P. Mikula wrote these remarks according to the lectures of the Prague priest B. Bily (22.2.1921-28.2.2002)
When we read religious books or the catechism, the teaching about original sin is paramount. And it is basic. Evidently Jesus went on the cross to “atone for Adam’s sins”.
Yes heredity does play a role here, but the heredity from two people, Adam and Jesus. However, any discussion refers only to Adam. Personal responsibility is not mentioned. Adam’s sin is not the main cause of our sins. Original sin only lays the ground; it does not cause our personal sins. Nobody will be damned because of original sin. From the Gospels, we know that it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. However classical theology does not think about this even though it develops a whole idea about it. Thus we come to the theological concept. In other words, a certain idea is formed and according to it other things are interpreted, information, selective reasoning. The whole internal process is therefore led by the initial reasoning. This is applicable to any theoretical process. When a theoretical process is formed, then the subsequent cognitive process follows its plan. How does this occur in the natural sciences, e.g. physics? There the primary reasoning is based on that which can be seen. It however has its limits. In certain areas one has to change to a secondary or more developed reasoning. The primary theory enlarges until it gathers enough material to form a complete way of teaching. When that teaching attains a certain value, or reaches a certain ceiling, new problems and discrepancies appear that lead to a secondary, possibly improved process of reasoning. In the criticism of Catholicism one can also put a badly-formed example: “Adam sinned and therefore Jesus died for us on the cross…” And this was developed further. Such a solution is similar to the way Paul, in Romans 9, explains “why Jews do not believe” differently than Jesus. Jesus clearly stated why he went on the cross (“When you hang the Son of man…because I love the Father”) Jesus’ death is an opportunity to learn the difference between right and wrong. It is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the second edition and not the tree of life.
Why did the theory about original sin come about? The question of inheritance arises, but just as the field of view narrowed and the positive side was forgotten, the focus was limited to “Adam sinned, because he ate…” Adam was supposed to decide and was supposed to let us “inherit”, and he did not do this, but rather he lost it. Thus the topic of original sin arises. Also, it did not begin with (and did not end with) the fact that they ate, but it began because they did not eat from the tree of life. And it ended with an equal sin against the Holy Spirit because instead of acknowledging their sin, one can say that they make excuses and even blame God (“the wife You gave me did it”). One can say that Jesus is a second Adam, but then we must understand it from the position that that someone will fix it and solve it. Not everyone can be a Pasteur, or Einstein. And when someone solves it, then he makes it easier for everyone. One can say that from the point of view of medicine, Pasteur is a kind of Jesus for future generations. God wants and stresses that a human being should solve problems. If people have caused problems then it is in their power to solve them. Not everyone has to solve them independently, but at least some human beings do and they give other people opportunities. Some things are in God’s sphere of influence, some are in people’s sphere of influence, and some are in that of “someone from the people”. With lies the question: “He judged him, because He is the Son of man.” Jesus also says: “I won’t judge; the people of Nineveh will rise….” We will judge the angels. People will judge themselves and Jesus will announce the winner and defend God if need be. “Adam in paradise’ – something similar to what is described in the sixth chapter of John. Adam in paradise and people outside of paradise differ only by baptism. Therefore even if we take the most radical concept of original sin, then Adam in paradise (if this is not a figurative concept or a model, but a true fact), if he had been blessed by grace, we could compare him to a baptized person, who has not yet had the eucharist. This person, who is baptized, but has not yet had the eucharist (has not eaten from the tree of life) is forced to begin thinking about the question “who is right?” That is why there is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam recognizes that God is right. But he reacts badly to this fact, he reacts by doing something similar to committing a sin against the Holy Spirit and therefore he is exiled from paradise and not because he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This sin (a sin similar to one against the Holy Spirit) is not a question of inheritance. Adam and Eve both committed it and if it had been an hereditary sin, then we would have all had it in ourselves and then it would have been a sin that could be forgiven. Because a sin against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, one can say that it was not exactly a sin against the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is forgivable. But that is an arguable and narrow viewpoint. One can say: “Yes, God wants these problems solved by human beings and Adam should have solved it.” But Adam did not solve it. And because he committed a