Ladislaus (https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Ladislaus/)Do the Church Fathers address this topic? Did St. Thomas Aquinas?
I actually wonder sometimes what would have happened if Eve had given in but then Adam didn't follow suit. Interesting exercise in speculative theology there. Would God have made Adam another companion? Or, alternatively, would their offspring have Original Sin transmitted through Eve alone had Adam not fallen?
Another interesting aspect of the question is: would Adam have been held accountable for the sin of Eve because he was her head, or was that relationship due to the post-Fall subjection of woman to man?I once heard it said that Adam committed the first sin in falling asleep at the switch so to speak -- in negligently letting the snake get into the Garden in the first place!
I once heard it said that Adam committed the first sin in falling asleep at the switch so to speak -- in negligently letting the snake get into the Garden in the first place!
Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, finds that Jesus Christ, by virtue of his conception, would not be subject to original sin. Aquinas found that original sin passed to men since they were "one body'' with Adam (Summa Theologica IaIIae.81.1; New Advent). But Christ was not part of this body. As Aquinas notes, original sin is only contracted by those "who are descended from him [Adam] through seminal power'' (Ibid. IaIIae81.4; New Advent).
I once heard it said that Adam committed the first sin in falling asleep at the switch so to speak -- in negligently letting the snake get into the Garden in the first place!I see what you're saying but I disagree. St Augustine says that both Adam and Eve committed Original Sin before eating the apple because sin is committed first in the will. He said that their desire for knowledge was a sin against pride first, then they sinned in action as a result of the loss of grace.
From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die. ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
If it was genetically/spiritually passed on wouldn’t that make baptism obsolete? Just asking for clarification!
Water baptism erases the guilt of original sin and regenerates the soul for the other requirements for salvation: Faith and works in Jesus Christ at the age of reason; and, essentially, Faith in, and practice of, what's contained in the Athanasian Creed.I understand what baptism is. I am a baptized Catholic, Quid. I mean if it’s not part of us genetically, what would the purpose of baptism be? You can’t wash away genetics.
I understand what baptism is. I am a baptized Catholic, Quid. I mean if it’s not part of us genetically, what would the purpose of baptism be? You can’t wash away genetics.
You obviously don't understand baptism, for if you did, you wouldn't ask the question in the first place, and then follow it up with another spin.You can wash it away SPIRITUALLY
The question is answered, but you refuse to hear it. The dense cranium of a modern woman.
You can wash it away SPIRITUALLY
But you can’t wash away genetics.
Concupiscence remains as a lingering effect after baptism.I remember that from Religious class. So, I wonder if we have to fight our genetics to stay true to Gods will.
I remember that from Religious class. So, I wonder if we have to fight our genetics to stay true to Gods will.
If original sin is genetic as well as spiritual.
Do the Church Fathers address this topic? Did St. Thomas Aquinas?Growing up I've always been told that if Eve alone sinned, mankind as a whole would not have fallen. Though we are and must be born from a woman, it is the man who transmits Original Sin to his children, not the woman, because the man is responsible for deciding the course the family is to take.
My opinion is expressed below, so notice the use of modal verbs and the hypothetical "if".
If Adam had refused Eve's request to taste of the forbidden fruit, then Adam, as head of the First Family, could have prayerfully led Eve to repentance as acts of repentance and forgiveness are graces from God. Then Adam would have fulfilled his role as Priest, Prophet, and King. When the two met Christ on their daily walks in Eden, then Adam could have begged Christ to forgive Eve, and things could have been restored.
But would that initial rebellious sin of Eve have left a weakness that could have been passed onto their offspring? Would Christ as Savior and Redeemer still need to be born to redeem us?
We must also ask: Why was Christ our eternal King and God known as the Incarnate God? He created the world, and appeared as the Incarnate God in His daily walks in the Garden of Eden even before His Incarnation as a New Born Child.
"O Happy Fault that merited such and so great a Redeemer!"
Even St. David the Psalmist begged forgiveness and was forgiven long before the birth of Christ. Psalm 50 is a product of that repentance.
Growing up I've always been told that if Eve alone sinned, mankind as a whole would not have fallen.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33This is talking about the current reality of things.
Growing up I've always been told that if Eve alone sinned, mankind as a whole would not have fallen.This is talking about the "what if" scenario.
This is talking about the current reality of things.
This is talking about the "what if" scenario.
She's not wrong.
The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.But Cera, Adam was seduced by Eve!
Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.
I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.
The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).
Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.
Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.
Many theologians would disagree with you.
The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.
Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.
I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.
The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).
Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.
Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.
