Confusion on Concept of Original Sin

[dean24us]

Hello! I've only been a Catholic for around a year, so there are still a lot of things that I am still trying to wrap my brain around. One of those is the topic of original sin. I have several questions regarding original sin, so feel free to answer any or all.

1) Judaism does not subscribe to the concept of original sin, nor does Jesus appear to speak about it during his time on Earth. As stated in the CCC 402, St. Paul is the originator of the concept of original sin. Since the doctrine of original sin was not "inherited" from Judaism, nor (to the best of my knowledge) is there any evidence that it was a taught by Jesus, are there any ideas where St. Paul came up with this concept?

2) If my understanding of original sin is correct (and it very well may not be), one of the results of original sin is that we are born with a propensity towards sinning. However, Adam and Eve were the ones which actually committed the original sin, so doesn't that mean that the propensity towards sin existed in humans prior to the event we label "original sin"?

3) Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 are very clear that the son shall not be held accountable or punished for the sins of the father (nor vice versa). This seems to directly contradict the transmission of original sin from Adam to all of his offspring (i.e. all of us). Is there something special about original sin which makes these "rules" not apply?

I have other questions regarding original sin, but those should be enough to start. Thanks for any insight you can provide!

Dean

[dean24us]

Ooops... I actually meant to post this under the main Apologetics forum rather than under Moral Theology. Can a forum mod move this over or tell me how to do it? Thanks!

[sw85]

Originally Posted by dean24us

Hello! I've only been a Catholic for around a year, so there are still a lot of things that I am still trying to wrap my brain around. One of those is the topic of original sin. I have several questions regarding original sin, so feel free to answer any or all.

1) Judaism does not subscribe to the concept of original sin, nor does Jesus appear to speak about it during his time on Earth. As stated in the CCC 402, St. Paul is the originator of the concept of original sin. Since the doctrine of original sin was not "inherited" from Judaism, nor (to the best of my knowledge) is there any evidence that it was a taught by Jesus, are there any ideas where St. Paul came up with this concept?

2) If my understanding of original sin is correct (and it very well may not be), one of the results of original sin is that we are born with a propensity towards sinning. However, Adam and Eve were the ones which actually committed the original sin, so doesn't that mean that the propensity towards sin existed in humans prior to the event we label "original sin"?

3) Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 are very clear that the son shall not be held accountable or punished for the sins of the father (nor vice versa). This seems to directly contradict the transmission of original sin from Adam to all of his offspring (i.e. all of us). Is there something special about original sin which makes these "rules" not apply?

I have other questions regarding original sin, but those should be enough to start. Thanks for any insight you can provide!

Dean

My very limited understanding is not that original sin caused a deformation in human nature, but rather the loss of the promise of supernatural elevation. As such, sin should not be understood as something that entered man from the outside but something that was with him all along -- which hews perfectly to the scholastic conception of evil not as something distinct from but ontologically equivalent to good, but a privation of good (so that laziness as an evil is simply a privation of rest, which is good).

So original sin did not really fundamentally change man, it simply cost him the immediate promise which God had made to Adam and Eve. As such, modern sin should not be understood as a punishment but simply a consequence.

I don't think Christianity can be coherently understood without an idea of original sin, so while it is never referenced explicitly in the Bible, the concept is quite clearly there and merely needed to be rationally extracted and articulated.

I could be wrong on all of this, though, so don't necessarily quote me!

[Earnest Bunbury]

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.

From the earliest times the latter sense of the word was more common, as may be seen by St. Augustine's statement: "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43). It is the hereditary stain that is dealt with here. As to the sin of Adam we have not to examine the circumstances in which it was committed nor make the exegesis of the third chapter of Genesis.

Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30).

It is the separation from God that resulted from Original Sin. This results in many effects upon all of creation but specifically in the loss of this perfecting grace by Adam, for us seen above as a heredity stain, results in our being left to our created human nature minus God's Perfecting Spirit in us.

Original Sin results in that Adam was to keep and dress the Garden (Gen. 2:15) which means he was to keep it from harm, to guard it from the enemy as it seems that the angels were created prior to man and the Devil fell prior to man also. Adam was to battle the serpent but instead gave in to him. Scott Hahn relates that the serpent could have had the ability to kill Adam even in paradise and that was the impetus for eating the fruit that was forbidden. He states that Adam chose not to give up the life he had and thus chose not to trust God but to trust himself. It is by this act that man was to "surely die", not immediately but by losing the divine life God had given him. Both Adam and Eve reverted back to a lower level of nature, human nature minus the divine perfecting spirit they had prior to sinning, a corrupted sinful nature due to it being the result of a sinful action on man's (both male and female) part.

