The Greek patristic understanding of man never denies the unity of mankind or replaces it with a radical individualism. The Pauline doctrine of the two Adams (\u201cAs in Adam all men die, so also in Christ shall all be brought to life\u201d), as well as the Platonic concept of the ideal man, leads Gregory of Nyssa to understand Genesis 1:27 – \u201cGod created man in His own image\u201d – to refer to the creation of mankind as a whole. It is obvious that the sin of Adam must also be related to all men, just as salvation brought by Christ is salvation for all mankind; but neither original sin nor salvation can be realized in an individual\u2019s life without involving his personal and free responsibility.<\/p>\n
The scriptural text which played a decisive role in the polemics between Augustine (the person who formulated the idea of Original Sin<\/em>) and the Pelagians is found in Romans 5:12, where Paul, speaking of Adam, writes: \u201cAs sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned\u201d. <\/em>In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin with a different meaning than the original Greek, and this translation was used in the West to justify the doctrine of guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek – the text read, of course, by the Byzantines. Such a translation renders Paul\u2019s thought to mean that death, which was \u201cthe wages of sin\u201d for Adam, is also the punishment applied to those who, like him, sin. It presupposes a cosmic significance of the sin of Adam, but does not say that his descendants are guilty<\/em> as he was, unless they also sin as he sinned.<\/p>\n I am sure that most Eastern Catholics, steeped in Western Catholicism, <\/em>probably think that the way Augustine thought about Adam is the way that one is supposed to think about mankind. I am sure that when someone suggests that there is a different understanding of our faith and that Augustine\u2019s idea about humankind is not the only right, acceptable and authentic understanding of mankind, that they are being non-Catholic and, probably, non-Christian.<\/p>\n The Christian East has maintained a different understanding. Think about the concept of Theosis<\/em>. It suggests an entirely different understanding of mankind and its relationship with God. The sin of Adam did not destroy the fact that humans are made in God\u2019s image and likeness. The purpose of life is to cooperate with God in coming to a deeper understanding of God\u2019s image and likeness within us.<\/p>\n When our Eastern Church came into union with the Western Church, she did not give up her theology and her way of worship.<\/p>\n Think about this! <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Greek patristic understanding of man never denies the unity of mankind or replaces it with a radical individualism. The Pauline doctrine of the two Adams (\u201cAs in Adam all men die, so also in Christ shall all be brought … Continue reading