Original Sin is a whole 'nother can of worms. IX. Of Original or Birth-sin. Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk; ) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in the Greek, Fronema sarkoV, which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. Anglican doctrine states that we all have original sin, but how does that affect us? The RCC taught me that a baby is born in a spiritual state that prevents him/her from entering heaven in the event of that baby's death; this flawed concept of original sin essentially makes the baby out to be unrighteous (unacceptable in God's sight) due to the presence of original sin. The Anglican view is that the baby, like any of us, is born with an "inclination toward evil" and will, eventually, take to sin like a duck takes to water. But that baby has not committed evil and (in my understanding) is not unrighteous in God's sight despite the presence of that inborn inclination toward evil which we call original sin, and so if the baby were to die he/she would go to heaven. (Same with all the aborted babies.) Anglicans believe that original sin "doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated," yet the repentant believer in Christ is not condemned (Rom. 8:1), so the original sin itself is not a source of unrighteousness in the sight of God that would prevent a person from entering His Kingdom. BibleHoarder pointed out that God does not make sinful spirits. This is true. Until that baby grows and matures sufficiently to choose between good and evil, the child has not committed sin and is not condemned. I would add Jesus' words: Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Who (but the RCC) can deny the innocence of children? All through Bible history, inheritance passes from the father to the son, not from the mother. Jesus had God's blood and did not inherit original sin. Being born of Mary could not taint Jesus with original sin even though Mary possessed it (and, I have no doubt, possessed the guilt of actual sins like any other human being). And thus the doctrine of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" (a rather modern doctrine in historical terms) is made null and unnecessary. No one taught or believed it for the first 200-300 years (at the very least) of the early church.
Didn't our Lord say that John the Baptist is the greatest person born of a woman? The scriptures seem to quite openly disprove Mary's immaculate conception... If anyone it should be St. John the Baptist
I daresay Shoemaker is not looking hard enough. Let us consider: 1. That St. Irenaeus did consider the Theotokos causally linked to salvation, and this view was widely held. 2. That St. Epiphanius of Salamis identified as heretical two rival sects, the antidicomarianites, who refused any veneration of the Theotokos (in the manner of, for example, extremist fundamentalist Baptists), and the Collyridians, who worshipped her in the manner of some deranged Roman Catholics (like the Medjugorje people), or the Palamarian Catholic Church (a nasty cult in Spain). These two positions were considered equally heretical. 3. That the raison d’etre for the Third Ecumenical Council, the chief complaint which in turn gave rise to complaints of Christological error on the part of Nestorius, was Nestorius refusing to refer to the Theotokos as Theotokos, which is an error which by the way, one will find among a number of non-denominational evangelicals and calvinists who think they are Chalcedonian, but in fact are not (since Chalcedon predicates itself and the acceptance thereof on Ephesus).
You know some Soccinian and Docetic Gnostics engage in an eisegesis of that quote to either deny the deity of our Lord or state that his nativity was illusory or non-existant. The immaculate conception is a doctrine rejected by the Orthodox, but we would also object to the idea of sinfulnesss on the part of Mary, not because we are Pelagian, although we are accused of this, but rather because our hamartiology is based on St. John Cassian and his writings, which were at one time extremely popular in the West (his Conferences were standard reading in the trapeza of any Western monastery). And these in turn do not make the Augustinian error of stating that the vector for the transmission of original sin is sexual intercourse. St. Augustine’s status as a man of great piety is indisputed, but the Eastern churches have always rejected his soteriology and also his sacramental theology (where we prefer St. Cyprian of Carthage, for example, on the subject of the validity of ordination).
I like this, but this is an example of a statement which is neccessary if one relies on an Augustinian model of soteriology vs. the ancestral sin model of St. John Cassian.
Indeed so. And even where there is a difference in, for example, the number of councils recognized as ecumenical, the doctrine is essentially the same. For example, both the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox venerate icons; the former never had a church taken over by iconoclasm, whereas the latter did, and the schism was already in effect by the time of the Second Council of Nicea, so the OOs accept the doctrine of the Second Council of Nicea even though they did not participate in it.
Indeed, owing to the historical prevalence of the Augustinian model in the Western church. Of course no one disputes St. Augustine’s saintliness and no one embraces Pelagius, except for the Episcopal Church, which to my disgust commissioned a study to re-evaluate “Brito” as St. Augustine called him and to assess the historical importance and pastoral benefits of his theology. The Eastern churches just use the anti-Pelagian system of St. John Cassian, which avoids the contradictions Rome had requiring them to go with immaculate conception, which is a deeply insidiuous and problematic Mariological model because it causes an adverse impact on Christology; it has the effect of removing our Lord’s humanity from the normal condition of humanity by imposing an extraordinary and supernatural circumstance upon the Theotokos.
