What are your views on Original Sin?

PatricaMcKay

The biggest reason I believe for the decline of Christianity in Ireland and the west in general (the decline of particular forms of Christianity is another debate) is that if you do not feel yourself to need saving, a Saviour is going to be basically useless, and lets face it most of the west doesnt feel that strong a need right now for salvation.

The concept of Original Sin doesnt seem a popular one at the moment, but surely a proper understanding of it is very necessary for us as Christians?

Recently I was shocked by a "street evangelist" who told me frankly I was a "Romanist" for believing in Baptismal regeneration, when I asked me therefore did he believe that all infants before the age of reason would be damned, he told that all children who die at a certain age automatically go to Heaven, which is pure Pelagianism.

Anyway, how many people here see original sin in terms of privation of Grace leading to physical death and the darkening of reason and weakening of will? How many people believe that we actually inherit the guilt of Adam? How many people dont believe in original sin at all?

PDN

I would suggest you read up on Pelagianism.

I believe that we inherit a tainted human nature which leads us to sin (think of a car that 'pulls' to one side of the road). All human beings, on reaching the age where they can choose between right and wrong, inevitably end up sinning at one point or another.

Evangelicals do not agree with Pelagius in that they deny that man has the power to live without ever sinning.

However, I agree with the street evangelist you mention in that children are not born already guilty of somebody else's sin.

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

I would suggest you read up on Pelagianism.

However, I agree with the street evangelist you mention in that children are not born already guilty of somebody else's sin.

I have and Im not suggesting that this person was pure Pelagian in all of his views or that "Evangelicals" are Pelagians.

However the corrupt nature we inherit from Adam cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, St Paul makes that clear "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom"....And this " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

PDN

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

However the corrupt nature we inherit from Adam cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, St Paul makes that clear "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom"....

Baptising a baby does not remove corrupt human nature. Baptised children grow up just as prone to stealing, lying, and other forms of sin as unbaptised children.

And this " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

While I believe that is a prime example of eisegesis (reading traditional practices into Scripture where the original hearers would never have imagined them) - please take it to the Protestant/Catholic megathread.

jmark

PDN wrote: »

However, I agree with the street evangelist you mention in that children are not born already guilty of somebody else's sin.

I would disagree - it seems that the whole point of Paul's argument in Rom 5 is that we are guilty because of Adam, not simply because we inevitably sin. Guilt is inherited/imputed in the same way that Christ's righteousness is imputed. If one doesnt seem fair, then we are also shooting down the solution too.

In response to OP - Original sin is essential to a proper understanding of Christianity, otherwise there is no bad news, or there is no need for a convenant/federal head (ie someone to represent us because our first representative failed) - which is Paul's argument in ROm 5.

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

While I believe that is a prime example of eisegesis (reading traditional practices into Scripture where the original hearers would never have imagined them) - please take it to the Protestant/Catholic megathread.

Why?

Classical Anglicanism, Lutheranism and even most Presbyterianism agrees with infant Baptism and the necesscity of it. So I dont see how its a Protestant/Catholic issue.

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

Baptising a baby does not remove corrupt human nature. Baptised children grow up just as prone to stealing, lying, and other forms of sin as unbaptised children.

Baptism grants the supernatural gift of Grace, even though it doesnt remove the fallen nature, we will have to wait for the general resurrection for that.

And true, but Adam choose to sin and He had a pristine nature.

Mance Rayder

First of all I think that Adam is a figurative character. Jesus spoke figuratively so there is no reason to believe that the prophets before him would do any differently.
I Don't think we are guilty until we sin ourselves. I think we are flawed because of "Adam", and these flaws make us likely to sin.

PatricaMcKay

jmark wrote: »

In response to OP - Original sin is essential to a proper understanding of Christianity, otherwise there is no bad news, or there is no need for a convenant/federal head (ie someone to represent us because our first representative failed) - which is Paul's argument in ROm 5.

Im undecided about the whether we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin along with its effects, or just its effects...But there is support certainly a lot of support from tradition for your view point that shouldnt be dismissed.

Heaven is something supernatural, that none of us can merit. This always has to be remembered.

PDN

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Why?

Classical Anglicanism, Lutheranism and even most Presbyterianism agrees with infant Baptism and the necesscity of it. So I dont see how its a Protestant/Catholic issue.

Baptismal regeneration is a Protestant/Catholic issue - as is that eisegesis of John 3, as is the notion of baptism somehow conferring prevenient grace.

