Christians only: Original Sin and Christ's Atonement

[Katzpur]

Very, very interesting, Clear! To me these teachings are among the most fascinating doctrines of the restored gospel. As always, it's fascinationg to know that this doctrine was also believed anciently.

 

[Pegg]

A discussion on Original Sin on another thread prompted me to examine this concept in greater depth, particularly as it relates to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. All opinions -- from Christians only -- are welcome.

I have always been taught that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of everyone who ever lived, provided they (1) repent and (2) accept Him as their Savior. To me, this means that Adam and Eve were forgiven for their transgression just as each of us can be forgiven for our transgressions. But if Adam and Eve really were forgiven, why is mankind still burdened by their sin? It seems to me that we can't really say that Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin if we're going to insist that we're still passing it on from one generation to the next.

there is no passage in the bible which says that Adam and Eve repented of their sin... and nowhere that says they were forgiven. So im not sure where that idea comes from, but it certainly explains how mankind were born into this world burdened with the inheritance of Adam and Eve's sin.

If you liken sin to a 'disoposition', then its quite understandable how we are born sinful.
There has been a lot of advances in understanding how genetics work in recent years and thing science has discovered is that inheritable traits do not stop with physical features...they include dispositions & attitudes as well. So a father who is confident can pass that confidence onto his offspring. Or a mother who is prone to anger can pass that onto her children.

what Adam and Eve passed onto us was their spirit of independence and rebellion which is a sin. As we grow older, we begin to display those bad traits from a very young age....i'm sure you've seen a child throwing a tantrum in the shopping plaza because he wasnt allowed to have something? these are inborn sinful traits and we all have them.

And why would God hold us responsible for something someone else did thousands of years ago anyway? The Atonement is supposed to be all about forgiveness. From my perspective, people who believe we're still tainted by Adam's sin don't genuinely believe Christ's sacrifice took care of it. Thoughts?

Atonement does not mean these sinful traits are taken away from us... it simply means that God forgives us for them.

The significance of atonement is not only forgiveness. When Adam sinned, he was given a death sentence and we are likewise given the same sentence for our sins because that is what the punishment for sin is.
So Atonement involves two aspects...
1. Gods full forgiveness
2. The removal of the death penalty

The removal of that death penalty comes during Christs 1000 year rule. Those who died in the past will be resurrected, hence their death penalty is removed...and those who are alive at the beginning of Christs rule will never die at all.

 

[Katzpur]

there is no passage in the bible which says that Adam and Eve repented of their sin... and nowhere that says they were forgiven. So im not sure where that idea comes from, but it certainly explains how mankind were born into this world burdened with the inheritance of Adam and Eve's sin.

I can understand your saying that, Pegg. You realize, of course, that I do not believe all trueth is contained in the Bible. Since you believe that it is, it is understandable that you would believe that Adam and Eve never repented and were never forgiven. In the book of Moses, in the LDS "Pearl of Great Price," which we believe to be every bit as "scriptural" as the Bible, we are given a more detailed account of the Fall than is in the Bible. Clearly, if you simply think that Joseph Smith made the book up, there is no reason to put any stock in it at all. If, on the other hand, you accept it as scripture, you have additional insights into what was undoubtedly one of the most significant events to have ever taken place since the world began.

In that account, Adam and Eve are spoken highly of. There is definitely the acknowledgment that they transgressed, since they undoubtedly disobeyed God. Since God had warned them that there would be consequences for their disobedience, He had no choice but to follow through with the punishment (i.e. they were made mortal in the respect that they would experience death and separation from God). We believe that the Fall was necessary, though, and not just some kind of a glitch in God's plan. While Adam and Eve did disobey, it was through their punishment that the Plan of Salvation was able to be put into place. Ultimately mankind benefitted by their decision to eat the forbidden fruit. Because of their decision and God's mercy in providing a Savior for us, we have been given the opportunity to learn to make good moral choices in a world filled with both good and evil options. We can learn and progress in a way that would never have been possible if we were all just wandering among the flowers in Eden.

