On the doctrine of Original Sin - Church Fathers


sanctus
#1
Statements of the Fathers are not meant as a direct proof of doctrine since the patristic writings are not inspired Scripture nor in Catholic theology are the Fathers considered infallible as individuals. However, they ARE witnesses to the authentic Christian faith as it was handed down and developed in the early Church.
On the doctrine of Original Sin -- if the Catholic belief is true -- we should find in the Fathers that Adam's [and Eve's] Sin resulted in the following consequences --
  • death for all (Gen 3; 1 Cor 15:21f; Rom 5:12,15; 6:23)
  • condemnation for all (Rom 5:16ff)
  • an inherited "contagion" -- from birth we are "constituted sinners" (Rom 5:12,19; cf. 7:13ff; Psalm 51:5; Eph 2:1-3)
  • loss or lack of grace, holiness, divine sonship
  • and transmitted "by propagation not by imitation [of Adam]"
Concerning Baptism, we should find the Sacrament results in --
  • remission of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:3
  • spiritual regeneration/the new birth (John 3:3,5; Titus 3:5)
  • restoration of sonship, grace, holiness (Rom 6:3ff; 8:11ff)
  • and that the Sacrament was given to infants early on
ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if 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]. ...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. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)
TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)
"Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection" [1 Cor 15:21]. Here, by the word MAN, who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM, then, as in the flesh we were made to DIE IN ADAM, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ. Otherwise, if the coming to life in Christ were not to take place in that same substance in which WE DIE IN ADAM, the parallel were imperfect. (Against Marcion 5:9:5, c. 210 AD)
ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)
EVERYONE in the world FALLS PROSTRATE under SIN. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling [Psalm 145:14]. IN ADAM ALL DIE, and THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)
EVERY SOUL that is BORN into flesh is SOILED by the filth of wickedness and SIN....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given EVEN TO INFANTS. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which REQUIRED a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem SUPERFLUOUS. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism EVEN TO INFANTS. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the INNATE STAINS OF SIN, which must be WASHED AWAY through water and the Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an INFANT not be held back, who, having but recently been BORN, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER [i.e. inherited from Adam]. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)
ST. METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI (c. 300 AD)
Man too was CREATED WITHOUT CORRUPTION....But when it came about that he transgressed the commandment, he suffered a terrible and destructive fall and was reduced to a state of death. The Lord says that it was on this account that He Himself came down from heaven to the world, taking leave of the ranks and armies of the angels....It was to this end that the Word put on humanity: that He might overcome the serpent and that He might Himself put down the CONDEMNATION which had FIRST COME INTO BEING WHEN MAN WAS RUINED. For it was fitting that the evil one should be conquered not by another, but by that one whom he had deceived, and whom he was boasting that he held in subjection. In no other way could sin and condemnation be destroyed, except by that same man's being CREATED ANEW -- he of whom it was said: "Earth you are, and unto earth you shall return" [Gen 3:19] -- and by his undoing the sentence which, BECAUSE OF HIM [Adam], had been pronounced upon ALL. Thus, just as IN ADAM ALL DID FORMERLY DIE, so again in Christ, who put on Adam, ALL ARE MADE TO LIVE [1 Cor 15:22]. (The Banquet of the Ten Virgins or On Chastity 3:6)
APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE (c. 340 AD)
For from Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters; and those who are baptized are clothed in Him. For the Spirit is ABSENT from all those who are BORN OF THE FLESH, until they come to the WATER OF RE-BIRTH; and then they receive the Holy Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. Indeed, in the first birth they are born possessed of an animal spirit, which is created within man, nor afterwards does it ever die, for it is written: "Adam became a living soul" [cf. Gen 2:7; 1 Cor 15:45]. But in the second birth, that through Baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit from a particle of the Godhead; nor is He afterwards subject to death....Of all those who have been BORN and who have PUT ON FLESH, there is ONE ONLY who is INNOCENT: namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who in fact testifies to such in His own regard [John 16:33; Isa 53:9; Mal 3:6; 2 Cor 5:21; Col 2:14; 1 Cor 9:24 are then alluded to or cited]....Moreover, among the SONS OF ADAM THERE IS NONE besides Him who might ENTER THE RACE [are born] WITHOUT BEING WOUNDED or swallowed up....For SIN has ruled from the time ADAM TRANSGRESSED THE COMMAND. By one among the many was it swallowed up; MANY [i.e. ALL as in Rom 5:18-19] DID IT WOUND, AND MANY DID IT KILL; but none among the many killed it until our Savior came, who took it on Himself and fixed it to His cross....Indeed, because the first human being gave ear and listened to the serpent, he received the sentence of malediction, by which he became food for the serpent; and the curse PASSED ON TO ALL HIS PROGENY. (Treatises 6:14; 7:1; 23:3)
