Do We Really Inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve? (Aquinas 101) 

Thanks so much for suggesting this... I've googled it and saw this book has just been released! Great suggestion!

Thank you! I have been really struggling with connecting all of this for a couple of years.

Ratzinger? The toxic intellectual who was a member of Hitler Youth😅

​​@@markjennings2605he Hitler youth was something countless boys were forced into. This was the case for Ratzinger; he was conscripted into it when he was a minor and guess what, he deserted! He ran away, he refused to be a part of what they were doing. Are you going to accuse Ratzinger of the crime of being abused by the Nazis and resisting them? Also, have you read Ratzinger? His intellect wasn't toxic, it was magnificent. Man wrote like a Papal Shakespeare.

Wow, thanks so much for your suggestion! Yes, I've been struggling! Every time you believe your resolute, in knowing the truth, something comes along and shows you, you have no idea!🙏🕊️

Is orginal sin a Catholic myth, their confusion didn't align with the east or any previous church fathers at the time

and god

I'm an atheist - I'm never even tempted to do anything wrong.

Jesus says it takes continuing in His Word to be sanctified. (John 8:31-32, 17:17).

That's not what the bible says. In fact, moral thinking is precisely what Adam and Eve were after and then punished for gaining. You're not allowed to know how to morally reason. You're supposed to accept what the dear leader told you to accept.

@@nickokona6849 not very familiar with the Bible are you...

Ezekiel 18:20

Contemporary science is influenced and controlled by literal Satanists so don't act like a bunch of atheists in lab coats are more authoritative than holy scripture. Don't believe me just look at that human sacrifice ritual that happened at CERN as one exhibit

Do you believe in inherited guilt?

@@bayreuth79 Depends on what you mean by inherited guilt. Was the video not clear enough?

@@FrJohnBrownSJ It was clear- but mistaken. Thomas Aquinas received the Augustinian tradition on original sin. Augustine did not read Greek but relied on the Latin translation of Jerome. In Jerome's translation of Rom. 5:12 we read "in quo omnes peccaverunt" (in whom [Adam] all have sinned). The Greek does not say that: _eph ho_ means 'because' not 'in'. So, I'm afraid that the notion of inherited guilt, aside from being logically incoherent, is not scriptural either. Moreover, none of the Greek fathers, who were obviously reading the original Greek text, came up with 'inherited guilt'. Brian Davies says that Thomas Aquinas saw inherited guilt thus: "it is guilt which follows from the fact that the will of the will of Adam runs through his successors... Adam's descendants can be regarded as one body with Adam as their head or soul. On this basis they are implicated in Adam's sin as the limbs of human beings are involved in the will by virtue of which they act voluntarily" (Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, p. 256). This whole view of original sin cascades from Augustine's 'original sin', which was his misreading of Romans 5 due to the mistranslation of Jerome. This 'mystical' doctrine of Aquinas is a pure invention to try to make some sense of a logically incoherent, non-scriptural doctrine! There is a reason, after all, why the Eastern Orthodox Church has never embraced it and why you won't find a single NT scholar who agrees with Jerome's translation!

@@bayreuth79 I'm not wedded to Jerome's translation of that verse. How do you deal with these verses? Genesis 8:21 “. . . the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Job 15:14-16 “What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight; How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!” Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Psalm 14:2-3 “The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Proverbs 22:15 “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child.” Ephesians 2:1-3: “And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.”

If simply doing bad things is proof of sinful nature, then why isn't doing good things also proof of righteous nature? There are too many problems with this video. This is all of course, made doubly absurd when coupled with the catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception.

If simply doing bad things is proof of sinful nature, then why isn't doing good things also proof of righteous nature? There are too many problems with this video. This is all of course, made doubly absurd when coupled with the catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception.

@@leonardu6094 doing good things is proof of a righteous nature. sin is the privation of goodness. metaphysically speaking, it means 'imperfection,' the absence of the perfection which God alone is. Our nature is good, but not absolutely good. We were created good, so our good works are evidence of this. But our evil deeds show that we are fallen.

@@mvwil I know what sin means. My point was regarding the guy in the video using the fact we do evil things as proof of a sin nature, but not being consistent and using the fact we also do good as proof of good/righteous nature. He didn't make the point he seemed to think he did when attempting to argue that we inherited a sin nature from Adam. He failed miserably in my opinion.

@@leonardu6094 we do have a good nature, it's just not entirely good, and that's what sin is.

@@mvwil Sin means "not having a good nature"?

Completely ridiculous argument. You're simply begging the question by stating "the biblical narrative of human history". I reject evolution *AND* the false doctrine of Original sin.

