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
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1122 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #111

Post by JehovahsWitness »

help3434 wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 4:50 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:25 pm


"[W]arning people about deceivers" does not limit free speech. Being told not to "listen" to someone (as in do not believe and obey ) does not limit free speech. Logically the person must have been free to speak in order for his audience to judge whether they should listen or not.



JW
So when Diagoras wrote:
Diagoras wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:17 pm 3) Warn Adam and Eve about snakes’ tendency to lie.
as one the things God could have done to prevent the fall, that would not have violated free speech, yet your reply to the post which had that option was:

Firstly there is no evidence that "the snake had a tendency to lie" and secondly, nothing in my post equates warnings to an impediment of free speech. The freedom to speak to whom everyone wishes and decide for oneself thereafter if one wishes to "listen" (as in join/ obey) or reject what they say, was what was being tested in Eden.

God was under no moral obligation to premptively punish Satan (the snake) by limiting his freedom of movement, or to warn Adam and Eve about contact with someone who, up until the conversation had actually done nothing wrong. They were all free moral agents and his intervention would have violated their right to make their own decisions and face the consequences.



JW
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
William
Savant
Posts: 14131
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 910 times
Been thanked: 1641 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #112

Post by William »

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #112]
God was under no moral obligation to premptively punish Satan (the snake) by limiting his freedom of movement, or to warn Adam and Eve about contact with someone who, up until the conversation had actually done nothing wrong.
[bolding for emphasis]

''Some Christians believe that Satan 'did something wrong' long before humans were in the Garden of Eden.

You appear to have a different take on that. That is the thing about Christianity. It produces Christians who have serious differences in what they believe and how they interpret biblical script, all of which leads to confusion.

1 Corinthians 14:33 “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.”

Apparently not.

Isaiah 41:10 “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.”

Seems like this could have benefited the Humans in the Garden...but the God apparently hadn't worked that one out yet...

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #113

Post by John Bauer »

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?
Your OP should include the perspective of such mainline Protestants as Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed (representing an Augustinian covenant theology). John Calvin described original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as "a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath [and] then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’."

For those of us who affirm the covenant theology of the Reformed faith, this doctrine is vitally important. It is also a profoundly misunderstood doctrine. For example, Purple Knight seems to think it meant that people are morally liable for what they didn't do or can't help (Post #4). He didn't identify any sources as having informed his description so we don't know what group views the doctrine in those terms, but it is certainly foreign to most Protestant groups, including Anglicans (see the Thirty-Nine Articles), Dutch Reformed (see the Three Forms of Unity), Presbyterians (see the Westminster Standards), Reformed Baptists (see the London Baptist Confession of Faith), and so forth.

As for what the doctrine of original sin actually means and teaches (for those of us who affirm covenant theology), see Calvin's statement. That summarizes it very well, although it can certainly be expanded and defended further.

1. It is "a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature ..."

It is hereditary insofar as it is passed along by natural generation. The heretic Pelagius [1] denied this, asserting that every person is born innocent before God. However, given original sin, this is not so. Each and every one of us is born a sinner and guilty before God, that is, reckoned as covenant-breakers on account of the fall of Adam, our federal head and covenant representative. If the leaders of countries A and B form a treaty and the leader of country B breaks the terms of that treaty, the entire country is counted as having broken the treaty even though it was actually their federal head and representative that did so.

"But a baby can't be a sinner! Babies are incapable of sinning!" That would follow only if we're sinners because we sin (the view of Pelagius). But that simply begs the question against the doctrine of original sin. It is actually the other way around: Just as an apple tree produces apples, so we sin because we are sinners (covenant-breakers). Righteousness comes only from God; when our federal head and representative, Adam, broke the covenant, that communion was severed and we lost that conduit of righteousness from God. On our own, apart from God, we are wholly incapable of any good (as defined by God, not by man). Hence the need for reconcilation. In Adam, we are counted as covenant-breakers and spiritually dead; only in Christ are we counted as covenant-keepers and spiritually alive, for only in Christ are we reconciled to God and that conduit restored (the Spirit of Christ).

There are two, and only two, federal heads and covenant representatives, Adam and Christ ("the last Adam"). We are all born naturally (i.e., by default) "in Adam," and some of us are born-again spiritually (i.e., by grace) "in Christ." This is the juxtaposition Paul explains in Romans 5 (and to some extent in 1 Corinthians 15) and underscores why Adam being a real person in history, just as Christ was, is so important for this theology: If Adam was a piece of fiction, then the entire covenant structure of salvation is rendered unintelligible. This is an important reason why Protestants belonging to an Augustinian tradition find Adam to be a hill worth dying on, as the expression goes.

2. "... diffused into all parts of the soul, ..."

This is what "total depravity" means, and nothing more; namely, that this sinful nature extends to every part of the person. In other words, there is no part of a person that isn't included in this sinful nature.

3. "... which first makes us liable to God's wrath ..."

