Original Sin

[Reuben_J]

I was saying since we are punished for Adam’s sin that we did not commit is like being punished for someone eles sin that you did not commit. Is it right to be punished for something you did not do?

Ok so its sin nature that was passed down from Adam correct?
Then why do we call it original sin instead of sin nature?
Who came up with the phraise original sin, since it is not in the Bible or in Jewish Scripture?

Catholic20064:

The only thing I’ve had a hard time understanding with regards to original sin is the idea that we all inherit guilt because of Adam’s sin. I understand we have a sin nature, but until we actually sin, why are we condemned for what Adam did? This is especially hard for me to understand since as I understand it Christ atoned for Adam’s sin and all other sin on the cross. I can understand that baptism would be needed to cover our own personal sins, but don’t understand why baptism is necessary to wipe out a sin we didn’t actually commit that Christ has already paid for.

Catholic20064:

But what does baptism do to heal the permanent effects of original sin for a baby who is free of personal sin? I can understand that babies are baptized so they become part of the family of the church. That seems like enough of a reason to baptize babies. Is there any other benefit that babies receive through baptism if it doesn’t negate the permanent effects of original sin?

I think Mardukm in his post #26 explained very well what it means by original sin.

I will not go into the theology argument for it as it beyond me but from the top of my head what is obvious is that we should not be living in this (fallen) world if it is not for the action of our foreparents. That in itself would answer some of your questions. Whether we like it or not the fact is we inherit the consequence of their sin. Maybe we all should be living in paradise – only Adam and Eve and those who sin should be sent to this world. It does not work that way though.

It is original (sin) because it is inherent in us and not acquired. In reality it is not sin per se or sin that individual commits but its effect is a propensity to sin. It is ‘sin’ in us because of the effect of the consequence of the action of Adam (& Eve). They sinned (obviously) and got punished and the affect of that sin is passed down to their descendants which will be with us when we are created. Basically, so great is the implication of man’s transgression against God that it affects the whole world. We can say that creation was a package.

The original sin will only be made good when we accept Jesus in Baptism because that is what Jesus was sent for, even in the promise of Genesis. He was sent so that God’s original plan was made right. God’s original plan was for us to be in paradise; it was failed by Adam but God rectified it in Jesus Christ

God bless.

 

[rev_kevin]

I think Mardukm in his post #26 explained very well what it means by original sin.

I will not go into the theology argument for it as it beyond me but from the top of my head what is obvious is that we should not be living in this (fallen) world if it is not for the action of our foreparents. That in itself would answer some of your questions. Whether we like it or not the fact is we inherit the consequence of their sin. Maybe we all should be living in paradise – only Adam and Eve and those who sin should be sent to this world. It does not work that way though.

It is original (sin) because it is inherent in us and not acquired. In reality it is not sin per se or sin that individual commits but its effect is a propensity to sin. It is ‘sin’ in us because of the effect of the consequence of the action of Adam (& Eve). They sinned (obviously) and got punished and the affect of that sin is passed down to their descendants which will be with us when we are created. Basically, so great is the implication of man’s transgression against God that it affects the whole world. We can say that creation was a package.

The original sin will only be made good when we accept Jesus in Baptism because that is what Jesus was sent for, even in the promise of Genesis. He was sent so that God’s original plan was made right. God’s original plan was for us to be in paradise; it was failed by Adam but God rectified it in Jesus Christ

God bless.

Yes I understand that original sin is another word for our sin nature, Now there is one thing that you said that comfused me. because you are Catholic. What confused me was you said that "The original sin will only be made good when “we accept Jesus in Baptism.” Now not trying to change the subject but are you saying that inorder to be Baptised we need to accept Jesus first, then be Baptised?

 

[Holly3278]

From lds.org/:
Gospel Library - Gospel Topics:

Because of the Fall of Adam and Eve, all people live in a fallen condition, separated from God and subject to physical death. However, we are not condemned by what many call the “original sin.” In other words, we are not accountable for Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (Articles of Faith 1:2).

More information available here: lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?index=15&locale=0&sourceId=ee6c9daac5d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

 

[Reuben_J]

Yes I understand that original sin is another word for our sin nature, Now there is one thing that you said that comfused me. because you are Catholic. What confused me was you said that "The original sin will only be made good when “we accept Jesus in Baptism.” Now not trying to change the subject but are you saying that inorder to be Baptised we need to accept Jesus first, then be Baptised?

Hi rev. Sorry sometimes when I talk I seem to forget that I am also addressing Protestants audience. In Catholicism we accept Jesus in Baptism, so there is no difference in the two. I suppose these can be two separate meaning in your church.

To your question, it is a yes. A person has to be very sure that he ‘accepts’ Jesus and the doctrine of the Church before undergoes Baptism. In Baptism the acceptance of that belief is formalized and it is at that very point where the original sin is wiped clean together with all other past sins that the person has committed. He will be a new person and his slate is clean until he sins again.

God bless you.

 

[rev_kevin]

Hi rev. Sorry sometimes when I talk I seem to forget that I am also addressing Protestants audience. In Catholicism we accept Jesus in Baptism, so there is no difference in the two. I suppose these can be two separate meaning in your church.

To your question, it is a yes. A person has to be very sure that he ‘accepts’ Jesus and the doctrine of the Church before undergoes Baptism. In Baptism the acceptance of that belief is formalized and it is at that very point where the original sin is wiped clean together with all other past sins that the person has committed. He will be a new person and his slate is clean until he sins again.