You might've missed the story where the Eastern churches have tried to canonize Pelagius a couple of years ago.
Let's consider the obvious reason for considering Mary to be ever-virgin. That reason is to suppose that she remained sinless throughout her life, correct? After all, sexual intercourse was perceived to be 'dirty' and sinful, the product of evil lust. So the reason for assuming Mary was ever-virgin (even after Jesus was born) was to portray her as far more holy than any other woman in all of history. Well, doesn't that create a situation just like the immaculate conception doctrine? Doesn't it "impose an extraordinary... circumstance upon the Theotokos"? Indeed, Irenaeus waxed philosophical about Mary in saying that by her obedience Mary became "the cause of salvation...both to herself and the whole human race." What we don't know was whether this was an idea held by a scant few or by the Christians in general in Irenaeus' day. But we do know that it is wholly, utterly improper to say that Mary was "the cause of salvation" when we know that Jesus Christ Himself effected our salvation! And yes, Irenaeus used the word "THE" and not "a" if the translations are accurate. It would be much more correct to say that Mary (or better yet, Mary's obedience) was a cause-in-fact of our salvation but not the proximate cause of it. So, as much good as Irenaeus accomplished in writing his Against Heresies, when it comes to writing about Mary I think Irenaeus was bloviating a bit. He also assumes he knows that Eve was still a virgin when she sinned, but this is nothing more than supposition to aid his comparison. Is the comparison between Eve and Mary valid? In such a historically patriarchal society as that of Bible times, and in light of Paul's discussion of Adam's sin and Jesus as the second Adam in 1 Cor 15, it boggles the mind that Irenaeus would make Mary the second Eve. The men were always the ones responsible for what went on in a household. Jesus was the man responsible for our redemption, and no one in the Apostolic Age would have thought a woman could redeem mankind. Magnifying Mary could only tend to take emphasis away from Jesus. Even though Eve sinned (because she was deceived), the Bible tells us that our sin problem was caused by Adam's sin (1 Tim. 2:13-14 seems to suggest that Adam was not deceived but sinned anyway, which is worse than Eve who was fooled into sinning). Besides this, the "Adam vs 2nd Adam/Eve vs 2nd Eve" comparison falls apart when one realizes that Adam and Eve were married, but Jesus and Mary were not.
I am fairly certain you are mistaken on this point; no one has, to my knowledge, even tried to glorify Pelagius as a saint, and Pelagianism is enumerated as a heresy in all contemporary Orthodox doctrinal texts. See Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy by Fr. Andrew S. Damick for a current heresiological text, or Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky. I would also observe that since the Orthodox churches are autocephalous, if one of them wanted to glorify someone (glorify is what we say instead of canonize; to be canonized in the Orthodox church usually means to have a canonical penance imposed for some misconduct), they would be glorified. There is no “try.” Now sometimes individual members will propose something wacky; in the 1990s the Monastery of New Skete in the US published a dreadful paper which, if anyone had actually done what it suggested, could have led to a Novus Ordo style dumbing down of the liturgy, but fortunately, that paper was ignored, and the liturgical trend at present is in the opposite direction.
On this point I would observe the perpetual virginity of Mary was not disputed by any of the magisterial reformers; Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all held to this view. And if the three of them agree on something which is also expressed in the Patristic corpus, it is reasonable to consider this an uncontroversial point. In fact I would propose from an Anglican scripture-tradition-reason perspective that the perpetual virginity of Mary is the only rationally acceptable belief for traditional Anglicans. Opposition to this doctrine began with the Puritans, Anabaptists and other sects which in 18th century England were known as Non-Conformers. And for the most part, this label sums up these sects (especially the Plymouth Brethren).
I don't think Shoemaker is Orthodox? He publishes with some Orthodox because he falls on the side of dormition as opposed to assumption. Here's an Orthodox review of the book https://www.google.com/amp/s/orthod...aith-and-devotion-by-stephen-j-shoemaker/amp/ . I haven't read this book yet, though I read his previous book on the Dormation. That book also helps understand early Christian theology about Mary (August 15 was a huge feast in Jerusalem very early). But I'm not sure how well Shoemaker understands the way theology like this was talked about in the church. Chrysostom gave sermons on these subjects, in which he pulled out the valid theology and didn't give mention to the "strange" stuff. What the popular theology was like is an open question, but there's no doubt that Chrysostom and others moved these stories into orthodoxy. Also, just because a scholar gives something a particular interpretation, doesn't make it true. That's why academia works on peer review.