Original sin

[Francine]

Ezekiel 18 speaks of personal responsibility for the punishment of sin. God held Adam and Eve personally responsible for their sin and took away their "eternal life privileges" and they did die. Since that time, a doctrine has arisen that we are all under the stain of this "original sin" even though we had nothing to do with the decision.

I think it should be understood like this: Since Adam and Eve no longer possessed the attribute of eternal life, they could not pass that attribute on to their children. God no more punished Adam and Eve's children with death, than a man who punishes an unfaithful wife by killing her also punishes the children who would have been born to her (and the children of those children, and so on) by not letting them come into existence.

We always make decisions for the generation that comes after us. Adam and Eve, being the first parents, made a particularly wide-ranging bad decision. It's not about sin and punishment, but about natural consequences for behavior.

I absolutely spurn, discard, spit on, and crunch under my heels any church, mosque, or synagogue that says the souls of infants who were aborted or left in a dumpster to die go to Baby Hell because they didn't get baptized or circumcised or say the magic words "IAcceptJesusChristAsMyPersonalLordandSavior" or whatever else it is they have to do to overcome a mistaken notion about Original Sin.

 

[athanasius]

Ezekiel 18 speaks of personal responsibility for the punishment of sin. God held Adam and Eve personally responsible for their sin and took away their "eternal life privileges" and they did die. Since that time, a doctrine has arisen that we are all under the stain of this "original sin" even though we had nothing to do with the decision.

I think it should be understood like this: Since Adam and Eve no longer possessed the attribute of eternal life, they could not pass that attribute on to their children. God no more punished Adam and Eve's children with death, than a man who punishes an unfaithful wife by killing her also punishes the children who would have been born to her (and the children of those children, and so on) by not letting them come into existence.

We always make decisions for the generation that comes after us. Adam and Eve, being the first parents, made a particularly wide-ranging bad decision. It's not about sin and punishment, but about natural consequences for behavior.

I absolutely spurn, discard, spit on, and crunch under my heels any church, mosque, or synagogue that says the souls of infants who were aborted or left in a dumpster to die go to Baby Hell because they didn't get baptized or circumcised or say the magic words "IAcceptJesusChristAsMyPersonalLordandSavior" or whatever else it is they have to do to overcome a mistaken notion about Original Sin.

Very good insight! You summed it up well. Our loss of original justice is indeed the problem. Yes our sins affects the whole body! You should teach theology you would be good. In a similar argument I always love how people think God sends other people to hell. In fact he doesn't. He gives us free will and intellect to accept his ways or not and if we do not we simple send ourself to hell because God respects our free will and will honor our choices.

 

[Peace4all]

Islam doesnt credit the idea of 'original sin'. At first, all babies are born equal in the eyes of god and considered Muslim regardless of the parent's religion. Only when the baby develops and becomes an accountable adult does he/she start to be accountable for their actions.

 

[athanasius]

Islam doesnt credit the idea of 'original sin'. At first, all babies are born equal in the eyes of god and considered Muslim regardless of the parent's religion. Only when the baby develops and becomes an accountable adult does he/she start to be accountable for their actions.

That is interesting. I never knew that. Thank you for sharing that. Christianity is a bit different in its outlook on life and sin. I appreciate your input peaqce4all.


God bless you always,

In Jesus through Mary,
Athanasias

 

[Katzpur]

Ezekiel 18 speaks of personal responsibility for the punishment of sin. God held Adam and Eve personally responsible for their sin and took away their "eternal life privileges" and they did die. Since that time, a doctrine has arisen that we are all under the stain of this "original sin" even though we had nothing to do with the decision.

I believe this doctrine came about as a part of the Apostasy which you deny ever took place.

I think it should be understood like this: Since Adam and Eve no longer possessed the attribute of eternal life, they could not pass that attribute on to their children. God no more punished Adam and Eve's children with death, than a man who punishes an unfaithful wife by killing her also punishes the children who would have been born to her (and the children of those children, and so on) by not letting them come into existence.