God bless you.

Ok I’m trying to get this straight, the individual has to accept Jesus before they can be Baptized correct?
What is puzzleing me is that we have been told that a individual does not need to accept Jesus for themselves before they can be Baptized.
So my question is 3 fold, if a person has to be very sure that he accepts Jesus and the doctrine of the Church before he undergoes Baptism how can a infant do this? How can a infant be very sure that he accepts Jesus and the doctrine of the church when they can’t? If a infant can’t accept Jesus and the doctrine of the church for themselves, how can they be Baptized?

 

[Reuben_J]

Ok I’m trying to get this straight, the individual has to accept Jesus before they can be Baptized correct?
What is puzzleing me is that we have been told that a individual does not need to accept Jesus for themselves before they can be Baptized.

I guess it’s the technicality of understanding or rather the definition of the word ‘accept’. So it depends on what you mean by accepting Jesus. To me ‘accepting’ means ‘believing’. And yes, definitely one has to believe what one is accepting – Jesus and all it entails, in order to proceed to be Baptized. It makes no sense to be Baptized and yet do not believe. Sure Baptism is a grace but it has to go along with believing for adults.

So my question is 3 fold, if a person has to be very sure that he accepts Jesus and the doctrine of the Church before he undergoes Baptism how can a infant do this? How can a infant be very sure that he accepts Jesus and the doctrine of the church when they can’t? If a infant can’t accept Jesus and the doctrine of the church for themselves, how can they be Baptized?

I hope you are not being legalistic, rev. Infant is in a special category. Catholic parents make a vow during their Matrimony to bring up their children in Christian way and to become Christians. Why is infant being Baptized?

Again, not to be theological – one, it is to fulfill the Matrimonial vow. Matrimony is a grace and what flows from it (children) are infused by this grace. That’s the beauty of Christian marriage.

Two, **an infant is clean spiritually – clean means without any sin committed. In the eyes of God and together with the grace of Christian marriage that equals accepting Him.
**

Three, even though he is Baptized as an infant, the parents will teach and bring him up according to the Christian way. The grace is imparted in Baptism and it is no difference as in adult. Other Catholics may explain this differently but that’s how I see it though I could miss out something.

You can say the parents can accept Jesus by proxy but this is never the reason for infant Baptism.

 

[rev_kevin]

I guess it’s the technicality of understanding or rather the definition of the word ‘accept’. So it depends on what you mean by accepting Jesus. To me ‘accepting’ means ‘believing’. And yes, definitely one has to believe what one is accepting – Jesus and all it entails, in order to proceed to be Baptized. It makes no sense to be Baptized and yet do not believe. Sure Baptism is a grace but it has to go along with believing for adults.

I hope you are not being legalistic, rev. Infant is in a special category. Catholic parents make a vow during their Matrimony to bring up their children in Christian way and to become Christians. Why is infant being Baptized?

Again, not to be theological – one, it is to fulfill the Matrimonial vow. Matrimony is a grace and what flows from it (children) are infused by this grace. That’s the beauty of Christian marriage.

Two, **an infant is clean spiritually – clean means without any sin committed. In the eyes of God and together with the grace of Christian marriage that equals accepting Him.
**

Three, even though he is Baptized as an infant, the parents will teach and bring him up according to the Christian way. The grace is imparted in Baptism and it is no difference as in adult. Other Catholics may explain this differently but that’s how I see it though I could miss out something.

You can say the parents can accept Jesus by proxy but this is never the reason for infant Baptism.

thank you for your honest answers.

 

[Reuben_J]

thank you for your honest answers.

You are welcome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Catholic20064,

The only thing I’ve had a hard time understanding with regards to original sin is the idea that we all inherit guilt because of Adam’s sin.

We did not inherit Adam’s guilt. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. You have to understand that the term the Catholic Church uses for “guilt” when referring to the “guilt of original sin” is not the same word that the Catholic Church uses for guilt when referring to the “guilt of actual sin.” In the first instance, the word used is reus, which is a state of being liable to judgment. In the second instance, the word used is culpa, which is blame for a certain action, the actual word we normally associate with “guilt.” So the “guilt of original sin,” is not blame for Adam’s action.

Each human being is born in a state of separation from God (lack of Original Justice and lack of Original Holiness). That is the reus that requires the washing of baptism. Through Baptism, we regain the Oriignal Justice and Original Holiness that were lost by our first parents.

I understand we have a sin nature, but until we actually sin, why are we condemned for what Adam did?

The Catholic Church does not teach that we have a “sin nature.” Rather, we have a nature that is basically good, but damaged, whereby we have a propensity to sin.

This is especially hard for me to understand since as I understand it Christ atoned for Adam’s sin and all other sin on the cross. I can understand that baptism would be needed to cover our own personal sins, but don’t understand why baptism is necessary to wipe out a sin we didn’t actually commit that Christ has already paid for.

“Original sin” is not sin in the actual sense. It is simply a state of spiritual fallenness, which we inherited from our parents.

But what does baptism do to heal the permanent effects of original sin for a baby who is free of personal sin? I can understand that babies are baptized so they become part of the family of the church. That seems like enough of a reason to baptize babies. Is there any other benefit that babies receive through baptism if it doesn’t negate the permanent effects of original sin?

As explained, Baptism restores Original Holiness and Original Justice in the soul of the baby (for an adult it not only restores Original Holiness and Original Justice, but also forgives actual sin).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk