action-that corruption of the heart Jeremiah spoke of-and exaggerating that to the point that everyone born of a parent guilty of a sin is also guilty of that sin. Of course not; we are individuals, not mere extensions of someone else, thus, we are accountable for our own actions and whether we say 'Yes' or 'No' to God's Word made flesh in Christ.

[@orthodoxrocks9644]

Bingo!! There's always a choice!! I can't ever blame on the al...al..alcohol!! Also, John 3:16-20. People actually choose hell. God doesn't arbitrarily send people there. Sheez. He pronounced all that was made in Genesis" Good,Very Good!" So even the Angles were Good until they "chose" evil. We inherit a weak will that chooses the latter unfortunately but not the guilt of Adam.

[@apostasiaelegcho5612]

Excellent video!

[@vivekapihl5179]

Catholic western church has never taught that the guilt is transmitted. The consequences are being transmitted, guilt not. Also St. Augustine's profound understanding of the communion of saints gives us a glimpse how we creatures affect to each other in very deep level. The sin is not one's own private thing, the sin is done in a community of creatures that is affected by sin and benefitting by grace and sanctity.

[@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113]

There is a rift of understanding and a very different mindset between Eastern and Western Christianity, which is mysterious as we are all supposedly guided by the same primary canonical sources. Physics and biology are not separated from Logos. I would say from our contemporary perspective we are competing with each other for survival and this can cause harm to others but not until a certain age. Newborn babies have not yet competed against anyone and could have not harmed yet anyone, not until they are of a certain age and capable of independent thought and action. They come into their life innocent having not committed any act, sinful or otherwise. One of course does not need to know biology to understand that. Because the concept of Logos does not exist in other cultures, including in Latin, and it has not been properly translated, misunderstandings have arisen over time especially from passages of the Old Testament read in a kind of disjointed vacuum and independently of the Evangelists, the Apostolic teachings, the Liturgy and the Nicene Creed. The possibility of such misunderstandings had probably not crossed the minds of the Fathers of the Church. It is as if we live today in parallel worlds.

[@julianphillips2100]

Hello. I have three questions? Is it therefore correct to say from the Orthodox perspective that babies are born sin free? Does a person only become a sinner when he or she commits his or her first sin? I understand the Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception is not necessary since Mary, like all babies, did not inherit Adam's sin, but do the Orthodox believe that Mary, the Theotokos, was sin free for all her life? Thank you.

[@hughlaverton8748]

I can hardly believe I'm hearing this! I've been convinced for some time that the doctrine of Original Sin is not scriptural but kept it to myself (as my background is Protestant). Since I realised and became convinced of this I have felt by definition that I cannot possibly fit in my own tradition any longer as the whole concept of the human condition depends on this. Man is, on the contrary, originally good and made in God's image. The "Fall" story was clearly not a historical account but a parable or metaphor regarding the consequences of capitulation to desire. As I understand it the idea of taking the whole of scripture literally is a relatively recent phenomenon historically. Let's be honest, Adam was not keeping a journal! Anyway, I may have more thinking to do but since I had the courage to think for myself some clarity has emerged from the fog of fear induced by these pernicious doctrines. So maybe I'm Orthodox after all. How interesting.

[@MrSofuskroghlarsen]

As an orthodox inquirerer, I have zero problems with this, but I struggle a little with psalm 51 which says something akin to "I have been in guilt since my Mother's womb" (I'm danish and I know this translation Isn't accurate). Doesn't this passage of the psalm in some way indicate the transmission of guilt?

[@tayh.6235]

We have to remember that the Psalms are poetry not technical theological writing. So when laid out with all other Scripture, it seems more harmonious to interpret that as a way of saying "I have been a sinner since the start." Which all Christians believe. We are bent toward sin from the beginning just not personally guilty for Adam's sin.

[@jerrysalem1115]

No it doesn't....from Ethiopian Orthodox church there is a teaching that David said this because of his mother or father....i think his mother gave birth to him because of lust or something like that. He is not mentioning the hereditary or orginal sin...i will ask someone and will tell u more about it

[@djcorvette8375]

This is the Way

[@kailidd10]

The fact that we were born deformed or into this wretched world, isn't that a punishment we inherent from Adam. We are punished for something we didn't do. How do you reconcile that then.