She is wrong because all of mankind (did) still would have fallen. Her fall might have transcended over to Adam, thus making him more susceptible to her corrupting him, subsequently, his eating of the apple.Considering you are on Cathinfo, I presume you to be "Resistance", SSPX, or some flavor of Sede. With this in mind, I would mention that clerics teach the way I mentioned above. A particular Risistance bishop I have heard say it more than once with my own ears. And considering he was SSPX trained and insists he has changed nothing from the way he was taught and formed, we can conclude the SSPX and resulting Resistance clerics hold this position/opinion.
All of nature fell because of Eve.
Many theologians would disagree with you.
Considering you are on Cathinfo, I presume you to be "Resistance", SSPX, or some flavor of Sede. With this in mind, I would mention that clerics teach the way I mentioned above. A particular Risistance bishop I have heard say it more than once with my own ears. And considering he was SSPX trained and insists he has changed nothing from the way he was taught and formed, we can conclude the SSPX and resulting Resistance clerics hold this position/opinion.
I understand what baptism is. I am a baptized Catholic, Quid. I mean if it’s not part of us genetically, what would the purpose of baptism be? You can’t wash away genetics.
It is not genetic.
The fall of mankind is at the feet of Adam. Quid lost his argument blaming Eve on another thread.
Quid incorrectly blamed Eve by quoting the Old Testament.
"From the woman came the beginning of sin, and by her we all die." ~ Ecclesiasticus 25:33
I quoted the New Testament
“For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:21-22).
Quid repeated his Old Testament quote and made an infantile statement.
I quoted proof that the New Testament completes and supercedes the Old Testament.
The Old Testament declares that man was separated from God through sin (Genesis chapter 3), and the New Testament declares that man can now be restored in his relationship to God (Romans chapters 3-6).
Hebrews 8:7, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second." 8:13, "In that He ( God) says, " A new covenant," He has made the fist obsolete.
Quid pretended not to hear the truth that “In Adam all die” and jumped over to this thread.
Both St Thomas and St Augustine (and who knows how many other saints) say that Original Sin is due to ADAM’S sin alone.
Don’t ignore them in your quest to correct women.
Considering you are on Cathinfo, I presume you to be "Resistance", SSPX, or some flavor of Sede.This is not necessarily so. I've been posting here for over 6 years and I am committed to none of the above. The only requirement, as I understand it, is that a poster be Catholic or sincerely enquiring into the Faith.
#soy
Eve was the first sinner because her action met all conditions required for sin. All of nature fell because of her...
If Adam had not sinned, Original Sin would not have been passed on to their offspring because of the sin of Eve. As the Apostles says, “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.”
Quid,
You continue to explain what happened in real life, which is not what we're talking about. We're talking about a "what-if" scenario,...
p.s. If you go around correcting random women you're not being a man,...
If Adam had not sinned, Original Sin would not have been passed on to their offspring because of the sin of Eve. As the Apostles says, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all
Your hypothesis for the "what-if" scenario is wrong, too. You have nothing but conjecture to try to "back up" what you claim. Stop wasting time on "what-if" scenarios. Time is short.It's called "theological speculation", something you have no capacity for.
Time is short.Ha ha. This advice is coming from a supposed-male yenta who spends countless hours on this site (and probably other sites too) arguing with women he doesn't even know.
Yes, theologians engage in speculative theology all the time ... in order to help clarify and illustrate principles.
It's called "theological speculation", something you have no capacity for.
Ha ha. This advice is coming from a supposed-male yenta who spends countless hours on this site (and probably other sites too) arguing with women he doesn't even know.
Hey Quid,
The title of this thread started off with the 2 words "What if...". Maybe if you had better reading comprehension skills, you could've avoided this "waste of time" and leave those of us alone who wish to discuss it.
This OP, and many commenting on this thread, commit Begging The Question fallacy.Adam corrupted his own nature. He could have thrown the apple away, and Talked To God right away. You can’t blame just the woman for a sin you joined in on. Both of them sinned. Both of them damned us to original sin. But Adam didn’t have to go with it.
It ignores the fact that Adam would NOT have sinned, if Eve had not sinned first, weakened his nature and corrupted him to sin.
Your fallacy is Eve remained without stain of sin, despite the fact she was the first person to disobey God and trust Satan.
Adam corrupted his own nature. He could have thrown the apple away, and Talked To God right away. You can’t blame just the woman for a sin you joined in on. Both of them sinned. Both of them damned us to original sin. But Adam didn’t have to go with it.
Adam is guilty of choosing to sin, but Eve sinned first, thereby, corrupting his and all of nature. She further seduced him, directly, by convincing him to eat of the apple. He still had free will and chose to sin against God by disobeying Him and following the example Eve..
