Original Sin?

[Spencerian]

Spencerian
Thanks for the excellent response.

No dispute in what I believe your point is, but look at it from a none believer’s possible view.

Did anyone choose to be born into the world? Yes many have chosen to remain in the world for as lone as they can, but no one chooses to be born into the world, which is truly the choice of another.

And we know that God is Just, and Righteous. Then what is the righteousness in the case of Adam and Eve, that man, and sons of man should die, do to their choices?

Sure. I think someone else phrased a way to see things from a non-believer’s POV, so I would combine what I noted on the nature of mistakes, how some are biggies and then reinforce it with an important empirical point:

Life doesn’t appear to have been designed with fairness in mind.

To choose to live (and applying credit or blame for this) is logically invalid without someone to acknowledge that there was some power that existed to form this choice and life-giving organization (not just throwing biochemicals around randomly) to bring you here.

As Christians, we are asked to follow the Way, the Truth and the Life–not to question it. God is not human, and we cannot apply our limited way of thinking in terms of why original sin stains all and why He chose to leave it this way–except that He allowed us to make the choice to obey or spurn Him. I can only equate it less as a stain and more of a design flaw that humans inflicted into their spiritual structure (which, being both flesh and spirit, affects all of the person).

Luckily, we have Christ as the Redeemer, the Repairman of Souls.

 

[Betterave]

“Original sin”

Is it just, that all should suffer the consequence of another’s choice?

Isn’t “suffering the consequences of another’s choice” necessarily entailed by the fact of sharing a world with others who can make choices?

So in effect, it seems, you are asking: Is it just that we should be forced to share the world with others (who can make choices)? (And I guess the answer is: Sure, why not?)

 

[Betterave]

I do not see how the view Joe expresses can be possible:

‘In light of Adam and Eve’s unique place as the first parents of the entire human family, their sin has changed the human nature we are all born with’

What happened to us, and how was human nature altered by human action? I think we have the same propensity to sin that they did, nothing that is necessarily worse.

How could you possibly know this??

And if our actions affect future human nature (challenges what human nature is), can we just as much improve human nature by our own actions? To refer to the loss of inheritance analogy, we might just as well work, earn, invest, etc!

That’s sort of right. We can improve human society, which is the historical manifestation of human nature. The fall, however, was a supernatural event affecting human nature itself, so strictly speaking that’s different. But the basic idea is the same.

 

[DPMartin]

You are very welcome

Which gets you into the predestination controversy that I am struggling with now! Life is very annoying sometimes

Swiss Guy

thanks for the reply

Well it might get you into a predestination controversy, but that’s not my problem is it? Consider this, isn’t true that all souls will meet their Maker? If so, then all souls are predestined to do so. Where is the controversy in that?

 

[DPMartin]

No, but is that doesn’t prevent it from being the reality.

Lots of unjust things happen in the world that adversely affect the innocent, why single out this one?

David
thanks for the reply

Well it’s the first, and it affects all souls. What if Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Life? Nobody in the fallowing generations would be upset about that, would they? And if they did, would all receive everlasting Life by being born into the world?

 

[DPMartin]

Isn’t “suffering the consequences of another’s choice” necessarily entailed by the fact of sharing a world with others who can make choices?

So in effect, it seems, you are asking: Is it just that we should be forced to share the world with others (who can make choices)? (And I guess the answer is: Sure, why not?)

Betterave
thanks for the reply

If it effects you, then what?

 

[davidv]

David
thanks for the reply

Well it’s the first, and it affects all souls. What if Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Life?

We know they did not do so after their disobedience, as the angel was placed before it to prevent it. We, however, have no information as to whether they did so prior to. So, is quite possible, maybe even likely, that they eat of the tree of life along with all the other trees they were permitted to eat from.

Nobody in the fallowing generations would be upset about that, would they? And if they did, would all receive everlasting Life by being born into the world?

So how does this affect the justification of the consequence of the original sin?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Swiss Guy

thanks for the reply

Well it might get you into a predestination controversy, but that’s not my problem is it? Consider this, isn’t true that all souls will meet their Maker? If so, then all souls are predestined to do so. Where is the controversy in that?

Yes of course all souls will meet their maker, but I think we’re on a different page, since I was trying to reconcile free will and God’s providence and grace (I think Congruism does a good job with that though). Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you?

 

[tonyrey]

We are not isolated individuals but members of living organisms at different levels - such as our family, our local community, our nation, the human race, life on earth, life in the universe, all existence… The question of justice doesn’t arise because we are all interlinked and interdependent. Everything we do has some effect on something or some one… positive, negative or neutral!

 

[DPMartin]

Sure. I think someone else phrased a way to see things from a non-believer’s POV, so I would combine what I noted on the nature of mistakes, how some are biggies and then reinforce it with an important empirical point:

Life doesn’t appear to have been designed with fairness in mind.

