When was original sin removed from OT saints?
#1
At what point was original sin removed from Old Testament saints? Was removed when they got circumcized? Was it removed just before they died? Was it washed from them after Jesus' death while they all were held in Abraham's bosom? or was it removed at some other time and some other way? What say you all?
Reply
#2
All I know is that had original sin not been transmitted throughout the generations Adam n Eve's progeny would have been born with all the gifts and faculties that they themselves lost.I guess it is an implied idea with regards the OT even if the doctrine as such was not formed.
Reply
#3
I always thought it was when Christ preached to those in hell  ???
Reply
#4
(07-19-2012, 08:07 AM)symphony8 Wrote: I always thought it was when Christ preached to those in hell  ???

That would be my guess.Christ being the new Adam 'n all
Reply
#5
See here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm#article4

"Reply to Objection 4.  Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion.  Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom.  But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom."
Reply
#6
Original sin was taken away in Hades.  Both men and women were taken from Hades when Christ descended there.  But women could not receive circumcision.  So how could men and women be in the same place?  Clearly, circumcision was merely a symbol of baptism, and had no actual effect on original sin.
Reply
#7
(07-19-2012, 08:07 AM)symphony8 Wrote: I always thought it was when Christ preached to those in hell  ???

Close - -I was taught this is where they all were baptized.
Reply
#8
Don't pass by this post by SouthpawLink lightly.
(07-19-2012, 08:41 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: See here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm#article4

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III Q70 A4

"Reply to Objection 4.  Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person; but on the part of the entire nature, there remained the obstacle to the entrance of the kingdom of heaven, which obstacle was removed by Christ's Passion.  Consequently, before Christ's Passion not even Baptism gave entrance to the kingdom.  But were circumcision to avail after Christ's Passion, it would give entrance to the kingdom."

St. Thomas Aquinas'  teaching must be taken very seriously by Catholics.  Since he said that (in regard to the person) original sin was taken away in circumcision (although it did not give entrance to the kingdom), it is not good to simply insist that it was only removed in Hell when Christ descended there. In another place also in Q70 St. Thomas says simply "All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision."  He says circumcision acts through the faith of the recipient.

Here (if a reminder is needed) is evidence of the immense esteem in which the Church holds St. Thomas:
"Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris" Wrote:But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that
the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and
the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the "Summa" of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.
Reply
#9
Aquinas was wrong about the immaculate conception, he is wrong about this as well.  He may be a very esteemed teacher, but there is no need to immediately presume he is basically infallible, when there is a more reasonable answer to a given question.  In this case, certainly it makes no sense that the faith of OT women alone saved them, but circumcision was necessary for females.  It was merely a symbol of baptism.  No cleansing took place by the circumcision itself.  This is readily apparent.
Reply
#10
(07-20-2012, 08:38 AM)Melkite Wrote: Aquinas was wrong about the immaculate conception, he is wrong about this as well.  He may be a very esteemed teacher, but there is no need to immediately presume he is basically infallible, when there is a more reasonable answer to a given question.  In this case, certainly it makes no sense that the faith of OT women alone saved them, but circumcision was necessary for females.  It was merely a symbol of baptism.  No cleansing took place by the circumcision itself.  This is readily apparent.

Circumcision was not a symbol of baptism.

It was a visible sign of the Covenant.

Genesis 17:10-14 Wrote:This is my covenant which you shall observe, between me and you, and thy seed after thee: All the male kind of you shall be circumcised: And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and you. An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:  And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant. The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.

While it prefigures Baptism, it is not just a symbol of it. That it is for males only is by definition, given the nature of the Covenant being passed in the flesh.

Aquinas was not "wrong" as much as you think. I highly doubt you could find any flaws in his reasoning. Only in preconceptions and assumptions which precede the reasoning are there errors.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)