Is calvanism biblical ?

[Contarini]

Point well taken, but the fact remains that several doctors of the church made contrary statements to what has become some of the dogmas of Mary in the RCC.

 

[mgoforth]

Example? It depends of course by what you mean when you say “original sin.”

“Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]. For the law never hindered them from believing in the Son of God; nay, but it even exhorted them so to do, saying that men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead.” Adversus Haereses, Book 4, Chapter 2

What is “the old wound of the serpent” that we need to be saved from, if not original sin?

“And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.” Adversus Haereses, Book 4, Chapter 2

What are the “bonds”, if not original sin?

As with the development of any doctrine, the principles were certainly there. But key elements of the doctrine were not in place before Augustine.

Key elements such as…?

“All have sinned.” That’s not original sin, which pre-exists the commission of any actual sin.

Does the text say “All have committed personal sin” or “All have sinned”? You’re reading your preconceived notion into it, and conveniently ignoring the part that says “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man…”

According to original sin, people sin because they are sinners.

Yes sort of…You’re talking about concupiscence, which is the wounding of our nature, which was originally perfect as created by God. Our fallen nature predisposes us to sin, but that really only strengthens my argument. To repeat, Paul says that “sin entered the world through one man”. What does that mean? Our nature fell with Adam, and that’s why we have concupiscence and the predisposition to sin. We are all sinners from birth.

Again, note the word “death.”

This is not the developed doctrine of original sin either.

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” **Romans 6:23 **

We have to consider the whole…not just one verse. It’s very basic logic to put these pieces together:

1. 
   *]Death entered the world through Adam, and is a possibility for everyone from the moment they’re born.
   *]The wages of sin is death.
   *]Therefore, “all have sinned” from the very moment that they’re conceived. Otherwise, no one would die until they were old enough to commit personal sins.
   
   The whole doctrine is right there in Romans and 1 Corinthians.
   

   Indeed–nor did I say that. Although some early Christians did speak as if Mary sinned–at least Chrysostom ascribes a lack of faith to her.

   Source please.
   

   Saying that Mary never committed a sin is not the same thing as the Immaculate Conception.

   Isn’t it though, when we apply what I said above about concupiscence? We all have a fallen nature that prompts us to sin, which is why you won’t find anyone who hasn’t committed a personal sin (past the age of reason). Therefore if Mary never committed a personal sin, she must not have had concupiscence or original sin.
   

   OK–how about “imaginative speculation.” Judas is mentioned here as a “devil,” but nothing whatever is said about his reaction to what Jesus has been saying about the Bread of Life.

   Sure, I can live with that description. Why does Jesus call him a devil here?

 

[mgoforth]

mgoforth;9653892:

The Immaculate Conception was not dogma of the Church in the 2nd century nor was perpetual virginity of Mary. Show where it was declared doctrine and dogma of the Catholic church in the 2nd century.

I’m not sure anything was “declared doctrine” that early, as in someone said “you must believe this”, other than when the Church Fathers argued against specific heresies.

Sorry if that’s not good enough.

As far as Ambrose and Aquinas, I can give you more examples of doctors of the Church who disclaimed what became Roman dogma.

Please do, that’s why I asked earlier.

 

[Contarini]

“Let them not therefore ascribe to the law the unbelief of certain [among them]. For the law never hindered them from believing in the Son of God; nay, but it even exhorted them so to do, saying that men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead.” Adversus Haereses, Book 4, Chapter 2

What is “the old wound of the serpent” that we need to be saved from, if not original sin?

Death, disordered passions, weakness and decay of all sorts, a tendency to sin that is not itself sin. . . .

“And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin; virginal disobedience having been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way the sin of the first created man receives amendment by the correction of the First-begotten, and the coming of the serpent is conquered by the harmlessness of the dove, those bonds being unloosed by which we had been fast bound to death.” Adversus Haereses, Book 4, Chapter 2

What are the “bonds”, if not original sin?

