Original Sin

[holmj2674]

In a nutshell (I’ll try to be brief), I was born and raised a protestant evangelical and reconciled to Catholicism about 10 years ago now. I am a voracious reader and have a special interest in philosophy and especially theology… which is what brought me to the church. As I have continued to read it has become harder and harder to agree with the Western position on original sin. It seems to me that the entire sordid history of the middle ages and the protestant reformation is due to Augustine’s interpretation of the consequence of Adam’s sin and fall.
As you all know, before becoming Christian Augustine was a Manichean… a gnostic sect infected with a rabid matter/spirit dualism that runs counter to anything seen in Christianity, and yet, it seems to me, that Augustine carried this very dualism into his Christian beliefs… perverting the faith of the early church fathers.
The early church fathers had an entirely different view of the nature and consequences of Adam’s sin. Rather than being born into a state of guilt we are born instead into the consequences of Adams sin (not the guilt), that being our mortality. This is an extremely important distinction… and I can imagine a western world free of the burden of “total depravity” as a much better world that what we have inherited from our ancestors.
I do not think I can any longer accept the Augustinian position or the doctrines stemming from this assumption. This includes the immaculate conception of Mary, the assumption before death of Mary, perhaps purgatory as many in the church see it… which pretty much runs counter to what I should believe as a Catholic… yet I do not wish to break with my Catholic faith by becoming Orthodox. I hold some small hope in that the Eastern Catholic churches are much closer to their Orthodox brethren on many of these issues than they are with Western (Latin) Catholicism. Yet as a western rite Catholic can I even hold Eastern Catholic theological beliefs?
So I am putting it to you apologists out there… Can a case be made from the pre-Augustinian fathers for his interpretation of original sin? I would like to think there is… but I have not seen it… and if not is it ok to hold a more Eastern Catholic (or more Orthodox) view? please help!

 

[Philotheatoo]

Christianity is a break off of Judaism. I would suggest you go further back, maybe to 100 A.D. or so, and you will see how the existing cultures and religions all contributed to people’s belief systems today. Since both the Catholic and the Orthodox are derived from the same sources, to side with one over the other at this point is simply a choice. The Truth is in your heart. I can only wish that my heart and my soul were in the pre-fall state of perfection that Adam and Eve’s were prior to eating the apple, so to speak. My heart tells me they were in a constant state of grace prior to that fateful day. If you are in a constant state of grace, or filled with perfect charity at all times, etc., then I commend you and offer you probably need not worry about this at all. It may be helpful to read:
newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

 

[Stuu]

I’m interested to know how the question of original sin squares with the fact of history that there never was a time of only two humans.

Perhaps some would go for the Preadamite notion, but otherwise, the story of Adam and Eve has to be allegorical, as humans did not arise from just one breeding pair.

So that leads to the question of how original sin could have any validity, if it is not based on an historical event, but on an allegorical story.

Stuart

 

[DJK100]

Hi,

I just want to be clear in what you are looking for. You are looking for pre-Augustine quotes from the early Church Fathers that show you they believed that we are born into a state of sin (guilt) rather than just being born into the consequences (death) of Adams fall (sin). Meaning that Original sin was taught before St. Augustine. I think I may have found a few for you.

But this man . . . is Adam, if the 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]" **(Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).’ – Irenaeus

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 [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.) – Irenaeus (the we seems to be inclusive of the whole human race at present)

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]). — Origen written rougly 100 years before the birth of St. Agustine.

Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world. . . . When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men" [Romans 5:12]. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 [inter A.D. 358-362]). — Athanasius (contemporary of St. Agustine.)

Hope this helps.

 

[DJK100]

I’m interested to know how the question of original sin squares with the fact of history that there never was a time of only two humans.

How do you know this? At what point did “humans” arise? There had to be the first of a species does there not? So at what point can you define when someone came from not being human to human? Can you tell me at what point the cross over from being humanoid to human occurred? Can anyone really do that? I do believe in evolution by the way and new species are being created everyday. There always has to be an offical first that passes along their traits to the next offspring.

