Questions on original sin

[javid]

CCC:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

1.According to scriptures, Eve ate the fruit before Adam(or at list whith), is Orignal sin because of both Adam and Eve’s sin or Only Adam’s sin?

2.If after Adam& Eve’s sin, human nature inclined to sin, How Eve and Adam sinned without this concupiscence?

3.Was humanity before the original sin, immortal & with no suffering?

4.If baptism erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, Why buptized the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle? If these are because of origin sin, why they exist when Original sin erased?

 

[thenobes]

CCC:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

1.According to scriptures, Eve ate the fruit before Adam(or at list whith), is Orignal sin because of both Adam and Eve’s sin or Only Adam’s sin?

Paul seems to say in Romans that death entered due to one man’s sin, ie Adam.

2.If after Adam& Eve’s sin, human nature inclined to sin, How Eve and Adam sinned without this concupiscence?

By Free Will and external temptation.

3.Was humanity before the original sin, immortal & with no suffering?

I don’t know if spiritual death was the result or physical AND spiritual death.

4.If baptism erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, Why buptized the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle? If these are because of origin sin, why they exist when Original sin erased?

Because our spirits are cleansed by removal from entrapment in the flesh. They are able now to perceive God. However, our flesh remains wounded. We are to consider our flesh as dead, that is, as of no source of spiritual life. We are baptized into Christ’s death, and are to look to Him for our life. In fact, through the Holy Spirit, He lives in us.

peace
steve

 

[runningdude]

Saint Paul does address only the one man by which sin entered the world, and uses this as a “type” to describe Jesus as the one man who will redeem humanity. However, the church never discounted Eve’s part in creating sin. The church teaches that Mary is a “type” of a redeemed female, counter balancing the original sin of Eve.

Sin could not propagate until both husband and wife bore the stain of original sin. Had Adam not sinned and remained in original grace, his children may not have had the stain. Because both were sinner’s, they passed their tainted humanity onto the rest of us.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

1.According to scriptures, Eve ate the fruit before Adam(or at list whith), is Orignal sin because of both Adam and Eve’s sin or Only Adam’s sin?

Through Adam. St. Paul states in Romans 5:12 that sin entered the world through one man. If Eve were responsible for the transmission of original sin, it would say “through two” or, since Eve sinned first, say sin entered the world through Eve. But it says sin entered the world through Adam and him alone.

2.If after Adam& Eve’s sin, human nature inclined to sin, How Eve and Adam sinned without this concupiscence?

Though they did not have concupiscence tempting them interiorly, the devil tempted them and they sinned of a free choice of the intellect.

3.Was humanity before the original sin, immortal & with no suffering?

Romans 5:12 says, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men…” Death did not exist before sin. Further, it says in Wisdom,

God created man incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world. (Wisdom 2:23-24)

4.If baptism erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, Why buptized the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle? If these are because of origin sin, why they exist when Original sin erased?

When it is said that baptism removes original sin, it only means that there is nothing left in man that is imputed as sin. This does not mean that all the effects of original sin are removed. You have to understand that original sin in Catholic theology is chiefly the privation of sanctifying grace. Original sin keeps us from heaven and baptism infuses sanctifying grace, allowing us to go to heaven.

As for why baptism would not remove the temporal penalties of original sin. St. Thomas gives three reasons:

(1) To be conformed to Christ who both suffered and died. Thus it says in Romans: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17).

(2) For the reason you state: that we be summoned to spiritual battle for our spiritual training.

(3) Because if temporal penalties were taken away in baptism, people would seek out baptism for their sake and not for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

 

[javid]

Thanks for answers.

1.Why didn’t sin enter the world through Eve? She sinned before!

By Free Will and external temptation.

What you mean?

Though they did not have concupiscence tempting them interiorly, the devil tempted them and they sinned of a free choice of the intellect.

2.How could they sin with no concupiscence tempting them interiorly? How could devil tempted them when the have no Tendency to sin? Disobedience is sin.

3.When to be bad is possible, being good makes sense. Without inclination to sin, was human nature good?

Because our spirits are cleansed by removal from entrapment in the flesh. They are able now to perceive God. However, our flesh remains wounded. We are to consider our flesh as dead, that is, as of no source of spiritual life. We are baptized into Christ’s death, and are to look to Him for our life. In fact, through the Holy Spirit, He lives in us.

