Jump to content

Sin and Original Sin


inquiringmind

Recommended Posts

Is there such a thing as "Original Sin"?

The traditional christian concept of original sin is founded on the traducianism doctrine; that the sinful taint on Adam's spirit is passed on to the spirits of all his children via procreation. That is, when the physical body procreates, the spirits also are procreating another spirit (tainted) at the same time. And thus is the traditional (apostate) christian explaination of how we are all lost because we are all tainted by sin from birth.

The LDS version of Original Guilt is found in Moses 6:54-55. Men are not accountable for the sins of their fathers and children are whole (sinless). However, sin conceives in their hearts as they grow older.

Has anyone but Jesus ever lived a mortal life without sinning?

No.

Are we born sinners, or do we become sinners at the age of acountability?

Original Guilt as above. We are born sinless and become sinners as we grow older.

And is it possible for anyone today to get through a day without sinning?

Besides little children? Probably not for most. But one need not concern themselves overmuch for every little misdeed. Rigthteousness and obedience will cover a multitide of sins because of the Atonement of Christ.

Link to comment

Is there such a thing as "Original Sin"?

Has anyone but Jesus ever lived a mortal life without sinning?

Are we born sinners, or do we become sinners at the age of acountability?

And is it possible for anyone today to get through a day without sinning?

nobody started the first "origanil sin; heavenly father gave us free agency, so if we can put a label on sin it would be called "free agency"; which of course is the entire basis of our mortality.:)

Link to comment

nobody started the first "origanil sin; heavenly father gave us free agency, so if we can put a label on sin it would be called "free agency"; which of course is the entire basis of our mortality.:)

But then, aren't we all born free not to sin?

Has anyone but Jesus ever lived past the age of acountability, and not sinned?

(And what is the age of acountability--7, 12, 14?)

Link to comment

Is there such a thing as "Original Sin"?

Has anyone but Jesus ever lived a mortal life without sinning?

Are we born sinners, or do we become sinners at the age of acountability?

And is it possible for anyone today to get through a day without sinning?

Original Sin for LDS is Adam's transgression in the Garden of Eden. The LDS definition of sin is "to willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth." This definition is only possible because of the Atonement of Christ, which by grace interjects the principle of mercy into unintentional or unwilling disobedience, failure to act righteously and/or ignorance of the truth.

No one but Jesus ever lived a mortal life without sinning.

Unlike Christ, we are born with spirits less perfect, and so given the opportunity, at some point we inevitably sin. Having a less perfect spirit is not a sin, but what we do with it can be when, once in this probationary period, we willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth.

At the very least, those who haven't the capacity to do anything but what an infant does can get through a day without sinning. Personally, I believe people can get through a day without willful disobedience or failure to act righteously despite knowing better; I do not believe people can get through a day without some degree of unintentional or unwilling disobedience, failure to act righteously and/or ignorance of the truth.

Link to comment

Is there such a thing as "Original Sin"?

Has anyone but Jesus ever lived a mortal life without sinning?

Are we born sinners, or do we become sinners at the age of acountability?

And is it possible for anyone today to get through a day without sinning?

I understand the logic that rejects as unjust, the idea that anyone else should be condemned for the actions of Adam.

So if Adam's sin can only condemn Adam, why is it not also unjust that we should benefit from the actions of Jesus, who is called the second Adam? Why is it wrong if Adam's sin has a negative affect for those who are born after him, but it is right if Jesus' atonement has a similar but positive affect for those who are born after Him? It seems that the same logic which accepts benefits that come from Christ, must also accept the detriments that come from Adam. If good justice says we can't be touched by the sins of another, how does good justice allow that we can be touched by the righteousness of another?

