In an article you accuse the Catholic Church of teaching that we inherit sin from Adam, but that is not what they actually teach. What is your response?

Posted on August 20, 2025 by Dr. John Oakes wrote in Bible Interpretation, Church History, General, Q & A, Theology and Doctrinal Questions.

Question:

In a post on original sin, you claim that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that we inherit sin that God must judge us for (I will leave the link of the article below for context.) however, it is my understanding that this is false. It seems to me that the Catholic Church teaches that “Original Sin” is a state and not an act. It is called “sin” only in an analogical sense. Essentially the teaching of the Church is that original sin leaves us partially depraved of original holiness and leaves us inclined to sin. Do we not agree with this? does the bible teach this? I will leave the official statement on this matter from the Catholic Catechism quoted below. It should also be acknowledged that Augustine and the catholic church do not share the same view on this topic, they are nuanced.

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act. Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, 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”. (CCC)

I am ultimately struggling to find the difference in what you are teaching, and the Catholic Church teaches on original sin. We deny their teaching of Original Sin, yet they teach that Original “Sin” is the depraved human nature. Are we misrepresenting them or misunderstanding what they actually teach when we say they teach that unbaptized infants are dammed? Our entire congregation teaches that original sin is false, but are we actually defining what we even mean when we say, “original sin”? Original sin must be defined and not necessarily rejected or called false doctrine, many protestants believe in original sin yet carefully define the term, why can’t we do this?

https://evidenceforchristianity.org/in-an-article-you-say-that-original-sin-is-false-doctrine-but-was-there-not-an-original-sin-that-of-adam-and-eve/

Answer:

A good question! This is a very nuanced question, and the answer is not simple. What I would say as a first go is that the Roman Catholic teaching on Original Sin is probably closer to the biblical idea than the idea of Augustine on this, and than the Reformed/Calvinist idea as well. Augustine was a thorough monergist, who believed in Total Depravity, as did Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, and anyone, in principle, who holds to Reformed Theology. The Catholic Church, after Thomas Aquinas, and under the influence of the Jesuits, eventually roundly rejected the idea of Total Depravity.

I do not agree with the way that the Catholic Church explains Original Sin, and some of their other teachings show how far this incorrect idea takes them in a bad direction, but I agree with you that some sort of “sinful nature” is inherited by all humans, and that this is the result of what we call the Fall.

But, consider some clearly false teachings of the Catholic Church, and how they justify these false teachings. For example, Catholics practice infant baptism. Why? Because it is to forgive this Original Sin. Whether this inherited depravity they are talking about is technically a personal sin or not seems irrelevant. Catholics believe that we are born already condemned to hell unless we are baptized as tiny babies. I believe that tiny babies are not sinners, and that they are innocent. I believe that they have inherited a propensity toward sin, which the Catholic Church also teaches, but they go much farther, and that is because of their false idea about Original Sin. I believe that an infant does not need to be baptized, and that they are not guilty at all until they reach an age sufficient for them to commit their own personal acts of sin.

So, I agree with you that, at first glance, what is taught in the Roman Catholic quote above seems not all that far away from what the Bible seems to teach about the Fall and the fact that all humans have a sinful nature, but if we look more closely, and if we consider Catholic teachings such as Limbo, as the necessity for infants to be baptized, and at the teaching on Purgatory (that baptism takes care of Original Sin, but not of our own personal sins), we will find that there is a pernicious false character to their understanding of Original Sin.

Besides, how can we “contract” sin that we have not committed? This makes no sense. Ezekiel 18 makes it clear that, before God, I am only responsible for sins I have committed. That is basic justice. Who invented this idea of “contracted” sin? The idea is not in the Bible. What is this “state” they are talking about? Is it a state of being lost and separated from God because of something someone else did? Is that justice? Again, I see a propensity to sin in our sinful nature, but I cannot see biblical justification for the idea of “contractual” sin. In fact, it is my understanding that in the early church, infant baptism was practiced before the idea of Original Sin was invented. In other words, the church was already baptizing babies by the early fourth or even the late third century, and by the fifth century, they had invented the idea of Original Sin to explain the need, without biblical justification for the practice–especially given that infants cannot have faith or repent.

Let me say it again, the Augustinian idea and the Calvinist idea of Original Sin is far “worse” and much more distant from the biblical teaching, as they teach Total Depravity, and deny free will altogether. I agree that the ICOC is closer to the Catholic idea than we are to many Protestants, but we need to understand that the Catholic understanding of Original Sin is NOT a correct one, given where it takes them with these other clearly false teachings on infant baptism, sacramentalism, Limbo and Purgatory. Your premise that some of us exaggerate and even distort the Catholic teaching by not giving it nuance, and we ought not to do this, but this does not mean that the teaching is the same as that in the Bible.

Personally, I strongly prefer that we NOT use the term Original Sin at all. If it is not sin at all, but rather a contracted tendency, as the Catholics seem to be saying, then why not call it something else? Why not call it what the Bible calls it, which is that we are born with a sinful nature? I prefer to use Bible words for biblical concepts. I believe there is a reason that the Roman Catholic Church will not reject the terminology of “Original Sin,” because, in essence, they believe in a nuanced version of what is, essentially, original sin!

I will agree that there is a tendency among non-Catholics to overstate or to misrepresent what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches, and that we ought to be careful not to do this. There is an unhelpful tendency to demonize the Catholic Church, but in the case of Original Sin, they clearly have it wrong, and ought to abandon the use of this terminology altogether.

Also, I agree with your proposal that if we use the term Original Sin, we ought to be much more careful to define what we mean by this, and most have not, but my proposal is to only use this term when required to do so because other groups use it. When talking to ourselves, we should not have to define the term if we do not use it. Let us stick to biblical terminology such as the “flesh” of the “sinful nature.”

John Oakes