Importance of Original Sin

A short part of Ayn Rand's passage on original sin, from Atlas Shrugged:

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledgehe acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evilhe became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his laborhe became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desirehe acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joyall the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he wasthat robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without lovehe was not man.

​

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

Ayn Rands biggest problem, apart from her atheism, was that she felt that humans--consigned to be all bad, could never then be good again. Among other things the Randroids spout.

Never read her, but presumably she meant that humans being consigned to be all bad can never then be *all* good. Which is rather obviously the case.After all, it's Christians that go around calling themselves sinners all the time.

I don't see where Rand ever made such claims, certainly not in Atlas Shrugged.It is religious believers who consider humans to being inherently evil through original sin, a concept which I reject.Nor do I consider Rand's atheism, based on rationalism, to be a problem.

I'm only addressing your claim that Genesis by itself supports your position. God Himself said that Adam and Eve had become more like Him. I don't know how you can see that as a bad thing.But nothing you said in any way addresses my point: Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil. Apparently, they passed that on to all mankind. All mankind has inherited the tendency to sin but they haven't inherited sin itself.You can inherit the family name without inheriting the family fortune. We're all responsible for making our own fortune and we're all responsible for our own sins.

" And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 1:17) How is Adam's dying like God Who is eternal life ?Death is said to be the last enemy of God " Death, the last enemy, is being abolished " (1 Cor. 15:26) How is Adam being filled up with the last enemy of God - death more like the God who is indestructibly living eternally ? They inherited sin itself. That is why Paul said - "But if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but SIN that dwells in me." (Romans 7:20) Sin dwells in Paul. Sin dwells in all the descendents of Adam. "Now then it is no longer I that work it out but SIN that dwells in me." (Rom. 7:17) The children of Adam inherited sin dwelling in them.

Except that what Paul says does not require inherited sin.We know enough about the history of Paul to know that he was originally a Jew who worked as hard as anyone to stomp out Christianity by persecuting its followers and even contributing to the death of Stephen. We don't need to look to any inheritance from Adam to figure out that Paul had sinned. A question well worth asking, but a question that you ought to address to the author of Genesis rather than to us. Yes it does seem strange, but being like God is exactly what the text of Genesis states that the serpent says in Genesis 3:5 and what God Himself confirms in 3:22 happens as a result of eating of the tree in the midst of the Garden. Even harder to understand is the language about living forever by taking hold of the tree of life. I can understand denying what the serpent said as a lie, but that leaves you to deal with God acknowledging the same thing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