For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ. Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.
---Rom. 5:17-19

The one disobedient man was Adam. The one obedient man was Jesus. The doctrine of vicarious Atonement is already difficult from a judicial point of view. But it becomes doubly difficult to defend if we are going to have a different standard of justice when our "champion" fails than when our "champion" succeeds. The Catholic doctrine of original sin merely permits that the same law which accepts Christ's Atonement also accepts Adam's fall. If all judgment is individual, neither Adam nor Christ matter at all. It is the doctrine of the Atonement of Christ that reinforces the doctrine of original sin in Adam. It is only through the justice of original sin through Adam that we can argue for the justice of redemption in Christ. This is why in the Easter liturgy of the Roman Rite, the Catholic Church will make reference to the "felix culpa", the happy fault of Adam, because without it, no redeemer is possible.

-----------------

For the record, it might not be clearly grasped by the casual LDS observer that there is an important nuance to the Catholic doctrine of original sin. It has to be differentiated from actual sin. Original sin is a dehabilitating condition. Original sin makes the one so afflicted incapable of participating in the life of heaven. It does NOT result in any positive punishment. It excludes from heaven. Only actual sin may be justly punished with anything more fearful than exclusion from heaven. The doctrine of the Catholic Church makes it impossible for the faithful to hold that babies experience any painful torments if they should die before reaching the age of accountability.

Link to comment

For the record, it might not be clearly grasped by the casual LDS observer that there is an important nuance to the Catholic doctrine of original sin. It has to be differentiated from actual sin. Original sin is a dehabilitating condition. Original sin makes the one so afflicted incapable of participating in the life of heaven. It does NOT result in any positive punishment. It excludes from heaven. Only actual sin may be justly punished with anything more fearful than exclusion from heaven.

Nah, we believe precisely the same thing... the transgression, swallowed up in Christ's atonement. =)

EDIT: We also believe Adam's transgression had a purpose, so to say, so it wasn't a complete bad thing, if you know what I mean. It allowed alot of things to happen that were important.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Link to comment

Nah, we believe precisely the same thing... the transgression, swallowed up in Christ's atonement. =)

EDIT: We also believe Adam's transgression had a purpose, so to say, so it wasn't a complete bad thing, if you know what I mean. It allowed alot of things to happen that were important.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Best wishes to you TAO.

You noticed my comment about the "felix culpa"? I am following my usual "m.o." here. I am not saying Mormons are wrong. I am saying that if Mormons understand what we are saying and why, they won't be using words like apostate to describe what we believe. As usual, I think Mormons and Catholics are much much closer on this point than the polemicists on either side will admit.

Regards,

3DOP

Link to comment

Best wishes to you TAO.

You noticed my comment about the "felix culpa"? I am following my usual "m.o." here. I am not saying Mormons are wrong. I am saying that if Mormons understand what we are saying and why, they won't be using words like apostate to describe what we believe. As usual, I think Mormons and Catholics are much much closer on this point than the polemicists on either side will admit.

Regards,

3DOP

Nah, I didn't think you were saying we were wrong, I was just saying how we are so much the same =). It was a compliment, not a criticism =D.

Yah, I don't like the word apostate too much either. It causes so many hard feelings =P. I try and not use it.

Link to comment

I get through plenty of days without "sinning". Are my days perfection? Heck no. But imperfection is not sin.

The concept of "sin" is purely a religious one. And not a helpful one at that.

I do not believe in "original sin" of the "fall of Adam", etc. These are merely instructive metaphors, nothing to do with empirical reality; at best they exist for the believer in such only metaphysically. I do believe that we judge ourselves based on what we believe to be real and true. If we are lying to ourselves then we are "sinning". If we are living according to our lights then we are only doing so imperfectly but not in a state of "sin". Joseph Smith said that he had never claimed to be a perfect man, but he had never sinned in his heart, i.e. it was not in his nature to premeditate a wrong act and then act upon it. I believe he spoke the truth about himself. Even though I loathe his "marriage" policies (I won't grace them with the term "doctrines"), I believe that he tried to reconcile his biology with his spirituality the best he could. It just doesn't work for me. But I won't assert that Joseph Smith knowingly lived a lie when he took the wives of other men for himself....

Link to comment

The traditional christian concept of original sin is founded on the traducianism doctrine; that the sinful taint on Adam's spirit is passed on to the spirits of all his children via procreation. That is, when the physical body procreates, the spirits also are procreating another spirit (tainted) at the same time.