ST. EPHRAIM OF SYRIA (c. 306 - 373 AD)
Adam sinned and EARNED ALL SORROWS, AND THE WORLD, FOLLOWING HIS LEAD, ALL GUILT. And it took no thought of how it might be restored, but only of how its fall might be made more pleasant for it. Glory to Him that came and restored it! (Hymns of the Epiphany 10:1)
ST. ATHANASIUS (c. 360 AD)
Adam, the first man, altered his course, and through sin death came into the world....When Adam transgressed, SIN reached out TO ALL MEN. (Discourses Against the Arians 1:51)
ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 350 AD)
The crown of the cross led into the light those who were blinded by ignorance, loosed all those who were chained by their sins, and redeemed the totality of men. Do not wonder that the whole world is redeemed. It was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who died on its behalf. Indeed, ONE MAN'S SIN, THAT OF ADAM, HAD THE POWER TO BRING DEATH TO THE WORLD. If by the transgression of one, death reigned over the world [Rom 5:17], why should not life more fittingly reign by the righteousness of one? If they were cast out of paradise because of the tree and the eating thereof, shall not believers now enter more easily into paradise because of the tree of Jesus? If that man first formed out of the earth USHERED IN UNIVERSAL DEATH, shall not He that formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, since He Himself is Life? (Catechetical Lectures 13:1-2)
ST. BASIL THE GREAT (c. 379 AD)
Little given, much gotten; by the donation of food the ORIGINAL SIN IS DISCHARGED [Greek given by Jurgens]. JUST AS ADAM TRANSMITTED THE SIN by his wicked eating, we destroy that treacherous food when we cure the need and hunger of our brother.....For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, FORGIVENESS OF DEBTS, DEATH OF SIN, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a protector royal, a gift of adoption. (Eulogies on the Martyrs 8:7; 13:5)
DIDYMUS THE BLIND (c. 313 - 398 AD)
If Christ had received His body from a marital union and not in another way it would be supposed that he too is liable to an accounting for that SIN, WHICH, INDEED, ALL WHO ARE DESCENDED FROM ADAM CONTRACT IN SUCCESSION. [See Jurgens comment on this passage, vol 2, pg 64] (Against the Manicheans
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 344 - 407 AD)
You see how many are the benefits of Baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins; but we have enumerated ten honors. For this reason we baptize even infants, THOUGH THEY ARE NOT DEFILED BY SIN [or though they do not HAVE PERSONAL SINS]: so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his members. (Baptismal Catechesis cited by St. Augustine in Contra Julian 1:6)
On this passage, St. Augustine remarks in Contra Julian 1:6:22 after quoting the above line in Greek:
"You see that he (John Chrysostom) certainly did not say, 'Infants are not defiled by sin,' or 'sins,' but, 'NOT HAVING SINS.' Understand 'of their own,' and there is no difficulty. 'But,' you will say, 'why did he not add "of their own" himself?' Why else, I suppose, if not that he was speaking in a Catholic church and never supposed he would be understood in any other way, when no one had raised such a question, and he could speak more unconcernedly when you were not there to dispute the point?"
Further, Jurgens comments that Julian of Eclanum had appealed to Chrysostom in support of Pelagianism by quoting the line above from -Ad neophytos- "We baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by sin" and he took this as a denial of original sin. However, Augustine had not just the Latin but the original GREEK of the same text which reads: "We baptize even infants, though they do not HAVE SINS." Augustine insists that the plural SINS makes it clear that Chrysostom was speaking of personal sins. Augustine further exonerates Chrysostom and deprives Julian of his source by quoting numerous other passages of Chrysostom.
Christ came once. He found OUR paternal note of hand, which Adam wrote. That man [Adam] brought in the beginning of the debt. We INCREASED the interest by OUR LATER sins. (cited by St. Augustine in Contra Julian 1:6:26, the original Greek of Chrysostom is given by Jurgens, vol 2, pg 101, n2)
Augustine comments: "Was he content to say 'the paternal note of hand,' without adding 'our?' He added the 'our' so that we might know that BEFORE we INCREASED the interest by our LATER sins, the debt of that paternal note of hand ALREADY pertained to us."
What does this mean, "Because all have sinned" [Rom 5:12] ? In that fall even those who did not eat of the tree -- ALL DID FROM THE TRANSGRESSION [of Adam] become mortal....For [Adam's sin in paradise] was productive of that death in which WE ALL participate....From this it is clear that it was not this sin, the sin of transgressing the Law, that ruined everything, BUT THAT SIN OF ADAM'S DISOBEDIENCE....What is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law, ALL DIED. "Death reigned," he says, "from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned" [Rom 5:14a]. How did it reign? "In the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come" [Rom 5:14b]. This too is why Adam is a type of Christ: ....That when a Jew would say to you, "How by the righteous action of this one Man, Christ, was the world saved?" you might be able to answer him, "How by the wrong-doing of one Adam, WAS THE WORLD CONDEMNED?" (Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans 10:1)