I would agree, more or less.

We always make decisions for the generation that comes after us. Adam and Eve, being the first parents, made a particularly wide-ranging bad decision. It's not about sin and punishment, but about natural consequences for behavior.

You got it.

I absolutely spurn, discard, spit on, and crunch under my heels any church, mosque, or synagogue that says the souls of infants who were aborted or left in a dumpster to die go to Baby Hell because they didn't get baptized or circumcised or say the magic words "IAcceptJesusChristAsMyPersonalLordandSavior" or whatever else it is they have to do to overcome a mistaken notion about Original Sin.

So is this why you describe yourself as a renegade Catholic?

 

[Katzpur]

Very good insight! You summed it up well.

And yet you believe that infants must be baptized. Why?

 

[fullyveiled muslimah]

Islam doesn't credit the idea of 'original sin'. At first, all babies are born equal in the eyes of god and considered Muslim regardless of the parent's religion. Only when the baby develops and becomes an accountable adult does he/she start to be accountable for their actions.

Got to it before I could. We do not endorse the idea of original sin at all. People are born muslim, or rather pure and accepted by Allah as they are. Like you said, it is only when one becomes able to discern and search for the truth do they become accountable for their own actions. And also as far as I know jews don't believe it either. It might be uniquely christian.

 

[athanasius]

And yet you believe that infants must be baptized. Why?

Not "must" but rather "should be". Why deny Christ saving grace to a child? The sacrament of baptism really does make you a Christian by entering you into communion with Christ, washing away your sins, uniting your nature to his so as to become Trinified, sanctified, and justified, and infuses your soul with life giving grace. The Sacrament applies the work of Christ on the Cross to the individual personally via baptism. It is the greatest gift one could ever give. Why on earth would I hold that back from my infant child?

 

[Captain Civic]

Not "must" but rather "should be". Why deny Christ saving grace to a child? The sacrament of baptism really does make you a Christian by entering you into communion with Christ, washing away your sins, uniting your nature to his so as to become Trinified, sanctified, and justified, and infuses your soul with life giving grace. The Sacrament applies the work of Christ on the Cross to the individual personally via baptism. It is the greatest gift one could ever give. Why on earth would I hold that back from my infant child?

Big surprise, being a non-Catholic, but I disagree. Baptism is the outward expression of what has already happened within. I am a Christian before I am baptised, not after. I believe baptism is important, but I by no means think it's necessary for salvation. It's merely declaring "look at me world, I follow Jesus!" You can't declare that you follow Jesus if you haven't already accepted Him.

I do like the idea of "christening". In my opinion, it is the parents who offer their child to God. However, I think that if that child, when they mature enough, decides that they want to follow God (and not their parents), then they should be baptised under their decision.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And yet you believe that infants must be baptized. Why?

I suppose that if I agreed with Catholic theology, "God said we should do it" would be reason enough.

Not "must" but rather "should be". Why deny Christ saving grace to a child? The sacrament of baptism really does make you a Christian by entering you into communion with Christ, washing away your sins, uniting your nature to his so as to become Trinified, sanctified, and justified, and infuses your soul with life giving grace. The Sacrament applies the work of Christ on the Cross to the individual personally via baptism. It is the greatest gift one could ever give. Why on earth would I hold that back from my infant child?

I understand that this is Catholic teaching, but I have serious problems with the idea that an almighty God would make the bestowing of His Grace contingent on a human ceremony, which, in the Catholic context, is implicit in the idea of baptism (and the saving grace that comes with it) being a "gift" that someone could "give".

But also, doesn't the Church teach that while God instituted the Sacraments, He isn't bound by them? If that's the case, then God's free to "apply the work of Christ on the Cross" to whoever He wants, regardless of whether the person has been baptised or not; denial of baptism wouldn't be denial of the Grace of God unless God chose not to bestow that Grace of His own volition.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it should be understood like this: Since Adam and Eve no longer possessed the attribute of eternal life, they could not pass that attribute on to their children.

