How, exactly, does Original Sin make us inclined to sin?

[fhansen]

Original Sin inclines us to sin.

These days, we know that many of the things that traditionally have been understood to be sinful have a biological/natural basis within the person. Individuals can be more prone to anger or getting drunk, for example, simply because that is how their brain works. Even more modern issues of morality, like homosexuality, often assume a possible biological/natural basis.

The perplexity/question then is this: Knowing what we do from science – how our inclinations to act sinful are often thanks to biological factors and conditions – what do we mean when we say that Original Sin is the cause of our inclination to sin? Do we mean that Original Sin affected our biology? This would be an interesting claim, since humans were put in a world that already had discrepancies in nature, even before the Fall: tornadoes, earthquakes, and thorns all existed before humans arrived on the scene. It would seem out of place for humans to exist on a different level in a world that already had these conditions.

So what then of original sin? Perhaps could it mean it is a lack of the ability to integrate our biological selves with a greater inclination to love God?

“Apart from me you can do nothing” John 15:5.
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt 19:26

Man has no righteousness, no integrity, no wholeness, apart from God. Man was made for communion with God. But we’re born out of communion, spiritually dead, lost, going our own way with no real moral groundedness, no knowledge of God until we find Him and we’re found by Him. Only in communion with God does man overcome death, and can man overcome sin. That’s the New Covenant in a nutshell.

 

[cfauster]

The following comes from The Historicity of Adam And Eve (Part II: The Doctrine of Original Sin) by Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P.

When our first parents disobeyed God with the original sin, they rejected Him and with Him, all of His gifts. Without the preternatural and the preteradaptive gifts, these fallen human beings thereafter became subject to death, to suffering, to error-filled knowledge, to weakness of will, and to disordered desire. In other words, they became subject to the interior struggle that is the source of our brokenness.

Notice that this account of original sin sees the effect of original sin, not as an addition to or a corruption of human nature – certainly not as a tendency to evil or a perversion that makes the human being evil as such – but as a privation of that nature, an absence, a lack, a wound, that leaves human beings struggling with the consequences of their nature as it had been created and evolved. It is this struggle that makes the human person prone to evil acts though he himself is not inherently evil.

Significantly, the Catholic Church teaches, as St. Thomas Aquinas had explained, that God had intended our first parents to give their descendants the blessings of original justice. When they lost the gifts, however, they could not give it to their posterity. Thus, the Council of Trent (1546) would teach that original sin is transmitted by propagation and imitation.

Note that some may read this statement by the Council of Trent – that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not by imitation – as a claim that original sin is transmitted biologically. However, the consequences of original sin are privations in the soul of the human being. Because of the original sin, his soul lacks grace and the preternatural gifts. Thus, when the Council of Trent teaches that the consequences of the original sin – our fallen human nature – are transmitted by propagation and not by imitation, we should understand this as a metaphysical and not a biological claim. As immaterial spirit, our soul and its properties are not determined by our genes. Instead, when God creates our souls when we are conceived, He creates them without the graces and gifts that we should have inherited from our original parents.

To summarize the Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin, the Catechism puts it as follows:
The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. 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. (CCC, no. 404)

 

[MrSnaith]

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.

This right here is really the answer to the question. Original Sin deprives us of Original Holiness and Original Justice. These are not biological attributes, but spiritual ones.

But what is Original Holiness and what is Original Justice?

From the CCC:

375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”.

376 By the radiance of this grace all dimensions of man’s life were confirmed. As long as he remained in the divine intimacy, man would not have to suffer or die. The inner harmony of the human person, the harmony between man and woman, and finally the harmony between the first couple and all creation, comprised the state called “original justice”.

So, Original Sin caused us to:

1. Lose out on sharing in God’s Divine Life,
2. Lose our interior harmony (the harmony between the two aspects of our one nature: spirit and body),
3. Lose the harmony between man and woman, and
4. Lose the harmony between mankind and creation.

It must be pointed out, now, that sins deriving from our biology are not the only kinds of sins. Sins against God derive from spiritual malice, for example. Sins against creation don’t necessarily derive from our passions, but from indifference, as another example.

More importantly, however, that we sin out of the flesh, or from genetic predispositions, etc, is really strongly related to 2). We have a disordered nature, our inner order has been disrupted. Before the Fall, our spiritual faculties and appetites superseded, by the authority of their higher natures, the bodily faculties and appetites. In other words, our intellects and wills were perfect, and had complete authority over the body. All bodily desires were subject to the spiritual faculties.

After the Fall, that harmony of order was broken, and the flesh rebelled against the spirit. Our intellects and wills became subject to the flesh; our intellects were darkened and our wills were enslaved.

