Original sin (Christian only Response Please)

philologos

Firstly, I would like to request that this thread be Christian only, as this is a thread seeking clarification on a theological issue that affects Christian thought.

For those who object to this, it has been a long running custom of this forum to allow Christians to seek clarification from other Christians on theological issues, this isn't to cause offence or to exclude anyone, but a major question was raised by a poster concerning the doctrine of original sin in Christianity and I thought it would be for his and my benefit to clear this up.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well I don't believe we're guilty from original sin. So, we're all guilty of breaking some of the ten commandments? Even you are guilty, and you constantly repent, but, at the same time you continually break them. Isn't that a bit pointless? Like saying to a judge that you're sorry over commiting a crime, then just doing it again.

Is original sin, merely a sin that has been given to us from birth? I had always thought that original sin, was a sinful nature that had been handed down through Adam through his disobedience to the present day, and how does this original sin link in with free will, is this sinful nature merely the product of free will or is this something entirely exclusive from free will?

Just to ponder upon. Romans 5:12 explains the doctrine of original sin, I had always interpreted this as a sinful nature rather than an actual sin that blights everyone from birth. Is it fair to say that children are born sinless then?

Just looking for some thoughts to clarify this.

Romans 5:12 (NRSV Anglicised Edition) wrote:

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—

Did Adam give us a tangible sin, or a sinful nature being the main question. The other questions might be useful for provoking discussion though.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

Firstly, I would like to request that this thread be Christian only, as this is a thread seeking clarification on a theological issue that affects Christian thought.

For those who object to this, it has been a long running custom of this forum to allow Christians to seek clarification from other Christians on theological issues, this isn't to cause offence or to exclude anyone, but a major question was raised by a poster concerning the doctrine of original sin in Christianity and I thought it would be for his and my benefit to clear this up.



Is original sin, merely a sin that has been given to us from birth? I had always thought that original sin, was a sinful nature that had been handed down through Adam through his disobedience to the present day, and how does this original sin link in with free will, is this sinful nature merely the product of free will or is this something entirely exclusive from free will?

Just to ponder upon. Romans 5:12 explains the doctrine of original sin, I had always interpreted this as a sinful nature rather than an actual sin that blights everyone from birth. Is it fair to say that children are born sinless then?

Just looking for some thoughts to clarify this.



Did Adam give us a tangible sin, or a sinful nature being the main question. The other questions might be useful for provoking discussion though.

i have always seen it as this. If you have a baking tin without flaw, it in turn shapes bread without flaw. If you were to dent this tin, it would not be able to put out bread without flaw. So a sinful father, cannot sire a sinless son. Sin is inherited. God himself says that he visits the iniquities of fathers upon their sons. Now God is not a destroyer of the innocent, so there must be an inheritance passed from father to son IMO.

philologos

God also says in the Torah that children are not to be punished for the iniquities of their fathers.

Deuteronomy 24:16 wrote:

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.

It seems we are in a bit of a conundrum. Is it that if children accept God that they will not be punished for the iniquities of their parents, but if they reject God and continue doing as their parents did that they will inherit said sin?

Or perhaps this is only true for judicial judgements of the High Priests and the death penalty in Judaism. It's still worth considering.

It is possible that children inherit these sins but will not be punished by other men for them.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

God also says in the Torah that children are not to be punished for the iniquities of their fathers.



It seems we are in a bit of a conundrum. Is it that if children accept God that they will not be punished for the iniquities of their parents, but if they reject God and continue doing as their parents did that they will inherit said sin?

Or perhaps this is only true for judicial judgements of the High Priests and the death penalty in Judaism. It's still worth considering.

It is possible that children inherit these sins but will not be punished by other men for them.