Jurgens comments, vol 2, pg 115-116, n5 on the above and Rom 5:12 --
"Chrysostom knew Greek too, and he never supposed it meant anything except BECAUSE. He still refers the passage to original sin, and understands by the clause "because all have sinned" that what is meant is "because all have sinned [IN ADAM]." It is not just that all have sinned in sequence after Adam, but all have sinned in consequence of Adam.....The final clause clearly calls for the interpretation "because all have sinned IN ADAM." It need not exclude personal sin, but it must include original sin..... Chrysostom and the Fathers at large would have seen Rom 5:12 as referring to original sin. The mention of sin causing death, and death being therefore the lot of all men were enough; for it must be admitted that the Fathers in general do not easily distinguish between original sin and its effects. Thus, for Chrysostom, the very fact that men do die, even without the "because all have sinned," would point to original sin." (Note the following)
We have been freed from punishment, we have put off all wickedness, and we have been reborn from above [in Baptism, John 3:3,5], and we have risen again, with the old man buried, and we have been redeemed, and we have been sanctified, and we have been given adoption into sonship, and we have been justified, and we have been made brothers of the Only-begotten, and we have been constituted joint heirs and concorporeal with Him and have been perfected in his flesh, and have been united to Him as a body to its head....All of this Paul calls an "abundance of grace" [Rom 5:17], showing that what we have received is not just a medicine to counteract the WOUND, but even health and comeliness and honor and glory and dignities going far beyond what were natural to us. And each of these was able by itself to do away with death; but when all of them seem to run together at the same time, there is not a vestige of it left, nor a shadow of it to be seen, so completely has it disappeared....Christ paid out much more than the debt we owed, as much more as the boundless sea exceeds a little drop...."For just as by the disobedience of one man the many were MADE SINNERS, so too by the obedience of One, the many will be made just" [Rom 5:19]. ....What does the word "SINNERS" mean here? It seems to me that it means LIABLE TO PUNISHMENT AND CONDEMNED TO DEATH. (Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans 10:2)
ST. PACIAN OF BARCELONA (c. 392 AD)
After Adam sinned, as I noted before, when the Lord said, "You are earth, and to earth you shall return" [Gen 3:19], Adam was condemned to death. THIS CONDEMNATION PASSED ON TO THE WHOLE RACE. FOR ALL SINNED, ALREADY BY THEIR SHARING IN THAT NATURE [ipsa iam urgente natura], as the Apostle says: "For through one man sin made its entry, and through sin death, and thus it came down to all men, because all have sinned" [Rom 5:12, and see Jurgens note, vol 2, pg 144, n3]....Someone will say to me: But THE SIN OF ADAM DESERVEDLY PASSED ON TO HIS POSTERITY, because they were begotten of him: but how are we to be begotten of Christ, so that we can be saved through Him? Do not think of these things in a carnal fashion. You have already seen how we are begotten by Christ our Parent. In these last times Christ took a soul and with it flesh from Mary: this flesh came to prepare salvation.... (Sermons on Baptism 2; 6)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN (c. 383 AD)
Before we are born WE ARE INFECTED WITH THE CONTAGION, and before we see the light of day we experience the INJURY OF OUR ORIGIN. IN INIQUITY WE ARE CONCEIVED [cf. Psalm 51:5] -- he does not say whether the wickedness is of our parents or our own -- AND IN SINS each one's mother gives him life. Nor with this did he state whether his mother gave birth to him in her own sins or whether the sins of which he speaks pertain in some way to being born. But consider and see what is meant. NO CONCEPTION IS WITHOUT INIQUITY, since there are NO PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT FALLEN. And if there is NO INFANT WHO IS EVEN ONE DAY WITHOUT SIN, much less can the CONCEPTIONS of a mother's womb be WITHOUT SIN. We are conceived, therefore, in the sin of our parents, and it is in their sins that we are born. (Explanation of David the Prophet 1:11:56, Jurgens comments that in the above passage "the emphasis is upon concupiscence")
Adam was brought into being; and WE WERE ALL BROUGHT INTO BEING IN HIM. Adam perished and IN HIM ALL PERISHED. (Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 7:234, c. 389 AD)
AMBROSIASTER or Pseudo-Ambrose (c. 366 - 384 AD)
"In whom" -- that is, IN ADAM -- "all have sinned" [Rom 5:12]. And he said "in whom," using the masculine form, when he was speaking of a woman, because the reference was not to a specific individual but to the race. It is clear, therefore, that ALL HAVE SINNED IN ADAM, -en masse- as it were; for when he himself was corrupted by sin, all whom he begot were BORN UNDER SIN. On his account, then, all are sinners, because WE ARE ALL FROM HIM. He lost God's favor when he strayed. (Commentaries on 13 Pauline Epistles, In Rom 5:12, see also Jurgens comments vol 2, pg 179, n1-3)
ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 AD)