Perhaps some would go for the Preadamite notion, but otherwise, the story of Adam and Eve has to be allegorical, as humans did not arise from just one breeding pair.

You can take it either way, allegorical or not, and as a Catholic that is up to you. But again I ask you how to you know what you are asserting?

So that leads to the question of how original sin could have any validity, if it is not based on an historical event, but on an allegorical story.

Which is speculation on your part.

 

[Stuu]

How do you know this? At what point did “humans” arise? There had to be the first of a species does there not? So at what point can you define when someone came from not being human to human? Can you tell me at what point the cross over from being humanoid to human occurred? Can anyone really do that? I do believe in evolution by the way and new species are being created everyday. There always has to be an offical first that passes along their traits to the next offspring.

Perhaps some would go for the Preadamite notion, but otherwise, the story of Adam and Eve has to be allegorical, as humans did not arise from just one breeding pair.

You can take it either way, allegorical or not, and as a Catholic that is up to you. But again I ask you how to you know what you are asserting?

So that leads to the question of how original sin could have any validity, if it is not based on an historical event, but on an allegorical story.

Which is speculation on your part.

Hi DJK

The thing with evolution is that natural selection works on whole populations, so as you rightly suggest there is some difficulty in defining the point at which we ceased to be homo erectus and began to be homo sapiens. We could say as many do that roughly 185,000 years is our length of stay on the planet so far as a species, but it is open to biological interpretation, all of which means there is no one “first human”. The idea has no useful meaning.

My point in regard to original sin is that it is a fable of christianity, and unless it could reasonably be attributed to an actual historical event, it invents a rather unpleasant concept grounded in nothing that could reasonably be said to be real. Certainly it could be taken as a faith position, I guess.

By the way, I am not a Catholic. But I understand that the Vatican concurs with you, that evolution by natural selection is the origin of the species. It just seems to me that evolution would appear to render the concept of original sin meaningless because there was no “first human”. The best you could do would be to say let’s arbitrarily decide on a date 185 millennia ago, and then say there were um, maybe 5000 “first humans”.

Does my logic make sense in this?

Stuart

 

[holmj2674]

Hi,

I just want to be clear in what you are looking for. You are looking for pre-Augustine quotes from the early Church Fathers that show you they believed that we are born into a state of sin (guilt) rather than just being born into the consequences (death) of Adams fall (sin). Meaning that Original sin was taught before St. Augustine. I think I may have found a few for you.

But this man . . . is Adam, if the 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]" **(Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).’ – Irenaeus

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 [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.) – Irenaeus (the we seems to be inclusive of the whole human race at present)

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]). — Origen written rougly 100 years before the birth of St. Agustine.

Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world. . . . When Adam transgressed, sin reached out to all men" [Romans 5:12]. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51 [inter A.D. 358-362]). — Athanasius (contemporary of St. Agustine.)

Hope this helps.

The Origen quote is very helpful. I am a big fan of his writings… including this one, which is pertinent to the Adam and Eve debate also ongoing here…

“What intelligent person can imagine that there was a first “day,” then a second and a third “day”—evening and morning—without the sun, the moon, and the stars? [Sun, moon, and stars are created on the fourth “day.”] And that the first “day”—if it makes sense to call it such—existed even without a sky? [The sky is created on the second “day.”]
Who is foolish enough to believe that, like a human gardener, God planted a garden in Eden in the East and placed in it a tree of life, visible and physical, so that by biting into its fruit one would obtain life? And that by eating from another tree, one would come to know good and evil? And when it is said that God walked in the garden in the evening and that Adam hid himself behind a tree, I cannot imagine that anyone will doubt that these details point symbolically to spiritual meanings, by using an historical narrative which did not literally happen”. - Origen

Just because the story of creation and the fall is not literal does not make it any less true. That is the huge error of Protestantism… by taking the Bible so literally you are disposing of the true spiritual meaning of the text. Origin recognized this, and from his methods of Biblical criticism you can drew a clear line to lectio divina.

