Steve will be speaking on the subject of original sin Saturday (8/30). I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I just finished a book that I was made aware of via a link on this forum, called 'the story of original sin.' I thought the book, in a concise manner, did a good job of showing the evolution of the doctrine. Here are my notes from the book
Intro
The author's thesis is that Augustine's doctrine of ORIGINAL-SIN / INHERITED-GUILT is without biblical support. Viewing sin as an ONTOLOGICAL reality is a mistaken notion.
Chapter 1
Genesis 3 says nothing about 'The Fall' or 'guilt.' The 'problem' of Genesis 3 is relational. The events cut Adam & Eve off from the source of eternal life. In any case, the Genesis 3 story was not considered overly significant to Jewish religion (it was not re-told in their Scriptures until 2nd Temple Judaism).
Chapter 2
During 2nd Temple Judaism (Exile to Rabbinical writings) many diverse thoughts emerged about Genesis 3. The writings of this period deny any ontological view of human sin, but they do show some signs of being written in reaction to such ideas. Even still, they viewed sin as relational and people as free.
Chapter 3
For Paul, Adam's sin was a world changing event... but it didn't change the world by introducing an change in man's basic nature. It changed the world by unleashing a powerful force into creation (sin or... Sin). People are born into a sinful environment ruled by a sinful force. Sin is most directly a political (external) problem, not an ontological (internal) one.
Chapter 4
The eastern (Greek) church believed in the free will of human beings and personal responsibility. Adam & Eve were not perfect before sin entered the world. They were simply innocent... immature... ready to grow. Thus, what happened should hardly be called 'The Fall.' It was a break from the intended trajectory of their development. Sinfulness is internalized by acts of sin, not via inheritance (after all, Adam's story is usually viewed more as an allegory with this group).
Chapter 5
The western (Latin) church is responsible for putting forth the ingredients necessary for Augustine to cook-up 'original sin.' Sadly, they did so on the basis of a latin text of Scripture and many of them simply didn't know the original Greek. Adam was viewed as a perfect being that subsequently fell due to pride & rebelliousness. Unlike Augustine, however, these church leaders still believed in human free will and personal responsibility (perhaps not taking their beliefs to logical conclusions). Even still, this developing doctrine of 'original sin' was not considered to be 'creedal' at this juncture.
Chapter 6
Augustine was not scholarly. He didn't know Greek. He carved out the doctrine of original sin and then dug his heals to defend it over the course of his life. Adam was perfect. His sin was willful and radically changed his very nature. Through the sex-act and conception, this fallen nature is inherited by all human beings. All his descendants were, in a very real sense, in him (present) at the moment of 'The Fall.' This is why infant baptism was so important. Babies must be covered in grace to overcome this inherited sin and guilt.
This doctrine won the day by the 6th century despite the fact that it had no biblical basis or theological justification (other than mistaken theology). It could easily have been declared heretical, but instead became dogma because of Augustine's political prowess. He was motivated to promote this doctrine in order to justify the practice of infant baptism.
Chapter 7
The point of this book is not to question the reality of sin, but this particular doctrine of inherited sin/guilt. Augustine's doctrine is not biblical. It is not supported by either the Old or New Testament. It's not how Jewish people read their own Scriptures. It's not how the eastern half of the early church read Scripture. It's not how the Anabaptist groups of the radical reformation read the Scripture. A growing number of scholars and Christians are being drawn away from this dogma. It is time to start viewing sin as a relational reality rather than something passed on genetically. We do not inherit sin and/or guilt. We sin by our actions. And we all do so because we are enslaved by powerful forces (ie. The devil, the world, and fleshly desires... though 'fleshly' should not be interpreted along Augustinian lines).
On 'Original Sin'
Re: On 'Original Sin'
Is the book scholarly or aimed at a laymen level?
