How did Moses write the events which happened ~2000 years before him? Except the book of Genesis, I believe that it is possible to make some plausible possibilities on how the books of the Bible were written. Moses wrote about himself, Joshua recorded his conquest of Canaan, some priests or prophets recorded the stories of Gideon, Samson and Ruth. Samuel recorded the events in his lifetime, historians recorded the chronicles of the kings of Israel, prophets wrote down their visions and messages from God, the apostles recorded the life of Jesus, apostles wrote letters and John wrote down his visions.

Now, I can't make any hypothesis how Moses could write down the stories which were around 2000 years before him. The Creation story where no one was there to witness is the most astounding account. Genesis contains many complicated contents such as the years of the first men, thousands of names, complicated family trees, detail stories of people and such.

How have historians and theologians explained how Moses wrote the Book of Genesis?

Pretty clearly, there has to be a mixture of revelation and tradition in Genesis. There are several time periods written about in Genesis, and these should be examined individually:

Creation

Clearly the only observer to the Creation was the Creator. (Or no-one if you are disinclined to believe in a Creator, but from a Christian perspective, no one other than the Creator is even claimed to be present.)  That said, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Creator spoke to Adam about his Creation process, and that an oral tradition would have developed around it.

Seeing as we exist, and most people are going to ask 'How we came to be' at some point, it is very easy to assume that a narrative tradition would have been passed down at some point. Indeed, pretty much every culture has a narrative myth of some kind - the Egyptians, for example, thought the world was masturbated into existence - passed down from generation to generation.

Thus the fact that there is a Creation story is not unique.  That the world is created ex nihilo is, however, usually attributed uniquely to the Jews. That alone is a sufficiently startling claim to either be passed down or be something revealed. The startling dissimilarity to other local myths leads many scholars to assume something difference happened to the Jews - regardless of the scholar's status of belief.  This culture either composed something unique or was given a special revelation.  Which it is a clearly a matter of faith in either direction.
Antedeluvian Period of Cain & Abel, Enoch, the Flood, and Babel

One could ask how we "know" that William Wallace tried to liberate Scotland against the rule of Edward Longshanks.  The paper records are scant, but the story is strong and compelling - much like the tales of Genesis 1 - 12.  Indeed, many scholars see this as a special case within Bible, and so if any part of Scripture is going to be questioned for its historical value, it is this one.

That said, it is not an impossibility that this faithfully records the witness of the period.  Indeed, the "list of kings" in Genesis 5 bears a striking resemblence to the historical record of the Sumerian kings of antiquity, lending credence to the idea of traditional narrative being passed down. Christians obviously disagree over how to read Scripture as a whole but there is no compelling archeological or extrabiblical evidence in either direction.

Indeed even "dialog" from these Pilgrim and Settler experiences is "documented", in much the same fashion as appears in these stories, showing that tradition can be documented in an "historical" fashion, even if not with the same precision as modern historians can do with modern history.
The Abrahamic Narrative (Genesis 13 - 50)

By the time of Abraham in Genesis, a qualitative difference appears in Genesis.  While 2000 years of history is glossed over in scant detail in the first 12 chapters, the remainder of the book concentrates on just 4 generations of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.  The events here probably may take place around 1800 - 1700 BC, and begin to take a much more detailed perspective.  Here, for example, we know the names of all the children and the wives.  We learn about their rivalries and their rise to power.

The situation, from Moses' perspective, would be much more akin to that of a modern American to say, the Pilgrims and Myles Standish, or the founding of Jamestown and Pocohantas.  As part of the founding mythos of Moshe's culture, it is not all surprising that these events would be part of family history, passed down from generation to generation.  And, if Moses lead his people out of Egypt in 1440BC, it would be surprising the history - especially in an oral culture - had not been passed down.  Here, no revelation would have been necessary, as it would have been as common knowledge as say, George Washington "chopping down a cherry tree".

Thus, in sum, Moshe probably would have relied on a combination of passed on historical narrative and special revelation in order to write about the things that happened before him.  But we do the same things today, so it isn't surprising in the least.

After studying The Book of Jasher, it is obvious to me, that Moses obtained his information from this book. The Book of Jasher is nearly an exact account of what Moses wrote in Genesis, except with more details. The author of the book of Jasher and the time period of which it was originally written is a mystery, but it is validated as authoritative in several references in the Bible: II Samuel 1:18, Joshua 9, and Joshua 10:13.

However, however, Moses' version leaves out important details that helps us understand certain passages that have been confusing for a long time. Check out: http://triumphpro.com/jasher.pdf


What is the Catholic theological basis for the Munificentissimus Deus? If you are looking for direct scriptural proof of this dogma, you will not find any. Mary’s Assumption was not explicitly recorded in Scripture. However, Pope Pius XII formally defined the dogma of the Assumption in his apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus on November 1, 1950: "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory" (source)

My Question:

What is the Catholic theological basis for the Munificentissimus Deus?

If it wasn't recorded in Scripture, and we don't have any archaeological evidence to support it, then what did Pope Pius XII use as a basis?

In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand the possible bases for Catholic a theological belief.
My answer here discusses the role of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture in the Church; and my answer here begins a discussion of the Magisterium of the Church. These three are the grounds on which the Catholic Church can declare something to be a belief to be held by the entire Church.
Briefly, the Church holds Sacred Tradition to be passed down from the apostles, just as the scriptures were:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 83)
The Magisterium is the authority the Church claims, which it holds to be passed down from the apostles, to interpret Scripture and Tradition so as to guide the Church unerringly in her beliefs:

The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."  ... "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 84–85)
One thing I did not discuss in either of the above answers is what is called the sensus fidei, or "sense of the faithful". Under certain conditions, when it appears that all of the Church holds a particular belief, the Church may declare that the belief is a truth to be held as dogma:

All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth."
"The whole body of the faithful... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful,' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."
"By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),... receives... the faith, once for all delivered to the saints.... The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 91–93; the quotes are from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.)
Thus, the Magisterium can be exercised by the People of God in its entirety (under certain conditions), by the entire College of Bishops, and by the Pope. When Pope Pius wrote Munificentissimus Deus, he invoked all three. A few years earlier, he had written a letter to the bishops titled Deiparae Virginis Mariae, in which he reviewed the fact that many people, religious and lay, had asked various Popes over the previous hundred years to make the belief in the Assumption into a matter of dogma. He asked the bishops what they and their dioceses thought:

We earnestly beg you to inform us about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary. More especially We wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith, and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your clergy and people.

Apparently, this was answered with a strong "Yes"; in Munificentissimus Deus the Pope reports:

those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

In other words, because essentially all the bishops and all the faithful agreed that it was the truth, the Pope declared that it must be truth (since the Church as a whole could not err in matters of faith), and should be taught infallibly, as a truth to which all the faithful must adhere.
Some of the support that Pope Pius gives comes from the celebration of the Dormition of Mary from ancient times; for example:

the fact that a holy fast had been ordered from ancient times for the day prior to the feast is made very evident by what our predecessor St. Nicholas I testifies in treating of the principal fasts which "the Holy Roman Church has observed for a long time, and still observes."

(Munificentissimus Deus, paragraph 19; citing the "Responsa Nicolai ad consulta Bulgarorum" ["Response of Nicholas to the actions of the Bulgars"], a letter sent by Pope St. Nicholas I to Boris, king of the Bulgars, in the late 9th century)
He further cites a sermon of St. John Damascene ("In Praise of the Dormition of Mary, the Mother of God [Theotokos] and Ever-Virgin"), which states:

It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions.

After following this up with a discussion of how other saints and theologians have agreed with these ideas, Pope Pius concluded:

Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God's law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way. ...
Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith ... we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived.
For which reason, ...  we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

I've found an explanation, written by a Catholic priest, which can shed some light on the topic of the Assumption of Mary. In summary, these are the main sources he mentions:

The dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Since Mary is, as Scripture says, "full of grace", she's free from sin, and from its effects, too, being death the principal of them.
Tradition, traced back to some Church Fathers like "St. John Damascene, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. Gregory of Tours".

