Hypothetical original sin questions

[N0X3x]

1. If Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit after having Cain, Abel, and Seth, would they have taken on original sin along with their parents, even though they had already been born?
2. Suppose nobody ever ate from the tree. After Cain killed Abel, would Seth (born afterwards) have inherited original sin? Would Adam and Eve instantly have it, as human beings? Or just Cain’s offspring? Would it even be possible for Cain to commit murder if he or his parents had not first eaten of the fruit? Or would Adam and Eve’s refusal as representative heads of humanity secure the beatific vision for everyone before Cain was born?

I’ve heard several conflicting answers to these questions. Does anyone here have any ideas?

 

[Della]

1. If Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit after having Cain, Abel, and Seth, would they have taken on original sin along with their parents, even though they had already been born?

No. No child of innocent parents would be guilty of any sins their parent’s might commit later. It appears, though, that God wanted Adam and Eve to undergo the test of their fidelity before having children–because they were to be the progenitors of their race.

1. Suppose nobody ever ate from the tree. After Cain killed Abel, would Seth (born afterwards) have inherited original sin? Would Adam and Eve instantly have it, as human beings?

No and no.

Or just Cain’s offspring?

That seems probable, but since it didn’t happen we don’t know what God would have done about it–if he’d have let Cain procreate when all other humans would have been innocent.

Would it even be possible for Cain to commit murder if he or his parents had not first eaten of the fruit?

Probably not. Again, it would depend if God would have put the children of Adam and Eve to the same test as they were, but most likely not.

Or would Adam and Eve’s refusal as representative heads of humanity secure the beatific vision for everyone before Cain was born?

Most probably, but since that didn’t happen, we cannot know for certain.

I’ve heard several conflicting answers to these questions. Does anyone here have any ideas?

Well, I’ve shared mine from what I understand about Church teaching on the matter.

 

[JerryZ]

Lack of original sin does not guarantee that you will not sin.

Adam and Eve had NO original sin and yet they did.
Yes we would be free of concupicence which makes it harder to not sin but…
We always have free will, it is up to us to choose.

–

 

[Richard_White]

The second question is invalid, because if Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of knowledge and caused our original sin, Cain wouldnt have killed Abel. There would have been no death or malice or evil or anything bad.

 

[judynurse]

If Adam & Eve had not broken the ONLY commandment God gave them, there would have been no “original sin”, therefore their children would also have been born without Original sin, but they would have still had free will to accept or reject God. Had the Tree of the Knowledge of Good & Evil still been in the Garden, and Cain had eaten f it, then he could have committed murder. We could be descendants of Cain, but not directly (?) of Adam & Eve, provided God gave Cain a wife somehow???. Seth, who was born after Cain and Abel, would probably also have been born without Original sin, but still with free will.

Interesting question: — How many children or generations would there have been after Adam & Eve before one of them finally broke the Commandment to not eat of THAT tree?

Even the Blessed Virgin, born without Original Sin, still had free will, which is why it was necessary for her “fiat” or consent to God’s plan for her.

I believe that God knew that pride would lead Eve & Adam to eat of that Tree anyway, so He had already planned for the Redemption of Man, before He even created our first parents.

Unfortunately for us, we are still paying for that sin of pride, which was also the sin which cost Lucifer his high position in Heaven.

Just my thoughts, haven’t studied Theology enough to know if there is a more “scholarly” explanation, but this is how I generally see it. It’s a good question though, and I think you started a thread that will get a lot of answers.

I think this might be a part of why the ancient Hebrew Scriptures speak of the “sins of the Fathers shall be passed to the children…” Original Sin is passed, but we are NOT punished, I believe for the sins of our ancestors, OTHER than Original Sin. Each person pays for their own sins or who could be saved by Our Lord? (If we had to pay for our great-grandparents sins for 7 generations, we’d be guilty of THEIR sins, not just our own!) And my own are enough, thank you!

 

[grannymh]

The second question is invalid, because if Adam and Eve never ate from the tree of knowledge and caused our original sin, Cain wouldnt have killed Abel. There would have been no death or malice or evil or anything bad.

