Christian Rivera Magtalas
St. Augustine Major Seminary
Theology of GRACE: August 16,2007
ORIGINAL SIN
What is really the meaning of Original Sin? Since I was a child this word was usually being taught in our catechism class. It is not clear to me then and maybe until now because I could not fully reconcile how we inherited Adam’s sin. My heart agrees with the church’s teaching though my mind critically examining it. I am influenced to take this doctrine not because I am obligated for I am a catholic but for the reason that I, being human, experiences the weaknesses “in me”. I am aware that I have the tendency to fall but why I got that inclination from Adam’s fault? Is it because we are ONE? But oneness does not mean commonality in everything. My heart goes with Pelagius in his understanding of freedom but my heart goes also with Augustine because the truth is that we do not possess the absolute freedom and that we need to recognize God’s grace to suffice for our limitations.
My class in Grace challenged me to really research more on the real basis of this principle. I tried to scan different arguments, ideas, and thoughts of various sources. In the Old Testament, the idea of original Sin has no formal concept. In Genesis 3 it shows an introduction (I may say) too what amounts to a series of anecdote intended to show how sin, once admitted into the world, and spreads everywhere, bringing death and destruction in its wake. In the new testament, especially in Paul, we find the substance of a doctrine of Original sin (1 Cor. 15: 21-23). In the latter passage Paul speaks of Original Sin by first drawing a parallel between Adam and Christ. Because of Adam we are sinners without the spirit. Moreover, Paul also explained in his other letters particularly in Romans, that through Christ, who’s active within us, we are sought by God’s saving will and are, therefore, in the state of His redemption. Our choice to ratify the deed of Adam by personal sin or the deed of Christ by faith is antecedent to our human freedom.
Augustine linked the Original sin with concupiscence (i.e, the human person’s spontaneous desire for material or sensual satisfaction.) it is an effect of Original sin. To the extent that concupiscence infects every human act. All our deeds are in some sense sinful. Thus, we need to beg for the grace of God to do what He commands of us. While Thomas Aquinas perceived Original Sin as an “illness” which, though it weakens and injures human nature, does not render human nature ugly or radically perverse.
A further explanation given by the contemporary theologians makes the concept of Original Sin clearer and somewhat consoling for me. The positive statement of contemporary theology comprises the following principles: first, all human beings are offered grace and redemption through Christ. This grace is given to us as the forgiveness of our sins. Secondly, God wills that all should have grace. Thus, if it is not present, this must be because of some guilt freely incurred. Third, the lack of grace is an inner condition of each one of us in that we are all human, but it is also situational. We are born into a “situation” in which, because of the sin of Adam and eve, grace is not at our disposal. Accordingly, we now have to make our decision to choose god over evil. Lastly, we are in Original Sin through Adam and Eve and at the same time are oriented toward Christ and the God of our salvation.
The concept of Original Sin whether vague or clear, has important element that enhances my deeper relationship with God. All the way through, I have accepted that I have weaknesses (which Augustine and other theologians illustrate it as concupiscence, illness, wounded ness and others) and the call for me to always acknowledge the presence of God that I will forever in need and thirsty of His grace. My feeling now and realization is beautifully expressed by St. Paul, “when sin increased, grace abounded all the more”; and Exultet sings, “o happy fault, … which gained for us so great a redeemer!. Amen.
Pelagius and Saint Augustine: Original Sin
The core of the debate between Augustine and Pelagius centered on the Doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to which the will of fallen man is “free” the controversy began when the British Monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s perception of the necessity of grace for a man be able to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.
Pelagius position has a good side too for making human orientation on his/her relationship with God as a responsible actions and choice. Moreover, he became too extreme that he focuses too much on man’s capacity and undermines the grace given by God. He reasoned that if a man were not himself responsible for his good and evil deeds, there was nothing to restrain him from indulgence in sin. From this position we could understand why he categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the fall. He insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good. Moreover Pelagius’ doctrine was criticized by the church because it undermines the work of Christ in salvation. We see that the Pelagians do not in any way acknowledge this dependence on God’s grace when we accomplish an act or the need to ask His help when we cannot carry out what God commands of us. More so, we see though that Pelagius’ doctrine is not in accord with the life and writings of St. Paul.