The legal claim that death had against us; the ontological reality of death that pervades every aspect of fallen human existence. . . .

Key elements such as…?

The idea that human beings are guilty of sin before they commit an actual sin is the main one that comes to mind.

Does the text say “All have committed personal sin” or “All have sinned”?

The normal, pre-Augustinian sense of the term “all have sinned” would be “all have committed personal sin.” You only need this clarification after Augustine.

You’re reading your preconceived notion into it

Not at all. The preconceived notion with which I approached the text originally was the doctrine of original sin. It was only in graduate school, through studying Augustine and the relationship of his ideas to preceding tradition, that I realized that I had been taught to read Augustine into Paul. I’m not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing (though I think that the somewhat different Eastern approach is at least as legitimate).

I’m not saying that the text can’t bear Augustine’s interpretation–you’re the one insisting that it can’t bear any other, and hence you’re the one reading a preconceived notion into the text.

and conveniently ignoring the part that says “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man…”

Not at all. Again, you assume this because you read “sin” and think “original sin.” But that’s begging the question. Sin could enter the world through one man’s sin, which was imitated by others (yes, I know this is heresy–but my point is that it was not condemned as heresy until the fifth century, and was one possible way to read the text which some Christians adopted). Or, as in the Eastern view (which as far as I can see is an orthodox alternative that complements rather than contradicting the Augustinian approach), it could mean that sin enters the world as a power of death and decay but not necessarily as guilt incurred by everyone before the commission of any actual sin.

Yes sort of…You’re talking about concupiscence, which is the wounding of our nature, which was originally perfect as created by God. Our fallen nature predisposes us to sin, but that really only strengthens my argument. To repeat, Paul says that “sin entered the world through one man”. What does that mean? Our nature fell with Adam, and that’s why we have concupiscence and the predisposition to sin. We are all sinners from birth.

In the Latin Catholic view as I understand it, concupiscence is counted as sin to those who are not regenerate, but not to those who are (this is the distinction rejected by the Reformers, who argued that concupiscence was simply sin). In other words, where there is a fundamental disposition toward righteousness (restored in human beings through grace), the mere predisposition toward sin is not sin–but where that “original justice” is lacking or has not been restored, concupiscence determines the person’s basic orientation and thus is sin. (That, at least, is how I make sense of the traditional doctrine without invoking purely legal categories.)

At any rate, the point here is that what Augustine called “concupiscence” was certainly acknowledged by earlier Fathers, but Augustine was the one who argued that in the unregenerate this concupiscence itself constituted the guilt of sin.

We have to consider the whole…not just one verse. It’s very basic logic to put these pieces together:

1. 
   *]Death entered the world through Adam, and is a possibility for everyone from the moment they’re born.
   *]The wages of sin is death.
   *]Therefore, “all have sinned” from the very moment that they’re conceived. Otherwise, no one would die until they were old enough to commit personal sins.

1. 
   The phrase “eph ho pantes hemarton” in Romans 5:12 has been translated in at least three ways:
   
   “Because all have sinned,” which is the most common modern translation and the one you are relying on;
   
   “In whom all sinned,” which is the translation Augustine was working with and on which he based his doctrine;
   
   “Because of which all have sinned,” which is the most common Eastern translation and which makes death the cause of sin rather than the other way round.
   
   Historically speaking, neither Augustine nor any other early Father I’m aware of came up with the ingenious interpretation you espouse (that the mere phrase “because all have sinned” proves that all sinned in Adam, because otherwise infants would not die); Augustine had a lot more “help” in the Latin translation which explicitly said that all sinned in Adam.
   
   This is an excellent discussion of the issue by Fr. Kimel who now posts on this forum–he cites the great Orthodox theologian and scholar John Meyendorff at some length.
   

   The whole doctrine is right there in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

   Arguably it is there in embryo. But not explicitly. You see it because you have been trained to see it–I see it too, but I see other things as well.
   