sin, at least a sin against acknowledgement of the truth, he is thrown out of paradise and the tree of life is taken away from him. We cannot forget that the sin of the devil exists and Adam’s sin, original sin, does not concern the devil. Therefore damnation is based on something other then Adam’s sin. Adam could therefore only gain an innate state of christening, but not the product of the eucharist, that is, the eating from the tree of life. He could also have gained the opportunity for a direct ascent into Heaven, but we would have all walked around the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We would instead have had a heightened responsibility because of the serious situation. Thus our situation is relatively better. We have a lowered responsibility and a heightened merit. If so, we can look at it from that perspective (and that matches God’s great love) and not only from the narrow perspective: “Adam and Eve sinned and therefore we are being punished. Pelagius’ thoughtful approach corresponds to this. He thought this way: “Adam sinned and we did not. That is why we do not need Christ because Adam’s sin is a purely personal thing.” This is the core of Pelagius’ thought construct. Church representatives were not able to tell him: “Listen, one does not get into heaven only because one does not sin, but one can be in heaven only if you have a different life. I cannot give myself this first life or even the second life. “ And because God can give me eternal life, then Pelagius’ thinking could have been shown to be erroneous. But they refused to polemicize with him. In fact they were defenseless against Pelagius. And that is why there was: “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.” Pelagianism shows that a one-sided view of original sin was a basic tenet of the cathecism. Just as in paradise Adam (most likely) forgot to eat from the tree of life, then similarly the Church forgot the tree of life and the teaching of eternal life. Just as is applicable to us: “When the bridegroom is taken…. “ then similarly the tree of life was taken from Adam and Eve. People stopped understanding Christianity as a transformation of life – seen by the majority. It was made a mystery and the concept of “original sin” was born and of Jesus as a saviour, who suffered for Jesus’ sin. At the same time, all sins are products of Adam’s original sin. And that is a true heresy. All sins do not stem from Adam’s sin. The devil also sinned. And even if Adam did not sin, then all Adam’s sons and descendants could have committed Adam’s sin that leads to hell. Adam’s repertoire is smaller, but more marked, one could say spicier and juicier. The devil does not have Adam as an ancestor and he also sinned. And we, even if we had Adam as an ancestor, we can also be citizens of heaven. Jesus dies for everything that is on heaven and on earth. To say that Jesus came on earth to atone for Adam’s sin is thus for these reasons incorrect. Everything was made according to Jesus and Jesus is the saviour and finally goes on the cross so that “the world might know that I love God”, “so that the world might know that God loves the world”, “so that people might know what resurrection from the dead is”, “so that you might know that it is I”. This is the meaning of Christ’ suffering. “Yes, so you can see who is good and who is bad.” Adam could have learnt to distinguish this. The question arises how it would have looked if Adam had been successful. Maybe Jesus would not have suffered on our earth and would have suffered elsewhere, in some other civilization. That is the question. But Jesus is the saviour of all mankind, on earth and in heaven and therefore his coming does not depend on Adam’s sin. But he came for all our sins. That Adam committed a sin is only an aspect of it. Jesus gives eternal life. If Adam and Eve were born in a state of blessed grace (even if the theologic aspect “blessed grace” is problematic because we have to keep in mind that according to John’s gospel it is really a matter of co-existence with God), thus if they were born in a state of co-existence, that is in a state of baptism, then they would have to have the equivalent of the Eucharist. And thus the tree of life would be the equivalent of the Eucharist. Otherwise why give the tree of life and separately the source of eternal life? The dead have the Eucharist of the dead. The question is whether their Eucharist is requited or not. The tree of life could, if taken absolutely, not be the absolute equivalent of the Eucharist. It could be a model for it. The truth is that Adam and Eve were not interested in it, did not eat from the tree of life and were not interested in eternal life. And even if it were a mere example, then here is the seed of sin. “You say “We see” and therefore your sins remain”, “You say “We are good” and therefore comes the fall”. Through Adam’s fall at most man lost his status of baptism. Through the fall he did not gain the status of damned, but the status of the unbaptised. The baptized person has to eat the Eucharist. If he does not eat the Eucharist, he will be damned. If Adam had not sinned, all of Adam’s sons would have walked around the tree of life (and also around the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) . The question of redemption would also have depended on the actions of each of us. And conversely we would have had a greater responsibility. Thus we have a lower responsibility, or a great merit and “dig your way through it” applies.
