Galatians 5:17 says, *"For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh."* This seems to suggest a deliberate opposition between the two. My question is: Was this opposition between the Spirit and the flesh part of God's original design from the beginning (before the Fall), or did it come about as a result of sin? In other words, did God will for this tension to exist under His authority, or is it a result of rebellion against that authority? I’m looking for answers from perspectives that explain how this dynamic fits into Christian theology — particularly with reference to Scripture and doctrinal traditions.

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “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 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

In Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience resulted in death entering the world. Does Christian doctrine interpret human aging and physical decline as part of the curse resulting from the fall? Or was aging part of the natural human design even before sin? How have theologians historically interpreted this?

Pohle, *God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural* pt. 2, ch. 2, §3, art. 4, 1. claims: >It is a controverted question among theologians whether \[1\] original sin derives solely from Adam or \[2\] from both Adam and Eve as its efficient cause Which theologians held position #1, and which held position #2? Position #1 would seem to imply that Eve never had Original Sin, though she certainly committed an actual sin (of pride) by transgressing God's command. Position #2 would have to explain how Eve inherited or shared in Adam's sin. I'm not asking whether Adam or Eve is more culpable , but whether Adam alone or Adam with Eve is the cause of their children inheriting Original Sin.

St. Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:23 : >And such as we think to be the less honourable (*ignobiliora*) members (ατιμότερα) of the body, about these we put more abundant honour: and those that are our uncomely (*inhonesta*) parts (ασχήμονα) have more abundant comeliness (*honestam*, ευσχημοσύνην). Upon which St. Thomas Aquinas commentates (as reported by Reginaldi de Piperno ): >Some members are called base in holy things, not on account of any baseness of sin, but on account of the disobedience of the genital parts, as a result of original sin. Or because they are directed to a base use, as the members which serve the emission of superfluities. To these a greater modesty is applied, when they are more carefully covered, which the members designed for nobler uses do not require. Hence he adds: Our more presentable parts do not require this, namely, external covering; hence no veil is used to cover the face. Are the genitals honorable or uncomely parts of the human body, according to Church fathers or doctors? It would seem they are one of the most honorable, because they help create new human life, and life is sacred. Genitalia would seem the most ignoble, because, as St. Thomas, they are difficultly subjected to man's will, due to Original Sin.

Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Original Sin is the Catholic doctrine that all human are born sinners due to the inheritance of the sin of Adam. However, Jesus Christ atoned for the sin of mankind. Therefore, one would assume the sin of Adam which Man inherited would be included, and thus children would not need to be baptised in order to be saved as they would be innocent. Why do Catholics believe original sin was not washed away along with other sins?

God is known as very just and he likes to have mercy on people. God doesn't want people to inherit sins of their parents. So why did we inherit this very sin? What is so special about the sin of Adam and Eve? I feel like that it's against justice because we didn't make it. It's also against having mercy because we inherited a sin which leads to death.

I was recently discussing theology and baptism with my Arminian teacher when he mentioned that he doesn't believe in the doctrine of original sin, saying "I don't believe sin is genetic". This actually caught me off guard, as I was unaware that there even was a dispute over the doctrine of original sin. Yet later in the day and in the next following days, I spent a little bit of time looking for the basis of such a doctrine. I wasn't really able to find anything online. So that leads me to my question. What is the biblical basis for the doctrine of original sin? It may be helpful to me if you defined what is meant by original sin, as I may just be confused.

According to Catholic doctors or Fathers of the Church, if Adam hadn't sinned, would we wear clothes? Or are clothes a consequence of Original Sin? St. Thomas Aquinas asks such speculative questions regarding the condition of Adam's offspring had he not sinned (*Summa Theologiæ* I q. 99 , q. 100 , q. 101 ); cf. "If there were no Original Sin, would everyone have been married? ".

Are certain actions considered sins more due to societal norms than actual biblical principles? For instance, imagine it's the 1400s, and a newly discovered psychedelic plant is found. Since it’s just been discovered, I try it and experience hallucinations and a sense of emotional warmth (essentially getting "high"). At the time, no one knows the long-term effects, but by the late 1600s, it’s classified as a drug. Would I now be considered a sinner because, according to 1600s societal standards, the plant is a drug, and drug users are deemed sinful? This would imply that what I had been doing was sinful, even though years earlier it wasn’t viewed as such simply because its effects were unknown. One might argue that if the plant distracts me from God, it’s sinful. But what if, instead, getting high from this plant allowed me to read and visualize scripture with deeper emotional connection and understanding? How would this align with the idea of sin, especially when societal perceptions shift over time?

Benedict Ashley, O.P., *Spiritual Direction in the Dominican Tradition* p. 50 claims: >Naturally speaking, the human species is divided equally into male and female, so that every human can find a partner and form a marriage, and if there had been no fall into sin, naturally all persons would have married. Is this true? Would've everyone married if there were no Original Sin? It seems not, as isn't celibacy equally natural as being married? What did Catholic fathers or doctors of the Church have to say about this?