Re: On 'Original Sin'
Wow! Thanks for this summary, Matt. I actually didn't know most of that history until about a week ago, when I began to study the church fathers on the subject. I will post my lecture notes below, which have grown out of many years of contemplating the issue as well as this intensive week of patristic studies. They are very similar in their conclusions to the book you summarized.
One thing I found interesting was that Augustine's main argument for original sin was that it made sense of infant baptism (which had become a standard practice in the previous century). Since the early church believed that baptism cleansed sin, and since infants were baptized, Augustine reasoned that they must have sin from Adam, since they have committed no sins themselves. Ironically, the doctrine of original sin, therefore, owes its existence, largely, to the practice of infant baptism—a practice that was opposed at least into the time of Tertullian.
Here are the notes from which I intend to teach tomorrow night. My teaching notes are generally in outline form, leaving explanations to be made orally in the lectures, so it may be hard to know where I am going with some points:
Original Sin and Depravity
Lecture by Steve Gregg
I. Original sin: What is it?
A. Term not found in scripture—Primarily based upon Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12 & 1 Cor.15:21-22
“Death spread to all men because all men sinned. Does this mean that all have sinned in their personal lives (which is apparently the meaning of the words in 3:23) or that all sinned in Adam’s primal sin? In support of the latter it might be argued that human beings are mortal before they commit any sin, so that the mortality of the race is the result of the original racial sin…The construction, with the underlying thought, is paralleled in 2 Corinthians 5:14: ‘one has died for all; therefore all have died’…It is not simply because Adam is the ancestor of mankind that all are said to have sinned lr» his sin (otherwise it might be argued that because Abraham believed God all his descendants were necessarily involved in is belief); it is because Adam is mankind.” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, pp.122f
“Death is visited on all men today, not just because all men have sinned like Adam, but because all men sinned in Adam…the reason why [people prior to the law] died is not because they deliberately transgressed like Adam and died for their transgression, but because they and the whole of humanity (Christ only excepted) were included in Adam, the head of the human race.” (John R.W. Stott, Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8, p.25)
B. Definition of term not agreed upon among theologians. Does it mean:
1. Inherited sinful nature [taught by Irenaeus (170 AD), along with modern Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican]
2. Inherited guilt of Adam’s sin [taught by Augustine (354-430 AD) & Reformers (Luther, Calvin)]
3. Neither [taught by Pelagius (354-418 AD) Condemned as heretic by Western Church, vindicated by Eastern Church]
C. Views of the Early Church
”Many Fathers found it difficult to accept any concept of what we would call inherited guilt. To most of them disobedience was a personal act, repeated in each individual but not directly inherited from Adam in a way that would make us responsible for his disobedience.” (Gerald Bray, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Romans, p.130)
“Those who oppose the idea of the transmission of sin try to attack it as follows: “If Adam’s sin harmed even those who were not sinners, then Christ’s righteousness must help even those who are not believers. For Paul says that people are saved through Christ in the same way or to an even greater degree than they had previously perished through Adam.” Secondly, they say: “If baptism washes away that ancient sin, those who are born of two baptized parents should not have that sin, for they could not have passed on to their children what they did not possess themselves. Besides, if the soul does not exist by transmission, but only the flesh, then only the flesh carries the transmission of sin and it alone deserves punishment.” Declaring it to be unjust that a soul which is born today, not from the lump of Adam, bears so ancient a sin belonging to another, these people say that on no account should it be accepted that God, who forgives a man his own sins, imputes to him the sins of someone else.” (Pelagius, Commentary on Romans)
“[The writings of the earliest Greek fathers] show a manifest affinity with the later teachings of Pelagius rather than with those of Augustine. In a measure, it may be said, they prepared the way for Pelagianism…Adam could sin and did sin, and thus came under the power of Satan, death, and sinful corruption. This physical corruption was propagated in the human race, but is not itself sin and did not involve mankind in guilt. There is no original sin in the strict sense of the word. They do not deny the solidarity of the human race, but admit its physical connection with Adam. This connection, however, relates only to the corporeal and sensuous nature, which is propagated from father to son, and not to the higher and rational side of human nature, which is in every case a direct creation of God. It exerts no immediate effect on the will, but affects this only mediately through the intellect. Sin always originates in the free choice of man, and is the result of weakness and ignorance. Consequently infants cannot be regarded as guilty, for they have inherited only a physical corruption.
