Original Sin and Baptism in Roman Catholicism vs. Lutheranism

[jnpl1185]

I think some of the fundamental causes for disagreement between the two groups might help to be alleviated by coming to terms with the differences on the issue of what Original Sin really is and what Baptism really affords for us. As I understand it, Catholics view concupiscence as something separated from Original Sin so that Concupiscence stays with Baptism and Original Sin goes and after Baptism there is nothing about humanity that is inherently repulsive to God. Is this right? If so, what is original sin ontologically speaking as it pertains to us, not to Adam? Even with the Catechism definition, I am having trouble wrapping my head around it, since the results of Original Sin are not the same as the deprivation itself caused by the Fall. How can we be washed of this deprivation of Original Sin and still be subject to its results?

CCC:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”. As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

Augsburg Confession:

Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

3] They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

 

[WorkerPriest]

I will be happy to let a Roman Catholic answer more definitively for their position, but I think the difference comes down to whether the idea of totality… Lutherans tend to understand the human condition post-fall but pre-baptismal regeneration, as having no ability to seek out or love God, but being totally reliant on the Word of God to enliven us toward Him. I think Roman Catholics (and many Orthodox) understand man to have retained some ability to seek after God, even before their enlightenment through Word and Sacrament.

This also distinguishes how modern Roman Catholicism can view salvation apart from any obvious tie to Christ and the Church, in the case of what they deem to be virtuous people of other faith traditions (Jews, Muslims, etc.,) who seek for God with the light they have been given. Lutherans, confessionally speaking, acknowledge no salvation outside Christ and the Church, since only in the Church has Christ given His means of grace (Word and Sacrament.)

Peace be with you.

I think some of the fundamental causes for disagreement between the two groups might help to be alleviated by coming to terms with the differences on the issue of what Original Sin really is and what Baptism really affords for us. As I understand it, Catholics view concupiscence as something separated from Original Sin so that Concupiscence stays with Baptism and Original Sin goes and after Baptism there is nothing about humanity that is inherently repulsive to God. Is this right? If so, what is original sin ontologically speaking as it pertains to us, not to Adam? Even with the Catechism definition, I am having trouble wrapping my head around it, since the results of Original Sin are not the same as the deprivation itself caused by the Fall. How can we be washed of this deprivation of Original Sin and still be subject to its results?

CCC:

Augsburg Confession:

 

[PbloPicasso]

Wow. Lutherans believe like fundamentalists. My understanding is that Catholics do not have to believe that those who are not Catholic are saved. In fact, many Catholics do not believe in salvation outside of being Catholic, not just outside the Church, to make it more clear. My father was one of them. I used to be and now I’m just not sure. At best, we do not know, but in charity and hope we have hope.

Original Sin: The concept of “original sin” is poorly explained my many, probably most, Catholics. The word combo is a term for vocabulary memorization. Descriptive wise it might be better to have used the word combo “original woundedness of man”. Descriptive wise definition would be that “The Fall” created a situation by our original parents that tended to wound man’s nature to resist sin. Think of it this way. Take a pencil and slightly bend it until you hear a crack. Then stop and notice that it tends to bend slightly - assuming you followed my instructions to the tee. You can sharpen the pencil still. You can even use it. But if will tend to be weak in the area you bent it. In order to insure that it withstands more strain, you might choose to use “duct tape” (another use). The duct tape will strengthen it. But over time the tape will weaken and require replacing because of the frequent use. One might refer to the tape as the sacraments to restore the pencils strength. The tape might even make the pencil even stronger initially. But over time with normal use, the pencil will begin to weaken with the age of the tape. The tape could be baptism, which heals us and inducts us into the life of the Church. Confession might be described as replacing the tape.

This would be fun to attempt completing one day. But I think I got my point across.

 

[fermat]

How can we be washed of this deprivation of Original Sin and still be subject to its results?

Wounds leave scars. In our case, concupiscence is that scar. Jesus does not undo the wounds caused by sin, He heals them and allows us to work through them. If Jesus had just undone the damage caused by Original Sin, then He would not have had to die; however, He chose to heal the wound instead. I have the ability to wound myself in a way that effect my children. If I expose myself to radiation, I could alter the basic structure of my physical make up and transmit that change to my children. Original Sin is just on a spiritual level.

I would not say that Catholics believe that concupiscence is separate from Original Sin, but it is a function of it. Free Will is separate from concupiscence and Original Sin is a possible result of Free Will, but it would be difficult to establish causality from FW to OS. OS to concupiscence, definite causality.

