J
JackVk
Guest
I’ve had a nagging problem with the ideas of free will, concupiscence, and regenerative baptism lately. They intertwine:
- Original sin is an unjust inheritance. It is a design flaw to plague all humanity when only two people were directly responsible for it. For example, you and I, personally, did not take the apple. So why are we still cursed for something we had nothing to do with?
- The story of Genesis seems to imply that God wanted to keep us in ignorance. Why else would it have been called the “tree of knowledge”?
- Concupiscence is the idea that we are more inclined toward sin instead of virtue. If that’s the case, then we are not truly free; we are playing with loaded dice (there was once an apologist in the Quick Questions section who used this exact line of reasoning when arguing for Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Because she was free from concupiscence, she was more free to choose what was good).
- Baptism is supposed to take away original sin, but concupiscence remains. Why? Doesn’t concupiscence’s continued presence make the baptism meaningless? What’s the difference between original sin and the “stain” of original sin? To me, it seems like splitting hairs. Baptism should make good and evil as obvious as day and night, should it not?
- Why would God allow us free will if He knows that there is a possibility of us being eternally separated from Him, the Ultimate Good? It seems like God giving us free will is like a parent who lets a toddler play with matches.