No Adam = no Original Sin - right? (moral, genesis, moral)

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter

I think a literal Adam is important to embrace the 2nd Adam. I believe one of the keys to embrace the truth is understanding the headship of both the 1st Adam and 2nd Adam. Being united to Adam, or the 2nd Adam is the basis of being cursed or blessed by God. Study Romans chapter 5 and let me know if you agree, and why?

I don't understand why I must embrace a literal first adam in order to embrace a literal last adam. If the first adam is a concept that implies certain ideas (such as the headship you speak of), one can claim to be the last adam by embodying those ideas in an appropriate way. I think that's the case with Jesus.

The same holds for the idea of "unity with Adam" or "with Christ." All humans are united to Adam by being dominated by what Paul refers to as "flesh". By faith, some humans are united to (a literal) Christ, and therefore dominated by the (literal) Spirit of God.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Dirty Penguin

So if the story is not literal then what act of sin was committed?

In the bible, Adam (The Man - as he is called), is shown to be a physical person but if the story is just a story then what act of disobedience was committed.....and by who?

Maybe this might help:

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
CCC (emphasis mine)

[Fish-Hunter]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

I don't understand why I must embrace a literal first adam in order to embrace a literal last adam. If the first adam is a concept that implies certain ideas (such as the headship you speak of), one can claim to be the last adam by embodying those ideas in an appropriate way. I think that's the case with Jesus.

The same holds for the idea of "unity with Adam" or "with Christ." All humans are united to Adam by being dominated by what Paul refers to as "flesh". By faith, some humans are united to (a literal) Christ, and therefore dominated by the (literal) Spirit of God.

I did write with "I think". It seems some on this site may jump on the idea of a symbolic Adam and create a symbolic 2nd Adam, do you know what I mean? BTW...I am also edified and encourage by your postings.

[Fish-Hunter]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Maybe this might help:

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
CCC (emphasis mine)

Did you know that offical Roman Catholic teaching embraces and teaches original sin? I embrace the biblical doctrine of original sin.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter

Did you know that offical Roman Catholic teaching embraces and teaches original sin? I embrace the biblical doctrine of original sin.

Ummm.... I quoted the official RCC teaching.

Out of curiosity, how does your "biblical" doctrine differ from that of historical Christian teaching?

[Fish-Hunter]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Ummm.... I quoted the official RCC teaching.

Out of curiosity, how does your "biblical" doctrine differ from that of historical Christian teaching?

LOL...it is the historical Christian teaching. Original sin is much understood through the writings of Saint Augustine who expounded the Scriptures on the topic.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter

LOL...it is the historical Christian teaching. Original sin is much understood through the writings of Saint Augustine who expounded the Scriptures on the topic.

So what was the point of your post? Is there a difference from your concept of offical Roman Catholic teaching and the biblical doctrine of original sin?

and why do you follow the writings of Saint Augustine? What was not sufficient in Scripture?

Some Christian history for ya:
The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

I don't suppose you concur with this piece of Christian history?

[Fish-Hunter]

Originally Posted by Scott1

So what was the point of your post? Is there a difference from your concept of offical Roman Catholic teaching and the biblical doctrine of original sin?

and why do you follow the writings of Saint Augustine? What was not sufficient in Scripture?

Some Christian history for ya:
The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

I don't suppose you concur with this piece of Christian history?

Ah..come on...we all know that Protestant Christians and Roman Catholic Christians love Saint Augustine. We all know in part, therfore no one is infallible in their understanding of all truth...including the Popes...LOL.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter

Ah..come on...we all know that Protestant Christians and Roman Catholic Christians love Saint Augustine. We all know in part, therfore no one is infallible in their understanding of all truth...including the Popes...LOL.

So you don't want to answer my questions?