It is perhaps better to say that the early church fathers were divided from the beginning on the issue of original sin. I wonder if this difference arose between the Alexandrian and Antiochean philosophical/theological schools of thought? Or perhaps not. It does seem clear that as the Roman Empire in the West collapsed from external/internal pressures that the Western view by consequence seemed to take a much more “glass is half empty” approach to theology (emphasis on juridical atonement) than the East, which continued to prosper under the Byzantine Empire for another thousand years. The difference may in fact be on emphasis and not on substance. I will need to look into that more.

 

[DJK100]

Hi Stuu,

I think we are going to have to respectably agree to disagree on just about everypoint here.

I am aware that natural selection works on whole populations. But you must of heard of the founder effect that is seen in populations like the Amish, Azchenazi Jews(sp?) and other species that either get isolated or have small original populations causing a genetic drift into certain traits. Now I am not saying that this happened in this instance but it is not out of the realm of possibility. This could have pushed a smaller population into spawning a new species as they lose traits or amplify traits that are only found in this population. I agree with you that it is a matter of biological interperetaion about when humans arose but disagree with you when you say that this means there is no “first human.” At some point our ancestors had to be similar enough to us for us to identify them as the same species as we are. It logically stands to reason that their had to be a first within that population which pushed it to what it is today. So while it is open to biological interpretation on what that is and when it happened it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen – just that we can’t agree when it happened. You can have microevolution within the macroevolution population and it could be that those microevolutionary changes is what pushed a birth of a new species in one individual within the macropopulation.

As with your point involving orginal sin about being a fable, it is again, what you want to believe. You keep asserting that their was no “first human,” but I am asserting that their had to have been otherwise you would not have any humans today. We both have different viewpoints/

This means that it could reasonable be attributable to a historical event though. Again you and I just believe differently.

Lastly, I do understand your logic but I think you may be missing mine. Yes I agree with you that evolution works on macropopulations however there is also microevolution as well. The question becomes at what point did evolution push humanity from being “animals” to humans – and there had to be a first human even within the overall population of nonhumans. Now I know that the when this happened is something we can’t answer but the fact remains that it happened because we have humans today. It is like asking what was the first thought. We know it happened because we think, but what creature had it and what was it. We will never know other than that some creature must have been the first. This is the same thing with species. With all species their must have been a first, the most fit, that started that branch from the common ancestor even if it was hardly distinguishable from it previous fellows. Therefore I think it is more accurate to say that their was 1 human that spawned the 5000 “first humans” rather than just saying, "let’s arbitrarily decide on a date 185 millennia ago, and then say there were um, maybe 5000 “first humans.” Now if there is a God which I believe, and there is first human, which I also think there must have been, who betrayed God then Original Sin becomes a very real possibilty and more than just a fable.

 

[Philotheatoo]

I believe it with all my heart. And soul. And brain. And yes, I graduated with Honors from St. Catherine University.

 

[promethius]

The early church fathers had an entirely different view of the nature and consequences of Adam’s sin. Rather than being born into a state of guilt we are born instead into the consequences of Adams sin (not the guilt), that being our mortality. This is an extremely important distinction… and I can imagine a western world free of the burden of “total depravity” as a much better world that what we have inherited from our ancestors.
I do not think I can any longer accept the Augustinian position or the doctrines stemming from this assumption.

Eh… I would tend to disagree, but I think you’re interpreting church doctrine on original sin as being too close to Augustine’s version. The church does not teach that we inherit the GUILT of Adams sin, but rather that we inherit a fallen nature which desires sin. There’s a subtle but very important distinction in there. I think if a lot of orthodox realized that we don’t believe in inheritance of personal culpability for original sin that it would go a long way towards reconciling their schism.

This includes the immaculate conception of Mary

I think you believe something about the doctrine of Immaculate Conception that the church does not teach. Mary was not invincible. She could die. She could feel pain. The idea that she had a painless childbirth is distinctly protestant.

Why do I say this? Because Christ was PERFECT, and yet He suffered and died. Literally suffered and died. If Christ, in His perfect nature, could suffer and die, why couldn’t the Immaculate Conception (Mary) do the same?

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception merely states that Mary was spared at the very instant of conception from inheriting the fallen nature of man.

