Infants And Original Sin

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='24 September 2009 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1253770426' post='1972051']
The Church has never said anything definitive on the nature of ethnic differentiation.


The creation story is not a metaphor; instead, it is true history written using metaphorical language. There is a difference.
[/quote]
We're blurring the fact here that although the creation story was stated as God creating in seven days around four K years ago that it probably didn't happen that way and that the story is a metaphor mainly used because people of early history would not understand about dinosaurs, adaptive evolution, the sun, the galaxy etc. It is only now that we understand the world around us somewhat better that we can use direct description rather than metaphors. The problem is as soon as someone tries to translate the Bible we get into rows, so it is better to leave things as is and accept faith for what it is FAITH.
I do see though that a black man and I do have a common creator who loves us equally so it could logically be concluded that we do come from one common point.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 09:26 PM' timestamp='1253759210' post='1971911']
I find it incomprehensible the idea that a person or persons can by an act or lack of an act have any effect on the fate of another before God. And people just cannot grasp the idea that categories or levels don't exist in Gods Kingdom. Here on earth as a mere parishioner I am at the bottom and the Pope is at the top (Catholic viewpoint) and there are numerous levels in between but in God's kingdom there is only those on the left and those on the right. As a newbie I entered into a debate with some members regarding the infallibility of the Church yet as people have pointed out on this thread there have been differing teachings regarding the fate of unbaptised children. They can't all be correct! Only one can be.
[/quote]

I think this point got left in the dust earlier. Not every one of the Church's teaching's is an infallible teaching. The fate of unbaptised infants is an area where different popes and theologians have had different opinions on the matter - however there has been no infallible teaching on the issue. So in turn I can say unbaptised infants go to limbo and you can say they're saved into heaven and we're both still within an acceptable range for the Church.

The other issue you're discussing, that Adam and Eve real people and the head of humanity, has been defined infallibly (see Rex's post on that). But don't go too far with that. Just because the fact that they are real people and the head of humanity does not mean that the entirety of Genesis is the literal truth.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1253771411' post='1972052']
We're blurring the fact here that although the creation story was stated as God creating in seven days around four K years ago that it probably didn't happen that way and that the story is a metaphor mainly used because people of early history would not understand about dinosaurs, adaptive evolution, the sun, the galaxy etc. It is only now that we understand the world around us somewhat better that we can use direct description rather than metaphors. The problem is as soon as someone tries to translate the Bible we get into rows, so it is better to leave things as is and accept faith for what it is FAITH.
I do see though that a black man and I do have a common creator who loves us equally so it could logically be concluded that we do come from one common point.
[/quote]
The ancestral sin, according to the teaching of the Church, is a personal sin committed by a single individual, and that sin made him and all his descendants mortal. Now, if one were to posit the heretical notion that there was more than one original parent couple it would follow that some human beings would not be mortal, and that idea has always been rejected as false. There are only two "Adams," i.e., the first Adam, who committed a personal sin that made all men mortal, and the second Adam (Jesus Christ), who became incarnate of the Theotokos, lived a holy life, suffered, died, and rose from the dead in order to make all men immortal. To deny the doctrine that all men descend from a single parent couple involves espousing a heresy condemned by the Church.

Thus, as I have said already, the creation myth in Genesis relates historical truth in symbolic language, but the fact of a single original parent couple from whom all human beings are descended has been held by all the Church Fathers to be a truth of faith, a truth the denial of which is contrary to Holy Orthodoxy.

Now as far as the time it took God to create the cosmos is concerned, one does not have to believe that the Lord created the earth in seven days (i.e., seven days composed of 24 hours), because the words used in both the Hebrew and the LXX can mean more than a 24 hour period of time. In fact, the Biblical narrative itself speaks about these "days" prior to the creation of the sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='23 September 2009 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1253771411' post='1972052']
We're blurring the fact here that although the creation story was stated as God creating in seven days around four K years ago . . .
[/quote]
I think you mean 6,000 years ago. That said, it was Anglican Bishop Ussher and not Sacred Scripture that asserted the creation of the world took place 6,000 years ago. Sacred Scripture itself gives no time frame for creation.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='rkwright' date='25 September 2009 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1253802451' post='1972117']
I think this point got left in the dust earlier. Not every one of the Church's teaching's is an infallible teaching. The fate of unbaptised infants is an area where different popes and theologians have had different opinions on the matter - however there has been no infallible teaching on the issue. So in turn I can say unbaptised infants go to limbo and you can say they're saved into heaven and we're both still within an acceptable range for the Church.

The other issue you're discussing, that Adam and Eve real people and the head of humanity, has been defined infallibly (see Rex's post on that). But don't go too far with that. Just because the fact that they are real people and the head of humanity does not mean that the entirety of Genesis is the literal truth.
[/quote]

So are you saying that the Church having never come to an agreement on 'limbo' means that it has still retained it's reputation of infallibility?
BTW I have never been of the belief that the Church does not make infallible teachings only that sometimes they get it wrong and later make corrections. Addressing the subject of infallibility. To me it means in the overall scheme that ultimately the Church will succeed in what God wishes it to do. Jesus is the bridge between God and humanity, the Church is the rock upon which the bridge stands. The Church cannot fail because the bridge(Jesus) has made it fast, the waves and the wind (Satan) cannot wash it away because God hence Jesus and the rock are more powerful.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='24 September 2009 - 04:34 PM' timestamp='1253828072' post='1972348']
So are you saying that the Church having never come to an agreement on 'limbo' means that it has still retained it's reputation of infallibility?
BTW I have never been of the belief that the Church does not make infallible teachings only that sometimes they get it wrong and later make corrections. Addressing the subject of infallibility. To me it means in the overall scheme that ultimately the Church will succeed in what God wishes it to do. Jesus is the bridge between God and humanity, the Church is the rock upon which the bridge stands. The Church cannot fail because the bridge(Jesus) has made it fast, the waves and the wind (Satan) cannot wash it away because God hence Jesus and the rock are more powerful.
[/quote]

I think your idea of what Church infallibility means is off. The Church is only infallible in certain limited circumstances. It does not mean that every time someone in the Church says something that it is infallible.

When they do make an infallible teaching they don't "get it wrong and later make corrections".