Do you believe in Original Sin?

[PaladinValer]

Do you find the idea of "Original Sin" to be biblical and therefore believe in it?

That's a complex question; it takes two different questions as one.

However, "yes" to both.

I do not believe in original sin for a variety of reasons.

1. The Bible says that man is created upright. If mankind was born with sin, then he can't be upright.

Creation fell from perfection upon the first sin. That is why God the Son incarnated as Jesus the Christ.

Furthermore, only in the West is original sin mistakeningly mixed with guilt. In the East and in a growing population in the West, original sin has merely to do with nature, not guilt.

Lastly, fallennness doesn't obliterate one's natural state of being. All creation is still inherently good; it just isn't good enough to merit its own salvation. That's the point.

2. The Bible says that man is sinful because man sins, not because Adam sins. While it is true that sin entered the world through Adam, this seems to be saying that before Adam ate of the tree, there was no sin, for there was no disobedience of God which results in sin.

Again, this is based on a false conception of what original sin actually theologizes. As such, it is a Straw Man rebuttal and invalid.

3. The Bible says that a son doesn't bear the sins of the father, nor the father bear the sins of the son. That is, one isn't guilty of sin because his father sins. Original sin says that man is guilty because of Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden.

Again, that's in the Western particularist view of the doctrine. That's foreign in the East, and the West is catching up, particularly with my Anglican Church, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Vatican Catholic Church.

4. Original Sin is at odds with an Age of Accountability. So many people believe in an age of accountability, which is Biblical by the way, namely for the reasons related to the above about man being guilty because of his own sin, which equals disobedience, which comes by way of doing things against God's will. The Bible indicates that man becomes knowledgable of the truth in his youth, and is therefore guilty of sin at such a time

There's no such thing as an Age of Accountability. That's an implicit doctrine of works, however limited.

To say that you believe in original sin is to say that Adam's sin gets passed from one generation to the next. However, an age of accountability argues that this sin being passed down takes a hiatus. That is, sin no longer exists, but later reappears

Same Straw Man fallacy.

5. Ultimately, the problem with Original Sin is that to believe in such taken to its conclusion would indicate that Jesus was born in sin, as the Bible says that he's both man and God.

<snip>

This is an invalid Straw Man argument because it fails to actually address even now the Western view of original sin. It has never taught Christ was born in original sin.

Since your objection is now contrary to not just the Eastern but Western concept of original sin, it has no validity. The only logical choice now is to accept that your objections are based on falsehoods and relearn both the historical Western and Eastern views and decide which to adhere to.

 

[bling]

Paul did not say we &#8220;all&#8221; inherited Adam and Eve&#8217;s sin, but all have (actually) sinned.

A. The mechanism for the transmission of inherited sin false:
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
1. Exodus 32:31[bless and do not curse]33 In this passage, Moses wanted to receive the punishment for someone else's sin. In verse 33, the one who sinned is removed from the book, not the one whose parents have sinned.
We will be judged only by our own actions: Mt 12:36-37; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 1:17
Isa 59:1-2, "Your sins have separated you from your God" not Adams
Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4 (Infants have done nothing)
Where is one Bible verse that says we will be condemned for sin other than our own?
B. Unsaved and unregenerate men are capable of doing good and have freewill:
Calvinists teach that if a sinner helps an accident victim, he still sins because he does it for the wrong motive.
Gentiles do by nature the good things of the law: Rom 2:14-16
Cornelius was devout, feared God, righteous, Acts 10:1-4, 22 yet unsaved: 11:14
Man has a freewill and can choose to do good or evil: Josh 24:15 "Choose this day..."
C. God requires man to act and do something to be saved...infants can't act or do
"Unless you repent you will perish": Lk 13:3
"Save yourselves": Acts 2:40 KJV
"Repent and be baptized every one of you for forgiveness of sins": Acts 2:38
Why are we told to "work out our own salvation": Phil 2:12
The spoken and written gospel message is God's power for salvation: Rom 1:16; 1 cor 1:18
D. The words used to describe salvation refute inherited sin:
These words imply that we, individually, were once in God's grace at conception and birth
Justification - Romans 5:18
A court term; a legal word
Addresses the subject of our guilt before God

Reconciliation - Romans 5:6-11; Col 1:14,20,21
A word dealing with social intercourse; human relations; to make friendly again, payment of a price to recover from the power of another, a restoration to favor.
Addresses the subject of our being estranged from God

Redemption - Colossians 1:13-14
to buy back; A slavery term; human commerce; purchasing one's freedom; a ransom
Addresses the subject of our slavery to sin

