Original Sin

[Jonaitis]

Do you believe in original sin?

It is understood that not all are in agreement as to what this means. Some say that as a direct result of Adam's fall, we are born sinful. While others say that as a direct result of Adam's fall, we are both sinful by nature and condemned in God's sight; that we share in the guilt and corruption of our first parent, being united to him as our federal head who represented the whole human race.

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:18-19

 

[redleghunter]

Thanks for laying the two major views. For the first one, the posts I’ve seen defending it goes more like “we have a sinful tendency based on the fall but are not condemned until we willfully sin.”

 

[Jonaitis]

Thanks for laying the two major views. For the first one, the posts I’ve seen defending it goes more like “we have a sinful tendency based on the fall but are not condemned until we willfully sin.”

I've heard another alternative that says that we are condemned, not by association of Adam's guilt, but through the corruption we inherit from him. We aren't pure in God's eyes, so even by nature we are condemned. In this sense, we are guilty by our own sin in that way.

 

[redleghunter]

I've heard another alternative that says that we are condemned, not by association of Adam's guilt, but through the corruption we inherit from him. We aren't pure in God's eyes, so even by nature we are condemned.

Isn’t that a round about way to avoid the Biblical and early Church federal head view?

 

[Jonaitis]

Isn’t that a round about way to avoid the Biblical and early Church federal head view?

I would think so, but this was Calvin's view surprisingly.

 

[Not David]

Do you believe in original sin?

It is understood that not all are in agreement as to what this means. Some say that as a direct result of Adam's fall, we are born sinful. While others say that as a direct result of Adam's fall, we are both sinful by nature and condemned in God's sight; that we share in the guilt and corruption of our first parent, being united to him as our federal head who represented the whole human race.

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:18-19

Probably the first one. I believe we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin but not the guilt.

 

[Hammster]

Ephesians 2 says we are by nature the same as the children of wrath.

 

[1213]

Do you believe in original sin?
....

I have understood sin means to reject God or to live apart from (without) God. Adam rejected God and because of that we are born in disconnection with God. I think that disconnection is the original sin that we have, unless we receive Jesus and God and get rid of that sin.

 

[Albion]

Adam rejected God and because of that we are born in disconnection with God. I think that disconnection is the original sin that we have, unless we receive Jesus and God and get rid of that sin.

A much better explanation of Original Sin than a lot of the "shots in the dark" that I've been reading.

 

[Jonaitis]

I have understood sin means to reject God or to live apart from (without) God. Adam rejected God and because of that we are born in disconnection with God. I think that disconnection is the original sin that we have, unless we receive Jesus and God and get rid of that sin.

I think this falls under the second definition. We have lost fellowship with God and a right standing before him through Adam's transgression.

Do you believe that we are sinless at birth, but separated from God through Adam?

 

[Jonaitis]

It appears in the poll most (so far) here seem to hold a Palagian worldview. Could some of you explain why you said no?

 

[JackRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death.


Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

What we are is a people that is still evolving and that evolution has profoundly affected not just our bodies but our psyches as well. The world in which we evolved was a difficult and dagerous one and mere survival was of the highest priority. Selfishness became a part of who we are as a survival mechanism. This selfish instinct is no longer as necessary as in our savage past but it is still powerful. If there is an "Original Sin", this is it. Of course it is not a sin really but an innate part of our nature and it can be overcome.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[Albion]

It appears in the poll most (so far) here seem to hold a Palagian worldview.

It didn't look that way to me, although I could be wrong. Could you elaborate in some way?

 

[Jonaitis]

It didn't look that way to me, although I could be wrong. Could you elaborate in some way?

Well, that's the reason I asked if they could explain. I don't know why they said no.

 

[ewq1938]

It appears in the poll most (so far) here seem to hold a Palagian worldview. Could some of you explain why you said no?

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

Take note that the above verse is of course correct but this is what many people think it says:

"Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so SIN spread to all men because all men sinned"

That misreading is the basis for the doctrine that Adam's has passed down his SIN to all of us but of course that is not what the verse says. Death is what is passed down to us, and of course that is only because we also sin, "so death spread to all men because all men sinned"

So death is only spread to those who sin, and of course all above the age of accountability have sinned.

Adam's sin is not spread to others making original sin incorrect because that is what it teaches.
Death is spread, but only to those that have sinned.

So a baby is born without Adam's sin and without that spiritual death. When the child ages to accountability and then sins, then that death comes to them and the only way to remove it is to be forgiven.

 

[charsan]

Probably the first one. I believe we inherit the consequences of Adam's sin but not the guilt.

I believe that also

 

[Jonaitis]

Interesting views, anyone else?

 

[bling]

Well, that's the reason I asked if they could explain. I don't know why they said no.

I can explain but not in just a few words.

You do not have to be Palagian to say “No”.

Jack RD does a good job showing it was death past down and we all sin, but does not address babies who died and did not sin.

There is a ton of good stuff to learn from the Adam and Eve story and sin is just a small part of it, but to understand sin, you might have to understand everything else.

Adam and Eve were made “very good”, but that is not perfect like Christ is perfect, mainly because clones of Christ cannot be “made”, you just cannot make something that has always existed. “Very good” would be than “as good as it can be made”, so what was Adam and Eve (and all of us) lacking to truly become like God/Christ?

If we can obtain here on earth what we lack there is reason for us being here and what we lack might not be possible to obtain anywhere else, so everything goes back to man’s objective.

Unfortunately, sin has purpose and appears to be needed for all mature adults to help those who are willing to fulfill their earthly objective. The objective drives everything.

Starting with God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as His sake.

God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to accept His help to fulfill their earthly objective.

So God allows evil to happen to help humans, but God also allowed Christ to go to the cross the help humans.

There is really nothing you (a created being) can “do” to help the Creator, but you can allow of your own free will God to help you, which is God’s desire since God is a huge giver of gifts.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves. Would becoming like God Himself not be the greatest gift we could get?

The objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain this Godly type Love is the first of man’s objective.

There are just something even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), the big inability for us is to be created with instinctive (programmed) Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real likely alternatives (for humans those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)



This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them burden them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant, so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

In order to be forgiven of sin you must first sin, so sin is necessary but not desired.

This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing mature adult individuals to see, receive, give, experience, accept and know Godly type Love. All these tragedies provide opportunities for Love, but that does not mean we go around causing opportunities, since we are to be ceasing these opportunities (there are plenty of opportunities) to show/experience Love.

You do not have to believe the Adam and Eve story is true to get lots of good messages from it. Most people go through a time in which they ask: “How could a Loving God allow such a thing”, which means “why does God not start us all out in a Garden type situation without, needy people, limited resources, death, and questions about His existence?”

What we can do is thank Adam and Eve for showing us and them that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.

That is an introduction to think about.

 

[Rubiks]

It depends on your definition of original sin.

Nowhere in the Bible is Adam's sin blamed on all the evil and suffering in world. This idea also creates another problem: Why didn't Satan and his angels' fall from Heaven corrupt all creation like Adam's sin allegedly did?

 

[Albion]

This idea also creates another problem: Why didn't Satan and his angels' fall from Heaven corrupt all creation like Adam's sin allegedly did?

Have we decided that "all creation" was corrupted?