Original Sin question

[laocmo]

The very basis of Christianity is the original sin upon which the crucifixion of Jesus is justified. If original sin were thrown away, then the crucifixion would become a meaningless happening.

Church history shows the doctrine of original sin is a distinctly Christian doctrine first expounded upon by Augustine. The original sin concept has NO basis in Judaism, and Judaism completely rejects it. Therefore this teaching seems to be a distinct phenomena of Christianity which was developed to strengthen the other developing ideas of the Roman Church concerning who Jesus was and what his purpose was for mankind. Original sin is vital to Christian theology but not relevant in Jewish theology which precedes it. Is original sin a fact??

Jesus Taught That Little Children Are Without Sin. Original or otherwise? Look it up.

Children Have No Knowledge Of Good And Evil At Birth. The Bible teaches that children cannot be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth, for they do not yet know the difference between good and evil, and have not yet come to the “age of accountability” Look it up.

No Man Can Be Guilty For A Sin He Did Not Commit. Look it up.

The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man. Look it up.

The Bible teaches that every sin is a free and voluntary act. There is no involuntary sin. Man must will evil and choose evil before he can be a sinner. He cannot be born a sinner, for he has no choice in his birth. The idea that man can be a sinner without a voluntary act of his own will is completely contrary to the Bible. Man must voluntarily choose evil before he can be a sinner. Its in the book.

However it was Augustine of Hippo who, in the fifth century (354-430), was largely responsible for transforming Paul’s teachings on the Fall into the doctrine of Original Sin, teaching as he did that man is born into this world in a state of sin. Why do we believe his opinion ??

One would think that if Adam’s transgression had such a monumental effect on all future generations it would at least be mentioned in the account. Yet, nowhere in the Old Testament is it explicitly stated that Adam’s sin was passed down. In fact, the silence in the book of Genesis is deafening. All we are told is that, in view of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Good and Evil, God did not want them to also partake of the Tree of Life, and live for ever (Genesis: 3:22), therefore He banished them from the garden (Genesis: 3:23). The man was cursed with having to work for food and the ground that was also cursed would hand him thorns and thistles (Genesis: 3:17-19). The woman was cursed with great pain in childbirth (Genesis: 3:16). Not a single word is breathed about this original sin being put upon Adam’s descendants. Are we to believe that God forgot to mention the most devastating consequence of all as it effects us?

I can see how some have a hard time accepting Original Sin as a fact. Any opinions?

 

[grannymh]

Romans 5: 12-21

1Corinthians 15: 21-22

 

[simpleas]

 

[laocmo]

Romans 5: 12-21

1Corinthians 15: 21-22

Nice references to why we believe in original sin. But your bible interpretations in no way answer these questions quoted from above:

"Jesus Taught That Little Children Are Without Sin. Original or otherwise? Look it up.

"Children Have No Knowledge Of Good And Evil At Birth. The Bible teaches that children cannot be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth, for they do not yet know the difference between good and evil, and have not yet come to the “age of accountability” Look it up.

"No Man Can Be Guilty For A Sin He Did Not Commit. Look it up.

"The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man. Look it up.

"The Bible teaches that every sin is a free and voluntary act. There is no involuntary sin. Man must will evil and choose evil before he can be a sinner. He cannot be born a sinner, for he has no choice in his birth. The idea that man can be a sinner without a voluntary act of his own will is completely contrary to the Bible. Man must voluntarily choose evil before he can be a sinner. Its in the book.

Why should Adam’s descendants be held responsible for his sins?? There is nothing just in that and it contradicts all the quotes about children, etc being sinless when born.
Then again wasn’t Mary one of his descendants born without original sin? But did she suffer from Adam’s genetic defects which were brought on by his sin?

 

[grannymh]

Nice references to why we believe in original sin. But your bible interpretations in no way answer these questions quoted from above:

"Jesus Taught That Little Children Are Without Sin. Original or otherwise? Look it up.

"Children Have No Knowledge Of Good And Evil At Birth. The Bible teaches that children cannot be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth, for they do not yet know the difference between good and evil, and have not yet come to the “age of accountability” Look it up.

"No Man Can Be Guilty For A Sin He Did Not Commit. Look it up.

"The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man. Look it up.

