Orignal Sin


#1

Are people born with sin, as the Roman Catholics, and a lot of Protestants believe?
Or, are people born with a gravity toward sin as the Eastern Orthodox Church believe?
I was always taught the frist but the more I study it the 2nd choice seems to make more sense to me. Any thoughts?


#2

I think you need to precisely define what you mean by this phrase.


#3

are people born with the guilt of Adam and Eve’s Sin?


#4

Hi JT,

The original sin is Adam’s, but he never atoned for it, so the guilt was passed on to us. It’s as if your father died with a debt and you inherited. You would have to assume the debt. None of us however can pay that debt. Christ, through his sacrifice did just that.

Verbum


#5

We are born with the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin. We lack santicfying grace in our souls.


#6

People are born with the lack of relationship had by Adam and Eve. We lack this relationship and the preternatural gifts they once had. I would not call it guilt. It puts us in a world that the evil one uses for his own purposes. We have hope though in that God gave a promise to make it possible to come back to Him.

mdcpensive1


#7

The exact position of the EO on Original Sin is undefined, most EO that I read have a view which you describe. The problem is is that if there is no loss of sanctifying grace (which Catholic hold to) then that means not everyone needs Jesus to be saved. If man is born with merely an urge to sin, then it is possible to not need Jesus’ Merits to be saved.

Also, there is a critical difference between how Protestants and Catholics understand Original Sin. See Ch1 of this link for a overview:
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm


#8

King David said - “A sinner was I conceived…”

Yes, we are born with the sin of Adam. I’m not sure why you didn’t consult and/or accept the teachings from the Catechism regarding this. For reference, here they are:

*402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 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.*

My own personal theory, which can probably never be taught definitively, is that had we been there we would have fallen to the tempter as well. Even in the womb, original sin is by itself capable of allowing us to reject God in a way that only he could understand. That is why we cannot definitively say that any unbaptized baby is saved. (However, we have good reason to trust and hope in God’s mercy and love in those situations.)

It’s a tough issue to grasp that no one will ever completely understand on this side. The apologists on this site will be a great resource for you if you have further questions. May God illumine you understanding!


#9

I’m pretty sure they view it as a kind of sickness we are born with, that will in time make us sin. Not that we are born sinners in the sense that we have sins to atone for the moment we are born, but that our will has been turned toward sin.

edit:
in theory:
if we are born with only an urge to sin, the gospel is preached and we reject God’s son would that not be a sin? So even if someone was born without sin they would still need to accept the truth of Christ in order remain sinnless.


#10

thanks


#11

This is how I understand most EO understand OS.

edit:
in theory:
if we are born with only an urge to sin, the gospel is preached and we reject God’s son would that not be a sin? So even if someone was born without sin they would still need to accept the truth of Christ in order remain sinnless.

Yes it would be a sin to reject the Gospel, but you would still be objectively “saved” from the moment you were born until a sin arose. Also, there is no guarantee you will hear the Gospel (or at least comprehend the basics) at least once in your life. Jesus cant be a “Saviour” if the person is born not needing saving.


#12

We don’t have to “atone for” any sins but our own; we are not guilty of Adam’s sin. Instead we carry the guilt of Adam’s sin, which is something totally different and is lost in the translation from Latin to English. The Latin word that is translated as “guilt” is not the same word as the Latin for “guilty”, rather it has more the meaning of “carrying the consequence”. So if someone bears the guilt of a crime, they carry the negative consequences, like the inherited debt a poster mentioned before. It doesn’t mean they have to make up for it in the same sense as if they had committed a wrong-doing.

Literally speaking, “atone” actually means “bringing back together”; it’s literally from the words “at one”, or reuniting. So in that sense we DO atone (with Christ) for the sin of Adam, as well as our own, because through Baptism and the Sacraments we are brought back to “at oneness”, but in modern use of the word “atone” usually implies making up for our crimes. The modern use of the term is terribly inexact. :slight_smile:

So remember that when we read “carry the guilt of sin”, it means something TOTALLY different from “being guilty of the sin of Adam”; only Adam is guilty, but his guilt (the burden he picked up by sinning, i.e. the Fall and the loss of Grace, and all the problems associated with it) are indeed ours, and the Eastern traditions don’t dispute that at all.

edit:
in theory:
if we are born with only an urge to sin, the gospel is preached and we reject God’s son would that not be a sin? So even if someone was born without sin they would still need to accept the truth of Christ in order remain sinnless.

If we were born with just a tendency to sin, we wouldn’t need Baptism as infants. Baptizing infants implies that there is a relationship with God that is missing prior to Baptism.

Peace and God bless!