You can find it here.


Why does Jesus have to be fully God and fully man? Is it not sufficient to be the son of God and fully man? This is a follow on from the question
Why does the Messiah have to be God?

Fully Man: I agree that Jesus had to become man, I believe this is VERY well supported in the bible. Hebrews 2:17-18, Hebrews 4:14-15 and much more.

Fully God? I know that Jesus himself claimed deity, (See all the references here: Moody Global Ministries).

Question: What is the Biblical basis for saying that  Jesus must be fully God and fully man? Why does Jesus have to be God himself?

Is it not sufficient that he is the son of God? The son of God can still save, the son of God can still be our intercessor, the son of God can still have fully God attributes (because he is the only son of God), the son of God can still exist from before there was time. So back to the question, WHY does Jesus have to be God?

Your question is whether God could, or perhaps should, have chosen to save us other than by becoming incarnate himself.
To begin with, the Incarnation is an act of grace. From the teaching we have received in the sacred scriptures, we know that the coming of God into the world, in the person of Jesus Christ, was a free and unmerited gift of God's love.

God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. (John 3:16)
God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

There are many more passages I could have quoted. But my point here is that God was in no sense obliged to dwell among us. His sacrifice of himself was freely given, as the ultimate act of love.
The Biblical testimony does show that, in the way it did happen, the joining of human and divine natures in the person of Christ was capable of bringing about our reconciliation with God.

If while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:10-11)

Might this have been possible if Jesus was not fully God - but only a lesser divinity? The letter to the Hebrews, which you cite, says in chapter 1 that the son of God is more than a mere angel; he is "the exact imprint of God's very being" (v3), temporarily made "lower than the angels" (2:9) in order to be the direct link between God and ourselves. He is more than a servant of God, more than an ordinary prophet or priest or king. This is the free gift of God: he did not send the messenger we asked for, but came himself (9:11ff).
It is this teaching that Leo I expressed in his Tome, famously received by the Council of Chalcedon with the acclamation, "This is what we all of us believe. This is the faith of the Apostles." With more than an echo of Philippians 2, he wrote:

The proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person. Lowliness was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength, mortality by eternity. To pay off the debt of our state, invulnerable nature was united to a nature that could suffer; so that in a way that corresponded to the remedies we needed, one and the same mediator between God and humanity the man Christ Jesus, could both on the one hand die and on the other be incapable of death. Thus was true God born in the undiminished and perfect nature of a true man, complete in what is his and complete in what is ours.

The theology of this letter was also influenced by Augustine, who wrote in De Trinitate 13.13:

Those then who say, What, had God no other way by which He might free men from the misery of this mortality, that He should will the only-begotten Son, God co-eternal with Himself, to become man, by putting on a human soul and flesh, and being made mortal to endure death? - these, I say, it is not enough so to refute, as to assert that that mode by which God deigns to free us through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is good and suitable to the dignity of God; but we must show also, not indeed that no other mode was possible to God, to whose power all things are equally subject, but that there neither was nor need have been any other mode more appropriate for curing our misery. For what was so necessary for the building up of our hope, and for the freeing the minds of mortals cast down by the condition of mortality itself, from despair of immortality, than that it should be demonstrated to us at how great a price God rated us, and how greatly He loved us?

In this way, Augustine asserts God's sovereign capacity to find some other means for our salvation, but also the fact that the Incarnation was the best possible means - the one most expressive of God's love. Thomas Aquinas, citing these and other authorities (Summa 3.1.2), finds additional reasons, including the idea that the union of natures is essential to lift us above the dominion of evil spirits and the slavery of sin. This is only an elaboration of the fundamental Biblical doctrine of Christ's sacrifice being the supreme act of love, because of his full divinity. A lesser sacrifice would be a lesser expression of the love and grace of God.

Jesus Christ, the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). OT saints who believed in God were covered by the efficacy of Christ's death from the foundation of the world.  Only but a few had that true faith having not seen Jesus Christ's death on the cross. It was then inevitable for Christ to be revealed to us by His coming to earth (1Peter 1:20). Without the shedding of blood is no remission (Heb. 9:22). And "... it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Heb. 10:4). "For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:26). The Testament of grace would come into effect only through the death of the testator. "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth" (Heb. 9:16-17).


What is the Protestant belief known as "faith alone"? "Faith Alone"?

If you have heard the term "Protestant" before, chances are you have also heard the saying "faith alone." The way Protestants speak of "faith alone" might almost give one the impression that Luther and his band of rebels chanted this mantra all the way out of the Catholic cathedral as they defected from the Mother Church and set off to seek a better way.

So what is the story on this "faith alone" concept? As a Protestant, the first place I go when I have questions is Scripture. ("Sola Scriptura," right?) When I do a query in the NASB Bible on "faith alone" this is the only entry that comes up:

  You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. -James 2:24

That is humorous. (Of course, from what I am told, Luther did not believe that the book of James belonged in the canon of Scripture anyway... but I digress.)

So where did the idea of "faith alone" come from? From what I understand, Luther had translated the following verse into Latin, at which point the Catholic church back-translated it into German, incorrectly rendering the bolded term as "faith alone":

  For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. -Romans 3:28

So the Catholics rendered the Latin as "faith alone apart from works of the Law," and were outraged. However, Luther maintained that the Catholics had mistranslated his Latin, and that the Latin solum ("alone") was necessary in Latin to convey the meaning of the sentence, though they were correct that the extra term was unnecessary in German. So in Luther's mind, the Latin was accurate with solum ("alone"), and the German was accurate without allein ("alone"). All that to say it seems that in Luther's mind "faith alone" was nothing more than a Catholic mistranslation! So how did it become a Protestant mantra?!

To further complicate matters, Romans 3:28 does not contrast faith with works, but with works of the Law; i.e. the Mosaic Law. Yet the modern Protestant mantra seems to contrast faith with any sort of action.

My Question

So, can someone explain the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone" to me? Do I have my facts straight about its origin (a Catholic mistranslation from Latin to German)? If so, how in the world did a Catholic mistranslation (that Luther rejected) become a Protestant mantra?!

Also, is this doctrine really as foundational to Protestantism as people think it is? And what does this doctrine even mean? Is it "faith apart from any action"? Is it "faith apart from the Mosaic Law"? Something else? Would Luther even affirm the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone"?

Related: What is the biblical basis for salvation by faith alone (sola fide)? This question asks how a person would justify this doctrine from Scripture. It's not the same as what I'm asking here, but it is relevant none the less.

Also related: Can someone help me cite Luther's explanation of faith alone to Catholics? This question asks for a particular source to use in an upcoming blog post. Not at all what I'm asking, but related none the less.

The correct understanding of this term is so fundamental in understanding the reformation. It certainly has nothing to do with linguistics or translations. It has everything to do with the doctrine of justification. There are only two sides to the issue. Catholics (and I believe Eastern Orthodox and the Syrian Churches) do not believe in a momentary or instantaneous justification occurring when we are still God's enemies. They believe in justification as something requiring ‘our cooperation’ with grace (code word for works from a Protestant view) until we are finally justified in the final judgment...based on our ‘cooperation’ with grace. Luther and the reformers thought this was all pure and wicked nonsense. They believed in justification that occurs in a moment, while we have no works but only sin. In other words, while a sinner has no merits, no works (all moral goodness are considered the works of the Law as it is the law that requires them) he is justified forever. No merits whatsoever of any kind only a sinful heart forgiven when a person is made justified in an instant. The only condition is faith but not the active kind, rather the passive reception of a gift, excluding justifying faith as a work also. This has often been called 'an alien righteousness' because it is Christ's righteousness imputed to sinners apart from any of their own internal holiness. It is alien to our inner experience.
In simple terms ‘faith apart from works’ means we are justified in 'a moment' while we have no works to consider at all, i.e. justified apart from anything of the sort. Either we are justified over a period of time, where our obedience and personal holiness and sins are taken into the equation, i.e. ‘justified with works in the equation’, or not. Either it is justified by faith only (apart from any works) or justified with works in the mental equation.
Now this has caused confusion because although in terms of protestant justification our works are not a microscopic part of the equation; yet all who are justified of necessity produce good works as a fruit of the 'alien justification' (i.e. external righteousness of Christ imputed to them). Although 'sanctification' includes the discussion of works and 'cooperation with grace', justification excludes them. Our works having nothing to do with justification at all, but they play a big role in our sanctification.  However under the Catholic scheme works are an 'important' part in justification. Actually justification and sanctification are really not much different under the Catholic scheme (i.e. we need continued cooperation with grace in order to be finally justified). Thus Protestants view the Catholic doctrine as works based righteousness hypocritically sprinkled with grace. These two sides should really be clear and do not need any evaluation of Latin or Greek, or German or the invention of different kinds of grace, different kinds of law, etc. Such philosophies only cloud the light of day upon which the Protestant religion was produced. We can’t have it both ways, either our works are considered in 'some sense' in our justification before God, or they are 'not'. One is a classical Protestant view and the other is a Catholic (or Orthodox or Syrian view).
As regards to 'if this is really foundational to Protestantism' the answer is more than anyone probably realizes today.
Just to make it clear that I am accurately representing the reformers on this point I leave a quote from Luther that spells out clearly the difference between those who mix sanctification (i.e. holy love, or works of love) with justification, and those who do not.

