Original Sin

[JohnChrysostom]

Is original sin made up or is it real?
If made up, what makes you believe that?
If real, what makes you believe that?

Yes.
N/A
Makes sense and Church teaching.

 

[rev_kevin]

Good question. I honestly don’t know when it originated as a theological term. My guess would be Augustine, but it may have been used before that time. Yes, it refers to the sin nature and not to the act of eating the fruit.

Thanks. For some reason the 2 words nature and original kinda confused me. Don’t ask why it just did. I’ll look into when the term original sin first occured and by who. If for some reason you find out please let me know.

 

[rev_kevin]

Yes.Is the yes for made up or is the yes for real?
N/A
Makes sense and Church teaching.

Why does it make sense to you?

 

[JohnChrysostom]

Why does it make sense to you?

I was hoping you wouldn’t ask this because I can’t discuss this without going into depth. I’m also very tired. But I will exchange terminology to explain very brief… Will elaborate later when my mind is actually working.

Replace “Original Sin” to “Original Woundedness of Man”.

When Adam and Eve were in the Garden, they chose by their own perfect will, a will like Jesus, which is what we understand about Mary, to sin rather than not to sin. They have were in such a state of “grace” that they knew better and could have simply said “NO”. When they chose to sin they cut themselves off from God and forever wounded the nature of man requiring grace from God to help us avoid sin.

Think of an object that breaks [fall from God’s grace], it is then repaired by means of glue [baptism]. The glue helps strengthen the object like baptism strengthens the ability of man to avoid sin. The greater one is exposed to sin the greater a chance he will break again, or sin. The object remembers it’s weak spot and is more likely to break in the same area. This broken state of man is called sin.

Better do this later before I really botch it up. Tired.

 

[rev_kevin]

I was hoping you wouldn’t ask this because I can’t discuss this without going into depth. I’m also very tired. But I will exchange terminology to explain very brief… Will elaborate later when my mind is actually working.

Replace “Original Sin” to “Original Woundedness of Man”.

When Adam and Eve were in the Garden, they chose by their own perfect will, a will like Jesus, which is what we understand about Mary, to sin rather than not to sin. They have were in such a state of “grace” that they knew better and could have simply said “NO”. When they chose to sin they cut themselves off from God and forever wounded the nature of man requiring grace from God to help us avoid sin.

Think of an object that breaks [fall from God’s grace], it is then repaired by means of glue [baptism]. The glue helps strengthen the object like baptism strengthens the ability of man to avoid sin. The greater one is exposed to sin the greater a chance he will break again, or sin. The object remembers it’s weak spot and is more likely to break in the same area. This broken state of man is called sin.

Better do this later before I really botch it up. Tired.

Ok I’m interested. Will discuss later.

 

[mardukm]

Dear edwest2,

Christ did not remove Original Sin. See Romans 5:12.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Christ removes Original Sin at each person’s Baptism. Death is not to be equated to Original Sin. Death is a tactile effect of Original Sin. Original Sin, taken in itself, is a spiritual, not a tactile, “quantity.” Original Sin is exhibited as the loss of Original Justice and loss of Original Holiness. At Baptism, we regain both of these - in other words, Original Sin is wiped out.

Our sin nature stays until we die.

Unlike Protestantism, Catholicism does not admit that humanity has a “sin nature.” Human nature is primordially and intrinsically good. At best, we can say that our human nature is damaged, but we do not say it is “sinful.” It is damaged which results in a propensity to sin, but it is not so utterly corrupted that we cannot do good in cooperation with Grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KathleenGee]

The story of Adam and Eve have its parallel prior to the Jewish people. The people of ancient Iraq had the story of ‘Adam’, although the name is a little different. They were myths…

There were also other religions that also believed in only one God.

The Jewish people lived approximate to ancient peoples, and likewise drew on questions and myths to ask questions about life, their existence, who they were and where they were going, and what was life about. As someone said, there is truth in myth.

How we define original parents is still a mystery. But we have Adam and Eve as the symbolic first people.

Abraham came from this region. He is the father of faith.

Original sin was further defined by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Growing up I thought we were set up to sin. Why did God make life so impossible…how could anyone go to heaven?

 

[crazzeto]

Christ did not remove Original Sin. See Romans 5:12.

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

Our sin nature stays until we die.

God bless,
Ed

You stop reading at verse 12?

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Rom 5:16 And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation: but grace is of many offences unto justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.

Our baptism into the death of Christ upon the cross forgives original sin, as well as all personal sin commited up to that time.

 

[crazzeto]

As for whether original sin is real,

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

From the KJV. Of course Paul talks about original sin at length (as discussed already) but I like to use this because some people like to put the blinders on and not see original sin in Pauls letters.

 

[JohnChrysostom]

Ok I’m interested. Will discuss later.

