The Doctrine of Original Sin

joeboonda · May 29, 2006

5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
5:11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
5:16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
(King James Bible, Romans)

If you read through this passage in Romans, it is clear, if one believes the scriptures, that by one man, Adam, sin was passed down to all men. Note that is why Jesus was born of a womanl, conceived of the Holy Spirit, and not a MAN and a woman. He was sinless. Romans clearly teaches that all have sinned. It is common doctrine, taught by the greatest theologians from scripture, that we are born in sin, we have a sin nature, even after we are saved we have a sinful nature. So, I believe in original sin. However, I do not believe children go to Hell, as Christ said of such is the Kingdom of Heaven, nor do I believe in infant baptism for the removal of original sin. When we reach an age of accountability or understanding, and we either accept Christ's death in our place, (for while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us..), Then we are saved if we accept the free gift, and not saved if we don't repent of our way of salvation through dead works, or self-righteousness, and take the way God made for us to be saved. Thank God He loved and loves us enough to have paid for every sin of the world, offering salvation to us freely, and not a reward we must try to earn somehow.

I LOVE the verses that are not underlined! Praise God for His wondrous love!

Booko · May 29, 2006

linwood said:
So please only Christians answer this poll.

<sigh> Uh, I voted before I read this, since it was in the comparitive religion section? If you want to subtract my vote, it was no to original sin.

My definition of "Christian" here is anyone who in the divinity of Jesus.

Uh, depending on how you wanna define divinity, that could include Baha'is too, you know. Shoghi Effendi writes, "The Sonship and Divinity of Christ are fearlessly asserted..."

James the Persian · May 30, 2006

I had to put other. I don't believe in Original Sin as the doctrine is usually described but the term is sometimes used by Orthodox to describe the idea that we more usually call the Ancestral Sin. We do not believe that anyone is born guilty of Adam's sin but we do believe that we are born with a nature that is mortal and inclined to sin as a consequence (not a punishment) of Adam's turning from God. If that isn't particularly clear ask and I'll happily explain further.

James

Aqualung · May 30, 2006

JamesThePersian said:
I had to put other. I don't believe in Original Sin as the doctrine is usually described but the term is sometimes used by Orthodox to describe the idea that we more usually call the Ancestral Sin. We do not believe that anyone is born guilty of Adam's sin but we do believe that we are born with a nature that is mortal and inclined to sin as a consequence (not a punishment) of Adam's turning from God. If that isn't particularly clear ask and I'll happily explain further.

James

That was pretty much my belief in it, but I checked "yes" instead of "other".

James the Persian · May 30, 2006

Aqualung said:
That was pretty much my belief in it, but I checked "yes" instead of "other".

Well I could never have put yes. I most certainly do not believe (and in fact find it a pretty vile belief) what most people mean by the term. Nobody is guilty of their ancestors' sins. Such an idea is completely foreign to my faith. I would have put no but it really required further explanation as it was not at all clear from the OP how the term Original Sin was being used.

James

s2a · May 30, 2006

linwood said:
I don`t want to debate this.

The poll is for my own education as Sojourner has just told me that original sin is not a doctrine followed by most Christians and I`m wondering if perhaps my own opinion is skewed by my geographical area since it seems to me original sin is almost a necesary part of common Christianity.

So please only Christians answer this poll.

Whups.

I should have read your qualifying disclaimer before voting. Please delete one "NO" vote from your poll.

Mea culpa.

d. · May 30, 2006

BruceDLimber said:
one of the bigger boners

angellous_evangellous · May 30, 2006

PHOTOTAKER said:
i do not belive in "orginal sin" i believe that the frist sin ever was murder that however was recorded in history...

The Greco-Roman concept of original sin

angellous_evangellous · May 30, 2006

JamesThePersian said:
Well I could never have put yes. I most certainly do not believe (and in fact find it a pretty vile belief) what most people mean by the term. Nobody is guilty of their ancestors' sins. Such an idea is completely foreign to my faith. I would have put no but it really required further explanation as it was not at all clear from the OP how the term Original Sin was being used.

James

Unfortunately, Augustine still rules the West with Plato. The protests of more adept philosophers has not entirely put the two of them to death in Catholic theology nor in popular opinion.

kassi · May 30, 2006

All sin and fall short of the Glory of God. Is this an effect of the original sin? I dont think so. But I do believe Death is the result of original sin and death is certainly one thing we all have in common.

James the Persian · May 31, 2006

kassi said:
All sin and fall short of the Glory of God. Is this an effect of the original sin? I dont think so. But I do believe Death is the result of original sin and death is certainly one thing we all have in common.

