|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:No, that's not what he says. quote:No, you're missing the flow of Paul's argument in Rom 5:12ff. Try reading another translation: NET Bible writes:
Here's my paraphrase/explanation of v. 12-14:
5:12 So then, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned — 5:13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law. 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed. 5:15 But the gracious gift is not like the transgression. For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many! 5:16 And the gift is not like the one who sinned. For judgment, resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation, but the gracious gift from the many failures led to justification. 5:17 For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!
Sin and death entered the human race through Adam and Eve. All people are guilty of sin, hence all people die. People sinned between the time of Adam to Moses, before the law was given, but these sins could not be counted against them since they had not yet received the law. Yet they died anyway, and we know that death is the penalty for sin. So why did they die? Because even though they did not break a command like Adam did, they inherited the guilt that he incurred for doing so. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Remember, I was summarizing Paul's argument. Whether or not you or I agree with his argument is irrelevant. kbertsche writes: We know that death is the penalty for sin? No, we don't know any such thing. Death is a natural consequence of life. Yet they died anyway, and we know that death is the penalty for sin. So why did they die? Paul established in v. 12 that death is the penalty for sin. So in v. 13-14 he has to explain why the people between the times of Adam and Moses died when they didn't actually break any laws. His argument seems to be that they incurred the penalty for sin by virtue of their being descendants of Adam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
The main question of the OP is the thread title, "Is there Biblical support for the concept of 'Original Sin'?" Romans 5 is part of the Bible. So if Paul teaches the concept in Rom 5, the answer to this question must be "yes", whether we agree with Paul's reasoning or not. Our agreement or disagreement with Paul is irrelevant to the question of what he teaches.
Of course. I was simply suggesting that Paul's reasoning was flawed. If you agreed with him, your reasoning would be flawed too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Sorry, but I cannot and will not twist the English language as you desire. kbertsche writes:
Not at all. One man's unsupported opinion doesn't constitute "Biblical support". What Paul teaches is not necessarily equivalent to what has Biblical support. The main question of the OP is the thread title, "Is there Biblical support for the concept of 'Original Sin'?" Romans 5 is part of the Bible. So if Paul teaches the concept in Rom 5, the answer to this question must be "yes", whether we agree with Paul's reasoning or not. Our agreement or disagreement with Paul is irrelevant to the question of what he teaches. I'm sure we could find a lot of opinions in the Bible that are just plain wrong. You can't count all of them as Biblically supported just because they're mentioned. "Biblical support" for a specific position is generally understood to mean explicit biblical teaching for the position, implicit biblical teaching for the position (e.g. the Trinity), or other biblically-based arguments in support of the position. Any teaching of any biblical author has biblical support, by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
Good question. This seems to be the crux of the thread.
kbertsche writes:
But is that what Paul was teaching? The main question of the OP is the thread title, "Is there Biblical support for the concept of 'Original Sin'?" Romans 5 is part of the Bible. So if Paul teaches the concept in Rom 5, the answer to this question must be "yes", whether we agree with Paul's reasoning or not. Our agreement or disagreement with Paul is irrelevant to the question of what he teaches.purpledawn writes:
This is an interesting question, and your links to Overstreet provide some interesting history. But while Platonism could have influenced some of the way the doctrine has been stated historically, I cannot agree with Overstreet's position that the doctrine is unbiblical. Overstreet and his mentor Charles Finney were overly rationalistic and highly heterodox (non-orthodox), verging on the heretical.
The Doctrine of Original Sin is another case of pagan philosophy creeping into Christianity.The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Original Sin Were the authors of the proof texts used to prove the Doctrine of Original Sin actually presenting that belief? purpledawn writes:
Why do you view "a sinful nature" as equivalent to "capable of disobedience?" I view "capability" and "inclination" as two different things.