   Source please.

   The passage appears to be this one (see the last two sections), in which Chrysostom certainly says that Mary behaved in a way she should not have, and ascribes “human feelings” to her in a manner that appears to imply sin (the “feeling” in question is the desire to gain personal credit from Jesus’ miracles). It isn’t as clear-cut a passage as i had been led to believe.
   
   See a Catholic discussion of the issue here.
   

   Isn’t it though, when we apply what I said above about concupiscence? We all have a fallen nature that prompts us to sin, which is why you won’t find anyone who hasn’t committed a personal sin (past the age of reason). Therefore if Mary never committed a personal sin, she must not have had concupiscence or original sin.

   This is illogical because it ignored the power of God’s grace, which of course is the only thing that makes the Immaculate Conception possible. So you’re arguing that God could do the greater thing (preserve Mary from original sin from the very beginning) but not the lesser (preserve her from actual sin in spite of concupiscence). That makes no sense to me.
   

   Sure, I can live with that description. Why does Jesus call him a devil here?

   Because Jesus knew that he was going to betray him. Yes, that raises difficult questions about free will. . . .
   
   Edwin

 

[mgoforth]

Death, disordered passions, weakness and decay of all sorts, a tendency to sin that is not itself sin. . . .

Concupiscence, in other words, which is the effect of original sin.

The legal claim that death had against us; the ontological reality of death that pervades every aspect of fallen human existence. . . .

Also the effect of original sin.

The normal, pre-Augustinian sense of the term “all have sinned” would be “all have committed personal sin.” You only need this clarification after Augustine.

Says who? That claim requires a major citation.

Not at all. The preconceived notion with which I approached the text originally was the doctrine of original sin. It was only in graduate school, through studying Augustine and the relationship of his ideas to preceding tradition, that I realized that I had been taught to read Augustine into Paul. I’m not necessarily saying that this is a bad thing (though I think that the somewhat different Eastern approach is at least as legitimate).

I’m not saying that the text can’t bear Augustine’s interpretation–you’re the one insisting that it can’t bear any other, and hence you’re the one reading a preconceived notion into the text.

Ahh…graduate school. Now it all makes sense.

Perhaps we’re not “reading Augustine into Paul”, but reading the correct interpretation of Paul, which just happens to coincide with what Augustine wrote. In other words, it has always been the correct interpretation, even before Augustine. Of course, that takes faith in the infallibility of the Church.

Not at all. Again, you assume this because you read “sin” and think “original sin.” But that’s begging the question. Sin could enter the world through one man’s sin, which was imitated by others (yes, I know this is heresy–but my point is that it was not condemned as heresy until the fifth century, and was one possible way to read the text which some Christians adopted). Or, as in the Eastern view (which as far as I can see is an orthodox alternative that complements rather than contradicting the Augustinian approach), it could mean that sin enters the world as a power of death and decay but not necessarily as guilt incurred by everyone before the commission of any actual sin.

Heresy is always heresy. Just because it wasn’t officially condemned until later doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong from the beginning. I don’t believe the Eastern view you mentioned would be considered orthodox by the Catholic Church.

In the Latin Catholic view as I understand it, concupiscence is counted as sin to those who are not regenerate, but not to those who are (this is the distinction rejected by the Reformers, who argued that concupiscence was simply sin). In other words, where there is a fundamental disposition toward righteousness (restored in human beings through grace), the mere predisposition toward sin is not sin–but where that “original justice” is lacking or has not been restored, concupiscence determines the person’s basic orientation and thus is sin. (That, at least, is how I make sense of the traditional doctrine without invoking purely legal categories.)

At any rate, the point here is that what Augustine called “concupiscence” was certainly acknowledged by earlier Fathers, but Augustine was the one who argued that in the unregenerate this concupiscence itself constituted the guilt of sin.