But according to the CCC, “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin…”

4a.If it erases original sin, Why our flesh remains wounded?

When it is said that baptism removes original sin, it only means that there is nothing left in man that is imputed as sin. This does not mean that all the effects of original sin are removed. You have to understand that original sin in Catholic theology is chiefly the privation of sanctifying grace. Original sin keeps us from heaven and baptism infuses sanctifying grace, allowing us to go to heaven.

As for why baptism would not remove the temporal penalties of original sin. St. Thomas gives three reasons:

(1) To be conformed to Christ who both suffered and died. Thus it says in Romans: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17).

(2) For the reason you state: that we be summoned to spiritual battle for our spiritual training.

(3) Because if temporal penalties were taken away in baptism, people would seek out baptism for their sake and not for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

4b.If after baptism, there is nothing left in man that is imputed as sin, Why we as baptized catholics do sins?

If Original sin keeps us from heaven and baptism infuses sanctifying grace, allowing us to go to heaven, Why Catholic Church accepts that non-christians can be saved and go to heaven?

About St.Thomas’ reasons:

(1) When Lord jesus suffered and died for us, why we must suffer and die? Are we other sacrifies? If Consequences of Original Sin exists, So why sacrfied?

(2)We had this spiritual battle, before Lord Jesus’ born, death and Resurrection. What is the Difference, before and after baptism?

(3)How can we prove third reason?

 

[Abu]

1. Both Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin (O.S.) because they were created with free will and chose to disobey God’s clear command because they succumbed to pride when Satan told Eve she would be like God.
2. God told Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:1-24 that because of their sin they would have to work for a living, be at war with nature, suffer pain and sickness, and eventually die. Paul explains original sin in great detail in Romans 5:12-19 and in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

3)The Dogma of Trent on Original Sin teaches the personal guilt of Adam & Eve for Original Sin, but the Magisterium does not teach a personal or actual sin or guilt in Adam’s descendants. What is present in our fallen human nature is the stain or effect of that sin in each of us – we all born sinners (St Paul, Rom 5:19) – Adam transmitted his guilt to our nature – left in a state of sin. That is why the CCC #403 teaches that Adam “has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted….”
Our fallen state lies in our human nature received sinful from Adam’s nature.

4)The consequences of Adam’s sin and our state of sin are the loss of: sanctifying grace, of integrity, of immortality and happiness (therefore suffering), and of enlightenment.

1. Baptism remits that state of original sin, and incorporates us into the Church founded by Jesus Christ. It infuses sanctifying grace into the soul of the recipient and imparts an indelible character. All of the other consequences of the inherited original sinful state of our nature remain – our growth in holiness depends on our cooperation with the redemption of Jesus to enable salvation.
2. Thus the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary to reopen heaven which had been closed to us because of O.S. – He redeemed us. Our salvation – the attainment of heaven, depends on our cooperation with His graces so as to be saved.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

1.Why didn’t sin enter the world through Eve? She sinned before!

Javid, let me ask you from the outset what your intentions are. Are you asking questions because you hope to arrive at a greater understanding of original sin or because you are incredulous of the Catholic doctrine?

Do you believe that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired word of God? Do you believe that we should regard them with incredulity because they express something that is hard to understand?

We can speculate all day about why it is fitting that original sin is transmitted from Adam and not Eve, but at the end of the day, all I could really say is that I believe this because the Scriptures say this, that by one man sin entered into the world. For whatever reason, God saw fit to give the transmission of original sin or original justice to Adam alone.

2.How could they sin with no concupiscence tempting them interiorly? How could devil tempted them when the have no Tendency to sin? Disobedience is sin.

The Devil sinned even though he had no concupiscence. Perhaps you do not understand because you misunderstand the definition of concupiscence. Concupiscence is not defined as the possibility of sinning, without which it would be impossible to sin, but our disordered appetites which dispose us to sin in fulfillment of them. But it is not as if Adam ate the fruit because he was hungry. He ate it because he decided in his intellect that the benefits of eating the fruit were superior to obedience to God. It was not until afterwards that he realized he miscalculated.

3.When to be bad is possible, being good makes sense. Without inclination to sin, was human nature good?

Yes, human nature is good regardless of an inclination to sin. Would you say that a car that had an inclination to break down was superior to a car that had an inclination to stay in working order? Of course not. I think you must mean another word than “inclination,” which means a tendency. However, we can take a more extreme position. Something can be good without having even the possibility of evil. After all, a car that could not ever break down would be the best car of all.

