Yes to the first part (Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5), but to the second part...not exactly, as it's not really relevant. The problem is our very nature has been "made opposite unto all that is spiritually good," such that "actual sins" of individuals will inevitably be the fruit of that corrupted root. Here's how we put it:

```

WLC

Q. 22. Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?

A. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression.

...

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?

A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin.

```

Regarding the question of free will and predestination, I wonder if this might help. My favorite analogy to explain this is that of a magnet compass. A magnetic compass is attracted in a certain direction, by its very nature, which nature it is powerless to change of itself (nor does it want to). The curse, in effect, 'reversed the polarity' of all humans 'descening from Adam by ordinary generation,' such that rather than being attracted to the glory of God, it becomes repellent to us. Our 'needle' points South because of that switch in polarity. We hate the idea of a supreme judge who will hold us accountable ("for our deeds are evil"), we repress this knowledge in unrighteousness (Rom. 1), etc. The needle spins _freely_ -- as in free from some outside force -- but that needle is not free from its natural magnetic properties -- it turns where it wants to turn, by nature. In regeneration, the grace of God soveriegnly and supernaturally _reverses the polarity back_ such that we freely spin our 'needle' back to true North because we now want to. The teaching of predesination is not that God reaches down and grabs hold of that needle and forces it back toward himself--it's that he supernaturally changes our very nature, and we--now truly free--'spin our needle' back to him. Freedom of the will does mean freedom from outside force, but it does not mean freedom from our own nature.

A man is completely free to choose whatever his nature desires; and we always choose what we want most. What, then, will a "dead," "blind," "enemy" choose freely according to his nature? All that is not God. The problem is not our freedom, it's our nature. "We must be born again from above."

To my understanding that aligns very well with official Catholic doctrine. They teach that baptism removes the stain of original sin but not our “desire to sin” or concupiscence. It is by Gods grace that we are unburdened from the stain of original sin and by His grace that we grow in righteousness as we work to turn our need back to him as you put it.

I am not proof reading so please forgive me for any spelling errors.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Highly recommend that Sproul article I sent. I think it would help clarify some of the issues.

Long story short, the rift between Rome and the Reformed is significant and irreparable unless Trent is completely repealed. You could look into the differences between _monergistic_ and _synergistic_ regeneration, you could look into the differences between sacerdotalism and the 'priesthood of all believers,' you could look at what the Reformed have to say about an _ex opere operato_ nature of the sacraments, transubstantiation, the 'immaculate conception' and role of Mary as co-mediatrix and therefore co-redemptrix, you could look at what the RCC means by the mass being a "re-presentation" of the "victim"...the list goes on and on, sadly.

The key place to start would probably be the debate over the '[Five Solas](https://reformationbiblecollege.org/blog/the-five-solas)'. Also helpful may be a review of the controversial "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" movement of the mid-nineties where a rapprochement was attempted, but failed: see Horton, "[ECT - A Critical Review](https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/evangelicals-and-catholics-together-a-critical-review)"

On these points, Rome and the Reformed are irreconcilable.

All that said...sigh...we can confess, uphold, and defend the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds in common. And that, at least, is a starting point. Appreciate the dialogue, my friend. 🤙

Oh man, how could I forget: one more major one that's upstream from most of what divides: the Roman idea of the _donum superadditum_ vs. the Reformed idea of the _donum concreatum_. That's basically at the headwaters of the doctrines of creation and anthropology (doctrine of man), influences hamartaology (doctrine of sin), and obvioiusly soteriology (doctrine of salvation) as well.

I don't mean to overwhelm with all this. I'm not sure just how hungry you are to delve into this, so I'm erring on the side of 'too much' information rather than too little 😅 apologies if it's too much.