It should be noted, however, that there were some departures from this general view. Origen admitting that a certain hereditary pollution attached to every one at birth, found the explanation for it in a pre-natal or pre-temporal fall of the soul, and came very close to a doctrine of original sin. And Gregory of Nyssa came even nearer to teaching this doctrine. But even the great Athanasius and Chrysostom scrupulously avoided it.” (Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p.128)
D. Total depravity? (Genesis 6:5/ Jeremiah 13:23; 17:9/John 8:44 / Romans 7:18 )
II. Ramifications:
A. Infant guilt and damnation
“Everyone, even little children, have broken God’s covenant, not indeed in virtue of any personal action but in virtue of mankind’s common origin in that single ancestor in whom all have sinned.” (Augustine, The City of God 16:27)
B. All men born haters of God—Romans 1:30
C. Men incapacitated even from believing and repenting—“Dead in sin” (Col.2:12) see also John 6:44; 10:26; Rom.3:10-12; 8:7-8
D. Did Jesus inherit the sinful nature? If not, how was He tempted like we are?
“If the souls of all men are derived from that one which was breathed into the first man … either the soul of Christ was not derived from that one, since he had no sin of any kind or, if his soul was derived from that first one, he purified it in taking it for himself, so that he might be born of the virgin and might come to us without any trace of sin, either committed or transmitted.” (Augustine, Letter 164)
III. Examination of relevant Scripture:
A. “Sinful nature”
1. There is evidence in scripture and experience of sin in our nature
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child…” (Prov.22:15)
“Slaves of sin” (John 8:34; Rom.6:16-23)
“Sin in my members” (Rom.7:14-25)
“By nature children of wrath” (Eph.2:2-3)
The state of the pagans (Eph.4:17-19)
2. There is very little in scripture that speaks of inheriting this nature at birth
Seth born “in the likeness and image of [fallen] Adam” (Genesis 5:1-3)
“the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21)
“in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5)
“The wicked are estranged from the womb…speaking lies” (Psalm 58:3)
B. Adam’s guilt and ours
1. There is evidence in scripture that God does not blame children for their fathers’ sins
Deut.24:16/ Jer.31:29-30/ Ezekiel 18:20/ 1 Kings 14:12-13
2. There is such a thing as suffering consequences of a father’s sins, without the guilt
Exodus 20:4-5/ Egypt’s firstborn/ Canaanite infants/ 2 Samuel 12:14
3. There is no scripture that specifically affirms inherited guilt (Psalm 51:5? Rom.5:12?)
IV. How did Adam bring death upon all people?
A. Man created a mortal , potentially immortal, species (1 Timothy 6:16/ Rom.2:6-7/ Gen.3:22)
B. Access to the tree of life was interrupted due to Adam’s sin, consigning the race to mortality
Question: Is individual death the penalty for personal sin, or is it the natural consequence of being born without access to the tree of life?
C. Birthright of a relationship with God interrupted
D. Human self-centered (animal-like) instincts cannot be overcome without God
1. “Dead” or “Sick”? (Mark 2:17/ Ps.41:4/Isa. 1:5-6; 6:10; 57:17-19/ Jer.3:22/1 Pet. 2:24-25)
2. Flesh is said to be “weak” (Matt.26:41/ Rom.8:3-8)
3. “Sin” means “Missing the mark” or “falling short of the glory of God” (Rom.3:23)
4. Total depravity (where it exists) is not a birth condition but an acquired condition—an advanced stage of the disease (Rom.1:21-22, 24, 26, 28; Prov.29:1; Jer.13:23; Matt.13:15; Eph.4:17-19)
One thing I found interesting was that Augustine's main argument for original sin was that it made sense of infant baptism (which had become a standard practice in the previous century). Since the early church believed that baptism cleansed sin, and since infants were baptized, Augustine reasoned that they must have sin from Adam, since they have committed no sins themselves. Ironically, the doctrine of original sin, therefore, owes its existence, largely, to the practice of infant baptism—a practice that was opposed at least into the time of Tertullian.