Hello, I've participated in Catholic catechesis in all aspects, learning, studying, teaching, for a whole lot of hours and have never heard anything like this.

Original Sin is a lack of the Original Grace of holiness and justice. That is the simplest explanation.

Just as the NT describes how we are made heirs, so it is that Original Sin is the opposite, that is, the loss of something that was ours. We call this something, Original Grace. Since Original Grace was lost by our First Parents, it could not be inherited by their children (us). Just as, if you own a house or once owned a house, and lost it, your children can't inherit what you don't have. Neither can their children, or their children, etc. etc.

Jesus Christ has reconciled us, restoring what God intended, magnified even greater!

Link to comment

But then, aren't we all born free not to sin?

Has anyone but Jesus ever lived past the age of acountability, and not sinned?

(And what is the age of acountability--7, 12, 14?)

25And again, inasmuch as aparents have children in Zion, or in any of her bstakes which are organized, that cteach them not to understand the ddoctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eeight years old, the fsin be upon the heads of the parents.

26For this shall be a law unto the ainhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.

27And their children shall be abaptized for the bremission of their sins when ceight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

Link to comment

Is there such a thing as "Original Sin"?

Has anyone but Jesus ever lived a mortal life without sinning?

Are we born sinners, or do we become sinners at the age of acountability?

And is it possible for anyone today to get through a day without sinning?

The traditional Christian doctrine of Original Sin is that a man is guilty because of the sin of Adam, even though he may not himself have committed any sins. That was the traditional justification for infant baptisms. A newborn infant is guilty, not because he has done anything wrong, but because Adam did something wrong; and he would go to hell if he died in infancy without baptism to "remit" his (original) sin.

The LDS doctrine of the Original Sin is that man has acquired a disposition or tendency to commit sin as a result of the sin of Adam; but that he is not considered guilty before God until he actually commits a sin by his own actions. That is the difference.

Link to comment
.... The doctrine of the Catholic Church makes it impossible for the faithful to hold that babies experience any painful torments if they should die before reaching the age of accountability.

Unbaptized infants

Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[28][29] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[30] In the later mediaeval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view, others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[31] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "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,'[32] 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." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[33]

Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also, within Roman Catholicism, in the Jansenist movement, but this movement was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic Church.[34]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Critiquing limbo: Vatican responds to changes in theological thought

By John Thavis

Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In its recent document on unbaptized children, the Vatican's International Theological Commission demonstrated how church teaching can be responsive to changes in theological thought, Christian beliefs and the "signs of the times."

The document, published April 20, critiqued the traditional understanding of limbo, arguing instead that there was good reason to hope unbaptized babies who die go to heaven.

Some people saw that as a reversal of a centuries-old Catholic principle. But rather than announcing a radical break with the past, the commission said it was assessing an issue in theological evolution.

The very first sentence of the document signaled an important distinction when it spoke of the "hierarchy of truths" in Catholic doctrine. The teaching on limbo was among those never addressed by Scripture and never defined as dogma and is therefore subject to theological development, it said.

"When the question of infants who die without baptism was first taken up in the history of Christian thought, it is possible that the doctrinal nature of the question or its implications were not fully understood," it said.

More specifically, the commission said the theological tradition of the past, specifically the Augustinian tradition, seems to have a "restricted conception of the universality of God's saving will."

That's an extremely sensitive issue today, one that goes beyond the fate of unbaptized babies and has implications for the church's relations with non-Christian religions.

The new document repeats traditional Catholic teaching that all salvation is through Christ and has a relationship with the church. But it emphasizes more than once that God's saving ways are ultimately mysterious and that the holiness that resides in the church can reach people outside "the visible bounds of the church."

The modern theologians cited by the document include the late Jesuit Father Karl Rahner and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, both of whom had presented arguments for abandoning the concept of limbo.

It also cited a collection of Catholic doctrinal documents edited by the late Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, recipient of some criticism by the Vatican's doctrinal congregation in the late 1990s when Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was its head.