[@isaakios]

DECREE VI of the Confession of Dositheus (Jerusalem Synod 1672): We believe the first man created by God to have fallen in Paradise, when, disregarding the Divine commandment, he yielded to the deceitful counsel of the serpent. And hence hereditary sin flowed to his posterity; so that none is born after the flesh who beareth not this burden, and experienceth not the fruits thereof in this present world. But by these fruits and this burden we do not understand [actual] sin, such as impiety, blasphemy, murder, sodomy, adultery, fornication, enmity, and whatsoever else is by our depraved choice committed contrarily to the Divine Will, not from nature; for many both of the Forefathers and of the Prophets, and vast numbers of others, as well of those under the shadow [of the Law], as under the truth [of the Gospel], such as the divine Precursor, and especially the Mother of God the Word, the ever-virgin Mary, experienced not these, or such like faults; but only what the Divine Justice inflicted upon man as a punishment for the [original] transgression, such as sweats in labour, afflictions, bodily sicknesses, pains in child-bearing, and, in fine, while on our pilgrimage, to live a laborious life, and lastly, bodily death.

[@cindymiller3416]

Well said!

[@drrepair]

Theology is interesting and shows how difficult it is to make a coherent story of our origins. I don’t know how dogmatic St Augustin was but he did battle with his natural instincts. Before he became Christian he lived a lustrous life. That becomes a difficult habit to let go of. He could observe even the most innocent babies grow up to indulge in sinful activities. He saw it as the second nature of man. The story of the Fall is clear that the First Man Adam lost the communication with God and his descendants are we all of us bewildered and out of touch. He understood that Man had been created perfectly but after the Fall a general flaw was established and passed down to every generation. What we think of this is free for all. Long story short: I believe Mary was exceptional and that must have been miraculous conception that took place. For a human to foster God in human form has to be totally clenched of what ever flaws that constitute us. She was the most holy ever conceived. I think the Orthodox should venerate Mary as such. She was so holy that she was bodily transferred to Heaven. Marian icons are most beautiful so I think The Orthodox love Mary very much. The Fall is comparable to the Law of Gravity. On Earth you fall if you loose your balance and sometimes you hurt terribly. As is when your spiritual balance is off you just fall and may not feel it before you hit Hell. We should not be too rigid on every theological nuance because it’s the love of God that can keep us from falling and raises up when we want to be lifted. I love both Orthodox and Roman Catholics.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Mary was born in sin , jesus partook of our same flesh and blood. Adam was not cursed the ground was. Eve was not equal to the man,he would be her lord.

[@xmc7189]

The orthodox church provides the best explanations to many theological issues.

[@thepianoman808]

So what about new born babies? Are they sinless?

[@Trisagionfilms]

Yes. Read this article for more on this topic: www.pravmir.com/do-infants-go-to-hell-if-they-die-before-baptism-the-doctrine-of-original-sin-re-examined/

[@rockonmadonna]

If the early Catholic church soul sin as being transmitted through the seed of the father to the baby, why would the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary be necessary? If God is the father, then regardless of whether Mary was with or without sin, Jesus would have been born without Original Sin, that is, without a sinful nature. On another note, if the Catholic teaching of original sin is incorrect, how is it that nobody has to teach a young baby to be selfish or young child to lie or a child to be cruel to other children? These are things we all come by naturally.

[@anthoulla100]

Children are pure at birth but become polluted by a corrupt world when they get here. We baptise them young so that God can dwell in them and help them on their journey through life.

[@veilofreality]

As a Catholic interested in Orthodoxy I find this very stimulating and informative, but quiet confusing. So, what is Original Sin for Orthodoxy? Are men born free from Original Sin in the Orthodox Understanding? And if so when and how does sin enter in their soul.? Recently I read that an Orthodox Church Father (unfortunately can't remember the name) stated that sin resides in the heart of men, but is not at it's core. If I understood correctly this means sin is there from the beginning, like the snake in the garden of Eden. Could anybody elucidate the whole matter, please?