For by this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into His body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive, besides offering Himself as an example of righteousness for those who would imitate Him, gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants. In a similar way Adam, IN WHOM ALL DIE [1 Cor 15:22], besides being an example for imitation to those who willfully transgress the commandment of the Lord, by the hidden depravity of his own carnal concupiscence, depraved in his own person all those who come from his stock...."Through one man," the Apostle says, "sin entered the world, through sin death" [Rom 5:12]. AND THIS REFERS NOT TO IMITATION BUT TO PROPAGATION....Unless we voluntarily depart from the rule of the Christian faith it must be admitted that inasmuch as infants are, by the Sacrament of Baptism, conformed to the death of Christ, they are also freed from the serpent's venomous bite. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own proper life but in him who first suffered that wound....IN ADAM ALL SINNED when, by that power innate in his nature, by which he was able to beget them, all were as yet the one Adam. (Forgiveness...and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 2:27:43; 3:7:14)
Concupiscence, which is atoned for [expiatur] only by the Sacrament of regeneration [Baptism], does most certainly, by generation, pass on the bond of sin to the progeny, if they are not loosed from it by the same regeneration. For concupiscence itself is certainly no longer a sin in the regenerate, when they do not consent to illicit deeds and when their members are not applied by the ruling mind to the performance of such deeds....But because the guilt of concupiscence is prevalent in man who was born, that is called sin, in a certain manner of speaking, which was made by sin and which, if it conquers, produces sin. This guilt, however, through the remission of all sins, is not allowed to prevail in the man who is reborn, if he does not obey it when in some way it commands him to perform evil works....This concupiscence of the flesh is the daughter of sin, as it were, and, as often as it consents to shameful deeds, it is the mother of more sins. Whatever offspring is born of this concupiscence of the flesh is BOUND BY ORIGINAL SIN [originali est obligata peccato], unless it be REBORN in Him whom the Virgin conceived without that concupiscence; for which reason, when He designed to be born in the flesh, He ALONE WAS BORN WITHOUT SIN....Marriage is not the cause of the sin which comes with being born and is expiated in being reborn [at Baptism]; rather, THE WILLFUL SIN OF THE FIRST MAN IS THE CAUSE OF ORIGINAL SIN [voluntarium peccatum hominis primi originalis est causa peccati]....Why, then, does [Julian] ask us: "Whence is it that sin is found in an infant: through will, or through marriage, or through his parents?"....For all this the Apostle has an answer. He accuses neither the will of the infant, which is not yet matured in him for sinning; nor marriage as such, which has not only its institution from God, but a blessing as well; nor parents as such, who are licitly and legitimately joined together for the procreation of children. Rather, he says:
"THROUGH ONE MAN SIN CAME INTO THIS WORLD, AND THROUGH SIN DEATH, AND THUS IT PASSED THROUGH INTO ALL MEN, FOR IN HIM ALL HAVE SINNED." [Rom 5:12, see Jurgens comment, vol 3, pg 138, n22]
"If sin," [Julian] says, "is from the will, the will is evil because it does sin; but if it is from nature, nature is evil." I quickly respond: "Sin is from the will." He asks, perhaps, "And ORIGINAL SIN too?" And I answer: "Absolutely original sin too. Because this too was sown by the WILL OF THE FIRST MAN, so that it existed in him and PASSED ON TO ALL." (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:23:25; 24:27; 2:26:43; 27:44-45; 28:4
You are convicted on every side. The numerous testimonies in regard to original sin, testimonies of the saints, are clearer than daylight. Look what an assembly it is into which I have brought you. Here is Ambrose of Milan....here too is John of Constantinople [Chrysostom]... Here is Basil...Here are others too, whose general agreement is so great that it ought to move you. This is not, as you write with an evil pen, "a conspiracy of the lost." They were famous in the Catholic Church for their pursuit of sound doctrine. Armed and girded with spiritual weapons, they waged strenuous wars against the heretics; and when they had faithfully completed the labors appointed them, they fell asleep in the lap of peace....See where I have brought you: the assembly of those saints is no common rabble. They are not only sons but also fathers of the Church....Holy and blessed priests, widely reknowned for their diligence in divine eloquence, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory, Innocent, John, Basil -- and whether you like it or not, I will add the presbyter Jerome, while omitting those who are still alive -- have pronounced against you their opinion about original sin in the guilty succession of all men, whence no one is exempted except Him that the Virgin conceived without the law of sin warring against the law of the mind....What they found in the Church, they kept; what they learned, they taught; what they received from the fathers, they handed on to the sons. We were never involved with you before these judges; but our case has been tried before them. Neither we nor you were known to them; we but recite their judgments delivered in our favor against you.....These men are bishops, learned, grave, holy, and most zealous defenders of the truth against garrulous vanities, in whose reason, erudition, and freedom, three qualities you demand in a judge, you can find nothing to despise....With such planters, waterers, builders, shepherds, and fosterers the holy Church grew after the time of the Apostles. (Against Julian 1:7:30-31; 2:10:33-34; 2:10:37)
 
