Original sin - invented or "discovered" by St. Augustine

Why then does Judaism reject the doctrine of Original Sin defined by the Christian Church?

Anything that the rcc teaches, the Jewish people reject. Why? Because after Rome declared Christianity the official religion. Rome tried to coerce the Jewish people into converting over to Christianity. Much atrocious and unspeakable persecution was directed at the Jews all in the name of the rcc and in the name of Christ over many centuries. The persecution of the Jews, has made it more difficult to share the good news with them.

It is a historical fact that can't be swept under the carpet. The ROMAN catholic church, over the centuries, tortured and threatened people with death if they didn't convert. Not just the Jews alone, but other people's as well.

Moving on

Scripture teaches that ALL peoples of every nation, tribe, tongue and kindred have the same opportunity to be acquitted by faith, even though they had not been really seeking God. But those who try so hard to get right with God by keeping his laws, or a set of rituals, never succeed. Why not? Because they are trying to be saved by being good enough, and by by what they do or don't do; instead of by depending on faith in Jesus. They have stumbled over the great stumbling stone. Anyone who puts complete faith and trust in Jesus alone, will never be disappointed.

What does this have to do with Adam and original sin, well in order to for people hearing the gospel for the first time, to understand why they need to be saved, they need to know what sin is, and how they acquired it. Just saying "Jesus died on the cross is meaningless, without talking about what sin is and where it came from. Sin is NOT determined by human measurements of goodness, but on God's standard of holiness. The same with receiving salvation, it is not based on man's abilities, but on God's power

Hebrews 11 : 6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
 
Perhaps you misunderatand what our sin nature is and how we are born with that sin nature.

The Bible verses I quoted cannot be ignored unless you can provide Biblical proof we are not born with a sin nature, as God has declared in His written word. If so please quote those for my benefit.
We don't have a sin nature. We were not created TO SIN, we were created to LOVE GOD and others. We have a weakened human nature since Man fell from grace and lost the preternatural gifts given him by God.
 
We don't have a sin nature. We were not created TO SIN, we were created to LOVE GOD and others. We have a weakened human nature since Man fell from grace and lost the preternatural gifts given him by God.
So no Biblical proof to substantiate your claim...got it. I expect nothing more. That said, you are arguing against Scripture (the verses I quoted). I understand, that as a RC, you don't hold Scripture to the level I do and even ignore it, given you also believe that tradition and ex cathedra statements are equal to Scripture, but still the Bible does not agree with you. I would argue that perhaps you should re-access your loyalty to an institution and not to God's written Word and consequently God Himself.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
 
So no Biblical proof to substantiate your claim...got it. I expect nothing more. That said, you are arguing against Scripture (the verses I quoted). I understand, that as a RC, you don't hold Scripture to the level I do and even ignore it, given you also believe that tradition and ex cathedra statements are equal to Scripture, but still the Bible does not agree with you. I would argue that perhaps you should re-access your loyalty to an institution and not to God's written Word and consequently God Himself.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Anyone can quote verses. Can you apply them?
Tell us, for the third time, what sins do babies do? If they are so evil, what happens if they die? And don't give me the Catholic response (we entrust them to the mercy of God). Give me the protestant response.
 
So no Biblical proof to substantiate your claim...got it. I expect nothing more. That said, you are arguing against Scripture (the verses I quoted). I understand, that as a RC, you don't hold Scripture to the level I do and even ignore it, given you also believe that tradition and ex cathedra statements are equal to Scripture, but still the Bible does not agree with you. I would argue that perhaps you should re-access your loyalty to an institution and not to God's written Word and consequently God Himself.

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
How do you explain why the doctrine was studied on and debated and discussed by the early fathers and theologians for a couple of hundred years before being finally ratified by the Church? Because it seems to me that you are saying that unlike the learned, you are so superior and clever that you just had to read a couple of verses and understood it perfectly?
 
Anyone can quote verses. Can you apply them?
Tell us, for the third time, what sins do babies do? If they are so evil, what happens if they die? And don't give me the Catholic response (we entrust them to the mercy of God). Give me the protestant response.
I already explained that to you pilgrim. Go back and read my responses.
 
How do you explain why the doctrine was studied on and debated and discussed by the early fathers and theologians for a couple of hundred years before being finally ratified by the Church? Because it seems to me that you are saying that unlike the learned, you are so superior and clever that you just had to read a couple of verses and understood it perfectly?
Not so at all. I just choose to believe the Bible and not the philosophical musings of men, as honorable as they were in their endeavors.
 
Not so at all. I just choose to believe the Bible and not the philosophical musings of men, as honorable as they were in their endeavors.
At the very least you are extremely naive about the purpose sound doctrine serves and how they developed. For one thing it defines human dignity and the capacity for radical charity, to understand what it means to be made in the image of God and what it means to be afflicted by the Original Sin. Thomas Aquinas explains to such arguments in Summa Theologica...

The objection is Objection 1. It would seem that original sin is not a habit. For original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states (De Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation. But privation is opposed to habit. Therefore original sin is not a habit.

Aquinas' response is On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Baptism of infants (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 39) that on account of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence though they have not the act. Now aptitude denotes some kind of habit. Therefore original sin is a habit. Summa Theologica
 
aquinas is an esau... believed in Plato and Aristotle and not in God..
his summa was entirely Platonic.
 
At the very least you are extremely naive about the purpose sound doctrine serves and how they developed. For one thing it defines human dignity and the capacity for radical charity, to understand what it means to be made in the image of God and what it means to be afflicted by the Original Sin. Thomas Aquinas explains to such arguments in Summa Theologica...

The objection is Objection 1. It would seem that original sin is not a habit. For original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states (De Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation. But privation is opposed to habit. Therefore original sin is not a habit.

