De peccato

De peccato

The Sophists have obscured this point remarkably, as they debated the relationships of reason in sin, claiming that distinguishing the choice of even external actions is not sufficiently free. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather admit my ignorance than try to explain it with forced and poorly twisted interpretations. In my case, I prefer to admit my ignorance rather than try to explain it with forced and twisted interpretations. It's unnecessary to recount the actual sin, original sin, and many other things that are superfluous. What good is it, I ask, if we don't believe that everything is accomplished through divine predestination? Everything happens according to divine predestination, both external actions and internal thoughts, which can unnecessarily impose force upon theological principles. What do all dreams mean? We'll address the matter briefly and take on the voice of Scripture regarding sin. Original sin is a natural inclination and a certain innate impulse and energy by which we are drawn to sin, propagated from Adam to all his descendants. Just as there is a genuine force in fire that pulls things upward, and a genuine force in a magnet that attracts iron to itself, so there is in humans a natural inclination to sin. Scripture does not call this original sin, but rather actual sin. For original sin exists because all things happen by God's decree and predestination, but this does not take away human freedom, since all things occur by God's decision. This imagination, arising from Stoic discussions, leads people to eliminate the contingency of good and evil actions, indeed of all movements in animals and elements. However, I said above that those Stoic opinions should not be brought into the church, nor should the necessity of all things being fatal be defended, but rather some degree of contingency should be allowed. — And there should be no debate about the deterioration of things. ; Luthard, indeed. The gift given by God is understood to be for all of nature. It's similar to defending the accusation of Pelagianism; see. Lambs, the pre-Tridentine theology of the Reformation era, are clearly a certain actual perverse desire. But sin is simply called both an actual and an original fault, although sometimes it refers to those things we call actual sins as the fruit of sin, as Paul often does in Romans and David does, calling the original sin sometimes a curvature and sometimes iniquity. There's no need to argue about those foolish relationships in sin. A wicked desire and a corrupt movement of the heart is against the law of God; that is sin. From where does original sin come? God, the Best and Greatest, when He created man without sin, was present to him through His Spirit, who would inspire him toward what is right. The same Spirit would have governed all of Adam's descendants, if Adam had not fallen. Now, after Adam sinned, God turned away from man so that the Spirit of God would not be with him. Thus, the soul, lacking the light and life of heaven, becomes blinded and loves itself most ardently, seeks its own, does not desire, does not wish for anything but earthly things, despising God and what I can achieve through the words of a human heart's wickedness. It cannot be that the flesh loves spiritual things, for it will always love itself most, unless it is absorbed by the love of God. It’s impossible for the flesh to love spiritual things. Thus, in Genesis 6, it is written: It is written: My spirit will not remain in man, because he is flesh. And according to Paul in Romans. Those who live according to the flesh are those who are without the Spirit of God; for it is clear from that passage in Genesis that the flesh is the strength of humanity without the Spirit of God, and they pursue what belongs to the flesh. And again: The desires of the flesh are enmity against God. Therefore, when the Sophists say that original sin is the lack of original justice, they speak rightly. But why don’t they add that where original justice or spirit is absent, there is truly flesh? It is necessary to yield. It is indeed original sin. Is it really impiety, is it truly contempt for spiritual matters? The primary and highest affection of human nature is self-love, from which one is driven to desire only those things that seem good, pleasant, sweet, and glorious to one's nature, while having hatred and fear for those things that seem contrary to it, and to turn away from the one who keeps one from what one desires, or who commands one to pursue those things that are displeasing. Oh, what an incomprehensible misery of humanity this is! From this, hatred of God and divine law arises in man. Therefore, as we will explain more broadly shortly, God is a consuming fire for humanity. The Pelagians are said to have denied the existence of original sin, a doctrine that Augustine refutes in several learned volumes. In this discussion, the main focus is such that everything else he wrote, apart from the Pelagian argument, seems rather cold. Now we will present some passages that testify to the existence of original sin. And what could be said more clearly than what is written to the Ephesians? We were by nature children of wrath, just like the others. If we are by nature children of wrath, then we are certainly born as children of wrath. What else is Paul doing there but stating that all our powers are born subject to sin, and that there is nothing good at any time in any human strength? In the fifth chapter of Romans, he establishes a discussion about sin, grace, and the law, where it teaches that sin has spread to all people. How can one sin be passed on to all, if not all are born from one? It cannot be denied that Paul speaks about original sin in this context. For if he were to speak about his own sin, how could he say that one person's sin caused many dead, which cannot be said of the actual sin they refer to? Who doesn’t see this, unless someone wants to twist the text? Now, if Adam is not the author of sin, then Christ will not be the sole author of righteousness, but also Adam. So, if we're talking about someone's own sin, why do children die who haven't yet committed the sin they call actual? And since death can only break in through sin, it’s necessary for children to be guilty of sin and to have sin; but why is that? Certainly original. Paul speaks about the sin through which all are condemned to death. Let’s consider the meaning of Paul’s teaching. Just as it is written in Romans, and also in Corinthians, Paul says: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." This relates to the prophet's exclamation in the Psalms. Look, I was conceived in iniquities, and my mother conceived me in sins. David means that he was born a sinner. Moreover, if every desire of the thoughts of the human heart is vain and wicked at all times, as it is written in Genesis. It is necessary that we are born with sin. If we are blessed in Christ, it’s necessary that we are cursed in Adam. But what does it mean to be cursed, except that we are condemned by sin? This relates to the impurities in the types of the law, and it also pertains to the slaughter of the firstborn of Egypt. And what good is it to do many things, when Christ is with John? Let it be clearly stated: What is born of the flesh is flesh. If it is flesh, as we have noted above, then it seeks its own and loves itself. But if the first birth is not subject to sin, what good is it to be reborn? But if the birth of the flesh is good, what good is it to be reborn of the Spirit? In the strict sense, Christ alone is the author of justice. Digitized by Google, the sin and its fruits.