Looking for an in-depth explanation of CCC389 (original sin)

[fhansen]

So, let’s say OS involves “something missing that was previously there”, and the question is asked why God would remove something that enhances humanity’s ability to avoid sin.

The answer is that* humanity,* through Adam, removed, by dismissing it- the “something that enhances humanity’s ability to avoid sin”. And that ‘something’ is essentially direct relationship with God: communion. Humanity is now here, outside of Eden, to learn first of all that we really, really need that Something. In order to avoid sin, in order to possess the level of peace, happiness, harmony, etc that we were made for. On our own there’s simply no guarantee that humanity will evolve into something better-or learn to be something better. History suggests otherwise I believe. Either way the obligation or responsibility remains upon us to be open to change-and its a responsibility we must acknowledge and live up to IMO.

 

[o_mlly]

Well, I can see a means of reconciling all those theologies. Pelagius had an emphasis on personal responsibility, which has its merit, but the idea that we are a “clean slate” is contrary to fact and reason. Augustine presents the more condemning approach, and I addressed that above, and I have not read enough of Rahner to comment, but it makes no sense that we “struggle to sin”. It is more like we all have the capacity to sin because we are all unaware; I agree that indwelling grace is the prominent force.

I am more inclined to the Lutheran, Augustinian, and Pauline formulations of grace than the Rahnerian. But the self-referential bias of existentialism may offer a way to synthesize these doctrines.

Perhaps Rahner’s “supernatural existential” was, at the time of his exposition on grace, actualized such that he felt grace as propelling him to do good at all times. St. Paul call himself the “chief of sinners” (1 Timothy 1:16). Augustine confessed himself as a past prolific sinner. Historians note Luther as an overly scrupulous sinner.

If we claim actual grace to be natural, then grace is a potential in all of us. But in actualizing, experiencing our potential, Paul, Augsutine and I are not as far along as Pelagius, who, himself, falls short of Rahner. We all admit to the power of grace, agree as to its incidence, but differ in our experience of its power. What makes for that difference? How can we be simultaneously free and imbued with grace?

Luther’s solas—grace and faith, complete his theology. There is nothing we can do but depend on the mercy of our Creator. Rahner’s theology of grace would synthesize “good works” into Luther’s formulation, but one must be as far along spiritually as Rahner to experience his “overpowering” grace. Luther would ask Rahner, What other grace does God gift us to move us form potency to actuality? I think Rahner must yield somewhat on the question and give back to God the responsibility.

Indeed, Brian McDermott, commenting on Rahner’s theology of grace, suggests Rahner admits to a second grace, a gift very much like Augustine’s “prevenient grace,” which moves us at the moment of decision to choose the good. “If we cooperate with this dynamism (in a cooperation which itself is gift in us), it will allow us to belong . . . with God in Christ and Spirit" (Ludwig). In other words, McDermott suggests that Rahner’s “supernatural existential” is necessary, but not sufficient for the good act. The final push to cooperate with indwelling grace is yet another special act of or grace from God. Sounds like Luther. I still, in my spiritual journey, feel the dependence on this second gift of grace to overcome my propensity to too often choosing self.

 

[OneSheep]

It is good to begin with a definition of terms. From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, by Fr. John Hardon, S.J.:

And, a more in-depth article at NewAdvent.

Basically, if you tamper with the concept of original sin, you also tamper with the need for Christ to take human flesh for our redemption.

I can see that this is true for many people, but I am not seeing it as an absolute. For example, “redemption” has a public manifestation, but is also a very personal matter. A person who turns to a discipline, repenting from his sin, is saved from the slavery of the sin. Did he believe that God punished Adam, or that Adam defied God, or that Adam even existed? Perhaps not. But all the same, he is redeemed. The same can be said about the person inspired to forgive, letting go of all his grudges, the alcoholic that sees that he has been destroying his temple, the person in despair about death, finding hope in the resurrection. Do we diminish the importance of the words and acts by our Savior by limiting them to a theological assertion that God had to be satisfied in some way, repaid for a debt?

This places the foundation of the faith at risk, and is a door which must be left closed.