Indeed, the context here is the law I.E. If you kill someone, but then you die yourself, i can't come along and kill your son for said crime. There seems to be a different scenario when it comes to Gods judgements. Such as David and Bathsheeba's first child, or even those infants that would have perished at the hands of the Israelites at the request of God. Surely those infants were not paying for their own iniquities were they? I don't know how else to view it, but that we inherit from our fathers. However, like certain Kings of Judah and Israel, heir fathers may have been wicked in the eyes of God, but their sons returned to righteousness. Its certainly a good topic for discussion.

BrianCalgary

I have always viewed is as sinful nature. Man was initially created without sin. Adam and Eve disobeyed God and changed the nature of man.

Our nature is now sinful, but the Holy Spirit is working on 'transforming us into the image of Christ'. 2 Cor 3:18

I love to ask teh question of my Sunday School class, 'who's complete?' No one is, we all therefore continue to grow and be refined until we get to Heaven, when the job gets completed.

BrianCalgary

I think Jimmi to your point that we end up suffering the consequences of our father's sins, or mothers for that matter.

I don't think we are necessarily punished, the principle should be food for thought for parents, in understanding that their actions bear consequence or blessing upon their children.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I think Jimmi to your point that we end up suffering the consequences of our father's sins, or mothers for that matter.

Not to sound sexist, but its more concentrated on the father. Jesus entered the world through an imperfect woman, but not an imperfect man. So there 'seems' to be more of a case for the sins of the 'father'.

I don't think we are necessarily punished, the principle should be food for thought for parents, in understanding that their actions bear consequence or blessing upon their children.

Certainly its food for thought, but how do you reason that its not punishment?

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

Not to sound sexist, but its more concentrated on the father. Jesus entered the world through an imperfect woman, but not an imperfect man. So there 'seems' to be more of a case for the sins of the 'father'.?

I'm just being practical as my wife works with FASD kids who are clearly suffering teh consequences of their Mother's sin.

JimiTime wrote: »

Certainly its food for thought, but how do you reason that its not punishment?

Punishment is directed at a person who committed a crime whereas consequence is the suffering of anyone as a result of the fallout of the crime.

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Not to sound sexist, but its more concentrated on the father. Jesus entered the world through an imperfect woman, but not an imperfect man. So there 'seems' to be more of a case for the sins of the 'father'.

Just taking this from a Roman Catholic perspective, how could Jesus be sinless if he had inherited sin from his mother under your definition he would have had to given the scheme that God had set for mankind. Unless, Mary was also sinless as a result of the Immaculate Conception.

However, from a more Reformed perspective one could conclude that a sinful nature is rather in question. Jesus was blameless in the idea of Christian atonement, but Jesus certainly was tempted as depicted in Matthew 4.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

Just taking this from a Roman Catholic perspective, how could Jesus be sinless if he had inherited sin from his mother under your definition he would have had to given the scheme that God had set for mankind. Unless, Mary was also sinless as a result of the Immaculate Conception..

Thats actually my point. It is said sin entered the world through 'one man'. When it talks about iniquities, it talks about 'fathers'. Woman was created for and from Man. So ultimately, man seems the one who's ultimately held responsible. So maybe its the father that passes on sin? Wasn't it Paul who said that women are blessed for they bring forth men:) Don't think that line would do to well in bar somehow:)
.

However, from a more Reformed perspective one could conclude that a sinful nature is rather in question. Jesus was blameless in the idea of Christian atonement, but Jesus certainly was tempted as depicted in Matthew 4.

Was he tempted? Certainly the devil 'tried' to tempt him. Was he tempted though? To say he he was tempted himself, is to say hat he thought 'hmm maybe I will make those stones into bread'. It certainly doesn't indicate that he had these feelings. While the devil may have tried tempting him, there is no indication he was actually tempted. Its deceptive when someone says 'he was tempted in the desert'. The action of 'temptation' was from the devils side, but Jesus wasn't tempted himself. You get me?