(Side note: this puts a horrible thorn in the side of Orthodox teaching… If they are correct that original sin = mortality, then if Christ was perfect and had no original sin, then He could not have died.)

the assumption before death of Mary

The catholic church does not teach that Mary was assumed before her death. We teach that she was assumed into heaven. We don’t know and don’t clarify that she did this while still alive.

The orthodox church teaches that Mary died, physically. They do not teach that she was assumed bodily into heaven, nor do they teach that she was not. They only teach that she physically died.

So the two positions are not ENTIRELY mutually exclusive.

perhaps purgatory as many in the church see it…

Who cares how many in the church see it? When we take the doctrine back to it’s basics, the doctrine on purgatory basically states that there is a process by which we are purified of all defect before entering eternally into heaven. This process occurs after judgement and is called purgatory.

Yet as a western rite Catholic can I even hold Eastern Catholic theological beliefs?

In terms of fundamental doctrines, they are identical to the Latin Rite. That’s the difference between Eastern Catholic Rites and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Our Rites are customary difference in practice, but they still cleave to truth and are loyal to the Chair of Peter.

So I am putting it to you apologists out there… Can a case be made from the pre-Augustinian fathers for his interpretation of original sin? I would like to think there is… but I have not seen it…

Another poster already hit some good quotes on this subject, so I won’t touch it.

I’d like to commend you for coming and trying to conform your beliefs here rather than just flying off and running from the church. Please allow me to offer you some advice: ignore “theological ideas” or take them with a grain of salt. Things like limbo, purgatory as a place, Mary assumed BEFORE death, etc. These are (mostly) sound ideas, but they remain only ideas. It is the fundamental doctrines which are truth. Don’t reject the church just because your ideas about a basic doctrine differ from what is taught by a particular theologian.

 

[holmj2674]

Thank you for your post promethius. As a former protestant my command of Mariology is sorely lacking. Like most protestants I still tend to not think much of Mary at all. It seems to cloud the issue for me and I have a hard time navigating the nuances of the doctrines. Christology, sortieriology and eschatology are more my thing.
Eastern Orthodoxy is attractive to me in several ways. The doctrine of theosis and the practice of Hesychasm being the two biggest. I wish the Catholic Church was better at enunciating the concept of deification or divinization. It seems to me to be a very subtle teaching, that if understood in its proper context could bring many people to a deeper faith in Christ and his salvific work in the church and sacraments.
It also seems to me that many Catholics are overly suspicious of mystical experiences, ie. St. John of the Cross, Theresa of Avila etc. The rigidity of exoteric dogma seems to leave little room for esoteric experience to many modern Catholics. Yet, this is the very thing that makes Catholicism much more attractive as a “spiritual” path than Protestantism. It fuels the Churches vitality and renews its mission and purpose in the world.
The last thing I find attractive is the orthodox churches emphasis on apothatic theology. I believe that the western church has lost much of the “mystery of faith” in its scholastic attempt to define and explain God, the Godhead and the trinity.
It’s a tough sell for me to remain Catholic on these theological grounds… but what the Catholic Church has that the Orthodox church does not is its very Catholicism. It is universal in a way that the fractured branches of Orthodoxy cannot be. I just wish that many Western Catholics could see the Church through Eastern eyes and gain a greater appreciation of the fullness of faith.

 

[Stuu]

Hi Stuu,

I think we are going to have to respectably agree to disagree on just about everypoint here.

I am aware that natural selection works on whole populations. But you must of heard of the founder effect that is seen in populations like the Amish, Azchenazi Jews(sp?) and other species that either get isolated or have small original populations causing a genetic drift into certain traits. Now I am not saying that this happened in this instance but it is not out of the realm of possibility. This could have pushed a smaller population into spawning a new species as they lose traits or amplify traits that are only found in this population. I agree with you that it is a matter of biological interperetaion about when humans arose but disagree with you when you say that this means there is no “first human.” At some point our ancestors had to be similar enough to us for us to identify them as the same species as we are. It logically stands to reason that their had to be a first within that population which pushed it to what it is today. So while it is open to biological interpretation on what that is and when it happened it doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen – just that we can’t agree when it happened. You can have microevolution within the macroevolution population and it could be that those microevolutionary changes is what pushed a birth of a new species in one individual within the macropopulation.

