Original Sin question

[laocmo]

Originally Posted by laocmo View Post
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.

Hi laocmo,
Why would it become meaningless?
Blessings!

---

Pope Francis Verified account
‏@Pontifex

If the Church decided to throw away the concept of original sin, then Jesus would have been fooling himself thinking he was giving his life for our redemption. Without a reason to die on the cross, namely to save us from this sin, his death would have been just another Roman crucifixion.

 

[OneSheep]

If the Church decided to throw away the concept of original sin, then Jesus would have been fooling himself thinking he was giving his life for our redemption. Without a reason to die on the cross, namely to save us from this sin, his death would have been just another Roman crucifixion.

Good Morning,

I mean not to be contrary in the least, for I see your point (I think )

Without the concept of original sin, do you see the crucifixion as having any meaning?

Thanks for responding.

 

[BobCatholic]

. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man. Look it up.

Every sin has a temporal punishment and a spiritual punishment.

Jesus Christ took care of the spiritual punishment, but not the temporal one.

You’ll notice the incontrovertible fact: We don’t live in the Garden of Eden.

So we are not responsible for Adam and Eve’s sin or any other person’s sin. You are right on that.

But we are TEMPORALLY HELD RESPONSIBLE for the sins of others.

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?

You’ll notice the incontrovertible fact: We don’t live in the Garden of Eden.

You’ll notice the incontrovertible fact: We have a tendency to sin - concupiscence.

Those facts say we have original sin put on us.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for your answer. I do find the concept of Original Sin confusing. I believe there are 2 parts. All Christians believe that infants are born with a tendency to sin (like Adam sinned) as they become old enough to make these choices. Some Christians believe that babies are born guilty(stained?) by Original Sin and are in need of baptism to wash away this sin. Baptizing an infant will not take away their tendency towards sin as they get older, but they will be forgiven for the sin contracted from Adam. Is this a correct understanding? What is the term for the guilt/sin that a child is born with from Adam?

Probably, the most confusing part of Original Sin is that we are so familiar with the concept of guilt that our minds have a difficulty accepting the fact that a baby does not have Adam’s guilt for his sin. The next most confusing part is the word sin itself. If I were running the Catholic Church, I would insist that the word sin would refer to just one kind of action.

We call Adam’s disobedience of God a sin because he actively committed a grave infraction or injustice. Adam literally turned his back on God. Adam was definitely very guilty. What happened next is that Adam destroying humanity’s relationship with God resulted in seriously wounding his own human nature. This wounded nature is what is passed on to us. The Catholic Church describes this wounded human nature as a fallen state aka a State of deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice.

At conception, the baby living in the womb receives the State of deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice shorted to the [contracted] State of Original Sin. Adam’s Original Sin was active. The baby’s State of Original sin is passive in the sense that this state exists without baby’s own "active or concerted effort.’ (one of the dictionary’s descriptions) The baby’s State is contracted and not committed.

Baptizing an infant or adult erases or removes the State of Original Sin and brings the person back into the original relationship with our Creator. This is not the same as the Catholic Sacrament of Forgiveness. Baptism imparts the life of Christ’s grace which is known as the State of Sanctifying Grace aka Original Holiness in the time of the Garden.

Thus, the word sin can refer to the first Original one and the subsequent chosen sins of Adam’s descendants. The only “sin” that we can be guilty of is our own personal choice of disobedience of God, for example ignoring the Ten Commandments. Obviously, refusing to love God above all else is a freely chosen personal sin that takes us away from the original friendship relationship with our Creator. Only Jesus Christ, being Himself divine, could restore Adam’s original humanity relationship with God. Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

Important note about our human nature. Our nature was not totally destroyed. It was wounded in its natural powers. Thus, we are still in the image of God. Genesis 1: 27. However, our wounded nature is now inclined (tendency) to evil. Evil, which is now just as appealing as eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In our world, Satan has gone beyond the disguise used in the Garden.

 

[OneSheep]

You’ll notice the incontrovertible fact: We have a tendency to sin - concupiscence.

Hi Bob,
I see this statement as fact as “understandable” and “reasonable”.

In what way is tendency to sin “incontrovertible”?

 

[BobCatholic]

Hi Bob,
I see this statement as fact as “understandable” and “reasonable”.

In what way is tendency to sin “incontrovertible”?

Do you have the ability to never sin again?

If yes, why do you choose to sin? That is concupiscence.

If no, then you there’s concupiscence again.

Incontrovertible.

 

[OneSheep]

Do you have the ability to never sin again?

If yes, why do you choose to sin? That is concupiscence.

If no, then you there’s concupiscence again.

Incontrovertible.

Hi Bob,

I choose to sin when I am blind or ignorant, and driven by strong desire or resentment.

I think you are saying “tendency” is the same as “capability”. Is that correct?

Thanks for your response!

