All men were in Adam are now in Christ but still O.S exists

[simpleas]

From the CCC.
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
.
If Christ has freed us from the guilt of Adams sin, why are we told we are born with O.S?

Not to say we are not inclined to sin, as its in our human nature,and we need Christs help to stay on the right path, but to me Christ freed us from that first sin, the disobeying of a command from God, by obeying.
Is it wrong for a Catholic to view it like that, and it so why?

 

[Tom_Baum]

From the CCC.
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
.
If Christ has freed us from the guilt of Adams sin, why are we told we are born with O.S?

Not to say we are not inclined to sin, as its in our human nature,and we need Christs help to stay on the right path, but to me Christ freed us from that first sin, the disobeying of a command from God, by obeying.
Is it wrong for a Catholic to view it like that, and it so why?

Did you read what you wrote?

“The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ”

and

“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.”

 

[simpleas]

Yes.

Did I understand it? No.

Repeating what I wrote doesn’t answer my question?

 

[Robyn_p]

From the CCC.
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
.
If Christ has freed us from the guilt of Adams sin, why are we told we are born with O.S?

Not to say we are not inclined to sin, as its in our human nature,and we need Christs help to stay on the right path, but to me Christ freed us from that first sin, the disobeying of a command from God, by obeying.
Is it wrong for a Catholic to view it like that, and it so why?

Yes, it is wrong, because the Church has infallibly declared that all men are born with Original sin.

I do understand and see where you are coming from though. But the key to understanding why we are still born with Original Sin even after Christ’s sacrifice is understanding the difference between nature and grace. We are born naturally descendants of Adam, to be born into Christ we must be “born again” as Jesus commands, through baptism.

By NATURE, we are descendants of Adam, part of a fallen race. As St. Paul describes in Ephesians 2:3 we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” and so we inherit Adam’s sin. We are not by nature incorporated into Christ.

By GRACE, we are made new by Christ and so are cleansed from original sin. But to be incorporated into Christ, we must be born again through baptism. (John 3:5, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-5, Gal 3:27, 1 Pet 3:21 etc…)

 

[simpleas]

Yes, it is wrong, because the Church has infallibly declared that all men are born with Original sin.

I do understand and see where you are coming from though. But the key to understanding why we are still born with Original Sin even after Christ’s sacrifice is understanding the difference between nature and grace. We are born naturally descendants of Adam, to be born into Christ we must be “born again” as Jesus commands, through baptism.

By NATURE, we are descendants of Adam, part of a fallen race. As St. Paul describes in Ephesians 2:3 we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” and so we inherit Adam’s sin. We are not by nature incorporated into Christ.

By GRACE, we are made new by Christ and so are cleansed from original sin. But to be incorporated into Christ, we must be born again through baptism. (John 3:5, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-5, Gal 3:27, 1 Pet 3:21 etc…)

Thank you,
This answer has helped alot.

 

[fhansen]

From the CCC.
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
.
If Christ has freed us from the guilt of Adams sin, why are we told we are born with O.S?

Not to say we are not inclined to sin, as its in our human nature,and we need Christs help to stay on the right path, but to me Christ freed us from that first sin, the disobeying of a command from God, by obeying.
Is it wrong for a Catholic to view it like that, and it so why?

It is not our human nature to sin because that would mean God created us to sin, in which case He authored evil, He’d have no right to give us commandments since it would be impossible for us to keep them, much less blame us for not keeping them, and if He then decided to simply forgive and save all He may as well have done that to begin with, in Eden, and avoided all the pain and drama that ensued in human history after, and as a result of, the Fall.

Instead He worked with humans down through the centuries, via the people He chose for that purpose, revealing Himself and His will as they were ready, working out His plan of salvation, ultimately revealing Himself and that plan fully by the revelation embodied in the life of Jesus Christ. But this gives us a choice, as Adam had, because God never forces man to accept Him, to love Him. Rather He showed us His true face, He showed us what love really is in the person of Jesus so we may decide on our own, not without His help, and freely rise just as Adam freely fell, so we may turn back to Him, as we’re willing. The light came into the world; does man necessarily accept it?

