Original Sin

[Corpus Aristotelicum]

Deuteronomy 24:16 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death.

Does this verse not conflict with the notion of Original Sin?

Is there Scriptural support for the notion of Original Sin?

In the context of this thread, Original Sin is not simply the notion that Adam and Eve committed the first Sin. It is the notion that this Sin is passed unto all humanity and that even Children are not spared God's wraith and must be Baptized to be saved. I realize not all Christians believe this and that's why I have also included a poll. Feel free to state what you personally believe. Please provide Scriptural support.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Original Sin is not the teaching that we are punished for Adam's sin. Original Sin is the teaching that because of Adam's original sin we have inherited Adam's sinful disposition or concupiscience.

As far as Scriptural support,

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned" - Romans 5:12

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alla27]

Original Sin is not the teaching that we are punished for Adam's sin. Original Sin is the teaching that because of Adam's original sin we have inherited Adam's sinful disposition or concupiscience.

I want to be sure I understand you correctly. Do you say that if Adam didn't sin we(his posterity) wouldn't sin also?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I want to be sure I understand you correctly. Do you say that if Adam didn't sin we(his posterity) wouldn't sin also?

Biblically speaking, Adam's disobedience introduced sin to the human experience, that's really as much as can be said on that issue. Speaking personally I don't believe the story in Genesis about Adam and Eve is literal history, rather the story is there, in part, to address mythologically the problem of sin and death in creation; that the good creation of God has, in some way, gone awry.

There's no way of telling, from the biblical story, what would have happened if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed and eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree; and so speculating on it is probably meaningless.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alla27]

Biblically speaking, Adam's disobedience introduced sin to the human experience, that's really as much as can be said on that issue. Speaking personally I don't believe the story in Genesis about Adam and Eve is literal history, rather the story is there, in part, to address mythologically the problem of sin and death in creation; that the good creation of God has, in some way, gone awry.
There's no way of telling, from the biblical story, what would have happened if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed and eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree; and so speculating on it is probably meaningless.

-CryptoLutheran

I respect your opinion(belief) about garden of Eden story that is why I don't want to argue with this.
But I agree with you that the Bible(Genesis) doesn't give us answers to many questions.
P.S. I really like your answer.

 

[cloudyday2]

Original Sin is not the teaching that we are punished for Adam's sin. Original Sin is the teaching that because of Adam's original sin we have inherited Adam's sinful disposition or concupiscience.

I have read some Catholic web pages that make baptism the cure for original sin. I assume this sinful disposition should disappear after a person is baptized. Shouldn't there be some evidence of change after baptism? Have there been any studies to detect this "baptism effect" or the similar "fruits of the spirit effect"?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have read some Catholic web pages that make baptism the cure for original sin. I assume this sinful disposition should disappear after a person is baptized. Shouldn't there be some evidence of change after baptism? Have there been any studies to detect this "baptism effect" or the similar "fruits of the spirit effect"?

I imagine this would have to do with the eternal vs. the temporal effects of sin, which is an idea within Roman Catholic teaching. Barring actually going to the source (the CCC here) the question is best asked of a practicing and knowledgeable Roman Catholic.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked above:

"1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

I imagine this would have to do with the eternal vs. the temporal effects of sin, which is an idea within Roman Catholic teaching. Barring actually going to the source (the CCC here) the question is best asked of a practicing and knowledgeable Roman Catholic.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church linked above:

"1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, "the tinder for sin" (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68"

-CryptoLutheran

From that quote, it seems that Catholics do believe that God punishes the descendants of Adam for his sin (otherwise why use the word "forgiven"). This must be something that Luther changed?

 

[ViaCrucis]

From that quote, it seems that Catholics do believe that God punishes the descendants of Adam for his sin (otherwise why use the word "forgiven"). This must be something that Luther changed?

It would be more accurate to say that the effects of Adam's sin are forgiven. It isn't Adam's sinful act that the progeny of Adam are held culpable of, but rather that in Adam's sinful act there was introduced a "deprivation of holiness"

From the CCC,

"416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin"."

Thus the ramifications of Adam's sin continue in his progeny, this too needs to be dealt with, and is what is forgiven.

Lutheranism essentially agree with the Roman Catholic idea, though in some ways it goes a step further to what could be called Total Depravity or Total Inability. The inherent deprivation of holiness and justice is not merely that we might sin and need grace to get us on back on the right track, but in fact completely enslaves us, even our will, to the natural appetites. Such that a man cannot choose God of his own will, because even the will is depraved and bent inward toward himself.