Is there to be made a distinction between “undermining a mystery” and “undermining faith”? While the structure of the theology of “payment” depends on a debt incurred by Adam, and this is important to many, is a person’s Christian faith necessarily dependent on a belief in original sin? For all the problems surrounding the doctrine, and given that many of the faithful are not even familiar with the intricacies of the doctrine, what is the reason for not allowing a little “tampering”? Is this closing the door to unfolding revelation?

For example, imagine a Jewish person considering the Gospel. Their own scripture includes the creation story, but they do not have a concept of Original Sin. This Jewish person takes great value in Christ’s works, His challenging of the pious authority, His call for forgiveness of enemies, His discipline to be free of all the human trappings. The Jewish person sees Jesus suffering on the cross as something he can relate to in the most desperate times of his own past, when he truly thought that God had abandoned him. He finds hope in the resurrection. He sees a humble divinity, and he wants to dedicate his life to serving others and following Christ. However, he does not agree with the doctrine of original sin, he sees it as compromising an image of a forgiving Father. Is his faith invalid in some way? Is his faith undermined?

 

[OneSheep]

But according to Aquinas self-love is good, while inordinate self-love is not good; it’s a perversion of a good and therefore evil, disordered. Evil has no other source than good to begin with but that doesn’t make it less evil. And now we get to observe all the ugly evil done in this world- in the name of “ME” or “US”.

That, IMO, is what the knowledge of good and evil entailed BTW; evil was unknown-unexperienced-in Eden prior to the Fall, prior to eating the fruit of the tree of that name.

Anyway, once God’s voice is ignored or no longer heeded then pride has gained ruler-ship; self-righteousness as opposed to “God-righteousness” reigns, and we’re here to learn of the foolishness of a such a world. This is why humility holds center-stage in the gospel.

Good Morning,

That all makes perfect sense, but again you are addressing the choices people make, not their nature, not anything inherited. And since choices are based on awareness, this again indicates that OS has more to do with an inherited lack of such than anything in the programming of the human species.

Is Origininal Sin described as Original Ignorance a “tampering”? Humility is a matter of awareness; there is a knowledge of one’s own ignorance and small place in the whole of creation.

 

[goout]

Good Morning,

That all makes perfect sense, but again you are addressing the choices people make, not their nature, not anything inherited. And since choices are based on awareness, this again indicates that OS has more to do with an inherited lack of such than anything in the programming of the human species.

Is Origininal Sin described as Original Ignorance a “tampering”? Humility is a matter of awareness; there is a knowledge of one’s own ignorance and small place in the whole of creation.

What do* you* mean by nature?

 

[OneSheep]

The answer is that* humanity,* through Adam, removed, by dismissing it- the “something that enhances humanity’s ability to avoid sin”. And that ‘something’ is essentially direct relationship with God: communion. Humanity is now here, outside of Eden, to learn first of all that we really, really need that Something. In order to avoid sin, in order to possess the level of peace, happiness, harmony, etc that we were made for. On our own there’s simply no guarantee that humanity will evolve into something better-or learn to be something better. History suggests otherwise I believe. Either way the obligation or responsibility remains upon us to be open to change-and its a responsibility we must acknowledge and live up to IMO.

Not to be beating a drum, but again you are referring to the choices people make, not an inherited genetic tendency or disposition.

There is an evolution of awareness. History tells us that people have become less xenophobic and more inclusive of other nations and cultures. The civil rights movement, the voting rights act, these in America are examples of what is happening on a broader scale. Regardless of what occurred in the last election cycle, the major trend is that tribal barriers are breaking down, we are increasingly becoming a world family.

For a micro-scale example, last night my wife and I were talking with young 40-something who reminisced about boot camp. She was so very grateful when the superiors giving her the hardest time found out that her grandfather and father were Masons, and because of this they eased up on her because they too were Masons. I thought to myself, “how archaic”. It’s true, the mentality of tribalism is in itself becoming more archaic.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning.

As always, your responses are a gift to me, and I am grateful.

If we claim actual grace to be natural, then grace is a potential in all of us. But in actualizing, experiencing our potential, Paul, Augsutine and I are not as far along as Pelagius, who, himself, falls short of Rahner. We all admit to the power of grace, agree as to its incidence, but differ in our experience of its power. What makes for that difference? How can we be simultaneously free and imbued with grace?