It’s not concupiscence that’s counted as a sin before baptism, it’s original sin. Original sin is the cause - concupiscence the effect. You keep confusing cause with effect. Also, original sin isn’t considered personal sin for anyone (except Adam and Eve).

The phrase “eph ho pantes hemarton” in Romans 5:12 has been translated in at least three ways:

“Because all have sinned,” which is the most common modern translation and the one you are relying on;

“In whom all sinned,” which is the translation Augustine was working with and on which he based his doctrine;

“Because of which all have sinned,” which is the most common Eastern translation and which makes death the cause of sin rather than the other way round.

Making death the cause of sin is completely illogical. How would that even fit with the idea of death being the “wages of sin”, which comes from the same letter? Or how would that square with the creation story, where God didn’t impose the penalty of death until after the sin was committed?

Historically speaking, neither Augustine nor any other early Father I’m aware of came up with the ingenious interpretation you espouse (that the mere phrase “because all have sinned” proves that all sinned in Adam, because otherwise infants would not die); Augustine had a lot more “help” in the Latin translation which explicitly said that all sinned in Adam.

Where does death come from? Every interpretation of Genesis I’ve read says that God imposed it as a penalty on Adam and Eve. It wouldn’t have been much of a penalty if it was going to happen anyway as part of their original design, would it? So we can logically infer that they would not have died if they hadn’t sinned. And if their design was the template for ours…then why do infants die before they can commit a sin personally? It must be because our nature is fallen (concupiscence), which is a result of Adam and Eve’s sin (original sin). It’s only possible to argue otherwise by ignoring one part of Scripture or another.

Arguably it is there in embryo. But not explicitly. You see it because you have been trained to see it–I see it too, but I see other things as well.

I saw it before becoming Catholic…not that it really proves anything.

This is illogical because it ignored the power of God’s grace, which of course is the only thing that makes the Immaculate Conception possible. So you’re arguing that God could do the greater thing (preserve Mary from original sin from the very beginning) but not the lesser (preserve her from actual sin in spite of concupiscence). That makes no sense to me.

That’s not my argument at all. God could have done both things, but He chose to do the former and that was all Mary needed.

Because Jesus knew that he was going to betray him. Yes, that raises difficult questions about free will…

Yes, I agree that Jesus knew in advance. But still, there had to be a turning point for Judas, where the seed of doubt crept into his mind. This seems like as plausible a place as any other, especially since such a huge part of Christianity doesn’t believe it today.

 

[stewstew03]

…the fact remains that several doctors of the church made contrary statements to what has become some of the dogmas of Mary in the RCC.

I’m not sure what your point is here. If you’re making the bold claim that Marian dogmas were not fully developed by the 4th century… then I’m not sure you’ll find much disagreement on CAF.

 

[Prosmith]

I’m not sure what your point is here. If you’re making the bold claim that Marian dogmas were not fully developed by the 4th century… then I’m not sure you’ll find much disagreement on CAF.

It’s a fact that they were not part of the Early Church. If they were, explain why it took centuries upon centuries for the Roman church to declare them to be so.

 

[Prosmith]

I’m not sure what your point is here. If you’re making the bold claim that Marian dogmas were not fully developed by the 4th century… then I’m not sure you’ll find much disagreement on CAF.

Here’s some words from the centuries of the church on the Immaculate Conception.

Augustine of Hippo: Christ alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin though he took flesh OF THE SIN OF HIS MOTHER.

Ambrose: Of all that are born of women, ONLY Jesus experienced not the contagion of earthly corruption.

St. Bernard: Our astonishment is not small that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a new feast that is UNKNOWN to the Church.

I could go on with several others.

 

[stewstew03]

…If they were…

Forgive me for asking, but are you dense? I said they were not dogmas in the Early Church as they were not fully developed.

 

[Prosmith]

Forgive me for asking, but are you dense? I said they were not dogmas in the Early Church as they were not fully developed.

