Did Jesus inherit original sin from Mary?

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Saying that someone else has copied a doctrine from the Catholic Church seems to be an offensive accusation in these parts of Christian Forums. So much so that people feel they have to cover themselves by saying that they follow none of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Pity.

Rather strange isn't it, that they say they don't...like it came from thin air

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I haven't studied everything that the Catholic church teaches but there are a couple of major points that I strongly disagree with. Why must I disagree with everything?

You do not have to but be honest where the doctrines you do agree with come from.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

By original sin I mean the propensity to sin, the ability to be tempted from within ourselves. I'm not saying that the label 'original sin' might not have come from the Catholic church, it probably did, but the word is in common usage now the same way many other words are. As to their doctrine on it I have no idea, I take it from what the Bible says in Genesis and Romans. I believe Adam was sinless until he fell and I believe this brought in both spiritual as well as physical death. I believe this is what those passages of scripture teach. You are completely free to disagree but don't mistake what we are saying for regurgitated Catholic doctrine.

Would I rather the day be given a new name, one not coined by the Catholic church? Yes, very much so, along with Easter.

It seems you have changed your definition and it is definitely different than the other posters that you are defending. I agree that Adam sinned and the wages of that sin was death and a fallen world which we are all born into. However, do you believe we are GUILTY of that sin? That is the difference. I believe we suffer the CONSEQUENCES of that sin which is death. Christmas and Easter? They are definitely western terms. Well in the Eastern Churches they are originally called The Nativity (Birth) and Pascha (Passover).

 

[coffee4u]

You do not have to but be honest where the doctrines you do agree with come from.

I think Ted's reply covered all of this.

Most churches will have overlapping doctrine.

The only point that matters is if the doctrine agrees with scripture. If it does I will agree with it, if it doesn't I won't. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

That is because most evangelicals or those of us who follow the Bible alone as the sole decider of doctrine do not agree with the Catholic church doctrines, often strongly so. This does not mean we hate Catholics just that we disagree with the teachings of your church.

Do you see what you are saying? Where did that Bible you follow come from? Did it magically appear when the reformation began 500 years or so ago? But you DO likely follow many RCC doctrines (but who knows anymore since there are now 1000s of protestant denominations, most having completely different doctrines from one another). That is why you are called protestants...you held some doctrines while others you protested against. This is history...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I think Ted's reply covered all of this.

Most churches will have overlapping doctrine.

The only point that matters is if the doctrine agrees with scripture. If it does I will agree with it, if it doesn't I won't. It's really as simple as that.

All I am saying that in this case, we KNOW where that overlapping doctrine came from. What YOU think agrees with scripture may not be what others do, and that does NOT mean you are correct. So you are your own Pope.

 

[coffee4u]

It seems you have changed your definition and it is definitely different than the other posters that you are defending. I agree that Adam sinned and the wages of that sin was death and a fallen world which we are all born into. However, do you believe we are GUILTY of that sin? That is the difference. I believe we suffer the CONSEQUENCES of that sin which is death. Christmas and Easter? They are definitely western terms. Well in the Eastern Churches they are originally called The Nativity (Birth) and Pascha (Passover).

Are we guilty of his eating the fruit? No. He alone is guilty of that.
I believe Adam was sinless when he was created. Not in the same way Christ was sinless, but Jesus is a type of Adam, so I see Adam as a shadow of what was to come.

1 Corinthians 15:45-48
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.

God declared Adam, Eve and the rest of the creation as being 'very good'. To me, that means he could not have been filled with selfish desires at this point but pure ones. That selfish desires and guilt only came upon them when Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and that this has been passed down to us all.

Genesis 6
She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

I believe that Adam needed something outside of himself to cause him to fall into sin. Satan led Eve into sin and Eve lead Adam into sin. Before that occurrence, there had been no sin. The fact that the first sin was caused this way and the fact that it is included in the scripture is I think significant.

Genesis
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”


13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

I don't think it is there to just make a more interesting story but for a purpose. Because in the New Testament we see Jesus facing the same thing.
Matthew 4:1-11
Satan tries and fails to tempt him. I see Genesis there as another example of foreshadowing of what Jesus would do, but do perfectly. Where mankind failed that test, Jesus completed it.

When Adam sinned he experienced spiritual death, physical death and also the inner selfishness and enjoyment of sin that all people are born with. We don't need Satan suggesting that sin is enjoyable we know this innately. People enjoy their drunkenness and immorality. We gained an inner understanding and longing for sin until we come to Christ. After coming to Christ we still sin but we should hate that we sin and repent of it and the longer we are growing as a Christian the less we should sin.

