Adam and Eve

[ckempston]

You misunderstand Original Sin.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
(Rom. 5:12).

Adam’s sin is not and was never ours. But it did result in consequences on our nature, as Paul says above. If an innocent child sees pornography for the first time, a part of his innocence has been lost, even if he later repents and is forgiven. Although he was forgiven, there are temporal effects to his nature. So, from our first parents, there was some sin that has separated us from God, as Paul says.

No, I really don’t misunderstand it, I’m just waiting for you to Biblically defend it, which cannot be done.

Children (all of them, contrary to the sick doctrine of the RCC) are born in a state of Grace. They leave that state of Grace when they become conscious of sin and do it anyway. This inclination existed in Adam PRIOR to the fall, or he never would have sinned, which is another problem for orthodoxy (among others, such as the absurd belief of the immortality of the soul), but I digress.

Catholics attribute to God that which is evil, and that which HE says HE **does not **do:

Genesis 18:25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

 

[grannymh]

Please explain what you really mean by fallen and in need of grace?
How about all of the other humans that existed before Christian baptism practices, are they simply doomed to live a life without this ‘grace’?

Everyone since the time of Adam has a chance to be with God. My apology, I know this to be true but I do not have the exact wording handy.

 

[grannymh]

Sorry if it seems like I’m explicitly arguing against these things, I’m really just trying to find a more well-rounded explanation.

Because my basic interest is the origin of the human species, especially human nature in itself, I have been rereading the Catechism and find that it contains a very good explanation of Adam’s nature and his relationship with his Creator. Some of the information is hard to wrap one’s brain around. But it is worth the effort. My suggestion is for you to slowly start at the beginning and slowly move on. Some of it is in Catholic lingo and I would like to help you with that. Please don’t be concerned about finishing all the paragraphs. If you find that some of the amazing sentences hold your attention, stick with them for a bit.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Original Sin is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also very useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like “paragraph 355”, and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»
»Table of Contents
»
»

​

---

 

[ddarko]

No, I really don’t misunderstand it, I’m just waiting for you to Biblically defend it, which cannot be done.

Children (all of them, contrary to the sick doctrine of the RCC) are born in a state of Grace. They leave that state of Grace when they become conscious of sin and do it anyway. This inclination existed in Adam PRIOR to the fall, or he never would have sinned, which is another problem for orthodoxy (among others, such as the absurd belief of the immortality of the soul), but I digress.

Catholics attribute to God that which is evil, and that which HE says HE **does not **do:

Genesis 18:25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

Alright, some problems with your assertions here.

1. Adam did not have an ‘inclination’ to sin. Under your logic, there cannot be any morally good angels. They also have the chance of falling out I assume this is also your view?

Adam’s sin was very grave because it was freely chosen when he had full knowledge and submission of his will to do the right thing.

1. You are taking several biblical passages out of context here. Just as much as you quote those to say that sin does not propagate, I can quote you a lot more passages that say a view contrary to yours.

How do you interpret Romans 5:19?

Or how about 1 Corinthians 15:21

Or how about Wisdom 2:24?

So please, there is ample biblical evidence for original sin. So you better go back to studying the Bible my friend

Seriously, what did you think the Roman Catholic church was doing all this time? Pulling things out of nowhere when they had no grounding in Tradition or Scripture? You need to learn what the Roman Catholic church is first. That might shed some light on your misguided polemics.

1. We do not attribute Evil to God. Have you even read the church fathers, philosophers and theologians? Evil is considered the absence of God, actions contrary to God’s nature etc.

Learn to do a proper exegesis please. What you say is no different from the Bible thumping protestants who like to believe in Salvation from faith alone when there are number of passages to the contrary

When the person presented to you Romans 5:12, you ask him to defend it biblically … what does that even mean? That is a biblical passage

You are supposed to interpret the Bible as a whole. Not pick and choose to make your case.

To the question of the OP, Adam and Eve MUST be real people. This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

There is overall no need to reconcile this with Science. Think about it, scientifically speaking, the resurrection was impossible. Yet we know it happened from Tradition, Scripture and historical evidence.