The Augsburg Confession puts it:

"Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason." - Article II

To an extent we can speak of sin and Sin, by "sin" I mean we can speak of sinful acts; but sinful acts arise not from a vacuum but on account of Sin, that there is a deep wound in human nature that is positioned in opposition to God and which only God can overcome with His grace. We are not sinners because we sin, ultimately we sin because we are sinners. It is that deep wound, described in various ways, that needs to be addressed.

In Lutheran theology in Baptism God has appropriated for us the merits of Jesus, such that we have been crucified and buried with Christ and therefore have been raised with Him also (as St. Paul says in Romans ch. 6), so that by the grace of God, through faith, God has imputed us, in a sense accredited us with, the justice or righteousness of Christ and it is on this account that we are justified, that is, reckoned just or righteous. What we have at present, as God's gift apprehended through faith, isn't the final outcome (resurrection, wholeness, etc) but the faithful promise from God that even as Christ was raised up, we shall also be raised up; that even as Christ is the victor over sin and death by His death and resurrection this shall be true of us also. We have these things now, through faith, as the promise for what is to come. There is a "now and not yet" tension in these things; we are saved and we are being saved and we will be saved. The life granted to us by God here and now is not merely a pipe dream, but the assured promise and word from God that it will be so. So that our sins are, indeed, truly forgiven and we have confidence in Christ to that life which is to come. But it is not ourselves but Christ that we look to. In Baptism we have been--again, quoting St. Paul, this time from his letter to the Galatians--clothed with Christ, that is we have "put on" Christ. Hence the saying, Simul iustus et peccator, that is, "At once both saint and sinner"; we are saints, that is holy, on Christ's account alone and we are sinners on our own account. From cradle to grave the problem of sin persists, Christianity is not about passing from sin to glory in this life, but to bear the cross in faith upon the promises of God in His Gospel. To trust in Christ and, insofar as we can, abide by God's commandments toward our neighbor in love. Never reaching the destination in this life, but running the race nonetheless.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[peepnklown]

Deuteronomy 24:16

The concept of Original Sin is a late Christian notion (2nd Century). It has no foundation in the Hebrew Scriptures (Tanakh).
If Gnosticism would have won we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
If you want scriptural support I’d look in the Greek Scriptures

 

[Corpus Aristotelicum]

Original Sin is not the teaching that we are punished for Adam's sin. Original Sin is the teaching that because of Adam's original sin we have inherited Adam's sinful disposition or concupiscience.

As far as Scriptural support,

"Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned" - Romans 5:12

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for clarifying your belief.

So would you agree that children are blameless up to a certain age? It certainly would not be their choosing to inherit a Sinful disposition from their ancestors.

It also raises another question. Why would God allow a system by which we inherit a Sinful disposition then punish us for the disposition God has allowed us to inherit? In order for such a system to make sense we would need to have a sensible way to change our disposition.

This is an aside, but how does one reconcile these two verses?

Deuteronomy 24:16 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death.

Romans 5:12 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned

In Romans it says Sin and Death came into the World through one Man (What about Eve? Or would Sin not have spread if only Eve ate?) and that Death spread to Everyone, because Everyone has Sinned.

Yet Deuteronomy says that a person can only be put to Death for their own transgressions. Would this not suggest that the Sins being spoken of in Romans must then be Sins Everyone committed on their own accord and not an inherited Sinful Disposition? Perhaps the phrase "all have sinned" excludes those who have yet to have an opportunity to Sin (e.g. A newborn baby)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for clarifying your belief.

So would you agree that children are blameless up to a certain age? It certainly would not be their choosing to inherent a Sinful disposition from their ancestors.

It also raises another question. Why would God allow a system by which we inherent a Sinful disposition then punish us for the disposition God has allowed us to inherent? In order for such a system to make sense we would need to have a sensible way to change our disposition.

No I don't think children are blameless up to a certain age, at least theologically speaking. That is to say I don't believe in the modern neo-Protestant idea of an "age of accountability".

I don't believe God has allowed a system by which He punishes us for happening to inherit a sinful disposition. Presumably by punishment you mean Hell. I don't subscribe to a belief in which God actively punishes people by sending them to a place called "Hell". But getting into my eschatological positions is probably beyond the scope of this post.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Corpus Aristotelicum]

No I don't think children are blameless up to a certain age, at least theologically speaking. That is to say I don't believe in the modern neo-Protestant idea of an "age of accountability".

I don't believe God has allowed a system by which He punishes us for happening to inherit a sinful disposition. Presumably by punishment you mean Hell. I don't subscribe to a belief in which God actively punishes people by sending them to a place called "Hell". But getting into my eschatological positions is probably beyond the scope of this post.

