Friday, June 12, 2009

SELF ACCEPTANCE IS THE KEY TO SELF TRANSCENDENCE

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.'

SOME QUOTES FOR YOUR REFLECTION

· My children, your hearts are small. Prayer will enlarge them and render them capable of loving God (St. John Vianney).
· Knowing God without knowing your wretchedness leads to pride; knowing your wretchedness without knowing God leads to despair; knowing Jesus Christ is bridge to knowing God and your wretchedness ( Blaise Pascal).
· Those who pave the way for the great pave the way for their own greatness (Igbo Sage).
· Every calling is great when greatly pursued.
· I was not called to be successful but to be faithful (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta).
· Intense love does not measure, it hurts. Give till it hurts with a smile (Blessed Teresa of Calcutta).
·

Thursday, June 11, 2009

REDISCOVERING THE ECCLESIAL DIMENSION OF BAPTISM

PRINCIPLES FOR A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
BY KURT KOCH
INTRODUCTION
According to Kurt Koch, there is the need to renew the original understanding of the Sacraments of Christian Initiation (Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist). This is because he sees it as a condition sine qua non for the restoration of ecclesial dimension of Baptism. Kurt Koch proposes certain principles for a Christian Theology of Baptism which must not be seen in isolation but complementing each other. The purpose of this essay is to discuss these principles under the following headings: baptism as conveyance to Christ, Baptism as participation in Christ, Baptism and Holy Spirit, Baptismal Christian Living, Reception into Christ’ Body, Theology of Baptism, individualising of Initiation, Revitalizing the Ecclesial Dimension. I will then attempt a synthesis by way of a conclusion.
BAPTISM AS CONVEYANCE TO CHRIST
Kurt, in this section of his article, puts stress on the fact that Baptism cannot be effective without the profession of faith. This profession, he says is based on the belief that the living God raised Christ up from the dead. Hence, for this profession of faith, no other occasion comes into question except Baptism. Kurt further emphasized that baptism is an external profession and it is only when it is accompanied by a belief in the heart that salvation is effected in the life of the individual. Thus Otto Michel could not agree more with Kurt when he says that “Profession and belief are as inextricably conjoined as are occurrence of baptism and the doctrine of justification.” In other words, baptism and profession are distinctly inseparable. For Kurt, the sharp distinction between early Christian Baptism and that of John was that it was carried out “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 10:48, 19:5). By the very fact that one is baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ” according to Kurt one is conveyed to Christ which means that one now belongs to Christ entirely and no one else.( Galatians 3:29). Thus, for Kurt, baptism presupposes that the baptized person is made subject to his Lord and he is invited to a personal and intimate relationship with his Lord. This new relationship becomes so fundamental that one can gain entrance into the Kingdom only by this means. Kurt draws on an analogy St. Paul uses to describe the new relationship a baptized person has with Christ. “… A person is altogether like a slave who is ‘occupied territory.’ His first lord is sin, which holds him in captivity. Through Baptism, however, he is brought out of slavery and conveyed to a new lord.” Thus for Kurt, Baptism becomes a public seal showing that the baptized person belongs to Christ and for that matter identified as slave of Christ. According to Kurt, this idea of Paul goes back to the historical evolution of the rite of Baptism as found in the early Church. Having assumed a new status, the baptized person is duty bound no longer to serve gods in this world but to serve the true God and the divine plan of salvation for the world. Baptism according Kurt entails two things namely rejection of the gods and demons of pagan society and an entrance into the Church as the territory of Christ’s kingdom. It also involves an ontological change; a change from the fleshy existence of sin and death to the spiritual existence of being led by the Spirit of God; a Spirit which gives true freedom to the baptized. This radical change of life for Kurt, involves even a rejection of those profession that has to do with pagan worship such as acting, prostitution, astrology, gladiators and the like. For those who belong to Jesus Christ must recognize him as their Lord by renewing their manner of living, but most of all by professing faith. Thus for Kurt, faith and baptism belong inseparably together in the early Church. Baptism for Kurt was preceded by a long process of learning and experience and coaching for a new mode of existence.
BAPTISM AS PARTICIPATION IN JESUS
Kurt again lays emphasis on the fact that baptism is not only a complete conveyance of the baptized person to Christ but also a promise that the newly baptized will be included with Christ in the whole process of salvation. For Kurt, Paul’s understanding of baptism means two things namely a participation in being saved from death and a participation in the resurrection of Jesus Christ even though it remains a future event (Romans 6: 4-5). According to Kurt, Paul interprets the sacramental- liturgical immersion of the candidate in the waters of baptism as an immersion into the unfathomable waters of death and in complete solidarity with Jesus who himself had been immersed into these dark waters. Kurt emphasizes that in baptism, a personal Easter takes place for each individual. This means that the baptized person is taken up into the movement of Christ from death to the life of the resurrection. Hence whoever belongs to Christ through baptism also shares in his suffering and death. This is symbolized by St. Paul when he says that wherever we go we carry in our bodies the sufferings and death of Jesus “so that the life of Jesus can become visible in our bodies” ( 2 Corin 4: 10). This means that in Baptism, our own future death is symbolically anticipated and bound up with the death of Jesus, so that we live with him. For Kurt, baptism is the crucial juncture of the life of every Christian and not bodily death which is in the future. This implies for Kurt that baptism is a fundamental moving forward of death and a sacramental experience beforehand of resurrection since in baptism one dies to sin and is raised to life in Christ by God himself; a kind of rebirth. This means that baptism implies that death awaiting Christians at the end of their lives, in the truest and deepest sense no longer counts, because Christians already live now in the body of the risen Christ and baptism turns out to be a much more serious death in which one whole world is given up and a new world opens up. Kurt emphasizes the vital and inseparable link between resurrection and baptism as expounded in 1 John as a passage from death to life. He sees baptism as a sacramental participation in the eschatological passage from death into life with this new life in the resurrection to be lived in the context of righteousness.
BAPTISM AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
According to Kurt, for Christians, the eschatological baptism of the Spirit is no longer a future event but is considered in the light of Jesus’ baptism which is already evident in the baptism of water. The descent of the Holy Spirit in the baptism pericope reveals Jesus as the bearer of the Spirit. Thus in the Early Church, any baptism made was confirmed by the bestowal of the Spirit and its attendant gifts (Acts 2:38). Thus for Paul, baptism is only effective with the reception of the Holy Spirit (1 Corin. 6: 11). Again, through the imparting of the Spirit in baptism is fulfilled the prophecy of Joel who promised that in the messianic end time, God will pour out his Spirit upon all flesh. The Pentecost experience then, becomes a fulfillment of that prophetic promise (Acts 2:16). Thus for Kurt, what was prophesied by Joel in the Old Testament has now found concrete expression in the New Testament where the Spirit is poured out upon all believers and transforms them into a spiritual people endowed with the Spirit of God. This original participation bestowed in baptism upon all believers is a common sharing of the Spirit by the people of God in the end time. This, according to Kurt, becomes the working document of the Christian Church; that which guaranteed acceptance into the Christian community and because the sending of the Spirit is promised in baptism, later NT theology sees baptism as a new birth or a new creation through the Spirit who bestows everlasting life. R. Schnackenberg sees baptism as “The place where the Spirit is received and the eschatological gift of salvation is bestowed by God. Kurt emphasises again, that the pneumatological dimension of baptism is expressed later in baptismal rites in which besides the laying on of hands, an anointing becomes a symbol of the imparting of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:21-23).
BAPTISMAL CHRISTIAN LIVING
According to Kurt, by virtue of our baptism, the Spirit effects new life in us (2 Corin 5: 17-18). He emphasizes the NT perspective that forgiveness of sins is completed in baptism as evidenced in Peter’s Pentecostal sermon (Acts 2: 38). The relationship between baptism and forgiveness of sins laid in the fact that in the NT the baptized person’s sin is forgiven once and for all. It also provides an understanding of the NT exhortation and presupposition that Christians after baptism will lead a life without sin (Romans 6: 11-12). According to Kurt, baptism places certain responsibility on the recipient namely that he is not only required to live a morally upright life, but also he must live a life which is worthy of a Christian; a life which must manifest his new status as bestowed on him by Christ. This is what Kurt describes as a Christian ethic. Thus the newness of life as a gift of baptism becomes the basis for all moral imperatives. In Romans 6 and 12, Paul brings out clearly the fact that the basic duty of living a truly Christian life springs from baptism itself. Baptism is, therefore, seen as a radical service to God and a departure from a previous enslavement to the power of sin. Furthermore, Kurt draws our attention to the fact that baptism requires that we live what we profess in our daily encounter with each other. This results into a community in which people link their lives together, act responsibly for each other and carry each others burdens. This idea of community is what Paul developed when he shows that in Christian baptism all historical and human discrimination are dissolved and is made inoperative (Galatians 3: 26-28). Paul reaffirms the ecclesial dimension of baptism and names racism, imperialism and sexism as posing a threat to Christian baptism. For Paul the decisive character of race, imperialism and sexism are overcome in baptism, which marks the irrevocable beginning of the eschatological reestablishment of a truly ordered and interactive society that lives in peace and justice according to God’s will. The Church should be seen as the conscience of society bound together by the baptismal waters of love, peace, justice and solidarity. Also Kurt stresses the fact that the Christian morality in the sense of following Jesus is essentially the morality of baptism. This is because in baptism not only is the following of Jesus made possible but the lifelong and daily following of Jesus is required. R. Schnackenberg puts it beautifully when he says “Baptism entered into with faith is a call to the following of Christ in time after Easter.” Baptism grants to each baptized person a dignity which can never be taken away, either by his own deeds or by the violent claims of others (W. Huber). Kurt concludes this section by bringing to the fore the fact that baptism is carried out in the perspective of accepting individuals into the Christian community and can, therefore, be understood as the public proclamation of the human right to life. It makes the individual a dignified being and this dignity he draws from God. Baptism, according to P. M. Zulehner is “a profound celebration of human dignity and inviolable freedom.
RECEPTION INTO THE BODY OF CHRIST
Kurt lays emphasis on the ecclesial dimension of baptism when he says that baptism does not only mark one’s adoption of the Christian faith but also an entrance into the church. The ecclesia community then becomes a place where the baptize subjects himself to Christ and receives salvation. By virtue of his baptism, the baptized is duty bound to live as a person who has his new home in the community of the Church namely, he acquires basic residence in the church, and his basic vocation is to be a member of the new people of God. According to Kurt, if baptism incorporates us into Jesus as a Son, then entrance into this Son ship of Jesus is entrance into the larger family of all those who are with the Son ( Church). Thus Joseph Ratzinger puts it beautifully when he says that “Then the new birth from God which happens in baptism is likewise a birth into the whole Christ, head and members. Thus for Kurt, baptism into Christ finds concrete expression in being a member of the ecclesia community and this was evidenced in the Early Church when on the day of Pentecost, about three thousand were baptized and added to the community of believers ( Acts 2: 41). This emphasizes again, that from the very beginning baptism and the Church were inextricably linked. Thus baptism presupposed a Church in which one is incorporated; the Church becomes a salvific actuality. Baptism, therefore, brings out clearly the ‘ekklesia’ dimension of the Church as the community of those called together by God and ‘added’ by God to the Church ( Acts 2: 46-47). The Church becomes visible as a missionary and salvific community which accepts all who believe in Christ and wishes to join through baptism. For St. Paul, baptism and the Church are inseparably linked that his vision of the Church as a body of Christ is grounded in baptism (1Corin 12: 13, Eph 4: 4-6). Kurt sees baptism as the entrance gate to the Church and therefore to the ecumenical church as emphasized by the Vatican ll’s Decree on Ecumenism that “For those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (#3). Kurt draws our attention to the same Decree which emphasizes the fact that there is a sacramental bond of unity between all who are reborn through baptism in so long as baptism is institutionally administered and received in faith. Kurt concluded on this section by re- emphasizing the Church’s Decree on Ecumenism that baptism is the beginning and starting point of four things namely, the achievement of the fullness of life in Christ, a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation into the event of salvation such as Christ himself willed it to be and finally towards a complete integration into Eucharistic communion. Thus baptism according to Kurt has become a basis for ecumenical dialogue.