The inclination to sin comes from this disordered nature, whereby we’re inclined to gratify the body, over and above the greater goods of the spirit. We’re inclined to sin in other ways of course. Out of the disharmony between man and woman, for example, we’re inclined to use each other. Men are inclined to dominate women, and women are inclined to manipulate men. And this inclination derives from the natural goods of authority and love, but is a result of a fundamental distrust between the two, a broken relationship.

And I think that’s really what all of these boil down to: broken relationship. We do not share in God’s Divine Life because of a broken relationship (that of disobedience) with Him. We do not have inner harmony because we elected to perform an act that was a contradiction to our created purpose: we harm we wrought, we wrought against ourselves. We do not have spousal harmony because the sin came about through an interaction between the spouses, a collusion in sin, and that is always harmful to relationship. We do not have harmony with creation because the deceit came from creation, a lie to love the lower order over the higher order, to love creation over God.

 

[MrSnaith]

To bolster my point:

From the CCC:

377 The “mastery” over the world that God offered man from the beginning was realized above all within man himself: mastery of self. The first man was unimpaired and ordered in his whole being because he was free from the triple concupiscence that subjugates him to the pleasures of the senses, covetousness for earthly goods, and self-assertion, contrary to the dictates of reason.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This right here is really the answer to the question. Original Sin deprives us of Original Holiness and Original Justice. These are not biological attributes, but spiritual ones.

But what is Original Holiness and what is Original Justice?

From the CCC:

So, Original Sin caused us to:

1. Lose out on sharing in God’s Divine Life,
2. Lose our interior harmony (the harmony between the two aspects of our one nature: spirit and body),
3. Lose the harmony between man and woman, and
4. Lose the harmony between mankind and creation.

It must be pointed out, now, that sins deriving from our biology are not the only kinds of sins. Sins against God derive from spiritual malice, for example. Sins against creation don’t necessarily derive from our passions, but from indifference, as another example.

More importantly, however, that we sin out of the flesh, or from genetic predispositions, etc, is really strongly related to 2). We have a disordered nature, our inner order has been disrupted. Before the Fall, our spiritual faculties and appetites superseded, by the authority of their higher natures, the bodily faculties and appetites. In other words, our intellects and wills were perfect, and had complete authority over the body. All bodily desires were subject to the spiritual faculties.

After the Fall, that harmony of order was broken, and the flesh rebelled against the spirit. Our intellects and wills became subject to the flesh; our intellects were darkened and our wills were enslaved.

The inclination to sin comes from this disordered nature, whereby we’re inclined to gratify the body, over and above the greater goods of the spirit. We’re inclined to sin in other ways of course. Out of the disharmony between man and woman, for example, we’re inclined to use each other. Men are inclined to dominate women, and women are inclined to manipulate men. And this inclination derives from the natural goods of authority and love, but is a result of a fundamental distrust between the two, a broken relationship.

And I think that’s really what all of these boil down to: broken relationship. We do not share in God’s Divine Life because of a broken relationship (that of disobedience) with Him. We do not have inner harmony because we elected to perform an act that was a contradiction to our created purpose: we harm we wrought, we wrought against ourselves. We do not have spousal harmony because the sin came about through an interaction between the spouses, a collusion in sin, and that is always harmful to relationship. We do not have harmony with creation because the deceit came from creation, a lie to love the lower order over the higher order, to love creation over God.

Thank you for the elaboration.

Some other questions I now have would be:

(1) In what sense are humans culpable for their actions (specifically, their sins), when their current nature is “disordered,” with the flesh “rebelling against the spirit,” and our intellects “darkened” and wills “enslaved,” causing an overall inclination to sin? Original Sin may not be a positive punishment from God, but I am still having a hard time seeing the intrinsic connection between the effects of Original Sin on the whole human race and the sin of the first man.

To use a pertinent example on today’s radar (even if one were to disagree with the example). Bear with me. How fair would it to impute culpability on the homosexual who chooses to follow his desires to form a romantic relationship, when in fact he has a will that is enslaved, an intellect that is darkened, and a flesh that is in naturally in rebellion? In what sense (generally speaking) would such an individual be culpable?

(2) So with what has been said, am I to think that the biological factors relating to sin are NOT consequences of the Fall? To use homosexuality: Are any hormonal or genetic conditions relating to the orientation/“condition” purely natural, as a result of God’s creation, and not a defect spring forth from Original Sin?

And if such biological inclinations to sin are purely natural and normal, is it the case that a pre-fallen humanity would simply be able to deal with these conditions better?

 

[catholic1seeks]

The following comes from The Historicity of Adam And Eve (Part II: The Doctrine of Original Sin) by Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P.

