About Original Sin and Destined for Hell

Post Reply
RFCA
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:08 pm

About Original Sin and Destined for Hell

Post by RFCA » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:52 am

Hi!

In case there has been a through discussion already on the concept of original sin...can somebody please point me to it (them)?

Also, is it reasonable to think that the entire human race became doomed to hell the moment Adam sinned and became separated from God? Would it be perfectly just for God to consign all of us to hell just because our 'parent' screwed up?

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: About Original Sin and Destined for Hell

Post by Jason » Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:46 am

RFCA wrote:Also, is it reasonable to think that the entire human race became doomed to hell the moment Adam sinned and became separated from God? Would it be perfectly just for God to consign all of us to hell just because our 'parent' screwed up?
It would appear not. Ezekiel 18 addresses this issue:

19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: About Original Sin and Destined for Hell

Post by TK » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:38 am

There was a good discussion at the old forum on this topic here:

is “sin nature” biblical?

TK

RFCA
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:08 pm

Re: About Original Sin and Destined for Hell

Post by RFCA » Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:44 pm

Hi TK,
Thanks for the link. The discussion was comprehensive in deed with so many strong points raised.
It would've been great though had Steve joined in the discussion.

God bless.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Post by Jill » Sat Jul 25, 2009 8:52 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Wed Feb 16, 2011 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jim
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:38 am

Re: About Original Sin and Destined for Hell

Post by Jim » Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:56 am

RFCA wrote:Hi!

In case there has been a through discussion already on the concept of original sin...can somebody please point me to it (them)?

Also, is it reasonable to think that the entire human race became doomed to hell the moment Adam sinned and became separated from God? Would it be perfectly just for God to consign all of us to hell just because our 'parent' screwed up?
Original sin or Ancestral sin?

ANCESTRAL SIN

In the Old Testament account of creation, God created mankind and established a place for him called Paradise. He also gave him a commandment regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: “And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying ‘You may eat food from every tree in the garden; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat; for in whatever day you eat from it, you shall die by death ‘”(Gn 2:16-17). In that Adam and Eve did not physically die the day they ate from the tree, the words “you shall die” indicate a spiritual death through separation from God.

Ancestral sin is the disobedience of Adam to God’s command regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam willingly disobeyed this commandment and diverted himself, or fell, from God’s path to perfection, thus separating himself from His Creator, the Source of Life.
What are the consequences of the fall?

1. This Fall of Adam caused mankind to become subject to mortality. While this is often seen mainly as a punishment, or penalty, the emphasis concerning God’s judgment on Adam and Eve at the Fall is best understood in terms of His mercy. So, for example, concerning man’s mortality (Gn 3:19), St Gregory the Theologian states, “Yet here too He provides a benefit – namely death, which cuts off sin, so that evil may not be everlasting. Thus His punishment is changed to mercy.”

2. We who are of Adam’s race are not guilty because of Adam’s sin, but because of our own sin. However, because all of mankind fell away from the grace of God through Adam’s disobedience, man now has a propensity, a disposition, an inclination towards sin, because just as death entered the world through sin, now sin enters through fear of death.

3. Mankind’s strong propensity to commit sin reveals that in the Fall, the image of God in man (Gn 1:26-27) is also fallen. However, the ancient Fathers emphasize that the divine image in man has not been totally corrupted or obliterated. Human nature remains inherently good after the Fall; mankind is not totally depraved. People are still capable of doing good, although bondage to death and the influence of the devil can dull their perception of what is good and lead them into all kinds of evil.

4. Adam’s Fall not only brought mortality and sin into the world, but also sweat, toil, hunger, thirst, weariness, sorrow, pain, suffering, sickness, tribulation, tragedy and tears.

5. Even after the Fall, the intellectual, desiring and incensive (forceful or driving) aspects of the soul are natural and therefore neutral. They can be used in a good way, or in a bad, harmful way. For instance, desire is very good when on directs it towards God. But when desire is out of control, on may use it in very inappropriate ways, such as becoming gluttonous or desiring another person’s spouse. The classic analogy is that these powers of the soul are like iron, which can be made into a plow to help grow food, or into a sword to be used to kill someone.

Christ, by His Death and Ressurection, conquered the devil and death, freeing mankind from the fear of death (Heb 2:14-15) and making possible a more complete communion between God and man than was ever possible before. This communion allows people to become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4), to transcend death and, ultimately, all the consequences of the fall.
Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: About Original Sin and Destined for Hell

Post by RickC » Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:57 am

Just jumping right in.
Hello, folks! :)

From Wikipedia: Original Sin

Eastern Christianity

Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, which together make up Eastern Christianity, acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind (see also traducianism), but never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The act of Adam is not the responsibility of all humanity, but the consequences of that act changed the reality of this present age of the cosmos. The Greek Fathers emphasized the metaphysical dimension of the Fall of Man, whereby Adam's descendants are born into a fallen world, but at the same time held fast to belief that, in spite of that, man remains free. Instead of accepting the Lutheran interpretation of Augustine's teaching, Orthodox Churches accept the teaching of John Cassian, which rejects the doctrine of Total Depravity, by teaching that human nature is "fallen", that is, depraved, but not totally (see also semi-Pelagianism).


***Something to keep in mind when reading theological articles in Wikipedia; at least the last time I checked is: they come from a Reformed persuation.

I posted the above, as my view is essentially the same as EO.
Note that Wikipedia links to semi-Pelagianism which, technically speaking, is unrelated to the Eastern view. The Eastern Fathers weren't (directly) involved with the great debates in the West between Augustine and Pelagius. However, it remains true that the Eastern view is generally compatible with (Western) semi-Pelagianism and/or Arminianism. The Eastern Fathers simply retained what had been taught in the Church prior to Augustine and Pelagius, while Augustine was introducing new teachings. He is not to be entirely faulted for this, I recently heard in a lecture from Ancient Faith Radio (an Eastern or Greek Orthodox broadcast). Augustine couldn't read Greek, which the writings in the East had been written in, and was far away, in the West. Thus, he was probably largely, if not almost totally, unfamiliar with the earlier consensus of the Church in these matters.

I didn't really answer RFCA's questions.
Just some general input....
Have a great day! :)

Post Reply

Return to “General”