I don't think this is universally true. Some things are passed down from parent to child, some things aren't. Amputee parents don't usually have amputee children, for example.

We always make decisions for the generation that comes after us. Adam and Eve, being the first parents, made a particularly wide-ranging bad decision. It's not about sin and punishment, but about natural consequences for behavior.

That doesn't mean that God can't change things, though. Even if there were some sort of "fallen" nature that could be passed down from parent to child, why does that mean that God could not fix it? In fact, according to Catholic teaching (which I think is relevant, since we're talking about Original Sin), He did do exactly this at least once: the doctrine of Immaculate Conception says that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, correct? It seems He's capable of removing Original Sin, and (as I understand it) the need for baptism, but He generally doesn't, apparently.

 

[Francine]

He did do exactly this at least once: the doctrine of Immaculate Conception says that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, correct?

The grace merited by Christ's atoning death to reconcile fallen humanity with the Father was applied to the Blessed Mother at her cenception, one generation early, in anticipation of her role as the mother of our Lord.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The grace merited by Christ's atoning death to reconcile fallen humanity with the Father was applied to the Blessed Mother at her cenception, one generation early, in anticipation of her role as the mother of our Lord.

So would God be incapable of doing the same for someone who was not destined to be the Mother of God?

 

[Katzpur]

Not "must" but rather "should be". Why deny Christ saving grace to a child?

You can't have it both ways, Athanasius. If it is not essential that a child be baptized, then why do it? If God would prefer that it happen but not require that it happen, what's the point? Will an unbaptized child be denied Christ's saving grace or won't he be? If Christ's saving grace will be extended to an unbaptized child one way or the other, then what you choose to do is immaterial.

The sacrament of baptism really does make you a Christian by entering you into communion with Christ, washing away your sins, uniting your nature to his so as to become Trinified, sanctified, and justified, and infuses your soul with life giving grace.

And when that sacrament is performed for an infant who has no way of knowing what communion with Christ even is, it does seem rather pointless.

The Sacrament applies the work of Christ on the Cross to the individual personally via baptism. It is the greatest gift one could ever give. Why on earth would I hold that back from my infant child?

And just what sins might your infant child need to be cleansed of? Christ's grace is offered to those who have sinned, repented (which requires the ability to acknowledge their sins in the first place), come to Him in faith and chosen to be baptized. Since an infant cannot sin, cannot repent and cannot have faith, he has no need of baptism. He will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven as a pure child of God.

 

[Quiddity]

If there is anything in Catholic theology to show God's unconditional love and grace, infant baptism would be it. They did absolutely nothing to merit God's grace and it's still given to them. So much for catholics believing in meriting there own salvation eh.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.


Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 1 ARTICLE 1

Original sin is:
Human nature deprived of its original holiness.

As a result of originalsin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

 

[Francine]

So would God be incapable of doing the same for someone who was not destined to be the Mother of God?

We could very easily go off on a theodicean tangent now, but allow me to use an analogy from...the weather! Why do we have hurricanes and broken levees and Katrinas when God is supposed to be in control of the weather? Because hurricanes are probably the only way to cool large areas of seawater, which is important because sea life would be impossible if the ocean got too warm. God is constrained by certain physical limitations. He can't make a square circle. He can't make the weather perfect for everyone, and I imagine his recommendation would be not to live near the coastline on the Gulf of Mexico.

Now going back to why God doesn't just make everyone immaculately conceived. Adam and Eve were created without sin as well, so they had no "bias" toward doing the wrong thing, but they still chose to heed the serpent and abuse their free will. God could immaculately conceive every baby born after this moment, and it could very well have no visible effect. Some believe that Mary did not commit sin because of the overriding influence of her immaculate conception, but why would God remove her free will when he needed her to make a meaningful decision yes or no on whether to accept the role as the mother of the Savior?