"The Bible teaches that every sin is a free and voluntary act. There is no involuntary sin. Man must will evil and choose evil before he can be a sinner. He cannot be born a sinner, for he has no choice in his birth. The idea that man can be a sinner without a voluntary act of his own will is completely contrary to the Bible. Man must voluntarily choose evil before he can be a sinner. Its in the book.

Interesting points. However they are not totally related to Original Sin per se which only involves the first original human on planet earth. It is true that the original Adam voluntarily chose to disobey his Creator. Therefore, Adam shattered the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity.

Why should Adam’s descendants be held responsible for his sins??

This is not taught by the Catholic Church.

There is nothing just in that and it contradicts all the quotes about children, etc being sinless when born.

The result of Original Sin is that the original human Adam lost his state of Original Holiness. Thus, he is in a state deprived of Original Holiness .

Then again wasn’t Mary one of his descendants born without original sin? But did she suffer from Adam’s genetic defects which were brought on by his sin?

Are you referring to the genetic fact that humans have a decomposing anatomy?

In any case, the Catholic Church teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Although St. Augustine clearly tops the list (at least in the West) of those Church Fathers who taught the doctrine of Original Sin, he surely is not the first.

First off, lets define Original Sin:

Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. (Wikipedia)

Original Sin is arguably the most touched upon doctrine in the history of the Church - not counting Sacred Scripture (which wasn’t clearly agreed upon for the first 3 centuries) - simply because its the root cause of our need for salvation.

Reference: Gen 3; 1 Cor 15:21; Rom 5:12,15; 6:23; Rom 5:12,19; Psalm 51:5; Eph 2:1-3

Discussion of this doctrine is clearly evident in the early centuries of the Church.

St. Irenaeus writes toward the end of the 100’s:

....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3 emphasis mine)

Later we find Tertullian (c. 200 AD)

Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom Man was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression Man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

Origin (c. 244 AD):

Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sin; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit. [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD):

If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

There are dozens more writings from early Church Fathers.

Long story short…

Despite the fact that Augustine is perhaps the most referenced theological giant (in the West at least), he most certainly isn’t the first.

christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/26217/are-there-any-writings-from-the-church-fathers-teaching-original-sin-before-augu

biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num54.htm

 

[fisherman_carl]

Children are born without culpability for actual sins committed. Original sin means a deprivation of original justice. Or to put more simply it means we lost that original grace that Adam and Eve had. It doesn’t mean we are personally guilty for Adam’s sin. Rather, the effects of losing original grace is what we experience. Things get out of whack so to speak with that grace. But it is made available to us through Chriat Jesus.

So children are innocent. The Church doesn’t teach unbaptized babies go to hell. There was talk of a limbo of the children, but it was only theological speculation. God is love and he desires everyone to be saved including unbaptized infants. So why wouldn’t he make a way for them too? God’s hands are not tied.

Can not God make exceptions? Are there not exceptions to rules? The Bible says that all have sinned. Well, we know there must be exceptions to that. Jesus was one. And infants who died are another exception. As welll, the Church teaches Mary was free from all sin is another exception.

 

[Lucretius]

Church history shows the doctrine of original sin is a distinctly Christian doctrine first expounded upon by Augustine.

It has always been taught, but St. Augustine specifically spent much time contemplating it and expounding the teaching.

The original sin concept has NO basis in Judaism, and Judaism completely rejects it. Therefore this teaching seems to be a distinct phenomena of Christianity which was developed to strengthen the other developing ideas of the Roman Church concerning who Jesus was and what his purpose was for mankind. Original sin is vital to Christian theology but not relevant in Jewish theology which precedes it. Is original sin a fact??

There are two major elements to the Latin Church’s teaching on original sin: the cause of original sin, and it’s effects. The cause of original sin is a lack of sanctifying Grace. The major effects of original sin are:

1. physical death and illness;
2. concupiscence;
3. ignorance.

The effects are all facts of human existence, which all sane Jews obviously accept. Furthermore, it is acceptable and historical in Orthodox Jewish to believe that Adam’s sin caused the effects I listed (especially death and concupiscence).

However, Jews of Judaism do not accept that the cause of these things is a lack of sanctifying Grace, because sanctifying Grace is a partaking of the Divine Life, which is only intelligible in light of the Incarnation. In other words, Jews don’t believe in the Incarnation, and thus they don’t believe in sanctifying Grace.