You have to understand what it means to be good. Something is good if it does what it ought to do. This need not entail the possibility of doing evil. A thing that never does what it ought all the time is better than a thing that only does what it ought some of the time. Your objection puts things backwards. Good does not depend on evil for its existence because evil is only a privation of good and not anything of itself.

But according to the CCC, “Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin…”

4a.If it erases original sin, Why our flesh remains wounded?

As I said earlier, the erasing of original sin only refers to the restoration to grace, not the removal of all temporal penalties. An analogy could be that if a fire is put out and “erased” from a building, that does not mean that the building is entirely repaired, and it does not mean that the building could not catch on fire again. It is not a fault of the Catholic Church that baptism does not do more than it claims to do.

4b.If after baptism, there is nothing left in man that is imputed as sin, Why we as baptized catholics do sins?

When I say that there is nothing left after baptism imputed a sin, I only mean that this is true at the moment of baptism. All sin, original and actual, is remitted. However, actual sins committed after baptism, both mortal and venial, will be imputed unless they are also repented of.

If Original sin keeps us from heaven and baptism infuses sanctifying grace, allowing us to go to heaven, Why Catholic Church accepts that non-christians can be saved and go to heaven?

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, however, this should be interpreted broadly to mean rather that the infusion of sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation. If the sacrament of baptism were strictly necessary for salvation, then no one before Christ would have been saved. Baptism is only an instrumental cause of our justification, whereas sanctifying grace is the formal cause. God is not bound to the sacrament of baptism to infuse sanctifying grace, and therefore it is not impossible that god can justify sinners, who do not receive the sacrament, by the infusion of grace in some extraordinary way. Keep in mind also about salvation apart from the sacrament that there is a big difference between “can” and “will.”

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

About St.Thomas’ reasons:

(1) When Lord jesus suffered and died for us, why we must suffer and die? Are we other sacrifies? If Consequences of Original Sin exists, So why sacrfied?

(2)We had this spiritual battle, before Lord Jesus’ born, death and Resurrection. What is the Difference, before and after baptism?

(3)How can we prove third reason?

(1) No we are not “other sacrifices” in a comparable sense to Christ. Christ alone merited our justification. The Council of Trent states that

… the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father."

However, it is God’s desire that those he adopts as sons will be conformed to the image of his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Thus St. Paul says:

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

And this entails suffering and dying as Christ did. So Paul says, “unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake” (Philippians 1:29), and the Lord himself says, “he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:38).

Therefore, there is a sense in which we could be called sacrifices. St. Paul likens himself to a priest offering up the gentiles as a sacrifice to God (Romans 15:16).

(2) It was fitting for them to struggle then and now.

And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12:5-11)

(3) I don’t think I need to produce any extraordinary proof. Don’t you think if people saw that the baptized did not suffer and die, that sinners who cared nothing about the things of God would seek baptism only so they wouldn’t have to suffer in this life? St. Paul writes,

For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. (Romans 8:24- 5)

 

[javid]

Javid, let me ask you from the outset what your intentions are. Are you asking questions because you hope to arrive at a greater understanding of original sin or because you are incredulous of the Catholic doctrine?

Do you believe that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired word of God? Do you believe that we should regard them with incredulity because they express something that is hard to understand?

I just answer This Question in another Thread:

I believe in all teachings of Catholic Church, but I have the right to ask question and look for a reasonable faith. Yes, I got some answers, but I’m not Convinced. So I ask again.

We can speculate all day about why it is fitting that original sin is transmitted from Adam and not Eve, but at the end of the day, all I could really say is that I believe this because the Scriptures say this, that by one man sin entered into the world. For whatever reason, God saw fit to give the transmission of original sin or original justice to Adam alone.

I’m not challenging Bibel!! I’m looking for the reason, St Paul said so, while Eve sinned before or sinned with Adam. I don’t want say What St Paul said is not true, I want know why he didn’t say by Eve or by both of them sin entered into the world.

The Devil sinned even though he had no concupiscence. Perhaps you do not understand because you misunderstand the definition of concupiscence. Concupiscence is not defined as the possibility of sinning, without which it would be impossible to sin, but our disordered appetites which dispose us to sin in fulfillment of them. But it is not as if Adam ate the fruit because he was hungry. He ate it because he decided in his intellect that the benefits of eating the fruit were superior to obedience to God. It was not until afterwards that he realized he miscalculated.