It is a holdover of the Calvinist tradition that man is utterly depraved and unable even to cooperate with the grace of God for sanctification and become objectively holy. But Catholics believe that by cooperating with grace we can become saints even before we are transformed by our death. Why would Mary be any different? Especially given that God's grace was infused into her soul at the very beginning, before any other influence could come to bear.

 

[Quiddity]

You can't have it both ways, Athanasius. If it is not essential that a child be baptized, then why do it? If God would prefer that it happen but not require that it happen, what's the point? Will an unbaptized child be denied Christ's saving grace or won't he be? If Christ's saving grace will be extended to an unbaptized child one way or the other, then what you choose to do is immaterial.

And when that sacrament is performed for an infant who has no way of knowing what communion with Christ even is, it does seem rather pointless.

And just what sins might your infant child need to be cleansed of? Christ's grace is offered to those who have sinned, repented (which requires the ability to acknowledge their sins in the first place), come to Him in faith and chosen to be baptized. Since an infant cannot sin, cannot repent and cannot have faith, he has no need of baptism. He will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven as a pure child of God.

Many of your questions can be answered by referencing back to my previous post.

But just in case you don't get it from the previous post, remember that Original sin is our brokenness; it's a propensity toward sin that is part and parcel of being thinking humans. Baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins inherited, nor for the forgiveness of sins committed by a baby, but to open the door to forgiveness of sins that they will commit over the course of their life.

 

[athanasius]

Big surprise, being a non-Catholic, but I disagree. Baptism is the outward expression of what has already happened within. I am a Christian before I am baptised, not after. I believe baptism is important, but I by no means think it's necessary for salvation. It's merely declaring "look at me world, I follow Jesus!" You can't declare that you follow Jesus if you haven't already accepted Him.

I do like the idea of "christening". In my opinion, it is the parents who offer their child to God. However, I think that if that child, when they mature enough, decides that they want to follow God (and not their parents), then they should be baptised under their decision.

Choices to follow Christ and accept your baptism? We call that confirmation and that happens around 7-8th grade or high school for most Catholics! I appreciate your input! I understand your disagreements because I used to attend a Southern baptist church. The Catholic Churches theology of baptism is much broader than certain protestant traditions using biblical typology in reference to circumcision, implicit biblical evidence in Gospels and epistles, and apostolic tradition. Which is probably why you may disagree with our sacramental theology. Anyways, God bless you!

 

[athanasius]

Many of your questions can be answered by referencing back to my previous post.

But just in case you don't get it from the previous post, remember that Original sin is our brokenness; it's a propensity toward sin that is part and parcel of being thinking humans. Baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins inherited, nor for the forgiveness of sins committed by a baby, but to open the door to forgiveness of sins that they will commit over the course of their life.

excellent point Victor! Amen!

 

[athanasius]

You can't have it both ways, Athanasius. If it is not essential that a child be baptized, then why do it? If God would prefer that it happen but not require that it happen, what's the point? Will an unbaptized child be denied Christ's saving grace or won't he be? If Christ's saving grace will be extended to an unbaptized child one way or the other, then what you choose to do is immaterial.

And when that sacrament is performed for an infant who has no way of knowing what communion with Christ even is, it does seem rather pointless.

And just what sins might your infant child need to be cleansed of? Christ's grace is offered to those who have sinned, repented (which requires the ability to acknowledge their sins in the first place), come to Him in faith and chosen to be baptized. Since an infant cannot sin, cannot repent and cannot have faith, he has no need of baptism. He will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven as a pure child of God.

Its not pointless since baptism is free gift of grace. It Gods free gift to us! I would never deny my child a free gift of Gods grace. Where does it say that one must be able to repent and choose to receive the sacrament? We have a much deeper understanding of baptism then you do. Your understanding of the sacrament is merely a few hundred years old dating back tot he anabaptist. Ours goes back to the apostles via the early Fathers. The bible itself is mute on the issue but it does allude to infant baptism. The tradition of the apostles speaks of infant baptism.