Original Sin only from 1 Parent?

[Reformed_Rob]

I know there have been threads pertaining to the Immaculate Conception before. But this one is, from what I can tell, more pointed and focused in it’s subject matter.

I’ve learned just enough about Mariology to get me desirous of more. That’s how amazed I am with what little I’ve learned. So, naturally, a question comes up.

Being Reformed, I’ve understood that Christ’s human nature was devoid of original sin due to the fact that He didn’t have a human father. And that led me to believe, that since His Father was/is “God the Father” then He’s obviously not going to inherit original sin from His Father. So, I was then led, naturally, to conclude that as a Reformed guy I should believe that original sin is ONLY inherited from the father, and not from the mother. Hence, Christ did not inherit original sin from Mary, His mother, because, though she was a sinner, original sin is only passed on through the male parent.

BUT, learning a little, and I mean just a little bit, about the Immaculate Conception, I went to my WMCOF, and looked at the Scriptures it quoted for original sin. Of course, I’m familiar with them, and they’re the same ones Catholics use. But, that’s a good place to see several all together.

So, here’s 3 that peaked my interest:

Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Obviously, not a Christological text)

Job 14:4 - Who can make the clean come out of the unclean? No one!!

Job 15:14 - What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

I suppose one could say that you have to take the entire Scriptural account into perspective in interpreting these verses, and you should end up with the Reformed view. But, it looks like from these texts, it is at least possible that original sin is inherited from each (both) parents. If Mary was a sinner, or even if she only had original sin, then she would be “unclean.” Of course, God could do a Godly thing and make her offspring’s human nature pure, but then again, it seems at least as likely that God’s means for causing that would be to preserve Mary from original sin.

Federal headship - OK, the male is ultimately the federal head of the family, and perhaps the one God looks to in passing on original sin, but still, you have those 3 texts above to consider.

Calling all Protestants! Please offer your understanding regarding this matter! I’m sure good Catholics can say much more that what I have just stated.

 

[GAssisi]

I will just make one comment: your idea that original sin is inherited from the father is not original (no pun intended). The Jews reasoned the same belief.

God bless,
Greg

 

[pnewton]

What you are talking about is the seminal theory of original sin, i.e. original sin passed on throw the male. In situations like this, I have to throw up my hands and say, I do not know and I think you are have a point.

Sin could have been passed on through the female (Mary) or the male.

Could have, should have would have, is not and never has been the question. What did God *really *do to bring about his divine presence in the world?

It is the Catholic position that it was fitting that she (and not her mother) be prepared as a pure tabernacle for the second person of the Holy Trinity. Thus, she (and not her mother or father) was alone conceived free from sin.

Then, as a perfect vessel, she was overshadowed by her spouse, the Holy Spirit, she conceived in her womb, God.

It sure takes a lot of faith, doesn’t it. No wonder Jesus had to perform such miraculous signs to get through to us numbskulls.

 

[jimmy]

I don’t see how this sin can be possible especially since it leaves out Eve. Eve was just as guilty as Adam for the first sin. Yet she recieves no guilt? It does not make sense.

The fact that all sin entered the world through Adam is not proof for it either. The flesh of Eve came from Adam so even if it is passed on by Eve it would still be through one man that sin entered the world… I think that the guilt is passed on by both parents because they are both of the race of Adam. If it was just passed on by the father that would kind of make the man less than the woman because he would be responsible for the evil alone but men and women are equal.

If the sin is only passed on by Adam, does that mean that Eve never fell from the grace of God?

 

[Todd_Easton]

I am a little out of my league when it comes to genetics but…

Aren’t diseases the consequence of Original Sin? Haven’t some diseases been shown by modern science to be based on one’s genetic makeup. Hasn’t modern science also shown that one receives half of his genetic makeup from his mother and half from his father? It is my understanding that modern science has shown that disease-producing genetic material in one’s makeup can come from either parent. At least in light of modern science, I don’t see how one can say that Original Sin is passed on only through one’s father.