Years ago I tried calling Easter the Passover but that doesn't really work in Western Christian cultures as it is seen primarily as a Jewish celebration.

 

[FenderTL5]

Do you see what you are saying? Where did that Bible you follow come from? Did it magically appear when the reformation began 500 years or so ago? But you DO likely follow many RCC doctrines (but who knows anymore since there are now 1000s of protestant denominations, most having completely different doctrines from one another). That is why you are called protestants...you held some doctrines while others you protested against. This is history...

Are you not aware? Christianity began with the invention of the printing press.[/sarcasm]

The idea that the Reformers and the Reformation were exactly what they are titled to be is missed. They were called reformers because that's what they did, they took the existing faith and re-formed it, keeping what they liked/agreed with and discarding the rest. Then new developments deepened existing fractures into divisions (denominations).

 

[coffee4u]

So you are your own Pope.

And again you take potshots instead of debating scripture or doctrine, so I shall leave you to it. Perhaps you don't view this as an insult but I do as the very idea of a pope goes against everything that I believe in. The only rock is Christ.

 

[coffee4u]

Are you not aware? Christianity began with the invention of the printing press.[/sarcasm]

The idea that the Reformers and the Reformation were exactly what they are titled to be is missed. They were called reformers because that's what they did, they took the existing faith and re-formed it, keeping what they liked/agreed with and discarding the rest. Then new developments deepened existing fractures into divisions (denominations).

Are you saying you disagree with your brother above? [not meant sarcastically at all]

I know nothing about the Eastern Orthodox church to know if what is being said is general doctrine or not. Actually I always thought it was similar to the Roman Catholic church but just different in some ways. Forgive me if this is not true.

 

[FenderTL5]

Are you saying you disagree with your brother above? [not meant sarcastically at all]

not at all.
Merely flabbergasted at some of the claims he was responding to.

I know nothing about the Eastern Orthodox church to know if what is being said is general doctrine or not. Actually I always thought it was similar to the Roman Catholic church but just different in some ways. Forgive me if this is not true.

You see; this is why awareness of church history, customs, and Tradition are important along with a study of the Holy Scriptures. It gives perspective on how these thoughts came to be and helps to avoid error.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You seem to be taking this personally when it's not aimed at you.

I'm watching people get very animated at each other, attacking each other for being too Catholic.

You are a Catholic, not the Catholic church. I haven't studied everything that the Catholic church teaches but there are a couple of major points that I strongly disagree with. Why must I disagree with everything?

I think you said that you did.

Look, it's almost bemusement with all of you trying to be less Catholic than the other. But there is a downside, sort of a baby and bathwater thing I see a lot of in Christian Forums where a lot of actual crazy theology comes from trying to be less Catholic than the other guy. And it's here in this thread where so many of you are totally opposed to original sin because you say it's Catholic.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Rather strange isn't it, that they say they don't...like it came from thin air

And yet you yourself deny it and blame the Catholics for it. Trying to be less Catholic than the other guy.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Rather strange isn't it, that they say they don't...like it came from thin air

Well no, you miss the obvious...it comes from the clear words of the Scriptures!

 

[misput]

Think about it guys.............Catholic or otherwise, is having a fleshly nature a sin or is yielding to that nature where sin enters in. Christ obviously had a fleshly nature but when He was tempted He did not sin since He was God in the flesh. Adam on the other hand yielded to his fleshly nature and sinned. Paul in Rom. 5 is saying that just like Adam we all sin but by faith in Christ we can become free of sin. The reason the doctrine of original sin has become so prevalent is because most people think if Adam was created with a fleshly nature it makes God the author of sin. It does not. Think about it..............how can there be a human race without a fleshly nature. There is already a race in heaven called angels but they are not human, neither will we be after the resurrection. Think people, think.

 

[The Righterzpen]

@Carl Emerson - I just realized I tagged the wrong person in the last post I replied to on this thread. I actually meant to tag you and not Dave. None the less; I see you read it anyways!

 

[The Righterzpen]

Even what one person means when they say "original sin" is not the same as what another means by "original sin".

Think about it guys.............Catholic or otherwise, is having a fleshly nature a sin or is yielding to that nature where sin enters in.

