Do These Verses Contradict Original Sin?

[The Liturgist]

Well it was Army Matt that described it to me using the term

We do believe in the ancestral sin model of St. John Cassian, but this model is anti-Pelagian and not semi-Pelagian.

I have seen the term semi-Pelagian used credibly in the specific context of Arminianism, which is to say, in the Pietist theology of the Dutch Remonstrant church. However, usually the term is, in my experience, used as a pejorative against non-Calvinists.

Pelagianism is a form of Monergism and the Orthodox reject Monergism entirely (the Fifth Ecumenical Synod specifically addreessed Monergism).

There are essentially three forms of Monergism: Universalism, Double Predestination/TULIP “Five Points Calvinism” and Pelagianism. In the first two, God does all the work, either for everyone or for a limited group of people, and in the third, Man affects his own salvation on the basis of divine guidance. So divine energy only, and human energy only.

 

[bling]

I think that there are many analogies that can be used to consider how God is dealing with errant humanity. One such an allergy is a legal system, where every wrongdoing has to be “paid for“. An example of this was the old testament sanctuary system, where in sins were seemingly paid for through the blood of animal sacrifices.

The “sacrifices” of the Old Testament “paid for” nothing. Read Lev. 5 since this deals with individual sins (very minor sins almost accidental sins described as unintentional sins). All Jewish males should have gone through this experience personally sometime in their life and come to an understanding of atonement. They could also extrapolate up to rebellious disobedience to see there would seemingly never be an atonement sacrifice great enough for these sins.

In Lev. 5, God describes the atonement sacrifice as a penalty, which maybe better translated as a punishment/disciplining. The atonement sacrifice is not “paying” anything but is a disciplining of the sinner. You also see that in the fact there are different types of sacrifices for the same exact sin depending on the wealth of the individual, yet all individuals are the same before God. This is the have a sacrifice somewhat equal out the hardship on the sinner, which seems to be the point. “Forgiveness” from God is not really part of the atonement process, but is after the sinner goes through the atonement process.

Atonement is a huge topic.

I think this system works fairly well on a certain level, but as Paul later points out, the blood of animals can never remove the wrongdoing from our hearts.

Rebellious disobedience directly against God (this comes from most of Leviticus) had no atonement method and required death or banishment. All mature adults at sometime in their life are rebelliously disobedient.

And I think a very negative aspect that has come out of this, is a concept of Jesus paying off the Father for the sins of humanity. And we end up with a picture of God, the Father, as an angry God, and only appeased by the blood of His son. This is contrary to what Jesus told us, where in the Father himself loves us.

Very good, but you might add: it makes God out to be totally unjust, blood thirsty and a very poor parent.

Clearly, the world around us is not ideal, not what God would want for us. So if we look at a chain of cause and effect, it can extend all the way back to Adam and Eve. And if we feel that we are suffering in this modern world, we can say we are suffering because of what Adam and Eve did. And in that sense we would be under the punishment because of our forefathers. I would argue that God allowing natural consequences to be carried out, could be seen as punishment by some, and not by others.

I look around and see a world ideally operating for the benefit of willing individuals in the fulfilling of their earthly objective.

I also see the Garden from witnessing our best all human representatives as being a lousy/impossible place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective.

I am with you in that I don’t like a doctrine of original sin. I think many of these issues are simply analogies, which have then been extended farther than they should have.

We, and Adam & Eve, learn a lot from the Garden experience and the curses (like death, hardship, pains, limited resources, and even the knowledge of Good and Evil) all help us in fulfilling our objective.

 

[bling]

Original Sin is the Christian teaching of mankind's sinfulness because of Adam's fall. It does not refer to the originating sin committed by Adam—(Gen 3:6)—but rather to mankind's moral and spiritual condition because of that sin. Original sin “is a sin 'contracted' and not 'committed'—a state of being and not an act” . Because of the fall the human race is born with a moral/spiritual "disease" ... that "disease" leads all to commit acts of sin .... we refer to this as our fallen nature ... that is ... it is natural for us to have (born with) moral/spiritual defects ... Jesus is the cure for the disease and will help us overcome our sinful nature (natural tendency to sin) that we are born with.

Since the fall ... We are born being separated from God ... this separation is our natural state of being since the fall.

Psalm 51:5: Humans are born into iniquity and sin, but we do not have to remain in it.

Jesus is the cure for the disease we are born with.

The only thing I see being past down to humans is: “The Knowledge of God and Evil”. Knowledge is not “bad” in and of itself, with Adam and Eve not needing this knowledge to sin.