From this all of us are left to the nature Adam warranted by his action because we are his descendants, descendants sharing in the nature he made of himself by sinning. We do the same when we sin, we make ourselves to be liars by lying, killers by killing, and adulterers by doing adulterous acts. We warrant death by heredity but it is in further acts of disobedience that we warrant even greater punishments (purgatory) and sometimes even total separation from God (hell). Original Sin is part of the whole of Catholic theology, Mary the new Eve with Her obedience to Eve's disobedience and Jesus the new Adam, able to undo that which was done by him.

[bmonk]

Another approach to Original Sin:

Sin has the effect of weakening us in mind, spirit, will, even body. To be an effective liar, say, I must weaken my sense of truth so that I (on some level) believe or accept the lie.

Thus sin affects me--but I am a social being, and so my sin spills over to affect others.

Because we all grow up and are shaped in a sinful society, we grow up affected by sin. Consider lies again: at a young age, we see how lies can (sort of) protect us from punishment, get us goodies we don't deserve, and so on. We learn to lie by watching our parents and elders lie. THere also seems to be a deeper attachment to sin in us: lies come almost "naturally." (But on the other hand, many 3-6-year-olds get into trouble for being too honest with inappropriate truths!)

It is this formation into a society and culture warped by sin that is one of the major sources of Original Sin.

To apply this to your questions:

2. In this understanding, the propensity towards sin need not come before the first actual sin--only the possibility of choosing sin (that is, our free will) was needed.

3. Original sin does not lead to guilt or punishment automatically--it's only our own sin that does that. However, Original Sin makes sin inevitable, since it represents a weakening of understanding and will to choose the right. Without grace, we will fall--because we trip over the debris left by earlier sinners. Only Adam and Eve had the advantage of a clear field. But that does not remove the guilt for our own fall.

[dean24us]

Thanks for all the replies! A follow-up question and a comment:

Originally Posted by bmonk

3. Original sin does not lead to guilt or punishment automatically--it's only our own sin that does that. However, Original Sin makes sin inevitable, since it represents a weakening of understanding and will to choose the right. Without grace, we will fall--because we trip over the debris left by earlier sinners. Only Adam and Eve had the advantage of a clear field. But that does not remove the guilt for our own fall.

Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that one of the reasons we baptize babies is to 'wash away' the stain of original sin to allow them to go to Heaven if they pass while they are young. Below is a quote from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism:

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

From this perspective, doesn't this seem to indicate that guilt/punishment is indeed automatic, thus going against the "sins of the father" verses listed in my original post?

Also, I noticed nobody has tried to tackle #1 from my original post regarding how St. Paul "came up" (for lack up a better term) when it wasn't part of Jewish tradition nor was it addressed by Jesus (atleast, it was not discussed in the Gospels). I realize it is difficult to put yourself in the 'shoes' of a saint that lived approximately 2000 years ago, but does anyone have any insight in to this (e.g., writings of the Church Fathers, Vatican documents, etc)?

On a side note, in reading past discussion threads and web sites, I have noticed that many people struggle with the nuances associated with original sins. I truly appreciate the time each of you are taking in answering my questions. I am not trying to argue that original sin is a false doctrine, but rather hope to gain a better understanding of my faith by 'asking the touch questions'.

Dean

[ConstantineTG]

Original sin itself is understood differently in the different traditions of the Church. So its not surprising that the Jews have a different concept of it that seem foreign to the Latin understanding.

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by dean24us

Also, I noticed nobody has tried to tackle #1 from my original post regarding how St. Paul "came up" (for lack up a better term) when it wasn't part of Jewish tradition nor was it addressed by Jesus (atleast, it was not discussed in the Gospels). I realize it is difficult to put yourself in the 'shoes' of a saint that lived approximately 2000 years ago, but does anyone have any insight in to this (e.g., writings of the Church Fathers, Vatican documents, etc)?

Go back and read sw85's post. He did attempt to answer this question. I believe his point was that all Paul did was put the concept of original sin into words as well as the fact that original sin does not describe something that God applied to us but rather the state of being after God took something away.

[dean24us]

Originally Posted by Nate13

Go back and read sw85's post. He did attempt to answer this question. I believe his point was that all Paul did was put the concept of original sin into words as well as the fact that original sin does not describe something that God applied to us but rather the state of being after God took something away.

You're absolutely right -- thanks for the correction!

I guess the part I'm having a hard time with regarding the "how did St. Paul 'come up' with original sin" is that he was a Jew before following Jesus. As far as I can tell, Jews have never subscribed to the idea of original sin (i.e. it wasn't something that they once believed and changed course on later), so it would seem that St. Paul's Jewish origins did not instill in him a belief in original sin. And as I've stated previously, Jesus doesn't seem to address original sin in the Gospels.

Granted, I realize that some conversations between Jesus and Paul could have occurred that didn't make it in to the Gospels (after all, the Gospels don't record every second of every day of Jesus' life). With that said, one would think that a conversation that resulted in a revelation that contradicted traditional Jewish teachings (i.e., original sin) would have been worthy of including in the Gospels. So, I suppose the question comes down to this: was St. Paul's concept of original sin taught to him by Jesus, was it Paul's own interpretation of the OT, or did he get it from somewhere else?