Jesus Taught That Little Children Are Without Sin. Original or otherwise? Look it up.

Children Have No Knowledge Of Good And Evil At Birth. The Bible teaches that children cannot be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth, for they do not yet know the difference between good and evil, and have not yet come to the “age of accountability” Look it up.

No Man Can Be Guilty For A Sin He Did Not Commit. Look it up.

The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man. Look it up.

The Bible teaches that every sin is a free and voluntary act. There is no involuntary sin. Man must will evil and choose evil before he can be a sinner. He cannot be born a sinner, for he has no choice in his birth. The idea that man can be a sinner without a voluntary act of his own will is completely contrary to the Bible. Man must voluntarily choose evil before he can be a sinner. Its in the book.

Original Sin is not personal sin. We are not guilty of Adam’s sin, but rather suffer the consequences of his sin. Original sin is essentially a lack of participation in the Divine Nature, which no one obviously can do without the Grace of God, which is given ordinarily in Baptism and other Sacraments. Adam, by sinning, lost this Grace for his descendants, yet God so loved the world they He gave His only Son, so that we wouldn’t be condemned by the consequences of someone else’s sin.

One would think that if Adam’s transgression had such a monumental effect on all future generations it would at least be mentioned in the account. Yet, nowhere in the Old Testament is it explicitly stated that Adam’s sin was passed down. In fact, the silence in the book of Genesis is deafening. All we are told is that, in view of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Good and Evil, God did not want them to also partake of the Tree of Life, and live for ever (Genesis: 3:22), therefore He banished them from the garden (Genesis: 3:23). The man was cursed with having to work for food and the ground that was also cursed would hand him thorns and thistles (Genesis: 3:17-19). The woman was cursed with great pain in childbirth (Genesis: 3:16). Not a single word is breathed about this original sin being put upon Adam’s descendants. Are we to believe that God forgot to mention the most devastating consequence of all as it effects us?

One the contrary, God says that when Adam eats the fruit “he will surely die,” by which he means not only physical death, but also spiritual death, which just is original sin.

I can see how some have a hard time accepting Original Sin as a fact. Any opinions?

I find that you are attacking a Protestant conception of original sin, not the Latin Catholic one

Think of it this way: Adam and Eve were exiled for their sin, and so by logical extension, all of their children were born in exile. Even if it is not the children’s fault that they are in this foreign land, no matter what personal sins they commit or don’t commit, no matter how good they are, they can never by themselves enter the garden in which their patriarch was exiled and eat of the Tree of Life.

God’s mercy is so great, however, for those who are lost in this state that He sent His Son to invite those children to make the journey with Him to Calvary, where they will find the Tree of Life from which the saving water and blood flow.

To remove the symbols, Adam lost sanctifying Grace, and thus his descendants were lost to it as well, with us calling this lack of interior Grace original sin; but God loved us that He took on human nature, and thus repairing the damage between God and man, making it so men could once again receive His Divine Life (which He poured out on the Cross). In other words, God became man so that men could become god.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[grannymh]

The Catholic Church teaches (CCC 396-400; CCC 1730; Genesis 2: 15-17; Genesis 3: 11-12) that Adam’s Original Sin is his deliberate shattering of the original friendship relationship between Divinity and humanity. Adam abused his freedom.
Note the words “in free submission to God” in CCC 396. Once one notices that Adam and his Creator are not on the same level of being, (Genesis 1: 26-27) Original Sin is essentially easy to understand.

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

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Link to Catholic Bible
usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

 

[hasantas]

The very basis of Christianity is the original sin upon which the crucifixion of Jesus is justified. If original sin were thrown away, then the crucifixion would become a meaningless happening.

Church history shows the doctrine of original sin is a distinctly Christian doctrine first expounded upon by Augustine. The original sin concept has NO basis in Judaism, and Judaism completely rejects it. Therefore this teaching seems to be a distinct phenomena of Christianity which was developed to strengthen the other developing ideas of the Roman Church concerning who Jesus was and what his purpose was for mankind. Original sin is vital to Christian theology but not relevant in Jewish theology which precedes it. Is original sin a fact??

Jesus Taught That Little Children Are Without Sin. Original or otherwise? Look it up.