THEOLOGY OF BAPTISM
Kurt reiterates once more that baptism which is incorporation into Christ and an entrance into the Church are inseparably linked if we want to understand Christian baptism. Thus he says that “The ecclesiological significance of baptism is in fact to be understood as a concrete form of its Christological significance on the level of historical experience.” This he explain that to be in Christ and with Christ as a gift of baptism presupposes an ecclesial reality since to be in Christ is not different from being part of the body of Christ. He concluded by stating emphatically that since the Eucharist forms the highest point of the baptismal service, baptism into the body of Christ is likewise baptism into the Eucharist.


INDIVIDUALISING OF INITIATION
In this aspect of the article, Kurt draws our attention to the original unity, inner and outer, of the sacraments of initiation of baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist. For Kurt, the sacraments of initiation make one a member of the Church and liberates him from the dominium of sin. He emphasizes again, that the actual initiation into the Church at baptism was originally completed with first communion. A case in point, as put forward by Kurt is the fact that the unity of the sacraments of initiation can be best appreciated against the back drop of the institution of the catechumenate, by which candidates for baptism had to demonstrate the seriousness of their conversion in which the Christian life had to be learnt and practiced. Kurt is of the view that while the Eastern Church has preserved the unity of the sacraments of initiation, in the Latin Church, the baptism of infants has caused these sacraments to be broken down into separate ceremonies. This he admitted to have been caused by an ecclesiastical political situation. According to Kurt, Emperor Constantine’ declaration of Christianity as a state religion meant that in the first decade of the fourth century, it was no longer the ordinary practice of initiating adults into the Church in which the sacraments of initiation were administered to them at the same time. Infant baptism became the order of the day since Christianity now became a state religion to the extent that Baptism as membership in the Church became, as a practical matter, membership in society. Thus this whole concept of catechumens according to Kurt now had little in common with those candidates preparing for baptism. This is because the instructional aspect was missing due to infant baptism which was on the ascendancy. Again, the comprehensive catechumenate for the unbaptised was replaced by the instruction of children after baptism. Added to this fact is that baptism for infants increased, due to the doctrine of Original sin, since baptism was understood as a necessary liberation from original sin. This, for Kurt meant that baptism was directed at the salvation of the individual and the consequence was that the ecclesial dimension was underestimated. Thus Kurt states emphatically, without mincing words that in the course of history, no other sacrament has been individualized and privatized than the sacrament of baptism. For to this day, he decried, baptism has no longer been understood and celebrated as a sacrament of initiation into the church but is now oriented towards the salvation of individuals. This , he says is evident in the fact that parents still bring their children to be baptized though they do not think much about the Church or may have even withdrawn from it. In fact, parents now see baptism as a way of putting their children in touch with the reality of the divine. Kurt concludes this section by stating emphatically that baptism now serves as a vehicle to take the child into God’s world and to ask God’s blessing for the child.
REVITALISING THE ECCLESIAL DIMENSION
Kurt Koch in this section calls for a revitalization of the ecclesial dimension of baptism. He advanced two reasons namely that infant baptism is theologically justified by the fact that “A gift given ahead of time is nevertheless really a gift (J. Ratzinger) and that there is a threat that the meaning of baptism will be destroyed if the Church no longer understand it as a gift given ahead of time and unfolds afterwards, but merely as a rite closed that is still retained only because it lends a certain solemnity and a ritual celebration to the beginning of life. Kurt, is of the view that the Church is duty bound to revitalize the ecclesial dimension of baptism for two main reasons namely for basic theological reasons and because of the Church’s profoundly changed condition. In the mind of Kurt, the Church today is experiencing the end of Constantinian form of Christianity where Christianity was a state religion. He argues that the Church cannot continue to assume that people (infants) who are baptized into the church will automatically grow in the church as part of the socialization process. The church must recognize that people must learn anew the faith and life in the church. The church must also help people to deepen their personal relationship to Christ and thereby experience how baptism extends throughout their lives and has been bestowed as “ God’s rainbow over our lives” ( J. Ratzinger), as a promise of His great “Yes” and as a guidepost pointing to what it means to be a Christian. Kurt Koch thinks that a rediscovery of the catechumenate offers a pastoral challenge and presents an opportunity which the Church should exploit. Kurt sees in the rediscovery of the catechumenate, the restoration of the original order and unity of the sacraments of initiation. Kurt could not agree more with Pope John Paul II who express in his post- conciliar Apostolic Letter “The Bishop: Servant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World” that the Bishops are responsible for Christian initiation. Kurt says that the Pope was convinced that the tradition of the process of Christian initiation especially for adults has proved to be providentially ordained not only for the churches just starting up but also for the countries where Christianity has been established for centuries. Kurt calls for a renewal of the original order of the sacraments of initiation because it restores the ecclesial dimension of baptism. This restoration can only be feasible when adults become members of the Church as a way of rediscovering the catechumenate of the early church. He stressed, however, that a rediscovery of the catechumenate does not deny the validity of infant baptism but it is an endeavor to reunite the sacraments of initiation in infant baptism also. This will bring out the ecclesial dimension of baptism both into the parish church and the universal church as well. Thus baptism proves to be the universal sacrament of the church taken as a whole. To ensure that baptism is experienced this way, Kurt says, is an urgent pastoral duty of our time.