The truth of the Gospel is this, that our righteousness comes by faith alone, without the works of the Law. The falsification or corruption of the Gospel is this, that we are justified by faith but not without the works of the Law. The false apostles preached the Gospel, but they did so with this condition attached to it. The scholastics do the same thing in our day. They say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation, but they say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is falsehood and pretense. The true Gospel, however, is this: Works or love are not the ornament or perfection of faith; but faith itself is a gift of God, a work of God in our hearts, which justifies us because it takes hold of Christ as the Savior. Human reason has the Law as its object. It says to itself: “This I have done; this I have not done.” But faith in its proper function has no other object than Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was put to death for the sins of the world. It does not look at its love and say: “What have I done? Where have I sinned? What have I deserved?” But it says: “What has Christ done? What has He deserved?” And here the truth of the Gospel gives you the answer: “He has redeemed you from sin, from the devil, and from eternal death.” Therefore faith acknowledges that in this one Person, Jesus Christ, it has the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Whoever diverts his gaze from this object does not have true faith; he has a phantasy and a vain opinion. He looks away from the promise and at the Law, which terrifies him and drives him to despair.
Therefore what the scholastics have taught about justifying faith “formed by love” is an empty dream. For the faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love. For if faith is to be sure and firm, it must take hold of nothing but Christ alone; and in the agony and terror of conscience it has nothing else to lean on than this pearl of great value (Matt. 13:45–46). Therefore whoever takes hold of Christ by faith, no matter how terrified by the Law and oppressed by the burden of his sins he may be, has the right to boast that he is righteous (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4.(Vol. 26, pp. 88–89).

Furthermore it should be clear that the reformers, when speaking about 'works of the law' meant moral goodness primarily and not the so called Mosaic legislation (i.e. ceremonies and civil laws). For example, speaking against Thomas who is arguable the emblem of modern Catholic dogma on the subject:

When Thomas and other scholastics speak about the abrogation of the Law, they say that after Christ the civil and ceremonial laws are fatal, and that therefore they have now been abrogated, but not the moral laws. These men do not know what they are saying. When you want to speak about the abrogation of the Law, discuss chiefly the Law in the proper sense of the word—the Law in the spiritual sense. Include the entire Law, without distinguishing between the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral. For when Paul says that through Christ we have been set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 3:13), he is certainly speaking about the entire Law, and especially about the Moral Law. (Luther’s works, vol. 26: Lectures on Galatians, 1535, Chapters 1-4. (Vol. 26, pp. 446–447)).

The Protestant belief is known as "faith alone" ( commonly known as "Sola Fide").

It should be noted that not all Protestants believe in faith alone but all who believe in faith alone are Protestants since they are against the teaching of Roman Catholic Soteriology of faith + works = salvation.

These Protestants are commonly known as Evangelicals/ Born Again Christians.

There are two facts to consider in order to understand the view of Evangelical/ Born Again Christians:

FACT # 1

saved by grace through faith alone NOT of works ( Ephesians 2:8-9)

justified by faith alone APART from works ( Romans 8:28)

FACT # 2

NOT saved & justified by faith alone ( James 2:14,24)

Obviously, there are two sorts of "faith alone" in the Holy Scriptures:

1) Faith alone that saves & justifies.

Notice that the focus is on salvation out from the WRATH of God:

Romans 5:9 + 3:28 saved from the wrath by the blood of Jesus

Ephesians 2:3 &14 + 2:8-9 children of wrath = brought near to God by the blood of Jesus

Also, notice that the focus is on the WORKS OF THE LAW:

  It is impossible to obey all the Law:
  For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, IT CANNOT (Romans 8:7).

  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in ONE point, he has become guilty OF ALL (James 2:10).

This Law includes the 10 commandments:

  who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, NOT of the letter BUT of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of DEATH, CARVED IN LETTERS ON STONE, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end (2 Corinthians 3:6-7).

Question: What is the Law, then?

Answer: Paul himself asked and answered this question.

  Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now BEFORE FAITH CAME, WE WERE HELD CAPTIVE UNDER THE LAW, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed So then, THE LAW WAS OUR GUARDIAN until Christ came, [ why?] IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH. But now that faith has come, we are NO LONGER under a guardian (Galatians 3:19-25).

2) Faith alone does not save and justify.

Notice that the focus is on SHOWING real faith and COMPLETING of it BY WORKS:

  James 2:18 I will SHOW you my faith by my works.

  James 2:22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was COMPLETED.

How is faith completed? Is faith alone lacking?

Faith is completed by works because if it lacks works then it is the same as " a body without a spirit", that is, dead or useless.

  "Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is DEAD" ( James 2:26)

  "But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is USELESS?" ( James 2:20)

Also, notice that the focus is on the WORKS FROM LOVE:

  What good is it, my brothers, if someone "SAYS" he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ( James 2:14).

  If a BROTHER OR SISTER ( Brethren) is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you “SAYS” to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? ( James 2:15).

John agrees with James for is expressing the same thing in his epistle:

  By this we know LOVE, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does GOD'S LOVE abide in him? Little children, LET US "NOT" LOVE IN "WORD" OR "TALK" BUT IN DEED AND IN TRUTH ( 1 John 3:16-18).

Paul also agrees with James and John:

  In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but FAITH WORKING THROUGH CHARITY ( Galatians 5:6).

Yes. It is not from the Law but from faith working through charity (or love):

  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; AGAINST SUCH THINGS THERE IS NO LAW Galatians 5:22-23).

Conclusion:

Romans 3:28 declared holy (to God) by faith apart from works [ of the Law] i.e. faith alone.

James 2:28 declared holy ( to brethren) by works [ from faith - specifically the faith that is "apart from works" in Romans 3:28].

Notes

To justify means to declare a person as holy.

Greek word: δικαιόω

CONCLUSION:

The belief of Protestants ( Evangelicals / Born Again Christians) known as "faith alone" encompasses both the receiving of salvation (faith alone) and evidence of salvation( not by faith alone but also, of love and hope).


Why do most Christians eat pork when Deuteronomy says not to? I am a Muslim. Pork is prohibited in my religion. I also think that it is prohibited in Christianity because of Deuteronomy chapter 14 verse 8. But why do most Christians eat pork? Is it a contradiction?

The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses. - Deuteronomy 14:8

Why do most Christians eat pork?
Initially, the prohibition against pork was part of the Law giving to Moses as Deuteronomy 14:7, 8 states.