When our first parents disobeyed God with the original sin, they rejected Him and with Him, all of His gifts. Without the preternatural and the preteradaptive gifts, these fallen human beings thereafter became subject to death, to suffering, to error-filled knowledge, to weakness of will, and to disordered desire. In other words, they became subject to the interior struggle that is the source of our brokenness.

Notice that this account of original sin sees the effect of original sin, not as an addition to or a corruption of human nature – certainly not as a tendency to evil or a perversion that makes the human being evil as such – but as a privation of that nature, an absence, a lack, a wound, that leaves human beings struggling with the consequences of their nature as it had been created and evolved. It is this struggle that makes the human person prone to evil acts though he himself is not inherently evil.

Significantly, the Catholic Church teaches, as St. Thomas Aquinas had explained, that God had intended our first parents to give their descendants the blessings of original justice. When they lost the gifts, however, they could not give it to their posterity. Thus, the Council of Trent (1546) would teach that original sin is transmitted by propagation and imitation.

Note that some may read this statement by the Council of Trent – that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not by imitation – as a claim that original sin is transmitted biologically. However, the consequences of original sin are privations in the soul of the human being. Because of the original sin, his soul lacks grace and the preternatural gifts. Thus, when the Council of Trent teaches that the consequences of the original sin – our fallen human nature – are transmitted by propagation and not by imitation, we should understand this as a metaphysical and not a biological claim. As immaterial spirit, our soul and its properties are not determined by our genes. Instead, when God creates our souls when we are conceived, He creates them without the graces and gifts that we should have inherited from our original parents.

To summarize the Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin, the Catechism puts it as follows:

The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. 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. (CCC, no. 404)

(1) So would it be adequate to say that fallen humanity is simply humanity lacking in special (“preternatural”) gifts? That is, everything we as humans experience now is basically what humans would experience, anyways, if they were not given extra gifts – experiences including disease, pain, and death (like that which has always existed for animals in the natural world).

(2) Any maybe if you could, what insight do you have relating to the intrinsic connection between the first sin of our first parents and the taking away of these special gifts from all of humanity?

 

[cfauster]

(1) So would it be adequate to say that fallen humanity is simply humanity lacking in special (“preternatural”) gifts? That is, everything we as humans experience now is basically what humans would experience, anyways, if they were not given extra gifts – experiences including disease, pain, and death (like that which has always existed for animals in the natural world).

(2) Any maybe if you could, what insight do you have relating to the intrinsic connection between the first sin of our first parents and the taking away of these special gifts from all of humanity?

Good questions.

If I accurately understand both you and Rev. Nicanor Austriaco, I think he would say that you’ve accurately stated his position.

If one looks for physical evidence of original righteousness (the innocent, pristine state before any sin or any consequences of sin), it cannot be found. Either it never existed, or it left no physical evidence. Rev. Austriaco suggests the latter.

One reason it left no physical evidence is that it existed such a short time. Before the very first true humans had any children, they had already sinned and lost those gifts. So yes, lacking those gifts, all humans naturally experience the physical disease, pain and death that other creatures also experience. Christ’s resurrection is the first fruits of a “new creation.” Those who live and die in Christ will share in that resurrection and finally possess those extra gifts (and more).

As far as the connection between the first sin and the loss of the extra gifts, I don’t have any special insights, but I’m struck by the two trees in Eden. Had our first parents not sinned, it seems that they would have been able to access the Tree of Life. Maybe such access would have been necessary for those extra gifts to be retained. Lacking such access, those extra gifts were lost.

Personally I suspect that the Tree of Life might be a metaphor. Nonetheless, whether literal or metaphorical, something very special and quite unlike anything we experience in our lives was, according to Austriaco’s reading, intended by God contingent upon the first humans choosing to accept God’s commands.

I can’t speculate on whether God had the option to still give our first parents and their descendents those extra gifts despite the first sin. In other words, I don’t know if the connection between the first sin and the loss of those gifts is completely intrinsic, as in some kind of natural cause-and-effect law. Maybe instead the gifts were lost because the first sin broke a religious/legal law, so God then enforced the law, implementing consequences that God had warned would follow such disobedience.