Our conscience (knowledge of Good and Evil) provides us with tons of ways to sin, so we will sin fairly quickly if and after reaching our age of accountable.

Our very good (best) all human representatives, Adam and Eve sinned with the nature they had, so our “nature” does not have to change for us to sin and now we have lots of ways to sin.

Godly type Love which we can accept as a pure undeserving gift and the indwelling Holy Spirit allows us to quit sinning.

Psalms 51:5

Psalms 51:5 is a problem translation for Jews and Christians, so this one verse takes a lot of explaining, but it also has to be consistent with all these verse in Psalms at least.

It has been decades since I did my study and I have many pages of notes.

This could all be a very poetic hyperbole David is using and he should be allowed some poetic license.

We have similar verses:

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Ps 22 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.

On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Ps. 139: 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.



I argue that a child is Innocent:

Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30

Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4

The spoken and written gospel message is God's power for salvation: Rom 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18

God said that the king of Tyrus was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezek 28:15

"God made men upright but they sought devices" Eccl 7:29 (plural can't refer only to Adam)

Jer 19:2-6 human sacrifices of children to Baal is called the "blood of the innocent"

Jesus teaches us that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:3- 4; Lk. 18:16-17)

Apostle Paul: Rom 7:9-11 "Once alive" "sin killed me"

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Ps 22 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.

On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Ps. 139: 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.



Looking Deeper into Psalms 51:5

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the 'circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act.

Read some of the English translation Psalms 51:5

KJV Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

YLT Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

WEB Behold, I was born in iniquity. My mother conceived me in sin

RSV Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

KJV Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Granted some translators have a problem with the sin being David’s mother’s problem and will point to verses like these:

In PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's positive relationship with the Lord.

Psalm 86:16 Turn to me and have mercy on me; show your strength in behalf of your servant; save me, because I serve you just as my mother did. She sounds righteous to me.

Thus, they majorly change the translation to be David’s sin, But are these translations the result of preconceived ideas?

The wording seems to be saying: the sin is the mothers at conception.

What do we know which could show it to be David’s mother and a problem?

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail)…..:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

Again the translators do not like the idea of these sisters only being David’s so the change the wording and meaning, but the better translations is:

KJV Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.

Why might these two only be David’s sisters and not Jesse’s daughters: 2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man’s son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab’s mother.”

Nahash is king of the Ammonites.

1 Chronicles 19:2 David thought, “I will show kindness to Hanun son of Nahash, because his father showed kindness to me.” So David sent a delegation to express his sympathy to Hanun concerning his father. When David’s envoys came to Hanun in the land of the Ammonites to express sympathy to him,

Why did Nahash show kindness to David?

David’s Jewish mother seems to have been previously married to Nahash the Ammonite and later was the second wife of Jesse, this was not a “sin” most likely but later could have been perceived as a sin, thus Jesse not counting David as one of his sons and all his brothers treating him badly.

A lot more can be said, but it was not David being conceived a sinner, but his mother conceiving him could be perceived as a sin.

Now we can go further into scripture showing how David was treated and persecuted as an outsider by his family and loved only by his mother.

 

[timothyu]

We are spirit housed in the flesh of an animal, an animal created to follow self serving animal instincts, the power behind 'sin'. It is ours to not use that knowledge gained in the garden to our advantage utilizing that self serving instinct (as most of mankind has always done since the Garden). We are to live as the spirit directs, loving all as self.

 

[Dale]

I quoted the first chapter of John in post #11. Here is some more scripture.

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of
the LORD been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root
out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us
to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and
familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their
faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet
we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and
afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for
our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was
upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us
all.
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his
mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep
before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression [Or From arrest] and judgment he was taken
away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut
off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my
people he was stricken.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in
his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any
deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to
suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and
prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his
hand.
After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life
and be satisfied; by his knowledge
my righteous servant will justify many, and he will
bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [Or
many] and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [Or
numerous] because he poured out his life unto death, and was
numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of
many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53: 1-12 NIV

Here Isaiah tells us of the coming Messiah, which we know to be Jesus. Note the words “our infirmities,” “our sorrows,” “our transgressions,” “our iniquities,” “for the transgression of my people,” and “the sin of many.” There is nothing here about Jesus suffering and dying for sins committed in the Garden of Eden or to remove a stain inherited from our ancestors. It is enough to say that everyone falls short, so everyone is in sin, and the suffering of Jesus Christ removes those sins and reconciles us with God.