If you liken sin to a 'disoposition', then its quite understandable how we are born sinful.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you suggest that we liken sin to a disposition. I do believe we a predisposed to be sinful, if that's what you mean, and we are born with this tendency. It is so strong, in fact, that no one has ever reached adulthood without falling victim to temptation. That's why the Book of Mormon says that "the natural man is an enemy to God." It goes on to say that man will remain God's enemy unless we put off the natural man and allow ourselves to be guided by the Holy Spirit. While we were born with the very strong inclination to be sinful, I don't believe we are "sinners" until we sin (just as a person cannot be called a "murderer" until after he commits murder or a "rapist" until after he commits rape). So, if we are innocent until we have actually sinned, it would be wrong for God to punish us for something someone else did. God would not punish one of my children for something another one of my children did. Why would he punish me for something Adam did? I don't believe He would. Yes, He placed us here in a world where we would sin sooner or later -- partly because we have Adam's "human nature" and partly because life is fraught with so many difficult choices. But until we sin, we are innocent.

There has been a lot of advances in understanding how genetics work in recent years and thing science has discovered is that inheritable traits do not stop with physical features...they include dispositions & attitudes as well. So a father who is confident can pass that confidence onto his offspring. Or a mother who is prone to anger can pass that onto her children.

I totally agree that we can pass dispositions and attitudes along to our children. I believe fully that we do so. But there is a difference between being "prone to anger" and acting on that inclination.

what Adam and Eve passed onto us was their spirit of independence and rebellion which is a sin. As we grow older, we begin to display those bad traits from a very young age....i'm sure you've seen a child throwing a tantrum in the shopping plaza because he wasnt allowed to have something? these are inborn sinful traits and we all have them.

Perhaps JWs define "sin" differently than other people do; I don't know about that. The dictionary definition of sin, however, is one I find perfectly acceptable. The dictionary says that sin is "any voluntary transgression of a religious law or moral principle." I don't see a child throwing a tantrum as sinning. I see a child throwing a tantrum as a child being frustrated with his inability to have something he wants and reacting in the only way he knows how to express that frustration. A temper tantrum by a three-year-old has nothing to do with a child voluntarily transgressing one of God's laws. Now, if a sixteen-year-old (one who has been raised in accordance with Christian principles) punches a hole in the kitchen wall because his dad wouldn't let him have the keys to the car, he would be breaking the commandment which says to honor thy father and thy mother. He would be sinning because he knows and understands what God expects of Him and He has chosen to believe inappropriately. Perhaps you don't make a distinction between the two examples, but I do, and I believe that God does.

Atonement does not mean these sinful traits are taken away from us... it simply means that God forgives us for them.

I agree 100%.

The significance of atonement is not only forgiveness. When Adam sinned, he was given a death sentence and we are likewise given the same sentence for our sins because that is what the punishment for sin is.
So Atonement involves two aspects...
1. Gods full forgiveness
2. The removal of the death penalty

I can go along with that. When Adam sinned, he was punished. When we sin, we must also be punished. I think the issue is that you don't believe Adam was repentant and was, through Christ's Atonement, forgiven, while I do. My premise is that if Adam was forgiven, we don't need to worry about being punished for what he did wrong, because that sin has already been forgiven.

The removal of that death penalty comes during Christs 1000 year rule. Those who died in the past will be resurrected, hence their death penalty is removed...and those who are alive at the beginning of Christs rule will never die at all.

This is probably the biggest single doctrinal disagreement I think Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have. I'm not going to get into it on this thread since I don't see the discussion as going anywhere but around in circles and leading us away from the premise of my OP. We just understand the whole resurrection and millenium thing very differently from you.

 

[Pegg]

your are right, i only view the bible as the source of truth on these matters so there's no point discussing it from two different perspectives.

If i think about it logically, there would have been no need for a 'salvation plan' if Adam and Eve had not sinned. So I dont know why the mormons hold the view that the fall was necessary for our benefit. If God creates mankind and gives them a perfect home, perfect life, perfect bodies... of what do we need salvation from? It seems more logical to me that it was only 'AFTER' they sinned that we needed salvation.

