Original Sin

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Original Sin

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.



"Original sin is the Christian doctrine that humans inherit a tainted nature and a proclivity to sin through the fact of birth. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.

The doctrine of original sin began to emerge in the 3rd century but only became fully formed with the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354–430), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin" (Latin: peccatum originale). Augustine's conception of original sin was based on a mistranslated passage in Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans, and scholars have debated whether the passage supports Augustine's view.

Augustine's formulation of original sin became popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, who equated original sin with concupiscence (or "hurtful desire"), affirming that it persisted even after baptism and completely destroyed freedom to do good and proposed that original sin involved a loss of free will except to sin.


Roman Catholicism
Catholic veiw: "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans.
Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence")


Lutheranism
The Lutheran Churches teach that original sin "is a root and fountain-head of all actual sins.
Martin Luther (1483–1546) asserted that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception.


Jehovah's Witnesses
The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race . This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin , and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12).
This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘ original sin ’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘ original sin ’ means.
source


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(Mormon)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) rejects the doctrine of original sin.

Methodism

Methodist theology teaches that a believer is made free from original sin when he/she is entirely sanctified.
(["entirely sanctified" or] Christian perfection is the name given to various teachings within Christianity that describe the process of achieving spiritual maturity or perfection. The ultimate goal of this process is union with God characterized by pure love of God and other people as well as personal holiness or sanctification.
source

Eastern Christianity
The Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Rite Eastern Catholic Churches' version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sins from the beginning (1 John iii. 8)".[74] The Eastern Church never subscribed to Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt. The Church does not interpret "original sin" as having anything to do with transmitted guilt but with transmitted mortality. Because Adam sinned, all humanity shares not in his guilt but in the same punishment .
source unless otherwise indicated


So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?


.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #2

Post by theophile »

Miles wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 4:44 pm So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?
[Replying to Miles in post #1]

None of the above. Rather, it is a sound and, actually, deeply hopeful truth of how the world works. To unpack that a bit...

We all share a natural inclination toward, let's call it 'induction' when it comes to our perception of others. That is, if one of a certain group is found to be of a certain way, we have a tendency to cast similar judgment across the rest of the members of that group. It's just what we do whether we like it or not. And rightly so, especially as additional members prove likewise.

So it is with sin. If one in a certain group is found to sin, then all of the members in that group are cast in doubt in our eyes. A wave of negative judgment naturally flows out from that one to all of the other members of that group.

Now, this is not to say that all members of that group are sinful, or that all are somehow deficient in nature, or that their nature changes from the original sin, or anything else like that. But only that a shadow is cast upon them. A shadow that spans the entire group by simple virtue of being a member of that group, unbounded by time or place (across generations).

So a sound concept, I think. But also deeply hopeful...

The bible (after Genesis 2 at least) is essentially the story of humankind (dis)proving this judgment. Well, it is more often a story of proving than disproving, but this is only to reach the edge case and ultimate question that original sin, and confirmation of the full induction, leads to. That is, for any good-seeking powers-that-be out there (call it God or whatever you will), the edge case and ultimate question as they look upon a sinful humanity is whether or not we should be blotted out from this earth... Whether we are all in fact sinful or if we deserve our place in creation...

But, and here is the beauty of it, this inductive logic runs both ways. Just as one can cast the rest of the group in doubt, so one can redeem all. This is the very logic of salvation, and why humanity is continuously tested by God in the bible. Abraham, Job, Jesus... It is to prove our worth and, through these singular examples, create the counter-wave to original sin. A wave of redemption that flows to us all through the proof of just one who shows what a human being can be, and what we all have within us.

Call it original righteousness or whatever you want. It is the deeply hopeful and inseparable counterpart to original sin.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21112
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1122 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #3

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 4:44 pm .




Jehovah's Witnesses
The consequences of the Fall spread to the whole of the human race . This is elucidated by St Paul: ‘Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin , and so death spread to all men because all men sinned’ (Rom.5:12).
This text, which formed the Church’s basis of her teaching on ‘ original sin ’, may be understood in a number of ways: the Greek words ef’ ho pantes hemarton may be translated not only as ‘because all men sinned’ but also ‘in whom [that is, in Adam] all men sinned’. Different readings of the text may produce different understandings of what ‘ original sin ’ means.
source

The Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation is unambiguously that all men sin as a consequence of the sin of Adam. Meaning that Adam s sin caused him to reproduise imperfect children with an inclination to act in a way contrary To Gods perfect standards and principals.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

How could an omniscient God not have known what the bad choices his creation would make?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 314#848314


To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, PERFECTION and ... THE ORIGINAL SIN
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1130 times
Been thanked: 732 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #4

Post by Purple Knight »

Miles wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 4:44 pmSo, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?
Well that's a loaded question but I have every interest in letting it slide since I agree with you. By any normal, moral interpretation, people aren't morally liable for what they didn't do or can't help, so it's hogwash.

I will admit that I happen to disagree with the normal interpretations and think that sometimes, blood guilt is a valid concept, but it's not about what I think; it's about what normal, moral people think, and no normal, moral person thinks he should be held morally liable for what he didn't do or couldn't help.

