Original sin, yes, no, or not that important?

fhansen said:

Original sin is simply the state of being separated from God, the reason that we don’t know Him now and the stuff that other sins originate from. All sin is an anomaly in nature, something that “should not be”. Man is lost, dead, apart from God-but man was made for communion with God, not meant to be his own “god”, determining right and wrong for himself. Adam thought otherwise and propelled humanity into a very different world where man in some manner or another is distanced not only from God but from his fellow man, from the rest of creation, and even from himself. The doctrine of Original Sin seeks to explain this, and therefore to explain the existence of moral evil (sin) in our world. This teaching says that man is now wounded, sick and unable to cure himself even though his will is weakened while not totally corrupted; he still possesses the image of God within himself-so that he still retains culpability for sin and for seeking and then turning to God when he hears Him calling.

An erroneous teaching maintains that man is totally dead, unable to say yes or no to God, possessing a "sin nature". That would make it impossible for man to do ever the right thing and should mitigate his culpability but many theologies deny this, saying that all men deserve hell anyway. But in truth no new or different nature had been added at the Fall. Instead, something is missing-and that's grace: the life of God in us. God moves man towards Himself and then man's responsibility is to say yes rather than no-and continue to say yes, incidentally, throughout his life.

Click to expand...

I agree that sin separates one from God, Isaiah 59:2, but this does not happen at birth. A thought occurred to me...under the OT law the physical birth into a family with lineage to Abraham was all needed to put one into a covenant relationship with God. So how can the physical birth, AT THE SAME TIME BOTH put one into a covenant relationship with God AND have one born a lost, unforgvien reprobate separated from God? A line cannot be both straight and crooked at the same time. Obviously the Jews were not taught nor believed in the idea of OS. IF OS were true and Jews believed it, no need for Paul to spend about 2 chapters (Romans 2&3) trying to prove to the Jews that they were sinners therefore no better than the Gentiles for the Jews would have already known/believed they were all born sinners. Paul spends the first 3 chapters of Romans proving all, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners but oddly he NEVER mentions the idea of OS. He mentions transgressions Jews and Gentiles committed (see my post #40 above as to how the Bible defines sin). No better place in the Bible for OS to be taught than in Romans chapters 1-3 but it is not even mentioned at all, not even in Paul's mind.

All God made was very good, Genesis 1:31. Sin exists in the world because man abused the free will God made man with to choose to sin and transgress God's law. Adam nor Eve were created sinners nor with a sin nature. All needed for them to become sinners was a law amd choose to transgress that law. We today therefore need no OS/sin nature to become sinners but a law and choose to transgress that law. No one today becomes a sinner any differently than Adam or Eve.

OS/sin nature puts God in a bad light in having men born with a sin nature against his will then God holding man accounable for a nature man was born with. Man has no control nor say so in how he was born so God must be the reason of men having a sin nature. As I point out in my first post in this thread, God does NOT UNjustly judge man according to man's natural INabilities (how he was passively born against his will) but according to man's moral abilities (what man willfully chooses to do).

Butterball1 said:

1 John 3:4 says sin is transgression of God's law.
Romans 4:15 says if there were no law there would be no transgression.
Romans 7:8-9 shows when one is born, as an infant sin has no power over him until he learns right from wrong (Deuteronomy 1:39; Isaiah 7:15-16) THEN sin springs up in him.

So according to the Bible for one to be a sinner, there must a law, that law must be transgressed by an accountable person then and only then is a person a sinner. OS tries to have one a sinner who has not transgressed any law, who is not accoutable to God's law. Nowhere ever does the Bible define sin as a substance that is UNconditionally passed from person to person nor just an idea that that is UNconditionally passed from person to person.

Click to expand...

Was there a law in place when Adam sinned?

The law wasn't given until Moses, but Adam sinned.
Romans 5:12
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—

Cain sinned when he murdered his brother -still no law.

God judged the entire world and sent the flood-still no law.

It says that there was no accounting of sin before the law.

Romans 5:13
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.

Two different things. How can you say that these people didn't sin?