To be able to go against God's command, Adam already had a sinful nature, IOW, he was capable of disobedience. Even if we have a sinful nature (evil inclination), it doesn't mean we have no control over our actions. God even told Cain he could control the evil inclinations. purpledawn writes:
Yes, sin is personified in Gen 4. But in Paul's usage in Rom 5 it does not seem to be only an action; sin seems to be both an action and a state. All humans after Adam are born into a state of sin; their actions are an inevitable consequence of their state.
Of course we have to remember that sin is an action and not something that exists on it own.Bible authors like personification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes:
You, I, and everyone else are capable of doing lots of things that we are not inclined to do. As I read the Bible, Adam was created capable of sin, but not with an irresistible inclination to sin. He had a choice, and he made the wrong one.
kbertsche writes: Then you need to expound on the difference concerning my comments on Adam. Why do you view "a sinful nature" as equivalent to "capable of disobedience?" I view "capability" and "inclination" as two different things.In Jewish thought mankind contains both good and evil inclinations. We can choose to obey or disobey. purpledawn writes:
OK, it seems my use of the word "state" was misleading. Your usage is more standard, but that's not how I was using the term. kbertsche writes:
What is a state of sin? From what I understand it is the state one is in after one has committed a sinful act and hasn't repented. Once one has repented, one is no longer in a state of sin. Yes, sin is personified in Gen 4. But in Paul's usage in Rom 5 it does not seem to be only an action; sin seems to be both an action and a state. All humans after Adam are born into a state of sin; their actions are an inevitable consequence of their state.How was their state any different than Adam's? Were his actions the inevitable consequence of his state? So change "state" to "condition," "character," or "nature" in my quote above. Paul seems to use the word "sin" in two different ways. One is to refer to individual sinful actions. The other is to refer to a sinful condition, nature, character, or propensity. I don't believe that Adam is portrayed as originally having a sinful nature; he was created innocent. His sin was not inevitable; he had a choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:To continue your "child" analogy, God is analogous to the loving father who spends time with his children and cares for them. They know him well and should trust him: NET Bible writes:
The serpent is analogous to an evil adult who tries to prey on children. He twists the wording of God's prohibition, confuses Eve about what God has said, then questions God's motives.
Gen. 2:8 The LORD God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. Gen. 2:18 The LORD God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion for him who corresponds to him. Gen. 3:8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the orchard.Gen. 3:9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, Where are you? Like children today, Adam and Eve should have trusted the loving parent who they knew. Instead, they listened to the evil predator who they did not know. Even though a child can't discern the motivations or intentions of an evil predator, he can trust his loving parent. The Genesis account seems to be portrayed more as an issue of trust than as an issue of needing to discern right from wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Are you sure? Have you read Genesis recently? The literary flow of the book seems to say that Adam and Eve unleashed a series of problems that only got worse and worse. First one of their sons killed another. Then civilization continued to go downhill until God wiped them out and started over. But it soon started downhill again. So God called out a small group to work with more directly. Note that part of the curse was:
Gen. 3:16b writes:
and just before Cain killed Abel, God told him:
NET Bible "You will want to control your husband,but he will dominate you. NASB "Yet your desire will be for your husband,And he will rule over you. Gen. 4:7 writes:
The Hebrew doesn't render well in many translations, but the author of Genesis uses the same Hebrew wording in both places. Eve would have a controlling desire for Adam; sin had a controlling desire for Cain. The author is intentionally and pointedly tying Cain's sin back to the curse on Eve.
NET Bible "Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it. NASB If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it. And look at the descriptions of the offspring in Gen 5:
NET Bible writes:
Adam was made in God's likeness. But Adam's son isn't said to be in God's likeness; he is in Adam's likeness. Why the change in wording? I believe the author is implying that Adam's nature has changed since his original creation. Seth is created like Adam after the Fall, not like Adam originally was.