Now if we accept Christ, then we accept Tradition and Scripture. This in turn means we accept Adam & Eve. It was a miracle of God creating man just like the resurrection. There might never be a scientific theory that can explain it as there should not be. It was a miracle just as much as the resurrection of Christ was a miracle. Our acceptance of the Catholic faith rests upon the resurrection of Christ. From there, we do not question the rest that is given to us by Scripture and Tradition. So Adam and Eve we accept by faith. We believe that God is not leading us astray in Scripture.

God Bless

 

[ckempston]

Alright, some problems with your assertions here.

1. Adam did not have an ‘inclination’ to sin. Under your logic, there cannot be any morally good angels. They also have the chance of falling out I assume this is also your view?

Adam’s sin was very grave because it was freely chosen when he had full knowledge and submission of his will to do the right thing.

If Adam did not have an inclination to sin, why did he? This has nothing to do with angels, and whether they are morally good or not is outside the scope of this conversation.

1. You are taking several biblical passages out of context here. Just as much as you quote those to say that sin does not propagate, I can quote you a lot more passages that say a view contrary to yours.

How do you interpret Romans 5:19?

First, I will tell you what it definitely does not mean, because of the implications, unless you’re willing to accept universal restoration. If every individual was made a sinner by an involuntary act on their behalf by Adam, then likewise, every individual would be made righteous involuntarily by an act on their behalf by Christ (that’s what the RCC interpretation of what the passage says about Adam demands). As this is not the case, or at least you wouldn’t be willing to accept that it’s the case, it’s quite obvious Roman Catholics misunderstand the passage.

An interpretation that is internally consistent, as well as consistent with other statements of scripture, is that Adam made personal sin possible for every individual that followed, just as Christ made righteousness possible for every individual that followed.

You cannot demand universal effect for Adam’s sin without equivalent universal effect for Christ’s obedience. The only way to make them equivalent is the interpretation I have given above. Otherwise you’re stuck with a dilemma.

Or how about 1 Corinthians 15:21

This doesn’t support either position. It simply says death came through a man. Not original sin. It doesn’t even say anything about inheriting anything, unless you move to vs 22, in which case your interpretation would likewise demand universal salvation because the affect of Adam’s sin is equivalent to the affect of Christ’s obedience.

At best, Adam makes all men potential sinners, while Christ makes all men potentially righteous. However, prior to being actual sinners (i.e. as a child), humans are in a state of Grace.

Or how about Wisdom 2:24?

Wisdom 2:24 says exactly what I pointed out in Ezekiel. The soul that sins is the one that will die. I don’t die because of my father’s sin, or his father’s, or Adam’s, but mine.

So please, there is ample biblical evidence for original sin. So you better go back to studying the Bible my friend

No, there’s still no evidence for original sin (or at least what the RCC understands it to be). Not sure what you’re smiling at. Nothing you’ve pointed out has indicated I’m lacking in my Bible studies.

Seriously, what did you think the Roman Catholic church was doing all this time? Pulling things out of nowhere when they had no grounding in Tradition or Scripture? You need to learn what the Roman Catholic church is first. That might shed some light on your misguided polemics.

It’s been doing what it does best: substituting the teachings of man for the teachings of God.

1. We do not attribute Evil to God. Have you even read the church fathers, philosophers and theologians? Evil is considered the absence of God, actions contrary to God’s nature etc.

Yes, you do. You say God punishes me for Adam’s sin. He says quite explicitly he doesn’t do this. Thanks, but I’ll take his word over yours, or the Pope’s, or any Early Church Fathers (with which I am quite familiar).

Learn to do a proper exegesis please. What you say is no different from the Bible thumping protestants who like to believe in Salvation from faith alone when there are number of passages to the contrary

Red herring. I don’t believe in sola fide. Stick to the issue at hand.

When the person presented to you Romans 5:12, you ask him to defend it biblically … what does that even mean? That is a biblical passage

No, I asked for original sin and its inheritance to be defended Biblically. It hasn’t been thus far, and I’ve given you a much more consistent interpretation of Romans 5.

You are supposed to interpret the Bible as a whole. Not pick and choose to make your case.

Exactly. This is what I did, so I’m not sure what your point is. God doesn’t visit punishments of a father’s sin on his children. Case closed. Any passage that may seem to indicate such a belief is obviously being misunderstood. This is Bible interpretation 101. Clear passages should not be twisted to fit our preconceived notions of difficult or unclear passages (though Romans 5 is hardly unclear).

