Olli Dürr Society Catholic theologian explains consequences of the Fall

Catholic theologian explains consequences of the Fall

Catholic theologian explains consequences of the Fall post thumbnail image


A Catholic theologian explains the consequences and course of mankind after the first fall. Although the presentation does not go beyond the scope of the subtitles of a small picture story, the high concentration of untruths is remarkable.

Brief outline of the consequences of the first sin

bitten apple

The depiction of the consequences of the first fall is in a bad situation

With another “catechism podcast” in the catholic magazine “Die Tagespost” the theologian Andreas Wollbold explains the further process of mankind after the first fall. According to this, after the first sin, the world was flooded with sins. But instead of handing over man to death, God already announced at that time the future Messiah who would redeem the world. This brings victory over evil and “the rise of man from the fall.”

Evil continued after the first fall. Soon after, Cain murdered his brother Abel, according to the theologian. This shows how torn humanity is without friendship with God.

The deluge that rolled over the world followed. However, according to Wollbold, God did not want the destruction of mankind and this is also always proclaimed by the prophets in the Old Testament. From the very beginning, God had planned to redeem mankind by sending his Son into the world.

Superficial – Inaccurate – Untrue

With the explanation of the consequences after the first fall, it is only a very rough outline of history with the setting of a few cornerstones. Details, context and background are entirely absent. There are also statements by the theologian that cannot be reconciled with the gospel.

Why God Rejected Cain’s Sacrifice

Cain kills Abel

Cain murdered Abel. Why did God not accept Cain’s sacrifice?

The assassination of Abel by his brother Cain has an extremely important background that the Roman Catholic Church does not want to recognize. Abel sacrificed a lamb to God and Cain the harvested fruit from his fields. God accepted Abel’s sacrifice, but God rejected Cain’s sacrifice. The result was Cain’s raging jealousy against his brother, which eventually led to murder. But why God rejected Cain’s sacrifice is rarely, if ever, discussed. Many may even see God’s injustice, or Abel’s favoritism according to a parent’s “favorite son.” But Cain’s behavior represents exactly what is taught by the Roman Catholic Church, among others. Righteousness through your own works.

plan of salvation actually from the beginning

As the theologian rightly stated, it was God’s plan from the very beginning to send His Son into the world as the Redeemer of mankind. God already announced this to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, immediately after the fall, as in Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

With these words God announced His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, who will be nailed to the cross, but with His death attains victory over Satan. The sacrificial death of Jesus is not only the path of salvation opened up for mankind, but also the final end for the adversary. At the same time, God made clear the relationship between good and evil by setting enmity between the descendants of Eve (righteous or believers) and Satan’s descendants (rebels against God). Jesus Christ will come from Eve’s seed.

Catholic Bible variant

By the way: The so-called Douay-Rheims Bible, a Catholic translation from the hands of the Jesuit order, changed the verse Genesis 3:15 in the following variant um:
“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
she shall crush thy head […] wait for her heel”.
A blatant forgery in favor of Catholic Marian devotion and this is also reflected in the Catholic interpretation of Chapter 12 of Revelation. The woman described there is interpreted by the Church of Rome as Maria.

Cain’s works righteousness is cath. tradition

fruit basket

Cain’s crops could not be accepted – works righteousness

After the fall of man, mankind fell and was also condemned to death. Had it not been for Satan’s deception, Adam and Eve would still be alive today. With God’s plan of salvation, however, a way was opened to redeem people from their death sentence (unless Jesus was and is not a person without sin). But without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness (see Hebrews 9:22).

The sacrificial lamb in the Old Testament symbolized Jesus Christ, who was still to come from the perspective of the time. The innocent lamb (like Jesus Christ) gave his blood and died in place of the sinner (like Jesus Christ). Before Jesus Christ came it was faith in the coming Messiah (symbolized by the Lamb) and after Jesus Christ it was and is also faith that justifies. But Cain did not come with a sacrificial lamb, but with crops. But they cannot obtain the forgiveness of sins, for without blood there is no forgiveness.

Cain believed that the fruits of his works were sufficient, while Abel followed God’s direction and believed in the blood of the Redeemer to come. While Cain relied on the righteousness of his works, Abel believed in the promises of God and was obedient to Him (righteousness of faith).

The teachings of the Catholic Church are based on the righteousness of good works. What was not enough during one’s lifetime has to be burned down in “purgatory” or can also be purchased as an indulgence. The teachings of Rome thus represent the position of Cain and this also in relation to the consequences of his jealousy.

Peace or Discord?

The inner conflict of the people is not a consequence of the “lack of friendship” with God, as the theologian puts it. The division is God’s will, and He accomplished this by “putting enmity between their seed and his seed,” as already described in Genesis 3:15. Man’s sin separates him from God. But that does not tear the bond of God’s love towards his creatures. God never changes and this is also shown in Jesus Christ. He, Word of God incarnate, did away with the thesis that He came to bring peace within mankind once and for all. So in Matthew 10:34-36:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

The unification of mankind as one “human family” thus cannot be God’s will, but that was a will of Nimrod, a seed of Satan, for common rebellion against God. Such efforts can again be heard today from influential “theological circles”.

God a helpless observer?


God put an end to man’s first wickedness

Another “shaky” statement of the theologian is the assertion that God did not want the destruction of man”. This thesis put God in the position of the helpless observer who could not prevent the flood. As actually the rule also gives on this point the gospel gives a contrary answer, as in Genesis 6:5-7:

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Only for Noah and his family, 8 in all, did God have mercy because of their walk. After 120 years of building the ark, God let the flood break out on the earth. “Not wanting it that way,” as the theologian describes it, looks very different.

Unnamed Prophets

The claim that the Old Testament prophets always proclaimed that the destruction of mankind by the Flood was against the will of God needs to be backed up with examples. But the theologian would find it extremely difficult to do so and has probably forgone any attempts for this reason.

Catholic theses could still be conclusive


If you swap bad for good, then the Catholic view would make sense

Since one cannot be sure with the theology of the Roman Catholic Church whether their statements about “God, Christ and Jesus” actually mean “God” and “Jesus Christ” as they are described in the Gospel, one cannot either It can be ruled out that “their god” actually had to watch helplessly the destruction of the earth together with malicious people and that this was also directed against his will. In this case, the Bible has a corresponding warning ready, as in Isaiah 5:20:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Bible verses from King James Version

Beitrag teilen
Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

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

Mehr - More