The Pelagian’s doctrine as called by Rome as heretical was answered by St. Augustine. He stated the three principal errors in the Pelagian heresy as follows: First, they deny original sin; Second, they say “ that the grace of God whereby we are justified is not given freely, but according to our own merit; Lastly, they say “ that in mortal man… there is so great righteousness that even after the washing of generation, until he finishes this life of his, forgiveness of sins is not necessary to him.”
The reply of St. Augustine to the first issue is His understanding on Paul’s letter to the Romans (5:18) and His first letter to the Corinthians (15:22) to say “ Now more shall partake of this life shall be made alive except in Christ, even as all die in Adam. For as more whatever, of all those who belong to the generation according to the will of the flesh, die except in Adam, in whom all sinned…” in this passage it is clear that we have all taken part in Adam’s sin of which death is one of the results. Moreover, this seemingly negative. The second error of Pelagius is even more serious as Augustine claims that it undermines the need for God’s grace. Pelagius claim an absolute autonomy for the will denied the interior influence on free will. Augustine agrees with Pelagius argument that free will is inherent in man’s nature but Augustine sees Pelagius understanding of free will as totally independent from the grace of God. Augustine’s experiences that human actions, thoughts and words are so enslave by sin that only grace can free it. Saint Paul sees that our free will always fight for many good and evil choices. Saint Augustine says, “that by realizing our helplessness in following the law we should be led to Jesus Christ”.
In the third major error, the forgiveness of sins is not necessary which stems from an error in belief that the saints of the Old and New Testament are examples of peoples who attained perfect righteousness. It seemed that this position is too dangerous because people might be led in a wrong orientation “I will not work well anymore, anyway God is merciful and just.” Augustine strongly opposed with this belief as he says, “virtue which is in the righteousness, man is named perfect up to this point, that to its perfection belong both the true knowledge and humble confession of even perfection itself…” His definition of perfection containing a true self-awareness of ones imperfection coupled with a movement formed toward the attainment of “not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by faith of Christ, the righteousness which is God in faith.
ORIGINAL SIN
What is really the meaning of Original Sin? Since I was a child this word was usually being taught in our catechism class. It is not clear to me then and maybe until now because I could not fully reconcile how we inherited Adam’s sin. My heart agrees with the church’s teaching though my mind critically examining it. I am influenced to take this doctrine not because I am obligated for I am a catholic but for the reason that I, being human, experiences the weaknesses “in me”. I am aware that I have the tendency to fall but why I got that inclination from Adam’s fault? Is it because we are ONE? But oneness does not mean commonality in everything. My heart goes with Pelagius in his understanding of freedom but my heart goes also with Augustine because the truth is that we do not possess the absolute freedom and that we need to recognize God’s grace to suffice for our limitations.
My class in Grace challenged me to really research more on the real basis of this principle. I tried to scan different arguments, ideas, and thoughts of various sources. In the Old Testament, the idea of original Sin has no formal concept. In Genesis 3 it shows an introduction (I may say) too what amounts to a series of anecdote intended to show how sin, once admitted into the world, and spreads everywhere, bringing death and destruction in its wake. In the new testament, especially in Paul, we find the substance of a doctrine of Original sin (1 Cor. 15: 21-23). In the latter passage Paul speaks of Original Sin by first drawing a parallel between Adam and Christ. Because of Adam we are sinners without the spirit. Moreover, Paul also explained in his other letters particularly in Romans, that through Christ, who’s active within us, we are sought by God’s saving will and are, therefore, in the state of His redemption. Our choice to ratify the deed of Adam by personal sin or the deed of Christ by faith is antecedent to our human freedom.
Augustine linked the Original sin with concupiscence (i.e, the human person’s spontaneous desire for material or sensual satisfaction.) it is an effect of Original sin. To the extent that concupiscence infects every human act. All our deeds are in some sense sinful. Thus, we need to beg for the grace of God to do what He commands of us. While Thomas Aquinas perceived Original Sin as an “illness” which, though it weakens and injures human nature, does not render human nature ugly or radically perverse.