To choose to live (and applying credit or blame for this) is logically invalid without someone to acknowledge that there was some power that existed to form this choice and life-giving organization (not just throwing biochemicals around randomly) to bring you here.

As Christians, we are asked to follow the Way, the Truth and the Life–not to question it. God is not human, and we cannot apply our limited way of thinking in terms of why original sin stains all and why He chose to leave it this way–except that He allowed us to make the choice to obey or spurn Him. I can only equate it less as a stain and more of a design flaw that humans inflicted into their spiritual structure (which, being both flesh and spirit, affects all of the person).

Luckily, we have Christ as the Redeemer, the Repairman of Souls.

Spencerian
thanks for the reply

It is one thing to trust that Jesus is the Way the Truth the Life, but how does one know and understand the Way the Truth the Life without asking? And who do you have to ask to know? Peter was one who was not afraid to ask, to boldly go to the Lord no matter his own understand. I mean he knew he was in the presence of the Holy One of Israel, and was not afraid to ask, or even do.

Doesn’t James teach:
Jms:1:5: If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

There is no sin in asking for knowledge and understanding in God’s relationship with men. If the Kingdom be in you as Jesus taught us, then wouldn’t it be wise to know the Lord’s view in His Kingdom? If God Loves Adam and Eve, then why would He let it be? Considering He is Righteous and Just.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave
thanks for the reply

If it -]effects/-] affects you, then what?

…then it affects you? I’m not sure what you’re asking. What does “it” refer to?

 

[DPMartin]

Yes of course all souls will meet their maker, but I think we’re on a different page, since I was trying to reconcile free will and God’s providence and grace (I think Congruism does a good job with that though). Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you?

Swiss Guy
thanks for the reply

Or maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to get at.
just so that we are on the same page:

Original def. Of Reconciliation:

1. a. The action of reconciling persons, or the result of this; the fact of being reconciled.
   b. spec. in religious use, of God and man.
   c. Restoration to favour. Obs. rare

Original def. Of Reconcile v:
I. 1. a. trans. To bring (a person) again into friendly relations to or with (oneself or another) after an estrangement.

So who has the power to reconcile unto himself? Does man have the power to reconcile himself unto God? Not possible in this case, man is the transgressor. So how can man reconcile his free will? Or even of his free will reconcile himself to God? The man has not the power to reconcile God unto himself, or anything of himself? God is not the transgressor of God’s Choice.

Adam and Eve where in the Garden, as far as anyone knows they were not trying to leave the Garden nor did they request that God would take them out of the Garden. So I’d say that they agreed to His Word given in His Presence, God’s Choice. (At the least Adam did).

And God has Chosen His Word in His Presence first and over all creation before Adam was. And that will never change.

Notice Jesus Christ, the Word of God in the Presence of God, is first to be resurrected from the dead. And sits at the Right Hand of God, and Heaven and earth are His. God the Father’s Choice. Not by the Choice of any other. By dying on the cross, Jesus Christ reconciled the human race unto God, the reconciliation is of God, that is God’s Will. (Choice) Free will is redundant, if it is only God’s Choice that get you to Heaven.

So free will may be allowed for a time, but the Truth is, God’s Choice gives Life, Eternal Life and Blessing, and it is man’s choice that destroys man. So my friend in Christ, where or what is the value of “free will”, in the Presence of God?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Swiss Guy
thanks for the reply

Or maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to get at.
just so that we are on the same page:

Original def. Of Reconciliation:

1. a. The action of reconciling persons, or the result of this; the fact of being reconciled.
   b. spec. in religious use, of God and man.
   c. Restoration to favour. Obs. rare

Original def. Of Reconcile v:
I. 1. a. trans. To bring (a person) again into friendly relations to or with (oneself or another) after an estrangement.

All right, glad we’re now on the same page.

So who has the power to reconcile unto himself? Does man have the power to reconcile himself unto God? Not possible in this case, man is the transgressor. So how can man reconcile his free will? Or even of his free will reconcile himself to God? The man has not the power to reconcile God unto himself, or anything of himself? God is not the transgressor of God’s Choice.

Correct, man cannot reconcile himself to God, but God reconciles us to him. But that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t use our free will to reconcile us to himself. It is still the Holy Spirit who saves us by the power of Christ’s death and resurrection. God’s prevenient grace gives us the ability to accept his sanctifying grace, and if we reject God won’t force us to accept. Remember, God is love, and wants us to love him. If we don’t have the choice to love God, then how can we love him?

Adam and Eve where in the Garden, as far as anyone knows they were not trying to leave the Garden nor did they request that God would take them out of the Garden. So I’d say that they agreed to His Word given in His Presence, God’s Choice. (At the least Adam did).

So far so good.