 

[Shiann]

I wouldn’t call Original Sin the equivalent of a genetic disease.

Maybe as those above me have already said, since the Jews of the time believed that a person’s father passed on original sin, that this would be why they were recorded in the Old Testament of the Holy Book this way.

It is also my understanding that Mary was free from original sin hence her Immaculate Conception.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Thank you for the insightful replies. As I was pondering these things in my heart today, another text came into my mind:

I Corinthians 7:13,14
And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Ok, I don’t want to be accused of taking this too far, or out of context. But, I think a noteworthy principle can be applied. As a Presbyterian, I have been taught that this passage is to be taken to show that children of parents, which even if only one of their parents are believers, those children, if baptised, are admitted into the visible church. Here, I don’t want to tangented into the visible/invisible distinction! Rather, simply, Covenentally speaking, the children can be “sanctified” through just one believing parent, even if that parent is the mother!

So, does that go further to prove that, in the eyes of God, original sin can even be passed on through the mother? True, Biblically speaking, the emphasis is on the male, due to the parental authority being mostly vested in him.

Please, if you believe Catholics are wrong here, show how and offer a correction. I ask that humbly and honestly, not in a challenging way.

 

[Shiann]

Reformed Rob:

I know there have been threads pertaining to the Immaculate Conception before. But this one is, from what I can tell, more pointed and focused in it’s subject matter.

I’ve learned just enough about Mariology to get me desirous of more. That’s how amazed I am with what little I’ve learned. So, naturally, a question comes up.

I think it’s great that you are exploring Marian doctorine through the Catholic perspective. This area is one of the most misunderstood by our protestant brethren.

Being Reformed, I’ve understood that Christ’s human nature was devoid of original sin due to the fact that He didn’t have a human father.

This is correct:
**Our Lord, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, was, by virtue of his miraculous conception, ipso facto free from the taint of original sin. ** (Catholic Encyclopedia: Immaculate Conception, under the heading ‘The Conception of St. John the Baptist’)

And that led me to believe, that since His Father was/is “God the Father” then He’s obviously not going to inherit original sin from His Father.

Still with you here…

So, I was then led, naturally, to conclude that as a Reformed guy I should believe that original sin is ONLY inherited from the father, and not from the mother.

I guess this is where I get confused by your point. I’m not sure how you can use this singularly miraculous chain of events, to make assumptions for the rest of humanity. Or how you can use the example of Christ’s Holy Conception and Virgin Birth as evidence as to what occurs in general for the rest of us.

Hence, Christ did not inherit original sin from Mary, His mother, because, though she was a sinner, original sin is only passed on through the male parent.

There is error here in your premise in that Mary was not a sinner. She was conceived free from the taint of Original Sin and continued in her sinlessness throughout her life- to fulfill her duties as the New Eve and the Ark for our Lord.

BUT, learning a little, and I mean just a little bit, about the Immaculate Conception, I went to my WMCOF, and looked at the Scriptures it quoted for original sin. Of course, I’m familiar with them, and they’re the same ones Catholics use. But, that’s a good place to see several all together.

So, here’s 3 that peaked my interest:

Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Obviously, not a Christological text)

Job 14:4 - Who can make the clean come out of the unclean? No one!!

Job 15:14 - What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Continued…

 

[Shiann]

suppose one could say that you have to take the entire Scriptural account into perspective in interpreting these verses, and you should end up with the Reformed view. But, it looks like from these texts, it is at least possible that original sin is inherited from each (both) parents. If Mary was a sinner, or even if she only had original sin, then she would be “unclean.” Of course, God could do a Godly thing and make her offspring’s human nature pure, but then again, it seems at least as likely that God’s means for causing that would be to preserve Mary from original sin.

Which is exactly what he did…

Federal headship - OK, the male is ultimately the federal head of the family, and perhaps the one God looks to in passing on original sin, but still, you have those 3 texts above to consider.