IF OS were true, Christ would have been born with it. You appear to try and get around this problem by implying OS is passed through fathers not mothers. What verse(s) explicitly teaches this idea? (Or where does it teach immaculate conception?) The Bible does not teach OS it therefore would not teach either if these excuses used to get around Jesus being born with OS. Psalms 51:5 is supposed to be a OS 'proof text' but it only mentions the mother. Romans 9:11 shows before children are born none have done any good or evil meaning children are not born sinners nor or they born righteous, they are born as a 'blank slate' and do not become sinners before they sin nor become righteous before they do righteousness.

Click to expand...

This is not an attempt to 'get around it' this is a well known doctrine and I already gave a short explanation on it. I would suggest you go read a more in depth study on it.
Is there original’ sin, meaning men are sinners because of an inherited’ sinful nature passed on by Adam? | Bible.org

I never mentioned immaculate conception, that's Catholic Church doctrine. I'm protestant. I never said Mary was free from sin, I believe she had sin like every other normal person. She said Luke 1:47
"and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" because she too needed a savior.
So lets not get confused over that.

All children are born with the inbuilt propensity to sin. No one said they were born having sinned. There is a difference.

Romans 5:12 does NOT end by saying 'for that all have been unconditionally born sinners'. It does say 'for that all have sinned' which show personal culpability in having sinned and not how one was passively, unconditionally born against his will.

Click to expand...

Again this is talking about committed sins, not the propensity to sin. Just because we have the propensity to sin does not mean we must go and sin.

You are mixing these up.
1) There is the in born propensity to sin. Nothing has to come along and teach a child this. Eve needed an outside source to tempt her, which is what Satan did. We don't need Satan to come along and tempt us because we are not innocent anymore. Not saying that Satan can't tempt us either, but we can and do sin without Satan tempting us.
Genesis 3:11
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
Disobedience changed them.
Before Eve took the fruit she was innocent, after she ate she wasn't.

This is why Satan came along and tempted Jesus in the desert, in a similar way that he did to Eve. Satan knew that if he could get Jesus to sin that he would no longer be the savior. If he was going to sin it would be because of an outside force not from within himself.

Above, the BIble says for sin to exist there 1) must be a law 2) it must be transgressed by an accountable person. In the garden of Eden there was a law (not eat of a certain tree) and that law was transgressed by accountable people (Adam & Eve). Adam nor Eve were not unconditionally created sinners nor created with a sin nature against their will. All it took for them to become sinners was a law and their making a choice to transgress that law. There was no need for OS/sin nature for Adam/Eve to become sinners and there is no need for OS/sin nature for us today to become sinners.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say that sin didn't exist, just that it wasn't charged or imputed before the law.
The law does not come in until the time of Moses.
In the garden of Eden that was a command from God, but it was not known as the law.
When the Bible talks of law it means the law of Moses.
Again no one is saying Adam and Eve were created as sinners, they were created innocent. That is the whole point. That innocence was taken away when they fell into sin. This lack of innocence is what is meant by original sin.
There are other doctrines on original sin that differs from this view. But that's the point they are different. Not everyone who says 'original sin' means the same thing by it, there are probably at least 3 different views on it.

We today become sinners in the same way Adam and Eve became sinners and that is when accountable people choose to transgress God's law THEN one becomes a sinner. To have people becoming sinners in ways different from Adam and Eve has NO Biblical support.

Click to expand...

No we don't.
Eve required an outside source to cause her to sin. She was created innocent and eating the fruit took that away.
A child isn't passively waiting for Satan to come and tempt him and turn him into a sinner. He will sin as soon as he is able too all on his own.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.[/QUOTE]

Aussie Pete said:

If you mean that man was sinful from when he was created, then you are correct. Most people's understanding of original sin is not yours. Adam was created neutral, not a sinner.

Click to expand...

Sounding a bit contradictory there Pete. First you said he was then you said he wasn't.
Can you clear up what you mean?

coffee4u said:

Was there a law in place when Adam sinned?

The law wasn't given until Moses, but Adam sinned.
Romans 5:12
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—

Cain sinned when he murdered his brother -still no law.

God judged the entire world and sent the flood-still no law.

It says that there was no accounting of sin before the law.

Romans 5:13
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.

Two different things. How can you say that these people didn't sin?

Click to expand...

John says sin is transgression of God's law, 1 John 3:4
Romans 4:15 says where there is no law there is no transgression.