CONCLUSION
Kurt Koch’ article on the “Principle for a Christian Theology of Baptism” calls for the renewal of the order of the sacraments of initiation of Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist. He thinks that it is the surest way to rediscover the ecclesial dimension of baptism. I think that Kurt Koch has not proposed anything new but that which is already true of the sacraments of initiation in the early church. A critical look at the principles will reveal the fact that they must be looked at concurrently and not in isolation. In fact, one is a build up on the other. I could not agree more with Kurt Koch on this issue since in our contemporary Churches, there has been this tendency of seeing this sacrament as an individual affair and it is gradually taking over the ecclesial dimension of the sacrament. Parents can just walk into the Church and have their wards baptized without the presence of the ecclesial community. The renewal of the original order of the sacraments of initiation can only be possible when adults become members of the Church so that the catechumenate of the early church can be rediscovered.
AGORSOR AARON AGBESHIE
(THEOLOGY TWO)
INTRODUCTION
According to the “Catechism of The Catholic Church” “Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love of God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.”[1] “In its theological usage, then, the word ‘sin’ is not synonymous with wrong doing, and still less with illegality.”[2] Various theologians have defined sin in different ways. Notable among them is Edmund Hill’s definition of sin as a flaw or distortion in human nature. It must be emphasized that in their bid to explain the origins of sin, theologians have being struggling with the term “Original Sin” as proposed by St. Augustine. Thus some theologians have come to call it Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin, Inherited Sin, Sin of the World, and a condition of deficiency. I think the problem is semantics and a play on words for it refers to the same thing. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to mention the names of the proponents of these terminologies and to give a theological critique of these terminologies.

NAMES OF PROPONENTS
Original Sin was propounded by St. Augustine, Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin and inherited Sin was propounded by Edmund Hill. Sin of the World was by Karl Rahner while Sin as a Condition of Deficiency was by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler.

A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED TERMINOLOGIES.

ORIGINAL SIN
“The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the protestant reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adams fault to bad example…” [3] “The classical doctrine was given conciliar expression at the Council of Trent which affirmed that Adam’s sin ‘is one of origin and is passed on by propagation not by imitation’. The Council continues ‘ even children who in themselves could have as yet committed no sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration there may be cleansed in them what they contracted by generation’”[4]
Original sin is known in two senses: the Fall of Adam as the "original" sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. It is called "original" in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world. Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity. Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption. It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is: heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc. There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Apart from the traditional meaning of Original sin, some scholars think that the phrase ‘Original Sin’ is misleading because that is not what the Latin word ‘Originale’ means but ‘Originale’ has to do with the beginning. That is why l could not agree more with Edmund Hill when he says that Original Sin “ Is not the first sin nor any particular actual sin which is in no sense a copy of other sins… it means sin which we derive from our origins.”[5] Edmund Hill further opines that Original Sin is the sin in us; the sin of humanity and not the particular sin of the first human being. It is against this background that some scholars prefer the use of the phrase “Originating Sin”. We may here refer to an overwhelming power of corruption that has the capacity to corrupt the human person to miss the mark all the time, hence needing the grace of God to be fully human as the creator had wanted humanity to be. It is therefore not a kind of innate depravity and corruption believed to be transmitted to Adams descendants because of his sin. Edmund Hill argued that it is a Sin we acquire in and through our origins; a sin of our nature as such and not personal or particular sin personally committed and not inherited biologically by others. That is the more reason why St. Augustine could call it “sin of nature or feebleness of nature.
Again, original sin and its impact on the human being makes him aware of the abuse of freedom in human history and its impact on human beings. It is a distortion of the ontological holiness ; a destruction of the innate grace. It calls our attention to the rejection of God’s absolute offer of himself. The Calvinistic view sees one as unable to overcome his sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, a power possessed only when one repents of his sin and turns in reliance upon Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin upon the cross. One problem with this view is in explaining how infants and those incapable of committing conscious sin are saved (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:3; 19:14), since they are nonetheless held responsible for Adam’s sin. Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology, feels this difficulty is resolved as follows: “There is a position [view] that...preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam [Romans 5:12-21], and at the same time, it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency towards sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least, there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.” The advantage of this doctrine is that it deals with the problem of evil without getting rid of God’s omnipotence, human freewill, or personal responsibility. That human beings are made in the divine image cannot be overemphasised but a flaw has been introduced that they cannot remove on their own. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, God is humanity’s creator and out of love for his creation, he bestowed on us divine gifts which were not ours by right, but only made available to us through his generosity; those gifts being the complete mastery of our passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace and the vision of God in the next life. As was his right, God made the loyalty and obedience of the head of the human family, Adam, the condition by which we would continue to receive those gifts throughout perpetuity. God’s love is therefore unconditional. Adam failed to hold up his end of this covenant and therefore those gifts were withdrawn, not only from him but from his children and heirs. But it has been because of God’s unceasing love that he has nevertheless given us the means to regain those gifts in the person of Christ- something he was in no way bound or obligated to do. However, many have raised objections to these namely if God were really good and truly loved us, he would not require anything from us that our failure to provide would bring about any sort of penalty. Again, that the story of the fall is internally inconsistent because the fruit of the tree brought knowledge of good and evil and without that knowledge one cannot sin. Therefore, humanity’s disobedience cannot be held against them. More so, there was an objection about why we are being punished for the wrong we have not done. The aforesaid are genuine objections to the doctrine of Original Sin but, we are all in some sense responsible for the deeds performed by the groups to which we belong. As a Ghanaian, l shoulder some of the responsibility for the action taken by my government and as an individual, l shoulder the responsibility of sin. Thus we do participate in original sin to the extent that we perpetuate it. Every moment of our lives, we are presented with Adam’s choice and more often than not we choose to evade our duties to ourselves, our fellow human beings, and our world and our creator.
Furthermore, in contrast to Jesus, the source of life, Paul painted Adam as the cause of our sinful condition into which all humans are born (original sin).
Genesis chapter three was thought to be the biblical foundation for it. But scholars now admit that the third chapter of Genesis tells us nothing about what happens at the beginning of time. Instead of describing an historical first sin, it presents an ingeniously simple picture of what every sin really is: the human self-assertion of those who want to be God, who want to go their own way in deciding what is right or wrong. The faith- core of the doctrine of original sin is that without grace no human being can rise to the level of existence God has planned for us. Even with grace, we will continually fall, because we are free and grace will always respect our freedom. It is significant that a new rite of baptism no longer emphasises liberation from original sin as a primary purpose of the sacrament, but initiation into the Christian community; an incorporation into the holy body of Christ.[6]
Also, the dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam. That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent) .We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.”
GENETIC SIN
This terminology for Original sin was vouched by Edmund Hill. He, however, called for its restricted usage because of its biological implications. Genetic sin is not the personal sin of an individual transmitted to the offspring. What is genetic is passed on through reproduction. The primal sin from Adam is not passed on by reproduction. Referring to it as genetic is very problematic. This is because, the question of guilt and responsibility and what really urged Adam to sin come in here. This term could be well understood from the lenses of the council of Trent as it used the arguments of Augustine against Pelagius to define sin as “… one in origin and passed on by propagation and not by imitation.” And here propagation means the inherent antecedent sinfulness of men and women even before they have been exposed to bad example and have began to sin personally. Thus genetic can be used not in the biological sense but as a spiritual reality affecting man in his real existence, not needing imitation or learning in an environment.
CONDITION OF DEFICIENCY
In the dictionary of Theology, Rahner and Vorgrimler make reference to some scholars who prefer a condition of deficiency. This is comprehensible because creation was considered to be good and later evil came in and so deficiency. But the problem comes when it is explained to mean that we were created deficient. Then we will be accusing God to have created evil. God did not create evil but evil is the privation of the good and this comes about as a result of the moral choices we make. Thus in Adam, man became deficient because of the choice he made. Man, it is said is the synthesis of free will and destiny. In as much as man is destined for salvation, man has the free will to consent to his salvation. St. Augustine puts it succinctly when he said that when God decided to create us, he did not consult us but he cannot save us without our consent.
HEREDITARY SIN
Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Hereditary or original or inherited sin does not refer to the so-called inherited sin from Adam. The idea of inheriting real sin from a putative Adam makes a mockery of the Justice of God. It must make those with a strong intuitive perception doubt the truth of such teachings. Hereditary sin was the consequence of the Fall of Man! According to Pope Pius XI original sin “Is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Romans 5:12. It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with the propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death.” [7] I could not agree more with what the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” teaches about original sin when it says that:
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 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’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’ grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God , but the consequence for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[8]