Calling all Protestants! Please offer your understanding regarding this matter! I’m sure good Catholics can say much more that what I have just stated.

I hope someone else does join in here…

 

[Shiann]

Reformed Rob:

Thank you for the insightful replies. As I was pondering these things in my heart today, another text came into my mind:

I Corinthians 7:13,14
And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.

Ok, I don’t want to be accused of taking this too far, or out of context. But, I think a noteworthy principle can be applied. As a Presbyterian, I have been taught that this passage is to be taken to show that children of parents, which even if only one of their parents are believers, those children, if baptised, are admitted into the visible church. Here, I don’t want to tangented into the visible/invisible distinction! Rather, simply, Covenentally speaking, the children can be “sanctified” through just one believing parent, even if that parent is the mother!

Thus the principal difficulties of non-believers against the transmission of sin are answered. “Free will is essentially incommunicable.” Physically, yes; morally, no; the will of the father being considered as that of his children. “It is unjust to make us responsible for an act committed before our birth.” Strictly responsible, yes; responsible in a wide sense of the word, no; the crime of a father brands his yet unborn children with shame, and entails upon them a share of his own responsibility. “Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam.” That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as “a moral deformity”, “a separation from God”, as “the death of the soul”, original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the “stain” which St. Thomas defines as “the privation of grace” (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, “takes away all that is really and properly sin”, for concupiscence which remains “is not really and properly sin”, although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called.

I think this shows that because the taint of Original Sin lies with all of humanity because of our original father Adam, we are still imbued with free will. Of course either of our parents are able to offer us the path of redemption.

Cont…

 

[Shiann]

So, does that go further to prove that, in the eyes of God, original sin can even be passed on through the mother? True, Biblically speaking, the emphasis is on the male, due to the parental authority being mostly vested in him.

I would say generally no. Through both scripture and tradition explained on the pages referenced above.

Please, if you believe Catholics are wrong here, show how and offer a correction. I ask that humbly and honestly, not in a challenging way.

Original Sin
Immaculate Conception

I think it is commendable that you are exploring this. I of course believe Catholic thought to be correct and concise in this issue. God Bless you.

Shiann

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Thanks, Shiann for your remarks.

Yeah, I wish someone else would chime in.

So, nobody has objected to this to speak of. So let me raise an objection.

As a Reformed guy, I can just as easily turn the argument around on you Catholics. In fact, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary begs the very question of God “not accounting original sin at the point of conception.”

I’ll say that it is just as easy for me to take those 2 Job verses and get from them that it is improbable for Mary to be born of a natural conception, and come clean (w/o original sin) from an unclean (sinful) woman. Rather, what is more likely, and more reasonable, is that God did to Christ’s human nature what you Catholics claim He did to Mary, which is He **"preserved (Christ) exempt from all stain of original sin.

**That above bold text is copied from the Catholic Encyclopedia article you linked on the Immaculate Conception.

I realize I have more to learn about this, but perhaps I’m asking a question that hasn’t been asked recently. I doubt it, but maybe!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Shiann:

I would say generally no. Through both scripture and tradition explained on the pages referenced above.

Shiann

Do you mean “generally no” in that you don’t think it further shows that original sin can be transmitted through both parents?

OK, let me plagarize for a moment here. My Catholic friend just sent me an email about this, here’s the excerpt:

I don’t think the Job text confirms that everything born of woman is sinful,
because Christ would be sinful. I do agree with St. Augustine that
its purely through the male, and that the Holy Spirit conceiving Christ
in the Blessed Virgin’s womb is what prevented Him from being stained with
original sin. Ihave always thought the conception by the Holy Spirit
was a good argument FOR original sin, since Christ had no sin. I think
Romans 5 is pretty clear that sin is transmitted through the male, and
not through the woman. I have always thought that the “in the loins
of” idea proved headship, too. You dont see Scripture
saying that Levi was "…still in the loins of his mother Sarah,
" but “in the loins of Abraham.” I think he’s probably referring to Hebrews 7:9-11 there.

