Isidore of Pelusium (died about A.D. 449), Letter 100 — to Syros the Reader (Against the Novatians)(translated by Clive Sweeting)
Say to the disciple of Novatian’s pride: why are you foolishly boasting as if [you were] clean? Why are you pretending that you are sinless? Why deny the (fault) common to nature? Isaiah declares himself unclean; David knows that every man is a liar and that all were conceived and carried in the womb in sin. God Himself knows that human beings are devotedly attached to evil and require only the mercy of divine kindness- and do you arrogantly boast of being clean? Either then give over lying or from what you are doing be exposed as a laughing-stock or indeed mightily shameful.(source)
I think the expression "common to nature" is particularly interesting, since the opponents of original sin seem to be fond of allegedly that man's nature was not affected by Adam's sin. I should point out further that the source of this nature is not explained in this short letter. So, it would be a stretch to conclude from this short letter that Isidore of Pelusium had as well-developed an idea of original sin as Augustine did. Still, the statements are interesting, particularly as an expression of Eastern rejection of Pelagian errors.
-TurretinFan
10 comments:
The closest this came to "original sin" was the statement "common to nature", wouldn't you say? And most Christians don't define original sin as being part of man's nature: if it were natural, Christ would have had it.
I know most of the EO say that all men sin. (I say "most" simply because I know there's some doctrinal disunity, not because I know of any on this point.) They simply don't say that their sin was passed to them from Adam, but rather they were put into vulnerability by Adam, and then they sin on their own account.
"Conceived and carried in the womb in sin" is also relevant.
My mistake; you're right. The EOs agree with the words "conceived in sin", of course (it's hard to avoid agreeing with THAT), but "carried in the womb in sin" is definitely a distinctive statement of original sin.
I think it is a little more complex than that (greetings, btw). The EO, as I understand it, do not reject that the sin in the garden has negative affects today; they simply reject the proposition we inherit Adam's guilt. Persons accrue guilt; not natures. Conversely, the problem is not with transmitted guilty statuses, but with death (1 Cor. 15).
but I'm no expert
The human nature that we inherit from Adam has been corrupted by death and weakness, but we're not "born guilty". And that death and weakness has been destroyed in Christ's human nature by His pure, holy, and unspotted life, and by His death and resurrection. And this freedom becomes ours through Baptism and Holy Communion.
Luka:
You have given a fairly typical EO view (which is not surprising, since that is your background).
This isn't really the place for us to debate, but I simply note that you would need to respectfully disagree with this particular father. He states more than inherited concupiscence when he says "all were conceived and carried in the womb in sin."
-TurretinFan
We were conceived in sin, and we were carried in the womb in sin. (Unless you think our parents are spotless, people are sinless, and this world is heaven on earth...)
The father is not talking about the person's parents, or about the person's mother, but about the person.
And by whom was that person conceived, and in whose womb was he or she carried? From whom does he derive his nature, and how is that nature like? Isn't it weak and inclined to sin? Isn't it marred by sin through death and weakness?
Why are you asking me?
Post a Comment