"Regenerate"
to generate again, renewed, restored



E. The Bible describes infants are pure and holy:
Why would Jesus use infants as a model for all believers to imitate in character if they were "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil"? Mt 18:1-3; 19:13-14
Paul also used infants as a model of purity for Christians to follow: 1 Cor 14:20
Paul states that he was once spiritually alive but then he sinned & died/was killed: Rom 7:9-11
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)
Newborns do not know the difference between good and evil
God allowed the children to enter Canaan but not the parents: "your little ones who...have no knowledge of good and evil shall enter". Deut 1:34-39
Jacob & Esau, "the twins were not yet born, and had done nothing good or bad" Rom 9:11
Jesus "Before He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good" Isa 7:15-16
Jer 19:2-6 human sacrifices of children to Baal is called the "blood of the innocent"
If newborns do not know "good or evil" yet the Bible says , "Your sins have separated you from your God" (Isa 59:1-2) then newborns must be born united with God.
As in Adam, all die... 1 Cor 15:22
Text Newborn, innocent & alive Sinner, guilty & dead
Adam & Eve: Gen 1-3
Didn't know good from evil
Ate forbidden fruit

Jacob & Esau: Rom 9:11
Don't know good from evil
When they sin against God

Jesus: Isa 7:15-16
Didn't know good from evil
Jesus never sinned

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

King of Tyre: Ezek 28:15
"Blameless from creation"
"until sin found in him"

All men: Eccl 7:29
God made men upright
They sought out devices

Like Adam, each man is born in the "Garden" and is cast out when he sins

F. The second Spiritual death implies a first spiritual death & initial spiritual life:
Second death is hell: It is a spiritual separation from God: Rev 20:6,14
First death is when we first sin and are separated from God till judgement
For us to die a first death we must have been spiritually alive at birth.

 

[holyrokker]

The doctrine of original sin (or inherited sin nature) does not seem to be derived directly from Scripture, but is inferred by many people from a number of passages used as "proof-texts".

 

[holyrokker]

Unless someone can refute OS via scripture I will hold to that doctrine.

The Bible does not address the doctrine directly. It was not an issue in Judaism, nor in the early church. It is not a scriptural doctrine.

 

[St_Worm2]

The Bible does not address the doctrine directly. It was not an issue in Judaism, nor in the early church. It is not a scriptural doctrine.

Here are some quotes by the ECF's concerning Original Sin. Click here if you'd like to read them.

I've also read that the Essenes wrote about the 'concept' of original sin (though they didn't call it that) prior to the birth of Christ. I will attempt to find that article and post a link to it here when I do. And King David certainly addresses it well before the time of Christ (see the quote from Psalms below).

Yours and His,
David

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful
from the time my mother conceived me"
Psalm 51:5​

 

[bcbsr]

Any theology that proposes that God imputes guilt to the innocent is a theology that declares that God is unjust.

 

[Rick Otto]

Here are some quotes by the ECF's concerning Original Sin. Click here if you'd like to read them.

I've also read that the Essenes wrote about the 'concept' of original sin (though they didn't call it that) prior to the birth of Christ. I will attempt to find that article and post a link to it here when I do. And King David certainly addresses it well before the time of Christ (see the quote from Psalms below).

Yours and His,
David

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful
from the time my mother conceived me"
Psalm 51:5​

Thanks, I'm interested.

 

[FerventDisciple]

Here are some quotes by the ECF's concerning Original Sin. Click here if you'd like to read them.

I've also read that the Essenes wrote about the 'concept' of original sin (though they didn't call it that) prior to the birth of Christ. I will attempt to find that article and post a link to it here when I do. And King David certainly addresses it well before the time of Christ (see the quote from Psalms below).

Yours and His,
David

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful
from the time my mother conceived me"
Psalm 51:5​

I believe the translation quoted is the NIV is it not? Notorious for it's bias and paraphrase. They translate sarx (flesh) as sinful nature in the NT, a gross mistranslation and paraphrase.

 

[St_Worm2]

I believe the translation quoted is the NIV is it not? Notorious for it's bias and paraphrase. They translate sarx (flesh) as sinful nature in the NT, a gross mistranslation and paraphrase.

Hi FD, no question the NIV is a paraphrase, a very good one, but nevertheless, a paraphrase. So, let's see how a true translation renders this verse.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin [did] my mother conceived me." KJV/NASB [RSV/ESV]

"Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me." NET

"Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me." HCSB​

Now we have 3 translations and 3 better paraphrases to look at. How do 'you' interpret the words of Psalm 51:5 KJV? Surely you cannot mean to say that King David's mother was sleeping around, that Jesse is not David's father, and that the author of this Psalm is telling us that he is a "love child" ..