According to the BIble, if there were no law in the garden of Eden then it would have been impossible for Adam to have sinned. Yet there was God's law in Eden, Genesis 2:17. So all needed for Adam and Eve to sin was a law which they choose to transgress. We today sin in the same manner as Adam in choosing to transgress God's law. No need for OS/sin nature for one to become a sinner. So the origin of sin is not in Adam but in law, transgression of law. Hence sin is 'committed' not passively inherited.

Romans 5:13 - Paul is speaking about the time from creation till the law of Moses was given. Since there was sin in the world in this time period proves there was law. Again, 1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15 make sinnig impossible if there were no law to be transgressed. There was iniquity/sin before the law of Moses Genesis 15:16; Genesis 39:7-9 - obviously there was law against fornication/adultery.

Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
If all inherited Adam's sin then all would be guilty of the exact same sin yet Paul speaks of people sinning NOT AFTER the similitude of Adam. Those in Sodom died for wickedness in breaking laws, those died the the flood were also wicked for breaking laws. Therefore people died for their OWN sinning not for inheriting Adam's sin. There would be no need for Paul to make a distinction between their sinning and Adam's sinning if they all died due to Adam's sin.

Romans 5:14 "This does not mean that the people from Adam to Moses did not sin at all, for that
would contradict other things that Paul had said, but it means that they did not sin after the likeness of Adam's sin. They were not guilty of a sin like Adam's sin. To say that they did not sin after the likeness of Adam's sin is equal to affirming that they were guilty of a different kind of sin. Adam violated a positive law; these people violated the moral law. And that was not like Adam's sin. But if the statement in verse 12, that all sinned, means that all sinned in Adam, then all did sin after the likeness
of Adam's sin. Thus, in an unexpected place, we have positive proof that we are not all guilty of Adam's sin. Death reigned over those who were guilty of sin, but were not guilty of a sin like Adam's sin."
Whiteside

Lastly, why would Cain try to conceal the fact he murdered his brother, Genesis 4:9, if there was nothing wrong with murdering another? If he had no understanding murder is wrong then why did he just not admit what he had done rather than lie about it? Why did he apparently try to hide Abel's body in the ground to cover up what he did, Genesis 4:10? Why would God punish Cain, Genesis 4:11-13, if Cain had done no transgession?

coffe4u said:

This is not an attempt to 'get around it' this is a well known doctrine and I already gave a short explanation on it. I would suggest you go read a more in depth study on it.
Is there original’ sin, meaning men are sinners because of an inherited’ sinful nature passed on by Adam? | Bible.org

Click to expand...

Again, OS defines sin/transgression DIFFERENTLY from the BIble. The Bible shows sin is transgression of law therefore no transgression = no sin. Yet OS tries to make one who has not committed ANY transgression a sinner anyway.

coffe4u said:

I never mentioned immaculate conception, that's Catholic Church doctrine. I'm protestant. I never said Mary was free from sin, I believe she had sin like every other normal person. She said Luke 1:47
"and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior" because she too needed a savior.
So lets not get confused over that.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that not only is OS not Biblical but the various excuses made up to prvent Christ feom being born with OS must also be unbiblical.

coffe4u said:

All children are born with the inbuilt propensity to sin. No one said they were born having sinned. There is a difference.

Click to expand...

OS says children are born sinners. Many misuse Psalms 51:5 claiming it proves David was born a sinner.
Romans 7:8-9 people are born neutral not know right from wrong. As people intellectually mature learning right from wrong then sin springs up in them when they choose to sin. So people are not born with a sin nature that causes them to sin against their will. People have free will and choose to sin just as they can choose to do well, Genesis 4:7.

coffee4u said:

Again this is talking about committed sins, not the propensity to sin. Just because we have the propensity to sin does not mean we must go and sin.

You are mixing these up.
1) There is the in born propensity to sin. Nothing has to come along and teach a child this. Eve needed an outside source to tempt her, which is what Satan did. We don't need Satan to come along and tempt us because we are not innocent anymore. Not saying that Satan can't tempt us either, but we can and do sin without Satan tempting us.
Genesis 3:11
And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"
Disobedience changed them.
Before Eve took the fruit she was innocent, after she ate she wasn't.

Click to expand...

Do you think people are born with a sin nature? The blow website defines sin nature as "The sin nature is that part of human beings that impels us to commit sin. The Bible teaches that we have a sin nature. Not only do we commit sin, but it is our nature to do so. This teaching is in contrast to that of many religious movements that deny original sin or total depravity." (my emp)
The sin nature - What is it?.

