CA II: Of Original Sin

(I’m only going to post the articles that Rome rejected. Here is the first.)  —  admin


1]
 Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

3] They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.

? – Confession – Confutation – Defense

 

Confutation:

In the second article we approve their Confession, in common with the Catholic Church, that the fault of origin is truly sin, condemning and bringing eternal death upon those who are not born again by baptism and the Holy Ghost. For in this they properly condemn the Pelagians, both modern and ancient, who have been long since condemned by the Church. But the declaration of the article, that Original Sin is that men are born without the fear of God and without trust in God, is to be entirely rejected, since it is manifest to every Christian that to be without the fear of God and without trust in God is rather the actual guilt of an adult than the offence of a recently-born infant, which does not possess as yet the full use of reason, as the Lord says “Your children which had no knowledge between good and evil,” Deut 1:39. Moreover, the declaration is also rejected whereby they call the fault of origin concupiscence, if they mean thereby that concupiscence is a sin that remains sin in a child even after baptism. For the Apostolic See has already condemned two articles of Martin Luther concerning sin remaining in a child after baptism, and concerning the fomes of sin hindering a soul from entering the kingdom of heaven. But if, according to the opinion of St Augustine, they call the vice of origin concupiscence, which in baptism ceases to be sin, this ought to be accepted, since indeed according to the declaration of St. Paul, we are all born children of wrath (Eph. 2:3), and in Adam we all have sinned (Rom.5:12).

 

trentdemarest

8 Comments

  1. Just some miscellanea before a conversation gets started…

    1. You’ll have to right click the links and select “Open in a new tab/window” or else it will take you away from this page. I’ll see if I can fix that.

    2. I just want you to know that the majority of images that come up when you search for “Original Sin” do not look much like the graphic that bedecks this post. Not even slightly.

  2. For what it’s worth, you may want to post the Confutation’s acceptance of CA I. The Roman party accepts our article not on the authority of the Roman Pontiff, but the authority of Holy Scriptures and the authority of a council of learned bishops. Was the Nicene Creed (Niceo-Constantinopalean Creed, whatever) composed and authorized by a council? Or composed and Authorized by the Bishop of Rome?

    Acronym/reference aid for those not familiar: “CA” and “AC” are interchangeable references to the Augsburg Confession. The first refers to the title in Latin, and the latter to the English title. The numerals after the “AC” refer to the number of the article. So if you’d like to cite something from this article, it’d look like this “I take offense at AC I.2, because it says “holy ghost” and not “holy spirit.”” Etc.

    • The Roman party’s caveat is such that they might as well not even say that they accept this article. Sorry. But am I right? I’ll post it, but…

      …”age of accountability” discussion, much?

      • Ah. My apologies. I meant the Confutation of AC I (the 1st, the article on God), not the Confutation of AC II (the 2nd, the article on Original Sin).

        I know we all agree on the Trinity and the Nicene Creed. I am remembering many discussions at Hillsdale, wherein it was helpful for everyone to remember that we agreed and a good deal of things. It sets boundaries on the discussion, encourages peace, and neutralizes the feeling of “this guy’s a total heretic.” We agree on AC I. That’s important.

        In my limited experience in the care of souls, I can already suggest that it would be most salutary to have a small patch upon which we do agree. That’s why my comments so far have been largely procedural.

        That, and I am currently serving a congregation right now as a Vicar. So they get the lion’s share of my time.

        • Good idea. And done.

          And no one begrudges you your time. Perhaps as an aside you can explain what a vicar is in our synod, since this differs from what a vicar is in the Roman communion?

  3. I’d be happy to, although I suspect my expression of what a “Vicar” means in the Roman communion is an uninformed guess at best. I’m hoping, at some point, to have a friendly chat with Sem. Herschmeyer’s about less controversial things like “what is your class schedule like” or “what commentaries do you use” or somesuch. I’ve never met a Roman seminarian, and the priests I’ve known were too busy to pin down. I now understand why. I’m even still hoping to post an article about the Forensic character of Justification. Oh well. Thanks for your administration!

  4. The essence of the Lutherans’ contention here has to do with the affirmation that concupiscence is sin, even “mortal” sin. Rome, as I understand it, does not hold that it is, and has not held otherwise for at least a thousand years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA
Change the CAPTCHA codeSpeak the CAPTCHA code