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
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 #121

Post by John Bauer »

help3434 wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:13 am
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".
I find it interesting that you didn't answer the question—but also terribly inconvenient because now I have to guess at what your answer would have been and you can reply, "That's not what I think," and I will have wasted my time.

If the actions of the president of the USA breaks the terms of a treaty, then the country itself is liable for breaking the treaty—even though it was the specific actions of the individual president that broke the terms of the treaty. To say that the country is liable "for what it didn't do" is mistaken, for if "the president did it" then "the country did it" (cf. federal headship).

Similarly, the actions of our federal head, Adam, broke the terms of the covenant so humanity itself is liable for breaking the covenant—even though it was the specific actions of the individual federal head that broke the terms of the covenant. To say that humanity is liable "for what it didn't do" is mistaken, for if "the federal head did it" then "humanity did it."

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 9041
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1237 times
Been thanked: 313 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #122

Post by onewithhim »

[Replying to Miles in post #1]
It is not a "third century doctrine." It is plainly taught throughout the Scriptures. Church clergy have muddied the understanding to suit their political endeavors. It is clear that because perfect Adam deliberately rebelled against Jehovah, he lost his perfection and ability to live on forever, and since something perfect and sinless cannot emerge from something damaged, the faulty DNA now was passed on to Adam's progeny and they could inherit nothing but damage also. Mankind is not at fault for Adam's sin, and that is why Jehovah made a way out for all of us to reverse the death process on ourselves and go on to live forever---that is through the ransom sacrifice of Christ. It is simple.

"So then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, so too through the one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is their being declared righteous for life. For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one person many will be made righteous." (Romans 5:18,19)

To reject the doctrine of original sin is to count the ransom sacrifice of Jesus as of no consequence and, basically, worthless.

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 #123

Post by Miles »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:54 am
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.
Because no one has the ability to honestly judge if any particular someone "DOES follow Christ," we're left to either accept their claim, deem them deluded, or consider them liars. Obviously you choose one of the latter; your default position being: "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so." I don't know what your standards, requirements, or measures are, but okay, fair enough and understood.


.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14187
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #124

Post by William »

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?
On the contrary. I concur with the informal "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Therefore when apposing Christians claim other Christians are 'false' [implying that their accusers are thus 'true'] this amounts to seeding confusion, and since confusion is not something The Creator authors, then the claims from these Christians about other Christians must be false.

Therefore any accusers are not qualified to determine who are 'true' Christians and who are not, no matter what they 'feel' about that.

There are no 'true' Christians. Christianity has made sure of that.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21142
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #125

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:06 pm ...your default position being: "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so."
Who or what qualifies you to tell me what my default position is? I just so happens that is not it... you can believe me or call me a liar ...that's up to you.





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
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21142
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #126

Post by JehovahsWitness »

William wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:10 pm
There are no 'true' Christians. Christianity has made sure of that.
Scripturally, that is incorrect. Jesus said, he would be with his people until the end if the system of things.... since the system is still here I conclude he is still with his true disciples.

You are welcome to believe otherwise,

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

Re: Original Sin

Post #127

Post by Miles »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:06 pm ...your default position being: "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so."
Who or what qualifies you to tell me what my default position is? I just so happens that is not it... you can believe me or call me a liar ...that's up to you.
Perhaps I'm mistaken. If so then I'm curious, if your default position is not, "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so," then what is it?


.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21142
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 794 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Original Sin

Post #128

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:00 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:06 pm ...your default position being: "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so."
Who or what qualifies you to tell me what my default position is? I just so happens that is not it... you can believe me or call me a liar ...that's up to you.
Perhaps I'm mistaken. If so then I'm curious, if your default position is not, "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so," then what is it?


.
No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until Jesus judges them to be so,"


Any questions?
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 #129

Post by Miles »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 8:55 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:00 pm
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:41 pm
Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:06 pm ...your default position being: "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so."
Who or what qualifies you to tell me what my default position is? I just so happens that is not it... you can believe me or call me a liar ...that's up to you.
Perhaps I'm mistaken. If so then I'm curious, if your default position is not, "No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until I judge them to be so," then what is it?


.
No one claiming to be a Christian is really a true Christian until Jesus judges them to be so,"
So when you said "Scripturally someone isnt a Christian if they "profess" (say/claim) to follow Christ, they are only a Christian if they DO follow Christ," it's pretty much a blind crap shoot as to whether or not one is actually following Christ and therefore a true Christian. In other words, you, JW, can't say you're a Christian because you won't know until Jesus judges you to be so. I take it then that no Jehovah's Witness claims to be a Christian. Interesting.

And when the Pew Research Center says "Jehovah’s Witnesses identify as Christians, but their beliefs are different from other Christians in some ways.
source

They're mistaken. As is JW.ORG when it says

"We come from hundreds of ethnic and language backgrounds, yet we are united by common goals. Above all, we want to honor Jehovah, the God of the Bible and the Creator of all things. We do our best to imitate Jesus Christ and are proud to be called Christians."
source

OR . . . . . . has Jesus come down and judged every Jehovah's Witness, and only JWs I presume, to be authentic Christians?


.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3514
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1139 times
Been thanked: 733 times

Re: Original Sin

Post #130

Post by Purple Knight »

Miles wrote: Fri Jul 02, 2021 10:45 pmOR . . . . . . has Jesus come down and judged every Jehovah's Witness, and only JWs I presume, to be authentic Christians?
I think what can potentially reconcile this is the existence of a code set out by Jesus by which each individual has full access to knowledge about whether or not he himself follows it. So while it is up to Jesus, and while it would be impossible for one person to judge another because he doesn't know everything about said other, people who follow the moral code may say with confidence that they themselves are Christians, though of course nobody can confirm or deny about anybody else.

I do not, however, agree that there seems to be any such code. Or at least, it's not so definitive that there aren't a dozen types of Christian who all feel they are right and all the others are incorrect. If there was such a code, there would be that reconciliation. I just don't personally see that there is one. What I see is that even what the Pope says belies the staunch monolith of rules Christians go by, for one day, there can be limbo, and the next, limbo can disappear like a fart in the wind.

Now, if there was such a moral code, it would be more likely that the stricter sects such as Catholicism and JWs would be the ones following it, simply on the fact that as you follow more and more rules, you're more likely to have hit the correct nails on the head and be following all the necessary rules, even if you're just making up scores of rules at random and following them all. I also know that any sect that vacillates can't be infallible, since they must have either been incorrect before they changed their minds, or afterward. So the idea that there is perfect access to that information - which rules are genuine and true - seems unlikely.

Post Reply