Depends. Original sin is a thing but Augustine fucked up it's understanding

@@something3395 I have done extensive research into Augustine's view of original sin and comparing it with the other Church Fathers. Augustine's view is (for the most part) dogmatic as well. See my video on Augustine or read the paper linked in that video's description.

@@thebyzantinescotist7081 I will. But isn't the catholic church also pivoting towards the less augustinian understanding?

@@something3395 Well you have to understand what Augustine actually taught. He is highly misrepresented these days. His view was dogmatized at the Council of Carthage and reaffirmed at many ecumenical councils like Trent, so the Church cannot abandon it. Nor has the Church sought to abandon it.

You think it's just to punish you for the crimes of your ancestors?

I bag to differ. The teaching of Original Sin does nothing but the opposite in Accounting for unhappiness or imperfection, or evil at large. As i think that you might be in Error Here, i Wish to offer you a reasoning of Mine, which would be hopefully beneficial to you (and me). First i want to ask the following. Not to seek the win, but to exemplify my utter Lack of understanfing, how this teaching Serves anything it is supposed to. The Question is the following one: Why doe children die from incurable deseas, both of any other animals and of Humans? Could the child have deserved such a destiny, without even beeing able to live half of a live? But even further? What is assumed by this Question? Not, that someone could deserve to suffer and die under such conditions? How could that be Something, someone would deserve? It will be replied, that through doing wrong, someone could deserve it. But let us See. First, the child could never have done Something wrong, therefore it could not deserve it, but has it either way. For this, one can Bring only one cause Up, namely original sin, because the hebrew god in his might and goodness could Not create sucht Thing, as bad things must come from him. To clearify this Point, we need to solve First the oder side of the Table, on which lies the Question, If even anyone could deserve such Thing. To get, what one deserves, we speak of punishment and reward, dont we? Beeing so, is someone even punished, when the Person is not punished justly? If punished is needed to be Just, and god is just, as he is assumed to be good, could he ever punish someone with such Thing? For is it the matter of the Just one to harm and hurt someone? To malify Them, instead of benify Them? I cannot see how, for it would be saying, that the good harms. IT might well hurt, but not torture. But this deseas could be Seen as torture, inescapable as it is. And how could it benify the Person suffering it? Or even if it could the older one, how the child? One sees rightly, that a benevolent and mighty god could Not be source of the Bad, of which Moral evil makes Part, If he is percieved in this manor. Thereby the ones, percieving it that way take the route of Original Sin, which serves only the purpouse of tracing Back the source of Badness in Something else than god, namely humans. But how is this supposed to Work in their own grounds? Let us see this through the following steps. Isn't god cause and source of everything, including him? How could he not, for If Not, Something else can be an equivalent Independent source. Nearly two gods, or more. But the monotheists dont hold this Position, Out of understandable reasons. But then, he must be cause and source of everything, If Something is caused by him. Now they hold, that there was a Creation, which implies Something beeing created, and thereby caused. Humans have been created to by this Account, thereby god is the cause of humans. But Humans are now supposed to be the cause of Badness. But how, If they are only caused by god? Or did they created themselfs? Not by their Account. As this wont Work, they Put it on the free choice of man, which caused Badness. But how could badness be caused, before it was there? Impossible so, humans could not have been Bad, before and while choosing. But how would Something or someone good choose Something evil? Either Badness comes from god, or it comes from nowhere, as far as i can see. If it could come of this obscure Power, which they call "free will", it would require, that Badness could be choosed as validly as goodness. But could such a Gift be one of god, If it is the even source of good and Bad as Well? How could it, as nothing Bad comes from god, but this Gift comes from him with the Power to do Bad/evil? Could it even be a Gift at all? We might see Out of this, that the Thing called free will, understood this way by many and those portraied here, may Not even be a Gift at all, if a Gift is supposed to be Something good for someone. But If someone would disagree and Claim, that it is a gift in this Sense, and therefore all possiblity and reality of Badness and Evil a good Thing in the Long run, what would Not ridiculous follow from that? It would mean, as many hold, that the Things we think off as beeing Bad, are really good for Something, for improvement or punishment in the above sense for Example. But Not only would this be quite questionable, that the Most horrible Things are good underneath. It would cause again a contradiction in this persons words. For If all bad things are really good, there would be No Bad/Evil at all and therefore No original sin, as sins, beeing Something Bad, could Not exist, or sins would have to be Something good. But how can WE punish someone for beeing or recieving good? How to do them better, then already done? And if we could, WE could so, by torturing them and delude them etc. The Absurdity does even rise Higher as consequence of this believes, when we are forced to ask the Christian in this Place, for what Christ even came If there was No sin and Evil in the first Place. By trying to defend the Christian believes, this Person would have caused literally its total collaps. And even further, concluding of all what we have thought through If we, or better i have made No error, It would follow this: when Badness cannot come from man, nor from god, but still exists, there isn't either man, or god thought in the Christian way at least. Man cannot not exist, Just because man is the one asking this Question, therefore, this god cannot exist or is not attainable, which would either way refute Christianity in its core completly. Either we Take away Evil, but then there would be no possiblity of Christianity. Or we Take away man, but Then there would be No possiblity for Christianity. Or we Take away god, and this comes to the Same conclusion as the previous one. I don't know about you, but to me, this reasoning Demonstrantes, that Something cannot be right with general Christian doctrine. But if so, then Revelation gives nothing to it, which undermines the authoritie of the bible, and also undermines Christianity. It seems to Open Up a great Window for the possiblity and Realisation, that Christianity is plainly speaking false. I Wonder than, If you want us to go to Christ, If you want us to lead into Error. But ofcourse you don't want it, meaning this seriously and Not sarcasticaly! For i have found reason to hold, that No one chooses to do bad willingly, meaning knowingly. This is the reason i would Not and can Not acuse you of that. It would be rediculouse. Rather i think, that i can by this make clear, that i also dont want to do that, but rather wanted to Help you, and myself as Well, as it seems to me to be the Same. I don't know you, but that does Not Matter to me, as i am although Interested in your wellbeeing. But how could one be Well of, if one is in Error in such important things? I do not want to Claim, that i know it to be the Case, what i tried to reason. But i could Not find better reasons, for or against it, which is why i hold it to be my best assertion of it and Christianity at its core to be false or at least dubitable. I followed your cousel to Go to Jesus. In fact i was Christian myself before some time ago, and a Firm believer in top. But as i Hope to have shown you, i reached this conclusion at the Point, where i was promised to find him. Maybe i found him, If He is the Truth as many say, and indeed i searched for understanding. But it seems, that Christ is to be searched and understood very differently then the Religion seems to proclaim. I leave it Up to you, as it was only my intend to treat you properly, as we should treat each other, namely by helping each other search the Truth and grow in wisdom. And if it is proper to do so, i would be really thankful for refutation and correction, where it seems due to you. I Hope i was helpfull. Goodbye :)