-CryptoLutheran

So what Sin has a New Born Baby committed? I would imagine anyone, outside a theological perspective, looking at a New Born that died shortly after birth or even inside the womb would consider that Baby blameless...It hardly had any choice in what happened or even its very existence. Does Sin not Presuppose Choice?

So what are the consequences of Sin then? Eternal Death? Something else?

P.S. I edited my prior post because I forgot to mention something about the Scripture quoted.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what Sin has a New Born Baby committed? I would imagine anyone, outside a theological perspective, looking at a New Born that died shortly after birth or even inside the womb would consider that Baby blameless...It hardly had any choice in what happened or even its very existence. Does Sin not Presuppose Choice?

What you describe above is what the Western theological tradition typically refers to as "personal sin" or "personal sins", the actual sinful acts that are committed. When talking about Original Sin we are talking not about an act of sin, but the inborn reality of Sin within human nature due to what is called the Fall. A newborn infant hasn't committed any sins. But the reality of Sin is there, and thus to accord blamelessness would be inaccurate.

So what are the consequences of Sin then? Eternal Death? Something else?

When talking about Hell there are usually three writers I refer to that have been influential in shaping how I think on the topic and who I usually recommend in case anyone is curious about the different ideas about Hell that exist within the broad Christian tradition.

1. St. Isaac the Syrian, a 7th century Christian theologian who wrote on a lot of things, but where he usually gets attention is for his remarks on Hell:

"I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have played the fool, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability."

This isn't some fringe idea either, this largely captures what Christians from the East think about Hell, for the Orthodox Hell is not a location of punishment, it is a matter of disposition before God.

2. C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. It's the only book I've read by Lewis, so I have no real way of comparing it to anything else he's written, but it is a rather fantastic work that, at the very least, offers thought and reflection.

3. Fr. Hans Urs von Balthasar's Dare We Hope. A rather short work by one of the 20th century's best Catholic theologians in which he suggests that it is merely sentiment, but a firm Christian assertion, that we should hope for the salvation of all and that, really and truly, Hell is, in the end, empty.

I would also highly recommend N.T. Wright, there are several interesting video clips on Youtube where Wright discusses eschatological issues, including Hell, and I think he does a really good job at it. Though in summary, Hell is, in Wright's mind, what happens when human beings, fully and ultimately, reject the good created order of God, including--ironically--themselves. Hell is not a place one is sent, Hell is not about scary demons with pitchforks out to getcha, it's a much more sobering, sad thing where at the end when God is making all things new there remain those who insist they don't want any part of it. Not, necessarily, unlike the dull grey city described by Lewis in the above mentioned work.

And, because I suspect this will be asked: How do I have these ideas when the Bible mentions a lake that burns with fire and brimstone, or wailing and gnashing of teeth. Well, the simple answer to that is that

A) Jesus' description of Gehenna, the waiting place for the wicked dead in Jewish eschatology in the time of Jesus, is largely derived from its namesake: Ge-Hinnom, the Valley of Hinnom, located outside of the old city Jerusalem. In Israel's ancient past the Valley of Hinnom is where the cult of Molech gathered to offer child sacrifice upon the brazen idol.

B) The "lake of fire" is a description from the Apocalypse of St. John, the most symbolic book in the entire Christian Canon. Seeing as this is the same text that refers to man-faced locust creatures and multi-headed monsters crawling out from the ocean, I'm going to go ahead and allow that there probably isn't a literal pond somewhere filled with fire and sulfur.

-CryptoLutheran

P.S. I edited my prior post because I forgot to mention something about the Scripture quoted.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is an aside, but how does one reconcile these two verses?

Deuteronomy 24:16 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death.

Romans 5:12 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned

In Romans it says Sin and Death came into the World through one Man (What about Eve? Or would Sin not have spread if only Eve ate?) and that Death spread to Everyone, because Everyone has Sinned.

Yet Deuteronomy says that a person can only be put to Death for their own transgressions. Would this not suggest that the Sins being spoken of in Romans must then be Sins Everyone committed on their own accord and not an inherited Sinful Disposition? Perhaps the phrase "all have sinned" excludes those who have yet to have an opportunity to Sin (e.g. A newborn baby)

The Torah says not to punish people for the crimes of their kin.

The reality of our own mortality isn't us being put to death for the transgressions of our ancestor. Death isn't a punishment from God, it is the tragedy of our broken, fallen state.

I don't see a reason to reconcile these since they aren't even close in talking about similar things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Corpus Aristotelicum]

The Torah says not to punish people for the crimes of their kin.