To the question of the OP, Adam and Eve MUST be real people. This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

Non sequitur.

There is overall no need to reconcile this with Science.

God Bless

 

[Windfish]

No, I really don’t misunderstand it, I’m just waiting for you to Biblically defend it, which cannot be done.

Children (all of them, contrary to the sick doctrine of the RCC) are born in a state of Grace. They leave that state of Grace when they become conscious of sin and do it anyway. This inclination existed in Adam PRIOR to the fall, or he never would have sinned, which is another problem for orthodoxy (among others, such as the absurd belief of the immortality of the soul), but I digress.

Catholics attribute to God that which is evil, and that which HE says HE does not do:

Genesis 18:25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

No, you do not understand it.

 

[Windfish]

No, there’s still no evidence for original sin (or at least what the RCC understands it to be). Not sure what you’re smiling at. Nothing you’ve pointed out has indicated I’m lacking in my Bible studies.

What exactly do you think the Catholic Church understands Original Sin to be?

 

[ddarko]

If Adam did not have an inclination to sin, why did he? This has nothing to do with angels, and whether they are morally good or not is outside the scope of this conversation.

Gee. Yea, I am so sorry, I had no clue.

Buddy, Angels have the same state as that of Adam. If Angels could freely sin, so could Adam WITHOUT an inclination to sin. That was my point.

First, I will tell you what it definitely does not mean, because of the implications, unless you’re willing to accept universal restoration. If every individual was made a sinner by an involuntary act on their behalf by Adam, then likewise, every individual would be made righteous involuntarily by an act on their behalf by Christ (that’s what the RCC interpretation of what the passage says about Adam demands). As this is not the case, or at least you wouldn’t be willing to accept that it’s the case, it’s quite obvious Roman Catholics misunderstand the passage.

Yai Yai ya, more blunders.

Roman Catholics do believe that Christ died for EVERYONE!!! So everyone is free to receive the freedom from original sin through baptism. Once again, you seem to think you know more than a 2000 year old Church haha. What arrogance.

An interpretation that is internally consistent, as well as consistent with other statements of scripture, is that Adam made personal sin possible for every individual that followed, just as Christ made righteousness possible for every individual that followed.

So? Whose debating that here? I wouldn’t put it as Adam made “personal sin possible”. It is more correctly, Adam made us more prone to sins. Due to original sin, we are not free from Concuspience for one.

You cannot demand universal effect for Adam’s sin without equivalent universal effect for Christ’s obedience. The only way to make them equivalent is the interpretation I have given above. Otherwise you’re stuck with a dilemma.

There is no dilemma. Christ’s death was indeed universal. At the moment of baptism, EVERYONE can be released from original sin.

This doesn’t support either position. It simply says death came through a man. Not original sin. It doesn’t even say anything about inheriting anything, unless you move to vs 22, in which case your interpretation would likewise demand universal salvation because the affect of Adam’s sin is equivalent to the affect of Christ’s obedience.

Once again, you are stuck on a ‘dilemma’ that DOES NOT EXIST. Christ died for everyone. We Roman Catholics accept that. You are the one who is facing the dilemma. Either you reject Paul, or you accept the RC teachings.

At best, Adam makes all men potential sinners, while Christ makes all men potentially righteous. However, prior to being actual sinners (i.e. as a child), humans are in a state of Grace.

What on earth are you talking about? How is a child in state of grace unless they have been baptized?

Wisdom 2:24 says exactly what I pointed out in Ezekiel. The soul that sins is the one that will die. I don’t die because of my father’s sin, or his father’s, or Adam’s, but mine.

Man, learn to read. " But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: 25 And they follow him that are of his side.".

So there you go.

No, there’s still no evidence for original sin (or at least what the RCC understands it to be). Not sure what you’re smiling at. Nothing you’ve pointed out has indicated I’m lacking in my Bible studies.

Actually, yes, nothing I can point at can cover up for what clearly displays itself through your own words

It’s been doing what it does best: substituting the teachings of man for the teachings of God.

Riiight. And I guess the entirety of Scripture is a man made set of teachings? Because if not for the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have a proper biblical canon. OH WAIT… I forgot, you were probably too busy reading Scripture to wonder where it came from

Yes, you do. You say God punishes me for Adam’s sin. He says quite explicitly he doesn’t do this. Thanks, but I’ll take his word over yours, or the Pope’s, or any Early Church Fathers (with which I am quite familiar).