INHERITED SIN
During the Protestant Reformation the German reformer Martin Luther and the Swiss reformer John Calvin maintained the Augustinian emphasis on original sin and on God's grace as the means of redemption. The Swiss religious reformer Huldreich Zwingli regarded sin as an inherited disease. This doctrine is called Arminianism. Arminians believe that Adam’s sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a propensity to sin commonly referred to as having a “sin nature.” This sin nature causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own; that is why God gives a universal grace to all to enable them to stop. This grace is called prevenient grace. And according to this view, we are not held accountable for Adam’s sin, just our own. This teaching runs contrary to the verb tense chosen for “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 and also ignores the fact that all bear the punishment for sin (death) even though they may not have sinned in a manner similar to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:14-15,18). Therefore, inherited sin is the physical inheritance of a distorted brain, which if left unchecked will now lead to real sin because the full activity of the unchecked intellect always draws away from God. This is the great hereditary enemy that lies within every man, ready to ruin him and indeed it will if left unchecked.
Therefore, there could not have been anything like the widely held belief of the inheritance of real sin from an Adam. The distorted physical brain leads to a great tendency to sin, nothing more. This does not eliminate our responsibility as individuals to use our free wills for the good.
SIN OF THE WORLD
Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam. At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be done away with. Thus because it is the sin of the world, Jesus came to die for all and not for some selected few.
CONCLUSION
In as much as man has the propensity towards sin because of the fall, l believe strongly that man has the propensity towards holiness and this should be the project of our lives. Original Sin should not be an excuse for us to continue to remain in sin because “... He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.” (Ephesians 1:4). Original Sin is a message of hope for our screwed-up world. It says that the world and each person is created to be good and beautiful and that all the bad things in the world and in us are not part of our nature. The teaching of original sin says that bad things are not inherent in the universe; that the universe was created to be good and only became bad later on. This holds out the hope that the change could somehow be reversed and that harmony can someday be restored.
According to Joseph Komonchak, in his book “New Dictionary of Theology” any satisfactory theory of sin, especially of ‘Original’ sin must reckon with man’s physical, chemical and biological roots in his environment. It was and is, precisely the creationist’s view of human’s origins which disregarded and disregards the pervasive significance of these roots. By reducing biblical mythology to a pseudo- scientific explanation of man’s appearance on earth, the creationists’ have been forced to oppose the findings of modern scientific investigation into the origins man. The question that faces us today is not whether we can jettison the doctrine as an anachronism, but whether we can interpret it in a way which is faithful to its basic insight that it is to be human is to need redemption. (P. 130).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-ru-shin, In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft Publishing Company. Stuttgart, Germany.
APA citation. Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved December 22, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Chapman Geoffrey, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994.
Glazier Michael, Hellwig Monika K., (Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960, page 488.
Hill Edmund, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984.
Komonchak Joseph A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
MLA citation. Harent, Stéphane. "Original Sin." The Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
22 Dec. 2008 .
Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997.





[1] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 408.
[2] Joseph Komonchak A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987, Page 114.
[3] Ibid, P. 91.
[4] Ibid, P. 122.
[5] Edmund Hill, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984, P. 66.
[6] Michael Glazier, Monika K., Hellwig ( Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeveille, Minnesota, 1994, P. 806.
[7] Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997, P. 333.
[8] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 91.
INTRODUCTION
According to the “Catechism of The Catholic Church” “Sin is an offence against reason, truth and right conscience; it is a failure in genuine love of God and neighbour caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods.”[1] “In its theological usage, then, the word ‘sin’ is not synonymous with wrong doing, and still less with illegality.”[2] Various theologians have defined sin in different ways. Notable among them is Edmund Hill’s definition of sin as a flaw or distortion in human nature. It must be emphasized that in their bid to explain the origins of sin, theologians have being struggling with the term “Original Sin” as proposed by St. Augustine. Thus some theologians have come to call it Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin, Inherited Sin, Sin of the World, and a condition of deficiency. I think the problem is semantics and a play on words for it refers to the same thing. The purpose of this essay, therefore, is to mention the names of the proponents of these terminologies and to give a theological critique of these terminologies.

NAMES OF PROPONENTS
Original Sin was propounded by St. Augustine, Genetic Sin, Hereditary Sin and inherited Sin was propounded by Edmund Hill. Sin of the World was by Karl Rahner while Sin as a Condition of Deficiency was by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler.

A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF THE AFORE-MENTIONED TERMINOLOGIES.