Well, in our opinion our propensity to sin is an effect of the Fall. Nobody is born guilty of sin but we are born mortal as a result of Adam's turning from God who is the source of life. Tied up in that mortality is a tendency towards sin, which is falling short of the standards of God. This is, it should be noted, as is death, a consequence and not a punishment.

James

Melody · May 31, 2006

It depends on how you're defining "original sin". If you mean that all of our souls are "stained" by sin because of Adam and Eve's sin, then no I do not believe in original sin.

I define (based on scripture and other texts) original sin as meaning we all have a sinful nature. No human is perfect. Pick the most perfect person you can think of and I'll bet, if they're honest, they will admit that less than charitable thoughts sometimes run through their brains and, while they squash these thoughts and don't act on them or let them have voice, the thought was still there. That is evidence of a sinful "nature". We have the propensity to commit sin.

BruceDLimber · Jun 1, 2006

lunamoth said:
This is a rather insensitive and offensive remark. I know that in the interest of good interfaith relationships you would like to retract this statement, or at least apologize and restate your disagreement with this doctrine.

Greetings.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I see nothing that needs apology: Scripture is quite clear that sin is not inherited, especially Jewish scripture!

And the only reason there's such a strong belief in this is because theologians downplay or ignore ths clear teaching, and go on to construct an edifice with little or no real scriptural basis.

Not my doing, and not my fault. I'm simply reporting this, and I'm sure you don't care to blame the messenger for the content of the message! . . .

Peace,

Bruce

lunamoth · Jun 1, 2006

BruceDLimber said:
Greetings.

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I see nothing that needs apology: Scripture is quite clear that sin is not inherited, especially Jewish scripture!

And the only reason there's such a strong belief in this is because theologians downplay or ignore ths clear teaching, and go on to construct an edifice with little or no real scriptural basis.

Not my doing, and not my fault. I'm simply reporting this, and I'm sure you don't care to blame the messenger for the content of the message! . . .

Peace,

Bruce

Hi Bruce,

My objection is to the disrespectful tone with which you criticized this doctrine, a doctrine that you have demonstrated remarkably little understanding of. I have no complaint with the fact that you don't like the doctrine, but I think it is rather impolite to call it 'a boner,' as amusing as that particular phrase is. I don't think you would appreciate it if I were to say 'the asinine Baha'i law' that prohibits women from serving on on the UHJ. Just trying to help you out here with your teaching skills.

Just the facts,
lunamoth

BTW, you did notice that this poll was just for Christians, right?

Quiddity · Jun 1, 2006

To Roman Catholics Original Sin is:
Human nature deprived of its original holiness.
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.

Catechism and Ludwig Ott
402. All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as St. Paul affirms:

"By one man's disobedience many [that is, all men] were made sinners":
"sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned..." [Rom 5:12,19]

It apears that some people either have their own definition of original sin or simply play word games.

Katzpur · Jun 1, 2006

Aqualung said:
Well, i'm going to vote yes, just to be contrary.

Just kidding. I'm going to vote yes, because as I read it, it means that everybody is born with the capacity to sin, due to the fall of Adam and Eve. I was reading Jesus the Christ (for all you LDS out there) and what he was saying seems to support my interpretation of linwoods description of original sin.

Hi, Miss Lung. Good to see you again. I wish you could change your vote because I don't think you really believe in this doctrine in the way some Christians do. It was specifically because we Latter-day Saints oppose this doctrine that Joseph Smith included the following in the Articles of Faith:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

The doctrine of original sin teaches that all are born into a sinful state because they inherited Adam's guilt. This is why the churches that practice infant baptism do so (at least in part). They don't want their children to die in a state of sin, but in a state of grace.

Katzpur · Jun 1, 2006

lunamoth said:
The problem is that if one believes that God is good and that we are created in His image, then what happened? Why are we not good?

We can only be "good" if there exists a state that is not "good." Just as darkness is the absense of light, evil is the absense of or opposite of good. In other words, I don't believe that there could be such a thing as good if there were not something with which to compare it.

While classically the concept of original sin has sometimes been described as being the source of inherited sin, it is more illuminating to say that it is the source of our propensity to sin.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree that we are not born "sinful" but with a "propensity to sin." I think there is a significant distinction between the two. Consequently, it makes no sense to me that God would in any way hold a tiny infant responsible for Adam's sin. We can't sin until we are capable of understanding the difference between good and evil; an infant can't do that.

We did not fall from some past state of perfection to our current sinful state, but as a consequence of free will we have fallen, or fall short, of our potential (full life) as intended by God.