 

[KevinT]

The “sacrifices” of the Old Testament “paid for” nothing. Read Lev. 5 since this deals with individual sins (very minor sins almost accidental sins described as unintentional sins). All Jewish males should have gone through this experience personally sometime in their life and come to an understanding of atonement. They could also extrapolate up to rebellious disobedience to see there would seemingly never be an atonement sacrifice great enough for these sins.

In Lev. 5, God describes the atonement sacrifice as a penalty, which maybe better translated as a punishment/disciplining. The atonement sacrifice is not “paying” anything but is a disciplining of the sinner. You also see that in the fact there are different types of sacrifices for the same exact sin depending on the wealth of the individual, yet all individuals are the same before God. This is the have a sacrifice somewhat equal out the hardship on the sinner, which seems to be the point. “Forgiveness” from God is not really part of the atonement process, but is after the sinner goes through the atonement process.

I agree with you that the sacrifices are really a discipline rather than a payment. But sometimes discipline can seem like a payment. Like a kid who gets in trouble at school and has to "pay" for their actions with time in detention. I think my original point was that I disagreed with the idea of thinking of right-doing or wrong-doing as credits or debts that are stored up in some heavenly ledger book -- and that the life and death of Jesus somehow clears out the balances.

I think actually happens is that mankind keeps screwing everything up by continually aligning ourselves with the forces of evil rather than following God's directions. As a result things get worse and worse, and someone in God's Kingdom has to step in and fix things. And this can be viewed in the analogy of a credit/debt framework. I think of a child who has written on the walls with a permanent marker, and now the parent has to expend effort to paint the wall to compensate for the child's actions. We could say that the child induced a debt by make the home worse, and the child paid off that debt by stepping in to fix it. A loving parent doesn't keep track of everything that their child does; they just keep helping them learn and improve. And likewise, God keeps working with us to follow His directions and to become more like Him. If a child fails to learn from their parents, they are like to die prematurely from running out into the street etc. And likewise if we fail to follow God, natural consequences will separate us from God's life.

Rebellious disobedience directly against God (this comes from most of Leviticus) had no atonement method and required death or banishment. All mature adults at sometime in their life are rebelliously disobedient.

I have read that in the Bible, and it always made me think that everyone in the OT should have been killed. I think it was a rule that never got enforced.

Very good, but you might add: it makes God out to be totally unjust, blood thirsty and a very poor parent.

Thanks for the feedback!

Best wishes,

Kevin

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ancestral sin is not “semi-Pelagian.” We anathematize Pelagianism and always have. Our refutation of Pelagius is based on the writings of St. John Cassian.

I must admit I find it exceedingly offensive when people refer to Orthodox soteriology as “semi-Pelagian.”

I sincerely apologize brother it was not my intention at all to offend you or misrepresent the OEC which I believe you know that I hold both you and the EOC in very high regard. I dunno maybe he said semi Arminian but I’m pretty sure Army Matt said semi Pelagian. Like I said the discussion between me and Matt was about the portion from Adverses Haereses that I quoted in my last post and to be honest I can see how it could be considered as being semi pelaganist in nature. Obviously it doesn’t represent Pelagian’s extreme views but it does put the choice of obedience to God within man’s ability to comply. So it does have that aspect of Pelagianism to it but not the extreme view that man can be saved apart from Christ’s sacrifice or that man is capable of refraining from sin perfectly like Jesus did.

 

[eleos1954]

The only thing I see being past down to humans is: “The Knowledge of God and Evil”. Knowledge is not “bad” in and of itself, with Adam and Eve not needing this knowledge to sin.

Our conscience (knowledge of Good and Evil) provides us with tons of ways to sin, so we will sin fairly quickly if and after reaching our age of accountable.

Our very good (best) all human representatives, Adam and Eve sinned with the nature they had, so our “nature” does not have to change for us to sin and now we have lots of ways to sin.

Godly type Love which we can accept as a pure undeserving gift and the indwelling Holy Spirit allows us to quit sinning.

Psalms 51:5

Psalms 51:5 is a problem translation for Jews and Christians, so this one verse takes a lot of explaining, but it also has to be consistent with all these verse in Psalms at least.

It has been decades since I did my study and I have many pages of notes.

This could all be a very poetic hyperbole David is using and he should be allowed some poetic license.

We have similar verses:

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Ps 22 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.

On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Ps. 139: 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.



I argue that a child is Innocent:

Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30

Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4

The spoken and written gospel message is God's power for salvation: Rom 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18

God said that the king of Tyrus was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezek 28:15

"God made men upright but they sought devices" Eccl 7:29 (plural can't refer only to Adam)

Jer 19:2-6 human sacrifices of children to Baal is called the "blood of the innocent"

Jesus teaches us that we must become as little children to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 18:3- 4; Lk. 18:16-17)

Apostle Paul: Rom 7:9-11 "Once alive" "sin killed me"

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Ps 22 Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother's breasts.