No I’m not dense and I don’t appreciate your snarkiness. Whatever you wish to call them, dogmas, doctrine, realizations, Whatever; they were not part of the Early Church. Did you bother to read what some of the doctors of the Church said?

 

[stewstew03]

Here’s some words from the centuries of the church on the Immaculate Conception.

Augustine of Hippo: Christ alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin though he took flesh OF THE SIN OF HIS MOTHER.

Ambrose: Of all that are born of women, ONLY Jesus experienced not the contagion of earthly corruption.

St. Bernard: Our astonishment is not small that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a new feast that is UNKNOWN to the Church.

I could go on with several others.

You appear to be putting forth the exact same arguments (and quotes) of a CAF user named “SIA” (who has since been banned). Are you the same person, just a different user name?

 

[rinnie]

Example? It depends of course by what you mean when you say “original sin.”

As with the development of any doctrine, the principles were certainly there. But key elements of the doctrine were not in place before Augustine.

“All have sinned.” That’s not original sin, which pre-exists the commission of any actual sin.

According to original sin, people sin because they are sinners.

Again, note the word “death.”

This is not the developed doctrine of original sin either.

Sure.

Indeed–nor did I say that. Although some early Christians did speak as if Mary sinned–at least Chrysostom ascribes a lack of faith to her.

Saying that Mary never committed a sin is not the same thing as the Immaculate Conception.

OK–how about “imaginative speculation.” Judas is mentioned here as a “devil,” but nothing whatever is said about his reaction to what Jesus has been saying about the Bread of Life.

Edwin

Edwin where did you get the teaching that according to original sin people sin because they are sinners.

If all people sin because they are sinners, what happens to free will? Original sin is the sin committed by Adam and Eve. Because of their sin of course we all have the stain of Original sin on us.

But because of Christ we are wiped clean from Original sin at the moment of our Baptism.

And while I do agree with you saying that Mary never committed sin is not the same as the I.C. is true.

The I.C. means that at the time of the Conception of Mary God got between her and Original sin.

But she never commited actual sin, which I agree with you, not because she was saved by original sin, but because she was completely loyal to God. And was committed to him by her own free will.

Back to why people sin, people do not sin simply because they are sinners. People are sinners because they sin. The reason they are sinners amd sin is because of their own free will, they put their own desires and lusts above the desires of God.

So in a sense they do not follow God any longer, they become their own gods and follow themself. They is how they fall into sin. They follow what they want, not what God commands.

 

[onemangang]

You appear to be putting forth the exact same arguments (and quotes) of a CAF user named “SIA” (who has since been banned). Are you the same person, just a different user name?

totally the same guy, or a mouthpiece reitterating another persons failed arguments!

 

[rinnie]

Here’s some words from the centuries of the church on the Immaculate Conception.

Augustine of Hippo: Christ alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did he take on flesh of sin though he took flesh OF THE SIN OF HIS MOTHER.

Ambrose: Of all that are born of women, ONLY Jesus experienced not the contagion of earthly corruption.

St. Bernard: Our astonishment is not small that some of you are believed to be able to introduce a new feast that is UNKNOWN to the Church.

I could go on with several others.

Boy talking about taking scripture out of context. Where is Augustine of Hippo speaking of the Mother of Christ.

He is not at all. He is speaking how although Christ had not sins he took on Human Flesh and died to save us.

This does not say Mary had ever sinned.

And yes Jesus is the only Man who was born from the seed of Woman. So what. Where does it say that the Blessed Mother was born from the seed of Woman? She was not. SHe was born from the seed of her Father.

If you are going to go on and on. please finish with the congext of what is being taught.

 

[Contarini]

Concupiscence, in other words, which is the effect of original sin.

If by “original sin” you just mean “Adam’s sin,” then fine.

Says who? That claim requires a major citation.