Here, LDS doctrine differs from the doctrine of mainstream Christians. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God said, "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Clearly, a comparison was being made between man and God. It would have been impossible for Adam and Eve to reach their full potential if they had lived forever in a state of innocence. They had to take that step (eating the fruit) if they were to ever be able to make a distinction between good and evil. Otherwise, they would never be able to choose between the two. Obviously, God knew they were going to eat the forbidden fruit. Otherwise, He would not have felt the need to appoint His Son, Jesus Christ, to be their Redeemer. If God truly had not wanted Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, He would not have placed them in a position where the choice would be pretty much inevitable. He would simply have not put the tree in the Garden in the first place. He knew that the only way they really could reach their potential was by experiencing mortality.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Aqualung · Jun 1, 2006

Katzpur said:
Hi, Miss Lung. Good to see you again. I wish you could change your vote because I don't think you really believe in this doctrine in the way some Christians do. It was specifically because we Latter-day Saints oppose this doctrine that Joseph Smith included the following in the Articles of Faith:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

The doctrine of original sin teaches that all are born into a sinful state because they inherited Adam's guilt. This is why the churches that practice infant baptism do so (at least in part). They don't want their children to die in a state of sin, but in a state of grace.

True, true. We can die for our own transgressions, yet we wouldn't have even been in a state to transgress if Adam hadn't sinned. We're not born into a sinful state because we inhereted his guilt, per se, but we are born into a sinful state because we were born free to choose, and also seperated from God, both of which we inhereted from Adam.

lunamoth · Jun 1, 2006

Hi Katzpur, Thank you for taking an interest in my post. I fear that we will derail this thread if we start to discuss this here (heehee, as if that has ever stopped me). The OP said he was just trying to get an idea of how many Christians accept the idea of Original Sin as defined by the Catholic Church. I think that many Protestant Churches actually have somewhat different teachings about Original Sin, and this is where some of the confusion comes from. For the record I voted "other." My take on doctrine is that it is meant to unite us as Christians and bring us closer in our love and knowledge to God. If it can not be applied in Love/Compassionate Justice and accomplish this, then it is not good doctrine. Or it is good doctrine being misused.

If you would like to discuss the Episcopalian Approach to Theology as Understood by Lunamoth, we could start a new thread elsewhere.

Katzpur said:
We can only be "good" if there exists a state that is not "good." Just as darkness is the absense of light, evil is the absense of or opposite of good. In other words, I don't believe that there could be such a thing as good if there were not something with which to compare it.

I agree.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree that we are not born "sinful" but with a "propensity to sin." I think there is a significant distinction between the two.

I do too. To the best of my understanding the Catholic Church also makes a distinction. It is not an inherited sin but an inherited state of privation, with the "life of our soul" or sanctified grace as being what is deprived.

The way I think of the doctrine is summed as saying that I think of original sin as being our fallen nature, much as you describe below. We're not living life in the fullness that God intended unless we are living in Christ, and this is something we 'inherited' as a consequence of free will outside any individual choice any one of us makes. So it is a state, not an act. And again, I am speaking metaphorically here. These constructs help express a reality that is beyond words by putting it in a story framework we can relate to.

Consequently, it makes no sense to me that God would in any way hold a tiny infant responsible for Adam's sin. We can't sin until we are capable of understanding the difference between good and evil; an infant can't do that.

I agree that it does not make sense, and I do not believe, that God holds an infant responsible for Adam's sin. I don't think that's what Catholcism is teaching either. But we are all born into a world that is fallen, and so from conception carry the burden rec'd from Adam. Baptism restores sanctifying grace and reveals our personal relationship with the Holy Spirit. No where to go but up, IMV.

Here, LDS doctrine differs from the doctrine of mainstream Christians. After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God said, "Behold the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." Clearly, a comparison was being made between man and God. It would have been impossible for Adam and Eve to reach their full potential if they had lived forever in a state of innocence. They had to take that step (eating the fruit) if they were to ever be able to make a distinction between good and evil. Otherwise, they would never be able to choose between the two. Obviously, God knew they were going to eat the forbidden fruit. Otherwise, He would not have felt the need to appoint His Son, Jesus Christ, to be their Redeemer. If God truly had not wanted Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, He would not have placed them in a position where the choice would be pretty much inevitable. He would simply have not put the tree in the Garden in the first place. He knew that the only way they really could reach their potential was by experiencing mortality.

