the ideal of OS came from Catholicism who got it from a heretic named Augustine who had been a Gnostic and developed the idea of OS from Gnosticism. OS is not in the Bible at all.
I happen to know Augustine and I happen to know the history of infant baptism.
I posted definitions of 'OS' and 'sin nature' below, can we agree on these definitions?
I agree with QotQuesions...which happens to be a reformed site but it doesn't mean they're always wrong.
I DO NOT agree with Ency Brittanica.
This is an incorrect definition of OS as understood by mainline Christianity.
Britannica.com defines original sin as: (my emp)
the condition or state of sin into which each human being is born; also, the origin (i.e., the cause, or source) of this state. Traditionally, the origin has been ascribed to the sin of the first man, Adam, who disobeyed God in eating the forbidden fruit (of knowledge of good and evil) and, in consequence, transmitted his sin and guilt by heredity to his descendants.
Original sin, in Christian doctrine, the condition or state of sin into which each human being is born; also, the origin of that state. Traditionally, the origin has been ascribed to the sin of the first man, Adam, who disobeyed God in eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil.
www.britannica.com
Nowhere ever does the Bible define sin as being "transmitted" from one person to another, nor the "guilt" of sin being transmitted from one person to another. Jews did not believe is the idea of original sin.
And you're correct.
And neither does the Catholic Church believe OS is a PERSONAL SIN.
Here are paragraphs 404 and 405 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
III. ORIGINAL SIN ⇡
The consequences of Adam's sin for humanity ⇡
404
How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" — a state and not an act.
405
Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin — an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
As you can see, the CC does not teach that babies are born with a personal sin.
However, you have correctly identified a problem:
In the 5th century Augustine DID change the reason for infant baptism.
Won't get into why the early church baptized infants...but Augustine changed
OS from meaning THE STAIN OF ADAM'S SIN to....
AN IMPUTED SIN.
This is not biblical, as many of Augustine's teachings were not...
and not even the CC, which you have mentioned, believes that it is.
A Calvinist website defines sin nature as "
that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God."
What is the sin nature? What does it mean that we all have a sin nature?
www.gotquestions.org
Again, nothing in the BIble says man is innately, passively born with a nature that only allows man to rebel against God.
Such an idea is an ataack agianst the good, just righteous nature of God.
Man is born TAINTED.
If you don't believe so, I hope you'll explain WHY man sins...I believe I've already asked this.
It is NOT an attack against God if Adam chose to obey satan instead of God.
It's an attack against Adam's descendants as he was the official rep of the human race.
Infants are born innocent having done no evil or good, (Rom 9:11)
Correct.
They are born innocent and remain so until the age of accountability.
But they are stained with a nature that is no longer in the proper relationship with God as Adam had.
Let's make it clear: If a baby dies...he goes to heaven.
Since infants have done no evil they are not born sinners, not born with any guilt of sin for they have no committed any sin to have guilt of sin nor born with a nature where they can only rebel against God.
Again, this is correct.
As I've stated before...I believe you have a problem with THE SIN NATURE.
I think I stated that even nature is awaiting redemption because when Adam sinned even nature suffered and
Adam became estranged from God, Himself, other humans and nature.
The sin nature affects everything.
Romans 8:19-22
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together * until now.
Rom 7:8-9;
For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.
Paul begins by saying if there were no law then there would be no sin,sin would be dead ....Rom 4:15 "for where no law is, there is no transgression."
Then Paul states he was 'once alive apart from the law" meaning there was a time in his life as an infant he was apart from the law meaning he had no accountability to God's law hence being apart from law sin was dead to him as an infant. But as he intellectually matured and learned God's law (Isa 7:15-16) then sin sprang up in him THEN he died.
points to note:
--Sin was not in him at birth, it was something that sprang up, came alive in later in his life upon learning God's law & then transgressing it.
--Paul said he was once ALIVE spiritually but later DIED spiritually. If OS, sin nature or whatever you care to call it were true, then he would have been born DEAD spiritually and remained that way until he would become a born again Christian. His being ALIVE then DYING refutes not only OS it refutes the idea of OASA, ES, POTS which falsely claims once one is spiritually ALIVE he can NEVER DIE spiritually.
The above will get into a different topic and it would be nice to stick to Original Sin for now.
