Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,357 Year: 3,614/9,624 Month: 485/974 Week: 98/276 Day: 26/23 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy ⇒

Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there Biblical support for the concept of "Original Sin"?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004

Normal Thread Display

(1)
Message 26 of 240 (589734)
11-04-2010 6:43 AM 		Reply to: Message 24 by kbertsche
11-04-2010 12:33 AM

Theory of Original Sin
quote:
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.
But is that what Paul was teaching?
​
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?
​
To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.
​
Paul did not teach that men are "made righteous" involuntarily through Christ, nor did he teach that men are "made sinners" involuntarily through Adam.
​
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.
​
Genesis 4:6-7
Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.
​
Of course we have to remember that sin is an action and not something that exists on it own.
Bible authors like personification.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by kbertsche, posted 11-04-2010 12:33 AM kbertsche has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 11-04-2010 1:22 PM purpledawn has replied
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 34 of 240 (589819)
11-04-2010 5:02 PM 		Reply to: Message 32 by kbertsche
11-04-2010 1:22 PM

Sinful Nature
quote:
Why do you view "a sinful nature" as equivalent to "capable of disobedience?" I view "capability" and "inclination" as two different things.
Then you need to expound on the difference concerning my comments on Adam.
​
In Jewish thought mankind contains both good and evil inclinations. We can choose to obey or disobey.
​
quote:
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.
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.
​
How was their state any different than Adam's? Were his actions the inevitable consequence of his state?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 11-04-2010 1:22 PM kbertsche has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 11-05-2010 12:04 AM purpledawn has replied
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 240 (589940)
11-05-2010 7:42 AM 		Reply to: Message 54 by kbertsche
11-05-2010 12:04 AM

Re: Sinful Nature
quote:
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.
Inevitable means incapable of being avoided or evaded. If one doesn't know the rules, then yes, it would be difficult to avoid disobedience. Adam knew the rule so he had the means to avoid. The Hebrews had rules, so they did have the means to avoid disobedience.
​
If sin is inevitable then no one can ever be righteous, but the Bible writers present us with righteous people. When one behaves correctly, they are righteous. Noah was righteous in his time.
​
The A&E story doesn't present any change in Adam's nature. There is a difference in his knowledge, but not his nature or propensity to sin.
​
I think Edgar Goodspeed says it up better than I can.
​
The Letter to the Romans
So in chapters 4 and 5, as Matthew Arnold put it, Paul employs the history of Abraham and Adam to illustrate his doctrine of faith. The great idea that shows now and again through the text is that God has forgiven the world. All man has to do is to accept that forgiveness in faith. This is the great undercurrent of chapters 3, 4, and 5, which form the heart of Romans.
​
The consequences of this great amnesty are presented, as we have already seen, in chapters 6, 7, and 8. The man who adopts this attitude of faith is saved from sin; it no longer has control of him, chapter 6.
​
Of course if we look at today, Christians have a choice just like Adam and still sin in spite of their faith.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 11-05-2010 12:04 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 141 of 240 (591194)
11-12-2010 11:59 AM 		Reply to: Message 140 by ringo
11-12-2010 10:57 AM

Original Sin Missing
quote:
I went to church three times a week for thirty years and never heard of "original sin".
Churches I've been to never mentioned it either. They did imply everyone was a sinner, but not so much why.
​
The Doctrine of Original Sin originally dealt with the supposed hereditary stain that humans are born with because we are supposedly descendants of Adam and Eve.
​
The A&E story doesn't present the idea that mankind is "stained" with something beyond their control that needs to be forgiven.
​
People are so used to accepting what Paul says or what they think he says, they don't actually look to see if his argument made sense or had support.
​
The odd thing is that A&E were already mortal, otherwise the tree of life was useless and no need to put it out of reach.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 11-12-2010 10:57 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Shanara99, posted 11-12-2010 8:38 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 188 of 240 (593079)
11-24-2010 5:16 AM 		Reply to: Message 187 by ringo
11-23-2010 11:52 PM

Reconsidering Paul on Original Sin
This article, Reconsidering Paul on Original Sin, gives a different view of reading Paul. The idea is to view Paul as presenting a new Exodus. IOW, Paul framed the Christ event in the imagery of the Old Testament Exodus.
​
If sin is about membership with a group rather than about some innate taint, then our reading of Paul completely overturns the notion that Paul taught anything like the doctrine of Original Sin. Holland is clear on this point (Contours, p. 110):
​
"It follows that the body is not in some way the bearer of sin nor is sin a deformation that is biologically inherited as some have suggested...[Sin] is relational rather than legal...Whether a man or a woman is righteous or a sinner in the biblical pattern of thinking depends upon the community to which they belong."
​
I haven't looked at all that Paul wrote through this lens, but it is an interesting theory and makes more sense in some cases.
​
Thought you might find it an interesting read.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ringo, posted 11-23-2010 11:52 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 11-24-2010 8:54 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 195 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2010 11:12 AM purpledawn has replied
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3476 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 197 of 240 (593118)
11-24-2010 12:20 PM 		Reply to: Message 195 by kbertsche
11-24-2010 11:12 AM

Re: Reconsidering Paul on Original Sin
I found a web site for Holland which seems to have the book online.
​
Tom Holland: Contours of Pauline Theology
​
It looks like Chapter 5 deals with Adam. Again I'm just skimming.
​
A corporate perspective makes better sense of the ongoing argument that Paul
is advancing in his letter to the Romans. It is the inevitable consequence of an
argument that begins in chapter five in which the central theme is the
solidarity of man with his head, whether Adam or Christ. This corporate
thinking is evident in the corporate baptism into Christ in 6:1ff. The corporate
understanding of ‘the body of Sin’ is the necessary link preparing for the
corporate understanding of chapter 7, which has in recent years become a
widely accepted principle for interpreting the chapter.3
​
This quote is from page 71 and gets more interesting.
​
Enjoy!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by kbertsche, posted 11-24-2010 11:12 AM kbertsche has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024