Here are the notes from which I intend to teach tomorrow night. My teaching notes are generally in outline form, leaving explanations to be made orally in the lectures, so it may be hard to know where I am going with some points:
Original Sin and Depravity
Lecture by Steve Gregg
I. Original sin: What is it?
A. Term not found in scripture—Primarily based upon Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12 & 1 Cor.15:21-22
“Death spread to all men because all men sinned. Does this mean that all have sinned in their personal lives (which is apparently the meaning of the words in 3:23) or that all sinned in Adam’s primal sin? In support of the latter it might be argued that human beings are mortal before they commit any sin, so that the mortality of the race is the result of the original racial sin…The construction, with the underlying thought, is paralleled in 2 Corinthians 5:14: ‘one has died for all; therefore all have died’…It is not simply because Adam is the ancestor of mankind that all are said to have sinned lr» his sin (otherwise it might be argued that because Abraham believed God all his descendants were necessarily involved in is belief); it is because Adam is mankind.” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, pp.122f
“Death is visited on all men today, not just because all men have sinned like Adam, but because all men sinned in Adam…the reason why [people prior to the law] died is not because they deliberately transgressed like Adam and died for their transgression, but because they and the whole of humanity (Christ only excepted) were included in Adam, the head of the human race.” (John R.W. Stott, Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8, p.25)
B. Definition of term not agreed upon among theologians. Does it mean:
1. Inherited sinful nature [taught by Irenaeus (170 AD), along with modern Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican]
2. Inherited guilt of Adam’s sin [taught by Augustine (354-430 AD) & Reformers (Luther, Calvin)]
3. Neither [taught by Pelagius (354-418 AD) Condemned as heretic by Western Church, vindicated by Eastern Church]
C. Views of the Early Church
”Many Fathers found it difficult to accept any concept of what we would call inherited guilt. To most of them disobedience was a personal act, repeated in each individual but not directly inherited from Adam in a way that would make us responsible for his disobedience.” (Gerald Bray, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Romans, p.130)
“Those who oppose the idea of the transmission of sin try to attack it as follows: “If Adam’s sin harmed even those who were not sinners, then Christ’s righteousness must help even those who are not believers. For Paul says that people are saved through Christ in the same way or to an even greater degree than they had previously perished through Adam.” Secondly, they say: “If baptism washes away that ancient sin, those who are born of two baptized parents should not have that sin, for they could not have passed on to their children what they did not possess themselves. Besides, if the soul does not exist by transmission, but only the flesh, then only the flesh carries the transmission of sin and it alone deserves punishment.” Declaring it to be unjust that a soul which is born today, not from the lump of Adam, bears so ancient a sin belonging to another, these people say that on no account should it be accepted that God, who forgives a man his own sins, imputes to him the sins of someone else.” (Pelagius, Commentary on Romans)
“[The writings of the earliest Greek fathers] show a manifest affinity with the later teachings of Pelagius rather than with those of Augustine. In a measure, it may be said, they prepared the way for Pelagianism…Adam could sin and did sin, and thus came under the power of Satan, death, and sinful corruption. This physical corruption was propagated in the human race, but is not itself sin and did not involve mankind in guilt. There is no original sin in the strict sense of the word. They do not deny the solidarity of the human race, but admit its physical connection with Adam. This connection, however, relates only to the corporeal and sensuous nature, which is propagated from father to son, and not to the higher and rational side of human nature, which is in every case a direct creation of God. It exerts no immediate effect on the will, but affects this only mediately through the intellect. Sin always originates in the free choice of man, and is the result of weakness and ignorance. Consequently infants cannot be regarded as guilty, for they have inherited only a physical corruption.