PDN

Traditionally Christians have fallen into two camps concerning original sin. Catholicism and Calvinism, as I understand them, follow Augustine in teaching that babies are born already bearing the guilt of Adam's sin. In Catholicism this is why baptism is so important - it is seen as washing away the stain and guilt of original sin. In Calvinism that guilt is not removed until someone makes a personal decision to follow Christ.

In Arminian and Wesleyan versions of Christianity, original sin refers to our inherited disposition and attraction to sin, but not to actual inherited guilt. So babies, according to this understanding, will inevitable grow up as sinners, but they will only bear the guilt of their own sin, not the sins of Adam or their parents.

Among non-Catholics, Baptists and Presbyterians generally take the Calvinist view while Methodists, Church of the Nazarene, Salvation Army, and most Pentecostal denominations take the Arminian view. The 39 Articles of Anglicanism can be interpreted different ways, but appear to lean more towards the Calvinist position.

Scripture does indeed speak of inherited sinfulness and original sin in terms of Adam rather than Eve, and of our fathers rather than our mothers. This may reflect the patriarchal attitudes of the cultural context of the authors, but we also need to remember that Adam was the one who misused his authority. Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open.

philologos

39 Articles of Religion wrote:

9. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

I think that's closer to the Armnian view than that of Calvinism as you have described above PDN.

sorella

Read Ezekiell 18, please
WHich explains very simply the proverb "The fathers eat sour grapes and the childrens' teeth are set on edge"

JimiTime wrote: »

i have always seen it as this. If you have a baking tin without flaw, it in turn shapes bread without flaw. If you were to dent this tin, it would not be able to put out bread without flaw. So a sinful father, cannot sire a sinless son. Sin is inherited. God himself says that he visits the iniquities of fathers upon their sons. Now God is not a destroyer of the innocent, so there must be an inheritance passed from father to son IMO.

JimiTime

sorella wrote: »

Read Ezekiell 18, please
WHich explains very simply the proverb "The fathers eat sour grapes and the childrens' teeth are set on edge"

Thats great taken in isolation. I'd ask then, why is it said then, that God visits the iniquities of the fathers on their sons? Why was Davids first child with Bathsheeba killed? Why were infants killed along with their fathers when Israel conquered the Amorites etc? Surely a baby is guilty of nothing of its own? I would love to hear a clear answer on this, but we cannot ignore some scriptures and quote others when there seems that there is conflict between them. So in your opinion, how do we reconsile these two things?

sorella

We don't; we leave that to God, simply.

Old wars, every war is a hard thing.

And we read what Jesus says on it all... He Who is the New Covenant.

and we do all we can to be at peace with all we can. To set right all we can set right, in the love of Jesus

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats great taken in isolation. I'd ask then, why is it said then, that God visits the iniquities of the fathers on their sons? Why was Davids first child with Bathsheeba killed? Why were infants killed along with their fathers when Israel conquered the Amorites etc? Surely a baby is guilty of nothing of its own? I would love to hear a clear answer on this, but we cannot ignore some scriptures and quote others when there seems that there is conflict between them. So in your opinion, how do we reconsile these two things?

Phototoxin

i have always seen it as this. If you have a baking tin without flaw, it in turn shapes bread without flaw. If you were to dent this tin, it would not be able to put out bread without flaw. So a sinful father, cannot sire a sinless son. Sin is inherited. God himself says that he visits the iniquities of fathers upon their sons. Now God is not a destroyer of the innocent, so there must be an inheritance passed from father to son IMO.

God also says in the Torah that children are not to be punished for the iniquities of their fathers.

Bingo Jackkass

Just taking this from a Roman Catholic perspective, how could Jesus be sinless if he had inherited sin from his mother under your definition he would have had to given the scheme that God had set for mankind. Unless, Mary was also sinless as a result of the Immaculate Conception.

However, from a more Reformed perspective one could conclude that a sinful nature is rather in question. Jesus was blameless in the idea of Christian atonement, but Jesus certainly was tempted as depicted in Matthew 4.

not bingo... because then her parents would have to be sinless and so on. and the 'one shot' mary isn't sinless card is a waste as it could just have been applied to jesus himself.