ORIGINAL SIN
“The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the protestant reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adams fault to bad example…” [3] “The classical doctrine was given conciliar expression at the Council of Trent which affirmed that Adam’s sin ‘is one of origin and is passed on by propagation not by imitation’. The Council continues ‘ even children who in themselves could have as yet committed no sin, are therefore truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that by regeneration there may be cleansed in them what they contracted by generation’”[4]
Original sin is known in two senses: the Fall of Adam as the "original" sin and the hereditary fallen nature and moral corruption that is passed down from Adam to his descendants. It is called "original" in that Adam, the first man, is the one who sinned and thus caused sin to enter the world. Even though Eve is the one who sinned first, because Adam is the Federal Head (representative of mankind), his fall included or represented all of humanity. Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Original sin is not a physical corruption, but a moral and spiritual corruption. It could be compared to the Reformed Doctrine of Total Depravity which states that sin has touched all parts of what a person is: heart, mind, soul, will, thoughts, desires, etc. There has been much debate over the nature of the sin of Adam and how it affected mankind. Pelagius taught that Adam's sin influenced the human race only as a bad example and that all people are born in the same state as Adam was before his fall. Apart from the traditional meaning of Original sin, some scholars think that the phrase ‘Original Sin’ is misleading because that is not what the Latin word ‘Originale’ means but ‘Originale’ has to do with the beginning. That is why l could not agree more with Edmund Hill when he says that Original Sin “ Is not the first sin nor any particular actual sin which is in no sense a copy of other sins… it means sin which we derive from our origins.”[5] Edmund Hill further opines that Original Sin is the sin in us; the sin of humanity and not the particular sin of the first human being. It is against this background that some scholars prefer the use of the phrase “Originating Sin”. We may here refer to an overwhelming power of corruption that has the capacity to corrupt the human person to miss the mark all the time, hence needing the grace of God to be fully human as the creator had wanted humanity to be. It is therefore not a kind of innate depravity and corruption believed to be transmitted to Adams descendants because of his sin. Edmund Hill argued that it is a Sin we acquire in and through our origins; a sin of our nature as such and not personal or particular sin personally committed and not inherited biologically by others. That is the more reason why St. Augustine could call it “sin of nature or feebleness of nature.
Again, original sin and its impact on the human being makes him aware of the abuse of freedom in human history and its impact on human beings. It is a distortion of the ontological holiness ; a destruction of the innate grace. It calls our attention to the rejection of God’s absolute offer of himself. The Calvinistic view sees one as unable to overcome his sin apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, a power possessed only when one repents of his sin and turns in reliance upon Christ and His atoning sacrifice for sin upon the cross. One problem with this view is in explaining how infants and those incapable of committing conscious sin are saved (2 Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:3; 19:14), since they are nonetheless held responsible for Adam’s sin. Millard Erickson, author of Christian Theology, feels this difficulty is resolved as follows: “There is a position [view] that...preserves the parallelism between our accepting the work of Christ and that of Adam [Romans 5:12-21], and at the same time, it more clearly points out our responsibility for the first sin. We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency towards sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least, there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.” The advantage of this doctrine is that it deals with the problem of evil without getting rid of God’s omnipotence, human freewill, or personal responsibility. That human beings are made in the divine image cannot be overemphasised but a flaw has been introduced that they cannot remove on their own. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, God is humanity’s creator and out of love for his creation, he bestowed on us divine gifts which were not ours by right, but only made available to us through his generosity; those gifts being the complete mastery of our passions, exemption from death, sanctifying grace and the vision of God in the next life. As was his right, God made the loyalty and obedience of the head of the human family, Adam, the condition by which we would continue to receive those gifts throughout perpetuity. God’s love is therefore unconditional. Adam failed to hold up his end of this covenant and therefore those gifts were withdrawn, not only from him but from his children and heirs. But it has been because of God’s unceasing love that he has nevertheless given us the means to regain those gifts in the person of Christ- something he was in no way bound or obligated to do. However, many have raised objections to these namely if God were really good and truly loved us, he would not require anything from us that our failure to provide would bring about any sort of penalty. Again, that the story of the fall is internally inconsistent because the fruit of the tree brought knowledge of good and evil and without that knowledge one cannot sin. Therefore, humanity’s disobedience cannot be held against them. More so, there was an objection about why we are being punished for the wrong we have not done. The aforesaid are genuine objections to the doctrine of Original Sin but, we are all in some sense responsible for the deeds performed by the groups to which we belong. As a Ghanaian, l shoulder some of the responsibility for the action taken by my government and as an individual, l shoulder the responsibility of sin. Thus we do participate in original sin to the extent that we perpetuate it. Every moment of our lives, we are presented with Adam’s choice and more often than not we choose to evade our duties to ourselves, our fellow human beings, and our world and our creator.
Furthermore, in contrast to Jesus, the source of life, Paul painted Adam as the cause of our sinful condition into which all humans are born (original sin).
Genesis chapter three was thought to be the biblical foundation for it. But scholars now admit that the third chapter of Genesis tells us nothing about what happens at the beginning of time. Instead of describing an historical first sin, it presents an ingeniously simple picture of what every sin really is: the human self-assertion of those who want to be God, who want to go their own way in deciding what is right or wrong. The faith- core of the doctrine of original sin is that without grace no human being can rise to the level of existence God has planned for us. Even with grace, we will continually fall, because we are free and grace will always respect our freedom. It is significant that a new rite of baptism no longer emphasises liberation from original sin as a primary purpose of the sacrament, but initiation into the Christian community; an incorporation into the holy body of Christ.[6]
Also, the dogma makes us strictly responsible for the fault of Adam. That is a misconception of our doctrine. Our dogma does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father, nor do we say that original sin is voluntary in the strict sense of the word. It is true that, considered as "a moral deformity", "a separation from God", as "the death of the soul", original sin is a real sin which deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. It has the same claim to be a sin as has habitual sin, which is the state in which an adult is placed by a grave and personal fault, the "stain" which St. Thomas defines as "the privation of grace" (I-II:109:7; III:87:2, ad 3), and it is from this point of view that baptism, putting an end to the privation of grace, "takes away all that is really and properly sin", for concupiscence which remains "is not really and properly sin", although its transmission was equally voluntary (Council of Trent) .We become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in the life of each one of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all the time...and repent of it. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.”
GENETIC SIN
This terminology for Original sin was vouched by Edmund Hill. He, however, called for its restricted usage because of its biological implications. Genetic sin is not the personal sin of an individual transmitted to the offspring. What is genetic is passed on through reproduction. The primal sin from Adam is not passed on by reproduction. Referring to it as genetic is very problematic. This is because, the question of guilt and responsibility and what really urged Adam to sin come in here. This term could be well understood from the lenses of the council of Trent as it used the arguments of Augustine against Pelagius to define sin as “… one in origin and passed on by propagation and not by imitation.” And here propagation means the inherent antecedent sinfulness of men and women even before they have been exposed to bad example and have began to sin personally. Thus genetic can be used not in the biological sense but as a spiritual reality affecting man in his real existence, not needing imitation or learning in an environment.
CONDITION OF DEFICIENCY
In the dictionary of Theology, Rahner and Vorgrimler make reference to some scholars who prefer a condition of deficiency. This is comprehensible because creation was considered to be good and later evil came in and so deficiency. But the problem comes when it is explained to mean that we were created deficient. Then we will be accusing God to have created evil. God did not create evil but evil is the privation of the good and this comes about as a result of the moral choices we make. Thus in Adam, man became deficient because of the choice he made. Man, it is said is the synthesis of free will and destiny. In as much as man is destined for salvation, man has the free will to consent to his salvation. St. Augustine puts it succinctly when he said that when God decided to create us, he did not consult us but he cannot save us without our consent.
HEREDITARY SIN
Therefore, some hold that original sin includes the falling of all humanity. Some see original sin as Adam's fallen nature passed to his descendants. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned," (Rom. 5:12).Hereditary or original or inherited sin does not refer to the so-called inherited sin from Adam. The idea of inheriting real sin from a putative Adam makes a mockery of the Justice of God. It must make those with a strong intuitive perception doubt the truth of such teachings. Hereditary sin was the consequence of the Fall of Man! According to Pope Pius XI original sin “Is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Romans 5:12. It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with the propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death.” [7] I could not agree more with what the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” teaches about original sin when it says that:
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 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’. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’ grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God , but the consequence for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.[8]

