[Wondergirl]

I explained correctly. How would you contort my explanation so that original sin only comes from the father? Aren't you obligated to something more than 'nice try'? Otherwise, I'm left with an unsupported opinion – and everybody has one of those.

JoeT

Your "explanation" wandered so far afield of the subject on the table, even the angels were weeping.

Not comes FROM the father, but THROUGH the father.

Dwashbur had asked pages ago if you agree or disagree, but you refused to speak to the question and wandered all around it like a drunken hamster. I tried to simplify it, but no go. Guess I'll seek out a bowl of chocolate ice cream as comfort food.

[dwashbur]

Your "explanation" wandered so far afield of the subject on the table, even the angels were weeping.

Not comes FROM the father, but THROUGH the father.

Dwashbur had asked pages ago if you agree or disagree, but you refused to speak to the question and wandered all around it like a drunken hamster. I tried to simplify it, but no go. Guess I'll seek out a bowl of chocolate ice cream as comfort food.

Agreed. That was one of the most meaningless circumlocutions I've seen since the last political speech I tried to analyze.

[TUT317]

No, Joe. Nice try, but we're not at Justification or Sanctification yet. All I want to know is if you agree with or disagree with this sentence:

The SIN transmission is through only the father to the children, both male and female.

Circle one: Agree Disagree

I think Joe's argument might go something like this. I am sure Joe will correct me if I am wrong.

About 10 years ago in Australia our then leader proposed to have a "Sorry Day" The idea was to apologize to the indigenous people of this land for all of the atrocities committed during the founding years.

There was an immediate backlash from from sections of the community who rightly claimed that cannot be held responsible for the actions of their great-grandfather. Even though these people claimed to be sympathetic to the cause they reject any idea of sin being 'passed on', transmitted through to them.

The counter argument to this is pretty much Joe's argument (at least I think it is). That is to say, this 'original sin' is not to be looked at in terms of being transmitted from one generation to the next.

As Joe says, An individual can be considered as an individual or as part of a whole, viz. a member of society. Another way of saying it would be the whole is the individual.

Tut

[Wondergirl]

this 'original sin' is not to be looked at in terms of being transmitted from one generation to the next.

But that's the Bible's -- and the church's -- definition of original sin.

[TUT317]

But that's the Bible's -- and the church's -- definition of original sin.

Hi Wondergirl,

I'm not saying I agree with it. I just said I think this is what Joe is saying. More correctly, what Aquinas has said from De Malo.

Tut

[Wondergirl]

I am not held accountable for any sin other than my own. The concept of Original Sin has to do with transmission, not with responsibility.

[TUT317]

St. Thomas explains it best:

"An individual can be considered either as an individual or as part of a whole, a member of a society . . . . Considered in the second way an act can be his although he has not done it himself, nor has it been done by his free will but by the rest of the society or by its head, the nation being considered as doing what the prince does. For a society is considered as a single man of whom the individuals are the different members (St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 12). Thus the multitude of men who receive their human nature from Adam is to be considered as a single community or rather as a single body . . . . If the man, whose privation of original justice is due to Adam, is considered as a private person, this privation is not his 'fault', for a fault is essentially voluntary. If, however, we consider him as a member of the family of Adam, as if all men were only one man, then his privation partakes of the nature of sin on account of its voluntary origin, which is the actual sin of Adam" (De Malo, 4, 1).

We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation. Rather, it is a condition of being a member of the human species after the fall of Adam. We use the term inherited only to explain that all of mankind, except One, after Adam's fall receives the effects of God's justice without the guilt, whereby we receive from Adam a privation of sanctification. Iin this way, a child born, even from a process of cloning, without father or mother, is subject to original sin. Conversely, a child born whose Father is the Spirit of God and whose mother is one without the stain of sanctification's privation is a New Eve, a human like Adam prior to the fall in perfect union with God, i.e. Christ.

JoeT

Hi again wondergirl,

Don't blame me. This appears to be Joe's position. You can read it for yourself. No doubt Joe will have a fair bit to say on the issue when he gets round to it.

[Wondergirl]

If he's Catholic, then he agrees.* And that quoted statement shows he agrees.

*from the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Original Sin") --

"(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e. all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19).

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

[JoeT777]

Hi again wondergirl,

Don't blame me. This appears to be Joe's position. You can read it for yourself. No doubt Joe will have a fair bit to say on the issue when he gets round to it.

You can bet on that!

[Wondergirl]

You can bet on that!

So you don't agree with this --

"(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

[JoeT777]

If he's Catholic, then he agrees.* And that quoted statement shows he agrees.

*from the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Original Sin") --

"(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19).

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

You shortchange the article. You're confusing the transmission of the original sin with the nature of original sin.

We shall now show what, in the text, is opposed to the three Pelagian positions:

(1) The sin of Adam has injured the human race at least in the sense that it has introduced death — "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men". Here there is question of physical death. First, the literal meaning of the word ought to be presumed unless there be some reason to the contrary. Second, there is an allusion in this verse to a passage in the Book of Wisdom in which, as may be seen from the context, there is question of physical death. Wisdom 2:24: "But by the envy of the devil death came into the world". Cf. Genesis 2:17; 3:3, 19; and another parallel passage in St. Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For by a man came death and by a man the resurrection of the dead". Here there can be question only of physical death, since it is opposed to corporal resurrection, which is the subject of the whole chapter.