 

[arunsebastian]

If you get more stubborn every time you are corrected, one day you will be crushed and never recoverer.(Prov 29:1)
Jesus speaks through parables because Jesus know people couldn’t understand. Its only through power of holy spirit anybody can understand the secret of WORD…so you don’t want to worry about all the things in this world but show your faith to god(as Abraham did, not as Adam and blaming others) so that he will reward you.
Roman catholic is a universal church it need to accompany all the dimensions of the world.
Vatican cannot implement or force some one to believe or follow some teachings instead.
Have faith in Jesus and pray humbly to see a miracle in your life(every saints do the same), then no one will deceive you. You can approach any of your catholic Charismatic group near you. Never waste your valuable time in arguments. Before reading any books read BIBLE(NT) instead…
May god bless you…

 

[jnpl1185]

Uh, not sure how that relates to the question but okay, great.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Uh, not sure how that relates to the question but okay, great.

Is this directed towards me?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Is this directed towards me?

I think he’s talking about this comment:

If you get more stubborn every time you are corrected, one day you will be crushed and never recoverer.(Prov 29:1)
Jesus speaks through parables because Jesus know people couldn’t understand. Its only through power of holy spirit anybody can understand the secret of WORD…so you don’t want to worry about all the things in this world but show your faith to god(as Abraham did, not as Adam and blaming others) so that he will reward you.
Roman catholic is a universal church it need to accompany all the dimensions of the world.
Vatican cannot implement or force some one to believe or follow some teachings instead.
Have faith in Jesus and pray humbly to see a miracle in your life(every saints do the same), then no one will deceive you. You can approach any of your catholic Charismatic group near you. Never waste your valuable time in arguments. Before reading any books read BIBLE(NT) instead…
May god bless you…

 

[WorkerPriest]

I’ll assume you didn’t mean this as a slur, but there aren’t many close theological relationships between the modern American phenomenon of fundamentalism, and Confessional Lutheran doctrine.

The Lutheran position on this particular topic reflects how they read St. Paul through the lense of St. Augustine. The total depravity of man post-fall but pre-baptismal regeneration, seems to my reading, to be a way St. Augustine leveraged the Pauline doctrine against the heretic Pelagius during his day. I don’t think that’s fundamentalism, per se, only a theological view of man that attempts to give all credit for conversion to God, leaving man with no room to boast outside of Christ… which was a point of argument between Lutherans and Roman Catholics during the Reformation period.

Hope that was helpful. Peace be with you.

Wow. Lutherans believe like fundamentalists.

 

[hn160]

For Lutherans, Baptism through the water and the Word is a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit.

 

[SteveVH]

As I understand it, Catholics view concupiscence as something separated from Original Sin so that Concupiscence stays with Baptism and Original Sin goes and after Baptism there is nothing about humanity that is inherently repulsive to God. Is this right? If so, what is original sin ontologically speaking as it pertains to us, not to Adam? Even with the Catechism definition, I am having trouble wrapping my head around it, since the results of Original Sin are not the same as the deprivation itself caused by the Fall. How can we be washed of this deprivation of Original Sin and still be subject to its results?

Original sin changed human nature forever. Concupiscence is one consequence of that original sin. It means that we tend toward sin as a result of the loss of original holiness. While baptism removes the stain of original sin from our souls and infuses us with supernatural life, we, nevertheless, remain in a fallen human condition; spiritually, intellectually and physically.

You will have to forgive me. I am unfamiliar with the Lutheran view on original sin. But do you believe that concupiscence does not remain after baptism? That is what I gathered from your statement “As I understand it, Catholics view concupiscence as something separated from Original Sin so that Concupiscence stays with Baptism and Original Sin goes…” I’m confused by your comments. Maybe you could explain again.

Thanks

 

[onenow1]

For Lutherans, Baptism through the water and the Word is a washing of regeneration in the Holy Spirit.

Hi,hn, It should be noted ! It was not until Acts 2:3-4, when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, that they were able to perform the Baptism of Christ.
“But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth.”
Acts 1:8.
“And there appeared to them parted tongues as of fire, which settled upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak.”
Acts 2:3-4.

Soon after the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles began Baptizing the people…

God Bless

 

[WorkerPriest]

Lutheran and Roman Catholic understandings of concupiscence are very similar, though our respective diagnosis of the implications are a bit different.

For example, the Lutheran will confess that concupiscence remains after Baptismal regeneration, as a tendency and inclination toward sin. However, we will acknowledge our concupiscence as a telling sign that we are still fundamentally sinners in need of saving grace. Lutherans sometimes phrase this as, “We sin because we are sinners,” rather than the inverse of this statement, that we are sinners because we sin. For Lutherans, the root problem extends to an existential question, in so far as in our fallen state we are truly sinners in need of grace, until rescued from this body of sin and death.