However, you must not eat the following animals that chew the cud or that have split hooves: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not have split hooves. They are unclean for you. 8 Also the pig because it has a split hoof but does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you. You must not eat their flesh or touch their carcasses. (NWT)

Interestingly though when here on earth, Jesus was confronted with a situation that dealt with uncleanness in Mark 7:1-8. Jesus later was explaining to his disciples the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of the time. In his explanation, Jesus made a very interesting statement:

So he said to them: “Are you also without understanding like them? Are you not aware that nothing from outside that enters into a man can defile him, 19 since it enters, not into his heart, but into his stomach, and it passes out into the sewer?” Thus he declared all foods clean.-Mark 7:18, 19 (NWT)[italics mine]

In a vision, the apostle Peter saw a large linen sheet with unclean animals. (Acts 10:9-16) In this vision, a voice spoke to him saying:

“Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”-Acts 10:15 (NWT)

While this vision was to indicate the acceptance of Gentiles (non-Jews) into the congregation of God, this also corroborates Jesus's statement at Mark 7:19.
Later, the apostle Paul addressed the issue of some of those within the Christian congregation having a problem with Gentiles eating foods that were purchased in the local markets. Some of these foods were sometimes 'leftovers' of sacrifices made to false gods or idols. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul talks about the need to not judge our fellow man about what they eat. Paul also counsels Christians to not stumble or cause problems for fellow Christians by doing things that would make them question their faith.
Ultimately, Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. The apostle put it plainly:

“The Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.”-Galatians 3:24, 25 (NWT)

I think it's because of an incorrect interpretation of Acts 10:9-16.
These denominations believe it's talking about eating unclean meat.
13 And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”
14 But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.”
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” 16
In fact, this passage clearly proves Peter long after the Jesus crucifixion, did not eat unclean meat as outlined in the laws of Moses. The real meaning to this vision is not about clean or unclean meat laws upheld by early Christians. Its (the vision) true meaning is found just a few verses later...(note in particular vs 28).
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” 27 And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. 28 Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.


What is the minimum amount of action required to get in to heaven? I've had this discussion with a number of my Christian friends, and have never managed to get a definitive answer. There may not be just one, but I'd like some scriptural backings for each opinion, please. (This is my first question on here, and apologies if it's a bit too broad a topic without a definitive answer. I really hope there is one.)

Some friends say that you need to be attending church regularly, praying, repenting, and being seen to "make an effort" to practice the Christian teachings every day, in every decision, etc.

Whereas others say that all you need to do is accept Christ as your saviour, and believe that the way to heaven is through him, whether or not you choose to then live your life in a "Christian manner" after that.

Are the former being too strict on themselves?
Are the latter looking for an "easy way out" in allowing them to lead a life of sin?

The basic issue is this:

If you don't share the nature of God, going to heaven will be impossible.  But just imagine that it was, and you went to heaven without sharing God's nature, then it would actually be torture: God revealed to you in all His power, Glory and Holiness would be an unbearable terror - seeing eternal realities with clarity would necessitate the greatest of apprehension as you would know that your existence is anti-thetical to the most powerful being in existence whose merest breath could shred you to sub-atomic particles - you would not experience joy in any measure, only the most fearful apprehension possible.

You might say: "But, but... isn't God loving and merciful??"
Yes he is, but He is also Holy - so Holy that anything of sin cannot withstand his presence.

So the minimum action required is that you become a partaker of the divine nature.  Perhaps if your friends are kind enough to share the gospel with you again, you will realize how it important it is that you listen carefully.

If you don't want to wait that long, perhaps you could avail yourself of resources like this: http://peacewithgod.jesus.net/

  Are the former being too strict on themselves? Are the latter looking for an "easy way out" in allowing them to lead a life of sin?

Without knowing specifics, it would not pay to be dogmatic, but in regard to the former - probably not, and the latter - almost certainly.

What is the minimum amount of action required to get in to heaven? Follow the Ten Commandments.

This is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, that as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it. (2 Jo 1:6 NKJV)

Some friends say that you need to be attending church regularly, praying, repenting, and being seen to "make an effort" to practice the Christian teachings every day, in every decision, etc.

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. (Matthew 6:1 NKJV)
But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. (Matthew 23:5 NKJV)

Whereas others say that all you need to do is accept Christ as your saviour, and believe that the way to heaven is through him, whether or not you choose to then live your life in a "Christian manner" after that. This is a true saying but is not understood. So here it is:
God is breath(John 4:24), and we are his temple. The son of the breath is the word. The breath blew across the waters, and the breath expanded the universe. The breath by itself judges nothing, for authority has been given to the word. Yet their are two types of breath. The breath of truth and the breath of error (1 John 4:6). And the deciding factor is whether ort not a person can hear what the word is saying.
Now each person has their own sea of information. And from that sea comes knowledge and wisdom also many other things. Now if one is truly loving you then they will be immersed into your sea, or baptized into your water, or last, or born again, or have sold all their thoughts and are listening to the beggar. But once you start listening to their sea, no other thing in creation is allowed to be as important as the word that is being sown, for otherwise your mind becomes on the thorny ground, or the stony ground, or the wayside. Only the mind on the good ground can hear what is being said. And can hear the fullness of the waters. "But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”" (Luke 9:62 NKJV)
Once you start to harvest the truth from the one that is next to you, nothing I mean nothing can be more important the word "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26 NKJV). So I say to you Only if you learn to listen will you be saved "so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.’”" (Mark 4:12 NKJV)
For many are guilty of failing in the first commandment. Learn the lesson from the rich man. He came to Jesus and asked what do I need to do for ever lasting life? The response from Jesus "You know the commandments". But what do the people fail at understanding? The first three! Continuously the people loved the things of the world and worshiped the things instead of the word. You must drink from no other sea besides me! Why? Because I am Jealous and will take it out on your whole family! Yet to those that love me I will show mercy to thousands.
Many desire to be the teacher and be the fountain of knowledge, yet his followers have been called to listen and this is why. "And he who reaps receives wages, and gathers fruit for eternal life, that both he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together." (John 4:36 NKJV). I want this to be clear to you. The one who listens receives the wages of life! "but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”" (John 4:14).
Prayers will not be answered if you do not understand faith. It is not a faith that since Jesus died you are saved! He did die. True. You can now be saved because he died. True. Because he taught us how to die. Trust that God will fulfill the Opposite Equal Reaction. The Centurion he had faith and his story has nothing to do with the death of Jesus. No he believed the word. For the Word made all things, why do you think that if the word made all things and you also have the words in you, that now the word can not make things?
If you want to see the word move a cup on the kitchen table, when the need comes say "that cup needs put in the sink" and it will move. Another person will come and pick up the cup and will put it into the sink for you, all by the power of the word. It works, God works many miracles through me.
Are the former being too strict on themselves?

These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. (Colossians 2:23 NKJV)

Are the latter looking for an "easy way out" in allowing them to lead a life of sin? Yes.

Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. (1 John 3:9 NKJV)
Therefore, since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind, for he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin (1 Peter 4:1 NKJV)
Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. (Matthew 26:41 NKJV)

When you are asking the questions your life is hidden.

For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. (Colossians 3:3 NKJV)

See why their is no more sin? "His seed remains in him" He hears the words.


How do those who reject both predestination and purgatory justify their beliefs? For the sake of this question:

Predestination = from the foundations of the universe, God chose who will be saved.

Purgatory = a place where people suffer / are purified, and afterwards, they go to heaven.

Now, the difference between heaven and hell is quite large (positive infinity and negative infinity). In the predestination case, the gap between those that go to heaven and those who go to hell is justified as follows: God chose to save some, and Jesus's blood was paid for their debt. In this case, salvation is a binary choice by God.

In the purgatory case, everything looks more continuous: the gap also makes sense in that: depending on how "sinful" one was, one spends less or more time in purgatory.

Now, what I don't understand about the Armenian case is as follows:

*) there lacks a binary choice by God (since there was no predestination)

*) yet, the suffering/punishment after death is not continuous -- there's no purgatory

Thus it seems very weird that on a continuous scale of human sinfulness, in the absence of a binary choice by God, the gain/loss after death is so different.

Note

Suggestions / clarifications to this question welcome.

There is still a binary choice, but it's not God who makes the decision. He leaves it to each of us to choose for ourselves one way or the other, and gives us our whole lifetime to make that decision. God could make the decision for us — He has that power — and He knows in advance — if concepts like "in advance" even have any meaning for a being that exists outside of time — what choice each of us will make. After all, He made us. What He desires is for each of us to choose Him of our own will. It is not interesting to Him if the choice is forced upon us.