#13

No, there is no personal guilt. What there is, is damage, separation from God. But that damage can be healed, the separation reversed. God offers the possibility to repair the damage, to come back to him, to every person.


#14

JTBT wrote:

[quote]I’m pretty sure they view it as a kind of sickness we are born with, that will in time make us sin. Not that we are born sinners in the sense that we have sins to atone for the moment we are born, but that our will has been turned toward sin.

[/quote]

I don’t think I can agree with “our wills have been turned toward sin” in the sense that that is the starting place of our existence. Many wills have been turned toward sin but it has been by their choices of actions. By grace we are saved and by grace we can persevere in the attempts of the evil one to turn us from grace.

mdcpensive1


#15

I think the Holy Spirit can not dwell within us until Baptism according to Eastern Theology. So essentially, the same thing is believed but in a different way. The reason I like the Eastern Concept better is it enables more of a possibility that the unborn and unbaptized babies can go to Heaven.


#16

What I don’t understand is God being omnipotent he could make HIS creation anyway that he wished. He chose to create a scenario where HIS creation could be defiant - God is omniscient so He knew that Adam and Eve would sin and gave them the means free will, the method (the fruit) and a push ( the snake ) everything being is HIS creation. - so the fall from grace was planned it seems to me. It seems that he set us up to fail.

He did offer salvation through Christ but why make Christ even necessary for redemption. It’s seems like giving yourself a flat tire so you can change the tire. Why even create sin?


#17

[quote="JTBT, post:1, topic:119221"]
Are people born with sin, as the Roman Catholics, and a lot of Protestants believe?
Or, are people born with a gravity toward sin as the Eastern Orthodox Church believe?
I was always taught the frist but the more I study it the 2nd choice seems to make more sense to me. Any thoughts?

[/quote]

Depending on which definitions you include in the word sin, in a very broad sense, both are correct.

Regarding Adam. He committed the original sin which changed the state of his spiritual soul and thus his human nature was deprived of original holiness and justice. This contracted state of a wounded human nature is transmitted by propagation to mankind. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences, often referred to as "triple concupiscence" remain.

Blessings,
granny

Basic Catholic teaching regarding Adam and Original Sin is found in the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Paragraphs 355-421.

The good news of Jesus Christ follows in Paragraph 422, etc.

One can put the word paragraph and its number in the Catechism's search bar in link www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Entering topics, like Adam, is also useful.

When you enter a paragraph number, like "paragraph 355", and then click on the opening line, CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 355 you will see the following under the paragraph:

»[/FONT]
»[/FONT]
»[/FONT]
»[/FONT]


#18

[quote="jonfawkes, post:16, topic:119221"]
What I don't understand is God being omnipotent he could make HIS creation anyway that he wished. He chose to create a scenario where HIS creation could be defiant - God is omniscient so He knew that Adam and Eve would sin and gave them the means free will, the method (the fruit) and a push ( the snake ) everything being is HIS creation. - so the fall from grace was planned it seems to me. It seems that he set us up to fail.

He did offer salvation through Christ but why make Christ even necessary for redemption. It's seems like giving yourself a flat tire so you can change the tire. Why even create sin?

[/quote]

Try thinking of what our human nature consists of. Really study the Catechism references
given in post 17.

Paste these two sentences on your bathroom mirror.

  1. God created man in His Image and established him in His friendship.
  2. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God.

Do look at the glass as half full.;)
God created the scenario as one in which humans could live in eternal bliss with our Creator.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.


#19

Thanks Granny,

But what still trips me up is why would a friend set you up to fail?


#20

God didn’t set anyone up to fail. He specifically called humans to share, through knowledge and love, in His own life. Knowledge and love are the products of our spiritual soul’s intellect and will. This is the sign that we are made in the Image of God.

While it looks like Adam sinned right away, I truly doubt that. Adam and Eve were used to God being in the garden which is why they hid. Being together in the garden may be symbolic, but it sure describes the best relationship ever.:smiley:

Adam and we are unique unions of the material and spiritual worlds. Adam’s free will gave him many ways to love and obey our Creator. Yet, the false beauty and power of the forbidden can be appealing. The anticipated pride of being “lord” over the material world can seduce.

At the same time that Adam respected his limits as the created being, he also let his trust in his Creator slowly die in his heart. In my humble opinion, Satan knew how to capitalize on the weakness called envy. All he had to do was to wait and then feed Adam the right words (through Eve) to stir up his pride enough to deny God’s goodness.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraphs 396-398, point out that Adam chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Adam scorned God. Yet, God did not abandon us. He gives us Himself so we can rise above failures.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.