 

[simpleas]

It is not our human nature to sin because that would mean God created us to sin, in which case He authored evil, He’d have no right to give us commandments since it would be impossible for us to keep them, much less blame us for not keeping them, and if He then decided to simply forgive and save all He may as well have done that to begin with, in Eden, and avoided all the pain and drama that ensued in human history after, and as a result of, the Fall.

Instead He worked with humans down through the centuries, via the people He chose for that purpose, revealing Himself and His will as they were ready, working out His plan of salvation, ultimately revealing Himself and that plan fully by the revelation embodied in the life of Jesus Christ. But this gives us a choice, as Adam had, because God never forces man to accept Him, to love Him. Rather He showed us His true face, He showed us what love really is in the person of Jesus so we may decide on our own, not without His help, and freely rise just as Adam freely fell, so we may turn back to Him, as we’re willing. The light came into the world; does man necessarily accept it?

Yes, that’s pretty much like saying God could have stopped Adam and Eve from sinning in the first place…knowing all…as God does…and preventing his plan of Human beings becoming what he had intended them to be. Also avoiding having to come down himself to live like the creature he first created, experience what this sin had done to his creature’s and suffer death for them so we can remain in his presence as long as we keep his commandment this time round.

The light came into the world; does man necessarily accept it?

Well as Catholic’s and Christian’s we are brought up to believe the light came into the world. As you say we are free to accept it or reject it.
People of other faith’s recognise Christ (some) but do not see him as the light of the world. So some do not accept him.

Maybe the story of the first two human beings, made full of grace, but still with the ability to commit such a serious sin against God one time, is hard for some 21st century human beings to swallow?
Then to believe in the story of Christ.
Maybe there is too much distraction around us as Humans now than there ever was, so its even harder now to touch into our soul and seek our creator?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Yes.

Did I understand it? No.

Repeating what I wrote doesn’t answer my question?

Seeing as it also says that “all have sinned”, as in us sinning not just being born tainted, so to speak, it seems as if we are inclined to sin and that the bar, so to speak, is too high for any one of us to follow it perfectly.

I didn’t just repeat what you said but copied part of what you wrote in the two sentences I copied:

The first being “The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ”, doesn’t the “universality of salvation in Christ” sound somewhat “universal”?

It definitely sounds as if the “salvation” bought by God-Incarnate’s work on the cross is somehow, ultimately, universal just as the “tainting” of all was universal, doesn’t it?

The second being “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.”, sounds pretty much in your face self-explanatory to me, doesn’t it to you?

I do not believe that God-Incarnate’s work on the cross was in vain and that when Jesus said “It is finished (paid in full)”, He meant exactly what He said.

 

[simpleas]

Seeing as it also says that “all have sinned”, as in us sinning not just being born tainted, so to speak, it seems as if we are inclined to sin and that the bar, so to speak, is too high for any one of us to follow it perfectly.

I didn’t just repeat what you said but copied part of what you wrote in the two sentences I copied:

The first being “The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ”, doesn’t the “universality of salvation in Christ” sound somewhat “universal”?

It definitely sounds as if the “salvation” bought by God-Incarnate’s work on the cross is somehow, ultimately, universal just as the “tainting” of all was universal, doesn’t it?

The second being “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.”, sounds pretty much in your face self-explanatory to me, doesn’t it to you?

I do not believe that God-Incarnate’s work on the cross was in vain and that when Jesus said “It is finished (paid in full)”, He meant exactly what He said.

Thanks for your answer.

I just wasn’t look at it the way Robynp has explained it.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Yes, it is wrong, because the Church has infallibly declared that all men are born with Original sin.

I do understand and see where you are coming from though. But the key to understanding why we are still born with Original Sin even after Christ’s sacrifice is understanding the difference between nature and grace. We are born naturally descendants of Adam, to be born into Christ we must be “born again” as Jesus commands, through baptism.

By NATURE, we are descendants of Adam, part of a fallen race. As St. Paul describes in Ephesians 2:3 we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” and so we inherit Adam’s sin. We are not by nature incorporated into Christ.

