 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
carenanightchild
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | Elizabeth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 01:03 pm |
|
I was wondering if someone could clarify the concept of original sin for me. I don't think my church ever gave a very clear definition, but it seems to be something along the lines of "an innate tendency to commit sinful acts."
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 02:08 pm |
|
carenanightchild wrote: I was wondering if someone could clarify the concept of original sin for me. I don't think my church ever gave a very clear definition, but it seems to be something along the lines of "an innate tendency to commit sinful acts."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives this explanation:
Original sin - an essential truth of the faith
388 With the progress of Revelation, the reality of sin is also illuminated. Although to some extent the People of God in the Old Testament had tried to understand the pathos of the human condition in the light of the history of the fall narrated in Genesis, they could not grasp this story's ultimate meaning, which is revealed only in the light of the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. We must know Christ as the source of grace in order to know Adam as the source of sin. The Spirit-Paraclete, sent by the risen Christ, came to "convict the world concerning sin", by revealing him who is its Redeemer.
389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the "reverse side" of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
III. ORIGINAL SIN
Freedom put to the test
396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.
Man's first sin
397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.
398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".
399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.
400 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.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286
401 After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians.287 Scripture and the Church's Tradition continually recall the presence and universality of sin in man's history:
What Revelation makes known to us is confirmed by our own experience. For when man looks into his own heart he finds that he is drawn towards what is wrong and sunk in many evils which cannot come from his good creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his source, man has also upset the relationship which should link him to his last end, and at the same time he has broken the right order that should reign within himself as well as between himself and other men and all creatures.
You can read the entire section of the Catechism on the Fall and Original Sin here.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
carenanightchild
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | Elizabeth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 02:37 pm |
|
I think part of the problem is how the concept of sin can be applied even prior to actual acts of defiance. We are, according to the teaching of the Catholic and most Protestant denominations, born with original sin. I think it unlikely that a child still in its mother's womb has committed sin. Rather, it seems that the child participates in a form of hereditary guilt. I'm trying to understand how this participation works, as it seems that the problem of original sin is important in the different understandings of baptism.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 02:55 pm |
|
carenanightchild wrote: I think part of the problem is how the concept of sin can be applied even prior to actual acts of defiance. We are, according to the teaching of the Catholic and most Protestant denominations, born with original sin. I think it unlikely that a child still in its mother's womb has committed sin. Rather, it seems that the child participates in a form of hereditary guilt. I'm trying to understand how this participation works, as it seems that the problem of original sin is important in the different understandings of baptism.
We do not bear the "guilt" of original sin, as it is not an act we committed ourselves. We bear the "consequences" in that we have lost original holiness and inherited a tendency to sinfulness.
If my father is rich, I stand to have a great inheritance. If my father is convicted of a crime and his assets seized, I have lost my inheritance even though I bear no guilt for his crime. One of the consequences of his sinful act is that I will suffer for it.
Original sin works the same way. I did not commit that sinful act, but I bear the consequences in my tendency to sin. Through baptism I am reborn into a new creation, but the consequences of that original sin continue to permeate my life, and so I constantly need renewal in the sacrament of Penance, and strength in the Eucharist. And one day, when my earthly life has ended, I will have the opportunity to regain the holiness that was taken away from me as a consequence of the sin of Adam and Eve, if I have accepted my Savior's ultimate act of love and turned away from my disobedience to God.
Holiness was originally given to us. The sin of Adam and Eve took it away. The sacrifice of Jesus gave it back, but because of Adam and Eve's disobedience I must continually accept salvation through my Savior, and respond in an unselfish manner to his freely given gift. That is my path to regain the holiness which was originally part of our creation but lost through Original Sin.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
carenanightchild
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | Elizabeth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 03:14 pm |
|
That helps somewhat. Thanks. But that brings up another question: how is original sin dealt with at baptism? We obviously still retain the desire to sin, so what change is made?
P.S.: I love the sig. That happens to be one of my favorite quotes.
Last edited on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 03:15 pm by carenanightchild
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 08:38 pm |
|
carenanightchild wrote: That helps somewhat. Thanks. But that brings up another question: how is original sin dealt with at baptism? We obviously still retain the desire to sin, so what change is made?
We receive the grace that makes us able to resist sin, and to receive again the holiness that was given to us at creation. We lose it when we sin (the consequence of original sin), and regain it when we repent (the consequence of baptism). Without baptism of water, blood, or desire, we cannot regain that holiness.
The Church has consistently taught that even those who are not aware of their need for baptism are eligible for "baptism of desire" if they seek God with a sincere heart, and would have sought baptism if they had been aware of their need for it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
carenanightchild
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| First Name: | Elizabeth | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Independent Baptist |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 10:11 pm |
|
That makes sense. It's essentially what I was trained, as a Baptist, to believe happened at conversion. I have had trouble for several years with the idea of instantaneous conversion, though, so this may be a better alternative. Thanks for the explanation.