@@davidsampaiopereira484 you conflate too many things that i will try to unfold later, i'm on a trip and cannot from my Phone.

@@antoniomoyal alright. I Welcome you to settle Things right. Let me just give you another thought and Question, that i came to ask myself after thinking more about this. I thought the following way: By the Account of the Christian, with Respect to their holy scripture, Humans have been created by god, as everything has been created by him. Could god have created Something Bad, while He himself is good? No, it seems to me. Further, if Paradise was a Place of perfection, all in it would have to be too. Humans where Put in it, thereby, and by Creation, they would had to be good, as Badness does Not come from god. Further, man is supposed to be created in the image of god. Obviously, this does not mean phenotypically, but Essentially. What else would it mean, to build Something alike to oneself, if that, which has been created does not share my properties, as far as it can. Further, If god is good, and his goodness consists in beeing just, and wise etc. ,humans would have to be the same. Or it would be needed to ask, why god would not want to make his own Image in man to be as wise and Just, all in all good, as he himself. Could it be better for Something to have less of the good then possible, or isn't it needed to everything to be as good as it can? The Second seems only reasonable to me. If Humans were thereby created to the Optimum and in the image of god, Humans would have been god, and as god, not able to be and do bad. How could the Humans then do Something Bad, while beeing created in a good way? To clearify this further, we may look on one aspect of their goodness. Their wisdom/Insight. Does the one, who knows and finds the truth, can get in Error about it? Can the wise fail? For if man is beeing created good, and Like good, he would be probably endowed with maximal wisdom and Insight. But how could the Humans be decieved by the Serpant, beeing created like this? The reason i say, that the Serpant decieves the Humans is, that it seems to me necessary, that temptation is a Form of Error, and to Error someone is to decieve him. I come to that conclusion by the following reasoning: If someone get's temptated, don't we, that No one would by affected like this If Not for believing, that the Thing someone is tempted to seems good to them. For how could someone be brought to want Something Bad, knowing it is, If Not, by decieving this Person to believe, that it is good, while beeing in fact Bad? It seems Impossible to me, whereby it seems to follow, that temptation is but a Form of decieving someone. The serpent thereby decieves the Humans, and i Think it can be read this way appropriatly too in the scripture. But how can someone undecievable be decieved? Either by no way, or, If the persons dont know about Something, If it is good or Bad, and to Not know this, they will probably Not know, what even is Good and Bad. But If so, the Humans could not do other, and were helplessly decieved, for they would have Not been able to decieve themselfs. And if though, this would Bring us to the same conclusion, that is was out of helpless deception and Error, that they failed. What seems now to be the proper Response to such a helpless Error by anyway perfect beeings? By taking the analogy of fire, i think we might find the answer. Fire is not Put down by fire, but by water or extraction of air and material. How is ignorance and error turned and Put down? Not by the Same of course, but either by Insight and education, or by taking away the influences that decieve the people. But Not to be ignorant may Not suffice to what is wanted, because it may make a difference to Not be ingnorant of Something and to know it. It seems thereby to me, that the proper way to react to error and ignorance is to educate and Help to find Insight. But how do we have to evaluate the reaction of god? Does it seem to Help gainig Insight and to educate, when he abandones them, or later extinguishes them nearly all, and harm them further by Putting them in desperate Situations, like the need to work and give birth and death and suffering. All Things, wich did Not seem to exist in Paradise. Again, this seems to be No punishment to me, but retribution and vengence. Hate is cured through Love, desease through healing, and Not through hate/vengence and death/harm. Further it seems to follow, that the humans could Not have known, that it was bad to disobey and eat the fruit, because the fruit itself would only grant them this Knowledge. Further the Humans would have to be decievable, But how could this Feature even arise from god, who created them, or why did he not intervene, if he is allknowing as it is claimed by many. Either way, Badness cannot come from Humans, if they were created, for the source of the possiblity of Badness would have its source in God.

