A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

[AntoineSuarez]

@Christy

Yes, it sounds like a workable model for people who want specific correlations between doctrines and history.

So far, the discussion in this thread has brought about a “workable model” of the flood accounting for correlation between revelation and history.

Before this thread may become closed, it would be nice if we could still work out a similar model regarding the transmission of original sin.

I think this could be done on the basis of the following noteworthy statements by @Christy, @mitchellmckain, @MOls, @Kathryn_Applegate, and @GJDS:

@Christy

“Sin” is a judgment, it’s not an objective quality people possess. It only exists in relation to God’s will and law.

@Christy

I don’t believe everyone will choose Christ even when they are standing in front of him, I think some people will choose their own destruction. I think the choices people make in this life to shape our souls and minds will affect their ability to recognize his lordship.

@Christy

I tend to think of original sin and its effects on humanity in corporate, not individual terms.

@MOls

Since the Fall, all of humanity is now in the same “state” such that no one person can claim to be better than another. […] We are all in the same boat. Thus, by holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, we are setting up the idea of equality between all people. This idea of Original Sin also explains why God’s great sacrifice of Himself, Jesus on the Cross, was necessary for the salvation of all […].

@mitchellmckain

For most the fall is an alteration in the relationship with God and the original sin is an event with negative consequences for all of mankind. It is certainly not a teaching that humans were created with a tendency to commit sin but quite the opposite, that human beings were created to do good and sin is a contamination and corruption of that.

@Kathryn_Applegate’s Essay: Why I Think Adam was a Real Person in History:

“They sensed that God was withholding something from them, and they rejected his right to do so. This was the first sin, the first transgression of the law of God. This first or “original” sin brought death in the form of alienation and eternal separation from God. Brokenness, guilt, shame, isolation, and death—all of these we inherit from Adam as our representative (or as theologians would say, our “federal head”). Adam’s sin became our sin.”

@GJDS

the propensity to err and sin is present in human beings, including children.

@GJDS

all of us need to avoid sin and this is done by avoiding anger, jealousy, envy, murder, etc. Children are innocent until they display and act on these traits.

These statements could be unified to the following explanation:

God desired “the harmonious flourishing of humankind” and endowed A&E (whether “single couple” or “couple of couples” it is not crucial) with special original grace to totally master the inherited evolutionary selfish urges, so that at the very beginning A&E were completely free of sinful propensities (“concupiscence”). “Human beings were created to do good and sin is a contamination and corruption of that.”

After their first sinful choice A&E lost this special original grace, and as a result the inherited evolutionary urges became sinful propensities within their hearts. Nonetheless God in his mercy decided to give A&E opportunity to repent and allowed them to remain on earth (instead of throwing them to hell).

Thus, for the sake of redeeming all sinners, the earth was destined by God to be inhabited by people sharing sinful propensities and in need of redemption, according to Romans 11:32: “For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.” Since the Fall, all of humanity is now in the same “state” such that no one person can claim to be better than another. Thus, by holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, we are setting up the idea of equality between all people. The original sin is an event with negative consequences for all of mankind.

In this sense, the fall/original sin affects everyone coming into existence after the first human sinful choice by A&E, even if he/she is NOT a genealogical descendant of A&E: After the first sin in history, the propensity to err and sin is present in human beings, including children. Nonetheless, children are not guilty of sin as far as they do not consciously choose to act following the sinful propensities (anger, jealousy, envy, hate…). In particular, children dying without baptism are NOT condemned to hell. The original sin has effects on humanity in corporate: The individual is affected by it because he/she is a human being coming into existence after the first human sin, and not because he/she has freely and consciously transgressed God’s law.

All humans are bound by God’s love and mercy into “humankind in the image of God”. One cannot define humanity without reference to God’s mercy; it is God’s mercy which constitutes “humanity in corporate” and makes that all human persons are related to each other. To the end that, for the sake of redemption, God is led in his mercy to deprive of original holiness and justice all human persons coming into existence after the first sin. In this sense any sin would have provoked the “state of original sin”, if it had been the first human sin.

I would like to ask the readers of this thread to appraise this “unified explanation” and specify the points where you may deviate from it. In my opinion this would be quite useful and stimulating for all of us.