We are not going to debate this inthread. If you have a question about a moderating issue please address it via PM.

lmaopml

CiscoStudent wrote: »

First of all I think that Adam is a figurative character. Jesus spoke figuratively so there is no reason to believe that the prophets before him would do any differently.
I Don't think we are guilty until we sin ourselves. I think we are flawed because of "Adam", and these flaws make us likely to sin.

My understanding is that 'sin' entered through Adams free choice and changed everything for us as humans with consiousness and recognition of good and evil, with a will to choose obedience for good or rebellion..

There was a fundamental change in mans nature from that moment, that he and she was the author of sin and lack of trust..

I think there is no point in bawking about paying a price for a 'sin' we didn't personally commit - we are only the offspring etc. and like every offspring we inherit weakness, that's what we deal with! We see it in a very physical way. I think we should think about the fall as something 'contracted' rather than 'committed' - hence the need for our saviour who makes us whole again.

1 Corinthians 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

We are either 'in' Adam or 'in' Christ. In order to be 'in' Christ we need to be born again with water and the spirit. The Bible doesn't dictate whether that needs to be done earlier or later; there is an ambiguity that exists if one doesn't understand the initial fall - it only says that it should happen - and baptism for a youngster or a fully grown adult is one and the very same thing imo - both live, both have 'choices' to make.

lmaopml

...enter, the Lords prayer....:) the most powerful prayer of all when we concentrate on every single verse, line, and it's meaning.

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

The thing is though that God gave Adam a chance to repent, but Adam blamed Eve and more by proxy God ( the woman who you have given me), and Eve blamed the serpent...If they had admitted responsibility things would have been very different.

How? Our repenting doesn't prevent Christs hanging on a cross. The sin attracts a wage and the wage must be paid. And what of their offspring? Our repenting doesn't interupt the sin-line to our children.

Besides, original sin serves an arguably good purpose. Through it, God gives every one ever born the opportunity to figure whether they want to spend eternity with the love of God or not.

I just wonder about Adam and Eve - whether either of them turned to the Lord for salvation and were saved. Or whether they were lost.

PatricaMcKay

antiskeptic wrote: »

How? Our repenting doesn't prevent Christs hanging on a cross. The sin attracts a wage and the wage must be paid. And what of their offspring? Our repenting doesn't interupt the sin-line to our children.

God cursed humanity after our first parent refused to repent and not before.

antiskeptic

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

God cursed humanity after our first parent refused to repent and not before.

...saying "because you have done this". Not "because you didn't repent" (the first view is exegesis, the second, eisegesis).

It is also worth noting that is it "God's kindness that leads you to repentence'. Repentence isn't said to be something sinners can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps on.

In short, there is no indication in the text that God's method of salvation was open to them then. And as sinners they needed God's way of salvation.

philologos

This was covered a few years ago in this thread. Personally, I don't believe I bear the guilt of Adam's sin. Biblically it seems that we bear the inclination towards sin rather than the Adam's sin itself. Sin entered through Adam's choice, but we will be guilty for our own sin.

jmark

philologos wrote: »

This was covered a few years ago in this thread. Personally, I don't believe I bear the guilt of Adam's sin. Biblically it seems that we bear the inclination towards sin rather than the Adam's sin itself. Sin entered through Adam's choice, but we will be guilty for our own sin.

That would mean that because of the symmetry of Romans 5, that you do not have Christ's righteousness imputed to you, put rather you are only given an inclination towards righteousness.

Yes, we are guilty for our own sin, but it appears, not matter how little we like it that we are also guilty in Adam. Note it is 'in Adam' not just 'because of Adam'.

I like Thomas Goodwin's that Adam and Christ are like two giants, from whose belts all men hang as on cords. When Adam fell, we fell, when we trust Christ we are transfered from Adam's belt to Christ's. So we are no longer in Adam, but 'in Christ' (which is Pauls repeated phrase 160+ times). When Adam fell we fell, but where Christ has triumphed so now have we.

A Christian is someone who is in Christ.

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

The biggest reason I believe for the decline of Christianity in Ireland and the west in general (the decline of particular forms of Christianity is another debate) is that if you do not feel yourself to need saving, a Saviour is going to be basically useless, and lets face it most of the west doesnt feel that strong a need right now for salvation.

The concept of Original Sin doesnt seem a popular one at the moment, but surely a proper understanding of it is very necessary for us as Christians?

Recently I was shocked by a "street evangelist" who told me frankly I was a "Romanist" for believing in Baptismal regeneration, when I asked me therefore did he believe that all infants before the age of reason would be damned, he told that all children who die at a certain age automatically go to Heaven, which is pure Pelagianism.