[@stephentzintzis]

Orthodox understanding of original sin is not the disobeying of Gods order or law or commandement but rather mans knowledge of living life outside of the communion of God, basically man exercising his free will to live as an autonomous individual. This is why evryone after adam bares original sin (we all have the knowledge of making this personal choice). This is why after adam disobeyed God (eating from the tree of knowledge) it was not a question of “why couldnt God simply forgive him?” but rather one of salvation. Once you understand mans condition of sin you then understand the need for salvation - salvation which only comes from the ressurection of Christ and through the grace of God. Check out chapter 7 “Man” from the book Elements of Faith by Christos Yannaras - he explains it best.

[@yeehaw6267]

veilofreality We believe in what you could say is “a diamond in the rough.” Our souls are pure diamonds, that dwell in a fallen flesh. Our natures (i.e. our souls) are wholly good and pure, the incorruptible image of God. But our flesh is in the image of Adam, and because of Adam’s sin we are all susceptible to corrupting the flesh and we will all suffer death in the flesh. But, we do not believe that we are unable to fight such corruption. With the grace of God we can keep our flesh pure, just as, for example, the Blessed Virgin Mary did during her life. The best example of this can be seen in the words of St. Paul in Romans 7:22-23: “For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being [my soul], but I see in my members [my flesh] another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.” Life, thus, is a constant struggle to choose God over Satan, to choose the Law of God over the law of sin.

[@OZ88]

men are free after the flood, it cleansed the dooming lineage of the past.

[@clark5363]

Georgios Papadopoulos where did you here this??? That makes so much sense.

[@pasqualecandelora2878]

It seems that the historic Augustinian view of the Catholic west concerning original sin seems to have been moderated somewhat according to the most recent Catholic Catechism.

[@Robert-Beaty]

I am currently what would probably be labeled a "Protestant," though I think it's more accurate to say that I'm just trying to follow Jesus truly as best as I can. I've never understood how Original Sin could be true if it meant guilt is transmitted, and so I am refreshed to hear that it is likely Chrysostom, a representative voice from the early centuries of the global Church, does not think that guilt is transmitted or imputed. However, as I study Eastern Orthodoxy more, I am genuinely confused by some statements I have read regarding infants and whether they are eternally punished when they die if they are not baptized. In Pan-Orthodox Confession of Dositheos, decree 16 states that unbaptized infants who die are eternally punished. Craig Truglia, a popular Eastern Orthodox apologist, states in multiple blog posts that multiple ancient Church saints stated that unbaptized babies will suffer eternal punishment. Such statements seem to contradict what is in this video. What is the truth?

[@jorgecdl2646]

Psalm 51 5-7

[@Zefah]

Errors and increasingly radical innovations to address those errors seems to be the story of Christianity in the West.

[@Isthishandletakenalready]

Please make more videos, but omit the singing in the background. It's extremely distracting

[@francismausley7239]

I can sin enough myself... "Adam’s sin was not the sin of His posterity, especially as Adam is a thousand generations back of the man today. If the father of a thousand generations committed a sin, is it just to demand that the present generation should suffer the consequences thereof?" ~ Baha'i Faith

[@tyrothrock256]

Ezekiel 18 even confirms that the sins of the father are not carried over to the son. No by each persons sin is one condemned. Augustine

[@tyrothrock256]

Sorry Augustine has done a lot of damage in my view to Orthodox Christianity as he introduced a lot of Gnostic ideas and philosophies.

[@GFSHS3]

Where all this started : Original Guilt by Augustine (Rom. 5:12). mistakes of misinterpretation. Mistranslation (Rom. 5:12) of St Jerome of Jerusalem which who translated in to Latin "Adam is the source of sin in whom all have sin" "In Quo" which translated the Greek "ἐφ’ᾧ" because of which death. (εφ ω παντες ημαρτον- as in quo omnes peccaverunt). Augustine took this idea that of Adam in whom all have sin, rather because of DEATH men have sined. Western = Guilt of succession, which every person who is born is responsible. Death is the consequences of sin 'if you not do this you will die tomorrow' Orthodox = Inhereting the consequences of this sin of Adam, the curst, the immortality, "SEEKING AFTER HAPPINESS" accommodating this death, so we can prolonged our life=happiness seeking. ___ More info: Fr John Romanides 'The original sin'.