I don't agree with ST. Thomas Aquinas on this....I am more in agreement with ST. Augustine....All of humanity is in Adam....So when Adam ate the fruit, we somehow Cooperated and Consented with it.... We are therefore born guilty of Original sin, and we are saved through Baptism....

We are born more inclined to sin. We are NOT born guilty of Adams sin.

Thanks for watching, and for noting this! We'll check on the audio. May the Lord bless you!

Im no theologian, but I will try to answer this. No, Restored grace Cannot be inherited. As the video said our nature is still “wounded” and our children will still be in original sin. So they need baptism too. Baptism doesn’t remove all of the effects of original sin, it only allows us to be reborn in christ so we can obtain the beatific vision Mary was immaculately conceived, meaning she was created in such grace that original sin never penetrated her being. Even if her parents inherited original sin. So she didn’t even really need baptism in the same way we do.

Im no theologian, but I will try to answer this. No, Restored grace Cannot be inherited. As the video said our nature is still “wounded” and our children will still be in original sin. So they need baptism too. Baptism doesn’t remove all of the effects of original sin, it only allows us to be reborn in christ so we can obtain the beatific vision Mary was immaculately conceived, meaning she was created in such grace that original sin never penetrated her being. Even if her parents inherited original sin. So she didn’t even really need baptism in the same way we do. There is a much deeper theological discussion/understanding on both of these, but I’d thought I’d give my 2 cents

@@maverick114e9 Nowhere in Scripture does it say or teach that Mary was never penetrated in her being by original sin. Mary declared, "my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47). The fact that Mary called God her "Savior" is evidence that she needed to be "saved". Only sinners need salvation. Mary was a sinner just like me, and just like you, and just like all who have fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). There is no one who continually does good and never sins (2 Chron 6:36; Eccl 7:20). Don't place your trust in Mary... trust Christ.

There have been no changes to the Catechism on this point. Both of the editions you refer to have exactly the same text at CCC #388. You can find it here: www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM

@@ThomisticInstitute THANX

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UWktcW5iR6M.html

We're the cause of human suffering and death, not suffering and death in general.

Not sure where you get the idea that suffering and death pre-date us.

@@PhilMatousDinosaurs

Restores the connection between our human nature and God, giving us a new life as adoptive sons of God.

@Ameya Anu that doesn't make sense, all sins except concupisence are washed away?

​@hopefull61256 concupscience is not a "sin" as in an act.. it is a nature. We do not inherit our parents sinful acts but a nature just as his example of a mother who is a drug addict. The baby feels the affects of her addiction but does not come out of the womb and ask for drugs

You could ask "couldn't God have done it another way?" to all things. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see." Some things about God just are true, questions about "why" aren't really sensible questions in the same way that "what happened before time existed" isn't sensible. In the end, He gives reality its realness, morality its moralness, etc. God is Just, the evil in us conflicts with that justice, and his wrath against us is correct. But God is also merciful, and so rather than wiping out everything we are (which undoubtedly would be required - you wouldn't really be the same you if you were perfect from the start, the work of perfecting you causes change while perfect things need never change), he took the punishment himself, retroactively through time to save all who would believe. As for the question, "why only those who believe?", there's a sermon on RU-vid called The Expulsive Power of a New Affection by Thomas Chalmers that helped me understand that, and a number of other things about the gospel. All of our reasoning about God is faulty, because I don't think he really abides by our logical standards - we derive those standards from intuitions that come from a sin-scarred look at his creation, so they are faulty from the beginning, and in any case he is beyond the things he made. So I don't mean to write this sounding like any authority with hard answers, there are certainly many things I cannot understand about this also, I'm just hopeful my thoughts help you somehow.