As with your point involving orginal sin about being a fable, it is again, what you want to believe. You keep asserting that their was no “first human,” but I am asserting that their had to have been otherwise you would not have any humans today. We both have different viewpoints/

This means that it could reasonable be attributable to a historical event though. Again you and I just believe differently.

Lastly, I do understand your logic but I think you may be missing mine. Yes I agree with you that evolution works on macropopulations however there is also microevolution as well. The question becomes at what point did evolution push humanity from being “animals” to humans – and there had to be a first human even within the overall population of nonhumans. Now I know that the when this happened is something we can’t answer but the fact remains that it happened because we have humans today. It is like asking what was the first thought. We know it happened because we think, but what creature had it and what was it. We will never know other than that some creature must have been the first. This is the same thing with species. With all species their must have been a first, the most fit, that started that branch from the common ancestor even if it was hardly distinguishable from it previous fellows. Therefore I think it is more accurate to say that their was 1 human that spawned the 5000 “first humans” rather than just saying, "let’s arbitrarily decide on a date 185 millennia ago, and then say there were um, maybe 5000 “first humans.” Now if there is a God which I believe, and there is first human, which I also think there must have been, who betrayed God then Original Sin becomes a very real possibilty and more than just a fable.

Once again, I appreciate your reply. Regarding the “first human” the problem is with the definition of species. Two groups of animals are of separate species if they cannot interbreed, and there has obviously never been a time in human ancestry where one generation could not interbreed with the next. So if your challenge is to find some reality in the story of Adam and Eve, you could pick any homo erectus or homo sapiens living anywhere between 1,000,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago and say he was “the first human”, and even then you would be wrong because that human would have been able to interbreed with both its immediate ancestors and its immediate descendents, so it would not have been of a distinctly different species. The fossil evidence is pretty clear too. There never was a time of just two humans.

As you say, I think we will have to agree to differ. I still wonder how it is acceptable for a Catholic that the doctrines of the church are based on events that cannot reasonably be thought to be historical, especially central ideas as apparently brutal and inhumane as original sin.

Appreciate your responses.

Stuart

 

[DJK100]

The problem with your interbreed species idea is that is is false. Are dogs and wolves different species? Most if not all biologist would say yes. Yet they can breed and produce viable and sexual reproductively able offspring. So I cannot accept your definition of species being able to not interbreed as binding. So I think even today’s circumstances already defeat your challenge. The definition of species is man made which may be the problem. So what you and the creator define as what constitute a species may be entirely different.

Also you are looking at this from a very non theological view. What if the “first human/s” was the first of that similar looking hominid that God gave a soul to? Thus making them entirely able to reproduce with others but the first with the actual spark of a soul - a new species so to speak. This divine spark would account for your fossil records. In addition to that how do you know that it wasn’t a particular mutation or gene addition or deletion that could render a new species. The fossils would look the same but the species would be biologically different. One example of this is in butterflies. A single gene actually can controll mimicry across many different species. So what if the reverse were true and a single gene defined the difference of a species. Again I am not saying this is what happened because I don’t know, but the fact of the matter is you don’t know either. Both of what we are saying are our particular viewpoints and are entirely speculative. I just happen to bank on one side of Pascal’s wager and you possbily on the other.

By the way I do happen to think the account of genesis is mostly allegorical, however I am open to not dismissing it entirely because either way it cannot be proved definatively. Besides even if Adam stood for all enclusive mankind, it would still hold the notion of original sin because it is saying that at the very beginning of mankind humanity losts its way.