Haha, you are willing to take the Pope and the Roman Catholic church’s word that it is part of Scripture though

Gotta say, your double standards are starting to show its true colors

Red herring. I don’t believe in sola fide. Stick to the issue at hand.

Who said you do? I said it is similar to Protestants who quote bits and parts of the Bible to support Sola Fide. If you don’t believe it, then you clearly know what the problem I am highlighting then

No, I asked for original sin and its inheritance to be defended Biblically. It hasn’t been thus far, and I’ve given you a much more consistent interpretation of Romans 5.

NO. All you did was say that you cannot accept Roman Catholic teachings because it causes a “Dilemma”. But there is no dilemma. So it looks like you are the one whose still dodging the inevitable conclusion.

Continued…

 

[ddarko]

Exactly. This is what I did, so I’m not sure what your point is. God doesn’t visit punishments of a father’s sin on his children. Case closed. Any passage that may seem to indicate such a belief is obviously being misunderstood. This is Bible interpretation 101. Clear passages should not be twisted to fit our preconceived notions of difficult or unclear passages (though Romans 5 is hardly unclear).

Woah, you are talking about punishment?

God is JUST. That’s God 101 for you

So yes, he does give a person what he/she JUSTLY deserves.

If Adam did not have an inclination to sin, why did he? This has nothing to do with angels, and whether they are morally good or not is outside the scope of this conversation.

Gee. Yea, I am so sorry, I had no clue.

Buddy, Angels have the same state as that of Adam. If Angels could freely sin, so could Adam WITHOUT an inclination to sin. That was my point.

First, I will tell you what it definitely does not mean, because of the implications, unless you’re willing to accept universal restoration. If every individual was made a sinner by an involuntary act on their behalf by Adam, then likewise, every individual would be made righteous involuntarily by an act on their behalf by Christ (that’s what the RCC interpretation of what the passage says about Adam demands). As this is not the case, or at least you wouldn’t be willing to accept that it’s the case, it’s quite obvious Roman Catholics misunderstand the passage.

Yai Yai ya, more blunders.

Roman Catholics do believe that Christ died for EVERYONE!!! So everyone is free to receive the freedom from original sin through baptism. Once again, you seem to think you know more than a 2000 year old Church haha. What arrogance.

An interpretation that is internally consistent, as well as consistent with other statements of scripture, is that Adam made personal sin possible for every individual that followed, just as Christ made righteousness possible for every individual that followed.

So? Whose debating that here? I wouldn’t put it as Adam made “personal sin possible”. It is more correctly, Adam made us more prone to sins. Due to original sin, we are not free from Concuspience for one.

You cannot demand universal effect for Adam’s sin without equivalent universal effect for Christ’s obedience. The only way to make them equivalent is the interpretation I have given above. Otherwise you’re stuck with a dilemma.

There is no dilemma. Christ’s death was indeed universal. At the moment of baptism, EVERYONE can be released from original sin.

This doesn’t support either position. It simply says death came through a man. Not original sin. It doesn’t even say anything about inheriting anything, unless you move to vs 22, in which case your interpretation would likewise demand universal salvation because the affect of Adam’s sin is equivalent to the affect of Christ’s obedience.

Once again, you are stuck on a ‘dilemma’ that DOES NOT EXIST. Christ died for everyone. We Roman Catholics accept that. You are the one who is facing the dilemma. Either you reject Paul, or you accept the RC teachings.

At best, Adam makes all men potential sinners, while Christ makes all men potentially righteous. However, prior to being actual sinners (i.e. as a child), humans are in a state of Grace.

What on earth are you talking about? How is a child in state of grace unless they have been baptized?

Continued…

 

[ddarko]

Wisdom 2:24 says exactly what I pointed out in Ezekiel. The soul that sins is the one that will die. I don’t die because of my father’s sin, or his father’s, or Adam’s, but mine.

Man, learn to read. " But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: 25 And they follow him that are of his side.".

So there you go.

No, there’s still no evidence for original sin (or at least what the RCC understands it to be). Not sure what you’re smiling at. Nothing you’ve pointed out has indicated I’m lacking in my Bible studies.

