Original Sin

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Original Sin

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.



"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale). Augustine's conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, and scholars have debated whether the passage supports Augustine's view.

Augustine's formulation of original sin became popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or "hurtful desire"), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good and proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin.


Roman Catholicism
Catholic veiw: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
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 humans.
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". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")


Lutheranism
The Lutheran Churches teach that original sin "is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins.
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.


Jehovah's Witnesses
The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race . This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘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’ (Rom.5:12).
This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘ original sin ’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘ original sin ’ means.
source


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(Mormon)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Methodism

Methodist theology teaches that a believer is made free from original sin when he/she is entirely sanctified.
(["entirely sanctified" or] Christian perfection is the name given to various teachings within Christianity that describe the process of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification.
source

Eastern Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches' version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sins from the beginning (1 John iii. 8)".[74] The Eastern Church never subscribed to Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The Church does not interpret "original sin" as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment .
source unless otherwise indicated


So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?


.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #21

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 10:42 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 8:36 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 6:55 pmThere’s no clearly specified age at which Adam and Eve ate the fruit, but before they did, they had no knowledge of good or evil, so developmentally seem closer to eight than a hundred.
Yet clearly you think they were at an age of not knowing what a rule was only because it fits your dogma.
Their actual age (unknown) is irrelevant. They’ve had no knowledge of what’s good or evil, so how would they understand the concept or implications of a rule in the first place?
This is a common misconception. The fruit was no different than any other tree. It didn't have special powers. The tree was only, "good for food". Gen 3:6

Eve knew it was bad to eat from the tree. Otherwise why offer any resistance when offered the fruit? She knew that she wasn't allowed to eat from one specific tree. She understood something bad would happen if she did eat the fruit because she said, "‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’" (Gen 3:3)

This doesn't sound a like a person that didn't understand what is good and bad. If she didn't understand then law would have never come into her mind and she would have just eaten from the tree without a word.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1463
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #22

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:57 am This is a common misconception. The fruit was no different than any other tree. It didn't have special powers. The tree was only, "good for food". Gen 3:6
The full verse and subsequent one is:
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
<bolding mine>

Not sure what your point was, unless it was about resistance? Genesis doesn’t record Eve saying anything to the snake that offers any resistance.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #23

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 6:12 am Not sure what your point was, unless it was about resistance? Genesis doesn’t record Eve saying anything to the snake that offers any resistance.
When asked 'is it true you can't eat from any tree', Eve stated what the law was, 'Every tree accept the tree in the middle of the garden and if we eat from it we die'. She knew that to eat from the was not allowed and she knew the consequences were bad. Sounds like resistance to me, if not then Eve would've eaten from the tree without Satan's lie of 'you will not die'. This appears to have been Eve's main concern, she feared death for disobedience. This means she knew what good and bad was before she ate from the tree. She doesn't have 'say' I resist, her repeating what the law was to correct Satan, this must have viewed as resistance to him. Why? Because the the next thing he told her was a bold faced lie.

Let's say you're trying to park your car in a parking lot. A person in your car you think of as trustworthy, but really wants you to break the law says, "Can't we park anywhere?" You reply, "Yes anywhere but the loading zone because if I do my car will be towed". You are resisting the person that wants you to break the law by stating the law to that person. You know the difference between good and bad. That person might to get around the resistance by then saying, "You will not get towed."

Focus on what was said before they ate of the tree. After they ate, they entered into something they had not felt before. This was the 'eye opening' they experienced. They now understood what it was to BE bad in the eyes of God. Thus why they felt naked and why they hid. Before, they had never been on the wrong side of God's favor. Remember, the penalty was death, and perhaps they thought they could hide to escape judgement.

Much like if you park in the loading zone like you knew you shouldn't and come back to see your car being taken away by a tow truck. Imagine that you were a person that had never broken a law before and how you would feel. It would be a new experience for you but you wouldn't suddenly know what was good or bad. You'd just know now what it was like to be bad.

The Bible says, "knowing good and bad" not 'knowing what is good and bad'. Knowing good and bad is being able to declare what is good and bad because in context the Bible says Satan lied and said that A&E would "be like God, knowing good and bad". God doesn't need to know what is good or bad there are no laws on Him, He declares what IS good and bad.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1463
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 605 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #24

Post by Diagoras »