Was he tempted? Certainly the devil 'tried' to tempt him. Was he tempted though? To say he he was tempted himself, is to say hat he thought 'hmm maybe I will make those stones into bread'. It certainly doesn't indicate that he had these feelings. While the devil may have tried tempting him, there is no indication he was actually tempted. Its deceptive when someone says 'he was tempted in the desert'. The action of 'temptation' was from the devils side, but Jesus wasn't tempted himself. You get me?

no point of tempting if he cannot sin. If he cannot sin no point becoming human.

In Arminian and Wesleyan versions of Christianity, original sin refers to our inherited disposition and attraction to sin, but not to actual inherited guilt. So babies, according to this understanding, will inevitable grow up as sinners, but they will only bear the guilt of their own sin, not the sins of Adam or their parents.

ah that's what I believe in. I was wondering what the alternative was called.

JimiTime

Phototoxin wrote: »

Bingo Jackkass

If only it were so, but all you have is a contradiction, unless you have an explaination of the seemingly conflicting scriptures?

no point of tempting if he cannot sin. If he cannot sin no point becoming human.

You missed the point. never was it mentioned that he 'could not' sin. What was said, is that it doesn't indicate that he himself felt tempted by the Devils temptations.

ah that's what I believe in. I was wondering what the alternative was called.

Genuine question so. How do you reconsile the seemingly conflicting passages. One moment we see that it is said that sons will be punished for fathers iniquities, we have Davids son being killed because of his sin. We have infants being killed also. So what is your view on these events if you believe these people to be sinless?

philologos

It would seem to me that the punishment is actually the sinful nature itself.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

It would seem to me that the punishment is actually the sinful nature itself.

?? I'm not quite following you. Its clear that the punishment was the killing of babies at some points, which meant one of 3 things that I can see.

1.) The baby was innocent, but put to death.

2.) The baby inherited sin from its father.

3.) The punishment was a pre-emptive punishment, i.e. It was going to sin.

Now, there is no denying that it is said that each person will be judged according to their own merit, however, there are also clear incidences of God saying, or at least the bible saying, that God will vist the iniquities of fathers to their Sons. There are also incidences of it happening, ala David.

So with the sinful nature view, how do you reconsile?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Genuine question so. How do you reconsile the seemingly conflicting passages. One moment we see that it is said that sons will be punished for fathers iniquities, we have Davids son being killed because of his sin. We have infants being killed also. So what is your view on these events if you believe these people to be sinless?

Jimi, I think we're confusing two separate issues here. The first is why the innocent get hurt when the guilty are punished, the second is the actual transmission of sinfulness to others.

David's baby died as a punishment upon David, not upon the baby. There is no hint in the text that the baby was itself seen as sinful or deserving of punishment. Now this opens up a whole other can of worms - why do we see God doing this in the Old Testament? I believe that would be a very interesting discussion, but probably deserves its own thread since it has nothing to do with original sin and would only serve to confuse this present discussion.

In fact, such a question does not only apply to David's baby, but to all the innocent victims who suffer when their parents or rulers mess up (I'm thinking Korah's family, all the Canaanite babies that died during Joshua's conquest, the Israelites who died because kings sinned etc.)

But as regards this discussion on original sin, David's baby doesn't really apply. The baby was not himself punished for being a sinner, nor was David's sin transmitted to the baby, and the text states that David expected to see the baby again in the afterlife.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Jimi, I think we're confusing two separate issues here. The first is why the innocent get hurt when the guilty are punished, the second is the actual transmission of sinfulness to others.

David's baby died as a punishment upon David, not upon the baby.

Well, I suppose that is the crux then. God will kill a child for the sins of its father.

There is no hint in the text that the baby was itself seen as sinful or deserving of punishment.

I agree, its the struggle to reconcile God with the killing of the innocent that gets me to view it as such.