Gen. 5:1 This is the record of the family line of Adam. When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.... Gen. 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. These details imply ongoing effects to mankind as a result of Adam's sin. And the overall literary flow of Genesis says that Adam and Eve opened a "Pandora's box" that they could not close. Genesis alone doesn't give us Paul's full teaching on original sin, but it seems to have contributed to his development of the doctrine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Please show us where Paul insists on pulling Gen 2&3 out of the context of the rest of Genesis? Paul was trained by the rabbis, and tended to view things in a very broad context. quote:I thought this was obvious?!? Adam and Eve sinned. As a result, they were cursed by God. Cain's sin is connected to the curse by the author of Genesis, and hence to the "original sin" of Adam and Eve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:So in your world a little child is no more likely to trust a loving parent than a predatory stranger? He has no reason or inclination to trust the parent over the stranger?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:But Adam did know something about the nature of the animals according to the story: NET Bible writes:
In the Hebrew context, a name corresponds to the character or nature of the thing named. The "naming" suggests that Adam knew something about the nature of the serpent. In particular, he should have known what the narrator tells us in 3:1
Gen. 2:19 The LORD God formed out of the ground every living animal of the field and every bird of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.Gen. 2:20 So the man named all the animals, the birds of the air, and the living creatures of the field, but for Adam no companion who corresponded to him was found. NET Bible writes:
But you could make a case that Eve didn't know these things as well as Adam did. She wasn't around when Adam named the animals.
Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more shrewd than any of the wild animals that the LORD God had made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
The sin wasn't becoming more like God. The sin was the direct disobedience of God, and the desire to make oneself like God (c.f. Is 14:12-17).
The serpent let the cat out of the bag: and God later confirmed that the serpent was right: It's hard to understand how anybody could consider becoming more like God a "fall" or a "sin". jar writes:
How did the serpent help Adam and Eve? He got them kicked out of the garden! But beyond that, in the Garden of Eden the serpent figure is not predatory, tells the truth and actually helps Adam and Eve.
According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God. He tried to do this in the garden, and tried to do it again at Babel. The Genesis account portrays these attempts to make oneself like God as very bad, not as beneficial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
Correct; Paul made no direct reference to these.
First, Paul made no reference to Isaiah or to the Tower of Babel story jar writes:
No, these are part of the biblical context in which Paul was trained; they are relevant to understanding how Paul interpreted the events in the garden.
so those are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the concept of original sin can be supported. jar writes:
Yes and no. The text says that Eve desired the fruit and its promised results (3:6). Eating the fruit was in direct disobedience to God. As stated in the NET Bible notes, "The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries."
Second, what you say makes absolutely no sense.
kbertsche writes:
There is nothing in the story that says man was dissatisfied with the garden or that man wanted to be more like god. The serpent mentions that eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would make them more like god in one specific way, AND god later confirms that is the case. According to the account, God had placed man in an idyllic garden. But man was not satisfied with this; he wanted to make himself like God.jar writes:
Correct.
God never says anything that in any way says that knowing right from wrong is in any way a sin.jar writes:
Yes, but banishment WAS a secondary effect of their disobedience. If they had not disobeyed, they would not have been banished.
In addition, the reason Adam and Eve are sent from the Garden of Eden is NOT because they disobeyed God, that issue was addressed by the curses, but because God feared that the might next eat from the Tree of Life and so live forever.jar writes:
Correct; I see this as an unsupported straw-man position. I have yet to see a good historical-grammatical-literary argument from the text to the effect that Adam and Eve were not able to trust or obey God (or to sin) before eating the fruit.
And you still have not explained how it is possible to sin before you have the tools that allow you to make choices about right and wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it. I don't see a need to address it.
You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes: Not what I said. kbertsche writes:
So there was no "fall". Good. That's a start.
ringo writes:
I have not claimed this. I don't see where the text implies it. You only addressed half of what I said. How can becoming more like God be considered a "fall"? To rephrase and clarify: I have not claimed, nor do I see where the text (either Genesis or Romans) implies that becoming more like God is considered to be a "fall" or a "sin". Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024