You are not "forced to" commit any sin, not even by having the Original Sin in your feeble human nature. "Gratia supponit naturam" means "grace supports nature". But what is, exactly, "grace" and what is, exactly, "nature"? We are already at mystery of faith at these very questions. It seems to me that we got a possibility, a framework - of our personal natural life on Earth - and that is "nature". And we got another possiblity to turn it to something infinitely more - and this another possiblity is grace. We are "nature on the power of grace" if we choose so. I guess you would need some more idea about the place of personal responsiblity in this - and you can find some thoughts of mine about this here keresztenyszocialis.blogspot.com/2021/09/personal-responsibility.html?view=magazine and about Adam and Eve here keresztenyszocialis.blogspot.com/2022/07/were-adam-and-eve-cavemen.html?view=magazine

You think it's just to punish someone else for the sins of their ancestors?

We are not born guilty of Adams sin. God doesn't punish us for what we did not do but we suffer the CONSEQUENCES of what they, Adam and eve did. They sinned and the world started dying it was no longer perfect, everything and everyone was affected. The world, animals, plants and Human beings themselves were affected. Everything started dying slowly, there was violence murder, hate etc But when we are born we are not held guilty of Adams sin, God doesn't take it as we were the ones who plucked from the tree, that's being held guilty of Adams sin. We are now born wanting to do wrong more than doing what's right (sinful nature ). We are not born with sin itself(being born guilty ).

I believe Romans 5 and 7 should be interpreted as St. Paul explaining how he imitated Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. What is wrong with viewing the original sin in the Garden of Eden as being likened to original drunk driving? The original drunk drivers oriented society to the problem of driving while drunk, which resulted in a stigma, prejudice, and punishments against future drunk drivers (even for those who do not get into accidents). Adam was weak through the flesh and was in bondage to the serpent (the law of sin in his members). Romans 7 is largely an explanation as to how he imitated Adam's original sin. This can be seen by looking at the law as the knowledge of good and evil.

Psalm 51:5 says we are born sinners.

If simply doing bad things is proof of sinful nature, then why isn't doing good things also proof of righteous nature? There are too many problems with this video. This is all of course, made doubly absurd when coupled with the catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception.

That's a very simplistic understanding, sin means missing the mark, if the mark or Goam is God himself, aren't we always missing the mark, aren't we always pointing our attentions, lives and worship wronlgy? If you can't recognize that then you must check on you, there is an old eastern prayer that says "Lord Jesus Christ son of God, have mercy on me a sinner", that prayer focuses us on who is Lord and also recognizing how we fail to propperly orient our attention to him. And now the immaculate conception is not that hard to understand, just like John the Baptist was sanctified when Saint Mary visited Saint Elizabeth and she was full of the Holy Spirit making Saint John the Baptist a living saint withiut sin before being born, how much more sanctified was the body who was to receive God incarnate...

@@AprendeMovimiento What does this have to do with what i wrote? They seem to be implying in the video that simply doing evil is proof of a sin nature and I'm applying the logic in the reverse to show it's absurd. You are an agent with the ability to do either good or bad.

@@leonardu6094 See if this addresses your point of concern ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-T5pSrlr1rJI.html

@@Lerian_V Thanks for the vioe suggestion. I had watched that in the past and no, it didn't help at all. The doctrine of Original sin is thoroughly problematic from start to finish.

It is helpful to consider that orthodox Christianity is not really dualistic. In other words, it does not regard evil as an entity or force equal to good that is either trying to dominate over good or trying to find balance with it. Instead, evil is seen as whatever is less than good, with varying degrees of pollution or corruption, or any choice that turns away from the perfection and goodness of God. For an analogy, there is not really hot versus cold, but the perception of hotter or colder things at varying degrees of thermal energy transferred from the movement of particles. The Kelvin scale best reflects this relationship. Yes, the Bible talks about good verses evil but the war is between those who choose good versus those who choose evil.

@@angelahull9064 so there is no personification of evil, then who or what was the snake, just another manifestation of god sent to temp them into suffering, this does not sound like a very nice god. either the snake was or was not separate from god. was or was not created my god. If the snake is separate from god then the snake is the cause of original sin and if it is simply a manifestation the same applies.

@@outofturn the Devil was once an angelic creature who was the first to turn away from God. In that sense he can be described as the personification, or first person to carry, of evil. But evil itself is no thing, but the privation of good.