Similar to how I think of it. I think the Fall refers to our 'choice' to rely upon ourselves rather than upon God, yet still preknown by God, so we are now burdened with trying to be just using our discernment of good and evil. And I like the view that the Incarnation was the original plan, not something to correct an unplanned catastrophie. I remember that God is outside time and outside the linearity of history. The Fall and the Reconciliation, in a way, happened at the same time. Here's something interesting from an article Victor shared with me in another thread.

There is an alternative interpretation of the life and death of Jesus, also expressed in the Scriptures and throughout the tradition. This view, perhaps only on the margins of many peoples religious understanding and devotion, is completely orthodox and is solidly rooted in the Christian tradition. Indeed, it offers perspectives much closer to Jesus own experience and vision.
What, briefly, is the heart of this alternative interpretation? It holds that the whole purpose of creation is for the Incarnation, Gods sharing of life and love in a unique and definitive way. God becoming human is not an afterthought, an event to make up for Original Sin and human sinfulness. Incarnation is Gods first thought, the original design for all creation. The purpose of Jesus life is the fulfillment of the whole creative process, of Gods eternal longing to become human. Theologians call this the primacy of the Incarnation.
For many of us who have lived a lifetime with the atonement view, it may be hard at first to hear this alternative, incarnational view. Yet it may offer some wonderful surprises for our relationship with God. God is not an angry or vindictive God, demanding the suffering and death of Jesus as payment for past sin. God is, instead, a gracious God, sharing divine life and love in creation and in the Incarnation. Such a view can dramatically change our image of God, our approach to suffering, our day-to-day prayer. This approach finds its strongest scriptural expression in Johns Gospel and in the letters to the Colossians and the Ephesians.
Throughout the centuries great Christian theologians have contributed to this positive perspective on God and Jesus. From the groundbreaking Cappadocian Fathers in the fourth century (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzus) to Franciscan John Duns Scotus in the 13th century to Jesuit Karl Rahner in the 20th century, Gods gracious love and the primacy of the Incarnation have been proclaimed.
In the late 20th century, theologian Catherine LaCugna pulled together many of these themes in her book God For Us. She uses and expands the Cappadocians wonderful image of the Trinity as divine dance to include all persons. Borrowing themes of intimacy and communion from Johns Gospel and Ephesians, she affirms that humanity has been made a partner in the divine dance not through our own merit but through Gods election from all eternity. She writes: The God who does not need nor care for the creature, or who is immune to our suffering, does not exist....The God who keeps a ledger of our sins and failings, the divine policeman, does not exist. These are all false gods....What we believe about God must match what is revealed of God in Scripture: God watches over the widow and the poor, God makes the rains fall on just and unjust alike, God welcomes the stranger and embraces the enemy.
The emphasis on Jesus as Gods first thought can free us from the idea that God is violent. It allows us to focus on Gods overflowing love. This love is the very life of the Trinity and spills over into creation, Incarnation and the promise of fulfillment of all creation. What a difference this makes for our relationship with God! Life and love, not suffering and death, become the core of our spirituality and morality.

Katzpur said:
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

Well, there are some of them. I find that mining the meaning in the sotry of the Fall and the doctrine of original sin very interesting and illuminating to my relationship with God, the world, and others. It is when it gets simplified down to sound bites, away from the richness of the theology, that I too would say "I reject that!" OK, I may not accept the Catholic doctrine in full, but its usefulness in mining the depths of our nature and understanding our relationship to God is without question.

lunamoth

James the Persian · Jun 2, 2006

Katzpur said:
Hi, Miss Lung. Good to see you again. I wish you could change your vote because I don't think you really believe in this doctrine in the way some Christians do. It was specifically because we Latter-day Saints oppose this doctrine that Joseph Smith included the following in the Articles of Faith:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.

The doctrine of original sin teaches that all are born into a sinful state because they inherited Adam's guilt. This is why the churches that practice infant baptism do so (at least in part). They don't want their children to die in a state of sin, but in a state of grace.

This is not completely true. We practice paedobaptism and yet we do not believe in inherited guilt at all. We do not believe that children are born into sin but only with a propensity to sin. Infants are innocent and there are quite a number of arguments for their baptism which have nothing at all to do with Original Sin. As we don't, and have never, followed the doctrine you described it obviously plays no part in the Orthodox argument for paedobaptism.

James

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Do you believe in the doctrine of Original Sin?

Yes, I believe in original sin

No, I do not believe in original sin.

Other, please explain below.

Well-Known Member

Deviled Hen

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Tasty

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

_______

angellous_evangellous

Guest

angellous_evangellous

Guest

Member

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Will to love

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

Tasty

Will to love

Dreptcredincios Crestin