How can we solve the problem of original sin? One could say that Adam could not guarantee his children redemption, but he could guarantee them a state of baptism. Everybody would be in paradise and would decide for themselves. A human being received the freedom to decide. Even the state in paradise must correspond to the basic building block of God’s creation: “Yes, I am giving you the scepter”. The seventh day of creation is the day the scepter is passed on. That does not mean: “The seventh day is sacred, God is resting, so you can rest too.” It relates to the parable “He distributed the talents and then left and returned after a long time. After a long waiting time (after a ceiling is reached) he will return.” The life of a person is not terminated prematurely, but when the graph of his growth stops completely or when a righteous person, who lives among the unrighteous, is under danger of falling under a bad influence. The important thing is not to stress the question of original sin, but the question of personal growth, the question of one’s attitude to transformation, one’s stance versus one’s own ego. And to look at Adam’s fall and Jesus’ coming and preaching from this standpoint. From this perspective one can explain it from many facets.
The concept of original sin talks about the inheritance of sin and not the inheritance from Jesus. Adam’s calling is also not talked about. It is a very deformed and narrow view and other aspects are not added to it and therefore a false base is formed which narrows and colors the view on the whole subject. From this then comes the general idea: “If Adam had not sinned, we would be in paradise and then in heaven.” That is not true. We would not have sins against the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandment, but we would have had sins such as the devil has and just like fallen angles we would have to wait until someone suffers for us, so that our concept of false goodness would be shattered. Jesus could and did forgive sins before he died. We know however that in certain areas he could not teach the apostles, disciples, and Nicodemus until he was killed. And because of that unwillingness to learn he had to suffer on the cross. Some level had to be attained by him going on the cross. “It is finished” means that some level has been reached. Jesus does not break levels of suffering and he suffers less than the two thieves beside him on the crosses. Pilate is puzzled that Jesus dies first and atypically. This is all forgotten in the whole concept of original sin. Adam sinned and we could also sin. One’s own sins are key (and not Adam’s sin) and this is forgotten. If we paraphrase Ezekiel Ch 33, we get: “You say that the fathers ate sour grapes and the sons suffer from toothaches. If you say this, do not expect mercy from me.” We de facto say the same thing. If we talk about Adam, we could say this: “People already had the opportunity, God wanted to leave to Adam and Adam messed it up. God could not leave us in such a position. They did not care and we would also not care to eat from the tree of life. On the one hand it is better for us, because otherwise we would all walk by the tree of life and by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It would be a shock for every person when he was banished from paradise and had to adapt to a defective form of living. And thus God is merciful in the matter of “Adam’s heritage”. Unfortunately it has been narrowed to the problem of original sin, which was monopolized. The sin of those who are damned is always personal and nobody is damned because of original sin. Yes, a person cannot be given salvation, but every sin can be forgiven and only a sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. The fact that we sinned through Adam could be an artifact of St. Paul. Adam could have earned us eternal life, but he did not. That is one aspect. But the second aspect is if it is right to say that that is why we are sinful (and will not enter into paradise). It is the area where we go into the problem of sin. It is apparently because we did not take into account that “tax-collectors and prostitutes will precede you”. The monstrousness of the Pharisees was not understood. Jesus said that the Pharisees would not enter into heaven even though the Pharisee may not have sinned. If it is not understood, incomprehension sets in as to why the Jews are put aside and then finally we have the solution of Romans 9. If the problem of the Pharisees is not understood, one cannot understand why a person cannot be saved, one cannot understand Christ, and the theory of original sin is thought up. Meanwhile the question of heaven lies in: “You cannot enter because you are not transformed” and not in: “You cannot enter because you sinned.” If it was stated that: “You cannot enter, because you do not have eternal life, which Adam could have gained for you and the question of misspent inheritance arises”, then that would be acceptable. But it was made into a fault and said that whoever has a fault will not be saved and who dose not have a fault will be saved. Let us remember that the servant with one talent was thrown out because he did not make use of it. He buried the talent and did not steal it. The expulsion is not due to original sin, but to his fault that he did not use the talent. This is the reason for abandonment, but unfortunately we do not talk about it. Yes, Adam could have made the situation easier by preparing certain things for us (mental programs, etc.). If a person is under the influence of the classical theory of original sin, he cannot understand these things. Thanks to this classical theory of original theory of original sin, the whole concept becomes clouded, a different strategy is formed, a different basis of sin, a different strategy of fight for good and against sin. It is necessary to realize that the fight for eternal life is not the same as the fight against sin. It does not follow that if one gets rid of sin that a person gains eternal life.