My observation is that this differs somewhat from the Roman Catholic understanding, which may perceive in the post-Baptismal regenerate Christian, an actual ability to cease from all sin. Lutherans, conversely, in understanding our sinful nature expressed in our concupiscence as real sin, see the Christian life as a tension held between being both sinner and saint, alive in Christ by grace through faith. Hence, the life of a Lutheran Christian can never be one without constant repentance, and faith that believes we are forgiven for Christ’s sake, delivered to us in Word and Sacrament.

Peace be with you.

Original sin changed human nature forever. Concupiscence is one consequence of that original sin. It means that we tend toward sin as a result of the loss of original holiness. While baptism removes the stain of original sin from our souls and infuses us with supernatural life, we, nevertheless, remain in a fallen human condition; spiritually, intellectually and physically.

You will have to forgive me. I am unfamiliar with the Lutheran view on original sin. But do you believe that concupiscence does not remain after baptism? That is what I gathered from your statement “As I understand it, Catholics view concupiscence as something separated from Original Sin so that Concupiscence stays with Baptism and Original Sin goes…” I’m confused by your comments. Maybe you could explain again.

Thanks

 

[SteveVH]

Lutheran and Roman Catholic understandings of concupiscence are very similar, though our respective diagnosis of the implications are a bit different.

For example, the Lutheran will confess that concupiscence remains after Baptismal regeneration, as a tendency and inclination toward sin. However, we will acknowledge our concupiscence as a telling sign that we are still fundamentally sinners in need of saving grace. Lutherans sometimes phrase this as, “We sin because we are sinners,” rather than the inverse of this statement, that we are sinners because we sin. For Lutherans, the root problem extends to an existential question, in so far as in our fallen state we are truly sinners in need of grace, until rescued from this body of sin and death.

My observation is that this differs somewhat from the Roman Catholic understanding, which may perceive in the post-Baptismal regenerate Christian, an actual ability to cease from all sin. Lutherans, conversely, in understanding our sinful nature expressed in our concupiscence as real sin, see the Christian life as a tension held between being both sinner and saint, alive in Christ by grace through faith. Hence, the life of a Lutheran Christian can never be one without constant repentance, and faith that believes we are forgiven for Christ’s sake, delivered to us in Word and Sacrament.

Peace be with you.

Thanks. That was a great explanation. I’m not sure that I would disagree with anything you said. I was asked the question once: “If it is not possible for us to cease sinning then can we really be held responsible for our sins?” I had to ponder that for awhile. What I do know is that if it is possible to cease sinning, I don’t know anyone who has actually accomplished it. On one hand, every sin we commit is a choice, or it is not sin. If it is truly a choice then it must be possible to choose not to sin. While this is true, in the end, at some point, our weakness, due to concupiscence will prevail and we will fall. It is quite the dilemma. Its a great topic and one certainly worthy of contemplation. I suppose as we progress in holiness through our lives, it should be our goal to cease sinning altogether. But the true mark of a saint, in my opinion, is the realization that it is not so much our goodness that is at issue, but rather the goodness of God who saves us.

Peace be with you also.

 

[WorkerPriest]

My pleasure, and I’m glad I could help.

As for that problem of concupiscence eventually moving us to fall into sin, it is my perception that Christ forsaw this problem for us, and gave us the gift of sacramental Confession and Absolution to deal with it. Once highly prized among Lutherans (and stated as such in our Confessional documents,) it has fallen widely into disuse. From my Roman Catholic friends, it seems they have a similar problem. Both our communions seem to be struggling to get people to the gifts of Christ, whether that be the Holy Eucharist, the preaching of the Word, Confession and Absolution, or in some cases even Holy Baptism. Lord, help us!

It has been said, by people far wiser than I, that to misunderstand sin in our human conundrum is to eventually misunderstand the whole of the Gospel. If we really don’t think of ourselves as sinners, we will have very little desire to receive the Means of Grace. However, I think some of our recent popes have put a finger on the problem of western cultures’ decent into secularism and atheism, which in itself robs man of properly understanding his sinfulness before God, and his need for Christ unto salvation.

For Lutheran and Roman alike, I think our work is more than cut out for us.

Blessings be upon you, friend.

Thanks. That was a great explanation. I’m not sure that I would disagree with anything you said. I was asked the question once: “If it is not possible for us to cease sinning then can we really be held responsible for our sins?” I had to ponder that for awhile. What I do know is that if it is possible to cease sinning, I don’t know anyone who has actually accomplished it. On one hand, every sin we commit is a choice, or it is not sin. If it is truly a choice then it must be possible to choose not to sin. While this is true, in the end, at some point, our weakness, due to concupiscence will prevail and we will fall. It is quite the dilemma. Its a great topic and one certainly worthy of contemplation. I suppose as we progress in holiness through our lives, it should be our goal to cease sinning altogether. But the true mark of a saint, in my opinion, is the realization that it is not so much our goodness that is at issue, but rather the goodness of God who saves us.

Peace be with you also.