I apologize up front for the mix of information. but to discuss any of this in any dept requires some basic or fundamental ideas to contemplate in depth. You will never get this until you begin to think about things in perspective. In order to get my thoughts into perspective you must think about authority, bible, man or God or combination. I believe we can all agree that God is the ultimate authority. The rest requires thought. All bodies of believers have an authority they claim, but typically project onto the bible as their supreme authority. The only way they can claim that is for an authority in their body of believers to agree upon this projected authority. In other words, whether or not they realize or admit it they have a church authority that is not an inanimate object, the bible, a collection of documents, which once realized included other documents in historical past. How it was put together requires studying history. Even if books were added as Protestants often claim from their authority, bible only believing people whom they call scholars who do not possess apostolic succession yet claim authority to say so one way or the other.

I’m trying to remember a good source for this so that you can get it straight from the horses mouth. I’ve discovered that far too many Catholics simply assume others understand them and continue to argue basically from ignorance, not realizing their responses to bible Christians come across rather dumb sounding. As I continue to study these things, it is because I’ve come to realize the implications of other bigger realizations.

So, understanding “original sin” is not nearly as important as the realization of what the implications are, for example, where the bible really comes from and the basic or fundamental truth that without Sacred Tradition, compared to man’s tradition, we could not claim the inspiration of the scriptures. It really does boil down to who claims authority. An inanimate object can NOT claim authority just by its existence. That inanimate object must find any authority it appears to have from an individual or a body. That became crystal clear to me once I was willing to seriously think about it a while. I was afraid to even consider it prior to realizing that if one thing I believed could be wrong then others might be wrong too. For example, baptism by submersion or pouring, as revealed as acceptable in the Didache. I realized I was being scrupulous about this and it took me a long time to deal with. The authority is the real issue now and how far can it go. It’s not whether or not the bishops are the authority. I have issues believing that the pope without the union of the other bishops can speak infallibly on the matters of faith and morals because of how I understand it now. i find that most Catholics don’t even understand what it means.

I’ve been in your shoes, but I know you haven’t been in my shoes. I was once a bible only Christian. I know where you’re coming from. But I can also say that Baptists can not claim that baptism is not necessary because that is clearly spelled out in scripture. The only reason they say it’s not is because they claim authority, not by bible but by man. It’s a catch 22 it seems. You can have your cake and eat it. You have to recognize that there is a lot of inconsistency in Protestant beliefs. I KNOW you have doubts about some of your own beliefs today, but to admit it would be to acknowledge that you are not certain about your salvation or your position. That is why Protestants are so up in arms in “protesting” against Church authority.

 

[JohnChrysostom]

So, for me it was bringing into light that once I honestly confronted the question: “where does the bible come from?”, we can not circumvent the possibility that we could be wrong. Having been raised Protestant, then suddenly pulled into Catholicism without understanding any of these principals, I ultimately fell pray to the fundamentalist beliefs of the Church of Christ, an organization know for proselytizing children out from under their parents watch, which is what happened to me when I was in elementary school because mom got lazy at taking us to church. Mom was far too unsuspecting for our own good and that this is why I fell pray to believing in the doctrines taught by the Alexander Campbell started religion known as the “church of Christ”. And then later because the “seed” was already “planted” I fell prey to their teachings later on as an adult…that and the fact that the really poor example of Catholic lay people acting in leadership roles, clergy and my own family, resulting in hurting my faith, my person and many others that I secret knew about [ashamed to admit about and even discuss it back then] caused me to stumble in the Catholic faith that I only was raised in since I was 14 until 27 when I returned to my protestant roots. As confused and angry as I was I chose to start from scratch based on where I was spiritually at during that phase of my life.

Its important to me to understand that my parents side of the family in my marriage contains about 85 to 90% cradle Protestants. The Catholics in my family are more along the line of cafeteria Catholics who actually love to participate in Protestant religions. You’d never know they were Catholic if they didn’t finally say something. One of my aunts jumped down my throat one day after I said something about her being a Protestant. Very tense moment. My wife’s family is all cradle Protestant, yet both my wife and I came to a realization at the same time the problem with being non-Catholic Christian, and that after being in anti-Catholic faiths the majority of our life we had to begin to let go of our prejudices towards Catholics and the Catholic Church, resulting to dropping our prejudices toward even non-church of Christ Christians. We sacrificed our families for the sake of the gospel, not the diluted form of Christianity we refer to as Protestant. Our relationships with family are now shaky at best.

Kevin, the reason I tell you this is because I can pretty much see where many non-practicing Catholics are at this stage of their life. Why? Because I’ve also been there. I would really recommend that you obtain several CD’s and books I’d recommend to help learn what took me years of solo scriptura to learn.