 

[ynotzap]

I do think that some of the prestine state of Adam can be found in the lives of the saints, through spiritual advancement they experience these gifts of holiness and righteousness. Even some of their bodies remain incorrupted, and they have experienced contact with God, ecstacies. Their are some 250 known cases. Adam and Eve as stated, failed an easy test of fidelity to God, they disobeyed and they were not ignorant, they knew the full consequences of their disobedience, death, the loss of grace which they were given, contact with God. Their’s was the sin of pride, as was Satan’s. They lost their communication with God, and could not redeem it, it was freely given, not merited. God had a plan to redeem fallible man, because he could not redeem himself. Mankind inherited this curse from Adam who represented humanity, created in a perfect state, yet not obtaining total perfection in holiness, he lost sanctifying grace, the Holy Spirit. This loss caused a great disorder in humanity. The passion of men (signified by the scene where “they found themselves naked” they hid themselves in shame (they were naked before without shame) they experienced guilt. Now mankind incurred a leaning or proclivity to follow the dictates of passions contrary to right reason, the rule of the mind, men went against their nature which is “a rational one governed by right reason” and committed “irrational things” It is not because passion is sinful, it is natural, but it is because without sanctifying grace, man’s intelligence and reason are weak from lack of will power, and truth, the work of the Holy Spirit, who gives will power, and knowledge, and desire for holiness. Man is spiritually crippled. When Jesus came, He came to give mankind His Holy Spirit which was lost by Adam, not merited, but freely given, as all grace is. Also man inherited “self will” vs God’s will he will fight for what he desires no matter right or wrong.

 

[ericc]

Do you think stupidity is the cause of sin? I do not.

What is it about supernatural grace that makes sin impossible?

There is nothing missing in why A & E fell. They were given a command and the consequences for not obeying. They were not stupid, and were properly instructed. On the prompting of the serpent, they gave up their trust in God and let pride (passion), and not their intellect, rule.

Why is supernatural grace not sufficient for A & E to prevent them from disobedience? Because a serpent sweet-talk them? I’d think supernatural grace has a lot more going for it. I don’t know, donning God’s armour or something like that. In the Garden where they lack nothing, that grace given didn’t give sufficient protection. It is not like they are surrounded by lots and lots of temptations.

It is sort of a puzzle for me. Why couldn’t they resist such a temptation in an environment where they were cared and loved by God. If not stupidity, then naivety as the cause of the downfall.

 

[fhansen]

Why is supernatural grace not sufficient for A & E to prevent them from disobedience? Because a serpent sweet-talk them? I’d think supernatural grace has a lot more going for it. I don’t know, donning God’s armour or something like that. In the Garden where they lack nothing, that grace given didn’t give sufficient protection. It is not like they are surrounded by lots and lots of temptations.

It is sort of a puzzle for me. Why couldn’t they resist such a temptation in an environment where they were cared and loved by God. If not stupidity, then naivety as the cause of the downfall.

In any case man’s will is involved. From the Carechism:
**1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27**

God won’t force love and obedience; he wants us to play our own part-in our justice. Our justice comes from our willingness to allow God to be God, to allow Him to be the author of our justice/righteousness, for Him to be our justice, rather than ourselves. Our justice is achieved as we come to fulfill the first and greatest commandment, to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. Obedience is the natural offspring of this love. Adam failed in this willingness, for whatever reason. We’re here now to learn, with the help of grace, why Adam was wrong, and how to become right.

 

[MrSnaith]

(1) In what sense are humans culpable for their actions (specifically, their sins), when their current nature is “disordered,” with the flesh “rebelling against the spirit,” and our intellects “darkened” and wills “enslaved,” causing an overall inclination to sin? Original Sin may not be a positive punishment from God, but I am still having a hard time seeing the intrinsic connection between the effects of Original Sin on the whole human race and the sin of the first man.

Yes, our human nature has been disordered, and as a result our intellects are darkened and our wills enslaved and our flesh in rebellion. These things, though, are not perfect. That is, our wills are not perfectly enslaved, or our intellects perfectly darkened. Our spirits do not have no power over our flesh.

It might be helpful to think of these effects as a spectrum. The more we practice discipline, the more control over ourselves we have. The more we give in to vice, the less control we have, the less rational we become.

Culpability is likewise something of a spectrum. The more disciplined one is, the more rational and clear-headed one is, the more one is guilty of the sins he commits. That is, the more responsible he is of the crime. As far as emotional guilt goes, he is less bound to it because he is more capable of freeing himself from it, picking himself back up and asking for forgiveness. The deeper one is steeped in sin, the less rational and free to do the good he is, but his responsibility for each of his crimes is diminished. However, the emotional weight of that guilt is staggering, like a mountain that that can’t be overcome. He is less able to pick himself up after each fall, less able to seek forgiveness, thinking himself unworthy of it.

The relationship between original sin and our sin is this: the original sin, regardless of what it actually was, was a sin committed out of perfect freedom, with a fully enlightened intellect, with a full realization of its ramifications, and it therefore carries with it the full weight of responsibility and guilt. Our sins, however, are significantly less than it was, in magnitude, in responsibility and guilt, being born our of ignorance, or our passions, etc. The only sins that come remotely close to the severity of that original sin are those sins that are mortal, since those sins come from an enlightened intellect (as enlightened as it can be) and a free will (as free as it can be).