INHERITED SIN
During the Protestant Reformation the German reformer Martin Luther and the Swiss reformer John Calvin maintained the Augustinian emphasis on original sin and on God's grace as the means of redemption. The Swiss religious reformer Huldreich Zwingli regarded sin as an inherited disease. This doctrine is called Arminianism. Arminians believe that Adam’s sin has resulted in the rest of mankind inheriting a propensity to sin commonly referred to as having a “sin nature.” This sin nature causes us to sin in the same way that a cat’s nature causes it to meow—it comes naturally. According to this view, man cannot stop sinning on his own; that is why God gives a universal grace to all to enable them to stop. This grace is called prevenient grace. And according to this view, we are not held accountable for Adam’s sin, just our own. This teaching runs contrary to the verb tense chosen for “all sinned” in Romans 5:12 and also ignores the fact that all bear the punishment for sin (death) even though they may not have sinned in a manner similar to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22; Romans 5:14-15,18). Therefore, inherited sin is the physical inheritance of a distorted brain, which if left unchecked will now lead to real sin because the full activity of the unchecked intellect always draws away from God. This is the great hereditary enemy that lies within every man, ready to ruin him and indeed it will if left unchecked.
Therefore, there could not have been anything like the widely held belief of the inheritance of real sin from an Adam. The distorted physical brain leads to a great tendency to sin, nothing more. This does not eliminate our responsibility as individuals to use our free wills for the good.
SIN OF THE WORLD
Augustine taught that men inherit natural corruption from Adam. At the return of Christ and the resurrection of all Christians, the sin nature will be done away with. Thus because it is the sin of the world, Jesus came to die for all and not for some selected few.
CONCLUSION
In as much as man has the propensity towards sin because of the fall, l believe strongly that man has the propensity towards holiness and this should be the project of our lives. Original Sin should not be an excuse for us to continue to remain in sin because “... He chose us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.” (Ephesians 1:4). Original Sin is a message of hope for our screwed-up world. It says that the world and each person is created to be good and beautiful and that all the bad things in the world and in us are not part of our nature. The teaching of original sin says that bad things are not inherent in the universe; that the universe was created to be good and only became bad later on. This holds out the hope that the change could somehow be reversed and that harmony can someday be restored.
According to Joseph Komonchak, in his book “New Dictionary of Theology” any satisfactory theory of sin, especially of ‘Original’ sin must reckon with man’s physical, chemical and biological roots in his environment. It was and is, precisely the creationist’s view of human’s origins which disregarded and disregards the pervasive significance of these roots. By reducing biblical mythology to a pseudo- scientific explanation of man’s appearance on earth, the creationists’ have been forced to oppose the findings of modern scientific investigation into the origins man. The question that faces us today is not whether we can jettison the doctrine as an anachronism, but whether we can interpret it in a way which is faithful to its basic insight that it is to be human is to need redemption. (P. 130).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abd-ru-shin, In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message. Stiftung Gralsbotschaft Publishing Company. Stuttgart, Germany.
APA citation. Harent, S. (1911). Original Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Retrieved December 22, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Chapman Geoffrey, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994.
Glazier Michael, Hellwig Monika K., (Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1994.
Harrison, Everett F. ed., Baker's Dictionary of Theology, Baker Book House; Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1960, page 488.
Hill Edmund, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984.
Komonchak Joseph A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
MLA citation. Harent, Stéphane. "Original Sin." The Catholic Encyclopaedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
22 Dec. 2008 .
Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997.





[1] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 408.
[2] Joseph Komonchak A., (Ed), New Dictionary of Theology, Welmington, 1987, Page 114.
[3] Ibid, P. 91.
[4] Ibid, P. 122.
[5] Edmund Hill, Being Human: A Biblical Perspective, London, 1984, P. 66.
[6] Michael Glazier, Monika K., Hellwig ( Editors), The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, Collegeveille, Minnesota, 1994, P. 806.
[7] Pius XI, Mit brennender Sorge as quoted in Christian Moral Principles by Germain Grisez, Franciscan Press, IIIinois, 1997, P. 333.
[8] Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Wellington House, London, 1994, P. 91.

HOMILY

REFLECTION ON THE 26TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME
THEME: DECISION MUST LEAD TO ACTION
DATE: 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2008
Last week, we reflected on the fact that those who seek the Lord with all their hearts will find him. It does not matter who you are.
The wicked man would be saved, if he turned from his evil ways. The true penitent is a true believer. None of his former transgressions shall be mentioned unto him, but in the righteousness which he has done, as the fruit of faith and the effect of conversion, he shall surely live. The question is not whether the truly righteous ever become apostates. It is certain that many who for a time were thought to be righteous, do so. Sin is forgiven, it is blotted out, it is remembered no more. In their righteousness they shall live; not for their righteousness, as if that were atonement for their sins, but in their righteousness, which is one of the blessings purchased by the Mediator. In verse 28 is the beginning and progress of repentance. True believers watch and pray, and continue to the end, and they are saved. In all our disputes with God, he is in the right, and we are in the wrong.
The second reading admonishes us to live our lives for others. Indeed, this is the true meaning of our calling; true and authentic Christianity. Do nothing out of selfish ambition but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.
The example of our Lord Jesus Christ is set before us. We must resemble him in his life, if we would have the benefit of his death. Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and human nature. Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, John 1:1, had not thought it a robbery to be equal with God, and to receive Divine worship from men. His human nature; herein he became like us in all things except sin. Thus low, of his own will, he stooped from the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Christ's two states, of humiliation and exaltation, are noticed. Christ not only took upon him the likeness and fashion, or form of a man, but of one in a low state; not appearing in splendour. His whole life was a life of poverty and suffering. But the lowest step was his dying the death of the cross, the death of a malefactor and a slave; exposed to public hatred and scorn. The exaltation was of Christ's human nature, in union with the Divine. At the name of Jesus, not the mere sound of the word, but the authority of Jesus, all should pay solemn homage. It is to the glory of God the Father, to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; for it is his will, that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father, John 5:23. Here we see such motives to self-denying love as nothing else can supply. Do we thus love and obey the Son of God?
The parable teaches us that promises can never take the place of performance and that fine words are never a substitute for good deeds. The son who said he would not go and did not go had all the outward marks of courtesy. In his answer, he called his father ‘sir’ with all respect. But a courtesy which does not get beyond words is a totally illusory thing. True courtesy is obedience willingly and graciously given. The parable also teaches us that a man can easily spoil a good thing by the way he does it. The Christian way is in performance and not promise and that the mark of a Christian is obedience, graciously given.

POINTS TO NOTE
The question is not whether the truly righteous ever become apostates.
In their righteousness they shall live; not for their righteousness, as if that were atonement for their sins, but in their righteousness, which is one of the blessings purchased by the Mediation.
What encouragement a repenting, returning sinner has to hope for pardon and live according to this promise (cf Hosea 11:1ff).
In verse 28 “When the sinner realizes what he is doing and stops sinning, he will certainly not die but he will live. This is the beginning and progress of repentance. True believers watch and pray, and continue to the end, and they are saved. In all our disputes with God, he is in the right, and we are in the wrong.
The second reading admonishes us to live our lives for others and consider others as better than ourselves. The master himself has given us an example of service by dying for us.
Tell the story of the five frogs who decided to jump into a nearby pool. Like the frog, many of us are still at the decision level in our quest to serve God. We must break camp and advance.
Christianity is not an opinion, neither is it words but it is Christ so says Pope John Paul ll
of blessed memory. In Christ we see the two sons find its fulfillment.

HOMILY

REFLECTION ON THE 25TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY
THEME: COME AS YOU ARE
DATE: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2008.