AndyF
#2
There is lack of consistance in the original sin logic.

1/ The major factors that allow for sin committed by created beings falls through the capability of being influenced,the sequence of natural desire/temptation, then the capability of carrying out the act that is culpable. It has nothing to do with physical makeup such has color of the eyes,capability of procreating,stature,favored groupings,etc. What qualifies a being as one who could sin is the ability to sin and free choice. God set a standard that angels cannot be stigmatised with original sin. It could be this exception finds reason because stigmatising them would be a blanket admittance that all beings with this qualification can sin. Beings with the already proven potential to betray a King have no place around the throne, so we can see a practical reason for this. Further, the ability for them to sin again still remains, so it is imperative they are made incapable of sinning, and they are through the degrees of the beatification process. Expendible man on the low rung of the corporate ladder on earth needs no such immediate redesign, as he poses no risk to God or His immediate environment.

2/ The reason why generations of men are stigmatised is because they can probagate. The reason angels cannot is because they are all individual species.* The reasons are drawn from the pool of the practical, and one can find no judicial reason based on the logical criteria stated in 1 as one would expect, and one would think would pose a more serious danger. (If one is concerned about being stabbed, one doesn't place all attention on the color of the aggressor's coat, but concerns himself with the instrument of the crime and circumstances surrounding it's use. If he were a favored individual, you may try to make the clothes the focal point. If you are a king, you may be tempted to demand it.) It would seem the species reason must have been drawn from the arbitrary, since it takes no great leap of knowledge to see that the angelic sin occured at the genus level, not species. The angelic genus are subject to influence has proven by Satan, and this would be in keeping with the 1, that they can be tempted can decide and can act, making them candidates for Judicial process. The temptation found a barrier at the species wall, but found a weak spot at the genus.

