epostle,
You will never be able to prove that. Even the quote you used of Justin Martyr states it as the Church has understood it from the beginning as it being death that has caused us to become sinners.
Sin causes death, not the other way around.
Development IS change. The RCC uses this prinicple of "development" to warrant all the changes they have instituted since they split from the Church in the 11th century. It is the same thing as sola scriptura which is the term Protestants gave to the idea.
I'm sorry I can't fit a treatise on the development of doctrine on a bumper sticker. Obviously you completely reject my brief definition, or you ignored it.
C.S. Lewis, the famous Anglican writer, once wrote:
The very possibility of progress demands that there should be an unchanging element . . . the positive historical statements made by Christianity have the power . . . of receiving, without intrinsic change, the increasing complexity of meaning which increasing knowledge puts into them.
(God in the Dock, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1970, 44-47)
The Catholic Church, in agreement with Lewis, defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine remain unchanged. Only the subjective grasp of men increases. This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church's bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.
Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt. 5:17, 13:31-2, Jn. 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor. 2:9-16, Gal. 4:4, Eph. 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture ("progressive revelation"). Examples: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, etc. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.
In general, whenever Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development. It is only Protestant presuppositions - not always so "biblical" - which preclude development for fear of "excess."
The Canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its Canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.!
Your quotes of Augustine confirm that he switched to the sin of Adam instead of what was always understood as death, the condemnation of death to Adam.
John Calvin is known for his confusion over spiritual death and physical death, or is selective on what he means by "death".
Augustine also includes that rediculous reasoning regarding the ideas that sex transmitts the sin nature or sin, thus Christ not being of a male seed could not have received the sin nature.
So what. It was a theological speculation, not a doctrine of the Church. If you have a beef with the Early Church Fathers, attack their general consensus on anything without looking like a cult follower.
this is precisely where Augustine went astray. He did not know Greek. Rom 5:12 is very clear that it is the condemenation of death that is passed on to all men, not sin.
Then show Augustine's exegesis of Romans 5:12 so that we are not led "astray". BTW, he was teaching in opposition to the Pelagians. That wouldn't be you, would it?
The antecendent of the because clause is the phrase "the condemnation of death. We also know it is death because vs 18 gives the correction or opposite which was life. I Cor 15:12-22 also condenms the Original Sin theory as it is the equation of death and life. Sin or guilt or a sin nature is never stated or even alluded anywhere in scripture.
Gen. 2:17 - the day you eat of that tree, you shall die. Adam and Eve ate of the tree, and they spiritually died. Some Protestant communities ignore or deny the reality of original sin. But if there is no original sin, then we do not need a Savior either. The horrors of our world testify to the reality of original sin.
Gen. 3:14-19 - God's punishment for eating of the tree was cursing satan, increasing women's pain in childbirth, and condemning man to toil and labor for his whole life.
Job 14:1,4 - man that is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? All humans are afflicted with original sin, and this includes babies as well. This is why the Catholic Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years.
Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam's sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism – to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.
Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam.
Rom. 5:14 - death reigned from Adam to Moses, born from Adam's original sin. This is a mystery we do not fully understand, but we must all acknowledge our propensity toward evil and our need of God.
Rom. 5:16 - the judgment following one single trespass brought condemnation for all. This means all have inherited the sin of Adam, and all must be washed clean of this sin in the waters of baptism.
Rom. 5:19 - by one man's disobedience many were made sinners. Original sin is passed on as part of the human condition, and only God in the flesh could atone for our sins by the eternal sacrifice of Himself. Through this sacrifice, God has re-opened the doors to heaven, and through baptism, we are once again made children of God.
1 Cor. 15:21 - for by one man came death. In Adam, all die. In Christ, the new Adam, all now may live.
Eph. 2:1-3 - we were all dead through sin and all lived in the passions of our flesh until Christ came to save us.
You tell me. Read your Council of Trent Canons. They adopted the theory of Original Sin. Why was it necessary to adopt something if it was always what scripture meant?
It is impossible for the Church to adopt or invent doctrines. They come from the deposit of faith and must be clarified, usually to deal with heresies. But never changed in essence. The essence of the doctrine of Original Sin is scriptural, and has already been proven to be taught in Christianity before the Bible came into fruition.
[TABLE="width: 550"]
[TR]
[TD]
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Session V - Celebrated on the seventeenth day of June, 1546 under Pope Paul III[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Decree Concerning Original Sin
footnotes:
1. Heb. 11:6.
2. Eph. 4:14.
3. Gen. 3:1 ff.; Apoc. 12:9; 20:2.
4. Gen. 2:17.
5. Heb. 2:14.
6. Cf. II Synod of Orange (529), c. I. Denzinger, no. 174.
7. See 1 Cor. 15:21 f.; II Synod of Orange, c.2. Ibid., no. 175.
8. Rom. 5:12.
9. See 1 Tim. 2:5.
10. See 1 Cor. 1:30.
11. Acts 4:12.
12. John 1:29.
13. Gal. 3:27.
14. Acts 2:38.
15. Rom. 5:12.
16. C.153, D.IV de cons.
17. John 3:5.
18. Rom. 6:4; C.13, D.IV de cons.
19. Rom. 8:1.
20. Eph. 4:22, 24; Col. 3:9f.
21. Rom. 8:17.
22. See II Tim. 2:5.
23. Rom. 6-8; Col. 3.
24. Cc. 1, 2, Extrav. comm., De reliq. et venerat. sanct., III, 12.
What?? Scripture in the Council of Trent?? Who knew?!?!
The RCC does this. Being born IN sin does not mean that we either are sin, or have sin.
The problem with your theology is that the RCC needed to correct an error. If properly understood, Christ was born of Mary, who was a mortal being. Being mortal is not sin or having sin. Every human being is born sinless, innocent. Thus the early Church does not need to correct it so that the doctrine of the Incarnation, who Jesus really is, namely, in His Humanity a human being of the same essence as we are.
The doctrine of original sin as interpreted by Augustine was affirmed by the Protestant Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. Both Luther and Calvin agreed that humans inherit guilt from the sin of Adam and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.
We accept the Biblical doctrine of the fall, which we now call, Ancestral Sin because the term was hijacked by Augustine when he changed the meaning from the Original.
The term "Ancestral Sin" was hijacked from the Orthodox Church and rendered unrecognizable by post-reformist churches. Thus, it's a straw man argument.
We don't need to trash the IC because there is no necessity to have such a dogma. It is extra-biblical and completely new only some 200 or so years ago. Hardly the revelation that was given to the Apostles.
Another Protestant preconception.
That is a switch. You are claiming that the RCC is actually adopting an idea from Luther that he developed almost 100 years before the RCC. Nice twist, to say the least.
I make no such claim. If I have to re-quote myself to make you stop putting words where there are none, then you are not capable of forum discussion.
Nice RCC rationalization, but if properly understood, all of this IC nonsense is not necessary since all men are born without sin.
Then we don't need a savior.
We don't have a problem with the perpetual Virginity of Mary, but that is totally unrelated to IC.
RCC doesn't have everything incorrect, but over the years since they split form the Church, they have been on a very long slope to oblivion doctrinally and continue to do so. Protestants are a whole different milieu.
The Catholic Church has not separated from anybody, people have separated themselves from the Church - big difference.