Then I’ll rephrase it: I’m unaware of any Church Father before Augustine who interprets the phrase “all have sinned” to mean something other than “all have committed personal sin.” Now you are the one who has to provide the major citation

Perhaps we’re not “reading Augustine into Paul”, but reading the correct interpretation of Paul, which just happens to coincide with what Augustine wrote. In other words, it has always been the correct interpretation, even before Augustine. Of course, that takes faith in the infallibility of the Church.

It takes a lot more than that. It requires simply shutting one’s eyes to the historical evidence and rejecting everything Catholic scholars and theologians have learned in the last few centuries about how doctrine develops.

This has nothing to do with infallibility. It has to do with a static, unhistorical view of doctrine versus one that actually makes sense of the evidence and allows the past to be the past instead of forcing later doctrinal paradigms on it.

I am not denying any doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Heresy is always heresy. Just because it wasn’t officially condemned until later doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong from the beginning. I don’t believe the Eastern view you mentioned would be considered orthodox by the Catholic Church.

Then show me where it’s been condemned. Certainly Eastern Catholics are more likely to interpret it in a way that is compatible with the Latin view, but as far as I know the Orthodox view of original sin is not considered unorthodox by the Catholic Church. It would be easy to show me otherwise. . . .

It’s not concupiscence that’s counted as a sin before baptism, it’s original sin.

Perhaps we should step back and define what original sin is. My understanding was that it consists, in traditional Western Catholic theology, of two things:

1. The privation of original justice; and
2. Concupiscence, which is the twisting of the will toward disordered self-love and away from a properly ordered love centered on the love of God.

The latter is not in itself sin without the former in Catholic theology (as opposed to classical Protestantism).

On looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Original Sin, I see that it agrees with you that concupiscence is not original sin. As you can see, Aquinas (ST II/II, Question 82, art. 3) has a different account, saying that original sin is “formally” the privation of righteousness and “materially” concupiscence. That’s the view I was familiar with as the Latin Catholic one. I know the debates up to the Reformation better than the state of the question after the Reformation. Apparently Anselm’s view (identifying original sin with the privation of original righteousness) won out by the time of the CE.

I note that CCC 402-406, says that original sin is only sin in an “analogical sense.” This seems to be a further development bringing the Western view more in line with the Eastern view, and it’s a development I welcome.

Making death the cause of sin is completely illogical.

You would do well, I think, to be less cavalier in dismissing a view held by many great Eastern Fathers.

How would that even fit with the idea of death being the “wages of sin”, which comes from the same letter? Or how would that square with the creation story, where God didn’t impose the penalty of death until after the sin was committed?

Death is the wages of sin. It’s a cycle.

Adam’s sin caused mortality–not just physical death, but decay and corruption in every aspect of human nature. See Athanasius, *On the Incarnation.*This mortality–this ever-present decay and corruption, this sliding back into the nothingness from which we were made–is the source of personal sin. We sin when we yield to the forces of decay and death at work within our moral and spiritual being. But in the Eastern view, one is not guilty of sin unless and until one voluntarily yields to those forces of decay and death.

Where does death come from? Every interpretation of Genesis I’ve read says that God imposed it as a penalty on Adam and Eve. It wouldn’t have been much of a penalty if it was going to happen anyway as part of their original design, would it?

Indeed. Although the important nuance in Athanasius (corresponding to Augustine’s idea of the “donum superadditum,” and contrasting with the Reformed view yet again) is that because we came from nothing, there is a sense in which we “naturally” return to nothingness, and only the ever-present life of God within us prevents us from doing so.

And if their design was the template for ours…then why do infants die before they can commit a sin personally? It must be because our nature is fallen (concupiscence), which is a result of Adam and Eve’s sin (original sin). It’s only possible to argue otherwise by ignoring one part of Scripture or another.

I think we may be talking past each other, because you seem to think that “original sin” refers to Adam and Eve’s sin and not to anything in us. That is not the traditional language of the Western Church. I refer you to the sources I cited above–Aquinas, the CE, and the Catechism (though the last of these has been modified by the influence of “ressourcement” and a greater openness to Eastern forms of experession).