Good answer. Thanks.

As I said earlier, the erasing of original sin only refers to the restoration to grace, not the removal of all temporal penalties. An analogy could be that if a fire is put out and “erased” from a building, that does not mean that the building is entirely repaired, and it does not mean that the building could not catch on fire again. It is not a fault of the Catholic Church that baptism does not do more than it claims to do.

When I say that there is nothing left after baptism imputed a sin, I only mean that this is true at the moment of baptism. All sin, original and actual, is remitted. However, actual sins committed after baptism, both mortal and venial, will be imputed unless they are also repented of.

I’m realy confused! Do you mean sacrify, Resurrection & batism just restored the grace? Wasn’t it possible for God to restore it without sacrify his only son?

Any way we may sin as we might sin before baptism, so what does baptism do? Just restores the grace? If it just imputes sins for a moment, so it’s effect must be Transient.

Let me ask clear: Does Catholic Church teaches that Lord Jesus, just restored the grace by his sacrify?

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, however, this should be interpreted broadly to mean rather that the infusion of sanctifying grace is necessary for salvation. If the sacrament of baptism were strictly necessary for salvation, then no one before Christ would have been saved. Baptism is only an instrumental cause of our justification, whereas sanctifying grace is the formal cause. God is not bound to the sacrament of baptism to infuse sanctifying grace, and therefore it is not impossible that god can justify sinners, who do not receive the sacrament, by the infusion of grace in some extraordinary way. Keep in mind also about salvation apart from the sacrament that there is a big difference between “can” and “will.”

I just don’t understand, How baptism is necessary for salvation while God is not bound to the sacrament of baptism to infuse sanctifying grace, and therefore it is not impossible that god can justify sinners, who do not receive the sacrament, by the infusion of grace in some extraordinary way.

I know the big difference between “can” and “will,” But if Baptism is necessary, unbaptized CAN’T be saved.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I’m not challenging Bibel!! I’m looking for the reason, St Paul said so, while Eve sinned before or sinned with Adam. I don’t want say What St Paul said is not true, I want know why he didn’t say by Eve or by both of them sin entered into the world.

I don’t know why original sin is transmitted through Adam but not through Eve. However, it seems fitting because it puts Adam in opposition to Christ as the new Adam.

I’m realy confused! Do you mean sacrify, Resurrection & batism just restored the grace? Wasn’t it possible for God to restore it without sacrify his only son?

Yes, God could have restored man by some other means, but he chose to do it through the sacrifice of his Son.

Any way we may sin as we might sin before baptism, so what does baptism do? Just restores the grace? If it just imputes sins for a moment, so it’s effect must be Transient.

I don’t think I clearly expressed what I meant. In baptism, all sins are remitted that have been committed by the person being baptized up until the the point of baptism. Those sins are forgiven forever. However, if someone commits sins following baptism, they have to repent of those sins as well.

If you meant that sanctifying grace is transient, that is true in the sense that it can be lost through mortal sin. Otherwise, sanctifying grace remains.

Let me ask clear: Does Catholic Church teaches that Lord Jesus, just restored the grace by his sacrify?

What do you mean? What in particular are you asking about the effect of Jesus’ sacrifice? Maybe St. Thomas can help you.
newadvent.org/summa/4049.htm

I just don’t understand, How baptism is necessary for salvation while God is not bound to the sacrament of baptism to infuse sanctifying grace, and therefore it is not impossible that god can justify sinners, who do not receive the sacrament, by the infusion of grace in some extraordinary way.

I know the big difference between “can” and “will,” But if Baptism is necessary, unbaptized CAN’T be saved.

Baptism is not strictly necessary for salvation if it means the sacrament of baptism. What is necessary is sanctifying grace, which no one is born with, and which is infused in the sacrament of baptism. This does not mean that sanctifying grace cannot be infused by other means. However, these other means are also referred to as a “baptism.” Therefore, we have terms such as “baptism of blood” and “baptism of desire.” The term baptism in this sense refers not to the sacrament of baptism, but the regeneration of the Holy Spirit which it signifies. If what you are proposing is “the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation,” that is not the teaching of the Church.