And God has Chosen His Word in His Presence first and over all creation before Adam was. And that will never change.

Well, sort of. Assuming you mean Christ when you say the Word (John 1:1), I don’t think that God the Father necessarily chose to have Christ in his presence. Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, God of God, etc, so how can God be away from God? Christ is in God’s presence because he is God, not necessarily because God chose that to happen.

Notice Jesus Christ, the Word of God in the Presence of God, is first to be resurrected from the dead. And sits at the Right Hand of God, and Heaven and earth are His. God the Father’s Choice. Not by the Choice of any other. By dying on the cross, Jesus Christ reconciled the human race unto God, the reconciliation is of God, that is God’s Will. (Choice) Free will is redundant, if it is only God’s Choice that get you to Heaven.

I’m assuming that you’re a Calvinist, correct? Yes, Jesus reconciled humanity to God, because God loves us and wants us to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). But it’s not ONLY by God’s choice that we get to heaven. God gave us free will when he created us, since we are created in his image. We get to heaven because of Christ’s passion, and if we cooperate with the Holy Spirit by letting him work in us to justify and sanctify us.

So free will may be allowed for a time, but the Truth is, God’s Choice gives Life, Eternal Life and Blessing, and it is man’s choice that destroys man. So my friend in Christ, where or what is the value of “free will”, in the Presence of God?

God’s grace gives life, as God IS Life. Yes, I do agree that man’s choice destroys man (look at original sin, which is what we are discussing ). But free will still has value in the presence of God, because God uses free will to save man.

I’m always eager to learn (about the faith), so I look forward to your response.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

To all Catholics: I need help with intrinsically or extrinsically efficacious grace. I understand both of them, but I can’t tell which is more biblical. Help would be great, thanks. (I’m assuming this is on topic)

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Note to DPMartin: My posts might contradict themselves as I try to figure out if grace is intrinsically or extrinsically efficacious (right now, just from former knowledge, I lean extrinsically). If I come to the conclusion its, intrinsically efficacious, I will agree with you more than I do now . Sorry if this is off topic, and feel free to ignore this if it is.

 

[DPMartin]

We know they did not do so after their disobedience, as the angel was placed before it to prevent it. We, however, have no information as to whether they did so prior to. So, is quite possible, maybe even likely, that they eat of the tree of life along with all the other trees they were permitted to eat from.

So how does this affect the justification of the consequence of the original sin?

David

thanks for the reply

Since the consequence of sin is death, and since it’s not God’s will that men should die. And Jesus came into the world to deliver us from the consequence of sin (death) why was it just that the Lord God let it be in the Garden?

 

[davidv]

David

thanks for the reply

Since the consequence of sin is death, and since it’s not God’s will that men should die. And Jesus came into the world to deliver us from the consequence of sin (death) why was it just that the Lord God let it be in the Garden?

Seems to me that you are accusing the wrong person of bringing death into the garden. Adam and Eve did so by denying God and chosing to disobey Him. This choice was unrighteous and justice demands that the prescribed consequences be imposed.

 

[SunnaB16]

In certain Jewish circles there is the belief that the Fall is really a blessing in disguise, and that our end-state will be greater than what it would have been if Adam and Eve did not sin.

It`s our belief, as well.
At the Easter Vigil Mass: “Oh happy fault…” is sung.

catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=3462…

users.binary.net/polycarp/origsin.html

 

[DPMartin]

Swiss Guy

thanks for the reply

All right, glad we’re now on the same page.

Correct, man cannot reconcile himself to God, but God reconciles us to him. But that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t use our free will to reconcile us to himself. It is still the Holy Spirit who saves us by the power of Christ’s death and resurrection. God’s prevenient grace gives us the ability to accept his sanctifying grace, and if we reject God won’t force us to accept. Remember, God is love, and wants us to love him. If we don’t have the choice to love God, then how can we love him?

Good point, but God loved us before we loved Him, and we know not true love, unless we know His Love for us. As we trust, God is Love.

Well, sort of. Assuming you mean Christ when you say the Word (John 1:1), I don’t think that God the Father necessarily chose to have Christ in his presence. Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, God of God, etc, so how can God be away from God? Christ is in God’s presence because he is God, not necessarily because God chose that to happen.

Well I can see your point there. If we look at creation the very first revelation of God’s Word in His Presence in creation was “Let there be Light” and then He separated the Light from the darkness. Which would be and act of His choice, after the revelation of His Word. (Note He didn’t speak the separation of Light from the darkness but before He did, He declared that the Light was Good.) We also know that God is not in darkness. Therefore not His Chose nor His Choice for the Light.

It was also His Choice to rest on the seventh day. Therefore choosing to let all that He made to rest in His Word.

