Concerning the Heresy of “Original Sin”
a. It may be asked: Could the redemption have been effected without the physical sufferings and death of the Redeemer? Could it have been effected only by means of those spiritual griefs and torments which He endured in Gethsemane? And isn’t too little attention given to the significance of Adam’s sin?
b. A reply depends on the words on Saint Paul to the Romans (5:12), specifically whether it should be translated “because all men have sinned” or “because in him all sinned.” Adam was not so much the cause of our sinfulness as he was the first to sin, and even if we were not his children, we would sin all the same.
c. The Apostle Paul distinguishes the event of Adam’s fall a the means – the way thought which sin appeared in the world – from the consequences of it, even though Adam’s sin with the cause.
d. Adam is not actively responsible for the indwelling of sin in the whole world, but rather was a sort of door which opened the way for sin.
e.Men are not condemned by Adam’s sin and, but for their own sinfulness, the consequence of which (death) began will Adam; but all have sinned, not in Adam, but because of Adam.
- What conception of original sin is Metropolitan Anthony criticizing? And what conception does he offer in its place?
- What consequences for redemption to the juridical understanding of original sin, and Metropolitan Anthony’s understanding, bear?