[@jorgecdl2646]

The Roman Catholic Church believe and can interpretate this cite written by St Paul: Romans 5:12.

[@minasoliman]

Lately there has been this movement from some Orthodox that harmonizes St. Augustine, showing that he has been misunderstood based on fluid definition of “sin” and “guilt”, especially with what we’re born with. Is there a way in which one can show quotes to compare St. Chrysostom from St. Augustine to show that there is a contradiction rather than harmony?

[@Trisagionfilms]

I have done the work in my paper comparing the two fathers on the subject of original sin. Please write to me via e-mail at [e-mail] and I will share the paper with you. It was published in SVTQ.(Fr. Panayiotis)

[@mrjemes1597]

My question why Good fruits not come out from eastern orthodox church ? Why your church fall again and again in russia and other part of world ?

[@mario.migneault]

Dr Michael S Heiser explains this very well, babies, severe handicapped do not go to hell and water baptism is a public ritual, water does not regerate anything. ✝️✝️✝️ i heard a lutheran say baptism regenrates. The sad thing is being able to answer when babies die, saying do not know.

[@ArchangelsBookClub]

Respectfully, I have to say I disagree with your understanding of how the ancient world thought about sexual reproduction. We know this because the Church Fathers were adamant that Jesus received his humanity from His Mother, the Holy Theotokos. So; certainly, they understood that women contributed in procreation beyond being a mere container for a man’s seed to grow. Certainly they understood the menses to be indicative of how a woman contributes to gestation, even if they didn’t understand exactly how.

[@Trisagionfilms]

Dear friend, your comment is excellent! This is the amazing thing about the Fathers and the wisdom that was given to them. In spite of the "scientific" understanding of their time, which considered the womb of the mother as merely a field in which the seed of the father was planted and from which the new person was produced, the Fathers of the Church followed the path of "revelation" and did not succumb to the cultural and scientific norms of their times, but insisted that it must be that she contributed to the creation of Christ from her own humanity. They broke with the norms of their times. That is what I am also saying in this video and also in my paper on the subject which has been published in a scientific theological journal. Thank you for your comment (Fr. Panayiotis Papageorgiou)

[@ArchangelsBookClub]

Trisagion Films I would very much like to read that paper! Is it available?

[@Trisagionfilms]

Contact us at [e-mail] and we will send you the paper. Take care

[@clark5363]

Trisagion Films you are basically like thee coolest guy ever, aren’t you? 😉❤️

[@nikolaosaggelopoulos8113]

Empedocles in the 5th C BC had said that the child inherits its traits half from its mother and half from its father. However, I thought Fr Panayotis was referring to a common concept across the world, not necessarily to those who had a classical education. Now in retrospect, seeing his response, I am confused. The view of Empedocles was the scientific understanding of the time, the view that the womb is like a field was perhaps some lay understanding in the periphery of educated society. Many of the saints were well educated, perhaps among the most educated of their age. Even some among the less educated would have been familiar with these ideas. The question is how much the rest of the world, in Germany, Britain, Spain, etc, was familiar with such more scientific ideas or whether they were known in medieval Europe. Highly unlikely.

[@winterrose4411]

“I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins” What about this? I know baptism brings us in to the Christian faith via the Holy Spirit, but doesn't it also wash away sins?

[@Trisagionfilms]

Yes it does. But babies have no sin... so a baptism for a baby is a seal of protection to bless them and bring them in to the faith in a spiritual and mystical way from the time they are small. To make them members of the body of Christ and grant them the fullness of grace.

[@winterrose4411]

@@Trisagionfilms Well said! Thanks so much for your reply!

[@Trisagionfilms]

You're very welcome! :)

[@crobbie1984]

Which writings of Saint John Chrysostom do you recommend for a beginner?