Anyway, how many people here see original sin in terms of privation of Grace leading to physical death and the darkening of reason and weakening of will? How many people believe that we actually inherit the guilt of Adam? How many people dont believe in original sin at all?

We certainly bear the image of Adam at our birth - his fallen nature, his guiltiness. When we come to Christ, we get His nature, righteous and innocent. But we don't get rid of the former until the next life - hence the inner war all true Christians experience.

As to infants, it is not a matter of either baptismal regeneration or a non-regenerate state. God is able to regenerate the infant without any water baptism, just as He can the adult. As we can't discuss BR in this thread, let's agree that such regeneration without water baptism is witnessed to in the Bible - the penitent thief. So we agree God can do it, and has done it. BR folk will say it was the intention for water baptism that got the result, but even if that were the case, nothing prevents God revealing himself to the dying infant and giving him/her such a desire.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 18:10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven. 11 For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.

philologos

jmark wrote: »

That would mean that because of the symmetry of Romans 5, that you do not have Christ's righteousness imputed to you, put rather you are only given an inclination towards righteousness.

Adam brought sin into the world as a general concept, Christ took it away. The symmetry still exists. It is because of the inclination towards sin that my human nature has since the Fall that I sin, it is because Christ has bought me at a price by paying for my sin in full that I am forgiven. I am declared righteous simply because Christ is our advocate by grace alone.

jmark wrote: »

Yes, we are guilty for our own sin, but it appears, not matter how little we like it that we are also guilty in Adam. Note it is 'in Adam' not just 'because of Adam'.

I don't agree. All Romans 5:12 says is that Adam brought sin into the world. Anything else seems to be going beyond what the passage is saying.

Romans 5:12 wrote:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

jmark wrote: »

I like Thomas Goodwin's that Adam and Christ are like two giants, from whose belts all men hang as on cords. When Adam fell, we fell, when we trust Christ we are transfered from Adam's belt to Christ's. So we are no longer in Adam, but 'in Christ' (which is Pauls repeated phrase 160+ times). When Adam fell we fell, but where Christ has triumphed so now have we.

A Christian is someone who is in Christ.

Not only where Adam fell, but where you and I fell:

Romans 3:23-26 wrote:

There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Romans 5:6-8 wrote:

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

These passages are incredibly powerful, as indeed the whole of Romans 5, but all the passage suggests is that sin came into the world as a result of the Fall of Adam. This doesn't mean that we are responsible for what someone else did. As mentioned in the previous thread, God in the Torah assures us that nobody will be punished for the sins of their fathers. It seems more reasonable that we are accountable for our own sin, but we sin primarily as a result of the inclination towards sin given to us at the Fall.

jmark

Philologos

There is a difference between inherited guilt and inherited corruption - I would argue that both are taught in scripture. Inherited corruption is why we sin, inherited guilt is the idea that God counted us as guilty when Adam sinned.

Romans 5:18-19 seems to establish that both concepts are present.

18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

I have to go at the moment, but I'll be back later!

philologos

jmark: I personally don't find that all that challenging.

Adams sin led to our inclination towards sin which led to our sin which leads to our condemnation. We are guilty of our own sin, as a result of the one who brought sin into the world.

PatricaMcKay

9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

Hebrews 7.

I think this is a good verse to think about in relation to Original Sin.

philologos

PatriciaMcKay - Where does that say that we're guilty for Adam's sin? I'm quite OK with saying that we like Adam sin and fall into sin as a result of the Fall. It is the attribution of Adam's guilt onto every successive human being following him that I question.

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

PatriciaMcKay - Where does that say that we're guilty for Adam's sin? I'm quite OK with saying that we like Adam sin and fall into sin as a result of the Fall. It is the attribution of Adam's guilt onto every successive human being following him that I question.

If Levi could be said to have paid the tithe through Abraham than we can more so be said to have sinned in Adam in the same way looking at the verses that Jmark brought up through the lenses of the lines from Hebrews.

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

PatriciaMcKay - Where does that say that we're guilty for Adam's sin? I'm quite OK with saying that we like Adam sin and fall into sin as a result of the Fall. It is the attribution of Adam's guilt onto every successive human being following him that I question.