To use a pertinent example on today’s radar (even if one were to disagree with the example). Bear with me. How fair would it to impute culpability on the homosexual who chooses to follow his desires to form a romantic relationship, when in fact he has a will that is enslaved, an intellect that is darkened, and a flesh that is in naturally in rebellion? In what sense (generally speaking) would such an individual be culpable?

First, to be clear, a loving relationship between two people of the same sex is okay, as long as it is “platonic” in nature, if you understand. That said, regarding the guilt of homosexual actions, it can be spoken of in the same light as any other sin. For example, what guilt does the man who cheats on his wife have? It depends on the degree of freedom he has in the action and his level of knowledge regarding the sinfulness of the action.

Note that it is very difficult to say that anyone has absolutely no guilt in a freely chosen sin. This is because the laws of nature and of God are written in the heart of every man. Sin clouds our intellect and reason. So, the more we sin the less clear the truth of such matters becomes. And, thought being in original sin clouds things from the start, things are not perfectly unclear. Not are they perfectly clear.

(2) So with what has been said, am I to think that the biological factors relating to sin are NOT consequences of the Fall? To use homosexuality: Are any hormonal or genetic conditions relating to the orientation/“condition” purely natural, as a result of God’s creation, and not a defect spring forth from Original Sin?

I wouldn’t say this, exactly. I would say that there are biological consequences to original sin, but not in the sense that those consequences are directly related to the sin. What I mean is that things like genetic disorders, genetic predispositions to sin, etc., are not immediate effects of original sin. Rather, such things are natural to the flesh. Prior to the Fall, we had freedom from such defects of the flesh because of our properly ordered natures (authority of the spirit over the flesh) and because of the preternatural gifts that we were created with. And since those things were lost in the Fall, those things that are natural to the flesh have become a reality to us, like death.

And if such biological inclinations to sin are purely natural and normal, is it the case that a pre-fallen humanity would simply be able to deal with these conditions better?

Pre-fall humanity would not have been subject to such desires and defects, as I noted above.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Yes, our human nature has been disordered, and as a result our intellects are darkened and our wills enslaved and our flesh in rebellion. These things, though, are not perfect. That is, our wills are not perfectly enslaved, or our intellects perfectly darkened. Our spirits do not have no power over our flesh.

It might be helpful to think of these effects as a spectrum. The more we practice discipline, the more control over ourselves we have. The more we give in to vice, the less control we have, the less rational we become.

Thanks for engaging the issue.

The question I think that arises, once we really get to think about it, is what in the nature of our parent’s first sin caused their human nature and the rest of mankind’s human nature to have a darkened intellect and a will that is so inclined to sin? What is the intrinsic connection? Is it an arbitrary punishment? Or is it, like I stated above, simply allowing human nature to be what it would have been, in the natural world, without the special preternatural gifts? That, it seems, makes sense to me. Human nature now seems like it makes sense in the limited world we live in.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Yes, our human nature has been disordered, and as a result our intellects are darkened and our wills enslaved and our flesh in rebellion. These things, though, are not perfect. That is, our wills are not perfectly enslaved, or our intellects perfectly darkened. Our spirits do not have no power over our flesh.

It might be helpful to think of these effects as a spectrum. The more we practice discipline, the more control over ourselves we have. The more we give in to vice, the less control we have, the less rational we become.

Culpability is likewise something of a spectrum. The more disciplined one is, the more rational and clear-headed one is, the more one is guilty of the sins he commits. That is, the more responsible he is of the crime. As far as emotional guilt goes, he is less bound to it because he is more capable of freeing himself from it, picking himself back up and asking for forgiveness. The deeper one is steeped in sin, the less rational and free to do the good he is, but his responsibility for each of his crimes is diminished. However, the emotional weight of that guilt is staggering, like a mountain that that can’t be overcome. He is less able to pick himself up after each fall, less able to seek forgiveness, thinking himself unworthy of it.

The relationship between original sin and our sin is this: the original sin, regardless of what it actually was, was a sin committed out of perfect freedom, with a fully enlightened intellect, with a full realization of its ramifications, and it therefore carries with it the full weight of responsibility and guilt. Our sins, however, are significantly less than it was, in magnitude, in responsibility and guilt, being born our of ignorance, or our passions, etc. The only sins that come remotely close to the severity of that original sin are those sins that are mortal, since those sins come from an enlightened intellect (as enlightened as it can be) and a free will (as free as it can be).

First, to be clear, a loving relationship between two people of the same sex is okay, as long as it is “platonic” in nature, if you understand. That said, regarding the guilt of homosexual actions, it can be spoken of in the same light as any other sin. For example, what guilt does the man who cheats on his wife have? It depends on the degree of freedom he has in the action and his level of knowledge regarding the sinfulness of the action.