Another website defines sin nature as "The sin nature is that aspect in man that makes him rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing." (my emp)
What is the sin nature? | GotQuestions.org

Man is NOT born with any propensity that "impels" or "makes" him sin against his will. Such makes man an innocent victim of sin and not the willful guily perpetrator of sin. God could not justly condemn one how one was born against his will. As I posted in an earlier post, God does NOT UNjustly judge man according to man's natural INabilities (how he was passively born against his will) but according to man's moral abilities (what man willfully chooses to do).

coffe4u said:

This is why Satan came along and tempted Jesus in the desert, in a similar way that he did to Eve. Satan knew that if he could get Jesus to sin that he would no longer be the savior. If he was going to sin it would be because of an outside force not from within himself.


It doesn't say that sin didn't exist, just that it wasn't charged or imputed before the law.
The law does not come in until the time of Moses.
In the garden of Eden that was a command from God, but it was not known as the law.
When the Bible talks of law it means the law of Moses.
Again no one is saying Adam and Eve were created as sinners, they were created innocent. That is the whole point. That innocence was taken away when they fell into sin. This lack of innocence is what is meant by original sin.
There are other doctrines on original sin that differs from this view. But that's the point they are different. Not everyone who says 'original sin' means the same thing by it, there are probably at least 3 different views on it.

Click to expand...

I pointed out earlier, there was law before the law of Moses and people were punished for transgressing that law, hence sin was imputed.

coffee4u said:

No we don't.
Eve required an outside source to cause her to sin. She was created innocent and eating the fruit took that away.
A child isn't passively waiting for Satan to come and tempt him and turn him into a sinner. He will sin as soon as he is able too all on his own.

Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

Click to expand...

Adam & Eve were created innocent and not sinners until they transgressed God's law, Genesis 2:17. We today likewise are born innocent and not sinners until law is transgressed, 1 John 3:4.

Aussie Pete said:

The issue is not only sin. Humanity is born dead to God. I raised four children. I have no problem believing that they were born sinners. If people became sinners when they sin, then someone among the billions of people would have lived a sinless life. That's not what God's word says. All have sinned and fall short of God's glory. No one is righteous. No one has any excuse either. If men could live sinless lives, Jesus died in vain.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Again, the Bible says sin is transgression of God's law, 1 John 3:4. Therefore what sin did your children transgress at birth? Stealing? Lying? murder? Adultery? Sin has its origin in law, transgessing God's law and not in Adam or in the physical birth.

Adam and Eve prove that sinning is a matter of choice and not a matter of how one was passivley born against his will. Jesus was therefore sinless for He chose not to sin. Infants that die as infants lived and died sinless. Those with severe mental diabilities live and die sinless. In Romans 7:8-9 Paul shows those that are infants or have mental incapacities are not ameanable to God's law therefore sin has no power over them.

From the context in Romans 3:12 Paul writes "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

Paul said "gone out of the way" NOT 'born out of the way".....become unprofitable" NOT 'born unprofitable. Hence Paul is NOT speaking to how men are born.

Paul goes on to say in Romans 3 "Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways:"
--infants cannot speak much less speak deceit or curse, infants cannot run to shed blood....obviously Paul does not have infants in mind.
--Paul is not sying men are passively born sinners but is naming transgression men choose to commit that make men become sinners.

From Hebrews 11:4 that Abel was righteous so how does that jibe with Paul saying 'none are righteous'? Even the context of Psalms 14:3 from which Paul quotes speaks of the righteous, Psalms 14:5. It could be that Paul is using the term righteous in an absolute sense, that is, he is saying none are absolutely perfectly righteous in and of themselves apart from Christ.** Which would be true. For men to stand perfectly righteous before God requires Christ and His shed blood. From Rom 3 that I cited above and from Romans 7:8-9 Paul has already excluded infants from being ameanable to God's law for they are already sinless, innocent before God, sin has no power over them, hence "none are righteous" is not inclusive of infants/mentally disabled.

(**it might be Paul was using a teaching method called a midrash.)
(**We know from Hebrews 9:15 that when Christ shed His blood, His blood flowed backwards to redeem those back in the OT as Abel. In that way Abel can be said to be righteous.)