By GRACE, we are made new by Christ and so are cleansed from original sin. But to be incorporated into Christ, we must be born again through baptism. (John 3:5, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-5, Gal 3:27, 1 Pet 3:21 etc…)

You wrote, “By NATURE, we are descendants of Adam, part of a fallen race. As St. Paul describes in Ephesians 2:3 we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” and so we inherit Adam’s sin. We are not by nature incorporated into Christ.”

Didn’t Jesus become “part of a fallen race” in His Incarnation?

Jesus was True Man and True God, both created and uncreated, so Jesus is also one of the “descendants of Adam” so wouldn’t Jesus be “by nature (one of the) children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”?

Jesus had to deal with His humanity and I believe that He had to deal with His humanity without His Omni’s.

You wrote, “We are not by nature incorporated into Christ”.

Wasn’t Jesus, by His Incarnation, incorporated, so to speak, into the human race?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Yes, it is wrong, because the Church has infallibly declared that all men are born with Original sin.

c…)

Has the Church or hasn’t the Church also declared that Mary and Jesus were conceived and therefore born without Original sin?

Mary and Jesus were “men” (as in mankind) weren’t they?

So, wouldn’t your statement that “the Church has infallibly declared that all men are born with Original sin” not just be misleading but quite false?

 

[grannymh]

You wrote, “By NATURE, we are descendants of Adam, part of a fallen race. As St. Paul describes in Ephesians 2:3 we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” and so we inherit Adam’s sin. We are not by nature incorporated into Christ.”

Didn’t Jesus become “part of a fallen race” in His Incarnation?

Jesus was True Man and True God, both created and uncreated, so Jesus is also one of the “descendants of Adam” so wouldn’t Jesus be “by nature (one of the) children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”?

Jesus had to deal with His humanity and I believe that He had to deal with His humanity without His Omni’s.

You wrote, “We are not by nature incorporated into Christ”.

Wasn’t Jesus, by His Incarnation, incorporated, so to speak, into the human race?

Jesus assumed human nature. He did not incorporate human nature and He did not absorb human nature. Very big difference. This is known as the Hypostatic Union. (CCC, paragraphs 464-483)

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Has the Church or hasn’t the Church also declared that Mary and Jesus were conceived and therefore born without Original sin?

Mary and Jesus were “men” (as in mankind) weren’t they?

So, wouldn’t your statement that “the Church has infallibly declared that all men are born with Original sin” not just be misleading but quite false?

The exception Mary, a human, was born without Original Sin because she would be the Mother of God. Jesus is God.

Jesus is not man as in mankind. Jesus is one Person with two natures, Divine and Human. Jesus, uniting to Himself in His Person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man. (CCC, 466)

 

[Tom_Baum]

Jesus assumed human nature. He did not incorporate human nature and He did not absorb human nature. Very big difference. This is known as the Hypostatic Union. (CCC, paragraphs 464-483)

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

The exception Mary, a human, was born without Original Sin because she would be the Mother of God. Jesus is God.

Jesus is not man as in mankind. Jesus is Divine. He is one Person with two natures, Divine and Human. Jesus, uniting to Himself in His Person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man. (CCC, 466)

I suppose that you don’t believe in the Incarnation then, since Jesus became a human being just like you and me and every other human being.

“And the Word became Flesh”, Jesus did NOT wear a human body, God became a human being in the Person of Jesus.

 

[Robyn_p]

You wrote, “By NATURE, we are descendants of Adam, part of a fallen race. As St. Paul describes in Ephesians 2:3 we are “by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” and so we inherit Adam’s sin. We are not by nature incorporated into Christ.”

Didn’t Jesus become “part of a fallen race” in His Incarnation?

Jesus was True Man and True God, both created and uncreated, so Jesus is also one of the “descendants of Adam” so wouldn’t Jesus be “by nature (one of the) children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”?

But that’s the point, He’s God. We’re not. Of course He wouldn’t be affected by original sin. I don’t see how that disproves what I said.

Jesus had to deal with His humanity and I believe that He had to deal with His humanity without His Omni’s.