I actually don’t think that orginal sin is a brutal and inhumane as you think. I didn’t want to get into this because it is hard to type out an explanation. I will try briefly. Bascially, God did not cause man to sin, man’s disobediance did that. It is God’s uncompromising love for us that he gave us a choice to love him back or reject him. What would love actually be if you didn’t have the choice (free will) to love the object or not? That would be more like coercision or brainwashing. When earliest man reject him we sinned and like any good parent knows there are consequences to be had for our (mankinds) actions. Consequences in a way let us know that there is caring involved because their is someone or something actually taking the time to involve themselves towards our betterment. The fact that God loved us enough to even allow us to sin is something spectacular to really think about. The fact that even when we rejected him he still loved us enough to accept us back, is mind boggeling. So again I disagree with you when you state that orginal sin is “apparently brutal and inhuman.” I actually see it as a magnificent act of love. Love that he allowed us the free will to make that choice and love that he allows a way back to him. Nothing inhumane or brutal about that.

I still disagree with your “reasonably historical” arguement when I feel I find a reasonable explanation to your objections.

But I am sure we disagree on this as well.

I do have to say Stuu, I really do enjoy talking with you and I hope nothing I said has come off as too pompous or aggressive towards you. If it did that was never my intention. All the best my friend.

 

[Stuu]

DJK100

The problem with your interbreed species idea is that is is false. Are dogs and wolves different species? Most if not all biologist would say yes. Yet they can breed and produce viable and sexual reproductively able offspring… The definition of species is man made which may be the problem. So what you and the creator define as what constitute a species may be entirely different.

I believe that indeed all dogs are considered to be wolves. Both have the species name Canis lupus.

Also you are looking at this from a very non theological view. What if the “first human/s” was the first of that similar looking hominid that God gave a soul to? … In addition to that how do you know that it wasn’t a particular mutation or gene addition or deletion that could render a new species. The fossils would look the same but the species would be biologically different. One example of this is in butterflies. A single gene actually can controll mimicry across many different species. So what if the reverse were true and a single gene defined the difference of a species. Again I am not saying this is what happened because I don’t know, but the fact of the matter is you don’t know either. Both of what we are saying are our particular viewpoints and are entirely speculative…

Of course as you might expect, my next question has to be “what is a soul?”. I guess as far as science is concerned “soul” is an abstract theological concept that remains undefined. As with the story of Adam it is possible to invent scenarios that match theology to empirical science, but from the other direction there is no observation that demands the story of Adam as an explanation, just as there is no particular observation about the biological world that demands we consider humans differently from other animal species.

By the way I do happen to think the account of genesis is mostly allegorical, however I am open to not dismissing it entirely because either way it cannot be proved definatively. Besides even if Adam stood for all enclusive mankind, it would still hold the notion of original sin because it is saying that at the very beginning of mankind humanity losts its way. I actually don’t think that orginal sin is a brutal and inhumane as you think. I didn’t want to get into this because it is hard to type out an explanation. … It is God’s uncompromising love for us that he gave us a choice to love him back or reject him. What would love actually be if you didn’t have the choice (free will) to love the object or not? That would be more like coercision or brainwashing. When earliest man reject him we sinned and like any … The fact that God loved us enough to even allow us to sin is something spectacular to really think about. The fact that even when we rejected him he still loved us enough to accept us back, is mind boggeling. So again I disagree with you when you state that orginal sin is “apparently brutal and inhuman.” I actually see it as a magnificent act of love. Love that he allowed us the free will to make that choice and love that he allows a way back to him. Nothing inhumane or brutal about that.

If it was simply a case that a god could love us regardless of what humans did I suppose that could be seen as an act of magnanimity worthy of profound respect, but scripturally that does not quite work when you consider that it is compulsory for us to return the love because indeed there is coercion going on in the form of repeated, clear threats that you will be punished by fire / eternally destroyed if you do not. Is it ethically right that the doctrine of original sin says you were born bad and have no choice but to make yourself well on pain of torment? Is it ethical that you are automatically considered sinful with no right of reply?

I still disagree with your “reasonably historical” arguement when I feel I find a reasonable explanation to your objections.

I still believe there is a fundamental question underpinning this, which leads to problems with other doctrines aside from that of original sin. That is the question of whether a doctrine should be expected to be consistent with empirical evidence, or even be an explanation for evidence: doctrine as scientific theory.