One big difference between the Eastern and Western churches is the idea of original sin, Instead of "original sin" the Orthodox Church holds to "ancestral sin" which has been described to me as centering around the idea that nothing God makes is inherently evil. The *OrthodoxWiki* article Original sin says that > "In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's 'inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors' and that this is removed through baptism." The first line of the *Wikipedia* page on Pelagianism states > "Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the fall did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection." If we are all created good simply with the ability to sin or even a proclivity to sin but are not corrupted by sin then wouldn't it be possible for someone of their own will to not sin? Is that not simply Pelagianism?

The "quieting of concupiscence" (*remedium concupiscentiae*) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. *Casti Connubii* §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?

The word for 'weakness' (astheneo) of the flesh (Rom.8:3), or the 'infirmity' (astheneo) of the flesh (Rom.6:19) seems to indicate that the inclination to sin is in our fallen flesh nature and not from the concept of 'original sin' A few examples: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is 'weak' (astheneo)" (Matt.26:41). "For what the law could not do in that it was 'weak' (astheneo) through the flesh, God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom.8:3). "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our 'weaknesses' (astheneo), but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning."(Heb.4:15)

Genesis 4:3-4; Leviticus 3:2; Leviticus 16:5; Ezekiel 44:1;Numbers 6:10-11; and Exodus 29:10-14 are some of the many places in the Bible that speak of God requiring animal sacrifices or sacrifices being made to God for expiation of sins or for thanks. If God's plan all along was that Jesus would come as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the sins of all of humanity; why were animal sacrifices required of the people of those "Old Testament" times, but not of our time; yet Jesus was destined to die for the sins of both ("groups")? My question is not restricted to the purpose of animal sacrifice as asked in this post: (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/842/what-was-the-purpose-to-animal-sacrifices) ; but I ask why we no longer have to offer them when they were required of earlier generations despite the fact Jesus would die for their sins as well as our sins.

I have have read the posts related to this question, but they do not tackle this issue from the same angle. For the related questions i have seen, the focus was only on why we inherit Adam's sins. **I flip and ask why we don't inherit Adam's good deeds**? For those that may say we inherited his "sinful nature" or capacity to do evil but not the original sin itself, that doesn't tally well with the Protestant concept that flows from "we (including children), have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". **Personally, I believe children come from God pure and without sin.** **I believe Adam's sins were his own sins (the "original" and any other sins), and I should not be asked about them; because Adam was a human being with his own issues, and I have mine**. To argue otherwise is to contradict Ezekiel 18:19-21 **"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son**. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.."

If Original Sin is Adam's sin, did Eve have Original Sin? If so, then how did she "catch" it from Adam? Or is her (and women's) punishment in Gen. 3:16 only due to her actual sin of pride, and not to her having Original Sin? cf. "Did Original Sin derive solely from Adam or from both Adam and Eve? "