In my own experience, what makes for the difference is awareness, an awareness that leads to empathy and a deeper understanding of people. With a deeper understanding comes guidance. The freedom question is a separate one, IMO.

Luther’s solas—grace and faith, complete his theology. There is nothing we can do but depend on the mercy of our Creator. Rahner’s theology of grace would synthesize “good works” into Luther’s formulation, but one must be as far along spiritually as Rahner to experience his “overpowering” grace. Luther would ask Rahner, What other grace does God gift us to move us form potency to actuality? I think Rahner must yield somewhat on the question and give back to God the responsibility.

To me, grace is overpowering for all of us, but people have differing levels of awareness. As Socrates observed, “People do what they think is best”. It is an observation that we all can make. Those that crucified Christ thought they were doing what was best, and Jesus saw their lack of awareness. This goes to the question, “Is Original Sin framed as Original Ignorance a ‘tampering’”?

You see, Genesis 1 basically refers to an Original Blessing. We can certainly be blessed with a beautiful nature even though we are lacking in awareness.

I still, in my spiritual journey, feel the dependence on this second gift of grace to overcome my propensity to too often choosing self.

When the “self” is inclusive of all people and creation we appreciate, then mercy follows. Every normal parent knows what it is like to value the well-being of their own children over their own. The human can, and does, grow in an empathy that includes those he comes to know and love. The “self” expands. With an introspective awareness, he also develops an awe and appreciation for his own self, and learns to protect and respect the temple of his own body.

In other words, it can be observed that every generation has been a “me” generation. Condemnation of “selfishness” misses the mark when one takes a different look at what the “self” includes.

 

[OneSheep]

What do* you* mean by nature?

Nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth, as opposed to that which is acquired or added from external sources.

…nature implies a dynamic point of view and refers to innate tendencies.

newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm

These sum it up well, I think.

 

[fhansen]

Not to be beating a drum, but again you are referring to the choices people make, not an inherited genetic tendency or disposition.

The inheritance is a state: most importantly lack of knowledge, let alone communion with, God. The concept of Eden is of a very different state of being than we have now. Adam’s choice changed that for us all. Our choices confirm and continue his choice-or reject and oppose it.

There is an evolution of awareness. History tells us that people have become less xenophobic and more inclusive of other nations and cultures. The civil rights movement, the voting rights act, these in America are examples of what is happening on a broader scale. Regardless of what occurred in the last election cycle, the major trend is that tribal barriers are breaking down, we are increasingly becoming a world family.

For a micro-scale example, last night my wife and I were talking with young 40-something who reminisced about boot camp. She was so very grateful when the superiors giving her the hardest time found out that her grandfather and father were Masons, and because of this they eased up on her because they too were Masons. I thought to myself, “how archaic”. It’s true, the mentality of tribalism is in itself becoming more archaic.

There’s more light in the world now; I don’t know that there’s also less darkness.

 

[Usagi]

When the “self” is inclusive of all people and creation we appreciate, then mercy follows. Every normal parent knows what it is like to value the well-being of their own children over their own. The human can, and does, grow in an empathy that includes those he comes to know and love. The “self” expands. With an introspective awareness, he also develops an awe and appreciation for his own self, and learns to protect and respect the temple of his own body.

In other words, it can be observed that every generation has been a “me” generation. Condemnation of “selfishness” misses the mark when one takes a different look at what the “self” includes.

I think that conclusion relies on a highly idiosyncratic definition of “self.” Obviously, condemnations of selfishness and inordinate self-love are not using “self” as “inclusive of all people and creation.” Indeed, if you had not explained that, I think most people would regard “self” as being the exact opposite of those things.

 

[OneSheep]

I think that conclusion relies on a highly idiosyncratic definition of “self.” Obviously, condemnations of selfishness and inordinate self-love are not using “self” as “inclusive of all people and creation.” Indeed, if you had not explained that, I think most people would regard “self” as being the exact opposite of those things.

Good point. I guess what I am getting at there is that “selfishness” is used as a condemnation of our nature. While it behooves us to condemn behaviors, the roots of those behaviors can be understood and accepted as part of the beauty of human nature. The “self”, even though impeded by constant guilt and impatience, will grow to be more inclusive.

How this relates to the topic is “Must a Christian condemn some aspect of our nature in order to avoid undermining the Mystery of Christ”?