Because….Fuck them turtles

Good question, but they don't have any answer. If sin is inherited from Adam & Eve, then why do Christians give birth to children (sinner)? ''No children, no sinner.'' 😅 This is hypocrisy.......!

No, because we must understand the difference between person and nature. Christ sanctifies humanity, meaning no matter who you are, you can enter into the state of grace/deifying grace, and thus become virtuous. However, individual persons, by their own dignity and free will, must accept this free gift. Parents have an obligation to baptize their children and to raise them virtuously. But ultimately, they will stand before the throne of God and give an account of themselves, not their parents. We are all accountable for what we choose to do. Sanctifying grace deifies us and makes us more like God, i.e., virtuous.

If I understand him, The Sin of Adam fundamentally changed his nature and we inherit his nature. Am I right?

Adam faced the consequences of his disobedience. Evil entered his nature and it damaged the original design of God to Adam and Eve.

@@LeslieKlinger Sounds possible. I'm not a theologian.

@UCD9ppsIyTmLwpEPKW1lXytg You are misinterpreting Scripture. The personal sins of your mom and dad are NOT your fault and you will not be punished for them. But Original Sin is indeed a Biblical teaching. For instance Psalm 51 King David says "in guilt was I born, a sinner was I conceived." We also hear from St Paul the teaching of the original Adam in whom all sinned, and Christ the New Adam, in whom we are made righteous. We need Christ, because human nature is indeed fallen. Mentioning the quran, a false private revelation, is a nonsequitor. No one will be saved except through Jesus Christ the Son of God.

@@LeslieKlinger As far as I know this is an open question in Catholic theology. Some theologians think that immortality was just a possibility offered to Adam and Eve but not part of their very nature. They could acquire this, from God's grace if they had stayed obedient to his order not to eat from the other tree (of "knowledge of good and bad" that is "their own moral order").

It has been revealed by God in person that it is like that.

The evil is in the choice to possess anything less than the perfect goodness of God. First they were tempted with the belief that they were not in fact in union with God and already in possession of all things God has in making them share in His likeness, then they choose disobedience to gain that which they thought they had not. Pride and greed.

Some theologians think that immortality was just a possibility offered to Adam and Eve but not part of their very nature. They could acquire this, from God's grace if they had stayed obedient to his order not to eat from the other tree (of "knowledge of good and bad" that is "their own moral order"). Our bodies are parts of this material world and is exposed to all the harmful effects coming from its liberty. As already Saint Paul knew this (Romans 8, 19:23): "For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies." "With physical Good there exists also physical Evil, as long as creation has not reached its perfection" as Saint Thomas d'Aquinas wrote (in Summa Contra Gentiles, Vol III, 71), probably based on the verses quoted above from Paul. Why are there bad things at all in our Universe? Our Universe is not ready yet, according to Christian theology but it is in a process of being born. God lead it to the emergence of humanity by natural causes and human persons themselves contribute to the coming of the Perfect Version, not the least by miracles. These miracles are only small lights that foretell the coming shining (doxa) of the New Heaven and New Earth. We seem to exist in a test phase between hardships and hope. And this dramatic situation makes free place for our personal stories with our free decisions.

I just watched a video that mentioned what you stated about, "passing on a lack of something that had been supernaturally added to human nature". The video was about the Divine Will and there were 2 or 3 things that were mentioned that we lost. I think one was impassibility and another was, as you mentioned, immortality. Here's a link to it in case you're interested: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nJHJrhiZGBk.html God Bless.

As a Catholic, i love St Irenaeus and St Athanasius. Thats the beauty of being Catholic -- the catholicity of our universal faith. I also love St Augustine and St Aquinas. They all have unique, beautiful, and powerful things to offer the Church. I lament that you aren't Catholic, cuz then you can venerate Sts Irenaeus and Athanasius whereas now, you are forbidden to

We have another video dealing with the genetic and biological evidence, and the question of whether it proves that the human race does not have an original ancestor or original couple. In fact, claiming that there is a single pair of ancestors is compatible with the current state of the scientific research. See here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ppbXsyTE3TI.html

I think it is very reasonable to acknowledge the evidence for a single pair ancestry is highly unlikely. That is why many Protestants who don’t have an “infallible” magisterium to defend acknowledge it’s improbability to impossibility. The idea of spiritual humans breeding with non-spiritual humans seems as hoc and desperate to save the dogma. Also, what evidence distinguishes the human like behaviour of Neanderthals and other hominids from Homo sapiens? Artwork and burial of the dead both seem like the works of rational creatures.

For a second perspective from Christians, I recommend the following: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nfNAjohOy9Y.html

Gregory of Nyssa actually held a pretty robust notion of original sin. Although he was more optimistic in his eschatology, his view of original sin was pretty close to Augustine.