Last edited on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 10:12 pm by carenanightchild
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 6th, 2007 11:11 pm |
|
carenanightchild wrote: That makes sense. It's essentially what I was trained, as a Baptist, to believe happened at conversion. I have had trouble for several years with the idea of instantaneous conversion, though, so this may be a better alternative. Thanks for the explanation.
As Catholics, we believe that salvation is a lifetime journey that begins at our baptism and ends when we stand purified and perfected before the Throne of the Most High God. It is our birthright through Adam and Eve, but they rejected our birthright by their sin. Just as the Prodigal Son squandered his interitance, Adam and Eve squandered ours. And so we must work every day to accept the salvation Jesus freely gives to us. Through Original Sin, our temptation is to squander it daily through sin. Through the grace of baptism, we have the strength of faith to accept salvation if we will but take up our crosses and follow him.
Had Adam and Eve never sinned, we would have had no need of a Savior. As we sing at the Easter Vigil, "O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a redeemer!"
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
garyb444
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, California USA |
| Posts: | 20 |
| First Name: | Gary | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal, Fundamentalist, SDA, Eastern/New Age/Spiritualism, to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 1st, 2007 05:27 pm |
|
Hi Rick,
Don't Protestants believe something different - that we were never holy? At least, what I have read about Martin Luther, I thought his concept of original sin was different than the Catholic one, that he believed that we always had original sin, even before Eve's disobedience. Would love some clarification on that, if you could provide it.
Thanks,
Gary
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 01:06 am |
|
garyb444 wrote: Don't Protestants believe something different - that we were never holy? At least, what I have read about Martin Luther, I thought his concept of original sin was different than the Catholic one, that he believed that we always had original sin, even before Eve's disobedience. Would love some clarification on that, if you could provide it. I'm afraid I'm not an expert on what Protestants believe. It seems to me their teachings change from denomination to denomination and church to church and congregation to congregation and sometimes from pastor to pastor and even member to member and week to week.
It doesn't seem to matter what belief you're discussing; there's a Protestant denomination or congregation out there somewhere that believes it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
garyb444
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, California USA |
| Posts: | 20 |
| First Name: | Gary | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal, Fundamentalist, SDA, Eastern/New Age/Spiritualism, to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 11:32 am |
|
From what I've been reading and hearing, I know there are "core"differences between Protestants and Catholics, such as Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. I thought this was the case with Original Sin, too.
I guess I'm thinking more of when Protestantism first emerged with Martin Luther. I remember now, that I was reading something by John Cardinal Henry Newman, where he mentioned Luther's take on Original Sin being different than the Catholic one. I'll try to find the quote.
Thank you for your comments,
Gary
|
|
|
Annie
Banned
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 734 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 5th, 2007 03:29 pm |
|
Some Protestants hold to the Catholic view of original sin. And there are actually some Protestants who don't accept Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, go figure. It's complicated.
Let's just try not to sin! 
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 5th, 2007 07:02 pm |
|
Annie wrote: Some Protestants hold to the Catholic view of original sin. And there are actually some Protestants who don't accept Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, go figure. It's complicated.
Let's just try not to sin!
Project Wittenberg has an interesting sermon from Martin Luther on Threefold Sin and Threefold Righteousness. You'll find it here.
Luther speaks of criminal sin, which is committed and punished in this world, and man is made righteous in this world by that punishment.
Next is essential sin, which is original sin, and which man inherits. According to Luther, it is this sin that man can only be made righteous through Christ, requiring baptism of water and the spirit. This righteousness cannot be lost, according to the sermon.
Third is actual, or personal, sin, which is a fruit of original sin. Luther says this can only be forgiven through the overcoming of original sin, and the performance of virtuous works only assist us in personal holiness to overcome the tendencies of essential sin.
Luther says even our good deeds are sins: "Thus our works, if you look at them alone, are sins, and thus sentence of judgment is to be pleaded against by you (that is, if they should be discussed alone, without Christ), but you trust that in Christ, those things are pleasing to God, which are not themselves alone able to please, as the Church prays." He says only through Christ are even the good things we do meritorious. So those who feed the hungry and clothe the naked but have no faith in Christ are sinning by helping the poor! This would certainly indicate that he believed no one could be saved without faith in Christ, even if they had never heard of him.
It seems to me that his idea of essential sin is very close to the Catholic doctrine of original sin. He diverges on the idea that actual sin cannot be forgiven, only "made righteous" and that even meritorious acts are sins.