On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Ps. 139: 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.



Looking Deeper into Psalms 51:5

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the 'circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act.

Read some of the English translation Psalms 51:5

KJV Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

YLT Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me.

WEB Behold, I was born in iniquity. My mother conceived me in sin

RSV Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

KJV Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

Granted some translators have a problem with the sin being David’s mother’s problem and will point to verses like these:

In PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's positive relationship with the Lord.

Psalm 86:16 Turn to me and have mercy on me; show your strength in behalf of your servant; save me, because I serve you just as my mother did. She sounds righteous to me.

Thus, they majorly change the translation to be David’s sin, But are these translations the result of preconceived ideas?

The wording seems to be saying: the sin is the mothers at conception.

What do we know which could show it to be David’s mother and a problem?

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail)…..:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

Again the translators do not like the idea of these sisters only being David’s so the change the wording and meaning, but the better translations is:

KJV Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.

Why might these two only be David’s sisters and not Jesse’s daughters: 2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man’s son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab’s mother.”

Nahash is king of the Ammonites.

1 Chronicles 19:2 David thought, “I will show kindness to Hanun son of Nahash, because his father showed kindness to me.” So David sent a delegation to express his sympathy to Hanun concerning his father. When David’s envoys came to Hanun in the land of the Ammonites to express sympathy to him,

Why did Nahash show kindness to David?

David’s Jewish mother seems to have been previously married to Nahash the Ammonite and later was the second wife of Jesse, this was not a “sin” most likely but later could have been perceived as a sin, thus Jesse not counting David as one of his sons and all his brothers treating him badly.

A lot more can be said, but it was not David being conceived a sinner, but his mother conceiving him could be perceived as a sin.

Now we can go further into scripture showing how David was treated and persecuted as an outsider by his family and loved only by his mother.

well ... the very definition of sin is transgression of the law, the bible says the law is written on everyone's heart .... and that God only knows the heart. A baby and a young child does not have knowledge of sin until a certain point in their life (of which varies), knowledge of good and evil happens in the heart first.

Since the law of God is written in everyone's heart nobody can "get away from" that knowledge.

God has instilled this knowledge of Himself in every man (beginning with Adam), "so that men are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20)

Adam & Eve had a moral nature because they were made in the image of God ... ie they knew who their creator was and chose to disobey their creators command. Lack of faith in their creator. Rather put their faith in the lie of the devil.

"You will not surely die". He said that if she ate the fruit, her eyes would be opened and she would be like God, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:22 King James Version (KJV)​

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Adam and Eve had intrinsic knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit. God made clear to them what would happen if they disobeyed ... even so they willfully disobeyed and believed the lie of satan (a deception) rather than the truth of God. So they willingly displaced their faith.

Nothing has changed since Gods creation. Mankind has always had and always will have the intrinsic knowledge of good and evil (Adam and Ever were created with this intrinsic knowledge). His law (commandments) are intrinsic in our very being (in the heart/mind). Knowledge of His law (His commandments) are not sin it rather shows us what sin is ... choosing to sin (actions) that is the problem and we have the choice in the matter...so did Adam and Eve. His commandments show us His sterling and perfect character ... who He is and He wants us to take on that character and be like Him (re-created in His image) and this of course can only be done through Christ ... because He is our creator and is sovereign over all of creation.

Knowledge of good and evil is Intrinsic in our very being (in the heart/mind) since creation ... it has to be intrinsic since creation in order for God to judge all righteously. The saved will be pardoned the lost will not. The lost do not lay ahold of the new creation through Christ through faith (believing God) ... same was with Adam and Eve. Thus .... we must be born again ... re-creation into the image of God.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 18-20, NIV)

As it is written ... nothing new under the sun

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. 9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Understanding we are created beings is a big deal .... is why creation is reiterated/emphasized in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 14:7 He preached in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him praise, because the time has come for God to judge all people. So worship God who made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the springs of water.”

God is worthy of our worship and we praise Him because He is the creator of everything.

 

[Dale]

Let me see if I can explain the Original Sin vs. Non-original Sin or No Original Sin models a little better.

In the traditional RCC/Protestant view, the sin of Adam, or the sins of Eve and Adam, were a sharp break from the past. This sin, or these sins, was (or were) in some sense unexpected, and they left things in a mess. We could picture this:

Adam’s Sin → All later sins
or
Eve’s Sin & Adam’s Sin → All later sins

The alternative view is that all sins emerge from human fallibility or human limitations.