Note that it is very difficult to say that anyone has absolutely no guilt in a freely chosen sin. This is because the laws of nature and of God are written in the heart of every man. Sin clouds our intellect and reason. So, the more we sin the less clear the truth of such matters becomes. And, thought being in original sin clouds things from the start, things are not perfectly unclear. Not are they perfectly clear.

I wouldn’t say this, exactly. I would say that there are biological consequences to original sin, but not in the sense that those consequences are directly related to the sin. What I mean is that things like genetic disorders, genetic predispositions to sin, etc., are not immediate effects of original sin. Rather, such things are natural to the flesh. Prior to the Fall, we had freedom from such defects of the flesh because of our properly ordered natures (authority of the spirit over the flesh) and because of the preternatural gifts that we were created with. And since those things were lost in the Fall, those things that are natural to the flesh have become a reality to us, like death.

Pre-fall humanity would not have been subject to such desires and defects, as I noted above.

Your answer, by the way, is AWESOME.
THANKS so much.


I like want to save this answer somewhere. People really need to understand what you just wrote. There are so many conceptions of Original Sin and the Fall that make our faith look wacky to the point of making God hand out arbitrary punishment.

 

[cfauster]

If I might quote one of my favorite Lutheran theologians:

Chapters 3 through 11 of Genesis picture not so much an abrupt fall as a gradual process of falling. The model that I have suggested is one of humanity taking the wrong road. Instead of following the path the Creator intended that would lead to union with God, the earliest humans (we need not decide how many individuals or groups there were or when or where this happened) took a path leading in another direction, away from God. Succeeding generations grew up in a toxic atmosphere of alienation from God, a culture of sinfulness. Both this culture and their biological inclinations exacerbated the condition of humans and contributed to passing it on.

In other words, both biology and culture contributed to the transmission of a common sinfulness of origin. The biological factor is not a direct transmission of sin as Augustine thought—there is no gene for sin. And the cultural factor is not a matter of simply following a bad example, as Pelagius held, but the effect of a poisonous atmosphere that we take in automatically.

So, to pursue the model, humanity was soon “lost in the woods”—hopelessly astray as far as human possibilities are concerned. (Which is simply to say that we can’t save ourselves.) Creation was becoming more and more corrupt. If God’s purpose was to be reached, the spiritual course of the world would have to be reoriented. If I want to go from Akron to Cleveland, I can take I-77 north. If I’m not paying attention and get on that interstate going south, I won’t get there by continuing to drive in the wrong direction. I need to turn around and start going back toward my destination.

This process of getting us turned back toward the goal is God’s work of new creation. In the biblical story it begins in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram …

Finally, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son” (Galatians 4:4) for the decisive work of reorientation. Given the usual fate of people who challenge idols, we can’t imagine that either the Father or the Son didn’t know that something like the cross lay ahead. It wouldn’t even require divine foreknowledge. Nevertheless, this wasn’t a matter of “divine child abuse,” as atonement is sometimes caricatured. It was a matter of the Father willingly giving up his Son and the Son of God accepting suffering and death in order not only to save sinners but to reorient creation toward its goal.

Above comes from
biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-original-sins-part-2

 

[MrSnaith]

Thanks for engaging the issue.

You’re very welcome.

The question I think that arises, once we really get to think about it, is what in the nature of our parent’s first sin caused their human nature and the rest of mankind’s human nature to have a darkened intellect and a will that is so inclined to sin? What is the intrinsic connection? Is it an arbitrary punishment?

I’m going to jump into this question with you. I’ve wrestled with the question of the first sin a lot myself, so I hope what I have to offer is helpful.

No, I don’t think it’s an arbitrary punishment. That’s not how God works, if we are to believe He is at all a God of justice. Consequences of actions always flow naturally from the nature of the act and the actor. I think that second part is important. You appear to be focusing on the nature of the sin to answer the question of why the consequences are what they are. I would say that who and what we are is as important as what we do.

I’m going to return to the discussion of the two things which compose our being: spirit and flesh. But we are a union of the two. A true union. What I mean is that you cannot point to any part of my being and say: there, that’s spirit, or there, that’s flesh. Rather, when you point to any part my being, you are pointing to both spirit and flesh. In us, these two realities are indivisible, and therefore indistinguishable.

This is strange, because these two realities are apparent opposites. Flesh is extended, spirit is not, flesh is sensual, spirit is intellectual, etc. What this means is that our actions are always both from the flesh and from the spirit, at the same time. It is not one or the other in any given action. It is always both.