Actually, yes, nothing I can point at can cover up for what clearly displays itself through your own words

It’s been doing what it does best: substituting the teachings of man for the teachings of God.

Riiight. And I guess the entirety of Scripture is a man made set of teachings? Because if not for the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have a proper biblical canon. OH WAIT… I forgot, you were probably too busy reading Scripture to wonder where it came from

Yes, you do. You say God punishes me for Adam’s sin. He says quite explicitly he doesn’t do this. Thanks, but I’ll take his word over yours, or the Pope’s, or any Early Church Fathers (with which I am quite familiar).

Haha, you are willing to take the Pope and the Roman Catholic church’s word that it is part of Scripture though

Gotta say, your double standards are starting to show its true colors

Red herring. I don’t believe in sola fide. Stick to the issue at hand.

Who said you do? I said it is similar to Protestants who quote bits and parts of the Bible to support Sola Fide. If you don’t believe it, then you clearly know what the problem I am highlighting then

No, I asked for original sin and its inheritance to be defended Biblically. It hasn’t been thus far, and I’ve given you a much more consistent interpretation of Romans 5.

NO. All you did was say that you cannot accept Roman Catholic teachings because it causes a “Dilemma”. But there is no dilemma. So it looks like you are the one whose still dodging the inevitable conclusion.

Non sequitur.

Ha? I am stating the position of the church and you are telling me it does not follow? Some nice logic you got there.

As for snipping me part way through, that is exactly your problem. You are snipping bits and pieces of the Holy Bible to support your view as you clearly displayed to all to see with my post

So my friend, learn to read completely. I made a logical case to the OP as to why Adam & Eve are held true. Your snipping just shows your inherent problem that seems to show even in your biblical exegesis.

God Bless

 

[ckempston]

No, you do not understand it.

Yes I do. (See how easy that is?)

 

[ckempston]

What exactly do you think the Catholic Church understands Original Sin to be?

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”[289] The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”[290]

 

[ddarko]

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”[289] The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”[290]

So? You are the only one who is not accepting part of that equation that one MAN brought SIN in to the WORLD.

You are creating a false dilemma. Which isn’t surprising because you are probably ‘‘snipping’’ the rest out .

God Bless

 

[Windfish]

Yes I do. (See how easy that is?)

I wonder. Can you please answer me on what you think the Catholic Church teaches about Original Sin?

 

[Windfish]

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.”[289] The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.”[290]

Unless I misunderstand you, you think our “implication” in Adam’s sin is is unjust because you had no hand in Adam’s sin. You seem to be hung up on the word “sin.” The Church understand “sin” in “Original Sin” in an analogical sense, not a literal sense. Here is more of the Catechism:

404 …By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.** And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.**

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

So you see, what is transmitted to us is NOT guilt for an act, we are NOT born sinful. Rather, what is transmitted to us through Adam’s original sin is a fallen state.

 

[ckempston]

Gee. Yea, I am so sorry, I had no clue.

Buddy, Angels have the same state as that of Adam. If Angels could freely sin, so could Adam WITHOUT an inclination to sin. That was my point.

If Adam and Eve had no inclination to sin, they wouldn’t have. He was not created perfect or with an immortal soul as Catholic doctrine also falsely teaches. He was created to fall.

Yai Yai ya, more blunders.

Roman Catholics do believe that Christ died for EVERYONE!!! So everyone is free to receive the freedom from original sin through baptism. Once again, you seem to think you know more than a 2000 year old Church haha. What arrogance.

Yes. I also believe I know more than the Jews, who disbelieve in Christ, and they’ve been around for 4000 years. What arrogance indeed! What a ridiculous argument on your part is more like it. If age equated to truth we’d all be animists.

So? Whose debating that here? I wouldn’t put it as Adam made “personal sin possible”. It is more correctly, Adam made us more prone to sins. Due to original sin, we are not free from Concuspience for one.

Ok. But we’re not separated from God either - until we sin personally.

There is no dilemma. Christ’s death was indeed universal. At the moment of baptism, EVERYONE can be released from original sin.

You’re missing the point. Adam’s sin was more universal that Christ’s obedience under the Catholic interpretation. Adam affected everybody regardless of their choice. Christ only “affects” a select few. As I pointed out, the only way to consistently interpret the passage is to speak in terms of potential for both Adam’s sin and Christ’s obedience.