 

[susanlo]

Probably, the most confusing part of Original Sin is that we are so familiar with the concept of guilt that our minds have a difficulty accepting the fact that a baby does not have Adam’s guilt for his sin. The next most confusing part is the word sin itself. If I were running the Catholic Church, I would insist that the word sin would refer to just one kind of action.

We call Adam’s disobedience of God a sin because he actively committed a grave infraction or injustice. Adam literally turned his back on God. Adam was definitely very guilty. What happened next is that Adam destroying humanity’s relationship with God resulted in seriously wounding his own human nature. This wounded nature is what is passed on to us. The Catholic Church describes this wounded human nature as a fallen state aka a State of deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice.

At conception, the baby living in the womb receives the State of deprivation of Adam’s Original Holiness and Justice shorted to the [contracted] State of Original Sin. Adam’s Original Sin was active. The baby’s State of Original sin is passive in the sense that this state exists without baby’s own "active or concerted effort.’ (one of the dictionary’s descriptions) The baby’s State is contracted and not committed.

Baptizing an infant or adult erases or removes the State of Original Sin and brings the person back into the original relationship with our Creator. This is not the same as the Catholic Sacrament of Forgiveness. Baptism imparts the life of Christ’s grace which is known as the State of Sanctifying Grace aka Original Holiness in the time of the Garden.

Thus, the word sin can refer to the first Original one and the subsequent chosen sins of Adam’s descendants. The only “sin” that we can be guilty of is our own personal choice of disobedience of God, for example ignoring the Ten Commandments. Obviously, refusing to love God above all else is a freely chosen personal sin that takes us away from the original friendship relationship with our Creator. Only Jesus Christ, being Himself divine, could restore Adam’s original humanity relationship with God. Romans 5: 12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 21-22

Important note about our human nature. Our nature was not totally destroyed. It was wounded in its natural powers. Thus, we are still in the image of God. Genesis 1: 27. However, our wounded nature is now inclined (tendency) to evil. Evil, which is now just as appealing as eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In our world, Satan has gone beyond the disguise used in the Garden.

Thanks for the good and thorough explanation. It is very helpful.
I will have to think and process this for a bit.

 

[BobCatholic]

Hi Bob,

I choose to sin when I am blind or ignorant, and driven by strong desire or resentment.

I think you are saying “tendency” is the same as “capability”. Is that correct?

Thanks for your response!

Capability is not tendency.

Capability means I can do something. Tendency means I tend to do something.

Everyone can drink alcohol. Alcoholics tend to get drunk. This means they are not just having the ability to drink alcohol, but have a tendency to get drunk with it.

One can do something and never do it. Teetotalers for example can drink alcohol but never do. They don’t tend to.

 

[guanophore]

Hi Granny,

Great to see that you are still kickin’!! I pray you have been well.

Perhaps you could explain the “tendency to sin.”

Blessings!

I think this would be difficult to do from a Catholic perspective when one does not accept the inspired and inerrant nature of Scripture. So much of what we understand about ourselves and about sin is grounded in Scripture. If scripture can be a human psychological projection, does it really matter if it is “explained”?

Thank you for your answer. I do find the concept of Original Sin confusing. I believe there are 2 parts. All Christians believe that infants are born with a tendency to sin (like Adam sinned) as they become old enough to make these choices.

Catholics believe that Adam and Eve were created without original sin, or an tendency to sin.

Some Christians believe that babies are born guilty(stained?) by Original Sin and are in need of baptism to wash away this sin.

This is what the Apostles taught.

Baptizing an infant will not take away their tendency towards sin as they get older, but they will be forgiven for the sin contracted from Adam. Is this a correct understanding? What is the term for the guilt/sin that a child is born with from Adam?

Catholics believe that, although baptism washes away all sin, original and personal, we are still left with “the flesh”, Catholics call concupiscence, or a tendency toward sin.

If the Church decided to throw away the concept of original sin, then Jesus would have been fooling himself thinking he was giving his life for our redemption. Without a reason to die on the cross, namely to save us from this sin, his death would have been just another Roman crucifixion.

I think you are leaving out the fact that personal sins separate us from God…

But we are TEMPORALLY HELD RESPONSIBLE for the sins of others.

This is an interesting concept. I wonder how that works, exactly?

You’ll notice the incontrovertible fact: We don’t live in the Garden of Eden.

Perhaps you are equating experiencing the the consequences of sins as the same thing as 'being responsible for the sins of others"? I don’t think these are the same thing.

Those facts say we have original sin put on us.

I think they can be perceived this way, but there might also be other ways of understanding these phenomena. To say that “we have original sin put on us” seems to reflect a victim viewpoint in which one is being punished.

I choose to sin when I am blind or ignorant, and driven by strong desire or resentment.

The CC teaches that this choice, made through these influences, is a reflection of concupiscence.

I think you are saying "tendency" is the same as "capability".  Is that correct?

I don’t think this is the case, as the answer to Bob’s first question is “yes”. We have been given sufficient grace so that we are no longer enslaved by sin, and have the power to choose not to sin. We are still capable of sin.