Therefore, our actions are always intellectual to some degree, and always sensual to some degree. Our actions are always free to some degree, and also driven to some degree.

The proper order of our humanity is not the domination of the flesh by the spirit, but rather a cooperation of the flesh with the spirit. Our intellects and senses informed our minds harmoniously. Our choices and our desires were directed toward the good harmoniously. That was our nature, that is our proper nature.

All sin darkens the intellect and enslaves the will, regardless of what it is. This is because all sin is contrary to reason (thus damaging our intellect) and freedom (thus damaging our will). It is this damage that we call “darkening” and “enslavement.” Sin has other effects, yes, depending on what it is, but all sin shares this in common. This is why Original Sin has these effects on all of us, because these effects are common to all sin.

Moreover, since we are images of God, analogies of Him, if you will, then how we interact with Him both determines and derives from our internal state. So, in the original sin, we reversed the order of reality. We, that which is lower in nature, rebelled against and acted discordantly with God, who is the highest nature. Therefore, the result on our own internal nature is that, that which is lower in nature, the flesh, now rebels against that which is higher in nature, the spirit. And so we are inclined to sin because of this internal rebellion, this internal discord.

Or is it, like I stated above, simply allowing human nature to be what it would have been, in the natural world, without the special preternatural gifts? That, it seems, makes sense to me. Human nature now seems like it makes sense in the limited world we live in.

No, I wouldn’t say this. The preternatural gifts crowned our being, but even without them we would have been worlds different than we are now. What you’ve said here suggests to me that you equivocate human nature with human flesh. We are subject to the flesh, but that is not human nature as God created it. That is fallen human nature.

Your answer, by the way, is AWESOME.
THANKS so much.

Thanks!

 

[MrSnaith]

If I might quote one of my favorite Lutheran theologians:

Chapters 3 through 11 of Genesis picture not so much an abrupt fall as a gradual process of falling. The model that I have suggested is one of humanity taking the wrong road. Instead of following the path the Creator intended that would lead to union with God, the earliest humans (we need not decide how many individuals or groups there were or when or where this happened) took a path leading in another direction, away from God. Succeeding generations grew up in a toxic atmosphere of alienation from God, a culture of sinfulness. Both this culture and their biological inclinations exacerbated the condition of humans and contributed to passing it on.

In other words, both biology and culture contributed to the transmission of a common sinfulness of origin. The biological factor is not a direct transmission of sin as Augustine thought—there is no gene for sin. And the cultural factor is not a matter of simply following a bad example, as Pelagius held, but the effect of a poisonous atmosphere that we take in automatically.

So, to pursue the model, humanity was soon “lost in the woods”—hopelessly astray as far as human possibilities are concerned. (Which is simply to say that we can’t save ourselves.) Creation was becoming more and more corrupt. If God’s purpose was to be reached, the spiritual course of the world would have to be reoriented. If I want to go from Akron to Cleveland, I can take I-77 north. If I’m not paying attention and get on that interstate going south, I won’t get there by continuing to drive in the wrong direction. I need to turn around and start going back toward my destination.

This process of getting us turned back toward the goal is God’s work of new creation. In the biblical story it begins in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram …

Finally, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son” (Galatians 4:4) for the decisive work of reorientation. Given the usual fate of people who challenge idols, we can’t imagine that either the Father or the Son didn’t know that something like the cross lay ahead. It wouldn’t even require divine foreknowledge. Nevertheless, this wasn’t a matter of “divine child abuse,” as atonement is sometimes caricatured. It was a matter of the Father willingly giving up his Son and the Son of God accepting suffering and death in order not only to save sinners but to reorient creation toward its goal.

Above comes from
biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-the-original-sins-part-2

The problem with this, inescapably, is that if the fall was gradual, then redemption also should be possibly gradual. I know this is repudiated in the above reasoning with reference to a “toxic atmosphere” that it was not possible for us to escape. But I don’t see that it follows. If the atmospheric toxicity gradually increased due to sin, then logically it could be decreased through virtue. Effectively, man could reorient himself, and there isn’t a need for a redeemer. This is why the Catholic Church rejects this.

 

[cfauster]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

I guess I don’t see why a gradual Fall necessitates a gradual redemption. In any case, Jesus’ earthly life, death, and resurrection happened in a discrete time rather than gradually.

I do see what you noticed about repentance then leading to a (long) journey back in the right direction (towards God). So at least in that sense, I agree that the redemption could be viewed as gradual.

But even so, I don’t see why that suggests we could save ourselves. We have no hope of reorienting ourselves. We are hopelessly lost in the woods without Christ.

Anyway, thanks again, and God bless.

 

[fhansen]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

I guess I don’t see why a gradual Fall necessitates a gradual redemption. In any case, Jesus’ earthly life, death, and resurrection happened in a discrete time rather than gradually.