3/Condition,place and circumstance is always a factor in any Universal Judicial system, so much so that globally man recognizes merits in them. The proximity of angels to the vision of God, and their imbued knowledge to foresee the result of their acts attributes to them a greater responsibility for the acts they cause. By comparison man, locked into his nature and not having this proximity and supernatural force the angels could back on, fairs less even though the brunt of temptations are not lessened by rule to the degree of his circumstance. The same measure of temptoral force is allowed to be applied to him as to the angels, (even the ability to possess him outright is not removed. So we can see from this even punishment in terms of restriction of privledges is not deminished.) His physical nature of probagation cannot be used to fault him, and indeed is a factor in favor for his judgement, or at least deserves a merciful neutral.

We are cupable for the things we do, but what is at issue is what is deserving. We naturally turn to Justice to give us an answer and we study cases and make comparitive notes to try to make sense of our standing in this world and to the best of our ability, the next.

This issue is just one of many in our relation with God, and it alone concludes by this treatment of man that there is some reason why he is held in such contempt that is still unknown, and the original sin case seems trumped up no matter how you look at it. Added to this, one subtle hint of others that man is not so well liked can be traced back to his conception(Reprobation).

I see a trial where a man and a woman ate a forbidden apple. They are guilty of eating an apple, period. Is it reasonable to sentencing them for eating a forbidden apple?. Of course it is. Making it a larger issue encompasses all of creation, and what we are witnessing here is the trying to make it all seem to fit.

AndyF

(* Summa)
 
missile
#3
It's impossible to do any original sin today..it's all been done. Should we have some sort of contest to find some new ones?
 
jimmoyer
#4
Having grown up protestant, I find the Catholic point of view thought provoking.

The protestants broke away because they did not want Catholic doctrine shoved down their throats, and so they wanted to make the Bible more the authority than that of the church interpretation of it.
That explanation is so simplifying I'm sure the Catholic scholars will find it erroneous.

But getting older I see more sense in the Catholics saying the Bible is not the only authority and that you need scholarship and study NOT to misinterpret the Bible or take portions of it out of context.

This attitude corresponds with Islam saying cleric thought and doctrine on the Koran is necessary rather than just each person left to interpret the Koran on their own.

How often do you see non-scholars lift a quote from the Koran or the Bible using it to make a political point without reference to context or backround or to the scholarship ?


It is a mistake to interpret the Bible on your own without accessing the scholarship that studied it.

And so this scholarship on the doctrine of original sin is not a shallow matter to be treated with contempt just because you disagree with the doctrine.
Last edited by jimmoyer; May 8th, 2007 at 10:08 AM..
 
look3467
#5
Original sin?

What caused us to become separated from God in the first place? The flesh?

I mean take the flesh out of the equation and there is no sin. There is no life either as we know it.

But to have life in the flesh is to become separate from God, and all life in the flesh is separate from God.

Thus, all flesh must die.

Look at it anyway you like, but separation from God because of the flesh is death.

Not only death physically but spiritually as well.

This was necessary for the creation of the flesh, but God did not leave it to the destruction of His creation, but nullified the death penalty in Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

Therefore, many and I though having opposing views are brothers in Christ for the purposes of eternal life.

That is why Jesus said, love thy enemies, because He made us all to be one in Him.

It may be hard for you to understand that, but if you could understand Gods love for us is greater than any body's unbelief, you would see the picture clearly.

Peace>>>AJ
 
AndyF
#6
Look3467

Quote:

What caused us to become separated from God in the first place? The flesh? I mean take the flesh out of the equation and there is no sin. There is no life either as we know it.

No. The flesh is an instrument that carries the act through. Specifically, what caused us to be separated from God is that we submitted to temptation. We sin through 2 outlets, through nature being scentient beings we submit to the delectable, and through demonic temptation.

What caused the angels to sin?,...they submitted to temptation.

But I'm curious. How does your "flesh" proposition reconcile with the Assumption of Mary?

AndyF
 
look3467
#7
Quote:

No. The flesh is an instrument that carries the act through.>>>AndyF

No argument there!

Quote:

Specifically, what caused us to be separated from God is that we submitted to temptation.

The answer is partially true as I see it Andy, let me explain why. It is very evident based on all the scriptures that Jesus came to break the covenant with death for us. This covenant of death is the eternal separation between the flesh and God.

Isa 28:18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

That was the main purpose for the coming of Christ.

Temptation is the playing field where we were placed in. The law makes up the rules of the game.
You are free to play anyway you like ounce you know the rules. That is when things become accountable and transgression starts.

Breaking of those rules we pay for here on earth only.