It should be noted, however, that there were some departures from this general view. Origen admitting that a certain hereditary pollution attached to every one at birth, found the explanation for it in a pre-natal or pre-temporal fall of the soul, and came very close to a doctrine of original sin. And Gregory of Nyssa came even nearer to teaching this doctrine. But even the great Athanasius and Chrysostom scrupulously avoided it.” (Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines, p.128)
D. Total depravity? (Genesis 6:5/ Jeremiah 13:23; 17:9/John 8:44 / Romans 7:18 )
II. Ramifications:
A. Infant guilt and damnation
“Everyone, even little children, have broken God’s covenant, not indeed in virtue of any personal action but in virtue of mankind’s common origin in that single ancestor in whom all have sinned.” (Augustine, The City of God 16:27)
B. All men born haters of God—Romans 1:30
C. Men incapacitated even from believing and repenting—“Dead in sin” (Col.2:12) see also John 6:44; 10:26; Rom.3:10-12; 8:7-8
D. Did Jesus inherit the sinful nature? If not, how was He tempted like we are?
“If the souls of all men are derived from that one which was breathed into the first man … either the soul of Christ was not derived from that one, since he had no sin of any kind or, if his soul was derived from that first one, he purified it in taking it for himself, so that he might be born of the virgin and might come to us without any trace of sin, either committed or transmitted.” (Augustine, Letter 164)
III. Examination of relevant Scripture:
A. “Sinful nature”
1. There is evidence in scripture and experience of sin in our nature
“Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child…” (Prov.22:15)
“Slaves of sin” (John 8:34; Rom.6:16-23)
“Sin in my members” (Rom.7:14-25)
“By nature children of wrath” (Eph.2:2-3)
The state of the pagans (Eph.4:17-19)
2. There is very little in scripture that speaks of inheriting this nature at birth
Seth born “in the likeness and image of [fallen] Adam” (Genesis 5:1-3)
“the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21)
“in sin my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5)
“The wicked are estranged from the womb…speaking lies” (Psalm 58:3)
B. Adam’s guilt and ours
1. There is evidence in scripture that God does not blame children for their fathers’ sins
Deut.24:16/ Jer.31:29-30/ Ezekiel 18:20/ 1 Kings 14:12-13
2. There is such a thing as suffering consequences of a father’s sins, without the guilt
Exodus 20:4-5/ Egypt’s firstborn/ Canaanite infants/ 2 Samuel 12:14
3. There is no scripture that specifically affirms inherited guilt (Psalm 51:5? Rom.5:12?)
IV. How did Adam bring death upon all people?
A. Man created a mortal , potentially immortal, species (1 Timothy 6:16/ Rom.2:6-7/ Gen.3:22)
B. Access to the tree of life was interrupted due to Adam’s sin, consigning the race to mortality
Question: Is individual death the penalty for personal sin, or is it the natural consequence of being born without access to the tree of life?
C. Birthright of a relationship with God interrupted
D. Human self-centered (animal-like) instincts cannot be overcome without God
1. “Dead” or “Sick”? (Mark 2:17/ Ps.41:4/Isa. 1:5-6; 6:10; 57:17-19/ Jer.3:22/1 Pet. 2:24-25)
2. Flesh is said to be “weak” (Matt.26:41/ Rom.8:3-8)
3. “Sin” means “Missing the mark” or “falling short of the glory of God” (Rom.3:23)
4. Total depravity (where it exists) is not a birth condition but an acquired condition—an advanced stage of the disease (Rom.1:21-22, 24, 26, 28; Prov.29:1; Jer.13:23; Matt.13:15; Eph.4:17-19)
Re: On 'Original Sin'
The author is a scholar, but the book is refreshingly concise. Obviously it gets into some technical matters of theology, but I would think anyone that is on this forum would find it highly readable.schoel wrote:Is the book scholarly or aimed at a laymen level?