[@Trisagionfilms]

We will get back to you friend :)

[@dp34576]

@@Trisagionfilms Still waiting

[@Trisagionfilms]

@Diego M @crobbie1984 I suggest emailing us at [e-mail]

[@matheusmotta1132]

Orthodoxy is truly the home of Christianity

[@Checkmate777]

Can you explain concupiscence to me please and why we have it? Also in another comment you said babies are born into a fallen condition. Is that the same thing as concupiscence?

[@its_me-nikki]

Then why was Jesus crucified if not for salvation?

[@BibleStudywithVernon]

Ambrose did not baptize him, it was Alexander of Alexandria

[@edgarmorales4476]

There is no original sin! We are not innately bad, but the opposite, we are innately good; but we have an ego that causes us to see ourselves separate, lacking and at odds with life and others; at odds with Love, so we behave badly. But we are not bad! We are mistaken, we misunderstand life. Everyone has an ego, and it is not of Love. The ego is also not evil, although it is behind all acts we would consider evil. The ego is not a thing or an entity, it's just programming to take care of number one. This programming causes us to be self-servicing, self-centered, fearful, distrusting, defensive and aggressive. The ego is a sense of self, not something real or true. A sense of self is nothing tangible, nothing that can't be fairly easily overlooked, if its lack of realness is pointed out. The ego is programming that causes us to see life, ourselves and others through a particular lense; one tainted by fear, judgment, limitation, smallness and a sense of lack. The egoic programming creates a sense of being under attack or threatened by others and by life. The ego is in fear much of the time, and therefore divorced from Love. This fear is an illusion, an imagination of something fearful in the future; not based on an actual threat in the here and now. When we're identified with this very primitive part of ourselves, we believe in the ego's fears and try to protect ourselves any way we can; usually by trying to attain more wealth, comfort, power, security, control, success, popularity and admiration; all things that make the ego safer, at least temporarily.

[@Michael-ny1rs]

This is very much like my thought process as I transitioned from Stoic philosophy into embracing Jesus Christ

[@gamesplayerDJ]

I am Catholic,but this is one dogma I have rejected and questioned a lot of people who just give me the answer of original sin. I didn't know other people have this thought I have. It's just hard for me to believe that God is passing that sin down from Adam. I don't believe it and it complicate things when you start talking about children that die at birth, or infant. How can we say that children will be punished for something they didn't do, even human being aren't so cruel so why will we think God will be? I believe that we are all born free of sin and we later in life decide to sin or not sin. Thank you for this. At least I know now that I am not crazy or "heretic" as some will call me. It does baffle me that we will base a doctrine on Augustine while the bible clearly said that each person pays for his sin (No disrespect to Augustine, but he is a man like us and can make mistakes). We all paid for Adam's sin in that we are not living in Eden; but other than that don't blame Adam for anything. Peace and Love of God be with you brother and sister. 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾

[@chrisobrien6254]

Yes! It’s like people on the political Left who want to convince all white people that they’re guilty of racism all because white people once owned slaves. It’s so illogical!

[@symphonymph3562]

It is said that Baptism washes away Ancestral Sin. Thus, isn't Ancestral Sin actually a sin?

[@jocelynyared2150]

If there was no original sin, then there was no Fall, and there is no need for Christ. God created all things to be good and perfect until the Free Will of Adam and Eve chose to listen to the Devil...

[@misterauctor7353]

"If there was no original sin, then there was no Fall, and there is no need for Christ." Johnny D responded to that.

[@danielalexandermarroquin5667]

I believe that Chrismation father is the mystery that makes you part of the body of christ and citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven as well as the mystery that makes you a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit(Pentecost). A lay protestant person can baptize other for example but that dose not mean they can transmit the Holy Spirit, only a real Bishop/Priest can do that.

[@davidmatta2727]

Thanks for the video. However, how do you explain water baptism in the Judaic tradition where it is used for cleansing and purification and not only for initiation? John the Baptist invited people to repent and baptize. Also, how do we understand Saint Paul's 1 Corinthians 15, verses 21 & 22? "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man For as in Adam all die, so in Christ, all will be made alive." Isn't it an allusion to Adam and the original sin here?

