Ok... I've read some answers. The whole thing makes no sense... Supposedly Adam "sinned"... (Who determined what sin is?) What does Adam's actions have to do with anyone else? So god holds grudges?
1) A literal reading of the Fall is not a prerequisite to being a Christian.
2) I think one problem here is that the idea of Original Sin is often not very well communicated
2a) Not all Christians agree with Original Sin, which is chiefly the Western perspective, the Eastern Churches have a different position on the subject.
As for who determines what is sin, sin is defined as anything that is contrary to God's will and purpose; from a judicial stand point it is a violation or transgression of God's law. So to that end, when Adam and Eve violated God's command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they sinned. Whether the story is intended to be literal-historical or more figurative in nature is a matter of debate among Christians.
However, as far as Original Sin is concerned:
God does not hold a grudge, nor are we held responsible for Adam's failure. Instead Original Sin states that when Adam sinned it wrought a change in Adam's humanity. As the progeny of Adam, as St. Augustine argued, all human beings have inherited something called
concupiscence. The literal meaning of concupiscence is something like "lust" or "desire", but it speaks of a
broken desire, an inward desire. To use the language of my own Lutheran tradition humanity became
homo incurvatus in se, meaning "man, curved inward upon himself". The natural appetites became bent, twisted, deformed, and disarranged. So rather than our desires being aimed outward, in love, toward God and our fellow creatures; our desires became aimed inward, toward our own selfish satisfaction. It is this bent, disordered desire that we inherited from Adam; and as such every human being is born disordered, the appetites wild and untamed, thus producing the fruits of vice such as pride, greed, malice, and the like.
We are not held accountable for what Adam did, we are held accountable to our own sinful thoughts, words, and behaviors.
Salvation is, in part, the rectifying of this malady. One of the forms of language which St. Paul uses in the New Testament is the contrast between Adam and Christ. That our humanity has been shaped, molded, and deformed in the image of Adam; but that our renewal by God's grace in Jesus means we have come to share in the new humanity of Jesus. Where Adam sinned and wrought death to the world, Christ was righteous and has brought resurrection and eternal life to the world. As St. Paul writes, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
In this sense Jesus is the recapitulation of Adam; the undoing of what Adam did. Hence the importance of the Incarnation, of God becoming man; Jesus in being human reverses things for humanity. And so union to Jesus means a sharing in Jesus' humanity, both now and yet to come. Now, as grace received in faith; and yet to come at the resurrection of the dead and the restoration of all things.
If I were to accept this it sounds as if I trust Jesus took on my punishment, so basically I have a free pass to do anything I want. Nevermind what is actually right and wrong.
There are a number of what are called "Atonement Theories", ways in which Christians have historically attempted to articulate the meaning and significance of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In a sense, it's an attempt to answer as succinctly and clearly what it means to say that Jesus died for us.
The idea that Jesus bore the punishment that we deserved is a specific perspective known as Penal Substitution Theory, which is chiefly associated with the Reformed Tradition of Protestantism. And since most Protestants (but by no means all) have been either directly or indirectly influenced by Reformed Theology in some form or another, Penal Substitution has become one of the most well known views in the English speaking world, and is often the de facto view of American Evangelicalism.
There are two issues with it that should be mentioned:
1) Even as popularly communicated in the modern world it is often very poorly articulated.
2) It's hardly the only view.
Roman Catholics have what is known as Satisfaction Theory, a view that goes back to St. Anselm of Canterbury (11th century), but in its present form most properly goes back to St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century). Satisfaction Theory maintains that human beings, on account of sin, are unable to satisfy the justice that is required of us, and as such God in Jesus makes satisfaction on our behalf. Where we failed to be righteous, Christ was righteous. Penal Substitution says much the same, but goes further in saying that God punished Jesus in our place--that idea is foreign from Satisfaction Theory.
But, even here, this hardly covers everything. In the Eastern Churches neither Penal Substitution nor Satisfaction Theory are taught, rather the language which the Orthodox Churches use reflects some of the most ancient views in Christianity: Recapitulation and Ransom.
I've already hinted a bit about Recapitulation Theory, that Christ undoes what Adam did. That is the essence of Recapitulation Theory.
Ransom Theory, in its full expression speaks of how through sin mankind has fallen captive to the devil, and it is the devil who wields death and suffering over us. And so God, out of love, offers His own Son, Jesus, as a ransom on behalf of the world. Christ's in offering Himself up to death, pays the price of ransom and the devil thinks he's won a victory against God. However God in a sense tricks the trickster, and so Christ's death is not true defeat, but is instead the beginning of the end for the devil. In dying Christ entered hell* and set it to ruin, setting captives free, defeated death and the devil, and by rising from the dead has secured victory over sin, death, hell, and the devil for all men.
*This refers to what's known as the
Harrowing of Hell in Christianity.
My personal beliefs are best described as Christus Victor, which a modern, western take on the Recapitulation and Ransom Theories. I also don't reject Satisfaction Theory, to the extent of Christ's making satisfaction of God's justice through His own righteousness.
I personally have issues with Penal Substitution Theory.
So if Adam's sin was passed on to the rest of humanity Jesus would also have inherited it meaning he is not without sin.
There have been attempts to try and explain how Jesus avoided inherited Original Sin. The Roman Catholic way of addressing this is their teaching on the immaculate conception of Mary, that is, Mary was conceived by a special grace, on account of her future Child, Jesus, to be without sin. Thus Mary was conceived without Original Sin in order that she could be the pure vessel through which Jesus Christ was conceived. Mary's Immaculate Conception is rooted in Christ's own work; that is it is in a sense a retroactive work where Christ's Atonement works backward to protect His own mother from Original Sin. Or at least that's the very sloppy way of putting it, and since I'm not Roman Catholic I've probably misconstrued it somewhere.
As a Lutheran I would simply put forward that however it happened, Christ was uniquely conceived without sin. The details are unknown and unknowable. But that's a pretty typical way for a Lutheran to do things, we tend to avoid a lot of speculation, and are content to let [seeming] contradictions and paradoxes just be. If it doesn't make sense, well that's still okay.
Honestly this whole thing sounds very hard to believe. I really don't understand how this works. Actions aren't inherited... If my father is a murderer that does not make me a murderer.
You're right, which is why you didn't inherit Adam's actions. The historic idea of Original Sin doesn't suggest you have either. Only that you--like everyone else--has inherited a humanity which is broken by sinfulness.
-CryptoLutheran