Re: On 'Original Sin'
Thanks for providing your notes Steve!
-
dizerner
Re: On 'Original Sin'
[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Sun Feb 19, 2023 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: On 'Original Sin'
A rejection of Augustine's 'original sin' doctrine does not entail a rejection of the power of sin. It just changes the focus of that power from ontological and genetic to political and spiritual.dizerner wrote:I have a lot of problems with rejecting original sin and yet harmonizing Scripture.
1. Can it really be just a coincidence every single person that ever lived or will live, will sin? (many, many Scriptures support this)
I don't see any strong reasons to doubt that babies are born morally neutral. The rest of your sentence is a bit of a confusing run-on, but if you're asking if I think we can overcome the world's political environment without Christ... then the answer is no. The devil/world/flesh is, in fact, too powerful for us. Christ has opened up a door to victory and a new kingdom.2. If our consistent failure is somehow connected to our ancestry, would you attempt to argue we have a "partial" original sin? If not, you would say we are morally neutral completely? You admit the "world," "flesh" and "devil" can tempt and corrupt us, but not to the point that we can't overcome those without Christ's unjust sacrifice, and not with any concept of slavery, or a demonically inclined nature. Christ said of Satan "he has nothing in me," would you say that any human can also say that along with Christ, who said "there is no one good but God."
You'd have to re-word this or ask a direct question if you want me to interact with it.3. Death is clearly used in a spiritual sense in some places in Scripture. If death can be spiritual, why not apply that to ambiguous places that would fit into a harmonious whole, were it applied. (For example, Romans 7 says "sin revived and I died.") Hebrews says all that all flesh through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives. We can see clearly that the wicked don't necessarily fear death (compare Job and Ecc.) Indeed Satan is described as "him who had the power of death" and death is seen as a direct result of sin, and Christ's work "frees" us from that power. Yet mere physical cessation is described Biblically as a rest, hardly anything associated with a power or sin.
Yes, of course there is a direct parallel and a necessary relation between Adam & Christ. But it need not have anything to do with genetically transferred guilt and sin. That human beings are subject to death as a consequence of Adam's sin does not necessitate that his sin is ontologically passed on to us (just that its consequences impacted us). Adam, in his immaturity, took God's plan for humanity off trajectory. Jesus, in his maturity, put God's plan for humanity back on track.4. The work of Christ is directly compared to the work of Adam in his first trespass. There is no mollifier in this comparison and it is described not only as a direct parallel, but that one necessitated the other. Indeed the reason we "must be born again" is said to be because in Adam we died, and are thus slaves of sin. We must transfer from an old creation to an entirely brand new creation (if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; this includes anything he ever was even as an infant or zygote, or else we deny the "old" creation).
Again, you'd have to re-word if you'd like a response. I'm having a hard time understanding the direct relevance... how anything you said in this paragraph is an argument for original sin.5. If we are saved by no good work of our own (assuming you see the Scriptural teaching that faith is done by someone ungodly), why would it be necessary that we be lost only by bad works. And faith can still be seen as a free will response, for it can even be clearly shown that free will is not somehow incompatible with original sin. Faith, although something we do, is not a good work because by definition it is trusting in someone else's good work on your behalf (not according to works, as Rom 4 says).
Satan's rulership of the world clearly doesn't include God's people... so it need not be taken so literally as to include everyone. In any case, children who grow up in a kingdom need not have any awareness of that king to be slowly and steadily influenced by him, his systems, and his policies. When those influences result in a 1st sinful choice, they officially become his willing subjects.6. Many, many places describe Satan as the ruler of this world. Why would he in any way be ruler without a real legal right to be. If everyone is born innocent and morally neutral there is no way Satan could be their god or under his power until they "made their first mistake" or whatever original sin deniers would somehow describe as giving Satan authority (assuming I suppose everyone has exactly the situation Adam had?).