(2) Adam by his fault transmitted to us not only death but also sin, "for as by the disobedience of one man many [i.e., all men] were made sinners" (Romans 5:19). How then could the Pelagians, and at a later period Zwingli, say that St. Paul speaks only of the transmission of physical death? If according to them we must read death where the Apostle wrote sin, we should also read that the disobedience of Adam has made us mortal where the Apostle writes that it has made us sinners. But the word sinner has never meant mortal, nor has sin ever meant death. Also in verse 12, which corresponds to verse 19, we see that by one man two things have been brought on all men, sin and death, the one being the consequence of the other and therefore not identical with it.

(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it. The causality of Adam as regards mortality would, therefore, be completely different from his causality as regards sin. Moreover, this supposed influence of the bad example of Adam is almost chimerical; even the faithful when they sin do not sin on account of Adam's bad example, a fortiori infidels who are completely ignorant of the history of the first man. And yet all men are, by the influence of Adam, sinners and condemned (Romans 5:18, 19). The influence of Adam cannot, therefore, be the influence of his bad example which we imitate (Augustine, "Contra julian.", VI, xxiv, 75).

However, the transfer of God's judgment (not guilt) is explained by the following:

"Your dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam." That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. v.). Considered precisely as voluntary, original sin is only the shadow of sin properly so-called. According to St. Thomas (In II Sent., dist. xxv, Q. i, a. 2, ad 2um), it is not called sin in the same sense, but only in an analogous sense.

source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

JoeT

[JoeT777]

So you don't agree with this --

"(3) Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality."

Yes I agree with it, but that 'transmission' is only in the sense that Adam committed the original sin, it's him we attribute our condition before baptism. And those that follow Adam receive the effects of that sin by being human of the same clan, nation, kingdom etc. It is sin only in "in an analogous sense". Such a sin doesn’t need male or female in the transmission, only humans of Adam's clan.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

You shortchange the article.

I did not. I quoted what supports my position and cited the article not only by title but also with a clickable link.

If I shortchanged the article, then you, Joe, shortchanged the Catholic Encyclopedia by not quoting the entire thing.

[dwashbur]

I did not. I quoted what supports my position and cited the article not only by title but also with a clickable link.

If I shortchanged the article, then you, Joe, shortchanged the Catholic Encyclopedia by not quoting the entire thing.

Reading the article that he posted, Joe's view sounds more like the Pelagians than the Catholics. Curiouser and curiouser.

[JoeT777]

Reading the article that he posted, Joe's view sounds more like the Pelagians than the Catholics. Curiouser and curiouser.

Then you don't know what Pelagianism is. There is nothing in what I've written that would suggest simi-Pelagianism or full fleged Pelagianism.

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

There is nothing in what I've written that would suggest simi-Pelagianism or full fleged Pelagianism.

Written -- or quoted in toto?

Ah, I see where dwashbur is coming from --

...the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death — this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases — but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6).

[dwashbur]

Then you don't know what Pelagianism is. There is nothing in what I've written that would suggest simi-Pelagianism or full fleged Pelagianism.

JoeT

"Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it."

"We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation."

The words of the encyclopedia and the words of Joe. They sound remarkably similar to each other.

[JoeT777]

"Since Adam transmits death to his children by way of generation when he begets them mortal, it is by generation also that he transmits to them sin, for the Apostle presents these two effects as produced at the same time and by the same causality. The explanation of the Pelagians differs from that of St. Paul. According to them the child who receives mortality at his birth receives sin from Adam only at a later period when he knows the sin of the first man and is inclined to imitate it."

"We can therefore conclude original sin is not 'transmitted', as it were, like a virus from male or female (one or both gender) to their offspring, both punishment and guilt handed down from generation to generation."
The words of the encyclopedia and the words of Joe. They sound remarkably similar to each other.

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

I don't see the word 'transmit', I don't see 'passed on" but passed upon, that is entering into. Sin enters the world and is heaped upon them. Like the ruler that causes calamity to fall on his kingdom, the penalty is heaped upon the populous.

In the Marine Corps; during training, one man doesn’t perform hi s duty properly; the punishment is heaped upon the entire platoon. The guilty party commits the original sin, the entire populous pays the price – but not to worry, we had ways to pay the jerk back.

Is this the type of Scripture we are talking about? Maybe we should consult the words of Scriptures more than the encyclopedia, dwashbur

JoeT

[dwashbur]

I was talking about Pelagian tendencies in Joe's posts; suddenly we're talking about the Marines. More dodging. I will not respond again. Feel free to do your avoidance dance all you want.

"Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." (Romans 5:12)

I don't see the word 'transmit', I don't see 'passed on" but passed upon, that is entering into. Sin enters the world and is heaped upon them. Like the ruler that causes calamity to fall on his kingdom, the penalty is heaped upon the populous.

In the Marine Corps; during training, one man doesn’t perform hi s duty properly; the punishment is heaped upon the entire platoon. The guilty party commits the original sin, the entire populous pays the price – but not to worry, we had ways to pay the jerk back.

Is this the type of Scripture we are talking about? Maybe we should consult the words of Scriptures more than the encyclopedia, dwashbur

JoeT

[Wondergirl]

Maybe we should consult the words of Scriptures more than the encyclopedia, dwashbur

They were passages from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I thought that would work for you.