[@apostasiaelegcho5612]

Jews don't believe in Christ so their theology has little to do with the Christian covenant. 1 Corinthians 15 is an illustration of the imputation of sin due to the law, and through Christ that imputation being removed. It has little to do with Adam beyond Adam being the first to be held accountable for sin. Because God is not partial, this law stood for all of mankind, to which all men sin, not because of Adam, but because there was a law that held them all accountable.

[@matthewrudolph3514]

If I’m not Orthodox and believe in grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, am I anathema?

[@awake3083]

You will be anathema if you teach that heretical nonsense in our Church.

[@ModernDayHeretic-m9j]

Faith alone doesn't mean works/behaviors are not required for salvation but is rather, referring to the fact that gentile converts to Christianity don't need to observe older Jewish laws like circumcision's in order to gain salvation. Protestants mis-interpret faith alone to mean "once saved, always saved" however this is not true at all and contradicts Pauls letter to the Corinthians in which he calls for church discipline due to sin and immorality spreading within it. This contradicts faith alone because you can say you believe in Jesus Christ but if you don't repent of your sins and continue to keep sinning then you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

[@instrumentengineer5823]

And their Lord called to them(ADAM & EVE a.s.), "Did I Not Forbid you from that tree and tell you that SATAN IS to you a CLEAR ENEMY?" They replied, “Our Lord! We HAVE WRONGED OURSELVES. If You do not FORGIVE US and have Mercy on us, we will certainly be LOSERS.” 7.22-23 "So ALLAH ACCEPTED HIS REPENTANCE. Surely HE is the Accepter of Repentance, MOST MERCIFUL" Qur'an Majeed 2.37

[@evanbiter2138]

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this. - Isaiah 9:6-7 This is about Jesus of Nazareth.

[@StasBalabay]

Thanks for the video. Which books would you recommend on the Orthodox (and RC and Prot.) Atonement? What about "The Crucifixion of the King of Glory" by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou and "Christus Victor" by Gustav Aulen or "Deification through the Cross" by Khaled Anatolios? Are they good? Recently, I've been accused of heresy for denying PSA by other orthodox who strongly hold to the synodal russian theology when many affirmed PSA or "judicial theory". I just tried to differentiate between protestant justification through imputation and ours through infusion of Christ's righteoussness, they told me that we, the orthodox, must not merge justification and sanctification and what I described was sanctification and deification in the long run but for that to even take place first there must be satisfaction of God's justice and forgiveness of sins which is penal. In other words, without the PSA there's no healing and deification. By merging justification and sanctification, reducing the financial language to the disorder, separation, between our fallen state of nature and proper state of nature, you fall into the modernist heresy of "cross struggling" or "struggling/warring against the Cross", when the theological meaning of the Cross is reduced to the Resurrection and restoration - this is what I've been accused of but this is the narrative I find everywhere in the English-speaking orthodox world.

[@DeaconBinyamAlebachew]

It was good description, My question is, 1. does Muslims have Original Sin Currently ? As Augustin since they are not baptized they have original Sin. But as St John Chrysostom they don't have original sin. Am i right ? 2. when Does Original Sin Eliminated ? It is when Christ Crucified on the cross right? If it was when Christ was crucified , does the elimination of this original sin has applied to Atheist's, Muslims ....etc. ?

[@larrymcclain8874]

Interesting. The Churches of Christ predominant in America also does not accept the teaching of original sin. But then the Churches of Christ do not accept the teaching of Calvin nor Luther.

[@larrymcclain8874]

BTW, the Churches of Christ also sing acapella, and are the favorite "punching bag" for American Calvinists who disagree with the Churches of Christ who teach that baptism is necessary for salvation and is for the forgiveness of sins, something that Calvinists deny.

[@brett.vogler]

What about Romans 5?