Persons who mature in holiness have an increasing “tendency” toward sin (temptations) as the soul is conformed to God’s plan.

Capability is not tendency.

Capability means I can do something. Tendency means I tend to do something.

Everyone can drink alcohol. Alcoholics tend to get drunk. This means they are not just having the ability to drink alcohol, but have a tendency to get drunk with it.

One can do something and never do it. Teetotalers for example can drink alcohol but never do.

I like this example.

 

[PRmerger]

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

I fear you have an impoverished understanding of Catholic teaching.

OS does not maintain that we are guilty for sins we did not commit.

It is simply a deprivation of our original state of grace.

Since Adam and Eve gave it away, they no longer had it to bestow upon their progeny.

It’s just logic.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. Humanbeing has very powerful tendency to sin. Humanbeing inherited a very weak disposition from Adam which has desires, lust. So human may commit sins very easily.

If we have tendency to sin but that do not make us sinful unless we commit it. And we choose the evil and good by free will. Our duty is to prevent ourselves to commit sins.

The above is very Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

If the Church decided to throw away the concept of original sin, then Jesus would have been fooling himself thinking he was giving his life for our redemption. Without a reason to die on the cross, namely to save us from this sin, his death would have been just another Roman crucifixion.

This is correct.

The Catholic faith is a seamless garment; removal of one seemingly innocuous thread can cause the entire garment to unravel.

 

[PRmerger]

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

This demonstrates a rather uninformed understanding of the Catholic teaching on Original Sin.

No son is punished for the sins of the father*.

This is what the Catechism says:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/405.htm

I suggest you read more here:
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

*Of course, there are natural consequences to the “sins of the father” (i.e: a father gambles away the rent. Son is punished by being homeless). These natural consequences would require an explanation by the atheist, as well as the theist.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This is a clear example of my new favorite saying: scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist.

We do not read Scripture through the tortured lens of a fundamentalist–whether it be a Bible Alone Advocate or an atheist.

Rather, we read it through the lens of the faith which gave us this Bible, the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

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”.

I think you have misunderstood the meaning. Consequences of sin do persist, sometimes generationally, but to the progeny, they are only “visitors” that do not remain. Progeny are not bound to the sins or the punishments of their parents.

The words of the Bible are clear: "cursing the world, the ground, in pain you will deliver your children... etc..."

Actually the words of the Bible are a lot more clear than you seem to remember.
Women already had pain in childbirth:

Genesis 3:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain [a]in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

And there is no “cursing the world”, but rather, a cursing of Adam’s relationship with nature.

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [f]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the [g]plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

I don’t know who you are, to decide this is not a “natural consequence”, since you were not there at the time of creation. We are God’s creatures, and He can produce any consequence He finds fitting.

Don’t try to “whitewash” God, it does not work.

Actually, the consequences of original sin are not whitewashed at all. They are quite serious. In fact, you seem to want to “blackwhash” God as punitive, vengeful, and unloving.

It does not work.

 

[Vico]

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?

The ensuing confilct from sin for all, is shown in Genesis 3:15 also, in the judgement of the snake:
“I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
They will strike at your head,
while you strike at their heel.”

Eve received more than one punishment (Gen 3:16):
“I will intensify your toil in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

With original sin there is reatus poena but not reatus culpa, both are called guilt, the first is the guilt of an imputed penalty (implicated) and the second is the guilt of personal fault.

Actually there is involuntary sin, such as some venial sins, but there can be only original sin in those that have not attained the use of reason.

The unbaptized children have not personal sin but have the stain of original sin. In Genesis this is death and the propensity to sin that ensued after the explusion.

• “… the desires of the human heart are evil from youth;” Genesis 8:21
• “How can any mortal be blameless, anyone born of woman be righteous?” Job 15:14
• “Behold, I was born in guilt, in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:7
• “more tortuous than anything is the human heart, beyond remedy; who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9
• "2 The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men,To see if even one is wise, if even one seeks God. 3 All have gone astray; all alike are perverse. Not one does what is good, not even one.” Psalm 14:2–3

Catechism of the Catholic Church

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. 293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. 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. 294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

293 St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo 4,1.
294 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1511-1512

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by guanophore

Women already had pain in childbirth

So Adam and Eve already had children before the fall?

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by Vico

Eve received more than one punishment (Gen 3:16):
“I will intensify your toil in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

I don’t know about you, but the last bit sounds awfully convenient for the Male species

 

[MT1926]

So Adam and Eve already had children before the fall?

Don’t mean to butt in here but I think he was going off the translations that say multiply.

Genesis 3:16Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

We can multiply zero by 1000 and still end up with zero so using that thought the pain level would at least have to be slightly greater than zero before the fall. That being said your translation which uses the word intensify can be taken to mean intensify from zero. So you are not in the wrong either. I do not believe this is defined by the church but my opinion would be if it was from zero why wouldn’t Genesis read “I will give(or deliver onto) you toil in childbearing.”

Just my 2 cents.

God Bless