There is an interesting philosophical question here of whether there is really any difference at all between determining an outcome and merely knowing an outcome with absolute certainty, when those outcomes are produced by a system that one designed, set in motion, and directs for oneself, as God does with us and our environment. God gives us something akin to free will, but is it really free will as we know it if He made each of us in the first place, knows what our choices will be in any situation, and has absolute power over all situations? This is especially interesting when you look at psychology studies that show how human behavior is much more about programmed responses and brain chemicals than any of us want to acknowledge.

For this reason, I don't really find the question of predestination vs free choice very interesting... I tend to think of it as two sides of the same coin. Do we have free choice? Yes! You can say we do. Are we predestined? You can say that as well, and not be entirely wrong about it. This question has historically caused a huge split in Christiandom, but I ultimately see it as more about philosophy than theology. Your answer has implications for how your view soteriology, but either way you still look to Jesus. Does it really matter how you view soteriology as long as you're looking at the right source? I think also that Jesus would find the question uninteresting... at least in a relative sense. He is far more concerned that look at Him as Lord, and with how you treat your fellow man.

Predestination

In John 4.34, Jesus said before He was crucified:

  My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)

What is precisely the will of Him Who sent Jesus to live among us? The answer is in John 6:38-40:

  I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me that I should not lose anything that he has given me, but should raise it to life on the last day. This is my Father’s will: That everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day.

In verse 44, we read how the Father chooses those He will give the Son – via His sovereignty in salvation:

  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him to life on the last day.

In John 17:1–2, we read that the Father gave the authority to the Son to judge all those the Father gave the Son:

  After Jesus had said this, he looked up to heaven and said, Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you. For you have given him authority over all humanity so that he might give eternal life to all those you gave him.

The phrase “the hour has come” in the first verse above is a reminder of Jesus’ acceptance of the will of the Father for the Him to be crucified for our sins so that we may have eternal life. Jesus had the option to reject the will of the Father, for it is a dispositional or preferred will of the Father.

The above verses reveal a two-step process that leads to eternal life via the Father’s will for His Son. Firstly, the Father exercises His sovereignty to choose those He wants to have eternal life through His Son, and secondly, it is through the free will of those chosen to believe in His Son to have eternal life. So both God’s sovereignty in salvation and the free will of an individual determine whether the person will achieve eternal life.

Purgatory

There is a famous story in the Bible that clearly indicates that purgatory is not necessary for salvation. On Mount Calvary, one of the two thieves - sinners till the end of their lives - cried out to Jesus:

  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23: 42 – 43)

The Greek for “today” is σήμερον, sémeron, which according to Strong’s Concordance, also means “now”. Jesus answering in the affirmative implies He had had His Father’s confirmation of salvation for both of them at that instant, whilst they were still alive.

It is our complete faith in Christ that saves us, as per the exhortations of Paul the Apostle (Romans 10:8–10, New KJV):

  But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:8–10)


In Catholic teaching, what specific actual sinful act did Adam and Eve commit, and what level of authority can be applied to this teaching? What I am asking

What does Roman Catholic theology hold to be the nature of the original sin?  If we consider the Tree of Knowledge, its fruit, and Adam and Eve partaking of it as all being metaphors, what is the meaning behind the metaphor?  What exactly did Adam and Eve do that ran counter to God's command not to "eat of the Tree"?

To clarify, I am not seeking to identify the Original Sin in terms of the Seven Deadly Sins; Catholic dogma tells us that the sin was Pride.  What I'm trying to do is identify the specific prideful thought or action that Adam and Eve committed which was sinful.

This question is being asked primarily to form the basis of another question I have posted.

What I am looking for

The ideal answer will contain citation of specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding original sin, including:

The degree of binding authority conferred by the Magisterium upon the teachings (i.e. solemn or ordinary, universal or non-universal).
How the teachings were added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition).
Teachings derived from Sacred Scripture should also furnish quotation of the applicable verse(s) from a Catholic English Bible (i.e. an English-language translation of the Bible containing only the 73 canonical books and having the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop).
Teachings derived from Sacred Tradition should furnish quotations from the applicable conciliar canons or decrees, as well as links to the sources of their full texts.

What I am not looking for

Discussion, analysis, or answers from non-Catholic perspectives.

The doctrines of Original Sin are of the highest level, de fide or "of faith."(cf. this table of theological notes, the proximity of truths to Divine Revelation)

The following comes from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Denzinger numbers (e.g., D 788) are references to his Sources of [Catholic] Dogma, a collection of Catholic dogma from Councils and Popes' ex cathedra dogmatic definitions. For example, D 788 is a reference to the Decree on Original Sin from the Council of Trent's Session V (June 17, 1546).

  III. Man’s Lapse from the Supernatural Order

  § 20. The Personal Sin of Our First Parents or Original Sin

  1. The Act of Sin

  Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression
  of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)

  The Council of Trent teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice by
  transgressing the Divine commandment (D 788). Since the punishment is
  proportionate to the guilt, the sin of Adam was clearly a serious sin.

  The biblical account of the fall through the sin of the First Parents
  is contained in Gn. 2:17 and 3:1 et seq. Since Adam’s sin is the basis
  of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption the historical accuracy of
  the account as regards the essential facts may not be impugned.
  According to a decision of the Bible Commission in 1909, the literal
  historical sense is not to be doubted in regard to the following
  facts: a) That the first man received a command from God to test his
  obedience; b) That through the temptation of the devil who took the
  form of a serpent he transgressed the Divine commandment; c) That our
  First Parents were deprived of their original condition of innocence.
  D 2123.

  The later Books of Holy Writ confirm this literal, historical
  interpretation. Ecclus. 25:33: “From the woman came the beginning of
  sin, and by her we all die.” Wis. 2:24: “But by the envy of the devil
  death came into the world.” 2 Cor. 11:3: “But I fear lest, as the
  serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted
  and fall away from the simplicity which is Christ.” Cf. 1 Tim. 2:14;
  Rom. 5:12, et seq; John 8:44. The mythological explanation, and the
  purely allegorical explanation (of the Alexandrines) are therefore to
  be rejected.

  The sin of our First Parents was a sin of disobedience. Cf. Rom. 5:19:
  “By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” The root of
  the disobedience was pride. Tob. 4:14: “From it (pride) all perdition
  took its beginning.” Ecclus. 10:15: “Pride is the beginning of all
  sin.” The theory that Original Sin was a sexual sin (St. Clement of
  Alexandria, St. Ambrose) cannot be accepted. The gravity of the sin is
  clear when we regard its purpose and the circumstances of the Divine
  commandment. St. Augustine regards Adam’s sin as an “inexpressibly
  great sin” (ineffabiliter grande peccatum: Op. Imperf. c. Jul. I 105).

  2. The Consequences of Sin

  a) Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked
  the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)

  In Holy Writ the loss of Sanctifying Grace is indicated in the
  exclusion of Our First Parents from intercourse with God. (Gn. 3:10,
  23). God appears as a judge and announces the sentence of punishment
  (Gn. 3:16 et seq.).

  God’s displeasure finally takes effect in the eternal rejection.
  Tatian believed that Adam lost eternal salvation but St. Irenaeus
  (Adv. haer. III 23, 8), Tertullian (De poenit. 12) and St. Hippolytus
  (Philos. 8, 16) rejected this view. In later times, the Fathers
  generally, supported by Wis. 10:2: (“She [Wisdom] brought him out of
  his sin”), teach that Our First Parents did atonement and “through the
  Blood of the Lord” were saved from eternal destruction (cf. St.
  Augustine, De peccat. mer. et rem. II 34, 55).

  b) Our First Parents became subject to death and to the dominion of
  the Devil. (De fide.) D 788.

  Death and the evils associated with it follow from the loss of the
  gifts of integrity. According to Gn. 3:16 et seq., God imposed
  suffering and death as a punishment for sin. The dominion of the devil
  is mentioned in Gn. 3:15 and is explicitly taught in John 12:31;
  14:30; 2 Cor. 4:4; Hebr. 2:14; 2 Peter 2:19.