Aussie Pete said:

If you mean that man was sinful from when he was created, then you are correct. Most people's understanding of original sin is not yours. Adam was created neutral, not a sinner. However, he disobeyed God - the root of all sin. He became a sinner by nature at that point. Every descendant of Adam was born a sinner. Lord Jesus did not inherit his nature from Adam as God is His Father. Therefore Lord Jesus was not born a sinner.

You do not understand the point of God's commands. It is to prove to man that he is a sinner, not to give him an example to follow. If people could obey God's commands, Jesus died in vain.

Your objections have been raised and answered countless times. The Bible is crystal clear on this issue. If you don't like it, I suggest that you take it up with God.

Click to expand...

When God created Man, Genesis 1, God did not create man sinful. What God created was 'very good" Genesis 1:31..."Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiates 7:29.

So it did NOT take the idea of OS or sin nature for Adam/Eve to become sinners. All it took was a law of God (Genesis 2:17) and their free will to choose to transgress that law. We today becomes sinners by following in Adam's footsteps...as Adam we are not born-created sinners at birth, asAdam we choose to transgress God's law.

God did give the Jews their own law, the law of Moses. That law required one to strickly keep it perfectly, flawlessly to be justified before GOd. But no Jew (other than Christ) was able to do so for Jews choose to sin while Christ chose not to sin. By giving the Jews such a law that required perfect, flawless sinlessness was to show the Jew he needed to rely upon God's grace than his ability to try and keep the law sinlessly perfect. All God required of the Jew was a simple faithful obedience, NOT pertect sinlessness. But I do not see how this proves OS/sin nature.

In post #41 I posted the following "under the OT law the physical birth into a family with lineage to Abraham was all needed to put one into a covenant relationship with God. So how can the physical birth, AT THE SAME TIME BOTH put one into a covenant relationship with God AND have one born a lost, unforgvien reprobate separated from God? A line cannot be both straight and crooked at the same time." What say you?

Aussie Pete said:

If you mean that man was sinful from when he was created, then you are correct. Most people's understanding of original sin is not yours. Adam was created neutral, not a sinner. However, he disobeyed God - the root of all sin. He became a sinner by nature at that point. Every descendant of Adam was born a sinner. Lord Jesus did not inherit his nature from Adam as God is His Father. Therefore Lord Jesus was not born a sinner.

You do not understand the point of God's commands. It is to prove to man that he is a sinner, not to give him an example to follow. If people could obey God's commands, Jesus died in vain.

Your objections have been raised and answered countless times. The Bible is crystal clear on this issue. If you don't like it, I suggest that you take it up with God.

Click to expand...

If Adam was created “very good” by God’s standard of “very good”, yet not perfect like Christ is perfect, what did Adam lack and why could God not make just clones of Christ?

Adam was raised (or programmed) to adulthood by the very best parent (God), with only one way to sin and sinned, so why would our “nature” have to change for us to sin since with the knowledge of good and evil we now have tons of ways to sin?

Does “all” always mean every person conceived or can all stand for a group of people like “all” being mature adults, those who can understand and obey a command?

Humans have an earthly objective for spending time on earth, so what is your earthly objective?

Aussie Pete said:

One way to look at original sin is that Adam was created sinful. He was not. The way I understood your post, you were saying that those who believe in OS believe that Adam was a sinner from the moment he was created. I've never come across that view myself.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that. I said Adam and Eve were created in innocence. Eve was deceived by an outside force - Satan.
1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
While Adam hearing and seeing all of this willfully sinned.
Genesis 3
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.
I think some people think Adam was someplace else, but he was right there.

This changed something in them, they were no longer innocent.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

So what I was saying is that now we don't need any outside force to cause us to sin. It's within us.

Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from taking the term "original sin" too literally. In a sense, Adam was undergoing a test in Eden. He was given a very simple instruction by God. Don't eat from one stand out tree in the middle of the garden. Adam made a really bad decision. The rest is history.

Click to expand...

I do know that people use the words 'original sin' to mean different things. So I didn't want to be at cross purposes. It appears they believe a child has no propensity to sin. I say otherwise. As soon as a child begins to feel self they will show selfishness. The difference is a small child has not rejected Jesus and what age that accountability begins only God can know.