Does that mean He ceased being God? Am I understanding you correctly?

You wrote, “We are not by nature incorporated into Christ”.

Wasn’t Jesus, by His Incarnation, incorporated, so to speak, into the human race?

You keep failing to make the distinction between Jesus, who is God and so of course would have no sin, and us. I stand by what I said, it’s backed up by both Scripture and Tradition, Tom.

Yes, Jesus took on our human nature, and through that we are able by grace to be restored to God’s friendship and become partakers of the divine nature. But that doesn’t mean therefore we are automatically united to Him. And nowhere does the Bible say that. Again, it’s a matter of nature and grace.

Scripture makes abundantly clear exactly how it is we are incorporated into Christ, and it’s not natural or automatic. It’s through baptism. Through grace, not nature. That’s why Jesus explains baptism as being “born again”. We are born naturally into Adam, we must be born again into Christ.

This is biblical. I’m not sure what more there is to say.

 

[Robyn_p]

Has the Church or hasn’t the Church also declared that Mary and Jesus were conceived and therefore born without Original sin?

Mary and Jesus were “men” (as in mankind) weren’t they?

So, wouldn’t your statement that “the Church has infallibly declared that all men are born with Original sin” not just be misleading but quite false?

If anything, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception strengthens my statement.

The whole point of defining that dogma was because it was a unique event, if we all are born without Original Sin, then there’s no need to define it. That would be like defining Mary had DNA. Yeah, so does every human being on the planet. Big deal.

The decree of Pope Pius IX says Mary’s Immaculate Conception was a “SINGULAR grace from almighty God.” Because of the role Mary was to play in salvation history and because of the merits of her Son. It was singular, unique. If God hadn’t preserved her, she would have contracted original sin just like the rest of us.

 

[simpleas]

The way I look at it (be it wrong) Is that God preserved Mary from the O.S so that she could carry and give birth to the son of God.
When the son of God died on the cross for the sin of Adam, he fixed the fault and we can be no longer accused of that first sin.
But it didn’t work that way, because we can still fall as Adam did. So we are still inclined to sin, even if we are baptised.
Theres no magic wand so to say.
We when are born again in Christ, through baptism, we need to keep seeking the light.

 

[Tom_Baum]

But that’s the point, He’s God. We’re not. Of course He wouldn’t be affected by original sin. I don’t see how that disproves what I said.

Does that mean He ceased being God? Am I understanding you correctly?

You keep failing to make the distinction between Jesus, who is God and so of course would have no sin, and us. I stand by what I said, it’s backed up by both Scripture and Tradition, Tom.

Yes, Jesus took on our human nature, and through that we are able by grace to be restored to God’s friendship and become partakers of the divine nature. But that doesn’t mean therefore we are automatically united to Him. And nowhere does the Bible say that. Again, it’s a matter of nature and grace.

Scripture makes abundantly clear exactly how it is we are incorporated into Christ, and it’s not natural or automatic. It’s through baptism. Through grace, not nature. That’s why Jesus explains baptism as being “born again”. We are born naturally into Adam, we must be born again into Christ.

This is biblical. I’m not sure what more there is to say.

Robyn p

I wrote, “Jesus had to deal with His humanity and I believe that He had to deal with His humanity without His Omni’s.”

You asked, “Does that mean He ceased being God? Am I understanding you correctly?”

No, I guess that you are not understanding me correctly, I am saying that the Second Person of the Trinity became One of us and voluntarily gave up His Omni’s so that He could be just as human as any other human being and that He came here, so to speak, just as empty-headed as the rest of us, it is even written of Jesus that He grew in Grace and Stature, or something to that effect, before God and man.

If Jesus, at birth and during His earthly life, was Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent how could he possibly grow and how could He possibly be like us in all ways except for sin?

God Is a Being of Love and God-Incarnate was a Being of Love and a human being, True God and True Man.

You also wrote, “Scripture makes abundantly clear exactly how it is we are incorporated into Christ, and it’s not natural or automatic. It’s through baptism. Through grace, not nature. That’s why Jesus explains baptism as being “born again”. We are born naturally into Adam, we must be born again into Christ.”