2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 9:19 am When asked 'is it true you can't eat from any tree', Eve stated what the law was, 'Every tree accept the tree in the middle of the garden and if we eat from it we die'. She knew that to eat from the <tree> was not allowed and she knew the consequences were bad. Sounds like resistance to me
This is where we differ, then. It sounds to me like confusion, not resistance. She’s been told one thing by the snake, and another thing by - well, it could have been God, but equally likely heard second-hand from Adam if you read Genesis 2:17-18 carefully (since Eve wasn’t yet formed when God was explaining about his special tree). If you get two contradictory statements and then apply your critical thinking skills to the problem (“hey, it looks good to eat”), you should be forgiven for making the wrong choice. Kind of like your parking example if you look around and notice no tow trucks.
This appears to have been Eve's main concern, she feared death for disobedience.
It’s an oft-repeated point that ‘in the day Eve eatest of’, she didn’t die. Was God just exaggerating, or was this more of a lie than the snake’s?
Focus on what was said before they ate of the tree.
Sure. In 3:4-5 the snake provides a compelling argument as to why God’s not keen on Eve eating the fruit. Eve is now in possession of some information which may be useful to her, and which directly negates what she’s been told previously. The snake’s skill is in sowing doubt in her mind about the trustworthiness of God (or Adam), and you can hardly blame such a naive woman as her for falling for the world’s first scam artist.

God could have mentioned, “Don’t talk to the snake.” but never bothered to do that either.
After they ate, they entered into something they had not felt before. This was the 'eye opening' they experienced. They now understood what it was to BE bad in the eyes of God. Thus why they felt naked and why they hid. Before, they had never been on the wrong side of God's favor. Remember, the penalty was death, and perhaps they thought they could hide to escape judgement.
<bolding mine>

It’s an interesting interpretation, I’ll give you that. But perhaps they realised that since the snake was right, because they hadn’t died, that God must be the liar - someone to avoid in future.
The Bible says, "knowing good and bad" not 'knowing what is good and bad'.
The bible only mentions God stating “ of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it”. Hard to make a strong case either way, I would suggest. I’m certainly not a biblical scholar.

Can I suggest a more fruitful (heh!) line of discussion? I had to check back to see how this started: “sin is rejection of god” was the point that you supported with a candy example. Why not now set aside Eve’s situation which I hope we can agree is a rather special case, and instead look at the more general case?

Can a newborn baby be ‘born into sin’ if it has no knowledge of god, good and evil, or really anything else?

I would then argue that based on your “rejection of god” position, that this isn’t possible: no-one can reject that of which they have no knowledge of.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 22820
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 892 times
Been thanked: 1331 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #25

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:31 pm God could have mentioned, “Don’t talk to the snake.” but never bothered to do that either.
WHY DID GOD NOT PROHIBIT ADAM AND EVE FROM TALKING TO THE SNAKE?

Image

Do you want to be told who you can and cannot speak to? The woman was not God's poodle, she had the right could talk to whoever she wished. Blocking them from alternative voices would only have suggested that God had something to hide just as Satan (the snake) suggested. And what would have happened if He had barred communication with that one rebel? Would there not inevitable been another? And another ? What was God to do put them in a bubble prohibition them from ever developing their ability to think and act for themselves.

Ideally the woman would use the good sense she was created with and decide for herself to cut off all communication with the snake. Doing it for her or doing it in advance, would have denied her the right to make her own informed choice. The God of the bible reveals Himself in scripture to be uninterested in ruling by tyranny or dictatorship. If Adam and Eve wanted to join forces with rebels that rejected his sovereignty he would let them. And if that meant letting them converse with "the opposition", so be it. We live under a barrage of prohibitions and laws, God chose to have confidence in his children and only impose one rule on them. Ironically while some criticise YHWH for imposing that one rule others do so because he didnt hit them with more.





JW


RELATED POSTS
Why did God not prohibit Adam and Eve speaking to the snake? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1040769#p1040769

How could Eve have known who to obey?
viewtopic.php?p=1040358#p1040358

Prior to their eating the forbidden fruit, did Adam and Eve understand the concept of what good and bad was?
viewtopic.php?p=1040461#p1040461

Could Adam and Eve have been expected To UNDERSTAND the prohibition ?
viewtopic.php?p=1023725#p1023725

Was ADAM responsible for keeping SNAKES out of the garden?
viewtopic.php?p=1029136#p1029136

Who sinned first? Adam or Eve?[Gen 3:6]
viewtopic.php?p=1029137#p1029137

Why did Eves punishment involve increased birth pains?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 03#p801703
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #26

Post by Miles »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:22 am
Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:31 pm God could have mentioned, “Don’t talk to the snake.” but never bothered to do that either.
WHY DID GOD NOT PROHIBIT ADAM AND EVE FROM TALKING TO THE SNAKE?
Because god is omniscient, from the very outset he knew A&E would disregard his admonishment, listen to the snake, bite the apple, and set the rest of humanity on a course of Original Sin.


.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 22820
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 892 times
Been thanked: 1331 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #27

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:20 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:22 am
Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:31 pm God could have mentioned, “Don’t talk to the snake.” but never bothered to do that either.
WHY DID GOD NOT PROHIBIT ADAM AND EVE FROM TALKING TO THE SNAKE?
Because god is omniscient, from the very outset he knew A&E would disregard his admonishment, listen to the snake, bite the apple, and set the rest of humanity on a course of Original Sin.