Obviously I'm questioning whether 'original sin' is our real sickness... and doing so without rejecting the reality that we are sick. So your question becomes odd. Perhaps the problem is that we follow the pattern of Adam in choosing sin and Jesus provides the cure by giving us a new pattern to follow.7. If original sin is, indeed, our real sickness, wouldn't denying it be in some way obscuring the cure for it? Indeed just as Galatians describes the solution of our problem to be "crucified with Christ" so that "Christ lives in me" (surely an internal solution?) so Romans 7 clearly outlays an internal problem that "it is sin living in me that does it."
This goes back to my response to your 1st question. You're assuming that without the doctrine of 'original sin' there is no thoroughgoing doctrine of sin. There's no need to reach this conclusion. A rejection of 'original sin' is not a rejection of the universal nature of sin or the seriousness of sin. Even without 'original sin' we are in desperate need of a Messiah to rescue us from our willful subjection to the kingdoms of the world.8. Do we in any amount of goodness or works contribute to our righteousness and our reconciliation with God? Aren't we thereby adding to the work of Christ? Does Christ's righteousness and sacrifice just "make up the difference" of our own? What's the ratio of our good deeds to Christ's good deed? Doesn't removing original sin end up in a works religion, similar to Islam? After all, Allah forgives in Islam too, there is just no sacrificial work that the forgiveness is based on. It is simply a religion of do enough good things and you get a reward, with no acknowledgment of a fundamentally corrupt nature.
In conclusion, you didn't really raise any issue that defends the doctrine of original sin. You simply raised issues that defend the doctrine of universal sin. We both agree with universal sin. I just am questioning the necessity of Augustine's particulars. And not only am I questioning its necessity, I have a growing awareness of its lack of biblical support and its problematic nature.In conclusion I can't help but see denying original sin as a fleshy and even demonic doctrine minimizing the real truth in the power of Christ's cross.
But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.
God bless.
Re: On 'Original Sin'
I have a separate question for you as well.
If 'original sin' (as defined by Augustine, passed on genetically by Adam) is so important for establishing our utter need for a Savior... is Eve off the hook?
If 'original sin' (as defined by Augustine, passed on genetically by Adam) is so important for establishing our utter need for a Savior... is Eve off the hook?
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: On 'Original Sin'
A few thoughts...
Whether we're talking about sin as an ontological or existential "thing" there does seem to be a very real physical or metaphysical effect on or change to all of creation as a result of the Fall. Consider the weeds and thistles, etc.. Alternatively, nothing changed to creation as a result of sin, but man was protected from it in the garden and then thrust into it afterwards (the garden being a metaphor perhaps of Adam's proximity to and relationship with God). If the garden narrative is historical, and the non-human created order had an effect from that first sin (apart from our actual sinful influence on it, which contributes to any metaphysical effects from sin), then it doesn't seem a far stretch to say there was something that happened to us genetically or spiritually or otherwise which is inherited from Adam in a very real sense. I don't think that's Sin, it's an "effect" of sin. But it does seem to be a "flaw" in us that didn't exist before the Fall. It may well be that this flaw is the thing that keeps us from being filled with and/or from living by the Spirit without being transformed by Faith. Our sins seem to come naturally from our lack of union with Christ and His Spirit. Was adam in that same condition prior to the Fall?
Adam didn't suffer from something called original sin and yet he sinned. Was he following his natural inclination like we are, or was it just an accident of the moment ? Was his sin as inevitable as ours? Or is our sin in fact inevitable (without the Spirit)?
The problem with the arguments for infant baptism related to the exorcism of original sin is that this presupposes that all sin is blameworthy and requiring of repentance (God winking in times of ignorance, age of accountability, etc.)