Edited to correct link formatting
Last edited on Fri Oct 5th, 2007 09:27 pm by
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
garyb444
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | Sacramento, California USA |
| Posts: | 20 |
| First Name: | Gary | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopal, Fundamentalist, SDA, Eastern/New Age/Spiritualism, to Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 6th, 2007 12:37 pm |
|
This is the quote from John Henry Newman I was referring to.
"But it may be said, How does this enable us to say that she was conceived without original sin? If Anglicans knew what we mean by original sin, they would not ask the question. Our doctrine of original sin is not the same as the Protestant doctrine. "Original {48} sin," with us, cannot be called sin, in the mere ordinary sense of the word "sin;" it is a term denoting Adam's sin as transferred to us, or the state to which Adam's sin reduces his children; but by Protestants it seems to be understood as sin, in much the same sense as actual sin. We, with the Fathers, think of it as something negative, Protestants as something positive. Protestants hold that it is a disease, a radical change of nature, an active poison internally corrupting the soul, infecting its primary elements, and disorganizing it; and they fancy that we ascribe a different nature from ours to the Blessed Virgin, different from that of her parents, and from that of fallen Adam. We hold nothing of the kind; we consider that in Adam she died, as others; that she was included, together with the whole race, in Adam's sentence; that she incurred his debt, as we do; but that, for the sake of Him who was to redeem her and us upon the Cross, to her the debt was remitted by anticipation, on her the sentence was not carried out, except indeed as regards her natural death, for she died when her time came, as others. All this we teach, but we deny that she had original sin; for by original sin we mean, as I have already said, something negative, viz., this only, the deprivation of that supernatural unmerited grace which Adam and Eve had on their first formation,—deprivation and the consequences of deprivation."
I got this from a site containing the writings of Newman. It is here:
(do a search on original sin).
Home page is here:
|
|
|
Grace2U
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | Oslo, Norway |
| Posts: | 12 |
| First Name: | Inga | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Calvinist, briefly ICOC (the Boston movement), Pentecostal, converting to Catholic ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17th, 2007 10:29 am |
|
| The Catholic position seemed somehow similar to what we believed as Protestants. But what about Orthodox view of the original sin? I have tried to find it in their various cathechisms, but couldn't figure out in what way it was different from the view I have always known? It's quite clear they don't believe in Calvinist 'total depravity', but how does their view differ from the Catholic doctrine?
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17th, 2007 10:33 pm |
|
Grace2U wrote: The Catholic position seemed somehow similar to what we believed as Protestants. But what about Orthodox view of the original sin? I have tried to find it in their various cathechisms, but couldn't figure out in what way it was different from the view I have always known? It's quite clear they don't believe in Calvinist 'total depravity', but how does their view differ from the Catholic doctrine?
Eastern Orthodox and Catholic belief is essentially similar, and the Eastern teaching does not contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church. Specifically, the Catechism reflects a belief closer to the Eastern view than it does to what I learned in Catholic schools in the 50's.
Eastern Christians consider "original sinfulness" rather than "original sin" as a loss of the "original holiness" that Adam and Eve enjoyed in the Garden of Eden. It is a tendency to sin, rather than a "stain" as Catholics were traditionally taught.
Catholic doctrine has never recognized a "stain" of original sin, and the emphasis has been brought closer to the Eastern view:
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.
So the fruit of original sin is the tendency to sinfulness, from which we are redeemed by baptism. "Original sinfulness" is an equally apt description.
In the Gloria at mass, we pray "Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us." while in the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) we pray "Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us." These two phrases are considered equivalent, and could both be equally translated "the sinfulness of the world".
From a Catholic standpoint, the western and eastern concepts of original sin are equivalent. The Augustinian model of a "stain" of sin which led to such theological difficulties as the requirement for Mary's Immaculate Conception and the concept of Limbo for unbaptized infants has been largely repudiated.
One final note: Catholic doctrine has not changed. We still believe (and the Orthodox accept as well) that Mary was conceived without sin and remained spotless throughout her life, leading to the singular honor of her assumption into heaven body and soul at the end of her earthly life. However, Eastern Christians believe we are all conceived without (personal) sin and are at least nominally capable of remaining sinless, but the rest of us are not given the singular grace granted to the Mother of God which allowed her to remain pure as the Ark of the New Covenant. So the beliefs of East and West are different, but compatible, at least from a Catholic standpoint. Eastern Christians do not celebrate the Immaculate Conception because from their standpoint, Mary's conception is no different than the way the rest of us were conceived. To them, the honor is in her sinless life, not her conception.
We accept their teaching as valid; you'll have to ask an expert on Orthodox teaching if they accept ours.
(Pani Rose, Byzcath or one of our other Eastern members, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 09:10 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