Apparently Neanderthals made music 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, so… m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EHXV07YCGKY.html

I second that

Not guilt but the corruption the good nature they were created to have. Called concupiscence.

There is no substantive difference between the Orthodox and Catholic view of original sin, it's just that Orthodox misunderstood the Catholic view and thought there is a massive difference there when there simply isn't

The creature has no power in of itself to reach this telos because God, who is Love and Goodness itself is that end. We do have power to cooperate with grace to be restored to wholeness and transformed into His glory by participation in His goodness. However, it's the free gift of grace offered to us as an inheritance by the assumption of humanity by the Second Person of the Trinity, that changes and saves us. The Holy Spirit sanctifies us by further assisting us with gifts of virtue (habits of goodness). The process of sanctification is the imitation of the passion, or kenosis, of Christ that leads us to union, or theosis, with God. Heaven is not a reward but a return.

@@angelahull9064 While I agree with what you said, it really doesn't answer the question I asked. The question is not about how we are saved and the interaction of Grace with our will etc. The question is about Romans 9 which many people believe says that God deliberately creates some people with the express purpose of condemning them to hell. In other words, God created their telos as damnation. My question is, how is this passage interpreted in the Thomistic view?

@@joshuacooley1417 I replied yesterday, but my comment disappeared. I don't want to put in the effort anymore. But I assure you that googling "Thomas Aquinas and Romans 9" will lead you to some academic papers that can articulate his position far more eloquently and logically clear than I could, since this is actually a common topic among various schools of philosophy, religious or not. Or if that is too dull and effortful, then look up the Thomistic Institute or Crash Course Philosophy youtube channels for the yopic of predestination and/or freewill.

Even if it were so, non literal doesn't mean false.

@@62peppe62 Yes, but it’s talked about as necessarily literal in this video by a Catholic monk.

@@Zevelyon One should be cautious with the meaning of "literal" here. The Noah story is just pure fiction, for example. And noone can tell what - and especially how - can be taken literally of the myths of Genesis and who Adam and Eve really was or whom their figures represent. And still the Catholic doctrines (eg. of Original Sin) might formally still be kept - although very blurred... See more about this here: keresztenyszocialis.blogspot.com/2022/07/were-adam-and-eve-cavemen.html?view=magazine It would be useful to mention the notion of "mystery of faith" here, at least. We cannot pretend we know everything exactly and clearly in this field.

@@akostarkanyi825 How do you know the Noah story is pure fiction? Have you heard of the younger dryas and the Greenland Comet impact site? I believe it is literal. I also believe Adam and Eve are presented quite clearly to be literal human individuals in a clearly defined literal environment located in Turkey. I'm not saying I know that to be correct, but I do believe this Monk is correct to suggest these accounts must be literal for them to matter.

@@Zevelyon This (only a hypothesis) is not about a deluge covering even the highest mountains on Earth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis "these accounts must be literal for them to matter" I do not think so and many theologians do not agree, I guess. And about Noah and his story see, for example, this, and the other similar links there: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis

If there isn't any other way to refute somebody's position from Scripture alone, you can always say that they had a bad translation. How pathetic.

@@jzak5723 NT scholars all agree that it’s a mistranslation, including the Catholic New Jerome Biblical Commentary. So, I’m afraid it’s your position that is pathetic, as you refuse to face facts.

@@bayreuth79 They're YOUR facts, that's the problem. I'm Catholic, not Orthodox, for a reason.

@@bayreuth79 The real fact is, the balance of Romans 5 supports the notion of original sin, as well as the Bible as a whole, even putting aside verse 12.

Copied elsewhere for clarification for fellow Catholics: 1. We assume the condition of mortality out of the initial sin of Adam, 2. We are inclined to evil as a result, and 3. We become distant from God. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that the actual culpa (blame/guilt) from Adam remains in us. The Church does use the term 'original sin', though, to cover all the above points. This misunderstanding also comes from the tendencies of some western theologians to actually try to bend it to that direction. And using the Roman legal terminology of 'guilt' to cover both the reatus (liability) and the culpa, canons of Trent invoking 'the guilt of original sin' do sound as if we made people guilty of committing the sin of Adam. But these are all Thomistic language. And Thomas Aquinas himself clearly makes a demarcation in the term 'original sin'. So no, we don't have the 'guilt' or the 'blame' of the actual deed of Adam. But we inherit that 'liability', that lack of union with God that we call sanctifying grace. No guilty babies.

@@helloman1051 ok I'm just going by what I have read. Why could Jesus not be tempted but Adam could be? They originally had the same flawless nature. Original human nature.

Bill C. I don't know, but maybe because Adam is human while Jesus is God.