Human Fallibiliity → All Sins
or
Human Limitations –> All Sins

We don’t need to believe that the sins of Eve and Adam were in any way unexpected or that they were a sharp break with the past.

 

[Dale]

Untrue. Both St. Augustine of Hippo and St. John Cassian were both very much alive at the time the Nicene Creed was finalized at the Second Ecumenical Synod in 381, and they led the rejection of the false doctrine taught by Pelagius.

Your idea that because the Creed does not mention a doctrine means that it was not at the time accepted is a logical fallacy, an argument from silence, and also is based on ahistorical assumptions.

Pelagianism is a toxic theology which was alien to the early church, which is contradicted by the writings of early church fathers such as St. Athanasius (see On The Incarnation and The Life of Anthony) and which is frankly dangerous.

Indeed when Nestorianism appeared, it was thought of as being among other things dangerous for an implied Christological Pelagianism. This was why St. Celestine rejected the doctrines of Nestorius as well as Pelagius (who had also been opposed by St. Cyril).

Liturgist: “Both St. Augustine of Hippo and St. John Cassian were both very much alive at the time the Nicene Creed was finalized at the Second Ecumenical Synod in 381, and they led the rejection of the false doctrine taught by Pelagius.”

I’m afraid your dates are confused. You say that theologians who fought Pelagianism were alive in 381 AD. Pelagius and Pelagianism were not condemned until 418 AD. In that year Pope Zosimus excommunicated Pelagius and issued a decree on that subject. He also convened the Council of Carthage, which condemned Pelagianism. The excommunication and condemnation didn’t occur until 37 years after the Nicene Creed was voted.

It is significant that neither the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed say anything about original sin. That is important because it shows us that original sin was never a doctrine until Pelagius was condemned for not believing in it. (As an American, I could say that is an ex post facto law, prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.)

 

[Dale]

Untrue. Both St. Augustine of Hippo and St. John Cassian were both very much alive at the time the Nicene Creed was finalized at the Second Ecumenical Synod in 381, and they led the rejection of the false doctrine taught by Pelagius.

Your idea that because the Creed does not mention a doctrine means that it was not at the time accepted is a logical fallacy, an argument from silence, and also is based on ahistorical assumptions.

Pelagianism is a toxic theology which was alien to the early church, which is contradicted by the writings of early church fathers such as St. Athanasius (see On The Incarnation and The Life of Anthony) and which is frankly dangerous.

Indeed when Nestorianism appeared, it was thought of as being among other things dangerous for an implied Christological Pelagianism. This was why St. Celestine rejected the doctrines of Nestorius as well as Pelagius (who had also been opposed by St. Cyril).

I didn’t expect Pelagius to come up in this thread. How is original sin is connected to a lack of free will? How is believing in free will a challenge to the doctrine of salvation?

Not everyone accepts the condemnation of Pelagius. As a Methodist minister told me, Pelagius got a raw deal. Not everyone accepted his condemnation when it happened. After Pope Zosimus excommunicated Pelagius, eighteen Bishops in Italy were exiled for not affirming the decision. (See below.)

Here are the basic facts as I understand them. There was no doctrine of original sin before Aurelius Augustine wrote The City of God. Augustine’s notion of original sin was never affirmed by the church until Pelagius was tried and excommunicated.

A major issue between the RCC/EO and Pelagius in 418 AD is infant baptism. Augustine said that infant baptism is needed to remove the stain of original sin. When the Council of Carthage condemned Pelagianism they issued a series of Canons, or points. Canon 2: “New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.”

As an evangelical, I don’t believe in infant baptism, so none of this would make sense. Since baptism is such an important experience for a Christian, I am glad that I was baptized when I was old enough to remember it.

Source on exiled bishops and Canon 2 of the Council of Carthage:
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Pelagius and Pelagianism
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pelagius and Pelagianism

 

[bling]

I agree with you that the sacrifices are really a discipline rather than a payment. But sometimes discipline can seem like a payment. Like a kid who gets in trouble at school and has to "pay" for their actions with time in detention. I think my original point was that I disagreed with the idea of thinking of right-doing or wrong-doing as credits or debts that are stored up in some heavenly ledger book -- and that the life and death of Jesus somehow clears out the balances.

Discipline is a teaching moment and is not to be “punishment”. There are lots of good stuff which should come out of Loving discipline humbly correctly accepted, yet it can be painful. There is no “good stuff” we can do that will exceed the minimum requirement, we are to only be doing the very best we can do.