Adam gets the blame because he had authority over Eve, for she was created from his rib by God. He was, ultimately, responsible for the fall because he lapsed in leadership, which allowed Eve to be navigated by her own faculties and trust in Satan, but Eve was the first person to meet all conditions required to sin, thus, she was the mechanism for the fall of man and nature.
Yeah, a waste of time when you can be spending it on applying the already revealed truths to man.Who said anything about intrinsic female innocence? Eve sinned and the fall did not occur because she was not the head of the family. When the head of the family sinned, the fall resulted from the person with authority. Therefore "As in Adam all sinned. . ."
Speaking truth is not a waste of time.
Ecclesiasticus is canon. It's truth. Quit speculating on things that don't even matter, but are designed to continue the false notion of some intrinsic female innocence.
and Cera made one of the biggest fallacies I've seen on this forum. She cites two Biblical passages, which have absolutely no relevance to original sin, that show the New fulfilling the Old, then she erroneously proceeds to use that as a parallel to God somehow abrogating the truth (Ecclesiasticus 25:33) of the Old Testament with the New Testament. Truth can't be revoked, because God is Truth, and He doesn't change. He is the same in the New Testament as in the Old Testament.The whole point of my post was that the New Testament completes and fulfills the Old Testament. Did you fail to comprehend the words in the scripture passages?
.
In your attempt to draw attention to the faults of women, you actually do the opposite. In your view Adam becomes less than a man, absolved (colloquially speaking) of responsibility because women are just that powerful and a man just can't do anything to control himself when given suggestions (obviously there's some truth to this, but nowhere near as much as you're contending).
.
I think you have some issues to sort through.
21.
(. . .)
As a consequence, then, of this disobedience of the flesh and this law of sin and death, whoever is born of the flesh has need of spiritual regeneration — not only that he may reach the kingdom of God, but also that he may be freed from the damnation of sin. Hence men are on the one hand born in the flesh liable to sin and death from the first Adam, and on the other hand are born again in baptism associated with the righteousness and eternal life of the second Adam; even as it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus: Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die. Sirach 25:24 Now whether it be said of the woman or of Adam, both statements pertain to the first man; since (as we know) the woman is of the man, and the two are one flesh. Whence also it is written: And they two shall be one flesh; wherefore, the Lord says, they are no more two, but one flesh. Matthew 19:5-6
Chapter 2 [II.]— If Adam Had Not Sinned, He Would Never Have Died.
They who say that Adam was so formed that he would even without any demerit of sin have died, not as the penalty of sin, but from the necessity of his being, endeavour indeed to refer that passage in the law, which says: "On the day you eat thereof you shall surely die," Genesis 2:17 not to the death of the body, but to that death of the soul which takes place in sin. It is the unbelievers who have died this death, to whom the Lord pointed when He said, "Let the dead bury their dead." Now what will be their answer, when we read that God, when reproving and sentencing the first man after his sin, said to him, "Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return?" Genesis 3:19 For it was not in respect of his soul that he was "dust," but clearly by reason of his body, and it was by the death of the self-same body that he was destined to "return to dust." Still, although it was by reason of his body that he was dust, and although he bare about the natural body in which he was created, he would, if he had not sinned, have been changed into a spiritual body, and would have passed into the incorruptible state, which is promised to the faithful and the saints, without the peril of death. 1 Corinthians 15:52-53 And for this issue we not only are conscious in ourselves of having an earnest desire, but we learn it from the apostle's intimation, when he says: "For in this we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven; if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality may be swallowed up of life." 2 Corinthians 5:2-4 Therefore, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon with immortality and incorruption, that "mortality might have been swallowed up of life;" that is, that he might have passed from the natural body into the spiritual body.
Who said anything about intrinsic female innocence? Eve sinned and the fall did not occur because she was not the head of the family. When the head of the family sinned, the fall resulted from the person with authority. Therefore "As in Adam all sinned. . ."
The whole point of my post was that the New Testament completes and fulfills the Old Testament. Did you fail to comprehend the words in the scripture passages?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm
St. Augustine, On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (Book I)
.
In your attempt to draw attention to the faults of women, you actually do the opposite. In your view Adam becomes less than a man, absolved (colloquially speaking) of responsibility because women are just that powerful and a man just can't do anything to control himself when given suggestions (obviously there's some truth to this, but nowhere near as much as you're contending).
.
I think you have some issues to sort through.
#gynecomastia
Is that something you deal with due to steroid use and excessive consumption of sugar?:laugh1:
Is that something you deal with due to steroid use and excessive consumption of sugar?Ive heard soy is a real issue too....... ;) ;) ;)
Is that something you deal with due to steroid use and excessive consumption of sugar?
Does eating white rice also cure diabetes, Croix?