Last week Sunday, we reflected on the love of God as expressed in the symbol of the cross. I remember telling you that it was God who first took the initiative to offer us salvation and ours is a response in faith by way of offering our will, intellect and indeed our everything to him. Today, in the first reading, we see that same God inviting us and offering us mercy. One important attribute of our God is that fact that He is merciful and quick to forgive. This is what should give us hope that no matter the weight of our sins God offers us His mercy which is beyond human understanding. That is why His thoughts are not our thoughts and our way His way. The warning here is that we should not take the merciful of God for granted.
Here is a gracious offer of pardon, and peace, and of all happiness. It shall not be in vain to seek God, now his word is calling to us, and his Spirit is striving with us. As Christians, we should not be frustrated searching for God because He says that when we seek him we will find Him. The only way our seeking will be in vain is when we remain in sin and take his mercy for granted. The prophet Jeremiah puts it beautifully in Chapter 29:12ff “Then you will call to me. You will come and pray to me and I will answer you. You will seek me and will find me when you seek me with all your heart. Yes I will be found by you and I will restore you to your land…”
But there is a day coming when he will not be found. There may come such a time in this life; it is certain that at death and judgment the door will be shut. There must be not only a change of the way, but a change of the mind. We must alter our judgments about persons and things. It is not enough to break off from evil practices; we must strive against evil thoughts. To repent is to return to our Lord, against whom we have rebelled. If we do so, God will multiply to pardon, as we have multiplied to offend. But let none trifle with this plenteous mercy, or use it as an occasion to sin. Men's thoughts concerning sin, Christ, and holiness, concerning this world and the other, vastly differs from God's; but in nothing more than in the matter of pardon. We forgive, and cannot forget; but when God forgives sin, he remembers it no more
The second reading offers us a practical example of a man who sought God and found Him even in the most difficult circumstances of his life. Paul is certain that in Christ in Christ he will find courage never to be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. As J. B. Lightfoot puts it, “The right of free speech is the badge, the privilege, of the servant of Christ.” To speak the truth with boldness is not only the privilege of a Christian but a duty. For Paul, Christ was the reward of life; the only worthwhile reward was closer fellowship with his Lord. Thus if Christ is taken out of life, for Paul there will be nothing left. That should be our attitude too. When we make Christ the source, the centre and the summit our life, we will surely find him.
The direct object of this parable seems to be, to show that though the Jews were first called into the vineyard, at length the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and they should be admitted to equal privileges and advantages with the Jews. The parable may also be applied more generally, and shows, 1. That God is debtor to no man. 2. That many who begin last, and promise little in religion, sometimes, by the blessing of God, arrive at a great deal of knowledge, grace, and usefulness. 3. That the recompense of reward will be given to the saints, but not according to the time of their conversion. It describes the state of the visible church, and explains the declaration that the last shall be first, and the first last, in its various references. Till we are hired into the service of God, we are standing all the day idle: a sinful state, though a state of drudgery to Satan, may be called a state of idleness. The market-place is the world, and from that we are called by the gospel. Come; come from this market-place. Work for God will not admit of trifling. A man may go idle to hell, but he that will go to heaven, must be diligent. The Roman penny was seven pence, halfpenny in our money, wages then enough for the day's support. This does not prove that the reward of our obedience to God is of works, or of debt; when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants; but it signifies that there is a reward set before us, yet let none, upon this presumption, put off repentance till they are old. Some were sent into the vineyard at the eleventh hour; but nobody had hired them before. The Gentiles came in at the eleventh hour; the gospel had not been before preached to them. Those that have had gospel offers made them at the third or sixth hour, and have refused them, will not have to say at the eleventh hour, as these had, “No man has hired us.” Therefore, not to discourage any, but to awaken all, remember, that now is the accepted time. The riches of Divine grace are loudly murmured at, among proud Pharisees and nominal Christians. There is great proneness in us to think that we have too little, and others too much of the tokens of God's favour; and that we do too much, and others too little in the work of God. But if God gives grace to others, it is kindness to them, and no injustice to us. Carnal worldlings agree with God for their penny in this world; and choose their portion in this life. Obedient believers agree with God for their penny in the other world, and must remember they have so agreed. Didst not thou agree to take up with heaven as thy portion, thy all; wilt thou seek for happiness in the creature? God punishes none more than they deserve, and recompenses every service done for him; he therefore does no wrong to any, by showing extraordinary grace to some. See here the nature of envy. It is an evil eye, which is displeased at the good of others, and desires their hurt. It is a grief to ourselves, displeasing to God, and hurtful to our neigbours: it is a sin that has neither pleasure, profit, nor honour. Let us forego every proud claim, and seek for salvation as a free gift. Let us never envy or grudge, but rejoice and praise God for his mercy to others as well as to ourselves.

POINTS TO NOTE
For Paul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus was a beginning of a new life no matter the time we come.
Those men who were standing in the market place were not idlers, lazing away their time. It was a place for labor exchange and the fact that they stood there till five o clock shows how desperately they wanted work. The lesson is that God’s salvation comes to those who are desperately in need of it. We must begin to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Thus no matter the time we come, God will always give us what we need for our faith journey.
In the Christian church seniority does not matter. In God’s house everybody is a first born son.
The direct object of this parable seems to be, to show that though the Jews were first called into the vineyard, at length the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and they should be admitted to equal privileges and advantages with the Jews. The parable may also be applied more generally, and shows,
That God is debtor to no man. We cannot earn what God gives us.
Those many that begin last, and promise little in religion, sometimes, by the blessing of God, arrive at a great deal of knowledge, grace, and usefulness.
That the recompense of reward will be given to the saints, but not according to the time of their conversion. It describes the state of the visible church, and explains the declaration that the last shall be first, and the first last, in its various references.
Till we are hired into the service of God, we are standing all the day idle: a sinful state, though a state of drudgery to Satan, may be called a state of idleness. The market-place is the world, and from that we are called by the gospel.

HOMILY

REFLECTION ON THE 25TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY
THEME: COME AS YOU ARE
DATE: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2008.

Last week Sunday, we reflected on the love of God as expressed in the symbol of the cross. I remember telling you that it was God who first took the initiative to offer us salvation and ours is a response in faith by way of offering our will, intellect and indeed our everything to him. Today, in the first reading, we see that same God inviting us and offering us mercy. One important attribute of our God is that fact that He is merciful and quick to forgive. This is what should give us hope that no matter the weight of our sins God offers us His mercy which is beyond human understanding. That is why His thoughts are not our thoughts and our way His way. The warning here is that we should not take the merciful of God for granted.
Here is a gracious offer of pardon, and peace, and of all happiness. It shall not be in vain to seek God, now his word is calling to us, and his Spirit is striving with us. As Christians, we should not be frustrated searching for God because He says that when we seek him we will find Him. The only way our seeking will be in vain is when we remain in sin and take his mercy for granted. The prophet Jeremiah puts it beautifully in Chapter 29:12ff “Then you will call to me. You will come and pray to me and I will answer you. You will seek me and will find me when you seek me with all your heart. Yes I will be found by you and I will restore you to your land…”
But there is a day coming when he will not be found. There may come such a time in this life; it is certain that at death and judgment the door will be shut. There must be not only a change of the way, but a change of the mind. We must alter our judgments about persons and things. It is not enough to break off from evil practices; we must strive against evil thoughts. To repent is to return to our Lord, against whom we have rebelled. If we do so, God will multiply to pardon, as we have multiplied to offend. But let none trifle with this plenteous mercy, or use it as an occasion to sin. Men's thoughts concerning sin, Christ, and holiness, concerning this world and the other, vastly differs from God's; but in nothing more than in the matter of pardon. We forgive, and cannot forget; but when God forgives sin, he remembers it no more
The second reading offers us a practical example of a man who sought God and found Him even in the most difficult circumstances of his life. Paul is certain that in Christ in Christ he will find courage never to be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. As J. B. Lightfoot puts it, “The right of free speech is the badge, the privilege, of the servant of Christ.” To speak the truth with boldness is not only the privilege of a Christian but a duty. For Paul, Christ was the reward of life; the only worthwhile reward was closer fellowship with his Lord. Thus if Christ is taken out of life, for Paul there will be nothing left. That should be our attitude too. When we make Christ the source, the centre and the summit our life, we will surely find him.
The direct object of this parable seems to be, to show that though the Jews were first called into the vineyard, at length the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and they should be admitted to equal privileges and advantages with the Jews. The parable may also be applied more generally, and shows, 1. That God is debtor to no man. 2. That many who begin last, and promise little in religion, sometimes, by the blessing of God, arrive at a great deal of knowledge, grace, and usefulness. 3. That the recompense of reward will be given to the saints, but not according to the time of their conversion. It describes the state of the visible church, and explains the declaration that the last shall be first, and the first last, in its various references. Till we are hired into the service of God, we are standing all the day idle: a sinful state, though a state of drudgery to Satan, may be called a state of idleness. The market-place is the world, and from that we are called by the gospel. Come; come from this market-place. Work for God will not admit of trifling. A man may go idle to hell, but he that will go to heaven, must be diligent. The Roman penny was seven pence, halfpenny in our money, wages then enough for the day's support. This does not prove that the reward of our obedience to God is of works, or of debt; when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants; but it signifies that there is a reward set before us, yet let none, upon this presumption, put off repentance till they are old. Some were sent into the vineyard at the eleventh hour; but nobody had hired them before. The Gentiles came in at the eleventh hour; the gospel had not been before preached to them. Those that have had gospel offers made them at the third or sixth hour, and have refused them, will not have to say at the eleventh hour, as these had, “No man has hired us.” Therefore, not to discourage any, but to awaken all, remember, that now is the accepted time. The riches of Divine grace are loudly murmured at, among proud Pharisees and nominal Christians. There is great proneness in us to think that we have too little, and others too much of the tokens of God's favour; and that we do too much, and others too little in the work of God. But if God gives grace to others, it is kindness to them, and no injustice to us. Carnal worldlings agree with God for their penny in this world; and choose their portion in this life. Obedient believers agree with God for their penny in the other world, and must remember they have so agreed. Didst not thou agree to take up with heaven as thy portion, thy all; wilt thou seek for happiness in the creature? God punishes none more than they deserve, and recompenses every service done for him; he therefore does no wrong to any, by showing extraordinary grace to some. See here the nature of envy. It is an evil eye, which is displeased at the good of others, and desires their hurt. It is a grief to ourselves, displeasing to God, and hurtful to our neigbours: it is a sin that has neither pleasure, profit, nor honour. Let us forego every proud claim, and seek for salvation as a free gift. Let us never envy or grudge, but rejoice and praise God for his mercy to others as well as to ourselves.

