B
Boxerdog
Guest
explain to me Original Sin, this hasnt been covered in most of my hardcore apologetics book.
Explain as I was to tell a hardcore Baptist. thank you
Explain as I was to tell a hardcore Baptist. thank you
- Status
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Are you looking for a defense of the doctrine, or for an explanation of what the teaching actually is?
M
Mike_Brick
Guest
Having been married to a hardcore Baptist for almost 40 years, whom I love dearly, my wife and I have had a few discussions on this subject, and pretty much agree. If you look at the Creation Story in Genesis, Adam and Eve deliberately disobeyed God’s one admonition not to eat of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”, about which He said “On the day you eat of it you shall surely die”, (Gen 2: 17). Throughout history many people described that tree as an apple tree, and many other folks believe the “tree” was only a metaphor, not a real tree, used by God to teach us one thing we must not do.
It really doesn’t matter much what the thing was they did, it was the decision to deliberately disobey God’s only admonition. To quote a well known Catholic pastor and preacher in my area, “The problem wasn’t with the apple on the tree, it was with the “pair” on the ground”. The deliberate disobediance by Adam & Eve was recorded as the first, or “Original sin”.
Now where that gets confusing to some of our seperated bretheren is better put as “What was the result of their sin?”. That may be a topic for another thread so let me know if I or any others need to go on to answer that question. Let me assure there was and continues to be a lasting effect on all of us as a result of the “Original Sin”.
Peace
A
Alexius
Guest
One point of confusion is whether or not the “original sin” is hereditary (that is, we inherit it). My believe is that the answer is a clear “no.” The “original sin” is the first sin, the sin of Adam, and therefore what we possess is the consequence of that sin, not the sin itself. We are therefore not guilty of his (Adam’s) sin, but rather face the unfortunate consequences - specifically death and a propensity to sin.
The other difference in the teaching of original sin between the east and the west, is that in the west, one of the consequences of the original sin is a “stain” or spot of guilt that Adam’s discendents bear as a result of his sin. This stain is cleansed by baptism and all are subject to it. The exceptions made in the Roman Catholic Church are Christ and his mother, hence the necessary dogma proclaimed as the “Immaculate Conception.” This dogma pertains only to Mary, but it is often confused with the “Virgin Conception,” which pertains to Christ.
I’m sure many other people will add more or correct any false notions I may have, but I think that’s the general jist.
So, to sum up:
Original Sin = the sin of Adam
We receive the consequences of the original sin…
- death
- propensity to sin
*3. inherited guilt
).Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Alexius, I think you do have some misunderstandings of Catholic teaching on the matter. I will quote myself from another thread, and edit it a bit so that it makes more sense in this context.
A newly born baby is not guilty of anythihg. Guilt is incurred when a person commits a actual sin - a sin committed personally by the individual. This can be seen in, for instance, a letter of Pope Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles: “We say that two kinds of sin must be distinguished, original and actual: original which is contracted without consent, and actual which is committed with consent.”
A newborn baby does have original sin, but that does not make him or her guilty of anything. Original sin simply means a lack of grace. When God created Adam and Eve, they had God’s grace within them by default, essentially. This is taught in several places. One is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 398, in which it says man was “Created in a state of holiness…” The Council of Trent teaches the same thing in the Decree on Original Sin, section 1, which speaks of “the holiness and justice wherein [Adam] had been constituted.”
When they sinned, they lost that grace. Since then, all children have been born without grace, but not actually guilty of a personal sin. This can be seen in the CCC paragraph 399, which states that “Scripture portrays the tragc consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.” Paragraph 400 explains the further effects of this first sin:
“The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history”
The previously referenced first section of the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin also addresses this: "… the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted…’
This absence of grace is, as Innocent III wrote, contracted by those children who are now born. The Council of Trent teaches this in section 2 of the Decree on Original Sin:
“If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”
One crucial distinction must be made between original sin’s lack of grace and actual sin’s guilt. Innocent III explains it, continuing in his letter: “Further, the punishment of original sin is the loss of the beatific vision, but the punishment of actual sin is the torture of Hell.” The council of Florence also addressed this.
The important point here is that no human after Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin, but merely suffers the consequences, as you explained. You did not mention a lack of grace indwelling in the soul, but you are from the east so it is possible that your particular way of stating that was contained in your post.
Hope it helps! Feel free to ask any more questions.
A newly born baby is not guilty of anythihg. Guilt is incurred when a person commits a actual sin - a sin committed personally by the individual. This can be seen in, for instance, a letter of Pope Innocent III to the Archbishop of Arles: “We say that two kinds of sin must be distinguished, original and actual: original which is contracted without consent, and actual which is committed with consent.”