Original Sin, by definition, is a single sin committed by the original human. (CCC, 396-400) All other freely committed sins are considered personal sins. Therefore, Cain, born in the state of Sanctifying Grace (in the event that Adam rejected temptation), could have freely killed Cain.

The word “sin” as in Original Sin applied to the human condition, is used in an analogical sense. Original Sin is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act on the part of Adam’s descendants. Original Sin is a contracted state of deprivation of Adam’s original holiness Sanctifying Grace. This deprivation is transmitted to Adam’s descendants. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases Original Sin and we become a temple of the Holy Spirit.
(CCC, 364; CCC, 402-406; CCC, 1999)

Sanctifying Grace gives us a “share in the divine life of the Trinity. It is a habitual, supernatural gift which continues the work of sanctifying us–of making us “perfect,” holy, and Christlike.” (CCC, Glossary, Sanctifying Grace, page 898)

Adam’s human nature, like ours, is an unique unification of *both *the spiritual world and the material world. Having a material anatomy, normally Adam would die. However, because he was established in friendship (original holiness) with God, he would not have to suffer and die provided he remained in the divine intimacy. (CCC, 355; CCC, 374-379; CCC, 396)

Links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition
origin.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[N0X3x]

Thank you for your replies. I have been crafting my own theory from what I know from theology and scripture as well, and is a bit of a conglomeration of the ideas already presented.

Let’s first suppose that God would have even allowed Adam and Eve to have children before the trial period was over. (As I understand it, there was supposed to be a trial period, for a finite amount of time, after which sinning by eating of the tree would not have been possible, and sinning in general may also not have been possible.)

Additionally, I don’t think we can look at eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as one particular sin; I think that it simply represents the first sin, whatever that happened to be. murder, theft, etc. would all have counted as eating of the tree if it had been done first.

and finally, grannymh, I don’t think original sin refers to the sin the first humans committed, I think it rather refers to the first sin that any human committed. I see nothing in the catechism from 396 to 400 that says otherwise. This interpretation makes more sense to me, because Jesus, as the second Adam, was able to redeem all of humanity for their sins, living and dead, whether or not they were descended from him. If sin can leave the world in that manner, I see no reason why it couldn’t enter it in the same way. Ultimately, I don’t think it would have mattered whether the first sin was committed by the first human or not.

So, I think Cain killing Abel would have counted as eating of the tree and as the original sin, and the consequences of original sin would have entered the world. Furthermore, I think that sin would have automatically been transferred to all human beings, living and dead, including his parents.

 

[grannymh]

and finally, grannymh, I don’t think original sin refers to the sin the first humans committed, I think it rather refers to the first sin that any human committed. I see nothing in the catechism from 396 to 400 that says otherwise.

May I respectfully comment that paragraph 399 directly links the first human Adam with the first disobedience which is Original Sin.

Continuing from paragraph 400, paragraphs 401-405 give the necessary nitty-gritty about Original Sin. In addition, paragraphs 388-389 explain one of the essential truths of Original Sin. One of the major paragraphs is 390.

Your choice of paragraphs 396 to 400 is crucial because the actual Original Sin is described. If you go back slowly over these paragraphs, I am sure you will find that the Original Sin had to be committed by the original human and not any human descendant.

 

[N0X3x]

May I respectfully comment that paragraph 399 directly links the first human Adam with the first disobedience which is Original Sin.

Continuing from paragraph 400, paragraphs 401-405 give the necessary nitty-gritty about Original Sin. In addition, paragraphs 388-389 explain one of the essential truths of Original Sin. One of the major paragraphs is 390.

Your choice of paragraphs 396 to 400 is crucial because the actual Original Sin is described. If you go back slowly over these paragraphs, I am sure you will find that the Original Sin had to be committed by the original human and not any human descendant.

After reading through those paragraphs again, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that the catechism can be interpreted both ways, but that the way I’ve put forward seems more philosophically tenable. Particularly illuminating is the fact that the heading for paragraphs 397 through 401 (at least in my catechism) is Man’s first sin, and not First man’s sin. Adam is tied to the original sin because he happened to be the man who committed the very first sin, not because it was the sin of the first man. Nowhere in the paragraphs you provided was a necessary connection between the first man and original sin, and, as the distinction seems non-trivial, I think that this absence is rather telling.