Once again, you are stuck on a ‘dilemma’ that DOES NOT EXIST. Christ died for everyone. We Roman Catholics accept that. You are the one who is facing the dilemma. Either you reject Paul, or you accept the RC teachings.

No, I accept Paul and reject the RC teachings. Paul just doesn’t say the twisted things the RCC puts in his mouth.

What on earth are you talking about? How is a child in state of grace unless they have been baptized?

Difficulty reasoning much? If original sin does not exist, and a child has never committed a personal sin, then that child would be in a state of grace. Do you understand this at least from a hypothetical standpoint?

Man, learn to read. " But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: 25 And they follow him that are of his side.".

So there you go.

And who follows Satan? Those that choose to. I read just fine. That passage clearly does not indicate that all are evil or that all follow Satan. Try reading the whole chapter.

Actually, yes, nothing I can point at can cover up for what clearly displays itself through your own words

Spoken like one with no refutation.

Riiight. And I guess the entirety of Scripture is a man made set of teachings? Because if not for the Roman Catholic Church, you would not have a proper biblical canon. OH WAIT… I forgot, you were probably too busy reading Scripture to wonder where it came from

I’d guess I know better where it comes from than you and most Catholics.

Haha, you are willing to take the Pope and the Roman Catholic church’s word that it is part of Scripture though

Please, if the Popes that decided the canon were alive today they’d disown the RCC. I imagine they’d be Orthodox.

Gotta say, your double standards are starting to show its true colors

I accept the canon for the same reason they did - because of the evidence.

Who said you do? I said it is similar to Protestants who quote bits and parts of the Bible to support Sola Fide. If you don’t believe it, then you clearly know what the problem I am highlighting then

Yeah, and it clearly demonstrates I don’t just accept doctrines because they’re popular, or because someone tells me to…unlike some.

NO. All you did was say that you cannot accept Roman Catholic teachings because it causes a “Dilemma”. But there is no dilemma. So it looks like you are the one whose still dodging the inevitable conclusion.

Continued…

It’s not my fault you simply fail to comprehend the dilemma, but it does indeed exist. Either Adam’s sin is limited (i.e. it only creates the potential), or Christ’s atonement is universal in the same way as Adam’s sin - i.e. universal salvation.

 

[ckempston]

Unless I misunderstand you, you think our “implication” in Adam’s sin is is unjust because you had no hand in Adam’s sin. You seem to be hung up on the word “sin.” The Church understand “sin” in “Original Sin” in an analogical sense, not a literal sense. Here is more of the Catechism:

404 …By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.** And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.**

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

So you see, what is transmitted to us is NOT guilt for an act, we are NOT born sinful. Rather, what is transmitted to us through Adam’s original sin is a fallen state.

So what you’re saying is that the soul that does NOT sin is the one that WILL die? Crystal clear. Thanks!

 

[Windfish]

It’s not my fault you simply fail to comprehend the dilemma, but it does indeed exist. Either Adam’s sin is limited (i.e. it only creates the potential), or Christ’s atonement is universal in the same way as Adam’s sin - i.e. universal salvation.

Exactly. This is what Original Sin is.

 

[Windfish]

So what you’re saying is that the soul that does NOT sin is the one that WILL die? Crystal clear. Thanks!

No…

 

[ddarko]

Alright, lets not waste each others valuable time. Let me show you somethings that makes your arguments look childish at best.

Yeah, and it clearly demonstrates I don’t just accept doctrines because they’re popular, or because someone tells me to…unlike some.

Maybe you truly don’t. BUT. the irony here is that you are willing to accept the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Canon of Scripture. How does that work?

It’s not my fault you simply fail to comprehend the dilemma, but it does indeed exist. Either Adam’s sin is limited (i.e. it only creates the potential), or Christ’s atonement is universal in the same way as Adam’s sin - i.e. universal salvation.

As I said to you again. There is no dilemma. The Catholic Church accepts and in facts STATES that Christ atoned for EVERYONE!

You are the person who is unable to understand that. So you keep crying “dilemma”. Now not to be rude, but it looks like you cannot comprehend that there is actually NO dilemma. You are assigning an incorrect position to the Roman Catholic Church which she does not ever take.

God Bless