And then, is there a problem undermining a mystery? I don’t know; it is an interesting question.

 

[fhansen]

Good Morning.

As always, your responses are a gift to me, and I am grateful.

In my own experience, what makes for the difference is awareness, an awareness that leads to empathy and a deeper understanding of people. With a deeper understanding comes guidance. The freedom question is a separate one, IMO.

To me, grace is overpowering for all of us, but people have differing levels of awareness. As Socrates observed, “People do what they think is best”. It is an observation that we all can make. Those that crucified Christ thought they were doing what was best, and Jesus saw their lack of awareness. This goes to the question, “Is Original Sin framed as Original Ignorance a ‘tampering’”?

You see, Genesis 1 basically refers to an Original Blessing. We can certainly be blessed with a beautiful nature even though we are lacking in awareness.

When the “self” is inclusive of all people and creation we appreciate, then mercy follows. Every normal parent knows what it is like to value the well-being of their own children over their own. The human can, and does, grow in an empathy that includes those he comes to know and love. The “self” expands. With an introspective awareness, he also develops an awe and appreciation for his own self, and learns to protect and respect the temple of his own body.

In other words, it can be observed that every generation has been a “me” generation. Condemnation of “selfishness” misses the mark when one takes a different look at what the “self” includes.

The self is beautiful-and remains so-to the degree that it’s subjugated to its Creator: Him first above all else. Again, that’s lesson #1 for man. Once that knowledge and the obedience it calls for is ignored and dismissed then the self tends towards disorder, towards a lower state of being.

That lesson, that understanding that we must, ultimately, love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength comes before any consideration of particular moral acts-how humans might best behave, even as bad behavior should at least point us in the direction of looking for an answer as to why it takes place. That was the role of the Old Covenant, BTW, to demonstrate that man needs grace, to put it simply. And the New Covenant provides the answer.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning fhansen,

The self is beautiful-and remains so-to the degree that it’s subjugated to its Creator: Him first above all else. Again, that’s lesson #1 for man. Once that knowledge and the obedience it calls for is ignored and dismissed then the self tends towards disorder, towards a lower state of being.

The mystery you are addressing here, I think, are these passages: from John 3:
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

As much as we have the discipline to “love the sinner and hate the sin”, our love naturally follows where we find beauty and value. When we see sin, we naturally see something ugly and dark in the sinner. Is it necessarily a “lesson” for man that we not find beauty in all people, regardless of their behaviors, obedience, beliefs, etc.? The lesson#1 does not necessarily follow from the mysteries presented above. It can, but not necessarily so.

Is enslavement itself “a lower state of being”? Well, it certainly is not a desirable state when one looks at the whole, but being enslaved does not change the observation that people are beautiful. Is a person who hates the light no longer beautiful? This will depend on the observer.

“through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good” -St Augustine

So, through the Spirit we can see beauty in people even when they misbehave or are disobedient; of course the behaviors are to be corrected.

And how do we correct the behaviors? Well,(1) the most natural way is to express non-acceptance to the person, we could tell them that they are not good when they misbehave. This way is very much in line with a reason for upholding the “badness” of those who misbehave. A second way to correct behavior is to show the individual the harm of the behavior, appealing to the human’s natural desire to love. While it is true that “men love darkness” when they are ignorant, the enlightened person avoids doing what causes harm.

Note: “enlightened” includes much more than simple knowing of rules, it includes a knowing of* value*. The tricky part is that when we are in a natural punishment mode (#1 above) our minds are blocked from seeing value (part of #2).

That lesson, that understanding that we must, ultimately, love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength comes before any consideration of particular moral acts-how humans might best behave, even as bad behavior should at least point us in the direction of looking for an answer as to why it takes place. That was the role of the Old Covenant, BTW, to demonstrate that man needs grace, to put it simply. And the New Covenant provides the answer.

Is it a “tampering” if we observe that bad behavior takes place because people are blind and ignorant, especially when they “love the darkness”? Is the mystery undermined?