I’m assuming that you’re a Calvinist, correct? Yes, Jesus reconciled humanity to God, because God loves us and wants us to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4). But it’s not ONLY by God’s choice that we get to heaven. God gave us free will when he created us, since we are created in his image. We get to heaven because of Christ’s passion, and if we cooperate with the Holy Spirit by letting him work in us to justify and sanctify us.

Calvinism? Na, but I can understand how you might catagorize it that way, seeing that I am pressing the issue of choice.
It is man’s choice that caused original sin that results in death, but the result of God’s Choice is Life Eternal. Therefore, free will has no value in the Kingdom of God. It is only valued by those who would seek to choice otherwise. Man can only glory in that God Chose to reconcile man unto Himself. Rather then, leave man to man’s own choices, and the result thereof. To glory that you have chosen God, is a pride. For you did not make anything that gave you the capability to even be aware of a God to chose.

Original sin condemns men. God’s Choice redeems men into God’s Choice, His Word in His Presence. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the overseer of our souls.

God’s grace gives life, as God IS Life. Yes, I do agree that man’s choice destroys man (look at original sin, which is what we are discussing ). But free will still has value in the presence of God, because God uses free will to save man.

It seems that the only value that free will could have, is to let it rest in the Lord.

Though there be question and controversy in the translations of the phrase “I am, that I am” but could this one be accurate? Consider why would God even consider the kindness to want to hear from us, and shouldn’t we want to hear from Him? What is it about us that the Lord God would hear. Certainly if He did not He would not and He chooses who He hears and who hears Him. Even in the Garden He chose to hear from the woman, He chose to hear from the man, but He did not choose to hear from the serpent, He not did question the serpent for and answer. Which was His Choice. Do we hear from ourselves and chose? Or do we hear from the Lord and let it rest with Him in His Choice for us. For the Father Chooses for the Son in His Spirit. Just as Abraham chose for his son Isaac. But even in that God chose who would be Abraham’s inheritor. And if you noticed Abraham presented his hope for an inheritor of his own flesh and it was the Lord God’s choice who that would be, in the fulfillment of Abraham’s expectation and desire presented before the Lord. And eventually Abraham let it rest with the Lord.

Could it be that God can see Himself in a man a say that I am, just as a father sees himself in his son, and is pleased?

 

[davidv]

Swiss Guy

thanks for the reply

Good point, but God loved us before we loved Him, and we know not true love, unless we know His Love for us. As we trust, God is Love.

Well I can see your point there. If we look at creation the very first revelation of God’s Word in His Presence in creation was “Let there be Light” and then He separated the Light from the darkness. Which would be and act of His choice, after the revelation of His Word. (Note He didn’t speak the separation of Light from the darkness but before He did, He declared that the Light was Good.) We also know that God is not in darkness. Therefore not His Chose nor His Choice for the Light.

It was also His Choice to rest on the seventh day. Therefore choosing to let all that He made to rest in His Word.

Calvinism? Na, but I can understand how you might catagorize it that way, seeing that I am pressing the issue of choice.
It is man’s choice that caused original sin that results in death, but the result of God’s Choice is Life Eternal. Therefore, free will has no value in the Kingdom of God. It is only valued by those who would seek to choice otherwise. Man can only glory in that God Chose to reconcile man unto Himself. Rather then, leave man to man’s own choices, and the result thereof. To glory that you have chosen God, is a pride. For you did not make anything that gave you the capability to even be aware of a God to chose.

Original sin condemns men. God’s Choice redeems men into God’s Choice, His Word in His Presence. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the overseer of our souls.

It seems that the only value that free will could have, is to let it rest in the Lord.

Though there be question and controversy in the translations of the phrase “I am, that I am” but could this one be accurate? Consider why would God even consider the kindness to want to hear from us, and shouldn’t we want to hear from Him? What is it about us that the Lord God would hear. Certainly if He did not He would not and He chooses who He hears and who hears Him. Even in the Garden He chose to hear from the woman, He chose to hear from the man, but He did not choose to hear from the serpent, He not did question the serpent for and answer. Which was His Choice. Do we hear from ourselves and chose? Or do we hear from the Lord and let it rest with Him in His Choice for us. For the Father Chooses for the Son in His Spirit. Just as Abraham chose for his son Isaac. But even in that God chose who would be Abraham’s inheritor. And if you noticed Abraham presented his hope for an inheritor of his own flesh and it was the Lord God’s choice who that would be, in the fulfillment of Abraham’s expectation and desire presented before the Lord. And eventually Abraham let it rest with the Lord.

Could it be that God can see Himself in a man a say that I am, just as a father sees himself in his son, and is pleased?

When you wrote “Original sin condemns man.” It is not clear what you mean as there can be multiple interpretations within the context you wrote it. Can you clarify?

With respect to pressing the issue of choice, I don’t think you answered the other posters question, namely, without choice can you love?