I think actually happens is that mankind keeps screwing everything up by continually aligning ourselves with the forces of evil rather than following God's directions. As a result things get worse and worse, and someone in God's Kingdom has to step in and fix things. And this can be viewed in the analogy of a credit/debt framework. I think of a child who has written on the walls with a permanent marker, and now the parent has to expend effort to paint the wall to compensate for the child's actions. We could say that the child induced a debt by make the home worse, and the child paid off that debt by stepping in to fix it. A loving parent doesn't keep track of everything that their child does; they just keep helping them learn and improve. And likewise, God keeps working with us to follow His directions and to become more like Him. If a child fails to learn from their parents, they are like to die prematurely from running out into the street etc. And likewise if we fail to follow God, natural consequences will separate us from God's life.

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

I have read that in the Bible, and it always made me think that everyone in the OT should have been killed. I think it was a rule that never got enforced.

Very Good!!!

If that law had been strictly enforced there would be no Jews around.

Sure, makes you want another way!

 

[timothyu]

Sin, be it original or in life, is nothing more than putting our will ahead of the will of God. Our selfishness is the result of that self oriented will. Knowledge merely gave us the ability to use the selfishness for gain rather than just survival as other critters use it.

 

[bling]

well ... the very definition of sin is transgression of the law, the bible says the law is written on everyone's heart .... and that God only knows the heart. A baby and a young child does not have knowledge of sin until a certain point in their life (of which varies), knowledge of good and evil happens in the heart first.

Since the law of God is written in everyone's heart nobody can "get away from" that knowledge.

God has instilled this knowledge of Himself in every man (beginning with Adam), "so that men are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20)

Adam & Eve had a moral nature because they were made in the image of God ... ie they knew who their creator was and chose to disobey their creators command. Lack of faith in their creator. Rather put their faith in the lie of the devil.

"You will not surely die". He said that if she ate the fruit, her eyes would be opened and she would be like God, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:22 King James Version (KJV)​

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Adam and Eve had intrinsic knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit. God made clear to them what would happen if they disobeyed ... even so they willfully disobeyed and believed the lie of satan (a deception) rather than the truth of God. So they willingly displaced their faith.

Nothing has changed since Gods creation. Mankind has always had and always will have the intrinsic knowledge of good and evil (Adam and Ever were created with this intrinsic knowledge). His law (commandments) are intrinsic in our very being (in the heart/mind). Knowledge of His law (His commandments) are not sin it rather shows us what sin is ... choosing to sin (actions) that is the problem and we have the choice in the matter...so did Adam and Eve. His commandments show us His sterling and perfect character ... who He is and He wants us to take on that character and be like Him (re-created in His image) and this of course can only be done through Christ ... because He is our creator and is sovereign over all of creation.

Knowledge of good and evil is Intrinsic in our very being (in the heart/mind) since creation ... it has to be intrinsic since creation in order for God to judge all righteously. The saved will be pardoned the lost will not. The lost do not lay ahold of the new creation through Christ through faith (believing God) ... same was with Adam and Eve. Thus .... we must be born again ... re-creation into the image of God.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 18-20, NIV)

As it is written ... nothing new under the sun

Ecclesiastes 1:9 The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. 9 What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

Understanding we are created beings is a big deal .... is why creation is reiterated/emphasized in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 14:7 He preached in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him praise, because the time has come for God to judge all people. So worship God who made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the springs of water.”

God is worthy of our worship and we praise Him because He is the creator of everything.

The only way Adam and Eve could sin was by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge (that was by God’s choice at the time). Eve could, and did show: lust, coveting, selfishness, and pride, but they were not sinful acts at that time, which will come from the instinctive knowledge of good and evil.

I could have told God the very best of humans would sin in the Garden scenario, but we need and Adam and Eve need to see that they truly sinned, so the one sin was made very visible and unmistakable. I God said: “You cannot be selfish”, how could we tell when Eve turned a selfish heart, sense it is all internal to Eve and she would certainly deny it?

 

[bling]

Sin, be it original or in life, is nothing more than putting our will ahead of the will of God. Our selfishness is the result of that self oriented will. Knowledge merely gave us the ability to use the selfishness for gain rather than just survival as other critters use it.

I would say: "Selfishness is the outgrowth of the needed survival instinct making us self-aware and self-conscience.

 

[timothyu]

I would say: "Selfishness is the outgrowth of the needed survival instinct making us self-aware and self-conscience.

Unlike our fellow creations who have no idea they can use it to their advantage.