I’m thinking Stephen may have omitted a better reference for mysteries. A more pertinent mystery may be this from the CCC:

518 Christ’s whole life is a mystery of recapitulation. All Jesus did, said and suffered had for its aim restoring fallen man to his original vocation:

When Christ became incarnate and was made man, he recapitulated in himself the long history of mankind and procured for us a “short cut” to salvation, so that what we had lost in Adam, that is, being in the image and likeness of God, we might recover in Christ Jesus.185 For this reason Christ experienced all the stages of life, thereby giving communion with God to all men.186

Does i.e. describing the “fall”, that is the fallen state of man, using “Original Ignorance” as a definition of “Original Sin” comprise a tampering that undermines the mystery?

 

[simpleas]

We can’t tamper with original sin because then there is no need for a saviour.

The basis for our faith is that the first two humans committed a disobedient act against their creator and thus lost gifts they had previously, that aided them to live completely sinless human lives, which included being ‘cut off’ from their creator.
Jesus came to restore mans connection with the divine.

When Jesus said the words ’ it is complete’ from the cross just before he offered up his spirit, what did he mean?

I had never really thought about this line before, until reading some of the posts on this thread.
Some people believe very strongly that Jesus died for the sin of Adam, that the debt (that we have discussed before) was paid by Jesus’ obedience to the father. I have wondered about that sometimes, if that is so, why wasn’t original sin wiped out from the human nature? Wasn’t what Jesus did enough for the creator?

If original sin was wiped out by Jesus, we still could sin against God, just as Adam did at the beginning, we all have the freewill.

 

[fhansen]

We can’t tamper with original sin because then there is no need for a saviour.

The basis for our faith is that the first two humans committed a disobedient act against their creator and thus lost gifts they had previously, that aided them to live completely sinless human lives, which included being ‘cut off’ from their creator.
Jesus came to restore mans connection with the divine.

When Jesus said the words ’ it is complete’ from the cross just before he offered up his spirit, what did he mean?

I had never really thought about this line before, until reading some of the posts on this thread.
Some people believe very strongly that Jesus died for the sin of Adam, that the debt (that we have discussed before) was paid by Jesus’ obedience to the father. I have wondered about that sometimes, if that is so, why wasn’t original sin wiped out from the human nature? Wasn’t what Jesus did enough for the creator?

If original sin was wiped out by Jesus, we still could sin against God, just as Adam did at the beginning, we all have the freewill.

Yes, wouldn’t God want us to freely choose Him, the opposite of Adam’s choice for all practical purposes? Doesn’t it seem right and normal that the world we have now, as opposed to Eden, is geared to help us make that decision, especially in the light of, with the help of, revelation and grace? So we’re elevated back up to Adam’s position in terms of justice/sanctifying grace but we still struggle against those very attractions that oppose 100% attraction to or love of God.

Anyway, the whole drama of this life, with its goodness and its evils, makes little sense to me unless God is seeking to simultaneously compel and draw us back to Him, without overt force, and in increasing measure of our own willingness as and until our love is perfected, even if that requires some final work in the next life.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas,

We can’t tamper with original sin because then there is no need for a saviour.

The question on this thread acknowledges, I think, that what you said there is true. However, what is a “tampering” and what isn’t? For example, it would be ridiculous to say that we humans need no help whatsoever, i.e. no need of saving, but from what are we being saved? That would vary from person to person, right?

The basis for our faith is that the first two humans committed a disobedient act against their creator and thus lost gifts they had previously, that aided them to live completely sinless human lives, which included being ‘cut off’ from their creator.
Jesus came to restore mans connection with the divine.

When Jesus said the words ’ it is complete’ from the cross just before he offered up his spirit, what did he mean?

I had never really thought about this line before, until reading some of the posts on this thread.
Some people believe very strongly that Jesus died for the sin of Adam, that the debt (that we have discussed before) was paid by Jesus’ obedience to the father. I have wondered about that sometimes, if that is so, why wasn’t original sin wiped out from the human nature? Wasn’t what Jesus did enough for the creator?

If original sin was wiped out by Jesus, we still could sin against God, just as Adam did at the beginning, we all have the freewill.

Those are all really good questions. If, for example, “Original Sin” is the same as “Original Ignorance”, then we are being saved from our ignorance through revelation itself, which takes time, right?, and some of the questions could be answered pretty easily. However, is this definition a “tamper”?

 

[goout]

We can’t tamper with original sin because then there is no need for a saviour.