Children Have No Knowledge Of Good And Evil At Birth. The Bible teaches that children cannot be sinners and guilty and condemned at birth, for they do not yet know the difference between good and evil, and have not yet come to the “age of accountability” Look it up.

No Man Can Be Guilty For A Sin He Did Not Commit. Look it up.

The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man. Look it up.

The Bible teaches that every sin is a free and voluntary act. There is no involuntary sin. Man must will evil and choose evil before he can be a sinner. He cannot be born a sinner, for he has no choice in his birth. The idea that man can be a sinner without a voluntary act of his own will is completely contrary to the Bible. Man must voluntarily choose evil before he can be a sinner. Its in the book.

However it was Augustine of Hippo who, in the fifth century (354-430), was largely responsible for transforming Paul’s teachings on the Fall into the doctrine of Original Sin, teaching as he did that man is born into this world in a state of sin. Why do we believe his opinion ??

One would think that if Adam’s transgression had such a monumental effect on all future generations it would at least be mentioned in the account. Yet, nowhere in the Old Testament is it explicitly stated that Adam’s sin was passed down. In fact, the silence in the book of Genesis is deafening. All we are told is that, in view of Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Good and Evil, God did not want them to also partake of the Tree of Life, and live for ever (Genesis: 3:22), therefore He banished them from the garden (Genesis: 3:23). The man was cursed with having to work for food and the ground that was also cursed would hand him thorns and thistles (Genesis: 3:17-19). The woman was cursed with great pain in childbirth (Genesis: 3:16). Not a single word is breathed about this original sin being put upon Adam’s descendants. Are we to believe that God forgot to mention the most devastating consequence of all as it effects us?

I can see how some have a hard time accepting Original Sin as a fact. Any opinions?

That is very Islamic. Nobody pay for other’s sin. That is not suitable for justice of God. Every human is born without sin. Human commit sin with free will when he is old enough to realize the good and evil. If the sin of father Adam would heritaged to sons then all sins of fathers must be heritaged and that do not sound fair.

 

[Lucretius]

That is very Islamic. Nobody pay for other’s sin. That is not suitable for justice of God. Every human is born without sin. Human commit sin with free will when he is old enough to realize the good and evil. If the sin of father Adam would heritaged to sons then all sins of fathers must be heritaged and that do not sound fair.

But is it just how reality seems to be? If the father is a gambler, the son doesn’t receive an inherence? The son isn’t at fault, but he still suffers the consequences?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

But is it just how reality seems to be? If the father is a gambler, the son doesn’t receive an inherence? The son isn’t at fault, but he still suffers the consequences?

Nope. The correct analogy would be: “the father is a murderer and the son gets ALSO executed”. Hell is supposed to be a place of (eternal) punishment. People do not “send” themselves to hell, God would send them there… possibly by “outsourcing” the task of grabbing them to some demons… because there is nothing that can happen without God’s explicit or implicit “approval”.

 

[Lucretius]

Nope. The correct analogy would be: “the father is a murderer and the son gets ALSO executed”. Hell is supposed to be a place of (eternal) punishment. People do not “send” themselves to hell, God would send them there… possibly by “outsourcing” the task of grabbing them to some demons… because there is nothing that can happen without God’s explicit or implicit “approval”.

thomism.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/to-be-judged-on-love/

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[MT1926]

People do not “send” themselves to hell, God would send them there… possibly by “outsourcing” the task of grabbing them to some demons… because there is nothing that can happen without God’s explicit or implicit “approval”.

You seem to be forgetting a little thing called free will. God doesn’t send anyone to hell the damned just chose not to be with him.

It makes me think of the 20 year old who said his father kicked him out of the house. When I asked what happened he said his father told him he had to follow the rules of the house or leave. So whos fault is it that the son is no longer with the father?

Works the same way with our Father in heaven. If someone doesn’t want to follow his rules in this mortal life, why would they want to for eternity?

 

[Solmyr]

thomism.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/to-be-judged-on-love/

And what does that have to do with punishing the sons for sins of the fathers?

You seem to be forgetting a little thing called free will. God doesn’t send anyone to hell the damned just chose not to be with him.

No one “chooses” not to be with God. In order to make a meaningful “choice” one must be presented with the alternatives. Clearly and unambiguously, without any possibility of misunderstanding. With a guided tour of heaven and hell.