  § 21. The Existence of Original Sin

  1. The Heretical Counter-propositions

  The doctrine of Original Sin was rejected by the Gnostics and
  Manichaeans, who believed that the moral corruption of humanity comes
  from an eternal principle of evil and also by the Origenists and
  Priscillianists, who explained humanity’s inclination to evil by a
  pre-corporeal fall through sin.

  Original sin was directly denied by the Pelagians, who taught: a) The
  sin of Adam is transmitted to posterity not by inheritance but through
  imitation of a bad example (imitatione, non propagatione). b) Death,
  suffering and concupiscence are not punishment for sin, but a natural
  condition of man who was created in a pure state of nature. c) The
  baptism of children is administered, not for the remission of sins,
  but as a sign of acceptance by the Church, and to enable men to reach
  the Kingdom of Heaven, which is distinct from vita aeterna (a higher
  stage of blessedness).

  The Pelagian error was combated chiefly by St. Augustine and was
  condemned by the Church at the Synods of Mileve 416, Carthage 418,
  Orange 529 and in later times by the Council of Trent (1546) D 102,
  174 et seq., 787 et seq.

  The Pelagian error lives on in modern rationalism (Socianism,
  Rationalism of the age of the Enlightenment, Liberal Protestant
  Theology, modern unbelief).

  In medieval times the Synod of Sens (1141) rejected the following
  thesis of Peter Abelard: Quod non contraximus culpam ex Adam, sed
  poenam tantum D 376.

  The Reformers, the Baians, and the Jansenists admitted the reality of
  original sin, but misunderstood its essence and its operation, since
  they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts
  completely human nature. Cf. St. Augustine Conf. Art. 2.

  2. Teaching of the Church

  Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by
  descent. (De fide.)

  The dogmatic teaching on original sin is laid down in the Tridentine
  Decree “Super peccato originali” (Sess. V; 1546), which in part
  follows word for word the decisions of the Synods of Carthage and of
  Orange. The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam’s loss of
  the sanctity and justice received from God was merely for himself
  alone, and not for us also, and that he transmitted to his posterity
  death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively
  teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by all
  his posterity by descent, not by imitation, and that it dwells in
  every single human being. It is removed by the merits of the
  Redemption of Jesus Christ, which as a rule are bestowed through the
  Sacrament of Baptism on adults as well as on children. Therefore
  children also are baptised for the forgiveness of sins (in remissionem
  peccatorum). D 789–791.

  3. Proof from the Sources of Faith

  a) Scriptural proof

  The Old Testament contains references to original sin. Cf. especially
  Ps. 50:7: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did
  my mother conceive me.” Job 14:4 (according to Vulg.): “Who can make
  him clean that is conceived unclean?” Both passages speak of an inborn
  sinfulness whether this be understood in the sense of habitual sin or
  merely of the inclination to sin, but do not bring this into causal
  connection with the sin of Adam. The causal connection between the
  death of all mankind and the sin of our First Parents (original death)
  is, however, clearly stated in the Old Testament. Cf. Ecclus. 25:33;
  Wis. 2:24.

  The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5:12–21, in
  which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from whom
  sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second
  Adam, from whom justice and life are transmitted to all men. V. 12:
  “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death,
  and so sin passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (in quo omnes
  paccaverunt—ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) … 19. For as by the disobedience of
  one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many
  shall be made just.”

  By sin (ἁμαρτία) is to be understood quite generally sin, which here
  appears personified. Original sin is therefore included. What is meant
  is the guilt of sin and not the consequences of sin. Death is
  expressly distinguished from sin and is represented as the consequence
  of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to V. 18 et
  seq., is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil
  desire remains as experience shows.

  β) The words in quo (ἐφʼ ᾧ; V. 12 d) were related relatively to unum
  hominem by St. Augustine and during the whole middle-ages: “By one man
  … in whom all have sinned.” Since the time of Erasmus the
  better-founded conjunctional meaning already proposed by the Fathers,
  especially by the Greeks, came to the fore: ἐφʼ ᾧ = ἐπί τούτῳ ὅτι =
  “on the ground that all have sinned” or “because all have sinned”; cf.
  the linguistic parallels in 2 Cor. 5:4; Phil. 3:12; 4:10; Rom. 8:3.
  Since those also die who have committed no personal sin (young
  children), the origin of bodily death is not a personal guilt, but a
  guilt inherited from Adam. Cf. V. 13 et seq. and V. 19, in which the
  sin of Adam is given as the reason for the sinfulness of the many. The
  conjunctional interpretation, which is adopted generally to-day,
  conforms to the explanation of St. Augustine: all have sinned in Adam,
  therefore all die.

  γ) The words: “Many (οἱ πολλοί) were made sinners” (V. 19a) do not
  limit the universality of original sin, since the expression “many”
  (in opposition to the one Adam, or Christ) is parallel to “all”
  (πάντες) in V. 12 d and 18 a.

  b) Proof from Tradition

  St. Augustine appeals to the Tradition of the Church against the
  Pelagian Bishop Julian of Eclanum: “It is not I who have invented
  original sin, which the Catholic Faith holds from of old, but thou,
  who deniest it, thou art without doubt a new heretic” (De nupt. et
  concup. II 12, 25). St. Augustine, in his Contra Julianum (L. I and
  II), adduces a formal proof from Tradition, in which he quotes St.
  Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St. Hilary, St.
  Ambrose, Innocent I, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom,
  St. Basil and St. Jerome as witnesses of the Catholic teaching. Many
  assertions of the Greek Fathers who insist on personal responsibility
  for sin and appear entirely to prescind from original sin, are to be
  understood as being in opposition to Gnostic-Manichaean dualism and to
  Origenistic pre-existentianism. St. Augustine defended the teaching of
  St. John Chrysostom against its misinterpretation by the Pelagians:
  vobis nondum litigantibus securius loquebatur (Contra Jul. 16, 22).

  Irrefutable proof of the conviction of the primitive Church as to the
  reality of original sin is the old Christian practice of the baptism
  of children “for the remission of sin” (in remissionem peccatorum).
  Cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. 64, 5.

  4. Dogma and Reason

  The doctrine of Original Sin cannot be proved by natural reason,
  nevertheless the fact of Original Sin is evidenced by many signs:
  peccati originalis in humano genere probabiliter quaedam signa
  apparent (S.c.G. IV 52). Such signs are the frightful moral
  aberrations of humanity, and the many lapses from belief in the True
  God (polytheism, atheism).

  § 22. The Nature of Original Sin

  1. False Views

  a) The view of Peter Abelard that Original Sin consists in eternal
  punishment (“reatus poenae aeternae) is false. According to the
  teaching of the Council of Trent, Original Sin is a true and proper
  sin, that is, a guilt of sin. Cf. D 376, 789, 792. St. Paul speaks of
  a real sin. Rom. 5:12: “All have sinned.” Cf. Rom. 5:19.

  b) Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers, the Baians, and
  the Jansenists taught, in: “The habitual concupiscence, which remains,
  even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned
  for punishment.” The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism
  everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the
  concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving
  is called sin in an improper sense only. D 792. That sin remains in
  man, even if it is not reckoned for punishment, is irreconcilable with
  the Pauline teaching of Justification as an inner transformation and
  renewal. The justified man is saved from the danger of rejection
  because the ground for the rejection, the sin, is removed. Rom. 8:1:
  “There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ
  Jesus.” As concupiscence, in consequence of the composition of human
  nature out of body and spirit would be present, as natural evil, even
  in the pure state of nature, it cannot be sinful in itself, for God
  has created everything well. D 428.

  c) Original Sin does not consist, as, among others, Albert Pighius (†
  1542) and Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. († 1553), taught, in a mere
  external imputation of the sinful deed of Adam (imputation theory).
  According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Adam’s sin is
  transferred by inheritance to all the children of Adam, and exists as
  his own proper sin in every single one of them: propagatione, non
  imitatione transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium. D 790. Cf. D
  795. Propriam iniustitiam contrahunt. According to the teaching of
  the Council of Trent, the efficacy of baptism consists in a real
  eradication of sin, not in a mere non-imputation of an alien guilt. D
  792. Cf. Rom. 5:12, 19.

