Comments on: With Osipov on sin http://www.3waystolive.com/2008/04/with-osipov-on-sin.html Which is your way? Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:44:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Fyodor Soikin http://www.3waystolive.com/2008/04/with-osipov-on-sin.html#comment-413 Fyodor Soikin Tue, 26 May 2009 06:35:04 +0000 http://www.3waystolive.com/?p=154#comment-413 I can also give an analogy for better understanding: when a mother picks her baby's nose, and baby is kicking and screaming, would the baby be correct to see it as the "Mother's wrath"? Or would you rather see it as a necessity based on baby's internal state? And yet another one: when a kid refuses to put on his coat, he won't be allowed to go outside. Why? Because of "Parent's wrath", or because the parent knows the kid will get cold out there without a coat, and does it out of caring? Yet, from the kid's point of view it seems like a perfect case of "sin-punishment": you don't want to put your coat on, and for this I prohibit you to go outside and play. One could argue that you may explain the reason to the kid, and the kid would agree. But that is only partially true. Being a parent of a two-year-old, I know perfectly well that this kind of things cannot be explained to a small kid. But to an older kid they can. And this thought perfectly completes my analogy: at Moses' times, humankind was too young to understand the real reasons, so the only option was "because I said so". And when the Christ came, the humankind was mature enough to be allowed a more precise explanation. I can also give an analogy for better understanding: when a mother picks her baby’s nose, and baby is kicking and screaming, would the baby be correct to see it as the “Mother’s wrath”? Or would you rather see it as a necessity based on baby’s internal state?

And yet another one: when a kid refuses to put on his coat, he won’t be allowed to go outside. Why? Because of “Parent’s wrath”, or because the parent knows the kid will get cold out there without a coat, and does it out of caring? Yet, from the kid’s point of view it seems like a perfect case of “sin-punishment”: you don’t want to put your coat on, and for this I prohibit you to go outside and play.

One could argue that you may explain the reason to the kid, and the kid would agree. But that is only partially true. Being a parent of a two-year-old, I know perfectly well that this kind of things cannot be explained to a small kid. But to an older kid they can. And this thought perfectly completes my analogy: at Moses’ times, humankind was too young to understand the real reasons, so the only option was “because I said so”. And when the Christ came, the humankind was mature enough to be allowed a more precise explanation.

]]> By: Fyodor Soikin http://www.3waystolive.com/2008/04/with-osipov-on-sin.html#comment-412 Fyodor Soikin Tue, 26 May 2009 06:24:33 +0000 http://www.3waystolive.com/?p=154#comment-412 Edward, The notion of "God's wrath" cannot be relevant: God is perfect, cannot have a sin, while rage is definitely a sin. The consistent use of this notion through the Old Testament is explained quite simply: how else would you explain it to people on the stage of development that the Jews of Moses' times were on? The general purpose was to raise the Jews in such a way so they will be able to produce Christ, and the notion of God's wrath was simple to understand and effective enough to keep them on the [relatively] right path. - Fyodor Edward,

The notion of “God’s wrath” cannot be relevant: God is perfect, cannot have a sin, while rage is definitely a sin.

The consistent use of this notion through the Old Testament is explained quite simply: how else would you explain it to people on the stage of development that the Jews of Moses’ times were on? The general purpose was to raise the Jews in such a way so they will be able to produce Christ, and the notion of God’s wrath was simple to understand and effective enough to keep them on the [relatively] right path.

- Fyodor

]]> By: With Osipov on sin - my response | Three ways to live http://www.3waystolive.com/2008/04/with-osipov-on-sin.html#comment-128 With Osipov on sin - my response | Three ways to live Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:23:05 +0000 http://www.3waystolive.com/?p=154#comment-128 [...] my previous post I outlined Eastern Orthodox view of sin, represented by Moscow Theological Seminary professor [...] […] my previous post I outlined Eastern Orthodox view of sin, represented by Moscow Theological Seminary professor […]

]]> By: Edward Sim http://www.3waystolive.com/2008/04/with-osipov-on-sin.html#comment-125 Edward Sim Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:03:38 +0000 http://www.3waystolive.com/?p=154#comment-125 Hi, Personal sin and inherited sin seems all right (not much objection there). It would seem that imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness would become a major ground of difference between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. I think that if I am not mistaken, the Protestant reformed teaching on original sin is not that we are actually guilty of Adam's sin but rather the guilt and sin of Adam is imputed upon the entire human race i.e. counted as effective against the entire human race. (To use a computer science lingo, it's more of a logical transfer rather than a physical one. :) ) Furthermore, I am unhappy about the avoidance of God's wrath as a great problem of sin. It is clear that while Adam and Eve hid from God in the garden of Eden (thus suggesting an inward alienation from God due to sin), God actively expelled them from the Garden of Eden as a display of divine wrath. It's a both-and and not either/or. Sin is both acting against the way God design us to be and a personal offense against God. In the light of this, a Eastern Orthodox reading of Romans may be interesting to facilitate the discussion. Especially Romans 3-5. John Chrysostom, Anyone? regards Edward Hi,

Personal sin and inherited sin seems all right (not much objection there). It would seem that imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness would become a major ground of difference between Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

I think that if I am not mistaken, the Protestant reformed teaching on original sin is not that we are actually guilty of Adam’s sin but rather the guilt and sin of Adam is imputed upon the entire human race i.e. counted as effective against the entire human race. (To use a computer science lingo, it’s more of a logical transfer rather than a physical one. :) )

Furthermore, I am unhappy about the avoidance of God’s wrath as a great problem of sin. It is clear that while Adam and Eve hid from God in the garden of Eden (thus suggesting an inward alienation from God due to sin), God actively expelled them from the Garden of Eden as a display of divine wrath. It’s a both-and and not either/or. Sin is both acting against the way God design us to be and a personal offense against God.

In the light of this, a Eastern Orthodox reading of Romans may be interesting to facilitate the discussion. Especially Romans 3-5. John Chrysostom, Anyone?

regards
Edward

]]>