The reality of our own mortality isn't us being put to death for the transgressions of our ancestor. Death isn't a punishment from God, it is the tragedy of our broken, fallen state.

I don't see a reason to reconcile these since they aren't even close in talking about similar things.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for clarifying and sharing.

The only part I find hard to understand is the notion that Death is not a punishment, but rather a inescapable reality. From a non-religious point of view I would agree with this assessment, but from a theological point of view I struggle to put this puzzle together.

Even if we do not consider the story in Genesis to be literal, we have a situation where at one point humanity had access to Eternal Life, Immortality. We now find ourselves in a World where Immortality is sought after but yet Mortality seems certain and will never be attained unless each person from around 0-22 AD forward accepts Jesus' Sacrifice. Which I understand is Spiritual Immortality, not Physical. Because obviously Christians aren't living forever physically. Which spins off into many other questions.

To make a simple analogy, this would be like a parent that says to their first child 'You may eat of all things in this house except the Rat Poison over there.' The child eats the Rat Poison and dies. The parent has another kid and instead of removing the Rat Poison or giving the next child a fair shake at the same test, the parent instead immediately confines them in an area of the house that lacks some of the good things the rest of the house contains, but allows the Rat Poison to follow them in this confined area where it continues to wreak havoc.

This would be like Original Sin following us into this World. The "Tree of Knowledge" doesn't have to physically follow, because it is as if we all ate of it already.

 

[juvenissun]

I want to be sure I understand you correctly. Do you say that if Adam didn't sin we(his posterity) wouldn't sin also?

Your question is really a compounded one.

Before we can consider your question, one question should be considered first:
If Adam did not sin, then where would WE be?

If we can not answer this question, then your question can not be answered.

 

[juvenissun]

I have read some Catholic web pages that make baptism the cure for original sin. I assume this sinful disposition should disappear after a person is baptized. Shouldn't there be some evidence of change after baptism? Have there been any studies to detect this "baptism effect" or the similar "fruits of the spirit effect"?

In order to make the "wash" meaningful, one pre-requisite is to repent, a genuine repent. If this requirement is satisfied, then the person get "washed" will start to struggle with himself on his sinful nature.

A clear symptom on the effect of baptism is that the person who took some sinful thoughts/actions as granted will start to have a second thought about them.

 

[juvenissun]

So what Sin has a New Born Baby committed? I would imagine anyone, outside a theological perspective, looking at a New Born that died shortly after birth or even inside the womb would consider that Baby blameless...It hardly had any choice in what happened or even its very existence. Does Sin not Presuppose Choice?

So what are the consequences of Sin then? Eternal Death? Something else?

P.S. I edited my prior post because I forgot to mention something about the Scripture quoted.

A baby, born or not, will die anyway. In term of sin, die early or late does not make any difference.

The concern on the death of baby and unborn is another issue.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thank you for clarifying and sharing.

The only part I find hard to understand is the notion that Death is not a punishment, but rather a inescapable reality. From a non-religious point of view I would agree with this assessment, but from a theological point of view I struggle to put this puzzle together.

Even if we do not consider the story in Genesis to be literal, we have a situation where at one point humanity had access to Eternal Life, Immortality. We now find ourselves in a World where Immortality is sought after but yet Mortality seems certain and will never be attained unless each person from around 0-22 AD forward accepts Jesus' Sacrifice. Which I understand is Spiritual Immortality, not Physical. Because obviously Christians aren't living forever physically. Which spins off into many other questions.

To make a simple analogy, this would be like a parent that says to their first child 'You may eat of all things in this house except the Rat Poison over there.' The child eats the Rat Poison and dies. The parent has another kid and instead of removing the Rat Poison or giving the next child a fair shake at the same test, the parent instead immediately confines them in an area of the house that lacks some of the good things the rest of the house contains, but allows the Rat Poison to follow them in this confined area where it continues to wreak havoc.

This would be like Original Sin following us into this World. The "Tree of Knowledge" doesn't have to physically follow, because it is as if we all ate of it already.

Specifically to address the portion I put in bold:

Christians actually do believe in physical immortality. That's what the resurrection is about. There is a popular misconception among Christians today (and thus also among non-Christians) that the Christian hope is to spend eternity as some sort of ghost in an ethereal place called Heaven. But that's never been the Christian hope, consistently, both in the Bible itself and in the confessions and creeds of the historic Christian faith it is belief in the resurrection of the body.

For example, the Apostles' Creed:

"I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ,
His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into Hell;
the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting.
Amen."

The original Latin is more explicit, where it reads "carnis resurrectionem", literally, "resurrection of the flesh"

-CryptoLutheran