A further explanation given by the contemporary theologians makes the concept of Original Sin clearer and somewhat consoling for me. The positive statement of contemporary theology comprises the following principles: first, all human beings are offered grace and redemption through Christ. This grace is given to us as the forgiveness of our sins. Secondly, God wills that all should have grace. Thus, if it is not present, this must be because of some guilt freely incurred. Third, the lack of grace is an inner condition of each one of us in that we are all human, but it is also situational. We are born into a “situation” in which, because of the sin of Adam and eve, grace is not at our disposal. Accordingly, we now have to make our decision to choose god over evil. Lastly, we are in Original Sin through Adam and Eve and at the same time are oriented toward Christ and the God of our salvation.
The concept of Original Sin whether vague or clear, has important element that enhances my deeper relationship with God. All the way through, I have accepted that I have weaknesses (which Augustine and other theologians illustrate it as concupiscence, illness, wounded ness and others) and the call for me to always acknowledge the presence of God that I will forever in need and thirsty of His grace. My feeling now and realization is beautifully expressed by St. Paul, “when sin increased, grace abounded all the more”; and Exultet sings, “o happy fault, … which gained for us so great a redeemer!. Amen.
Pelagius and Saint Augustine: Original Sin
The core of the debate between Augustine and Pelagius centered on the Doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the question of the extent to which the will of fallen man is “free” the controversy began when the British Monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s perception of the necessity of grace for a man be able to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.
Pelagius position has a good side too for making human orientation on his/her relationship with God as a responsible actions and choice. Moreover, he became too extreme that he focuses too much on man’s capacity and undermines the grace given by God. He reasoned that if a man were not himself responsible for his good and evil deeds, there was nothing to restrain him from indulgence in sin. From this position we could understand why he categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing Adam’s sin affected Adam alone and that infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the fall. He insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not convertible; it is indestructively good. Moreover Pelagius’ doctrine was criticized by the church because it undermines the work of Christ in salvation. We see that the Pelagians do not in any way acknowledge this dependence on God’s grace when we accomplish an act or the need to ask His help when we cannot carry out what God commands of us. More so, we see though that Pelagius’ doctrine is not in accord with the life and writings of St. Paul.
The Pelagian’s doctrine as called by Rome as heretical was answered by St. Augustine. He stated the three principal errors in the Pelagian heresy as follows: First, they deny original sin; Second, they say “ that the grace of God whereby we are justified is not given freely, but according to our own merit; Lastly, they say “ that in mortal man… there is so great righteousness that even after the washing of generation, until he finishes this life of his, forgiveness of sins is not necessary to him.”
The reply of St. Augustine to the first issue is His understanding on Paul’s letter to the Romans (5:18) and His first letter to the Corinthians (15:22) to say “ Now more shall partake of this life shall be made alive except in Christ, even as all die in Adam. For as more whatever, of all those who belong to the generation according to the will of the flesh, die except in Adam, in whom all sinned…” in this passage it is clear that we have all taken part in Adam’s sin of which death is one of the results. Moreover, this seemingly negative. The second error of Pelagius is even more serious as Augustine claims that it undermines the need for God’s grace. Pelagius claim an absolute autonomy for the will denied the interior influence on free will. Augustine agrees with Pelagius argument that free will is inherent in man’s nature but Augustine sees Pelagius understanding of free will as totally independent from the grace of God. Augustine’s experiences that human actions, thoughts and words are so enslave by sin that only grace can free it. Saint Paul sees that our free will always fight for many good and evil choices. Saint Augustine says, “that by realizing our helplessness in following the law we should be led to Jesus Christ”.
In the third major error, the forgiveness of sins is not necessary which stems from an error in belief that the saints of the Old and New Testament are examples of peoples who attained perfect righteousness. It seemed that this position is too dangerous because people might be led in a wrong orientation “I will not work well anymore, anyway God is merciful and just.” Augustine strongly opposed with this belief as he says, “virtue which is in the righteousness, man is named perfect up to this point, that to its perfection belong both the true knowledge and humble confession of even perfection itself…” His definition of perfection containing a true self-awareness of ones imperfection coupled with a movement formed toward the attainment of “not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by faith of Christ, the righteousness which is God in faith.