Works the same way with our Father in heaven. If someone doesn’t want to follow his rules in this mortal life, why would they want to for eternity?

Where are those “rules” declared? Just don’t tell me that they are imbedded in the bible or that the church is qualified to tell us. Not even the mere existence of God can be proven; much less those alleged “rules”… But this is not the FULL problem. How can a just judge punish the children of a perpetrator for the “iniquities” of the fathers?

The concept of “I will visit the iniquities of the fathers…” (Numbers 14:18, or Exodus 34:7 or Exodus 20:5) is a horrible injustice.

 

[Lucretius]

And what does that have to do with punishing the sons for sins of the fathers?

The way original sin is transmitted is like how a son inherits his father’s estate, and not how a son could be unjustly punished by a father’s crime like murder. You’re analogy is false, and to assert that such is what Christians believe God is like, is…distasteful…

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[grannymh]

That is very Islamic. Nobody pay for other’s sin. That is not suitable for justice of God. Every human is born without sin. Human commit sin with free will when he is old enough to realize the good and evil. If the sin of father Adam would heritaged to sons then all sins of fathers must be heritaged and that do not sound fair.

What is heritaged to the sons and daughters of Adam is actually Adam and Eve’s wounded human nature. Therefore, every human is born with a wounded human nature, but without a personal sin. As you pointed out, it takes age and knowledge to use one’s free will properly.

The justice of God refers to restoring the original friendship relationship between humanity and Divinity, that is, between Adam and his Divine Creator.

 

[Solmyr]

The way original sin is transmitted is like how a son inherits his father’s estate, and not how a son could be unjustly punished by a father’s crime like murder. You’re analogy is false, and to assert that such is what Christians believe God is like, is…distasteful…

Don’t blame the messenger. Maybe that is not HOW you prefer to view God, but the words are clear: (Numbers 14:18, or Exodus 34:7 or Exodus 20:5) “I will visit the iniquities of the fathers”… There is no reason to accept your interpretation. The words are clear: “I will visit”… Not something like… “if you do this, it will carry these consequences unto your children”.

The words of the Bible are clear: “cursing the world, the ground, in pain you will deliver your children… etc…” there is no “natural” consequence of the alleged “disobedience”, more like an angry God being vengeful. (Vengeance is MINE said the Lord… - remember?) Don’t try to “whitewash” God, it does not work.

 

[MT1926]

No one “chooses” not to be with God. In order to make a meaningful “choice” one must be presented with the alternatives. Clearly and unambiguously, without any possibility of misunderstanding. With a guided tour of heaven and hell.
.

WOW. Talk about having your cake and eating it to.

So you think you should get to spend a few weeks in each place before you decide which one you like better? Now let’s be realistic here, the guided tour couldn’t occure until after death. So if you decide you like heaven better but you were destined for hell, does God have to give you a do over?

Just curious how exactly do you explain something to everyone without a single person having any possibility of misunderstanding?

Do you honestly believe no one chooses not to be with God?

I noticed you didn’t respond to my example of the Father and the son. I’m guessing you grew up making your own rules.

 

[Lucretius]

Don’t blame the messenger. Maybe that is not HOW you prefer to view God, but the words are clear: (Numbers 14:18, or Exodus 34:7 or Exodus 20:5) “I will visit the iniquities of the fathers”… There is no reason to accept your interpretation. The words are clear: “I will visit”… Not something like… “if you do this, it will carry these consequences unto your children”.

The words of the Bible are clear: “cursing the world, the ground, in pain you will deliver your children… etc…” there is no “natural” consequence of the alleged “disobedience”, more like an angry God being vengeful. (Vengeance is MINE said the Lord… - remember?) Don’t try to “whitewash” God, it does not work.

Cannot these quotes be better understood with context and faith? Comparing four generations to a thousand generations reveals just how powerful God’s justice, and how kind His mercy is? Does the statement hhave to be literal down to the letter?

And asserting that there is no natural consequence to disobediening God forgets that God is Love, and so His commands aren’t arbritrary, but rather reveal a rational understanding of our very nature. Cannnot God command to us to do what is objectively Good for us, and to prohibit what is objectively bad? Wouldn’t that be similar to the commands a good father gives?

Christi pax,

Lucretius