We can’t tamper with original sin because it is simply a reality. There is no tampering to be done.

The basis for our faith is that the first two humans committed a disobedient act against their creator and thus lost gifts they had previously, that aided them to live completely sinless human lives, which included being ‘cut off’ from their creator.
Jesus came to restore mans connection with the divine.

Yes kinda.
The basis for our faith is that God created us good and we rejected him, and, he still loves us despite our rejection. He sees the good in us, and he shares in our lives so deeply that he becomes one with us in Christ.

When Jesus said the words ’ it is complete’ from the cross just before he offered up his spirit, what did he mean?

I had never really thought about this line before, until reading some of the posts on this thread.
Some people believe very strongly that Jesus died for the sin of Adam, that the debt (that we have discussed before) was paid by Jesus’ obedience to the father. I have wondered about that sometimes, if that is so, why wasn’t original sin wiped out from the human nature? Wasn’t what Jesus did enough for the creator?

If original sin was wiped out by Jesus, we still could sin against God, just as Adam did at the beginning, we all have the freewill.

Jesus himself is our reconciliation with the Father. It is we who make the crucifixion necessary.
When he proclaimed the kingdom, humanity could have simply said “yes” and Jesus might have lived to a ripe old age and ascended. (speculation) We were free to accept him and his message. But we didn’t.
You could argue that our rejection of him is a foregone consequence of original sin. But we also have free will at all times.
So I have to accept that we make his crucifixion the price of our redemption. God the Father is not blood thirsty, we are.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, wouldn’t God want us to freely choose Him, the opposite of Adam’s choice for all practical purposes? Doesn’t it seem right and normal that the world we have now, as opposed to Eden, is geared to help us make that decision, especially in the light of, with the help of, revelation and grace? So we’re elevated back up to Adam’s position in terms of justice/sanctifying grace but we still struggle against those very attractions that oppose 100% attraction to or love of God.

Anyway, the whole drama of this life, with its goodness and its evils, makes little sense to me unless God is seeking to simultaneously compel and draw us back to Him, without overt force, and in increasing measure of our own willingness as and until our love is perfected, even if that requires some final work in the next life.

Not really, consider we are told we all are born with original sin, a negative observation at the moment of birth, one that can be rectified by baptism, but not all people will believe this.
In Eden before Adam’s sin, all would have been born good,without any negative observations.
But all could still have chosen to love or reject their creator.

 

[fhansen]

Not really, consider we are told we all are born with original sin, a negative observation at the moment of birth, one that can be rectified by baptism, but not all people will believe this.
In Eden before Adam’s sin, all would have been born good,without any negative observations.
But all could still have chosen to love or reject their creator.

But maybe not -if we don’t yet have an* appreciation* for our Creator, like the Prodigal for his father after spending time away from home. Perhaps we need to develop a hunger and thirst for better things, after having exhausted trying all the other things the world has to offer. Maybe we have to learn of our need for God, and of His value, of His true goodness and loveliness-before we can begin to love Him. If Baptism returns us to Adam’s state, are we necessarily going to stay there, are *we *necessarily going to love, and so obey, God any better than he did. That’s the question, that outlines the struggle, throughout our lives.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas,

The question on this thread acknowledges, I think, that what you said there is true. However, what is a “tampering” and what isn’t? For example, it would be ridiculous to say that we humans need no help whatsoever, i.e. no need of saving, but from what are we being saved? That would vary from person to person, right?

Those are all really good questions. If, for example, “Original Sin” is the same as “Original Ignorance”, then we are being saved from our ignorance through revelation itself, which takes time, right?, and some of the questions could be answered pretty easily. However, is this definition a “tamper”?

I don’t think that you can say original ignorance, because original sin has to do with Adam.
It’s unique in a way I think, as it could only have been caused by this one man in order for it to be past onto all humans.
Taking the fall story, it would not seem too good on God’s part if he set Adam in the garden, with a tree and a tempting being, while ignorant of why he should not eat of the tree of good and evil.
So changing it from sin to ignorance would be tampering with the doctrine. Tampering means to alter, so you would be changing the meaning, thus undermining Christ’s reason for dying for the sin of Adam.

I get what you are saying about ignorance, we all are ignorant of something or other to some degree, but I don’t think you can say it regarding Adam.

Thanks