"God's wrath" is his just punishment for covenant-breakers (original sin) and their many trespasses (actual sins), a punishment he has held in check for millennia (mercy) but will not forever (judgment).

4. "... [and] then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls ‘works of the flesh’."

This, again, is to say that we sin because we are sinners, which I elaborated upon above.

Footnotes:

[1] "Pelagianism was decisively condemned at the 418 Council of Carthage and is still regarded as heretical by the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church" (Wikipedia, s.v. "Pelagianism"), including some Protestant churches (e.g., Dutch Reformed; cf. the Canons of Dort).

User avatar
help3434
Guru
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #114

Post by help3434 »

John Bauer wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:23 am o. Each and every one of us is born a sinner and guilty before God, that is, reckoned as covenant-breakers on account of the fall of Adam, our federal head and covenant representative. If the leaders of countries A and B form a treaty and the leader of country B breaks the terms of that treaty, the entire country is counted as having broken the treaty even though it was actually their federal head and representative that did so.
That sounds like another way of saying that people are morally liable for what they didn't do or can't help. Is Purple Knight's interpretation of Original Sin correct, or what?

User avatar
John Bauer
Apprentice
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 11:31 pm
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #115

Post by John Bauer »

help3434 wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:56 am
That sounds like another way of saying that people are morally liable for what they didn't do or can't help. Is Purple Knight's interpretation of Original Sin correct, or what?
If the President of the USA breaks the terms of a treaty, is the USA itself liable for breaking the treaty?

Edited to add: If so, then is the USA liable for what it didn't do?

User avatar
help3434
Guru
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
Location: United States
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #116

Post by help3434 »

John Bauer wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:08 am
help3434 wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:56 am
That sounds like another way of saying that people are morally liable for what they didn't do or can't help. Is Purple Knight's interpretation of Original Sin correct, or what?
If the President of the USA breaks the terms of a treaty, is the USA itself liable for breaking the treaty?

Edited to add: If so, then is the USA liable for what it didn't do?
The USA as a nation state, a political entity, is, not invidual citizens within it, unlike your "each and every one of us is born a sinner".

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1122 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #117

Post by JehovahsWitness »

William wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:23 pm
That is the thing about Christianity. It produces Christians who have serious differences in what they believe and how they interpret biblical script, all of which leads to confusion.
And you feel qualified to determine who are Christian and who are not?
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
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #118

Post by Miles »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:17 am
William wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:23 pm
That is the thing about Christianity. It produces Christians who have serious differences in what they believe and how they interpret biblical script, all of which leads to confusion.
And you feel qualified to determine who are Christian and who are not?
I would hope so. Isn't anyone who calls themself a Christian ("one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ") a Christian? Other than the unwitting who accept the smug, disqualifying bias their religion demands, who am I, you, or anyone else to reject the Christianity of a self proclaimed Christian? So it appears the only qualification needed to determine who are Christian and who are not is an open mind.


.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21109
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 1122 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #119

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:49 am
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:17 am
William wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:23 pm
That is the thing about Christianity. It produces Christians who have serious differences in what they believe and how they interpret biblical script, all of which leads to confusion.
And you feel qualified to determine who are Christian and who are not?
Isn't anyone who calls themself a Christian ?


Not biblically, no. See scripture above. Scripturally someone isnt a Christian if they "profess" (say/claim) to follow Christ, they are only a Christian if they DO follow Christ. There is a difference between being a world class athlete that can run a sub 5 minute mile and "professing" to be one.



JW
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
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #120

Post by PinSeeker »

help3434 wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:13 am
John Bauer wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:08 am
help3434 wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 2:56 am
That sounds like another way of saying that people are morally liable for what they didn't do or can't help. Is Purple Knight's interpretation of Original Sin correct, or what?
If the President of the USA breaks the terms of a treaty, is the USA itself liable for breaking the treaty?

Edited to add: If so, then is the USA liable for what it didn't do?
The USA as a nation state, a political entity, is, not invidual citizens within it, unlike your "each and every one of us is born a sinner".
Federal headship refers to the representation of a group united under a federation or covenant. Thus, a country's president is seen as the federal head of his/her nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world. That was his point, Miles.

In Christianity, this concept explains the concepts of the covenants found in the Bible. In particular, it applies to passages such as Romans 5:12-21, explaining the relation of all humanity with Adam, as well as the relation of redeemed humanity with Jesus Christ, who is called the last Adam. Humanity's federal head Adam brought the entire human race into sin, misery, and death due to his disobedience. Because of his original sin, we inherit the sinful nature that he acquired and are thus "dead in our sin" from birth. This is the doctrine of original sin. So, we are all, from birth, in need of redemption and rebirth in the righteousness of Jesus, Who, in his perfect obedience to God the Father, paid the wages of sin and earned eternal life for all who would repent of their sin and believe in Him and rest upon Him alone for their salvation.

Grace and peace to you.

Post Reply