A newborn baby does have original sin, but that does not make him or her guilty of anything. Original sin simply means a lack of grace. When God created Adam and Eve, they had God’s grace within them by default, essentially. This is taught in several places. One is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) paragraph 398, in which it says man was “Created in a state of holiness…” The Council of Trent teaches the same thing in the Decree on Original Sin, section 1, which speaks of “the holiness and justice wherein [Adam] had been constituted.”
When they sinned, they lost that grace. Since then, all children have been born without grace, but not actually guilty of a personal sin. This can be seen in the CCC paragraph 399, which states that “Scripture portrays the tragc consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.” Paragraph 400 explains the further effects of this first sin:
“The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history”
The previously referenced first section of the Council of Trent’s Decree on Original Sin also addresses this: "… the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted…’
This absence of grace is, as Innocent III wrote, contracted by those children who are now born. The Council of Trent teaches this in section 2 of the Decree on Original Sin:
“If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:–whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.”
One crucial distinction must be made between original sin’s lack of grace and actual sin’s guilt. Innocent III explains it, continuing in his letter: “Further, the punishment of original sin is the loss of the beatific vision, but the punishment of actual sin is the torture of Hell.” The council of Florence also addressed this.
The important point here is that no human after Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin, but merely suffers the consequences, as you explained. You did not mention a lack of grace indwelling in the soul, but you are from the east so it is possible that your particular way of stating that was contained in your post.
Hope it helps! Feel free to ask any more questions.
A
Alexius
Guest
First off, thank you for the post! It has probably been one of the best explained (to me). Second: What the east commonly refers to as “guilt” is a reflection of the western emphasis on the lack of grace, at least that is how I see it. That “guilt” is the lack of grace that makes Heaven unattainable for unborn babies. If you can explain how it is that a baby could then enter Heaven, it would be helpful. Anyway, it is hard to say if this lack of grace is the same teaching as the corruption taught in the east. In the east, it is taught that there is a barrier between God and man, but I am not sure this is the same thing. It is hard to discuss the different teachings in the east and west, as it is like translating another language…Alexius,
This absence of grace is, as Innocent III wrote, contracted by those children who are now born.
“Further, the punishment of original sin is the loss of the beatific vision, but the punishment of actual sin is the torture of Hell.” The council of Florence also addressed this.
The important point here is that no human after Adam is guilty of Adam’s sin, but merely suffers the consequences, as you explained. You did not mention a lack of grace indwelling in the soul, but you are from the east so it is possible that your particular way of stating that was contained in your post.
Hope it helps! Feel free to ask any more questions.
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
You hit ona very key point - it is like translating into a different language. However, when you really do look into it, the teachings do end up turning out to be the same, except for the language barrier, or at worst different but not contradictory. I must admit I am no expert on Eastern theology, but I know a guy who knows quite a bit about the differenes between eastern and western theology. I’ll get him to drop in here and answer your questions.First off, thank you for the post! It has probably been one of the best explained (to me). Second: What the east commonly refers to as “guilt” is a reflection of the western emphasis on the lack of grace, at least that is how I see it. That “guilt” is the lack of grace that makes Heaven unattainable for unborn babies. If you can explain how it is that a baby could then enter Heaven, it would be helpful. Anyway, it is hard to say if this lack of grace is the same teaching as the corruption taught in the east. In the east, it is taught that there is a barrier between God and man, but I am not sure this is the same thing. It is hard to discuss the different teachings in the east and west, as it is like translating another language…
Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
That being said, here is my best shot at your questions.
The corruption taught in the east is also taught in the west, under the name of concupiscience, if by corruption you are referring to the propensity to sin.
In terms of infants entering Heaven, this is a question that does not have a definitive answer. We recognize that without grace indwelling in the soul, nobody can enter Heaven. We also recognize that baptism is normatively necessary to restore this grace. What we do not know is whether or not God will restore that grace to infants who die without baptism or not. Obviously, it is not their fault that they didn’t get baptized. The current thought in the west is to trust in God’s mercy and hope and pray that He will give them grace before they die, even without baptism. This is bolstered by the teachings of St.Faustina whom was given revelation by Christ that He calls to each and every soul at the hour of death. Now such private revelations are not considered to be definitively authoritative, like the teachings of Scripture and the Apostles, but they are looked upon with respect.
The ultimate answer is that the Church says that God hasn’t given us this information, so we can’t answer it definitively, but we do have some solid speculations.
F
FCEGM
Guest
It was St. Augustine who first pointed out against the Manichees that evil is not a substance or something positive, but an absence of what ought to be and isn’t.