Would you say it does? As you will have gathered I believe that much of Genesis can be disproved empirically. It is factual that there never was a time of two humans; there has never been a global flood in the time there has been humans on earth; you literally cannot have the earth before you had light (if Gen 1 is chronological); snakes don’t really talk… But we can’t dismiss something out of hand if its writing is allegorical as much ancient writing was. So I must return here to the point I made originally, and acknowledge that you did answer it from an allegorical point of view too. If original sin does not stem from an historical event (I maintain the events of the Garden of Eden are not biologically plausible) then on what basis are humans deemed to be saddle with original sin? Are we not just talking about human nature, and so from a theological point of view does the finger of “blame” not then point godwards as supposed creator of human nature? That would be far more consistent with what we observe. A serpent, representing wrongdoing, has waylaid humans from the Proper Path. Is there no questioning of divine motive here? Free will to follow “god-given instinct” and be divinely punished for it? Sounds like a cruel game to me!

I do have to say Stuu, I really do enjoy talking with you and I hope nothing I said has come off as too pompous or aggressive towards you. If it did that was never my intention. All the best my friend.

Indeed, I continue to appreciate your engagement on the topic. Similarly I would not wish to come across as if I thought I knew everything. I certainly don’t.

Stuart

 

[fhansen]

In a nutshell (I’ll try to be brief), I was born and raised a protestant evangelical and reconciled to Catholicism about 10 years ago now. I am a voracious reader and have a special interest in philosophy and especially theology… which is what brought me to the church. As I have continued to read it has become harder and harder to agree with the Western position on original sin. It seems to me that the entire sordid history of the middle ages and the protestant reformation is due to Augustine’s interpretation of the consequence of Adam’s sin and fall.
As you all know, before becoming Christian Augustine was a Manichean… a gnostic sect infected with a rabid matter/spirit dualism that runs counter to anything seen in Christianity, and yet, it seems to me, that Augustine carried this very dualism into his Christian beliefs… perverting the faith of the early church fathers.
The early church fathers had an entirely different view of the nature and consequences of Adam’s sin. Rather than being born into a state of guilt we are born instead into the consequences of Adams sin (not the guilt), that being our mortality. This is an extremely important distinction… and I can imagine a western world free of the burden of “total depravity” as a much better world that what we have inherited from our ancestors.
I do not think I can any longer accept the Augustinian position or the doctrines stemming from this assumption. This includes the immaculate conception of Mary, the assumption before death of Mary, perhaps purgatory as many in the church see it… which pretty much runs counter to what I should believe as a Catholic… yet I do not wish to break with my Catholic faith by becoming Orthodox. I hold some small hope in that the Eastern Catholic churches are much closer to their Orthodox brethren on many of these issues than they are with Western (Latin) Catholicism. Yet as a western rite Catholic can I even hold Eastern Catholic theological beliefs?
So I am putting it to you apologists out there… Can a case be made from the pre-Augustinian fathers for his interpretation of original sin? I would like to think there is… but I have not seen it… and if not is it ok to hold a more Eastern Catholic (or more Orthodox) view? please help!

First of all Catholicism doesn’t teach total depravity. It teaches that man is good but fallen in some manner. And I think we risk missing the understanding of the cause and nature of moral evil if we don’t look further.

I’ve heard it put by Eastern commentators that mortality, itself, is a chief reason for sin in man because it places us in a situation where we’re trapped within a defined life-span-with no certainty of existence afterward. This condition alone is said to be sufficient to up the “concupiscence level” in us enormously. And so, since Christ’s triumph over death definitively serves to counteract this situation, it should therefore resolve the problem within us, with the help of Gods’ grace enabling us to believe in the resurrection and its promise of eternal life, rendering sin less attractive.

But while this sounds plausible enough, I’m not so sure I‘d agree-it seems to me there’s more to sin than that. It seems to me that man sins in spite of the fact-maybe even in denial of the fact - that he knows his life is limited, a situation which instead might conceivably cause humility, a recognition of our powerlessness over this huge obstacle/enemy, rather than the pride/selfishness/self-righteousness that seems to exist anyway and be the root-cause of sin in this world. I mean, sin seems to rear its head in spite of its sheer unreasonableness, apparently coming from a spirit of rebellion in the heart of man?