Quote:

We sin through 2 outlets, through nature being scentient beings we submit to the delectable, and through demonic temptation. >>>AndyF

Again partially true in that nature is where the flesh abides therefore is subject to all the lusts there of.

The second as you called it (demonic temptations) is the actual succumbing to the temptations that is labeled demonic as an excuse to take the blame away from ourselves. (The devil made me do it)
Quote:

What caused the angels to sin?,...they submitted to temptation.

Angels did not sin, Andy, it is a play on words. Just a small clue, the angels are a group of people who where doing the work of the Father, thus blameless for their actions.
Thus describes as angels but because of what they did, were classified as fallen angels.

I donít expect you to understand what I just said, but I said it anyways.

Quote:

But I'm curious. How does your "flesh" proposition reconcile with the Assumption of Mary?>>>AndyF

Mary also died as we all died correct? She was no different than you or I, only that God chose her to bare the child Jesus into this world.

Mary (Virgin) is similar to the word angels in that the Jewish nation were virgins in their state in which the Father had placed them in, therefore a virgin would be without blame, chaste, clean, and absolved from any wrong doing.

The Jewish nation bore Jesus; they travailed with Him and eventually offered Him up as a sacrifice as planed by the Father.

There was no one to blame for everything that happened because God in Jesus forgave us all.

It is a beautiful picture but not many can see it.

Peace>>>AJ
 
jwv
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by look3467View Post

N

Mary also died as we all died correct? She was no different than you or I, only that God chose her to bare the child Jesus into this world.
Peace>>>AJ

The Blessed Virgin didn't die. She was assumed into heaven.
 
AndyF
#9
Look3467:

Quote:

Breaking of those rules we pay for here on earth only.

Temptation causes us to break the rules which is also a transgression of God's law. They are repaid in various places, on earth,in purgatory, in hell, or partially on earth and partially in purgatory.

Quote:

The second as you called it (demonic temptations) is the actual succumbing to the temptations that is labeled demonic as an excuse to take the blame away from ourselves. (The devil made me do it)

There are actual sins that have their source, or incited through the temptation of demons, and there are some that our nature itself incites, and even hybrids of a sort where demons can conjure up images to incite the senses. But what is important is they all must pass through the free will gauntlet and here you are correct. But temptation by demons is not an imaginary thing.
We are always in control of our free will so yes we are always to blame.


Quote:

Angels did not sin, Andy, it is a play on words. Just a small clue, the angels are a group of people who where doing the work of the Father, thus blameless for their actions.
Thus describes as angels but because of what they did, were classified as fallen angels.

1/No. More than a play on words, an actual fact. Lucifer sinned and many were taken in by the deception so they were cast out with him.
2/Angels are pure spirit and were never persons. After the cleansing and casting out, those angels remaining (actually Angels are simply the lowest of the principalities or heirarchy of these spirit kinds but we usually assign the name to all of that genus. other classes are Thrones,Cherub,etc) were beatified and therefore making them incapable of sin.

St. Thomas's writings on them is a fascinating read. If your interested:

www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP.html#TOC03 (external - login to view)

AndyF
 
sanctus
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by look3467View Post

It is a beautiful picture but not many can see it.

Peace>>>AJ

Well, aren't we lucky that you have all this secret information no one else has and are able to educate us.
 
sanctus
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyerView Post

Having grown up protestant, I find the Catholic point of view thought provoking.

The protestants broke away because they did not want Catholic doctrine shoved down their throats, and so they wanted to make the Bible more the authority than that of the church interpretation of it.
That explanation is so simplifying I'm sure the Catholic scholars will find it erroneous.
.

Good post. And that is the essence of the faith, the belief that it is through the Church founded by Christ Himself that we are taught the salvation message. Many forget, or do not realize, the the Bible is the book of the Church. The church existed prior to the collection of the books into what we now called the Holy Bible.

The error of protestant thought has been the error of sola sciptura. It is not even logical, when you think about it! The very idea that Joe Blow will pick up the Bible and based on nothing but his opinion start developing doctrine based on what he THINKS the Bible says is boggling to the mind.

Catholic doctrine has been consistent for 2,000 years. And yet in the non-Catholic world, there are as many different theories and interpretations as there are hairs on a man's head. One cannot help but wonder how anybody can believe that they are all correct, despite the difference in their doctrines.

One only has to read some of the heretical nonsense that people like Look posts to realize how dangerous an idea it is to have each man act as his own interpreter of Scripture.
 
sanctus
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by jwvView Post

The Blessed Virgin didn't die. She was assumed into heaven.