  2. Positive Solution

  Original sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free
  act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)

  a) The Council of Trent defined Original Sin as the death of the soul
  (mors animae: D 789). The death of the soul is, however, the absence
  [not-being-present] of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying
  grace. In Baptism Original Sin is eradicated through the infusion of
  sanctifying grace (D 792). It follows from this that Original Sin is a
  condition of being deprived of grace. This flows from the Pauline
  contrast between sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from
  Christ (Rom. 5:19). As the justice bestowed by Christ consists
  formally in sanctifying grace (D 799) so the sin inherited from Adam
  consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace. The lack of
  sanctifying grace, which, according to the will of God, should be
  present, establishes that the guilt of Original Sin signifies a
  turning away from God.

  As the ratio voluntarii, that is the free incurring of guilt, belongs
  to the concept of formal sin, and as a young child cannot perform a
  personal voluntary act, in original sin, the factor of spontaneity
  must be explained from its connection with Adam’s deed of sin. Adam
  was the representative of the whole human race. On his voluntary
  decision depended the preservation or the loss of the supernatural
  endowment, which was a gift, not to him personally but, to human
  nature as such. His transgression was, therefore, the transgression of
  the whole human race. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius,
  that Original Sin had the character of sin in itself without any
  reference to the will from which it sprung. D 1047. Cf. St.
  Augustine, Retract. I 12 (13), 5. S. th. I II 81, 1.

  b) According to the teaching of St. Thomas, Original Sin consists
  formaliter in the lack of original justice, materialiter in the
  unregulated concupiscence. In every sin St. Thomas distinguishes
  between a formal and a material element, the turning away from God
  (aversio a Deo) and the turning towards the creature (conversio ad
  creaturam). As the turning towards the creature manifests itself above
  all in evil desire, St. Thomas with St. Augustine, sees in
  concupiscence, which itself is a consequence of original sin, the
  material element of original sin: peccatum originale materialiter
  quidem est concupiscentia, formaliter vero est defectus originalis
  iustitiae (S. th. I II 82, 3). The doctrine of St. Thomas was
  influenced partially by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who sees in the
  nature of original sin only the lack of original justice and partially
  by St. Augustine, who defines original sin as: an evil concupiscence
  with its state of guilt (concupiscentia cum suo reatu) and explains
  that the state of guilt (reatus) is removed by Baptism, while the
  concupiscence persists for a moral test (ad agonem), but not as a sin.
  (Op. imperf. c. Jul. I 71). Most of the post-Tridentine theologians do
  not regard concupiscence as an essential constituent part of original
  sin, but as its consequence.

  § 23. The Transmission of Original Sin

  Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)

  The Council of Trent says: propagatione, non imitatione transfusum
  omnibus. D 790. In the baptism of children that is expurgated which
  they have incurred through generation. D 791.

  As original sin is a peccatum naturae, it is transmitted in the same
  way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although
  according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of
  the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of
  original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural
  generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of
  generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of
  grace.

  The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sin is the
  sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficiens
  instrumentalis) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to
  the connection of the individual human being with the head of the
  race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation,
  the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine
  (De nuptiis et concup. I 23, 25; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the
  inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only
  an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself
  alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 82, 4 ad 3.

  Objections

  From the Christian doctrine of the reproduction of original sin, it
  does not follow, as the Pelagians maintained, that God is the
  Originator of sin. The soul created by God is, according to its
  natural constitution, good. The condition of original sin signifies
  the want of a supernatural advantage to which the creature has no
  claim. God is not obliged to create the soul with the adornment of
  sanctifying grace. God is not to be blamed for the fact that the
  newly-created soul is denied the supernatural endowment, but man is
  who misused his freedom. Again, it does not follow from this teaching
  that marriage is bad. The marital act of generation is good because,
  objectively, that is, according to its adaptation to its end, and
  subjectively, that is, according to the intention of the generators,
  it is aimed at good, namely, the reproduction of the human nature
  desired by God.

  § 24. The Consequences of Original Sin

  The consequences of original sin are, following Luke 10:30, summarised
  by the scholastic theologians, in the axiom: By Adam’s sin man is
  deprived of the supernatural gifts and wounded in his nature
  (spoliatus gratuitis, vulneratus in naturalibus). The word gratuita
  usually means only the absolute supernatural gifts and naturalia the
  gifts of integrity, which were part of man’s abilities and powers
  before the fall. Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1; Sent. II d. 29 q. 1a.2.

  1. Loss of the Supernatural Endowment

  In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and
  all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of
  integrity. (De fide _in regar__d to Sanctifying Grace and the_
  Donum Immortalitatis. D 788 et seq.)

  The lack of the sanctifying grace has, as a turning away of man from
  God, the character of guilt and, as the turning of God away from man,
  the character of punishment. The lack of the gifts of integrity
  results in man’s being subject to concupiscence, suffering and death.
  These results remain even after the extirpation of Original Sin, not
  as punishment, but as the so-called poenalitates, that is, as the
  means given to man to achieve the practice of virtue and moral
  integrity. The person stained by Original Sin finds himself in the
  imprisonment and slavery of the devil whom Jesus calls “the prince,”
  and St. Paul “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Cf. Hebr. 2:14;
  Peter 2:19.

  2. Wounding of Nature

  The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and
  the Jansenists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the
  condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing
  natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good
  actions. The Vatican Council teaches that man, with his natural power
  of cognition, can with certainty know the existence of God. D 1785,
  1806. The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or
  extinguished by the fall of Adam. D 815.

  The wounding of nature extends to the body as well as to the soul. The
  2nd Council of Orange (529) explained: totum, i.e., secundum corpus et
  animam, in deterius hominem commutatum (esse) (the whole man both in
  body and in soul was changed for the worse). D 174. Cf. D 181, 199,
  793. Side by side with the two wounds of the body, sensibility to
  suffering (passibilitas) and mortality (mortalitas), theologians, with
  St. Thomas (S. th. 1 II 85, 3) enumerate four wounds of the soul,
  which are opposed to the four cardinal virtues: a) ignorance
  (ignorantia), that is, difficulty of knowing the truth (opposite to
  prudence), b) malice (malitia), that is the weakening of the power of
  the will (opposite to justice), c) weakness (infirmitas), that is, the
  recoiling before difficulties in the struggle for the good (opposite
  to fortitude), d) desire (concupiscentia) in the narrower sense, that
  is, the desire for satisfaction of the senses against the judgment of
  reason (opposite to temperance). The wounds of the body are caused by
  the loss of the preternatural gifts of impossibility and immortality,
  the wounds of the soul by the loss of the preternatural gift of
  freedom from concupiscence.

  There is a controversy as to whether the wounding of nature consists
  exclusively in the loss of the preternatural gifts, or whether human
  nature in addition is intrinsically weakened in an accidental manner.
  The former view, which is that adopted by St. Thomas and by most
  theologians, conceives the wounding of nature as relative only, i.e.,
  by comparison with its primitive condition, while the latter view
  conceives it as absolute and visualises it as a worsening in
  comparison with the pure state of nature. According to the former
  view, the person who is born in original sin is to the human being in
  the pure state of nature as one stripped of his clothes is to the
  unclothed (nudatus ad nudum); according to the latter view, as the
  sick person is to the healthy (aegrotus ad sanum). The former view is
  to be preferred, as the sinful act of Adam, which occurred once only,
  could, neither in his own nature nor in the nature of his posterity,
  effect an evil habit and with it, a weakening of the natural powers.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1. However, it must be admitted that fallen human
  nature, in consequence of individual and social aberrations, has
  declined below the state of pure nature.

  § 25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are
  excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De fide.)

  The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence
  (1438–45) declared: illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel
  solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen
  disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as
  well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell,
  but their punishment is very different). D 464, 693.