Here's what the KJV Bible Commentary has to say (in part):

5&#8211;6. It cannot intelligently be denied that David here speaks of original sin. He claims that the source of his life is just as polluted as its streams. He has a natural bent from birth towards sin, as do we all. Given the option, we would choose wrong every time. In sin did my mother conceive me. This verse does not indicate that David was conceived out of wedlock; his mother was chaste, the Lord&#8217;s handmaid. Rather, his intent is to trace a congenital depravity which is asserted not only here, but also in 58:3; Job 14:14, and implied in Isaiah 43:27; Hosea 6:7; etc. God desires purity in the inward part, but it is the wisdom of God to know that we are impure from the very moment of conception. Hence, David does not try to excuse his sin, but simply to acknowledge it.Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M. (Eds.). (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 1045). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.​

I could quote another 20 commentaries here if you'd like me to, but they'll all say basically the same thing that the KJV Bible Commentary just did (I quoted this particular commentary because it deals specifically with an exegesis made from the KJV translation).

Again though, what do 'you' believe the meaning of this verse is (if it is different from what you just read above in the KJV Bible Commentary) ..

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful
from the time my mother conceived me"
Psalm 51:5 NIV84​

 

[HexidecimalInput]

No I do not believe in Original Sin.

 

[FerventDisciple]

Hi FD, no question the NIV is a paraphrase, a very good one, but nevertheless, a paraphrase. So, let's see how a true translation renders this verse.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin [did] my mother conceived me." KJV/NASB [RSV/ESV]

"Look, I was guilty of sin from birth, a sinner the moment my mother conceived me." NET

"Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me." HCSB​

Now we have 3 translations and 3 better paraphrases to look at. How do 'you' interpret the words of Psalm 51:5 KJV? Surely you cannot mean to say that King David's mother was sleeping around, that Jesse is not David's father, and that the author of this Psalm is telling us that he is a "love child" ..

Here's what the KJV Bible Commentary has to say (in part):

5–6. It cannot intelligently be denied that David here speaks of original sin. He claims that the source of his life is just as polluted as its streams. He has a natural bent from birth towards sin, as do we all. Given the option, we would choose wrong every time. In sin did my mother conceive me. This verse does not indicate that David was conceived out of wedlock; his mother was chaste, the Lord’s handmaid. Rather, his intent is to trace a congenital depravity which is asserted not only here, but also in 58:3; Job 14:14, and implied in Isaiah 43:27; Hosea 6:7; etc. God desires purity in the inward part, but it is the wisdom of God to know that we are impure from the very moment of conception. Hence, David does not try to excuse his sin, but simply to acknowledge it.Hindson, E. E., & Kroll, W. M. (Eds.). (1994). KJV Bible Commentary (p. 1045). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.​

I could quote another 20 commentaries here if you'd like me to, but they'll all say basically the same thing that the KJV Bible Commentary just did (I quoted this particular commentary because it deals specifically with an exegesis made from the KJV translation).

Again though, what do 'you' believe the meaning of this verse is (if it is different from what you just read above in the KJV Bible Commentary) ..

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful
from the time my mother conceived me"
Psalm 51:5 NIV84​

Well I always did hold to a sinful nature but now I'm in between. It seems to have been unknown to the Church fathers until Augustine. It also appears to borderline make God the author of sin if He is creating people with a sinful nature and then punishing them for how they were made and born. I know you'll disagree since as a Calvinist you reject free will.

 

[Albion]

Well I always did hold to a sinful nature but now I'm in between. It seems to have been unknown to the Church fathers until Augustine. It also appears to borderline make God the author of sin if He is creating people with a sinful nature and then punishing them for how they were made and born. I know you'll disagree since as a Calvinist you reject free will.

It's not really a matter of Free Will (or Predestination, for that matter). But a better way of looking at the issue is to think of sin as a state of estrangement from God. We normally don't do that and, instead, think in terms of "doing something bad." But while the latter is a sin (what we call "actual sin" as opposed to "original sin"), it is not the whole of the story. To be estranged from God because of our nature is to be in 'sin' -- and that is what "original sin" is all about.

Whether one believes in it or not depends upon his understanding of Scripture, but it's very helpful first to be clear concerning what it is that we're examining.

 

[St_Worm2]

It seems to have been unknown to the Church fathers until Augustine. It also appears to borderline make God the author of sin if He is creating people with a sinful nature and then punishing them for how they were made and born. I know you'll disagree since as a Calvinist you reject free will.

Hi FD, St. Augustine coined the phrase "original sin", but the concept seems to have been understood and taught by the Fathers prior to Augustine (not to mention the authors of both the OT/NT). Did you click on the link I posited in an earlier post to read what the Fathers (prior to St. Augustine) wrote in regards to this matter? If you did not, please click HERE as it is a fairly informative and interesting read, beginning with St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD).