The specific absence that ought not to be in Original Sin is the absence of Divine Sanctifying Grace in the Soul… This absence of grace is the result of the personal act of sin on the part of Adam. We do not inherit the personal act of sin (nor the personal guilt that he is rightly blamed with for that act of sin); but this is the condition or state of existence of being conceived and born without the Divine Grace in the soul; this grace is what incorporates the person into a familial bond with the Most Holy Trinity. Without it one’s identity is only that of a creature of God, not His child by grace.
This personal sin of Adam meant that he now had, after the sin, a wounded humanity that was, thought basically still good, prone to evil in the will, error in the mind, and unreasonable independence of the passions and impulses against the soul, destined to experience suffering and death; and this condition of humanity was also passed on to us through generation. This does not mean that our human nature is totally corrupt and ipso facto deserving to be sent to Hell. We do not share in any way the personal guilt of Adam’s actual sin, nor is this personal guilt transmitted to us through propagation.
Rather, we enter in to a state or condition of objectively being without God’s indwelling and Sanctifying Grace (an ontological quality of being supernaturally in relationship with God). This absence can be called a stain (because it is a darkness, where there should be light). The objectively factual being turned away from God can be called a guilt, or nature of sin, i.e., a condition of being alienated, forgetful, unaware of God. This condition can not send us to Hell, since there is no personal choice or act of sin that merits such punishment, but, the absence of Grace and this condition of being turned away from God prevents us from entry into God’s Presence in Heaven upon death. Before Christ, therefore, souls went to the Limbo of the Just (sheol) or Hell depending on the personal acts of sin unrepented of or not.
What we get transmitted by propagation therefore is this condition or state of objective sin: the absence of Grace in the soul, the disharmony of our nature which without grace is prone to our own personal acts of sin (this is called concupiscence as a general term) and suffering and death.
Thus Catholicism does not teach that each person participates in the personal guilt of Adam’s sin; that this sin is not a “substance” that is passed down, nor a personal guilt which condemns us either. These are all creations of the “Reformers” in one way or another.
continued. . .
F
FCEGM
Guest
What was God’s plan for us? To share in HIS Eternal Life forever; to enjoy the Divine Love the Father has for the Son and the Holy Spirit; to be taken up into that Divine dynamic Love. Same for angels created before us. So when our first parents were created they were created in a state of Original Justice, a state of being turned towards God, in grace, with the harmony of the body following the soul, the sense-emotions following right reason, and reason ordered by grace, preserved from suffering and not meant to die. All this would have been the inheritance of those conceived had not Adam sinned. By sinning Adam lost all that for himself by his own fault, and thus could not enter the Divine Presence, being turned away from God.
God forgave Adam and his wife in view of His Son Who was to come, but that did not mean an immediate wiping the slate clean. All Adam’s offspring were conceived in a state of Original Sin, not of Original Justice. That means we get an infected nature in an objective state of being turned away from God, by self-centeredness, rather than God-centeredness, a bent towards pride, a bent toward creatures, with our bodies not following the soul, the senses and emotions warring against right reason, and the mind not submissive to grace, and we get suffering and death. We are not blamed for that (Adam was), but we are stuck with that and on our own will repeat Adam’s sinning. Thus we are wounded and sick, prone to death of the soul.
God does not change His original purpose for us, but reaffirms it in the Plan for Redemption. He insists on His Love. By becoming one of us in His Son, God gives us the remedy in the soul: Divine Grace which puts us in a state of reconciled harmony with God, with spiritual powers called virtues of faith, hope and love, and the spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit within the Body of the Church, where we have a sacramental life with which to struggle against the wounded tendencies we have inherited. IOW, we now have Grace to aid our wills in overcoming our infected nature. (And this Grace is given to all who come to the initiating Sacrament of Baptism, no matter what their age.)
God forgave Adam and his wife in view of His Son Who was to come, but that did not mean an immediate wiping the slate clean. All Adam’s offspring were conceived in a state of Original Sin, not of Original Justice. That means we get an infected nature in an objective state of being turned away from God, by self-centeredness, rather than God-centeredness, a bent towards pride, a bent toward creatures, with our bodies not following the soul, the senses and emotions warring against right reason, and the mind not submissive to grace, and we get suffering and death. We are not blamed for that (Adam was), but we are stuck with that and on our own will repeat Adam’s sinning. Thus we are wounded and sick, prone to death of the soul.
God does not change His original purpose for us, but reaffirms it in the Plan for Redemption. He insists on His Love. By becoming one of us in His Son, God gives us the remedy in the soul: Divine Grace which puts us in a state of reconciled harmony with God, with spiritual powers called virtues of faith, hope and love, and the spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit within the Body of the Church, where we have a sacramental life with which to struggle against the wounded tendencies we have inherited. IOW, we now have Grace to aid our wills in overcoming our infected nature. (And this Grace is given to all who come to the initiating Sacrament of Baptism, no matter what their age.)
- Status