I do see what you noticed about repentance then leading to a (long) journey back in the right direction (towards God). So at least in that sense, I agree that the redemption could be viewed as gradual.

But even so, I don’t see why that suggests we could save ourselves. We have no hope of reorienting ourselves. We are hopelessly lost in the woods without Christ.

Anyway, thanks again, and God bless.

I think that, in the most basic sense, the Catholic position would be that Adam willed wrongly, simply put. And that God’s been in the “business” ever since of drawing man into willing rightly. And this is the reason for our exile here, from Eden, an exile which wouldn’t make much sense unless it has a purpose: to educate us, like prodigals, into ultimately turning back to God after the experience of being away from Him in the pigsty, relatively speaking. With revelation and grace He turns this experience into part of our formation, our perfecting, as He draws us over time into greater justice, a work of our salvation. Anyway this begins with a more rightly ordered will aided by grace, which, itself, first becomes oriented towards God via faith.

 

[MrSnaith]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer.

I guess I don’t see why a gradual Fall necessitates a gradual redemption. In any case, Jesus’ earthly life, death, and resurrection happened in a discrete time rather than gradually.

I do see what you noticed about repentance then leading to a (long) journey back in the right direction (towards God). So at least in that sense, I agree that the redemption could be viewed as gradual.

But even so, I don’t see why that suggests we could save ourselves. We have no hope of reorienting ourselves. We are hopelessly lost in the woods without Christ.

Anyway, thanks again, and God bless.

I agree we are hopelessly lost without Christ. But I don’t see that truth coming out of a “gradual fall” theology. A gradual fall doesn’t necessitate a gradual redemption, but it does imply the possibility. Moreover, a gradual fall also doesn’t necessitate a decisive redeemer. It seems like your position is: that we have a decisive redeemer is arbitrary.

I know that’s not really your position, because you continue to affirm we need(ed) one, but the theology of a gradual fall doesn’t flow with that position.

The Church teaches that the fall was a decisive action, at a decisive moment in human history, perpetrated by the original man, Adam. And likewise, by the new Adam, our Lord Jesus the Christ, redemption was perpetrated by a decisive action at a decisive moment in human history. That redemption in a decisive way was necessary is due to the fact that the singular, original sin of rebellion, being performed as it was out of perfect freedom and a fully enlightened intellect could not be redeemed in any other way than by an act of obedience done out of perfect freedom and a fully enlightened intellect, that is, free from concupiscence. Such was not possibly for us, thus our need for a perfect redeemer, fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

 

[RCCB]

“Do we mean that Original Sin affected our biology?”

"If there was a plausible candidate for the effects of the ‘Stain of Original Sin’ , human existence chained to the corruptions of ‘natural law’ would be it! One needs only consider pornography, prostitution, divorce, the broken homes and marriages that infidelity causes, unwanted children, questions of overpopulation, all sexual abuse, violence and trafficking, pedophile priests, rape, an Aids pandemic, Syphilis, Gonorrhea and at least another dozen sexually transmitted diseases or infections. Than there is contraception, abortion and suggestive links to testicular and prostate cancers, degenerating DNA in sperm, implications for the immune system and even female vaginal conditions. With such huge risks and costs to human well being, both individually and culturally, one might think such overwhelming evidences would give reason a start to seriously begin questioning this often predatory act which looks more at home on the farm than approved of by Heaven. This act, bought and sold the world over, from this perspective looks more a tyranny and a curse than any ‘gift’ of God, making us slaves to concupiscence and Madison avenue. And while there may be some satisfaction of the senses from carnal gratification, does it satisfy or feed the soul, the heart or bring us closer to God? Probably not! "

Used with permission from an essay by Ms. Mary Treherne: Was traditional marriage ever really strait?

Original Sin inclines us to sin.

These days, we know that many of the things that traditionally have been understood to be sinful have a biological/natural basis within the person. Individuals can be more prone to anger or getting drunk, for example, simply because that is how their brain works. Even more modern issues of morality, like homosexuality, often assume a possible biological/natural basis.

The perplexity/question then is this: Knowing what we do from science – how our inclinations to act sinful are often thanks to biological factors and conditions – what do we mean when we say that Original Sin is the cause of our inclination to sin? Do we mean that Original Sin affected our biology? This would be an interesting claim, since humans were put in a world that already had discrepancies in nature, even before the Fall: tornadoes, earthquakes, and thorns all existed before humans arrived on the scene. It would seem out of place for humans to exist on a different level in a world that already had these conditions.

So what then of original sin? Perhaps could it mean it is a lack of the ability to integrate our biological selves with a greater inclination to love God?