You're basically wasting your time. Give Look time and he'll post a twenty mile long reply that will not only be confusing to read, but will provide you some of the most amazing opinions you'll ever read. Our friend AJ has the intellectual capabilities of a snail.Wait until he adds up his numbers and comes out with one of his little private theories! Yes, he is into numerology
 
jimmoyer
#13
Generally it is human nature to be offended by people telling you what to think or even in the case of the Bible tell you what it means. It is offensive to be told you cannot think for yourself or be able to understand what you read.

And that is what the protest of the protestants was only partially about.

Some of the Protestants, the ones who actually did some serious study of the issue, developed some serious and legitimate complaints about some Catholic interpretations and Catholic scholarship (which still has few rivals).

The rest of the Protestants lost sight that some serious works like the Bible or the Koran benefit from reading the study of scholars.

It is hubris to think you are on a par with some of the scholars who gave it deeper study.

Believing in a lack of study certainly gives the subject (like the Bible or the Koran or any other ancient text of a different time that contemplates eternal truths and moral behavior) a shallow contempt.
 
look3467
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by sanctusView Post

Well, aren't we lucky that you have all this secret information no one else has and are able to educate us.

Your response Sanctus is no surprise. Hey, bro are we too smart we can't learn from someone else?
May I quote you a couple a verses that apply here: 1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
The question here is, who are the wise, that the foolish things confound them, and that the weakest things in the world that confound the things which are mighty?

If I had a degree a thousand times in the field of education and was the greatest theologian, would that make me a little more creditable? Would that be like: "Things that are mighty"

But who am I that I should something to share? A man of no degree!

May you have a blessed day, Sanctus.

Peace>>>AJ


 
look3467
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by sanctusView Post

You're basically wasting your time. Give Look time and he'll post a twenty mile long reply that will not only be confusing to read, but will provide you some of the most amazing opinions you'll ever read. Our friend AJ has the intellectual capabilities of a snail.Wait until he adds up his numbers and comes out with one of his little private theories! Yes, he is into numerology

Thank You Sanctus. I thank God that Jesus is my priest!

Peace>>>AJ
 
look3467
#16
Quote:

Temptation causes us to break the rules which is also a transgression of God's law. They are repaid in various places, on earth, in purgatory, in hell, or partially on earth and partially in purgatory.>>>AndyF

Andy, if we could see the picture of Gods work in humanity, things would look allot simpler than they seem to be.

Let me paint you a picture of how it is, and by the way it is all right there in the bible. One has but to extrapolate it with the aid of the Holy Spirit of courser.

God wanted sons period.
How does He get them?
He creates an environment to plan a seed so by which sons may be born unto Him.
The earth is His garden or is likened to a women who will receive His seed and bare Him children.
He also knows that to have a sons after His image, the sons have to know how to manage good and evil.
So, technically, when born they are “as gods”.
You know that there can only be one God right? Not many?
So, His sons born in the flesh are born separate from Him, which means death to the body as well as to the soul.
God knowing that also, had made provisions to save His sons from that state of separation. (Death)
The answer to that is Jesus Christ.
Jesus comes and causes all mankind (Many gods if you will) to become one God in the body of Jesus.
Jesus is God as the name implies. Yah is the name of the Father, and shua means salvation. Couple the two and you have Yahshua, meaning, the Fathers salvation.

That is why Jesus is considered to be the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last because He is God Himself and no other.

Long story short, is God created a situation for sons to be born, and gave them the same qualities as Himself and allows them to learn how to govern those abilities without the penalty of eternal death as was prior to Jesus.

What we have now are doctrines of the Nicolaitans. What they think God is like and not what God is like.

That is the basic story, now anything else added to that is a matter of individual belief, such as hell, purgatory, the Rapture, end of the world, the second coming of Jesus, baptisms, speaking in tongues and all the rest of the religious beliefs.

The bottom line is love. We are to love as He loved. If we can concentrate on that, then that is all that is required.

Peace>>>AJ "with intellectual capabilities of a snail"
 

Similar Threads

1
Fairness doctrine
by Walter | Feb 6th, 2009
2
Doctrine Of Odious Debts
by jimmoyer | May 16th, 2006
12
Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine
by alienofwar | Mar 10th, 2005
no new posts