We seem to put a time limit on being “born again”, we also seem to tell God and man that we know just how and just how only a person can be “born again”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

If anything, the teaching of the Immaculate Conception strengthens my statement.

The whole point of defining that dogma was because it was a unique event, if we all are born without Original Sin, then there’s no need to define it. That would be like defining Mary had DNA. Yeah, so does every human being on the planet. Big deal.

The decree of Pope Pius IX says Mary’s Immaculate Conception was a “SINGULAR grace from almighty God.” Because of the role Mary was to play in salvation history and because of the merits of her Son. It was singular, unique. If God hadn’t preserved her, she would have contracted original sin just like the rest of us.

I am not saying this is true but it is something to think about:

From a biological point of view, when the “fall” happened, all was tainted except for two eggs and one sperm cell.

One egg and one sperm cell became Mary and the other egg became Jesus.

No one in the entire history of this planet could have been Mary except for Mary and this is why I believe that Gabriel was in full Angelic attire, whatever that might be, when Gabriel came to ask Mary what Mary was asked and Mary answered YES.

God “knew” that Mary would say YES but Mary had to, of her own free will, say YES.

As I have said many times, God has had a Plan since before creation and God’s Plan will come to Fruition.

 

[grannymh]

Robyn p

I wrote, “Jesus had to deal with His humanity and I believe that He had to deal with His humanity without His Omni’s.”

You asked, “Does that mean He ceased being God? Am I understanding you correctly?”

No, I guess that you are not understanding me correctly,** I am saying that the Second Person of the Trinity became One of us and voluntarily gave up His Omni’s so that He could be just as human as any other human being and that He came here, so to speak, just as empty-headed as the rest of us, it is even written of Jesus that He grew in Grace and Stature, or something to that effect, before God and man.**

If Jesus, at birth and during His earthly life, was Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent how could he possibly grow and how could He possibly be like us in all ways except for sin?

God Is a Being of Love and God-Incarnate was a Being of Love and a human being, True God and True Man.

You also wrote, “Scripture makes abundantly clear exactly how it is we are incorporated into Christ, and it’s not natural or automatic. It’s through baptism. Through grace, not nature. That’s why Jesus explains baptism as being “born again”. We are born naturally into Adam, we must be born again into Christ.”

We seem to put a time limit on being “born again”, we also seem to tell God and man that we know just how and just how only a person can be “born again”.

I put in bold the points which need to be clarified with Catholic doctrine. We cannot say that Jesus came here, so to speak, just as empty-headed as the rest of us. (CCC, 471-474)

When we say that Jesus is True God and True Man, this means that Jesus is truly, fully, completely Divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, every minute of every day on planet earth. It also means that Jesus, willingly and freely assumed human nature in order to stand in for Adam and descendants since neither Adam nor we are God. Assuming human nature means that Jesus had a normal human anatomy from the moment of conception. Since Jesus was assuming human nature and was not absorbing human nature, He was still God with all the Omni’s. Assuming human nature is why we can say that Jesus, True God, grew in “grace and stature”.

This difficult Catholic doctrine is known as the Hypostatic Union – The union of both the divine and human natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ.
CCC, 470 and CCC, 2599 should answer your questions. CCC, 479-483 is a basic explanation. CCC, 470-478 has a longer explanation. CCC, 464-469 gives the background.

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[Tom_Baum]

I happen to believe that Jesus became One of us just like it says and that He learned and grew, just like the rest of us and that He was just as empty headed just like the rest of us at birth, “in all ways just like us except for sin” and that He wasn’t lying when He said that He “didn’t know when He was coming back”.

I don’t know what “assuming human nature” even means and I also do not care what it means, the Second Person of the Trinity, how Jesus is referred to in the Trinitarian God, became human, He didn’t assume Flesh, He became Flesh, He became a human being.

I believe that the Incarnation simply means that God became One of us and I, for one, do not need a bunch of fancy words for an explanation and I happen to “know” that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus since the Holy Spirit revealed this to me and I don’t need some quasi-scientific explanation for this, It Is simply True.