Now this opens up a whole other can of worms - why do we see God doing this in the Old Testament? I believe that would be a very interesting discussion, but probably deserves its own thread since it has nothing to do with original sin and would only serve to confuse this present discussion.

It does have to do with original sin, if we take the view that none are innocent as a result of it. Obviously, thats not what you believe, but I still think its relative to this thread, as if there is an opposing answer it may dispel the notion of inheritted sin.

In fact, such a question does not only apply to David's baby, but to all the innocent victims who suffer when their parents or rulers mess up (I'm thinking Korah's family, all the Canaanite babies that died during Joshua's conquest, the Israelites who died because kings sinned etc.)

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier.

But as regards this discussion on original sin, David's baby doesn't really apply.

Ok, I'll set up a seperate thread on the matter.

Ta-Da

Phototoxin

If the RCC belives thta then their argument for abortion is totally hypocritical as God has killed the innocent as 'punishment' for anothers sin.

If only it were so, but all you have is a contradiction, unless you have an explaination of the seemingly conflicting scriptures?

my bingo is that it is contradictory so its not fair to take one over the other.Ergo there is a problem

You missed the point. never was it mentioned that he 'could not' sin. What was said, is that it doesn't indicate that he himself felt tempted by the Devils temptations.

I dont think I have. It doesnt indicate a lot of things in the bible. In addition he wouldnt have had free will if he could not sin.

Genuine question so. How do you reconsile the seemingly conflicting passages. One moment we see that it is said that sons will be punished for fathers iniquities, we have Davids son being killed because of his sin. We have infants being killed also. So what is your view on these events if you believe these people to be sinless?

God is not nice, he seems to be capricious.

JimiTime

Phototoxin wrote: »

If the RCC belives thta then their argument for abortion is totally hypocritical as God has killed the innocent as 'punishment' for anothers sin.

I'm not a catholic, sowhatever I say, I 'm not representing RC doctrine.

my bingo is that it is contradictory so its not fair to take one over the other.Ergo there is a problem

Indeed. That is the issue I'm trying to hammer out.

I dont think I have. It doesnt indicate a lot of things in the bible. In addition he wouldnt have had free will if he could not sin.

You've missed the point I made alright:) It 'says' The devil tried to tempt him. It does not 'say' 'Jesus was tempted to make the stones into bread'. Thats a big difference. One is telling us that the Devil was performing an action, i.e. Tempting, the other tells us that Christ was, i.e. He was actually thinking of turning the stones into bread.

All we have though is the Devil saying, do this, go on go on go on go on. And Jesus basically saying no.

God is not nice, he seems to be capricious.

Hmm, strange view for a Christian to have Do you really believe that?

minusorange

Hi, I'm preparing for an essay on this at the moment and I'd appreciate your help. I've been thumbing through various books and websites but what I'm mostly coming across is just the bare info and a lot of dialogue and debate on how best to interpret original sin. What I'm trying to find out is how the idea of original sin improves the lives of those that subscribe to it. How does it enhance your relationship with god. How does it add your religious and spiritual identity. Your personal experience is what I'm looking for. Thank you.

sHnaCk

Right, just going to waffle through this...
lets define sin, transgression and iniquity.
Sin is reading the "no trespassing sign" and flipping the middle finger and trespassing anyway.
Transgression is not being able to read the sign and trespassing. God "winks" at transgressions. (just by the by - this is not a get out clause for non-believers or Christians who don’t read the Bible etc. as God has categorically stated that He has written the commandments on our heart)
iniquity is having the consequences of sin come down your line to the 3rd and 4th generation, (by the way God blesses 1000 generations in your line for your righteousness) after which it is increased - because EVERYTHING in the Kingdom increases. (Does not depend on whether it is good or bad)
If you stand up and confess (or take responsibility) the iniquity/sin the said iniquity is broken off your line. i.e. who the Son has set free is free indeed!