 

[Fervent]

Reading through this thread, it seems clear that there isn't a common understanding of what "original sin" entails. Since the OP didn't provide us with his understanding of what "original sin" means, and there hasn't been much clarification on exactly what we are trying to say when we speak of "original sin" there's not much ability to determine if the verses do or do not contradict the doctrine. There's a lot of positions that all fall under a general heading of "original sin" but these conversations tend to basically boil down to a false dichotomy between Pelagianism and Augustinian original guilt. Any truly Christian understanding is going to include some measure of original sin, otherwise the atonement is unnecessary since its primary function is to restore humanity. But I'm not sure what understanding of original sin the OP is aiming at, so I can't really say whether the verses contradict it or not.

 

[KevinT]

Reading through this thread, it seems clear that there isn't a common understanding of what "original sin" entails. Since the OP didn't provide us with his understanding of what "original sin" means, and there hasn't been much clarification on exactly what we are trying to say when we speak of "original sin" there's not much ability to determine if the verses do or do not contradict the doctrine. There's a lot of positions that all fall under a general heading of "original sin" but these conversations tend to basically boil down to a false dichotomy between Pelagianism and Augustinian original guilt. Any truly Christian understanding is going to include some measure of original sin, otherwise the atonement is unnecessary since its primary function is to restore humanity. But I'm not sure what understanding of original sin the OP is aiming at, so I can't really say whether the verses contradict it or not.

One verse that I had thought might come up, but hasn't been mentioned is this:

Rom 5:12-13 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

This seems to describe sin that originated with Adam, and which humanity has had to deal with ever since. But I notice that this is NOT describing sin as a contagion which every human is born with, like some scarlet stain on every newborn's skin. Rather is says that sin entered the world itself.

As part of considering the definition of "original sin", I think a more fundamental question is the definition of sin itself. Here are some definitions I can think of.

1. Sin is the breaking of God's law. Eve disobeyed God's instructions to not eat the fruit, and thus she "sinned." In this view, there is no consideration of what sin is or why it is wrong. It just simply states it as wrong with no further explanation. The Mosaic law says to not eat an animal found dead in the forest. There is no explanation as to why this is a bad idea. But to do so would be "sinful."
   
   
2. Sin is a natural consequence of wrong-doing. A man sleeps with his neighbor's wife and is shot by a jealous husband. The man sinned and suffered punishment. In point #1 above with the dead animal in the forest, we know today that such an animal would very likely be rancid/putrid, infected or cancerous etc., and eating it would be foolish. And the person that did eat it would be "punished" by God's natural laws, which would likely include violent vomiting and diarrhea!
   
   
3. Sin is a state of the environment around us. Fighters in Gaza fire rockets at Israel. Israel launches a military offensive against Gaza. Many innocent people on both sides are killed in the crossfire. If all were following God's guidance, this would not have happened. It is all situation resulting from, and an example of, sin. The everyday citizens of both countries, just trying to provide for their families and do their regular jobs, are "punished" as part of being a member of a larger human race which is in rebellion against God.
   
   
4. Sin is a legal status in the universe. Adam was established as the rightful prince of this world. He relinquished that authority to the devil, or Satan. When the sons of God's creation gathered in heaven, Satan was there discussing Earth (Job 1:6). Later, Jesus declared that the "prince of this world will be driven out" (John 12:31), and Jesus will ultimately bring everything under His guidance and control. So because of the wrong actions (sin) of Eve and Adam, there was a legal/power status change on Earth. And because of the right actions of Jesus, there was a correction of this status back again.
   
   
5. [EDIT] As per @Fervent: A definition of sin [includes] sin to be a medical reality, a defect in the human person that operates like a disease indifferent to personal guilt. An anti-ontology, if you would, that doesn't have a proper existence of its own but instead is a self-perpetuating corruption of creation both in the physical world and in the human spirit.

So which of these types of "sin" might be passed down to all members of the human race? I.e. "original sin"? Certainly #4, but likely others as well.

Kevin

 

[Fervent]

One verse that I had thought might come up, but hasn't been mentioned is this:



This seems to describe sin that originated with Adam, and which humanity has had to deal with ever since. But I notice that this is NOT describing sin as a contagion which every human is born with, like some scarlet stain on every newborn's skin. Rather is says that sin entered the world itself.

As part of what is meant by "original sin", I think a more fundamental question is the definition of sin itself. Here are some definitions I can think of.

1. Sin is the breaking of God's law. Eve disobeyed God's instructions to not eat the fruit, and thus she "sinned." In this view, there is no consideration of what sin is or why it is wrong. It just simply states it as wrong with no further explanation. The Mosaic law says to not eat an animal found dead in the forest. There is no explanation as to why this is a bad idea. But to do so would be "sinful."
   