[@tookie36]

Too many sequels. They should of stopped at Romans 2 🥁

[@bhrismaw-q]

OK so, I'm a bit confused, you spoke about the catholic and protestant view but not much on the orthodox view... Just that you don't beleive in original sin? I'm more confused now 😕

[@pavlickrobert]

While I agree that most of the scriptures seem to point away from original, sin, I was just wondering how we would interpret the 51st Psalm, Vs's 5 and 6 where David uses the terminology that he was "born or conceived in sin" and "shaped in iniquity" . That would seem to imply that we are born sinners, would it not?

[@Fireking285]

Hey Robert, did you ever get the answer you were looking for?

[@Jordan-1999]

Hi, this is slightly off topic, but I would like to know what the Orthodox view of the pre-fall world was like. For example was there animal death before the fall?

[@NicholasAggelopoulos]

You look at this from an un-Orthodox perspective. The Orthodox understanding is at a different level. St Gregory of Nyssa in his "Soul and its Resurrection" says that a human in the image of God has no mouth or organs or a need to survive and nourish themselves with food. The distinction has nothing to do with before and after, it is more about two different concepts, two different viewpoints. What may seem important to a human, food or death, are the cause of sin. The Church produced the New Testament, it did not find it on a hotel desk. It is read extensively in services and its understanding and that of the Old Testament comes with extensive study and hearing it at the liturgy. The Gideon Bible that you may find in American hotels, which is the main contact of some Americans with Christianity, instead of starting with what the Church wrote, the Four Gospels, starts with the 1st chapter of Genesis on the first page. You have to spend days reading in the hotel before you get to the Four Gospels. In addition, you read the Gideon Bible outside the body of the Church, as if it were a novel or a coffee table book, out of context or Christian tradition. Many Americans read that first page as if it is the most important thing about Christianity because it is placed right at the front, and seem to read it as someone who is just learning to read, and has not read anything else ever before and has no contact with the traditions and understanding of the Church.

[@ernestpadilla9095]

I might be wrong; but my understanding from the western church concept of the original sin ;isn't in any way or form based on gender as this priest seems to imply; even though the Bible use the person of Adam as the original sinner; it's my understanding that the original sin quotation; includes Eve as well . Can someone please clarify that for me? Because it makes no sense in any way or form to leave Eve ( the woman ) out of the equation.

[@finitewonder4978]

The text at Genesis 3 says the man has become like one of Us to know good and evil. Why is the emphasis on the evil humanity is capable of and not the good humanity is capable of? Why are we guilty for doing evil but not guilty for doing good? We are forced-fed a negative outlook on life. Man was taken from soil according to the text and only after punishment is handed down do we hear of man returning to the said dust but what is dust? Dust is as alive as it appears to be dead. Death supports life and life results in death. Life and death are inseperable. So death isn't a consequence of sin. Death is a consequence of life.

[@yabesira7351]

wdym? Sin is what causes us to die because we reject God when we sin. Right?

[@whoamI-xi3ln]

As far as I understood it - Wouldn't Mary still be a sinner even without Original Sin, meaning the problem of her being an unclean vessel not fit to carry 'God incarnate' still stands nevertheless?

[@Trisagionfilms]

She lived in the fallen human condition, but she was the most worthy person in history before and after. God waited for a person like her to be born so that he could come into the world

[@whoamI-xi3ln]

@@Trisagionfilms Thank you for your reply :) I don't remember perfectly what I was implying, but I think what confused me is how this would only be a problem for Catholics. As far as I understand it, the whole idea of venerating Mary is sort of based on the idea that she is like the Ark of the Covenant, carrying God inside of her, and in order for this to make sense, she would have to be devoid of any sin. Therefore Catholics say that she was conceived without Original Sin. But you don't have to 'get rid of Original Sin' because you do not hold onto that idea to begin with. Still, since she is technically human, she would also be a sinner, which leads to the question of how she can be considered the 'New Ark of the Covenant'.. Sorry if that sounds confusing, it does to me as well. There was just something that did not add up while watching so I ended up asking this question.

[@ricardooliveira9774]

@@Trisagionfilms That applies even with Molinism (A catholic soteriology, but it's used a lot in some protestants theology) if you think about it.