In the Acts of the Apostles, it is written that “we must suffer in order to enter”. It does not follow from this that suffering is a great merit. By “erasing” the tree of life from theological discussion, interest in the tree of life was lost and the role of sin began to be emphasized and the theological idea of original sin and redemption from original sin was formed. And our catechism is based on this theological idea. A simple schema was thought up: “The first humans sinned, but Jesus cam to save us.” As already stated, original sin exists, but that is not the only problem. Much more important is personal responsibility, which is not taken into consideration in this theological conception. On the basis of original sin, a closed system was formed and according to it other facts are interpreted, which do not completely correspond to the original problem. The theological idea of original sin then does not allow us to solve many other problems. For example Christians of the Smyrna type must suffer and then enter (Rev 2-3). The reason they must suffer is their instable goodness, their loss of motivation for eternal life and their false theory of merit. All this can be seen in the early Church. St. Paul says that if a person does something that is his responsibility, there is no merit in it. Thus St. Paul misses the concept of merit.
Remarks on the theory of inheritance
The urge to migrate is innate, as is the wish to learn in kids. This innate trait came from the fact that previous generations did something. The father does something and so does the child. When a son has a child and he does something, the grandson also does something and knowledge is passed to future generations. That is one factor. If it was only this, a gene bank would not be formed. So something gets into those genes. The question is if everything gets into those genes. That is very unlikely. That would be similar to a person remembering everything. So a person must inherit some things. Then there is a third factor, which on first glance is not emphasized as much (and it is clear) and that is this. When a small child learns to read prior to going to school and then reads, he will also encourage it in his child. But when this is not allowed in a small child (so that he won’t cause trouble in school) then learning in school is not motivated by the hope of learning to read but by the wish of what kind of reward he will get. So the original interest is not awakened, or “went to sleep” again. A dampening effect takes place. So new activities are seen as experiences which do not need to be embedded in a kid’s mind. A preschool kid, when he takes apart a watch and learns how to do it, can gain new skills relatively easily. In the field of electricity he can then understand the role of the telephone on the basis of elementary knowledge. Such natural progression is much faster even if the old “mental programs” are not present. If we allow the possibility of these old “programs” that were made and that a great-grandson inherited, then the genetic information is strengthened if the grandson realizes them. And step by step if can go into the genetic code of future generations. This means that the genetic inheritance is strengthened by action. Knowledge which is used is much more likely to be encoded in the brain. We must allow that there is a certain amount of transfer from the brain into the genetic code. Eggs and sperm get new information from the brain. Not everything, only fixed, crucial things. They will not be ephemeral knowledge, but rather of a fixed character, something that always happens. It is encoded in the brain and the testes and ovaries “read” it in the brain and pass it on. Thus genetic development is biologically based. So in genetic transfer evidently a brain printout exists, which is fixed in the brain as an unchanging thing. A one-off event can be fixated or things that are repeated. It must be granted that information that is fixed in the brain must be accepted into the genetic code. A migratory bird, if he flew more than once, the route must have become encoded. In the beginning, he may have been led by an ancestor who found the route. Then the birds flew the route that they learnt. These routes were written into their brain and were then encoded into their genes. From this we can deduce that the older the father, the more the (youngest) son has inherited learning. After Adam people had children around one hundred years. This enabled very fast growth and transmission into the genetic code. In the Old Testament it is said that the young will have visions and the old dreams. Some can look at this as not real, but it can have the characteristic of Gideon’s dream.