The real problem with man is that he’s separated from the creator and lover of his soul, the source and sustainer of his life, the one who knows and gives us purpose. And part of the problem is that man even prefers this separation or autonomy, according to the Catholic Catechism. Man is dead and lost without necessarily knowing it. Another way of saying this is that man doesn’t love as he should, he’s born in breech of the greatest commandment, to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strength. In fact, man is born without even faith in God, let alone hope in Him, let alone love for Him. And this constitutes an enormous injustice, a discord with the universe, with God, with ourselves, that results in discord with each other.

Jesus tells us in Luke 19 that even the rocks and stones would cry out in praise if they could-all creation would-only man needs to come to know, for himself, the inestimable “worth” of God.

 

[Stuu]

The real problem with man is that he’s separated from the creator and lover of his soul, the source and sustainer of his life, the one who knows and gives us purpose. And part of the problem is that man even prefers this separation or autonomy, according to the Catholic Catechism. Man is dead and lost without necessarily knowing it.

I appreciate that you have quoted a commandment in support of this, but I have never understood how this can be justified in more universal terms as a problem. It might be dealt with better in a separate thread, but why is it a moral act to have anything to do with this god let alone worship it, no matter what it may have done? Actually what is wrong with being born in that state you describe, of no faith and no engagement with any supernatural being? What is the ethical argument that supports the scriptural demands?

Stuart

 

[davidv]

I appreciate that you have quoted a commandment in support of this, but I have never understood how this can be justified in more universal terms as a problem. It might be dealt with better in a separate thread, but why is it a moral act to have anything to do with this god let alone worship it, no matter what it may have done? Actually what is wrong with being born in that state you describe, of no faith and no engagement with any supernatural being? What is the ethical argument that supports the scriptural demands?

Stuart

What is wrong with this state is that it prevents you from being eternally happy. Also, many who choose remain in this state use it as an excuse to commit all manners of atrosities.

 

[Stuu]

What is wrong with this state is that it prevents you from being eternally happy. Also, many who choose remain in this state use it as an excuse to commit all manners of atrosities.

I don’t imagine you would deny that some of the most enthusiastic adopters of this state have committed atrocities, and that there are hundreds of millions who are not in this state who do not commit any crimes against humanity, and who would also claim to be happy.

So is it the eternal happiness aspect you would emphasise? Is happiness in this one life we know for sure we have, followed by non-existence of any kind following death (as a person not in this state would contend is our future as individuals) not really happiness? Even though it is perceived to be happiness in the absence of Catholic, or indeed any religious faith?

Stuart

 

[davidv]

I don’t imagine you would deny that some of the most enthusiastic adopters of this state have committed atrocities, and that there are hundreds of millions who are not in this state who do not commit any crimes against humanity, and who would also claim to be happy.

So is it the eternal happiness aspect you would emphasise?

No. Love (agape), not the feeling, is the emphesis.

Is happiness in this one life we know for sure we have, followed by non-existence of any kind following death (as a person not in this state would contend is our future as individuals) not really happiness?

What evidence do you have the our earthly life ends in non-existance?

Even though it is perceived to be happiness in the absence of Catholic, or indeed any religious faith?

Stuart

If ones happiness is not rooted in love of God and neighbor, it is counterfeit happiness. As such it is not truely satisfying.

 

[Stuu]

No. Love (agape), not the feeling, is the emphesis.

Do you see a relationship between agape and human happiness as would be perceived universally?

What evidence do you have the our earthly life ends in non-existance?

I guess technically the evidence says that doesn’t happen. Rather our atoms are recycled, reorganised and reused as has been happening thoughout life anyway. But of course the materialist is going to respond with the converse question: what evidence is there that any kind of life exists past the one we know we have?

If ones happiness is not rooted in love of God and neighbor, it is counterfeit happiness. As such it is not truely satisfying.

Would it not be reasonable for a deist to find that a bizarre statement to make? I’m sure we could agree with the sentiment regarding neighbours, we are a social species. However you are kind of claiming that there is something special about this apparently compulsory love which imbues happiness with some kind of honesty that is missing in what others would call their happiness. What evidence would you offer for that deist?

Stuart