Im inclined to be of the believe that since our the whole of human nature fell in Adam, that the whole of human nature has suffered and continues to suffer for his sin, however I dont think that God holds anyway personally accountable for Adam's sin as those we believe that God damns infants on the strength of holding them guilty of his crime into the eternal fire.

philologos

The reason that Levi is even mentioned in that section is because they formed the Levitical priesthood in the Temple. Melchizedek was considered a priest before the formal Levitical priesthood came to be. I don't see how the tithe (giving 10% to God) is comparable to whether or not we are guilty of sin though. I would agree with PDN and wolfsbane in that I don't believe that an infant baptism can truly count as a personal commitment to Jesus and His death and resurrection on the cross.

jmark

Philo -

the point is 'one offense = condemnation for all' not 'one offense = potential condemnation for all'. Emphasis throughout the section is on the one single event - whether Adam's or Christs, and the contrasting consequences.

Adam's one event leads to actual condemnation of all connected with him - in Adam
Christ's one event leads to justification of ll connected with him - in Christ

The Greek might more literally be translated "one offense to all men - condemnation". Condemnation without offense would be unjust. But our father fell, and we fell with him and in him at that moment.

We are all guilty in Adam, and inevitably we sin because we also inherit his corrupt nature.

To introduce the problem of infants is to let hard cases determine our exegesis. And hard cases make bad law. I'm happy to leave infants in the hands of the Judge of all the earth who I believe will do right.

PS - Im not arguing at any point for baptismal regeneration of infants - that argument isnt part of or consequence of mine!

philologos

jmark wrote: »

Philo -

the point is 'one offense = condemnation for all' not 'one offense = potential condemnation for all'. Emphasis throughout the section is on the one single event - whether Adam's or Christs, and the contrasting consequences.

It is an inevitability that we will all sin irrespective of whether or not we are guilty for Adam's sin also. Adam's sin is a single event, but it is an event which brought numerous other occurrences of sin into the world. Christ is the one who has offered to take on the price of our sin.

jmark wrote: »

Adam's one event leads to actual condemnation of all connected with him - in Adam
Christ's one event leads to justification of ll connected with him - in Christ

I'm not objecting to this. It leads to condemnation because it produces in us the fallen nature. I.E - That we inevitably sin as Paul discusses in Romans 7. I don't believe that it leads to condemnation because we're somehow responsible for someone else's sin.

PatricaMcKay

philologos wrote: »

I would agree with PDN and wolfsbane in that I don't believe that an infant baptism can truly count as a personal commitment to Jesus and His death and resurrection on the cross.

Who says that it counts as a personal commitment when it is preformed on infants? What people do claim is that it communicates Grace to them and makes them part of the Body of Christ.

Do you believe that Baptism is a means of Grace?

philologos

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Who says that it counts as a personal commitment when it is preformed on infants? What people do claim is that it communicates Grace to them and makes them part of the Body of Christ.

I guess my thinking would be that it is when a person decides to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord that they are saved (Romans 10:9-10). A child who has little knowledge of the ways of life isn't in a position to have such a commitment made for them in some ways.

I was baptised as an infant. I decided to follow Jesus many years later. I don't believe that my baptism was invalid, but I believe that my commitment to Jesus was a more significant marker in my faith journey than my baptism. I find it interesting that Jesus when talking about our need to be born again talks about the water and the Spirit. I feel I may have been baptised with water as a child, but I was baptised with the Spirit when I accepted Jesus as Lord.

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Do you believe that Baptism is a means of Grace?

It depends what you mean by grace. When I hear grace, I think of the mercy and forgiveness that was achieved for us by Jesus on the cross. The realisation that we are all sinners, and we need forgiveness for at best our ambivalence at worst our utter contempt towards our God.

The Internet Explorer

My Bad. My bad.

jmark

philologos wrote: »

I'm not objecting to this. It leads to condemnation because it produces in us the fallen nature. I.E - That we inevitably sin as Paul discusses in Romans 7. I don't believe that it leads to condemnation because we're somehow responsible for someone else's sin.

Hi Philo -

Paul is saying that guilt precedes our actual sin because of our connection to Adam. This sounds odd, but it works the other way too - righteousness precedes actual obedience because of our connection to Christ.

Neither are we held responsible for Adam's sin. But we are guilty because of him nonetheless.

The concept that makes it make sense is Covenant theology. Adam and Christ as our two covenant representatives.

Anyhow - I think I'm going to leave the discussion because the OP seems to be following a different tack with you, and its her thread.

Thanks for the iron sharpening.

Mark

PatricaMcKay

jmark wrote: »

Anyhow - I think I'm going to leave the discussion because the OP seems to be following a different tack with you, and its her thread.

Thanks for the iron sharpening.

Mark

Its not my thread.

Its public. Ive enjoyed what you have contributed.