This is what I was wondering? I agree with you @misput that the propensity to sin and actually committing sin are two different things. And maybe this is where clarification of what exactly does "original sin" mean?

@chevyontheriver - correct me if I'm wrong; but I'm under the impression that the RCC concept of "original sin" is that sin itself is imputed from Adam onto posterity; so thus all are guilty of sin even if having not committed it yet?

Yet if what the RCC teaches is as "original sin" is a fallen nature passed to Adam's offspring. I would agree with that.

That too though is different than "the potential to sin"; because the "potential to sin" assumes the person has not fallen until they personally commit sin. That I don't find to be accurate according to Scripture. What I think everyone has inherited from Adam is the corrupted nature; which inevitably only leads to sin. And that's what I think the Scripture means by: "In Adam all die".

 

[chevyontheriver]

Think about it guys.............Catholic or otherwise, is having a fleshly nature a sin or is yielding to that nature where sin enters in. Christ obviously had a fleshly nature but when He was tempted He did not sin since He was God in the flesh. Adam on the other hand yielded to his fleshly nature and sinned. Paul in Rom. 5 is saying that just like Adam we all sin but by faith in Christ we can become free of sin. The reason the doctrine of original sin has become so prevalent is because most people think if Adam was created with a fleshly nature it makes God the author of sin. It does not. Think about it..............how can there be a human race without a fleshly nature. There is already a race in heaven called angels but they are not human, neither will we be after the resurrection. Think people, think.

What is the difference between 'fleshly nature' and human nature? Did Adam have a human nature when he was created? What kind of nature did he have after he sinned? Same with Eve or would she be different somehow in your view. Did/does Jesus have a human nature?

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is what I was wondering? I agree with you @misput that the propensity to sin and actually committing sin are two different things. And maybe this is where clarification of what exactly does "original sin" mean?

@chevyontheriver - correct me if I'm wrong; but I'm under the impression that the RCC concept of "original sin" is that sin itself is imputed from Adam onto posterity; so thus all are guilty of sin even if having not committed it yet?

Yet if what the RCC teaches is as "original sin" is a fallen nature passed to Adam's offspring. I would agree with that.

That too though is different than "the potential to sin"; because the "potential to sin" assumes the person has not fallen until they personally commit sin. That I don't find to be accurate according to Scripture. What I think everyone has inherited from Adam is the corrupted nature; which inevitably only leads to sin. And that's what I think the Scripture means by: "In Adam all die".

I could say it's simple, but it's not.

All have sinned in Adam, not that all have committed any sins of their own yet, for example a newborn, but that all have fallen under the curse of Adam. It is a fallen nature that we all get now. Something we all need redemption from, something that without the workings of grace would damn us. It's part of our bent human nature.

It also gives us the inclination to sin. And so we sin.

Potential to sin is a bit different. Adam had the potential to sin from his creation. It is a corollary of having a free will, the free will not to do the good, to do something in privation of the good. The angels had that same option, and the freedom to choose to dissent from good.

Some dissented in actuality, and then fell. Adam and Eve did the same, exercising their potential to sin and thus sinning. From then on they had not just the potential to sin, but the inclination. We all have the potential to sin and the inclination, and then we go ahead and do it. The technical term for that inclination is 'concupiscence'. It is not a sin in and of itself, but as if it were a force of gravity pulling us into sin. It is part of our bent human nature.

Our human nature, in it's pure form as created by God, is one of freedom. It is the human nature that Jesus had. Catholics will argue that Mary also had it but by the singular work of Jesus. We know God can create humans who have not fallen, as he did successfully create Adam and Eve as unfallen people. Mary's sinlessness is considered 'fitting' but not required for Jesus to avoid original sin. She was saved but as one saved from falling rather than picked up after already having fallen.

His avoidance of original sin is because he is God made man, who can have no sin of any sort in him, no sin nature, no concupiscence, no desire to sin. He could be tempted to good things, as were all of the things Satan tempted him with. But he could freely reject such things and concentrate on the greatest good, doing the will of the Father. Jesus never fell, never shared in the sin of Adam, never had an inclination to sin. He was immune to that by being a divine person so taking on a human nature he took on the original human nature.

The rest of us have inherited a bent human nature, which means we need a savior from at least our first breath, which leads us inevitably to committing our own sins.

The link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article is here: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

The article would explain things more thoroughly than I can. Ping me back if you want to address this more.

 

[misput]

Sorry guys, I don't know how to make it any more plain. Thanks for your participation.