This is part two in a series of entries. This entry will cover the doctrine of original sin. This analysis is based in part on the free publication entitled Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth: The Catholic Church and God’s Plan for You.
Guilty of Nothing
Congruent with the concept of baptism as a mechanism of passive sin atonement, is the Catholic concept of original sin. This topic represents yet another wildly misinterpreted and Biblically questionable concept. Even reputable online sources struggle providing a consistent definition.
According to the Catholic definition, original sin is a pre-birth condition whereby a cognitively under-developed individual is guilty for someone else’s sin. While sins are described as “evil works” by Catholic authority, a baby who has done no works and does not comprehend the concept of sin has “original sin”. This means that you can break the law simply by existing, without conscious awareness or conscious intent…which logically speaking makes no sense at all, reflecting Critical Race Theory to a higher degree than anything remotely spiritual in nature.
Are you guilty of lying because you were misinformed? Are you guilty of murder in cases of legitimate self-defense or the defense of others? Is a baby guilty of murder if their mother dies during birth? If you aren’t guilty for activities that have the superficial appearance of sin and don’t meet clear Biblical standards, why would you be guilty for nothing, or more accurately guilty for something someone else committed? In regard to sin, a prevalent Biblical theme emerges that engaging in sin involves some level of knowledge and intent, requiring conscious response to address:
James 4:17- “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
1 John 1:6- “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth.”
James 4:8- “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.”
The verses commonly utilized to justify original sin simply identify the inherited post Eden sin nature we all have, which will eventually lead to free will choices in violation of implicit instruction from our Father in Heaven. Ezekiel 18: 20 clearly dispels any confusion on the matter:
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
According to incredibly clear communication from the Bible, a son is not responsible for his father’s transgressions. Sin is based on choices, and the funds from those transactions are non-transferable. Adam and Eve brought an inherited, sinful predisposition into the world, just as they did pain and physical inflictions, but did not pass down their personal deviations.
Let’s attempt to characterize this dynamic in another light: are young children sexual? They are born with sexual organs, the eventual capacity for sexual lust, and the ability to procreate through intercourse. Despite this capacity, until they reach maturity, sexuality is typically a foreign concept. So, is it not fair to say that humans have an inherent sexual nature despite delayed expression and discernment in the same spirit we can say that humans have an inherent sin nature and God given moral programming despite a delayed expression and discernment? So, is it fair to view the topic of original sin in the same capacity?
What often blurs otherwise distinct spiritual and intellectual lines is the scriptural identification of humanity’s lack of righteousness. We assume that because “no one is righteous” this automatically means we all have sin right out of the gate, but is that how it really works? The definition of righteousness is “the quality of being morally right or justifiable”. Being righteous or unrighteous by definition requires some level of understanding, control, and free will application of internally and externally reinforced moral standards. Is a baby capable of this? How can someone who doesn’t yet understand anything be accountable for a lack of righteousness? Is it possible to have neither righteousness nor unrighteousness simultaneously?
If the concept of original sin is correct, then this subsequently also means that aborted babies or those that die pre-birth potentially don’t go to heaven. How could one ever argue this reflects any level of justice? If holy water washes away sin, and the presence of a free will choice is unnecessary as in the case of infant baptism, then why does the Catholic church not bless every body of water in the world so all sin could be washed away simultaneously? John the Baptist baptized believers in a river after all. How did he only “bless” the part of the river he was using? Why don’t priests bless the water contained inside of an individual which in turn would baptize a preborn human? Why don’t people get repetitiously re-baptized? And why in the world did we need Jesus to die on the cross if water washes away sin? This makes no reasonable sense.
How do we know for sure the “holy water” being used was properly blessed? How do “unrighteous” people, which Biblically would include even the best priests, make water holy? What if the officiating priest is actively engaged in the sexual abuse of a minor? Does this compromise the effectiveness of the holy water or the priest’s ability to perform the ceremony? If a baby is accountable for their parents not baptizing them, are they accountable if the baptism is performed incorrectly?
The other issue is Jesus. If all men inherit original sin, then so did Jesus, which is impossible because He knew no sin even though He had the capacity to sin, which required denying countless temptations far surpassing what most of us regularly succumb to. I wonder how many teachings from the “catechism” are in place to address this blatant discrepancy. From 1 John 3:5:
“And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”
Biblical narratives are extremely consistent: sins are personal choices we are accountable for. Alternatively, the concept of original sin directly contradicts otherwise clear and consistent doctrine. For part three of Dissecting Catholic Theology…click here.
Critical Thinker is a cognitively competent human adult with adequately functioning eyes and ears designated for information consumption, processed through the application of critical analysis, deductive reasoning, and objective observation. Since I define my “gender” identity through a spiritual perspective, my pronouns are “sinner saved by grace” and “child of the king”. I have a degree in Social Work with an emphasis on Psychology from an accredited liberal institution where I succeeded in playing by the rules but failed abandoning logic and reason. I received a “student of the year” faculty nomination for written essays in my “Cultural Diversity” class in which a liberal narrative was exclusively promoted despite a focus on “diversity”, and where I was forced to publicly apologize for someone else’s perception of my skin color in the spirit of kindness, tolerance, and unity.
Leave a Reply