Original sin

[Guest]

So what is original sin?

Is it that we are born sinful?
Is that we are born wanting to sin?

And how is it fair that Adam's (and Eve's) sin would curse every other human from birth? Its as if we start our life with a handicap of sinfulness through no fault of our own.

What's your view of original sin?

Dave

[Guest]

If "original sin" refers to Adam and Eve biologically passing on to all of their descendants a tendency to sin, then I believe in it.

If it means that we actually inherit Adam and Eve's sin, then I don't.

Of course it isn't "fair" that we inherit a sinful nature. Is it fair to cattle and sheep that bears and wolves and lions have inherited a nature by which they tear, kill, and eat them?

Fair or not fair, the "wages" or consequences of sin is death.

[Guest]

Hi dave-

there is a discussion of this under Misc Theo Topics on page 3- about 1/2 way down.

I agree with Paidion; i dont think we "inherit" sin in our genes; but we will all sin anyway so there is no practical difference.

A more philosophical question: if adam and eve hadnt sinned and had 2 children, cain & abel, what if only Cain had sinned? would his sin have "infected" his parents? or his brother? would only cain's descendants be subject to a sin nature?

TK

[Guest]

I think the doctrine of Original Sin was derived from Romans 5:12 by Augustine.

Romans 5:12

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

[Guest]

Of course it isn't "fair" that we inherit a sinful nature. Is it fair to cattle and sheep that bears and wolves and lions have inherited a nature by which they tear, kill, and eat them?

Fair or not fair, the "wages" or consequences of sin is death.

Maybe I should have used "just" instead of "fair".

As an example, is it just for a king to command one of his subjects to run in a race with the purpose of winning, then allow a weight to be tied onto the leg of the person? Especially since the king would be the only one with the key capable of releasing the weight from the person's leg?

Paidion, do you consider that this "biological inherited tendency towards sin" is just? It seems that your response to this, as stated in a previous post, is that it isn't just, but that is just the way it is. No offense, but that seems to be dodging the question. If I misunderstand, please correct me.

This is similar to another response I hear to this question. I goes something like, "Well if you don't think like the idea of inheriting Adam's sin nature, then maybe you don't want to be in Christ either." Dodging the question.

Dave

[Guest]

there is a discussion of this under Misc Theo Topics on page 3- about 1/2 way down.

Thanks TK - I found that to be helpful, although not completely satisfying.
Christopher was voicing the same questions running through my mind regarding the inheritance of a tendency to sin. And yet while I question it philosophically, my 2 young boys seem to prove it.

Dave

[Guest]

Maybe I should have used "just" instead of "fair".

Why? Are the words not synonymous?

As an example, is it just for a king to command one of his subjects to run in a race with the purpose of winning, then allow a weight to be tied onto the leg of the person? Especially since the king would be the only one with the key capable of releasing the weight from the person's leg?

It would not be fair from the viewpoint of the person with the weight.
Would it be fair from the viewpoint of the king, if he knew it was the only way to get the person's legs strengthened so that he could win future races?

Paidion, do you consider that this "biological inherited tendency towards sin" is just? It seems that your response to this, as stated in a previous post, is that it isn't just, but that is just the way it is. No offense, but that seems to be dodging the question. If I misunderstand, please correct me.

No, you don't misunderstand me. From our point of view, it is unjust, and "that's just the way it is". And no, I am not dodging the question.
It is simply that the question needs a deeper level of understanding.

Do you remember, Schoel, why God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden? It wasn't to punish them, but "lest they eat from the tree of life and live forever..." How terrible it would have been to live forever with a sinful nature! So it was a mercy for Adam and Eve to be cast out.

The way that God created man was that he would pass on his biological characteristics to his offspring. After the fall, the sinful nature became part man. And so naturally, in accordance to the way man was created, and the laws of biology established by God, this nature was passed on. God had already established a new risk experiment by creating man with a free will similar to His own. But the experiment failed as far as man choosing to obey was concerned. So rather than start all over by creating another race with free will, God chose to provide a way whereby man might choose to obey after all in spite of his inherited sinful nature. By letting go of his self-life and choosing to submit himself to God's son, Jesus, he could be regenerated with a new nature (Old things have passed away, and behold, all things have become new).
According to Peter, this is why Jesus died, "that we may die to sin and live to righteousness". The enabling grace to do so, has been made possible through the death and resurrection of Christ.

So out of man's failure, God provided an even better way! Adam and Eve could have chosen to continue in obedience in their innocence. Now people can continue to choose to obey in their guilt. Which is more likely to endure? Obviously the latter. What could be fairer than that?