Aquinas' response is On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Baptism of infants (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 39) that on account of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence though they have not the act. Now aptitude denotes some kind of habit. Therefore original sin is a habit. Summa Theologica
Augustine and Aquinas are not Christian in their writings or views.
They are Platonist and Aristotelian. In Aquinas'
case, the summa was written in response to ( as academics do when replying to others in their works) Averroes, an aristotelian islamicist scholar...
it uses greek pagan concerns, the greek type of exegesis, and all the replies within it conform to the platonic
greek pagan theology. As for Augustine, his book De Trinitate and other texts as well conform to Aristotle and Plato.

I do know that Catholic universities are "Augustinian", at least some, as I taught ancient and medieval theology and philosophy at one for years. And what I just wrote is true, whether lay catholics know it or not.

Every single point in Augustine and Aquinas conforms to Platonic pagan theology. Many bishops and former clergy of the catholic church confirm it. Not even a secret!!
 
Last edited:
Augustine and Aquinas are not Christian in their writings or views.
They are Platonist and Aristotelian. In Aquinas'
case, the summa was written in response to ( as academics do when replying to others in their works) Averroes, an aristotelian islamicist scholar...
it uses greek pagan concerns, the greek type of exegesis, and all the replies within it conform to the platonic
greek pagan theology. As for Augustine, his book De Trinitate and other texts as well conform to Aristotle and Plato.

I do know that Catholic universities are "Augustinian", at least some, as I taught ancient and medieval theology and philosophy at one for years. And what I just wrote is true, whether lay catholics know it or not.

Every single point in Augustine and Aquinas conforms to Platonic pagan theology. Many bishops and former clergy of the catholic church confirm it. Not even a secret!!
What source do you reference as teaching a 'correct' definition of Original Sin for the early Church?
 
you can look at Paul who compares the perishable fleshbody (fleshbody is Paul's term)
to our (soon) resurrection body... he compares the fleshbody to death, to the law of sin...
the term original sin is not that helpful... better to just say, after the fall the situation changed,
and there was corruption, even to cosmology...

we can see this in genesis, where God describes features of the reality (fallen cosmology) outside of eden, as Death :
sweat, pain, labor... all features not part of His creation for us as our Home, Eden paradise...

The meaning of the archetypes of the promised land, the resurrection body, shiloh,
all these things refer to His other reality (eden), and NOT to this situation after the fall which is this earth.
 
Last edited:
At the very least you are extremely naive about the purpose sound doctrine serves and how they developed. For one thing it defines human dignity and the capacity for radical charity, to understand what it means to be made in the image of God and what it means to be afflicted by the Original Sin. Thomas Aquinas explains to such arguments in Summa Theologica...

The objection is Objection 1. It would seem that original sin is not a habit. For original sin is the absence of original justice, as Anselm states (De Concep. Virg. ii, iii, xxvi), so that original sin is a privation. But privation is opposed to habit. Therefore original sin is not a habit.

Aquinas' response is On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on the Baptism of infants (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i, 39) that on account of original sin little children have the aptitude of concupiscence though they have not the act. Now aptitude denotes some kind of habit. Therefore original sin is a habit. Summa Theologica
I've been called many things, even told I am cursed by God by a Roman Catholic because I reject Roman Catholicism and the Marian dogmas, but have never been called naive.

As I stated but I will clarify, the Bible trumps the ecf's Rc's love so much to appeal to. Simply put, we are all born in sin

Surely I was sinful at birth, / sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5).

“Even from birth the wicked go astray; / from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies” (Psalm 58:3).


and when you, or any Rc, can provide Scripture to prove your position and the position of your religious institution that disproves what God's written Word is telling us....
 
it is so strange how the other reality overlaps with this one...
but how by default because of adam, here we are in these fleshbodies
and not in the original nature but in the type of nature of this earth...

the fleshbody is the sin situation...such that, even a newborn is in a fleshbody..
even if their natural mind, being undeveloped, has not yet caused
that child to be acting yet on the flesh..
that age of conscience really means 'the depraved mind' took over...
and doesn't have anything good about it..

we must stay in our souls all we can and let that 'mind' stay in the backseat..
exegesis of the greek type or logical arguing relies entirely on the carnal mind to function.

the catholic jeanne guyon (13 April 1648 – 9 June 1717) wrote an excellent book on the topic of dying to the self.
RCC marked jeanne as heretical btw. I'm not saying the book has no mistakes, as it has RCC things, but those you can skip
over and just read about dying to the SELF. Similar to Thomas A Kempis (1380 – 25 July 1471), a monk,
In his book Imitation of Christ... though in his there are more land mines he also writes of dying to the self near
the beginning of the book and interspersed.
 
Last edited:
So... we are all born into the horror of flesh nature, sin, is the gist...something Paul is very aware of and we are told 'not to be of this world'
and therefore in the NT, the law of sin is compared to the Law of the Spirit of Life - one is the flesh and the other is God's reality.
It's been so long since I was catholic, I am old now and left it in my teens, and I really
did not keep up on their view on the OP topic but I will look it up. I am surprised though that anyone would not find
the fall to be a serious problem causing us to be in a sin situation... but I never heard of that as a child
though admittedly, they only did catechism and not anything else in the 60s when I was little..
and that catechism book I am so happy to have skipped and never see again.
 
Last edited:
How do you explain why the doctrine was studied on and debated and discussed by the early fathers and theologians for a couple of hundred years before being finally ratified by the Church? Because it seems to me that you are saying that unlike the learned, you are so superior and clever that you just had to read a couple of verses and understood it perfectly?
the OT fathers were not listening to God.... and the ecfs were listening to plato. just because humans ratified it doesn't mean anything...
there are traditions and then there is obeying God.
 
Back
Top