POINTS TO NOTE
For Paul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus was a beginning of a new life no matter the time we come.
Those men who were standing in the market place were not idlers, lazing away their time. It was a place for labor exchange and the fact that they stood there till five o clock shows how desperately they wanted work. The lesson is that God’s salvation comes to those who are desperately in need of it. We must begin to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Thus no matter the time we come, God will always give us what we need for our faith journey.
In the Christian church seniority does not matter. In God’s house everybody is a first born son.
The direct object of this parable seems to be, to show that though the Jews were first called into the vineyard, at length the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and they should be admitted to equal privileges and advantages with the Jews. The parable may also be applied more generally, and shows,
That God is debtor to no man. We cannot earn what God gives us.
Those many that begin last, and promise little in religion, sometimes, by the blessing of God, arrive at a great deal of knowledge, grace, and usefulness.
That the recompense of reward will be given to the saints, but not according to the time of their conversion. It describes the state of the visible church, and explains the declaration that the last shall be first, and the first last, in its various references.
Till we are hired into the service of God, we are standing all the day idle: a sinful state, though a state of drudgery to Satan, may be called a state of idleness. The market-place is the world, and from that we are called by the gospel.

HOMILY

REFLECTION ON THE 25TH SUNDAY IN ORDINARY
THEME: COME AS YOU ARE
DATE: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2008.

Last week Sunday, we reflected on the love of God as expressed in the symbol of the cross. I remember telling you that it was God who first took the initiative to offer us salvation and ours is a response in faith by way of offering our will, intellect and indeed our everything to him. Today, in the first reading, we see that same God inviting us and offering us mercy. One important attribute of our God is that fact that He is merciful and quick to forgive. This is what should give us hope that no matter the weight of our sins God offers us His mercy which is beyond human understanding. That is why His thoughts are not our thoughts and our way His way. The warning here is that we should not take the merciful of God for granted.
Here is a gracious offer of pardon, and peace, and of all happiness. It shall not be in vain to seek God, now his word is calling to us, and his Spirit is striving with us. As Christians, we should not be frustrated searching for God because He says that when we seek him we will find Him. The only way our seeking will be in vain is when we remain in sin and take his mercy for granted. The prophet Jeremiah puts it beautifully in Chapter 29:12ff “Then you will call to me. You will come and pray to me and I will answer you. You will seek me and will find me when you seek me with all your heart. Yes I will be found by you and I will restore you to your land…”
But there is a day coming when he will not be found. There may come such a time in this life; it is certain that at death and judgment the door will be shut. There must be not only a change of the way, but a change of the mind. We must alter our judgments about persons and things. It is not enough to break off from evil practices; we must strive against evil thoughts. To repent is to return to our Lord, against whom we have rebelled. If we do so, God will multiply to pardon, as we have multiplied to offend. But let none trifle with this plenteous mercy, or use it as an occasion to sin. Men's thoughts concerning sin, Christ, and holiness, concerning this world and the other, vastly differs from God's; but in nothing more than in the matter of pardon. We forgive, and cannot forget; but when God forgives sin, he remembers it no more
The second reading offers us a practical example of a man who sought God and found Him even in the most difficult circumstances of his life. Paul is certain that in Christ in Christ he will find courage never to be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. As J. B. Lightfoot puts it, “The right of free speech is the badge, the privilege, of the servant of Christ.” To speak the truth with boldness is not only the privilege of a Christian but a duty. For Paul, Christ was the reward of life; the only worthwhile reward was closer fellowship with his Lord. Thus if Christ is taken out of life, for Paul there will be nothing left. That should be our attitude too. When we make Christ the source, the centre and the summit our life, we will surely find him.
The direct object of this parable seems to be, to show that though the Jews were first called into the vineyard, at length the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and they should be admitted to equal privileges and advantages with the Jews. The parable may also be applied more generally, and shows, 1. That God is debtor to no man. 2. That many who begin last, and promise little in religion, sometimes, by the blessing of God, arrive at a great deal of knowledge, grace, and usefulness. 3. That the recompense of reward will be given to the saints, but not according to the time of their conversion. It describes the state of the visible church, and explains the declaration that the last shall be first, and the first last, in its various references. Till we are hired into the service of God, we are standing all the day idle: a sinful state, though a state of drudgery to Satan, may be called a state of idleness. The market-place is the world, and from that we are called by the gospel. Come; come from this market-place. Work for God will not admit of trifling. A man may go idle to hell, but he that will go to heaven, must be diligent. The Roman penny was seven pence, halfpenny in our money, wages then enough for the day's support. This does not prove that the reward of our obedience to God is of works, or of debt; when we have done all, we are unprofitable servants; but it signifies that there is a reward set before us, yet let none, upon this presumption, put off repentance till they are old. Some were sent into the vineyard at the eleventh hour; but nobody had hired them before. The Gentiles came in at the eleventh hour; the gospel had not been before preached to them. Those that have had gospel offers made them at the third or sixth hour, and have refused them, will not have to say at the eleventh hour, as these had, “No man has hired us.” Therefore, not to discourage any, but to awaken all, remember, that now is the accepted time. The riches of Divine grace are loudly murmured at, among proud Pharisees and nominal Christians. There is great proneness in us to think that we have too little, and others too much of the tokens of God's favour; and that we do too much, and others too little in the work of God. But if God gives grace to others, it is kindness to them, and no injustice to us. Carnal worldlings agree with God for their penny in this world; and choose their portion in this life. Obedient believers agree with God for their penny in the other world, and must remember they have so agreed. Didst not thou agree to take up with heaven as thy portion, thy all; wilt thou seek for happiness in the creature? God punishes none more than they deserve, and recompenses every service done for him; he therefore does no wrong to any, by showing extraordinary grace to some. See here the nature of envy. It is an evil eye, which is displeased at the good of others, and desires their hurt. It is a grief to ourselves, displeasing to God, and hurtful to our neigbours: it is a sin that has neither pleasure, profit, nor honour. Let us forego every proud claim, and seek for salvation as a free gift. Let us never envy or grudge, but rejoice and praise God for his mercy to others as well as to ourselves.

POINTS TO NOTE
For Paul’s encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus was a beginning of a new life no matter the time we come.
Those men who were standing in the market place were not idlers, lazing away their time. It was a place for labor exchange and the fact that they stood there till five o clock shows how desperately they wanted work. The lesson is that God’s salvation comes to those who are desperately in need of it. We must begin to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Thus no matter the time we come, God will always give us what we need for our faith journey.
In the Christian church seniority does not matter. In God’s house everybody is a first born son.
The direct object of this parable seems to be, to show that though the Jews were first called into the vineyard, at length the gospel should be preached to the Gentiles, and they should be admitted to equal privileges and advantages with the Jews. The parable may also be applied more generally, and shows,
That God is debtor to no man. We cannot earn what God gives us.
Those many that begin last, and promise little in religion, sometimes, by the blessing of God, arrive at a great deal of knowledge, grace, and usefulness.
That the recompense of reward will be given to the saints, but not according to the time of their conversion. It describes the state of the visible church, and explains the declaration that the last shall be first, and the first last, in its various references.
Till we are hired into the service of God, we are standing all the day idle: a sinful state, though a state of drudgery to Satan, may be called a state of idleness. The market-place is the world, and from that we are called by the gospel.