" ... sin that dwells in me." I don't see that you have any argument. And if you don't elaborate are you waiting for me to kind of flesh out your argument for you ?Indwelling sin - that's the Bible's teaching. I don't see what this has to do with it.
And to the Jew he remained (or becomes) a Jew that he could gain Jews ( 2 Cor. 9:20) Sure, we know he sinned, in this and in other matters. It is Romans chapter 7 where he explains why he and we do so. Sin dwells in him (v.17,20)"For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh nothing good dwells ..." (v.18) You have to put together "in my flesh nothing good dwells" (v.18) with verses (17 and 20) - " ... sin that dwells in me"; " ... but sins that dwells in me." (v.20) .No good thing that dwells in him, that is his flesh is equal to sin that dwells in him. And this sin has a law - "the law of sin and death which is in my members" (v.23) Since sin dwells in his flesh with its law of sin and death he cries out in self condemned wretchedness - "Wretch man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death." The answer is elaborated in chapter 8. But the immediate reply is in the next verse - "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death ? Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! ..." Deliverance comes ONLY through God in Jesus Christ the Lord.How did sin get into his flesh and into the members of his body ? I thought on this a long time. Eventually after some years actually, I came to the conclusion that it must be from Adam's eating of the tree's fruit, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.The physics of this I do not understand. The science of this I cannot explain. But something got into man from the eating of that tree of knowledge of good and evil and it dwells in the fallen body. "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the BODY of this death ?Why ought I ask that instead of what I asked ?
You just prefer that I ask the other question ?God gives a command. A lying enemy of God subtly entices man to take ANOTHER way. And he takes it. Does that make man like God or contrary to God ?If Adam wanted to be more like God (don't forget he already was made in the image of God and the likeness of God), he should have eaten of the tree of life. God wanted Adam to be like God in the possession of the life of God.
He did not want Adam to be like God as an independent and dying sinner.God wanted Adam to be like God as a living vessel containing God.
God did not want Adam to be under death's sentence and in league with Satan.Adam was to be like God by being filled with God and under God's authority.
Adam became filled with DEATH and abdicated Divine government to be a slave of the subtle lying serpent. Let's take a look. 3:5 - "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." 3:22 - "And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ..." It seems like this aspect is exactly right - the warning and the confirmation. But you know the most pernicious LIE is the LIE which contains some amount of truth.And you seemed to overlook the LYING part of the serpent's enticement - "And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die !" (v.4) This is the most evil kind of deception which you seem to fail to grasp. Death is not like Eternal Life. Disobedience is not like obedience. And Satan slandered God causing the woman to doubt God's heart and to doubt God's motive. Suspicion is not trust. And disbelief is not belief.The same choice is every man's choice today. Christ comes as divine and eternal life. We can choose life or we can choose the knowledge of good and evil. Don't think that this choice was only Adam's. It is our choice also today when God's life comes to us in the Person of the Lord Jesus - "In Him was life and the life was the light of men." (John 1:4) The first man was innocent and made the wrong choice. But you and I are not innocent, but the choice is still ours. We can choose Christ as life or choose the knowledge of good and evil (which is something man is also very proud of).Jesus told the Pharisees that they searched the Scriptures but would not come to Himself to receive divine life - "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that testify concerning Me. Yet you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life." (John 5:39,40) This Life is a living Person. To receive life in the Bible is to receive the Person of God. It is not to receive a philosophy or a system or a religion. It is to receive a living Person - Jesus Christ the One who says He is the life - "I am the resurrection and the life ..." (John 11:25) And He is the the way the reality and the life. No one come to the Father except through Him, the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6) . It makes perfect sense to me that the beginning of man's dynamic withdrawal into death is to take another way from the way of God.Perhaps you have heard an old expression - "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It is difficult for us to see what is So WRONG about man wanting to have a knowledge of good and evil. The serpent did not say the knowledge of rape, or the knowledge of stealing, or the knowledge of murder.It seems noble. My, even God said "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil ...". Do not be tempted by this to regard the serpent as the real hero of the story. Do not be so foolishly deceived.I sympathize only a little bit. You read verse 22 and think "But what is so wrong there ?" The depths of Satan's trickery may be beyond us. But it is not beyond God. In the day you eat of it you will surely DIE.Notice also that the innocent man was asked by God - "Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" (v.11) The implication is that they have stepped OUT from under the authority of their Creator God. If God deemed that it was alright for them to be naked then WHO ELSE are they now receiving knowledge from? God did not tell them that they were naked. God created them naked and "both the man and his wife were naked and were NOT ASHAMED." Who told them now that they should be ashamed ? From WHO else are they now receiving their orders ?Look Nonukes, I do not claim to thoroughly comprehend everything about this account. I think as I have grown closer to the Lord Jesus I have seen more into it. I dare not say I have arrived at complete understanding.My advice would be not to further be deceived by the enemy of God. Do not make the serpent the hero and God the villain. This would be exactly playing into the hands of the Devil.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

God is not the enemy. God is eternal life seen embodied there in the tree of life. In disobedience Adam fell into league with the enemy of God. He was suppose to keep and guard the garden.He is now become one with Satan. He cannot partake of God's life until a redemption for him is accomplished.This tree of life was protected immediately after Adam's disobedience. There was the cherubim with the flaming sword that turn every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.To any who are able to receive -The flame of the sword stands for God's holiness.
The sword itself stands for God's righteousness.
The cherubim stands for God's glory.God had a threefold requirement that man could not pass to come back to Himself as the eternal life. Man fell short of the holiness of God. Man fell short of the righteousness of God. And man fell short of the glory of God.These three demands to be met were made on man's behalf by the Son of God Jesus Christ. Christ met the demand of the holiness, righteousness, and glory of God that the way to the tree of life might be opened again to us.Laboring to make the serpent the truth telling savior and God the mean despot is a waste of human time and brings a man into further deception, ingesting lies.And instead of being mad with the Apostle Paul you should sit patiently and learn from him. He pioneered through this way of living in union with Christ - allowing Divine Life to grow in him. You should stop quarreling with Paul and humble yourself to learn from his revelation and experience.

In the story:

quote:

---

And the Lord God said, The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.

---

They became more like God than they had been. God didn't want them to become too much like Him. You said you could make a case for Original Sin from Genesis itself. That's what I'm asking you to do. The potential for sin dwells in all of us just like our fathers' names dwell in us. Our fathers' sins don't dwell in us any more than their money dwells in our bank accounts.