I did NOT want to be Catholic. I fought it really hard, even cursing at the Catholic Church, scoffing at it’s teachings and teachers. Even the Orthodox priests corrected me when I discussed it with them during the beginning search for truth. It just made me even angry at them and that is how my conversion began at the age of 46. I said “why would anyone with a strong bible knowledge or a brain become Catholic”? I tried to justify that the real Church of Christ must be the Orthodox Church, which if not could only be the Catholic Church. That’s why I hold today to the necessity for reunification of the “two lungs of the Church”. I know we are in troubled times, obvious, but the only way to resolve these issues is for the two to come back together and leave their pride behind. The same is true for Protestants. I believe in the historical practice of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Whether or not this position or the seat of Peter can be moved is another argument. That’s not an issue I’m able to venture into at this stage of my journey. What I know without a doubt now is that the only valid “ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH” can only be either one or both. Today these 2 bodies are known by Protestants as the Roman Catholic Church, which is really just the Catholic Church, or the Eastern Orthodox Church - both consist of many “rites”. This was a major shock for me to realize and then admit. The 7 sacraments, which provide us with sanctifying grace from God, are their common signs. The theologies are slightly different on some things, very few major differences, most of which are truly misunderstood on both sides of the podium. Until we see the pride of clergy and laity fall to the way side I know we’ll continue to see confrontation.

It has become very obvious to me now that there is no way any other church organization could claim to be the one true church because of their histories. The only exceptions would be the Anglicans, who call themselves “catholic” may or may not be part of the one true Church that Christ founded. Could we all be part of the one true church? I say yes. But that would only be as separated brethren. It boils down to a least wrong position between Orthodox and “Roman” Catholic, which subsist in the Church of Christ that can trace their histories all the way back to Jesus. Scripture that was once very confusing to me only became clear after I understood sacraments and how those scriptural passages relate to the sacraments.

 

[JohnChrysostom]

All of this came clear to me, only after a lifetime of bible study in college, bible classes and self-directed study since I was 14. I’m 48 now, so do the math. We made it a practice to read the entire scripture in a year. The overwhelming majority of us failed to be consistent at it but many of us came really close. Even so I’ve read the bible more than many Catholic Clergy, if not most. I’ve even read it more than many Protestants and probably most. I have several translations, possessed several commentaries, Greek and Hebrew Lexicons for the original language translations I possessed as well as Philo and Josephus and atlases. I never owned the ancient church father’s entire writings and thought they had been destroyed. Which is funny because why would a bible only Christian place the writings of Jewish writers above the ancient church writers [fathers]? Interesting thought.

So what does this have to do with “Original Sin”? It has everything to do with any teaching taught by the Church or any bod for that matter…

How can someone claim a teaching to be true?

Theology does not exist to prove but rather to show that it is rational to believe. I heard that somewhere, but can’t seem to find the origin. It makes sense to me now, but not in the beginning.

 

[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.

 

[crazzeto]

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.

At least to my mind, it has something to do with the permenant effects of Original Sin. Think about it, here we are still trying to judge good and evil (and doing a lousy job), here nature is, still hurt by the sin, here we are, still with a damaged nature. These effects haven’t been healed, and won’t be until all fulfillment at the end.

 

[Catholic20064]

At least to my mind, it has something to do with the permenant effects of Original Sin. Think about it, here we are still trying to judge good and evil (and doing a lousy job), here nature is, still hurt by the sin, here we are, still with a damaged nature. These effects haven’t been healed, and won’t be until all fulfillment at the end.

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?

 

[crazzeto]

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 can’t give you an exact scientific break down of what the graces do exactly, other to say that it washes away sins, and makes you born again of the spirit as described by Christ. I would check the CCC & Code of Canon Law for more on this.

 

[grannymh]

To understand Original Sin from Catholic teaching, one needs to understand that Adam and Eve were the real, two sole parents of the human species. It is important to know what God intended for them. The key to Original Sin is the relationship between Adam as created, and God as Creator.

Catholic teaching **regarding Adam and Original Sin ** is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put paragraph numbers and topics such as Adam, etc. in the Catechism’s search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred from the moment of conception.

 

[grannymh]

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.

First of all we do not have a sin nature. Our human nature is intact but flawed or wounded. Adam’s sin became a “contracted” state while our sins are personal sins.
Please see post 37 for a continuation of discussion regarding your concerns which, by the way, are very common.

Since the Catechism can be tough reading the first time around and the second time and the third time… I may be able to tie the key points together to answer your particular concerns after you check out the Catechism.

Blessings,
granny

Isaiah 55

 

[elwill]

Why did Jesus have to die?

God bless,
Ed

i think that original sin was made up to answer this question

 

[TriuneUnity]

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?

What does Baptism do? Well, the sin nature that humans possess is more than a simple or slight wounding of the nature. Ephesians 2 graphically illustrates the nature of humanity apart from faith in Christ. Since the sin nature is itself sinful, it means that it is condemned under God’s holy Law. While Baptism does not remove the effects of the sin nature, it does accomplish two very important things. First, it grants the gift of faith and regeneration, which unites the infant/adult to Christ and thus the sin nature, while it is not removed in an earthly sense, does mean that the violation of the Law that the sin nature entails is forgiven.

Secondly, through the agency of the new birth, the spirit of the infant is awakened from its previous deadness to new life, which now begins to progress in personal sanctification, and so daily, the new nature wars against the old nature, and continually tries to put it to death. Eventually, at death, or when the Lord returns, the old nature will, in reality and in effect, die and all that will remain is the new nature, in perfection and sinlessness. Without Baptism, that new nature would’ve never come into being.