So, now we have the witness of Augustine to ponder here.

By the way, I hope to read those 2 articles you linked to very soon.

 

[elgom]

I’m really not sure what you are trying to say here, but I am Catholic and I’ll try to answer for the Immaculate Conception. As far as original sin being from only 1 parent I believe Adam and Eve were equally responsible for the corruption of our natures and passed that corruption on to all, i.e. original sin.

Let’s look at Genesis 3:15 and talk about what God has revealed to us here. Adam and Eve have sinned and they have a corrupt nature now and have lost this precious relationship with God and it has been damaged. (We call this Sanctifying Grace.) Yet they are sorry and God promises them this “Woman” and he tells them that there will be enmity between this Woman and the devil. In order for their to be enmity she would have to be his enemy. The devil because of this sin is now “Lord of the World” and we are all prisoners and subject to him through this corruption. God tells us here that this woman will not be subject to the devil, God promises us this. So she would have to be sinless. God is all powerful and originally created Adam and Eve sinless so he can obviously do this again and preserve this woman from this sin so she will be the promised enemy of Satan.

Later on we have the angel Gabriel appearing to a woman and telling her she is “Full of Grace”. I don’t believe anyone before or after her has ever had an angel address them in this way. You could only be Full of Grace if you were sinless.

Now we need to look at the wedding Feast of Cana. Our Lord Jesus, the perfect son basically addresses his mother inappropriately by calling her “woman” when she asks him to perform his first miracle. Jesus here is pointing out that she is the “woman” whom God has promised to send and he begins his public ministry at her request. (To crush the head of Satan.)

Then look at Jesus on the cross when he looks down from the cross and again at a time when he would usually address her as mother again addresses her as “Woman”. To point us to the fact that she is this promised Woman.

Later on in Rev. 12 “The Woman clothed with the sun with the moon on her feet and a crown of 12 stars on her head” begs the question of who this Woman is. She is a Queen, and Jesus has told us who she is, and God has revealed to us that she would not be under the power of his enemy Satan. Logic dictates that we understand what we cannot comprehend from what God reveals to us at this point.

I hope I have helped.

God bless.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Thanks for the replies.

From having read Pope Pius IX’s Ineffabilis Deus and some Aquinas passages, I now feel I have at least a better working knowledge of what the issues are. I also understand that if I were Catholic, I would only speak of the issues if I were straight on how I should understand and present the argument for the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX’s warnings and limitations were quite clear on this point. Certainly, you would do great dis-service to this Catholic doctrine if you misrepresented it.

Also, I’m through inquiring into this matter for a while.

Basically, from reading Aquinas newadvent.org/summa/208202.htm

That’s the question entitled " Whether there are several original sins in one man?"

He seems to hold to the view (apparently Augustine did too) that original sin is transmitted through the male, maybe even male only. He cited Romans 5, though that question does not deal with this point exactly, but rather a related point.

So, I’m content saying, that if original sin would not have been transmitted to Christ via His mother, then that would do no harm to the Immaculate Conception doctrine, for it would still be proper for the Only-Begotten, Who has a Father in heaven, Whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so He should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness (from Ineffabilis Deus). Ie, she is the “ark of the New Covenant”, so she should be the virgin undefiled, the most beautiful paradise of innocence, the lily among thorns, the most august temple of God, which, radiant with Divine splendors, is full of the glory of God (Isaiah 6:1). Or so the Church Fathers taught.

Thanks for keeping me in this for a few days, yall!

 

[Shiann]

Your question:

So, does that go further to prove that, in the eyes of God, original sin can even be passed on through the mother? True, Biblically speaking, the emphasis is on the male, due to the parental authority being mostly vested in him.

I answered that I think- no, original sin cannot be passed on through the mother. As discussed in the links I provided. Now I’m no professional theologian, so I softened the answer with “generally”.

All people, including women (save for Mary and Jesus) has Original Sin. But according to the Church, it is the father that passes it on.

Are you trying to say that because Mary was a woman, she wouldn’t need to have an Immaculate Conception because she wouldn’t have passed Original Sin to Jesus anyway?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

According to the catechism, “…the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. … By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.” That is, the nature of humans is “deprived of original holiness and justice… original sin is called sin only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”–a state and not an act.”

If I am not mistaken, the genetic analogy would be that the gene for innocence and justice was dropped from the genome. There is not a “sin” carried on the X or on the Y. It is an absence that we all suffer from. The inclination for good that remains, absent this unity with the Will of God, becomes a mere inclination to follow our own wills. Put another way, we inherit an inclination to evil called “concupiscence”, but we aren’t born evil. Rather, we are born inclined to choose what is good in our own eyes, rather than being inclined to choose the Will of God. As is, our quest for good is as useless as a compass that does not know True North.

Seen in this way, Mary was given the gift of holiness and innocence that Adam and Eve originally enjoyed, that is, she was born with the inclination to do the Will of God–according to the Eastern Fathers, as though “fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”.

Jesus must necessarily have had this inclination in order to be Incarnated, for how could a single person have two natures simulataneously unless those natures were fundamentally in unity? It would be impossible. In one sense, it came through Mary, since her “yes” was required for the Incarnation to take place. But the original inclination was not hers to give or withhold as she wished. Rather, preservation from original sin was a gift given to Mary in anticipation of the saving acts of Jesus. (Remember that God operates from eternity… to Him, all times are present.) Mary is saved by the merits of Jesus, just as we are, although in a far, far more exalted fashion.

Now, think of her statement at Lourdes: I am the Immaculate Conception. Do you hear the profound humility of that statement? She makes no claim for herself–she is identifies herself not with her own “yes”, but only with the gift that allowed her to speak that wonderful “yes” at all. In other words: “I am what my Son’s merits won for me.” Magnificent. I know it is not dogma, but dear sweet St. Bernadette could not have made that up!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Shiann:

Are you trying to say that because Mary was a woman, she wouldn’t need to have an Immaculate Conception because she wouldn’t have passed Original Sin to Jesus anyway?

Thanks for asking. Actually, no. What I’m saying is :

*If original sin would not have been transmitted to Christ via His mother, then that would do no harm to the Immaculate Conception doctrine, for it would still be proper for the Only-Begotten, Who has a Father in heaven, Whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so He should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness (from *Ineffabilis Deus).

I’m content with this for now. More content than most Presbyterians you’ll come across on your average cross-country bicycle ride!

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Now I’m convinced that this and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity are two very misunderstood (or rather, not even considered) subjects among general non-Catholic Christian groups.
Ok, so Original Sin is judicially only passed on through the Father, and the moral effect of Original Sin is Concupiscence, which is life-long existant in a person, even the regenerate, but by God’s grace and the merits of Christ and the regenerate person, people are justified in God’s eyes. OK.

And Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, holy from birth by the merits of Christ and God's grace.  She was free from sin.  The Trinity kept her from sin, she is the reconciler of the whole world, and it is most fitting that she be free from any stain of Adam's sin because she is the mother of God's only begotten Son.

Ok, my questions are answered. Like, who would ever come up with all this? Can it possibly be the invention of men? I don’t think so. Now I see why it is required to believe this, because if you don’t, then that’s a good sign that you obviously reject the supreme teaching authority of Mother Church. If you depart from Catholic doctrine at any point, you cease to be Catholic and must repent.

Now I know, thanks.

 

[Fr_Don_OPA]

I want to add something from an Anglican perspective. The Incarnate One and his sinlessness really doesn’t belong in a discussion about our original sin and salvation. While Jesus was human in every way, save sin, he was also fully God, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Virgin. Accordingly the BVM is the Mother of God.

The Incarnation is a one off intervention into human history by The Holy Trinity , unlike anything before or since. We (Anglicans) believe Jesus was not born without original sin because he had no human father but because of who he is.