I think He wanted them not to be autonomous but dependent. And that for THEIR own good.It seems similar to the Tower of Babel incident. As a younger Bible reader I would say to myself "But what's wrong with all mankind being one and having one language and being able to accomplish anything? ."I see your point. But we do have the entire remainder of the Scriptures to consider with it. If you cannot see that the outcome of Adam's decision was not too good, I don't know what can be done to help you realize this. I do not know ALL that the phrase "Original Sin" means to you.
What I think I understand of the phrase, I have tried to show you is evident in Genesis.My only objection to the phrase "Original Sin" is that the sins of Satan preceeded those of Adam.Now the phrase "Original Sin" is a theological one which some may find useful. I am not going to make more of the phrase then should be made.Your replies seem to want to discount anything constitutionally happening to Adam and his descendents. I disagree. The subsequent history in Genesis reveals that man was in some way transmuted and began to be corrupted.Another aspect of your replies seem to me to be a desire to set this fact over and against "personal responsibility"Ie. "If you believe in Original Sin then you are abdicating personal responsibilty."I think the objection is not true and unnecessary. I also think blaming Paul for this alleged neglect of personal responsibility is ridiculous. Thirteen epistles are filled with exhortation after exhortation involving personal responsibility. I never said our father's sins dwell in us. I think I am saying and have said that a sin nature dwells in us from Adam's disobedience.Cain's sinful act was Cain's sinful act.
Abel's sinful act was his own.Both required an offering in worship to draw into fellowship with God.G.H. Pember believed that this sacrifice took place before the entrance of the garden of Eden. I don't know that. But it is possible that that was the case for a time.Anyway, what really bothers me about you all who complain about original sin is that you do not see how God used the same principle to undo the damage and save us.You skeptics do not appreciate how Christ is the "last Adam" and "the second man." Why you all do not notice Romans chapter FIVE how God seems to apply the same principle to work great blessing to those who were damaged, escape me. That is unless some just don't want to see it.The demand to "STAY WITH GENESIS" I do not promise you. I can demonstrate how it is evident in Genesis that Adam started man rolling down the hill. But I feel no sacred obligation to chop the rest of the Bible away as it is one plenary revelation.If you say the case is not made in Genesis to you - fine. I can see it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The serpent seems to have had some previous experience. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil." (v.5) This created being seems to have some previous experience and based upon that sends out a warning.But this created being lied. The man did die. And to obey the command would have meant life, peace, remaining in the paradise. Whereas to disobey meant growing old and sinful and dying and end up DEAD.Do you think that was a better result for Adam to have pursued ?
Maybe you do.I think communion with God, even partaking of the eternal life of God was vastly superior than what Adam ended up with.Notice that prior to the transgression Adam's fellowship with God was quite friendly. Afterwards he hid himself as God came for a friendly visit "in the cool of the evening." "And Jehovah God called to the man and said to him, Where are you ?

​

And he said, I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." (vs. 9,10)While some may think it is a blessing to be running from God, hiding from God, afraid of meeting God, feeling ashamed to face God, lining up lame excuses and blaming others for the state of alienation from God, I think oneness with God and communion with God was better.To the crowd laboring to dignify the serpent and portray God as the wrong one, I would say that this twisting is not good. "Woe to those who call evil good, And good evil; Who put darkness for light, And light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, And sweet for bitter!

​

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" (Isaiah 5:20) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think it is pretty obvious. "indwelling sin" does not mean that Paul has a sin organ that actually houses iniquity in his body. It means that like everyone else on earth, Paul has sinned and is subject to temptation.But certainly, it is not true that the only possible interpretation of his words is that he caught a sin germ from Adam. And even literal expressions of that might well be figurative speech.The fact is that Genesis 3 says nothing about any such thing.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Where did I suggest anything like that? Apparently you have me confused with someone else you are arguing with. Whether or not the snake told the truth or part of the truth, the snake's intent was clearly to mislead. But don't worry, this is my last post so you wont' have to bother keep straight who is who. Neither do I. I find the account quite confusing when read literally, and in fact, I'm only entertaining a literal reading for the purpose of this discussion. I don't believe a reading where abstract concepts like evil and disobedience are taken as physical entities is likely to be a correct reading. I suspect you believe otherwise, but surely there is some figurative speech present in this story. Because it is only the literal readings that have these kind of intractable problems.On the other hand, I highly doubt that the way to enlightment is skipping over the parts of the text that you find confounding. And I don't believe assuming that every tree and vine you find in the New Testament is the Tree of Life is helpful either.