But the document goes beyond strictly theological opinions. It repeatedly refers to the "sensus fidelium" -- the sense of the faithful -- to illustrate how Christians increasingly reject the idea that the vision of God would be denied to innocent babies.

One reason the Second Vatican Council rejected attempts to strengthen teaching against the salvation of unbaptized infants was that bishops felt it was "not the faith of their people," the document said.

It referred to an important teaching of Vatican II, which said that the whole body of the faithful shares in Christ's prophetic office and "cannot err in matters of belief."

To support its conclusions on limbo, the theological commission's document also cited the need for the church to read the "signs of the times" in order to better understand the Gospel.

In unusual detail, it listed several such signs that support the idea of hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants: the warfare and turmoil of the international scene and the church's awareness of its mission as a bearer of hope; greater emphasis on God's love and mercy in a world of suffering people; renewed concern for the welfare of infants in societies that are scandalized by the suffering of children; and increased dialogue with people of other faiths, which encourages the church to have greater appreciation for the "manifold and mysterious ways of God."

Perhaps the clearest instance of the commission's ranging outside traditional theological boundaries was when it cited in a footnote the Live Aid and Live 8 charity rock concerts of 1985 and 2005 as examples of global concern for children.

The International Theological Commission, which acts as an advisory body to the Vatican, has always had a predominantly European membership, but this document was prepared by a drafting committee made up of nine theologians from five continents. Father Dominic Veliath, a Salesian from India, headed the committee.

END

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702310.htm

I recognize that Limbo was never regarded as a place in which infants suffered pain- just kind of a "neutral zone".

My intent is to point out that Catholic doctrine is still evolving on this issue, nothing more nothing less.

Link to comment

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Original_sin

http://www.catholicn...cns/0702310.htm

I recognize that Limbo was never regarded as a place in which infants suffered pain- just kind of a "neutral zone".

My intent is to point out that Catholic doctrine is still evolving on this issue, nothing more nothing less.

No worries mate. I agree!

Link to comment

(And what is the age of acountability--7, 12, 14?)

From my "mature" perspective, I would put it around 42 ;)

Link to comment
The traditional christian concept of original sin is founded on the traducianism doctrine; that the sinful taint on Adam's spirit is passed on to the spirits of all his children via procreation. That is, when the physical body procreates, the spirits also are procreating another spirit (tainted) at the same time.
Hello, I've participated in Catholic catechesis in all aspects, learning, studying, teaching, for a whole lot of hours and have never heard anything like this.

Traducianism is an older doctrine developed by Tertullian and is no longer extant in the Catholic Church. It holds that only Adam and Eve's spirit were directly created by God and that everyone's else's spirit is generated when our physical bodies are generated (sex). From there it was "easy" to see that Adam and Eve's taint from the Fall was passed along to the soul or spirit of everyone else through the sexual generation of the physical (and spirit) body. Hence Original Sin. Traducianism is forgotten by the Catholics (but still remembered by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and some Protestants; some Lutherans and a few Baptists) but the Original Sin heresy lives on.

Link to comment

(And what is the age of acountability--7, 12, 14?)

For the purpose of entering into covenants of the restored church on earth, the age of eight has been revealed as the age of accountability.

As far as general, eternal accountability goes, that is judged individually by God, as even we can see in the more extreme cases that there are people who are not accountable at or after the age of eight, and the average infant and little child are seemingly not accountable to make moral choices and decisions. Some people have observed that their eight year old is really not ready to make such decisions, or that their two-year old certainly knows better than to hurt another child. That is between the child and God, as we are all born with the Light of Christ.

The scriptures tell us that the parents are to teach their children (I presume from the earliest age possible) to be baptized when eight years old, and that the children should be baptized when eight years old. Their actual accountability before God (not the Church for the purpose of entering into ordinances) must begin earlier, because He states that Satan cannot tempt them until they “begin to become accountable before me.” In some cases, the term “years of accountability” is used, with can mean specifically eight, eight-onward depending on their capacity, and years earlier than eight, depending on when they begin to become accountable. See D&C 68:25-27; 18:42; 20:71; 29:47; 137:10.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...