Whether we're talking about sin as an ontological or existential "thing" there does seem to be a very real physical or metaphysical effect on or change to all of creation as a result of the Fall. Consider the weeds and thistles, etc.. Alternatively, nothing changed to creation as a result of sin, but man was protected from it in the garden and then thrust into it afterwards (the garden being a metaphor perhaps of Adam's proximity to and relationship with God). If the garden narrative is historical, and the non-human created order had an effect from that first sin (apart from our actual sinful influence on it, which contributes to any metaphysical effects from sin), then it doesn't seem a far stretch to say there was something that happened to us genetically or spiritually or otherwise which is inherited from Adam in a very real sense. I don't think that's Sin, it's an "effect" of sin. But it does seem to be a "flaw" in us that didn't exist before the Fall. It may well be that this flaw is the thing that keeps us from being filled with and/or from living by the Spirit without being transformed by Faith. Our sins seem to come naturally from our lack of union with Christ and His Spirit. Was adam in that same condition prior to the Fall?
Adam didn't suffer from something called original sin and yet he sinned. Was he following his natural inclination like we are, or was it just an accident of the moment ? Was his sin as inevitable as ours? Or is our sin in fact inevitable (without the Spirit)?
The problem with the arguments for infant baptism related to the exorcism of original sin is that this presupposes that all sin is blameworthy and requiring of repentance (God winking in times of ignorance, age of accountability, etc.)
Re: On 'Original Sin'
I find this agreeable. Certainly all of creation has been impacted by the events of Genesis 3. I don't think we were impacted differently from the rest of creation. There's a big difference b/w the gene pool being polluted by mutations, for instance, and inherent guilt being passed down to every little baby. My main problem with Augustine's doctrine is the inherited guilt. It seems to me this is not supported by Scripture. Indeed, the opposite is taught.darinhouston wrote:Whether we're talking about sin as an ontological or existential "thing" there does seem to be a very real physical or metaphysical effect on or change to all of creation as a result of the Fall. Consider the weeds and thistles, etc.. it doesn't seem a far stretch to say there was something that happened to us genetically or spiritually or otherwise which is inherited from Adam in a very real sense. I don't think that's Sin, it's an "effect" of sin. But it does seem to be a "flaw" in us that didn't exist before the Fall. It may well be that this flaw is the thing that keeps us from being filled with and/or from living by the Spirit without being transformed by Faith.
It seems to me Adam was innocent yet incomplete. The plan was to grow him into spiritual maturity, but he (with Eve) tried to take a shortcut. Growth comes through a deepening relationship with God/Christ, not power grabs. That Adam (& Eve) sinned without inheriting original sin makes the point. The doctrine is unnecessary to explain sin. I don't think any individual sin is inevitable (and, therefore, sin is not inevitable). But sin is powerful. More powerful than we are. The combination of sin's power and our lack of relationship to God makes is inevitable that, given the opportunity, we will eventually choose sin.Our sins seem to come naturally from our lack of union with Christ and His Spirit. Was adam in that same condition prior to the Fall? Adam didn't suffer from something called original sin and yet he sinned. Was he following his natural inclination like we are, or was it just an accident of the moment ? Was his sin as inevitable as ours? Or is our sin in fact inevitable (without the Spirit)?
In my opinion... a baby simply isn't guilty of sin. They don't have sin. Sin is a willful violation of God's rule. It might not take a child very long to enter into the realm of 'sinners,' but they don't start out sinful. They start out immature. They don't start out complete or whole, by any means... but there is nothing essentially wrong with that. If I baby dies, in my opinion, they are given opportunity to mature and grow and prepare for heaven/New-Earth.The problem with the arguments for infant baptism related to the exorcism of original sin is that this presupposes that all sin is blameworthy and requiring of repentance (God winking in times of ignorance, age of accountability, etc.)