   
2. Sin is a natural consequence of wrong-doing. A man sleeps with his neighbor's wife and is shot by a jealous husband. The man sinned and suffered punishment. In point #1 above with the dead animal in the forest, we know today that such an animal would very likely be rancid/putrid, infected or cancerous etc., and eating it would be foolish. And the person that did eat it would be "punished" by God's natural laws, which would likely include violent vomiting and diarrhea!
   
   
3. Sin is a state of the environment around us. Fighters in Gaza fire rockets at Israel. Israel launches a military offensive against Gaza. Many innocent people on both sides are killed in the crossfire. If all were following God's guidance, this would not have happened. It is all situation resulting from, and an example of, sin. The everyday citizens of both countries, just trying to provide for their families and do their regular jobs, are "punished" as part of being a member of a larger human race which is in rebellion against God.
   
   
4. Sin is a legal status in the universe. Adam was established as the rightful prince of this world. He relinquished that authority to the devil, or Satan. When the sons of God's creation gathered in heaven, Satan was there discussing Earth (Job 1:6). Later, Jesus declared that the "prince of this world will be driven out" (John 12:31), and Jesus will ultimately bring everything under His guidance and control. So because of the wrong actions (sin) of Eve and Adam, there was a legal/power status change on Earth. And because of the right actions of Jesus, there was a correction of this status back again.

So which of these types of "sin" might be passed down to all members of the human race? I.e. "original sin"? Certainly #4, but likely others as well.

Kevin

I would add to your definitions of sin at least one that takes sin to be a medical reality, a defect in the human person that operates like a disease indifferent to personal guilt. An anti-ontology, if you would, that doesn't have a proper existence of its own but instead is a self-perpetuating corruption of creation both in the physical world and in the human spirit.

 

[Rose_bud]

The Ten Commandments are given in Exodus Twenty and in Deuteronomy Five. Just before the Commandments are given in Exodus we find:

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation
of those who hate me,
but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments
Exodus 20:5-6 NIV

In nearly identical words, just before the Commandments are given in Deuteronomy we find:

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Deuteronomy 5:9-10 NIV

“You shall not bow down” is a warning not to worship idols. Both verses say that God will not punish the innocent beyond the fourth generation. Yet the doctrine of original sin lays down that every child born is contaminated by the sin of Adam, or the sins of Adam and Eve. If God does not punish children for any sins of their ancestors beyond the fourth generation, we cannot be suffering for the mistakes of Adam and Eve.

There are two other passages in Exodus and Numbers that express the same thought.

And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.
Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished;
he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”
Exodus 34:6-7 NIV

‘The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished;
he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.’
Numbers 14:18 NIV

These verses collide with the conclusions reached by theologians who say that we are all under Original Sin. The Bible tells us that God never punishes the children beyond the fourth generation.

I don't believe this is so much about original sin. But rather about the character of God and how he deals with our failure.
I posted this in another thread but will add to it.

The phrase to the third and the fourth is considered a Hebraic idiom... it emphasizes the severe ramifications consequences of sin. However, it is juxtaposed with God's amazing love. His patience and longsuffering, his boundless mercy and grace.

Gods mercy is balanced with His justice. He demonstrates his faithfulness to sinners but also holds them accountable for their actions. Or rather God's forgiveness (thousands)far outweighs the consequences of sin (third and fourth).

It is to this character of God that the ancients appealed, His justice but also His mercy.

In Numbers 14, God was only giving the parents what they wanted after being extremely patient. They wanted to return to Egypt, they couldn't trust God but instead rebelled and tested Him, resulting in their death in the wilderness. As God exacts judgement because of the parents rebellion, the children are spared, as part of a community they too suffer as they endure the wilderness as shepherds. However, the children will enjoy the benefit of the Promised land after forty years. (Numbers 14:31-32).
God graciously empowers the children to endure the parents failure, extending to them the same promises. They are given the same opportunity to demonstrate their faithfulness under Joshuas leadership. The lives of the parents become a cautionary example. Not to repeat the same mistakes of the parents but to trust in His faithfulness and reciprocate that faithfulness.

I understand the passage as a warning that God is forgiving but there are consequences. But his forgiveness far outweighs. The Scriptures in Exodus is so the first generation understood His character, the Numbers passage how this worked out practically and the Deuteronomy passage is the repeat to the next generation coming into the Promised land.

There are lots of examples of how this severe consequences plays out but also how God is faithful. Even Moses experienced the consequences but God love surpasses.