Thanks again,
Dean

[Earnest Bunbury]

The Jews had no knowledge of Original Sin until the reality of grace was introduced that shed light on the problem grace was fixing. The cure helped to identify the disease.

It was identified by the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, understanding, wisdom, council, knowledge, fortitude, piety, and fear of the Lord given to us by grace. St. Paul, a Pharisee, knew the law but until the Divine Life of God given to us to make us adopted sons of God through Christ was revealed, he didn't know the fullness of what the old law was leading to. Like today, most were looking temporally, not spiritually. And even now this divine life is replaced by temporal concerns and trust in God is rejected for science, intellect, and rationalistic beliefs. Original Sin and concupiscence at work.

[bmonk]

Originally Posted by dean24us

Thanks for all the replies! A follow-up question and a comment:

Originally Posted by bmonk: "3. Original sin does not lead to guilt or punishment automatically--it's only our own sin that does that. However, Original Sin makes sin inevitable, since it represents a weakening of understanding and will to choose the right. Without grace, we will fall--because we trip over the debris left by earlier sinners. Only Adam and Eve had the advantage of a clear field. But that does not remove the guilt for our own fall.

Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that one of the reasons we baptize babies is to 'wash away' the stain of original sin to allow them to go to Heaven if they pass while they are young.

Below is a quote from http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism: "Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons."


From this perspective, doesn't this seem to indicate that guilt/punishment is indeed automatic, thus going against the "sins of the father" verses listed in my original post?

Dean

Well, I suppose that you are correct--but I have never liked that automatic guilt and punishment aspect of original sin, and the idea of punishing innocents for the guilt of the ancestors, or of anybody else for that matter. So I have tried to come to an understanding of Original Sin that reflects the doctrine, includes sin and even the bad effects of sin on others--but does not rely on God punishing those who are not personally guilty.

Heck, I even try to avoid the idea of God punishing anyone--I prefer to see it as God allowing us the consequences of our own persistent choices.

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by dean24us

Hello! I've only been a Catholic for around a year, so there are still a lot of things that I am still trying to wrap my brain around. One of those is the topic of original sin. I have several questions regarding original sin, so feel free to answer any or all.

1) Judaism does not subscribe to the concept of original sin, nor does Jesus appear to speak about it during his time on Earth. As stated in the CCC 402, St. Paul is the originator of the concept of original sin. Since the doctrine of original sin was not "inherited" from Judaism, nor (to the best of my knowledge) is there any evidence that it was a taught by Jesus, are there any ideas where St. Paul came up with this concept?

2) If my understanding of original sin is correct (and it very well may not be), one of the results of original sin is that we are born with a propensity towards sinning. However, Adam and Eve were the ones which actually committed the original sin, so doesn't that mean that the propensity towards sin existed in humans prior to the event we label "original sin"?

3) Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 are very clear that the son shall not be held accountable or punished for the sins of the father (nor vice versa). This seems to directly contradict the transmission of original sin from Adam to all of his offspring (i.e. all of us). Is there something special about original sin which makes these "rules" not apply?

I have other questions regarding original sin, but those should be enough to start. Thanks for any insight you can provide!

Dean

The essence of Adam & Eve's original sin was for man to become the determiner of right and wrong for himself rather than God being the determiner. Since then, as scripture tells us, sin flourished, man doing what what right in his own eyes. This self-righteousness, which we're all familiar with, rather than a God-based righteousness, is what allows for all sin that followed from the original one. All sin is committed by someone who's convinced in one way or another, that they're right, i.e. all wrong is done in the name of right.

And Adam & Eve opened the door for this. With God effectively out of the picture since, by rejecting His authority, they had rejected Him as their God, man no longer possessed true integrity and self-control. His passions and appetites began to rule him since God no longer did. So sin stemmed from this first act of disobedience. As the Catechism states:

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.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

Man wasn't created with a propensity to sin. But He did lack one thing-the perfection of God, the perfection only God could possess. Our job here on earth, with the help of grace, is to learn the value of Gods perfect wisdom and will-and follow it instead of our own.

I think it could be said that the "fault" or injustice within man as a result of original sin is the very separation from God that it caused.

[neophyte]

Originally Posted by dean24us

..1) Judaism does not subscribe to the concept of original sin, nor does Jesus appear to speak about it during his time on Earth....

There's a lot of variation in Jewish belief, so blanket statements can be misleading.

On an online Orthodox Jewish forum I explained the Catholic understanding of original sin and asked if there wre elements of it that Jewish theology could agree with. The response was

yes, according to Torah, especially as explained in Chassidus, through the sins of Adam and Eve, they brought tremendous spriritual impurity into the world, a damage that affected future generations, and it is our task to rectify that; the Jewish Messiah will come once that task has been completed.

That sounds to me like they do believe in original sin