But its good we can agree on atonement at lease.

 

[Katzpur]

If i think about it logically, there would have been no need for a 'salvation plan' if Adam and Eve had not sinned. So I dont know why the mormons hold the view that the fall was necessary for our benefit. If God creates mankind and gives them a perfect home, perfect life, perfect bodies... of what do we need salvation from? It seems more logical to me that it was only 'AFTER' they sinned that we needed salvation.

And you're right about that -- if Adam and Eve had never sinned, there would be no need for an Atonement. We wouldn't need to be "saved" from anything. Of course, to Mormons, salvation is just the beginning of what God intends for us. To me, though, salvation implies a rescue from some kind of terrible fate. If I believed that this rescue was the most we could hope for, I would agree that it would be better for us to have never found ourselves in the position of having to be rescued in the first place. In that case, I would agree that "a perfect home, perfect life, perfect bodies" would be about as good as it gets, and I would be entirely on board with your conclusion.

I'm going to quote from a book called "The God Who Weeps." It's by an LDS scholar by the name of Teryl Givens. In his book, he says, "The biblical story of the Fall indicates... that we are absolutely enmeshed in the same moral order as our God. Whatever momentous change the Garden of Eden story was meant to depict, the suthor wanted us to know it is not entirely in the direction of sin and loss. One consequence of eating the forbidden fruit, acknowledged by God himself, is a heightened human consciousness -- and not just of their [i.e. Adam's and Eve's] nakedness. Adam and Eve became more, not less, like God insofar as they came to see the same moral distinctions He did. This was precisely what He confirms, saying Adam and Eve have "become like one of us, knowing good and evil." In all the centuries of Christian hand-wringing and breast-beating that have followed in the wake of the Adamic decision, this fact seems to have disappeared entirely. Humankind and God now share a common moral awareness, a common capacity to judge between right and wrong, a common capacity for love."

He also says, "[Birth] into this world represents a step forward in an eternal process of development and growth, not a descent or regression from a prival goodness. God's work is therefore first and foremost educative and constructive, not reparative."

There are numerous references in early Christian commentaries on the Fall of Adam that "in falling, Adam and Eve and their posterity, agreed to temporarily abandon a noble heritage and dwelling with God himself, [and] deserve in consequence a compensation as rich or richer than the goodly state and condition they risked in going forth."

I am assuming that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." If you believe that this title refers to His role as our Savior, and that it was determined long, long before Adam and Eve ever lived in the Garden of Eden, that a Savior was going to be needed, you've got to ask yourself why God would have devised a plan where it would be so easy for Adam and Eve to end up falling prey to the serpent's promise. He certainly could have placed them in Eden and left them to just live there in complete bliss throughout eternity -- had He wanted that for them.

There is nowhere in the scriptures where it is explicitely stated that He had to provide them with the right to choose between obedience and disobedience. Christians of most denominations agree that He did want to give them their free will to choose. But, if He truly had not wanted something more for them than what they had in Eden, He could easily have made sure that they never found themselves in a position to mess up. He could have even placed the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil there are told them not to eat from it. Without some incentive to disobey, they more than likely wouldn't have ever tasted the fruit. But God knowingly permitted the serpent to tempt them with a promise of godhood. Godhood! How could they, in their innocent state, have not given in to such a temptation? This was exactly what God knew would happen, and exactly what He knew would have to happen in order for Adam and Eve to eventually become "perfect" as He was.

It seems to me that either (1) God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit but was powerless to prevent it or (2) He knew that, in the long run, their "Fall" would be the first step towards something ultimately far superior to what they had in Eden. I'll go with the first option.

But its good we can agree on atonement at lease.

Yes, it's good we can agree on that. And it's not the only thing we agree on. We also agree that God is not a "three in one essence" and we also agree that an apostasy from the truth took place shortly after Christ's death. I think we have to acknowledge the things we don't agree on, but be glad about the beliefs we do have in common. That's something you and I have always been able to do.