  The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: “Unless a man be born
  again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of
  God” (John 3:5).

  The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an
  extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by
  blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism
  for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and
  desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of
  desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment
  of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God
  (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as
  quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed,
  possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D
  712.

  In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the “poena
  damni,” which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of
  God, and the “poena sensus” which is caused by external means, and
  which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the
  body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion
  that children dying in original sin must suffer “poena sensus” also,
  even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the
  Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and
  the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that
  they suffer “poena damni” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III,
  is in favour of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia
  visionis Dei (= poena damni) actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae
  perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural
  bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3;
  Sent. II d. 33 q. 2 a. 2.

  Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for
  children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum
  (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod
  of Pistoia. D 1526.

I go with St.Augustine view that the actual sin committed by Adam & Eve was a sexual act...as CCC400 states…”the union of man & woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and dominations”and CCC405”…. 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"
So the original sin which CCC embraced coming from St.Augustine teaching is clearly stated MARKED BY LUST and CARNAL CONCUPISCENCE...as St.Paul affirmed and said " Saint Paul says, "The flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh . . ." (Galatians 5:17).

God created Adam & Eve primarily to bear fruit & multiply.
CCC372 “Man and woman were made "for each other" - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be "helpmate" to the other, for they are equal as persons ("bone of my bones. . .") and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh",245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator's work.”
Patriarchs believe that Adam & Eve must undergo perfection or Theosis first..
CCC367” …Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God.”
So we can see God ordered Adam a supernatural life meaning attain a perfection which Church Father called “theosis’
God commandments of Adam is clear in Jesus words "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect"(Mt5:48) and God the Father makes it clear "nothing defile shall enter the kingdom of God"..
CCC364 “The human body shares in the dignity of "the image of God": it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit:…Man is obliged to regard his body as good and to hold it in honor since God has created it and will raise it up on the last day. “
Adam knew that God gave her Eve(Mother of the Living) to produce offspring that would be perfect & pleasing to the eyes of God and worthy of Heaven, and repeat this cycle of reproduction...
CCC358 “God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:”
To produce a holy offspring, one that is not tainted with lust Adam & Eve must be perfected/theosis...meaning they will procreate but not committing self-gratification of the flesh or void of lustful thoughts, that is God conditioned to Adam before pro-creating...And we can see Jesus emphasizing in the gospel lustful thoughts is a mortal sin...
The ideal procreation design by God in order to produce a holy/immaculate offspring was not followed by Adam & Eve...And so God in the Old Testament showed us how Adam & Eve should have done it...The procreation although sexual acts in nature can be sanctified to produce an immaculate offspring if both male & female will consume it according to the Will of God and in the presence of God(CCC398)...St.Joachim & St.Anne showed us the way by doing the procreation void of self-gratification of the flesh...meaning lustful thoughts was absent...only pure acts with perfect obedience to the Will of God to produce a holy offspring.
The Blessed Virgin Said to St. Bridget of Sweden:(Book Author Raphael Brown)
“It is a truth that I was conceived without Original Sin and not in sin. A golden hour was my conception. My Son joined my father and my mother in a marriage of such chastity that a purer union has never been seen. Sensuality was extinguished in them. Thus my flesh was formed through divine charity. “
The late Raphael Brown was a well known author and secular Franciscan who wrote and translated many Catholic and Franciscan Works. The above article is an excerpt from his book, The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics, Tan, 1991.
Satan destroy God's plan and distorted the purity of sexual act in pro-creation by introducing self-gratification first to Eve (my personal opinion, Eve masturbated first by touching the fruit/Womb)...Then she seduced Adam to violate God commandments by doing the sexual acts together at the evil suggestions of the serpent...Since, Satan was present during the sexual act imagine how far Adam & Eve exploits their body for self-gratification.
I did  not that the Poem of Valtorta had a passages on Eve selfishly arousing her body the Fruit & Tree of Life symbolies the Womb of a Woman…
As we Catholics prayed in Ave Maria…”and blessed is the Fruit of THY WOMB,Jesus”
(Poem of Valtorta)Satan wanted to deprive man of this intellectual virginity and with his venomous tongue he blandished and caressed Eve's limbs and eyes, exciting reflections and a perspicacity which they did not have before, because malice had not yet intoxicated them.
She "saw". And seeing, she wanted to try. Her flesh was aroused. Oh! If she had called to God! If she had hurried to Him saying: "Father! The Serpent has caressed me and I am upset".
But since this was not approved by the Catholic Church I live it to readers judgment.
Adam knew God conditioned and commandments before doing the sexual procreation acts..that they must both reach perfection first/theosis, but since they did not control their urges Adam knew that the offspring to be produce will not be pleasing to God...and so Adam committed the sin of Onan...Adam deliberately spilled the seed to avoid producing an imperfect offspring...(personal thoughts only, this Adam acts merited the sentenced of death)
(Gen38:9)Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother…
God sentenced the sin of Onan was death…
In the New Testament we can find numerous passages on the sin of the flesh in Romans&Galatians that resulted in death..
This sexual act committed in the presence of Satan/Serpent made Adam & Eve violates the commandment of God. If Eve resisted the temptation of the serpent that would be her theosis...and Adam if he resisted the seduction of Eve that would be his theosis.and so Satan was allowed by God for Adam & Eve perfection but they failed..
Gen2:17” but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
What does the punishment implied by God saying “on the DAY”
Adam suffers two kind of death in a DAY…
1.spiritual death – literally on the day that the sexual act with malice inspired by serpent.
2.physical death- also in a DAY…but we need to use the passage from 2Peter3:8
“But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day..
So, how old did Adam suffered physical death close to 1000 years old…
10.With regards to transmission of original…I also already debunked it initially it can traced biblically and most importantly for skeptics scientifically…
And so God, sees that Adam spilled the seed knowing the offspring to be produced is imperfect...he merited the sentence of God which is death...as we can relate in the story of Onan (this is my personal reflections, as the question is seeking more on the actual sins based on human possible actions & not on theological & doctrinal references...the bible is silent in the actual acts...i expound not distort the Truth but provide a possible imagery of the acts committed)..S&IHMMP4us.Amen


Is "Christ" a title of Jesus, or a name? I was at Bible Study the other night where we watched the new Bible Series that was aired on TV. Someone had asked a question (sorry I forget what), and my Pastor responded by saying something along the lines of "Christ is a title not a name", and then went on to give his reason as to why this is. Now I believe it, but I was sitting just the other day, thinking about what he had said, and wondered about when people say "Christ the Lord". This didn't seem to fit his explanation of Christ being used as a title rather than a name, and I could not find anything anywhere else. So if someone could please explain this to me that would be great.

"Christ" is from the Greek "christos," which means anointed - it's the same as the Hebrew Messiah. "Christ" as such is solely a title, though it has come to be both a title and a name; you can see it rather clearly in some of Paul's writings. Jesus is not just a christ but is the Christ. It identifies Him, and is therefore a name.

Just to add to what both Ryan Frame and Andreas Blass answered.

The word translated Messiah in the Old Testament:

מָשִׁיַח (Hebrew)

  mashiyach (maw-shee'-akh) n-m.

    anointed
    usually a consecrated person (as a king, priest, or saint)
    (specifically) the Messiah, the Anointed One

and Christ in the New Testament:

Χριστός (Greek)

  Christos (khris-tos') n/p.

    (literally) Anointed
    (transliterated) "Christ"
    (properly) the Messiah, the Anointed One of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
    (by function) the (kinsman) Redeemer, the Saviour
    (by identity) Jesus, Yeshua, Ἰησοῦς, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, יֵשׁוּעַ

were originally used only as a title, but in modern usage; since the invention of the Gutenberg press; have been used as both a title and name. In modern usage the title has been relegated be used only in description of Earthly Kings, Emperors, and so on. Where as the usage of the word Christ, in the English speaking world and increasingly in  other languages has come to be more exclusive as a name for Jesus. In most of the world now the word 'Christ' pronounced (Krist) in all languages refers to Jesus as the  only savior of mankind.