I do a lot of defending the religious but I won't do it here. Unless you do happen to believe that you should have to say you're sorry or make restitution for what you didn't do or couldn't help, you've got no business believing that original sin is valid. You may as well believe that someone born with cerebral palsy is morally liable for being lazy because he doesn't get up out of his wheelchair and walk.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #5

Post by Miles »

Purple Knight wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 8:06 pm
Miles wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 4:44 pmSo, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?
Well that's a loaded question but I have every interest in letting it slide since I agree with you. By any normal, moral interpretation, people aren't morally liable for what they didn't do or can't help, so it's hogwash.

I will admit that I happen to disagree with the normal interpretations and think that sometimes, blood guilt is a valid concept, but it's not about what I think; it's about what normal, moral people think, and no normal, moral person thinks he should be held morally liable for what he didn't do or couldn't help.
But because such moral barbarism was preordained in scripture:

Exodus 20:5

5 You are not to bow down to them in worship or serve them, because I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the guilt of parents on children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

the doctrine of original sin is quite okey-dokey.


.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1130 times
Been thanked: 732 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #6

Post by Purple Knight »

Miles wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 9:55 pmBut because such moral barbarism was preordained in scripture:

Exodus 20:5

5 You are not to bow down to them in worship or serve them, because I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the guilt of parents on children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

the doctrine of original sin is quite okey-dokey.
I don't have a problem with this, but again, it's not about what I think, and always keep your head on straight and remember that we don't think this God fellow is a real person.

So it's not about what God thinks either.

It's about what Christians think. Find me one who really believes that because their father was a blasphemer, they are morally liable for that blasphemy. I'm sure you will find one who will reinterpret that passage and say that bad things are likely to happen to the child and it's a natural consequence of the father's actions, but I dare you, I bloody double dog dare you, to find me one who agrees with the passage literally about literal guilt as in, your father was a blasphemer and you're literally guilty of (or at least, morally liable for) blasphemy.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #7

Post by Miles »

Purple Knight wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 10:05 pm
Miles wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 9:55 pmBut because such moral barbarism was preordained in scripture:

Exodus 20:5

5 You are not to bow down to them in worship or serve them, because I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the guilt of parents on children, to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.

the doctrine of original sin is quite okey-dokey.
I don't have a problem with this, but again, it's not about what I think, and always keep your head on straight and remember that we don't think this God fellow is a real person.
And don't forget that when we talk about the aspects and actions of any fictional character it's always within the context of that fiction. One doesn't have to believe Batman and Robin actually exist in order to speculate about their possible homosexual relationship and come to a conclusion about it. Believe it or not, people have actually done so.
So it's not about what God thinks either.
Taking the context into consideration, which can't be ignored, of course it's about what god thinks.

In as much as thought precedes deliberate action, Augustine of Hippo obviously felt god thought it best to visit the sins of A&E on all those who followed them. Why else conclude that this is what god had done---create original sin? Think god created original sin without first considering a reason for doing so? According to Augustine, and all the thoughtful Christians who agree with him, it was god's decision (a thought process, mind you) to visit A&E's sin on all who followed. So, to dismiss what god thinks as irrelevant is irrational---even if he turns out to be fictional.
It's about what Christians think. Find me one who really believes that because their father was a blasphemer, they are morally liable for that blasphemy. I'm sure you will find one who will reinterpret that passage and say that bad things are likely to happen to the child and it's a natural consequence of the father's actions, but I dare you, I bloody double dog dare you, to find me one who agrees with the passage literally about literal guilt as in, your father was a blasphemer and you're literally guilty of (or at least, morally liable for) blasphemy.
Whoa there! Pull up on your reins a bit before you have a conniption fit. First of all, I don't care about your hypothetical here, so I won't be addressing it---honestly, I only skimmed it. Secondly, I apologize for whatever past post I must have made that got you so fired up; bloody double dog daring me and all. All the scripture that's necessary to show my case I've already posted, Exodus 20:5, to be precise. Don't like it? Fine. Sit and spit all you want. As for myself I'm going to a beer, kick back, and relax. :drunk:


.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11450
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 327 times
Been thanked: 370 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #8

Post by 1213 »

Miles wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 4:44 pm ...So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?
I have understood sin means that person rejects God or is in separation from God. By what the Bible tells, people rejected God in the beginning and were expelled from paradise to this place. That was the original, first sin, rejection of God. Because of that, we are also born in separation from God and in that way affected by the original sin. I think that is the correct Biblical meaning for it. And luckily there is a way to back to God.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #9

Post by Miles »

1213 wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 5:06 am
Miles wrote: Fri May 21, 2021 4:44 pm ...So, what do think of original sin; a third century Christian doctrine created to invest salvation with greater significance, a concept of questionable value, or concocted hogwash?
I have understood sin means that person rejects God or is in separation from God. By what the Bible tells, people rejected God in the beginning and were expelled from paradise to this place. That was the original, first sin, rejection of God. Because of that, we are also born in separation from God and in that way affected by the original sin. I think that is the correct Biblical meaning for it. And luckily there is a way to back to God.
If you told your young daughter not to eat the candy sitting on the table, but she ate it anyway, would you consider this to be a rejection of yourself?




.

User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11450
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 327 times
Been thanked: 370 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #10

Post by 1213 »

Miles wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 5:08 pm ...
If you told your young daughter not to eat the candy sitting on the table, but she ate it anyway, would you consider this to be a rejection of yourself?
Perhaps it depends on the reasons, but in the case of Adam and Eve, they ignored what God had said, were not loyal to Him and that way rejected God.

Post Reply