As to God being the Author of sin, if Adam is not to blame for the fallen condition of our race, then there is only One other Being who could be! Our condition is universal, its cause therefore, a single source. OS tells us that our progenitors are the root cause of that condition, not God. IOW, OS specifically tells us that God is NOT the Author of sin, rather, it teaches us that (in Adam) we are.

As to Calvinism and free will, I believe that all of us are free to choose whatever we desire the most at any given moment in time. IOW, unless we are acted upon by something outside of ourselves and forced to do otherwise, we choose to do whatever it is we want to do. Do you understand free will differently than that ..

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

 

[FerventDisciple]

Hi FD, St. Augustine coined the phrase "original sin", but the concept seems to have been understood and taught by the Fathers prior to Augustine (not to mention the authors of both the OT/NT). Did you click on the link I posited in an earlier post to read what the Fathers (prior to St. Augustine) wrote in regards to this matter? If you did not, please click HERE as it is a fairly informative and interesting read, beginning with St. Irenaeus (c. 180 AD).

As to God being the Author of sin, if Adam is not to blame for the fallen condition of our race, then there is only One other Being who could be! Our condition is universal, its cause therefore, a single source. OS tells us that our progenitors are the root cause of that condition, not God. IOW, OS specifically tells us that God is NOT the Author of sin, rather, it teaches us that (in Adam) we are.

As to Calvinism and free will, I believe that all of us are free to choose whatever we desire the most at any given moment in time. IOW, unless we are acted upon by something outside of ourselves and forced to do otherwise, we choose to do whatever it is we want to do. Do you understand free will differently than that ..

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

I did see anything in that Irenaeus quote that sounded like he held to OS. In other quotes he speaks against it:

"Men are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It is Not True, Therefore, that Some are by Nature Good, and Others Bad."

"Man is Endowed with the Faculty of Distinguishing Good and Evil; So That, Without Compulsion, He Has the Power, by His Own Will and Choice, to Perform God's Commandments, by Doing Which He Avoids the Evils Prepared for the Rebellious."

Well as a Calvinist I'm sure you'd agree that God ordained the fall and thus it was set from the beginning so that would be no free will.

No, the free will you describe is from the compatibilism understanding which I find highly incoherent and no different to determinism really.

 

[Frogster]

How did we receive Adam's condemnation, without his sin?:o

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

 

[Frogster]

Why do some people believe that the one act of Christ, made them righteous, all while they don't believe that the one act of Adam, made them sinners?

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.


Judgment followed one trespass, sin and death came after that ONE trespass, not our sin.


16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.

 

[St_Worm2]

I did see anything in that Irenaeus quote that sounded like he held to OS.

Hi again FD, that's funny because I understand the entire quote as teaching OS (granted, indirectly), especially what I have placed in bold type below. You disagree?

ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)

....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)​

You continue:

Well as a Calvinist I'm sure you'd agree that God ordained the fall and thus it was set from the beginning so that would be no free will.

Actually, that's not how I understand the Fall at all. I am a Calvinist, not a Hyper-Calvinist (which is not a "Calvinist" at all). I'm an infralapsarianist, not a supralapsarianist.

As to God's ordination, yes, God ordains EVERYTHING that comes to pass. If He did not, He could not rightly be considered "God" as anything outside of His purview, no matter how insignificant it/they may seem, could cause the undoing of any plans He might ever choose to make.

Please understand that by "ordination" I do not mean that He "causes" everything to happen. Typically I would say that God knows what we will choose to do and He either "allows" it happen or He does not. God did not "cause" the Fall, but He did allow it to happen. You continue:

No, the free will you describe is from the compatibilism understanding which I find highly incoherent and no different to determinism really.

How does being able to choose what I want to do and then doing it = determinism ..

If by "free will" you mean autonomy, then yes, I absolutely disagree that we have been given that. How do you define free will?

Thanks!

--David

 

[Rick Otto]

...He is creating people with a sinful nature ...

He's not.
He created only Adam.
Adam changed.

 

[bling]

How did we receive Adam's condemnation, without his sin?:o

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

In the context of Ro. 5: 18 we have:

15…For if the many died by the trespass of the one man…
17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man,…
It appears the “condemnation” in 18 seems to be all humans being condemned to die.

Death is given as a “curse”, but is that “curse” bad for humans or does it help humans in their fulfilling their earthly objective?

Do all the curses given Adam not also help humans fulfill their earthly objective?

Is death bad in and of itself?

 

[Rick Otto]

I would imagine, both in the light of our physical inheritance (genetic) and in light of the significance of the virgin birth in this narrative, that genes are programmable by behavior,... at least to the extent that our own has been so inclined toward error in judgement so profoundly, that it is a certainty to some degree in all of us.