Yes, I agree that Jesus knew in advance. But still, there had to be a turning point for Judas, where the seed of doubt crept into his mind. This seems like as plausible a place as any other, especially since such a huge part of Christianity doesn’t believe it today.

Precisely for that reason, I resist this interpretation. It amounts to a vicious smear on many pious Christians. I grew up in hyper-Zwinglian circles, and I can’t see that our rejection of the Real Presence had anything to do with betraying Jesus. It had to do with an impoverished understanding of the sacramental relationship between physical and spiritual.

Or at least, jumping to that conclusion without good reason (and you have not suggested any good reason) is a vicious smear.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And yes Jesus is the only Man who was born from the seed of Woman. So what. Where does it say that the Blessed Mother was born from the seed of Woman? She was not. SHe was born from the seed of her Father.

But that’s not what Ambrose said (I find the interpretation of “seed of the woman” you’re following highly strained, but I grant you that it’s a traditional one). He said “born of woman.” At least that is how he was quoted in the post to which you were replying. It wouldn’t make sense for him to use the other meaning, since Jesus is the only person in human history who was born of the “seed of woman” in the sense you’re using the term.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin where did you get the teaching that according to original sin people sin because they are sinners.

Caught! It’s a cliche often used in conservative Protestant circles. Perhaps I am wrong in thinking that it also applies to the Augustinian Catholic perspective, but it seems to me that it does. If people were not made sinners by original sin, then the traditional Western argument for infant baptism would fail. See CCC 403–though I note again that the CCC says that original sin is only sin in an “analogical sense” (a distinction I like very much).

If all people sin because they are sinners, what happens to free will?

Well, that’s the traditional difficulty with the Augustinian view. Augustine says that after the fall and before regeneration people do not have free will with regard to the choice whether to sin or not: “non posse non peccare.” They do, however, have the freedom to choose their sin–you can choose not to give in to lust, for instance, but apart from grace you will only do so through some other sinful motive, such as pride.

Aquinas tries harder to safeguard free will, arguing that people have a choice with regard to any individual sin, but that without grace no one can avoid mortal sin for any significant length of time.

The I.C. means that at the time of the Conception of Mary God got between her and Original sin…

Yes, I understand that, and while my own inclination would be to agree more with the traditional Dominican position (which still holds that Mary was cleansed of all sin in the womb), this is certainly a point on which I’m willing to submit to the judgment of the Church. The IC is a legitimate (or, at the very least, a possibly legitimate) development of the traditional understanding.

What we’re arguing about here is the nature of doctrinal development–can one simply ascribe later developments to earlier phases of the tradition without qualification. I’m objecting to that.

This is relevant to the original discussion because Calvinism is one direction in which the Augustinian tradition has developed. I will entirely agree with the claim that Catholic Augustinianism is far more faithful to Augustine’s teaching as a whole–and, of course, Augustine is not himself Church Tradition, and a further problem with Calvinism is that it takes to an extreme the troubling Western practice of treating Augustine as if he were the only Father who really mattered (theologically speaking–one of the great ironies in Calvin studies is that Calvin preferred Chrysostom’s exegetical methods to Augustine’s while preferring Augustine’s theological conclusions, which should have been a real problem for him given his views on the relationship of exegesis and theology!).

Edwin

 

[Copperway]

Boy talking about taking scripture out of context. Where is Augustine of Hippo speaking of the Mother of Christ.

He is not at all. He is speaking how although Christ had not sins he took on Human Flesh and died to save us.

This does not say Mary had ever sinned.

And yes Jesus is the only Man who was born from the seed of Woman. So what. Where does it say that the Blessed Mother was born from the seed of Woman? She was not. SHe was born from the seed of her Father.

If you are going to go on and on. please finish with the congext of what is being taught.

I’m trying to get in on this conversation here a bit and I don’t really understand your point.