 

[Pegg]

I'm going to quote from a book called "The God Who Weeps." It's by an LDS scholar by the name of Teryl Givens. In his book, he says, "The biblical story of the Fall indicates... that we are absolutely enmeshed in the same moral order as our God. Whatever momentous change the Garden of Eden story was meant to depict, the suthor wanted us to know it is not entirely in the direction of sin and loss. One consequence of eating the forbidden fruit, acknowledged by God himself, is a heightened human consciousness -- and not just of their [i.e. Adam's and Eve's] nakedness. Adam and Eve became more, not less, like God insofar as they came to see the same moral distinctions He did. This was precisely what He confirms, saying Adam and Eve have "become like one of us, knowing good and evil." ...Humankind and God now share a common moral awareness, a common capacity to judge between right and wrong, a common capacity for love."

not to try and discredit what this person has written, but when we see the consequences of life and the behaviors of mankind since Adam and Eve's fall, I dont know if it can be said that they became more atuned to Gods morality.

Do you remember what God told Eve would be a consequence for her action? He told her that she would develop a craving for her husband and he would dominate over her...obviously implying that a negative change would occur in their relationship and I think we can clearly see what that negative change was.
It was also shortly after being evicted from Eden that one of their sons murdered his brother. So does that sound like mankind came to a heightened consciousness more intuned to Gods morals....or does it give evidence of a diminished understanding of right and wrong?

Its for this reason that we dont view those words "they have become like us in knowing good and bad" as meaning they have improved....really mankind went into a moral decline after they fell. So those words can't mean that their spirituality or moral sense improved. If it did, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have today.

I am assuming that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." If you believe that this title refers to His role as our Savior, and that it was determined long, long before Adam and Eve ever lived in the Garden of Eden,

our view in that regard is that Adam and Eve 'were' the founding of the world. And when they sinned, Jesus was the one who would become the savior of their children. So yes, he is the savior from the foundation of the world... Adam and Eve had to have been created though because they were the first of the world of mankind. Before they were created, no savior was needed.

There is nowhere in the scriptures where it is explicitely stated that He had to provide them with the right to choose between obedience and disobedience. Christians of most denominations agree that He did want to give them their free will to choose. But, if He truly had not wanted something more for them than what they had in Eden, He could easily have made sure that they never found themselves in a position to mess up.

Thats absolutely true...he could have created mankind without the ability to choose to disobey. But if we look at his statement about creating mankind, we can see that mans creation did require choice.

"Let us make man in our image"

Being in Gods image requires that we have a level a consciousness which can make moral decisions and judgements...just as God does.

So in that way, having the ability to choose between right and wrong is what makes us unique and 'in Gods image'. Without that one restriction placed on that tree, they would not have had any way to exercise their moral judgement.

Unfortunately, since that time, the moral judgement of mankind has been terribly lacking. And if we just look around at the terrible atrocities we see being carried out in places like Syria, Iraq and many other lands (even in our own) we would have to seriously question the moral behavior we see. I can't believe that it is more intune with God... the behaviour of mankind is so far from his ways of justice and righteousness that its impossible for me to agree that the fall was beneficial for us in any way shape or form.

 

[Desert Snake]

............
Ah, original sin.

That is a proclivity towards sin, we are 'flawed' in this manner, remember Adam & Eve? Yes they ate the apple, and we pay the price.

Regarding Jesus, He died for our sins, however we are not 'in the clear', as we are still under the tenants of the Covenant and teachings.

 

[Katzpur]

not to try and discredit what this person has written, but when we see the consequences of life and the behaviors of mankind since Adam and Eve's fall, I dont know if it can be said that they became more atuned to Gods morality.

Do you remember what God told Eve would be a consequence for her action? He told her that she would develop a craving for her husband and he would dominate over her...obviously implying that a negative change would occur in their relationship and I think we can clearly see what that negative change was.
It was also shortly after being evicted from Eden that one of their sons murdered his brother. So does that sound like mankind came to a heightened consciousness more intuned to Gods morals....or does it give evidence of a diminished understanding of right and wrong?