@@helloman1051 Jesus WAS tempted in that temptations were thrown at him. However, Jesus never let the temptations penetrate and resonate throughout his heart.

Jesus was temped exteriorly by the devil. We on the other hand are also tempted interiorly by concupiscence

@@salveregina7699 I know you cannot tempt God. But the human nature can be tempted and succumb as Adam did. And Jesus' nature being human, I would think could be tempted. The first Adam did not have concupiscence either. Nor Jesus or Mary.

I get what you're saying. So would you say that the whole Bible has gaps as such?...

The dating mechanisn are based on assumptions .no one knows exactly how carbon reacted in the before a global flood. Most scientist will not even postulate such an event even when the evidence is abundant. The skeletal remains of men who look like large men are in fact those known as nephelism as mentioned in genesis....the scientists who are mostly bias will not dare postulate such a possibility. The fathers of the Church and mystics speak of these falling humans. The scientists mistakenly ascribe them as an evolutionary process. No, they are a product of sexual generational and perverted sexual sin . The big bang has no proof. Which scientists was there to witness it. It's based on a philosophical assumption and not on science. The big bang assumptions has gone through so many adhock theories that it's becoming a joke. They need to invent black matter, dark energy and a host of other ideas to make the big bang fit the actual observations. The origin is an historical account . Science can only do so much.

@@bigbearn1383 Then you remain in the error of Sola Scriptura… to deny that which we can discern through our god-given Reason simply because Genesis says so is Error with a capital E.

The Catholic Church does not take the flood story etc in the literal way that you are assuming. You are mistaking the genre of the Adam and Eve story and the Noah story. The story of Abraham is generally considered the first specifically historical story in the Bible. The Bible is not a science book. It is true and without error on matters of faith and morals. Recent Popes have regarded scientific theories of evolution as compatible with God being the Creator and there having been specific first true humans (Adam and Eve).

The Noah story is just pure fiction. And noone can tell what - and especially how - can be taken literally of the myth of Genesis and who Adam and Eve really was or whom their figures represent. And still the Catholic doctrines (eg. of Original Sin) might formally still be kept - although very blurred... See more about this here: keresztenyszocialis.blogspot.com/2022/07/were-adam-and-eve-cavemen.html?view=magazine It would be useful to mention the notion of "mystery of faith" here, at least. We cannot pretend we know everything exactly and clearly in this field.

Good luck in your search. I don't have any insightful answers. I think there are reasons to believe and modes of credibility. I think I was more upset about this in my own struggles but benefitted from understanding that the texts are meant to convey what God want us to know. After that I have discovered more richness and purpose in the Old Testament. God bless you and good luck.

Hmm. Good prayer, bad homily. You had me at "hardened."

I don't know all answers but I know that God through the Holy Spirit told the Bible writers to put in writing what He told them. I know evolution is not supported by the Bible and if that's so it means the world is not millions or hundreds of thousands of years old and we did not come from animals. It is clear as we see in the world that like produces like and kind produces kind. Cows give rise to cows ,spiders to spiders, sheep to sheep etc. If evolution was real we would have seen some things evolving in our present world. When we read some books that are thousands of years old we see the animals and humans beings were the same then and the same now. Evolution i is not supported by our world and nature, including animals and human beings and they did not all stem off from worms or germs. God made two adult people ,intelligent and smart. They then had children who were born as babies and had to grow. Adam and eve were not created as babies and then grew up. Only God knows why that was so. Hope this has helped in some way.. God bless you :)

Regarding Satan, perhaps this video, "Angelic Knowledge and Choice w/Fr Gregory Pine OP" will help: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-iwJNi-f1NPc.html

@@brucebarber4104 Thank you, have seen it before but rewatched it. Unfortunately it did not answer my question.

You think it's just to punish you for the crimes of your ancestors?

If simply doing bad things is proof of sinful nature, then why isn't doing good things also proof of righteous nature? There are too many problems with this video. This is all of course, made doubly absurd when coupled with the catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception.

@@leonardu6094 Hi. We have to take St. Thomas Aquinas's explanation on evil. For simplicity's sake, we truly do bad things but actually, this is what we're really doing, since evil is just a lack of good (like darkness is but a lack of light, it can't exist by itself), what we're really doing it not doing good as we should (includes sines of omission). We tend to not do good (aka sin or we do evil) coz' we're fallen creatures (technically called concupiscence) inherited from Adam and Eve, sadly, else the world would be a paradise and probably so advances coz' everybody is not procrastinating and everybody's humble and kind, all are fit but thankfully there's still heaven or the Eucharist in mass (technically heaven too without the feel good of glory, coz' you're with actual God sacramentally present in the Blessed Sacrament). :-) God bless, Rev. 21:4