Aussie Pete said:

In Adam, all die. Only in Christ shall all be made alive. If you are in Christ, then you are alive. The question then becomes, are you living by the principle of Good and Evil, trying to establish your own righteousness? Or are you depending on the Life of Christ within you to be all that you need to be but cannot be? The difference is stark. Only those who experience the Life of Christ know victory over sin, Satan and the world.

Click to expand...

The quote above is from the last paragraph in your OP.
I want to address the insertion of the word ONLY in your first sentence above. The word ONLY is not in the verse you are referring to. (1 Corinthians 15:22) There are two "all"s, but no "only"s.

There is an equal comparison shown here. (and in Romans five below)
"... as in Adam all ..." and "... so in Christ all..."
Since the "as in" is inclusive of all, "so in" is also inclusive of all.

In Romans chapter five below we see the same thing. The results of one trespass (original sin) and the results of one righteous act. Both for all people. The disobedience of the one man (original sin) and the obedience of the one man. (the many = all)

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Butterball1 said:

There's no Original Sin (OS)

If OS were true;

--it contradicts the Bible, OS defines sin differently than the Bible does, 1 John 3:4; Romans 4:15; Romans 7:8-9.

Click to expand...

But sin was in the world before the law was given. This is original sin. And in essence, the command not to eat of the tree was a law for Adam. Which he broke.

Romans 5:13-14
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.

That humans are inherently imperfect morally seems like one of the tenets of Christianity that’s pretty much obvious.

The traditional doctrine of original sin adds to this obvious fact several things:

• That we were once perfect and fell due to an act by Adam
• It tends to see sin as an offense against God, rather than as an actual problem that interferes with our lives and others.

The first is false. We know enough about the origins of humans to realize that there was never a literal Adam, and the way we evolved doesn't leave an opportunity for moral perfection.

The second doesn’t seem to be Jesus’ perspective. He talks about judgement, and what people should and shouldn’t do. But he almost never refers to misbehavior as sin. He’s about intent and effects on others.

So I think I'd have to say that I reject original sin. I do, however, accept the universality of sin (viewed primarily as harmful behavior), and I think one major purpose of Jesus was to deal with it.
__________

Incidentally, I do believe God is opposed to harmful behavior. So I'm actually OK with calling it sin, as long as there's no misunderstanding about what the means. But I think he's opposed because it's harmful and he cares about us, not because it offends him, or violates arbitrary laws he created just because he could.

hedrick said:

The first is false. We know enough about the origins of humans to realize that there was never a literal Adam, and the way we evolved doesn't leave an opportunity for moral perfection.

Click to expand...

See Luke 3:23-38 The genealogy of Jesus, which ends with this.

Luke 3:37-38
the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

Aussie Pete said:

God warned Adam that eating from the forbidden tree would kill him. We know that he did not die physically. We know also that he could still think, feel and choose. So the part of him that died was his spirit. He was immediately afraid of God, self conscious and attempting to cover up. He blamed God for the problem. Eve blamed the devil. So already humanity was trying to justify itself for wrong actions. Everyone descended from Adam is dead spiritually.

Adam's foolishness was to choose knowledge instead of Life. He was "good" but not complete. If he had eaten from the Tree of Life, history would have been entirely different.

God wants a family, not slaves. He has the angels to do his bidding. They are not made in His image. If God created man without free will and with no option to obey or disobey, He would have a family of robots.

My daughter was the cutest toddler on the planet. People used to stop us in the shopping centre and tell us how cute. She was tiny, bubbly and super active. She crawled at 4 months and walked at 9 months. Cue "awwwww". There was another side. Selfish, rebellious, sneaky and manipulative. She did not learn to be like that. It was inherent.

Click to expand...

God said, “You will die” does not have to mean “immediately”. The eating of the tree of life wound have given Adam continued physical life here on earth. The eating of the fruit got Adam and Eve kicked out of the Garden where the tree of life was.

Yes, sin causes all sinners to be separated from God (spiritually dead).

The fact Adam became “spiritually dead” by sinning does not automatically mean everyone starts out spiritually dead, especially prior to their sinning. Christ was never spiritually dead and he received human genes from Mary. What we do know the fruit provided Adam and Eve with a conscience that could recognize good and evil, which was pasted down, but knowledge is not bad in and of itself.

Yes, God provided all humans with a very needed survival instinct. They do cry out when their needs are not met, so is that the sin of selfishness or a cry for help?