Its for this reason that we dont view those words "they have become like us in knowing good and bad" as meaning they have improved....really mankind went into a moral decline after they fell. So those words can't mean that their spirituality or moral sense improved. If it did, we wouldn't have any of the problems we have today.



our view in that regard is that Adam and Eve 'were' the founding of the world. And when they sinned, Jesus was the one who would become the savior of their children. So yes, he is the savior from the foundation of the world... Adam and Eve had to have been created though because they were the first of the world of mankind. Before they were created, no savior was needed.



Thats absolutely true...he could have created mankind without the ability to choose to disobey. But if we look at his statement about creating mankind, we can see that mans creation did require choice.

"Let us make man in our image"

Being in Gods image requires that we have a level a consciousness which can make moral decisions and judgements...just as God does.

So in that way, having the ability to choose between right and wrong is what makes us unique and 'in Gods image'. Without that one restriction placed on that tree, they would not have had any way to exercise their moral judgement.

Unfortunately, since that time, the moral judgement of mankind has been terribly lacking. And if we just look around at the terrible atrocities we see being carried out in places like Syria, Iraq and many other lands (even in our own) we would have to seriously question the moral behavior we see. I can't believe that it is more intune with God... the behaviour of mankind is so far from his ways of justice and righteousness that its impossible for me to agree that the fall was beneficial for us in any way shape or form.

You know really, Pegg, you've spoken your piece and I've spoken mine. There is really nothing to be gained from continued discussion on the topic, because I doubt either one of us are going to budge.

 

[CDWolfe]

For me this is easy...

I do not believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Genesis 1 talks about the human race being created, and they are told to multiply. For all we know, thousands upon thousands of people could have been created all over the world during Genesis 1.

Adam and Eve were the first named humans, but their story is about the Garden of Eden. Some believe they were immortal until they ate the forbidden fruit, but that is drivel. God made it very clear that if they ate from the Tree of Life they would be immortal, so He kicked them out prior. BTW, has anyone seen that angel with the flaming sword?

I am a Christian, but I do not take Genesis literally. There is no original sin, and the rest of us certainly are not tainted because of two people from thousands of years ago.

 

[Robert.Evans]

A discussion on Original Sin on another thread prompted me to examine this concept in greater depth, particularly as it relates to the Atonement of Jesus Christ. All opinions -- from Christians only -- are welcome.

I have always been taught that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of everyone who ever lived,provided they (1) repent and (2) accept Him as their Savior.

It says in John that he is the saviour of the world. Which is interesting considering we don't think of people being saved unless they believe, otherwise why have belief in the first place. Of course if there are different realities (heavens) then this would still work... the goal would be to reach the highest. Until then all is cyclic

To me, this means that Adam and Eve were forgiven for their transgression just as each of us can be forgiven for our transgressions. But if Adam and Eve really were forgiven, why is mankind still burdened by their sin? It seems to me that we can't really say that Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin if we're going to insist that we're still passing it on from one generation to the next. And why would God hold us responsible for something someone else did thousands of years ago anyway? The Atonement is supposed to be all about forgiveness. From my perspective, people who believe we're still tainted by Adam's sin don't genuinely believe Christ's sacrifice took care of it. Thoughts?

But everything begins within the higher-consciousness of God before it is physical. So Adam and Chavvah are consciousness and embrace all of us. The masculine is the Adam and the feminine is the Chavvah. So we are not answering for someone's else actions. (How would that be just? God is just.)

Everything is evolving consciousness, the divine expressed in physical terms. So it takes time to develop, millions of years not thousands. Science comes from the thought of man, and man is made in the Image of God. We do not think things he has not already thought. So science has to be embraced, as they explain the physical mechanisms that bring about everything. What we should do then is ask how it is we don't understand scripture, rather than ignore science.

Each one of us is an adam and chavvah. The divine-conscioueness replicates in a fractal way, so each one of us answers for what we have earlier done. What we see is the divine divided into what we see.

All is about replication and division, that is the consciousness of everything. Even science theory says that everything is consciousness. (does that help? I shall stop here, perhaps it is boring or of no help to you)