When Luther broke from Catholic traditions and (according to Protestants) returned to early Catholic faith and to the teaching of the gospel in the New Testament, a lot of attention was paid on the main difference, that being justification by faith alone. It is right to identify this as the main split, however a second order split seems to go largely unnoticed, which is a different view of sin altogether. Luther thought Christians sin every day, every hour, or rather, every second with ‘mortal sins’, as opposed to ‘venial’ or minor sins. Note: Catholics differentiate types of sins into multiple categories, something that Luther also rejected entirely. It seems most Protestants have little interest in understanding the Catholic views, so the difference over the concept of sin is unsurprisingly easier to find documented by Catholics. **Even though it is written as an apologetic to the Roman Catholic view, here is a fairly good summary on the different view as described by Catholics.** The basic difference is regarding the desires of our flesh: - **Catholic view:** > From the explanation given, it is plain that the opposition between appetite and reason is natural in man, and that, though it be an imperfection, it is not a corruption of human nature. - **Protestant View:** > Concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam's transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin In other words those basic desires that we face every day, in the form of temptations, or in the form of preventing us from perfectly loving God, are not necessarily sins according to Roman Catholic teaching but are essential sins according to Protestant teaching. This Protestant teaching is considered heresy by official Catholic doctrine. In other words, Luther described himself as being way too sinful than what can be accepted by the leaders of the Catholic church, which Luther rejected as being even more sinful than he. Luther says many places in his writings that ‘all our righteousness are as filthy rags’ and all sin is damnable, otherwise it is not a sin, so that even in our good works we sin. Or simply put: > No one is able to love God from his whole heart, etc., and his > neighbor as himself [Mark 12:30–31]. We therefore say that a man is > justified by faith, not by love. (Luther’s Works Vol 34, Page 309) So, my question is: **Is this view of sin unique to Protestants, or are there some other large groups taking the name Christian that also see themselves as committing damnable sins, every day (or in less shocking language ‘to be imperfect’ due to the ‘remaining sinful desires of the flesh’), that they need not fear damnation from, due to their justification apart from their own works? Or is it only the Protestants who have this radical view of sin?** Note: This is by no means saying Luther says we can sin willingly and claim to have faith, he means in our imperfect state due to the flesh, we do sin perpetually unwillingly as we make a most admirable attempt to resist sin and love God because our flesh is essentially sinful, which Catholics deny. ---------- To provide some detail on the background history overt his split between the Catholic Church and Luther and provide some additional historic references. Some modern protestants may not even be aware of fundamental difference. ---------- It actually stems from the 95 Thesis by Martin Luther that eventually resulted on this point in condemnation from the Council of Trent , Canon XXV > CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins > venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and > consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause > only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto > damnation; let him be anathema. A man named Latomus condemned Luther in response to his thesis and Luther subsequently defended his view. In response to Latomus Luther defended his view that even in good works Christians sin. It goes without saying that sin, according to Luther was always damnable if not covered by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness by faith. > If the works of righteous men are sins, as Thesis 7 of this > disputation states, this is much more the case concerning the works of > those who are not righteous. and > The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are > thus not merits, as though they were sinless. In Eccles. 7[:20], we > read, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and > never sins.” In this connection, however, some people say that the > righteous man indeed sins, but not when he does good. They may be > refuted in the following manner: “If that is what this verse wants to > say, why waste so many words?” or does the Holy Spirit like to indulge > in loquacious and foolish babble? For this meaning would then be > adequately expressed by the following: “There is not a righteous man > on earth who does not sin.” Why does he add “Who does good,” as if > another person were righteous who did evil? For no one except a > righteous man does good. Where, however, he speaks of sins outside the > realm of good works he speaks thus [Prov. 24:16], “The righteous man > falls seven times a day.” Here he does not say, “A righteous man falls > seven times a day when he does good.” This is a comparison. If someone > cuts with a rusty and rough hatchet, even though the worker is a good > craftsman, the hatchet leaves bad, jagged, and ugly gashes. So it is > when God works through us. (Luther’s Works Vol 31, Page 44) and > The first article attacked by Latomus is this: Every good work is > sin. First, he deduces unacceptable consequences from this thesis; > second, he opposes it with contrary [views]; third, he impugns my > premises. In driving this Sennacherib [2 Kings 19:28; cf. Isa. 37:29] > back to his own land, I shall begin with the last point and thus start > by defending my own position. In order to deprive me of that wonderful > verse in Isa. 64[:6] which reads, “We have all become like one who is > unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like filthy rags,” he > interprets it so that neither he nor I can use it. > > Luthers Works 32, Page 161 Or again Luther describing the sinful nature in complete opposition to a view that imagining obtaining sinless perfection, even if it be for a few minutes in one day: > In this alone we are saved, therefore, that having sin and living in > sin we grieve because we have it and cry to God for deliverance, in > accord with John’s saying (1 John 1:8–9): “If we say we have no sin, > we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our > sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us > from all unrighteousness.” In this way, yes, in this way, “The > sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and a > contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise” (Ps. 51:17). “For there > is no man who does not sin,” says Solomon in his prayer (1 Kings > 8:46). And Moses in Ex. 34:7 says: “Before whom no man of himself is > innocent.” And again, Eccl. 7:20 says: “There is not a righteous man > on the earth who does good and never sins.” And again, “Who can say, > ‘I have made my heart clean?’ ” (Prov. 20:9). Therefore: “There is > none righteous. All have turned aside” (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 3:10, 12). Thus > we pray: “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12). And where do these sins > and debts come from? Because no one fulfills the Law except Christ. > For no living man is justified before God, because his heart is always > weak toward the good and prone toward evil. He does not love > righteousness without in some way also loving iniquity. But Christ > “loves righteousness and hates wickedness” (Ps. 45:7). As the apostle > explains later on in chapter 7:25, “With the flesh we serve the law of > sin, but with the spirit the Law of God.” And thus we are partly > righteous, but not wholly so. Thus we have sin and debt. When we pray, > therefore, that our righteousness be made perfect in us and that our > sin be taken away, we are praying at the same time to finish this > life. For in this life this inclination toward evil will never be > perfectly cleansed, just as the Children of Israel, to use a figure of > speech, could not drive out the Jebusites. Hence, immediately after > the petition “Hallowed be Thy name” (which takes place through our > sanctification from sins and evil works) comes the petition “Thy > kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10), as if he were saying that it will not be a > complete sanctification except in Thy kingdom. But this also will not > come except through tribulations. Therefore the words “Thy will be > done” follow, just as Christ prayed in the garden in the time of His > tribulation. (Luther Works 25, page 246)

From a Catholic perspective: Is there a shared culpability between Adam and Eve for original sin, or is only Adam or Eve ultimately responsible? Please, link answers from Catholic sources. (You can comment the question with non Catholic perspective, as it will be interesting, but it's not my main question)