.


I do not believe that was the case.

(Typo corrected. Thanks)


RELATED POSTS

Is God inherently omniscient ?
viewtopic.php?p=849068#p849068
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

OMNIPOTENCE , RESPONSIBILITY and ...SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #28

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:31 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 9:19 am When asked 'is it true you can't eat from any tree', Eve stated what the law was, 'Every tree accept the tree in the middle of the garden and if we eat from it we die'. She knew that to eat from the <tree> was not allowed and she knew the consequences were bad. Sounds like resistance to me
This is where we differ, then. It sounds to me like confusion, not resistance. She’s been told one thing by the snake, and another thing by - well, it could have been God, but equally likely heard second-hand from Adam if you read Genesis 2:17-18 carefully (since Eve wasn’t yet formed when God was explaining about his special tree). If you get two contradictory statements and then apply your critical thinking skills to the problem (“hey, it looks good to eat”), you should be forgiven for making the wrong choice. Kind of like your parking example if you look around and notice no tow trucks.
There was no confusion as to what the commandment was. Just because there are no tow trucks or never had you car towed doesn't mean you don't know the law. The Bible says that Eve was deceived thinking there wouldn't be any punishment. However, she knew what the law was because she repeated it and then broke it. This is very simple stuff and it's not as complex as you'd like it to be. Eve wasn't ignorant of the law.
This appears to have been Eve's main concern, she feared death for disobedience.
It’s an oft-repeated point that ‘in the day Eve eatest of’, she didn’t die. Was God just exaggerating, or was this more of a lie than the snake’s?
She died spiritually that day which led to her physical death. Note the term is 'in the day' not 'on the day'. In the Bible a day many times refers to a length of time and can be figurative and even flexible. Genesis 2:4 says, “This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.” Here we see all of the creative days (plural) summed up as 'in the day'. Genesis says that God rested from creating things on the seventh day and in Hebrews 4:1-10 Paul wrote that God was still on His day of rest though it was 4000 later.

It is common that people mistake 'in the day' for a single 24 hour day when there are many cases it's referring to a cycle or period of time, a period with a beginning and an end. When A&E ate from the tree they began the 'day' of their death.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #29

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:31 pm
After they ate, they entered into something they had not felt before. This was the 'eye opening' they experienced. They now understood what it was to BE bad in the eyes of God. Thus why they felt naked and why they hid. Before, they had never been on the wrong side of God's favor. Remember, the penalty was death, and perhaps they thought they could hide to escape judgement.
<bolding mine>

It’s an interesting interpretation, I’ll give you that. But perhaps they realised that since the snake was right, because they hadn’t died, that God must be the liar - someone to avoid in future.
"So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died." - Genesis 5:5
Well, he took avoidance to the extreme.

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4296
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 193 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #30

Post by 2timothy316 »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 10:31 pm
Can I suggest a more fruitful (heh!) line of discussion? I had to check back to see how this started: “sin is rejection of god” was the point that you supported with a candy example. Why not now set aside Eve’s situation which I hope we can agree is a rather special case, and instead look at the more general case?

Can a newborn baby be ‘born into sin’ if it has no knowledge of god, good and evil, or really anything else?

I would then argue that based on your “rejection of god” position, that this isn’t possible: no-one can reject that of which they have no knowledge of.
While sin literately translates to "miss". As to miss the mark, not reach a goal, missing the point.

Anything not in harmony with God's personality, standards, ways and will is a sin.

A child is born to sin's curse in it's genetic makeup. Sin is passed like a genetic flaw. While some are obvious like sickle cell disease or genetically passed blindness. The break down of our bodies is what every human has, we grow old and we die. Jesus references this in John chapter 9 when his disciples asked a question very similar to yours.

"As he was passing along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. And his disciples asked him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?”
Now get this for an answer...
"Jesus answered: “Neither this man sinned nor his parents.." - John 9:1-7

There is sin, corruption, or something amiss that is in our very DNA. This is what is meant by a baby being born to sin. The blind man didn't do a sinful act to become blind. Adam is reason the man is blind, because Adam passed his corrupted DNA to his children.

We are also born with the inclination to do the wrong thing. Imagine a ball on a flat surface. It doesn't move. Now imagine that surface was just slightly inclined. The ball would move down the incline. We are the surface and the ball staying put is doing the right thing. We all have to constantly keep pushing that ball back to its place. In other words, all humans have to many times push ourselves to do the right thing. Some things are easy when comes to doing the right thing but there there are other things that are really hard. The tough inclinations, steep ones where once the ball starts to move it's really hard to stop.

Jesus' death covers both of these conditions. However, the 'fix' hasn't been applied yet.

Post Reply