a little problem with original sin

Allah would not prohibit sex between legally bound partners (man and wife) and would never forbid knowledge.

Original sin and it is the basis for ALL sin is the idea that a person should only take the advice of the Creator instead of every Tom Dick and Snake.

The idea that a person can choose (free will) is what makes them capable and culpable of sin but it in no way precludes the idea that they can accept the advice of Allah once they know what it is and that takes some time in the life of an individual.

Wow. A little too much theology for such a poorly trained pastor as myself. My short answer: Human beings are sinful because God has given us true freedom. And the corollary: We ain't perfect.

word.

Thank you for a helpful and interesting post. I indentify very closely with your concerns about ‘original sin’ and all the attendant issues. I also warm to the explorations you make in seeking after an answer. Even so, when you write ‘... the whole of scripture now blends in a much more seamless way’; I am left wondering why we would even try to blend the scripture in a seamless way. It appear to me that the Scriptures are not seamless, that there is no one Systematic/Dogmatic way of reading or understanding the scriptures and the various conceptualisations and theologies of the 66 books.

My questions are: Is there a seamless, coherent, consistent THEOLOGY in the Scriptures? And, why can’t we just say that different parts of Scriptures say different, even contradictory things about the same topic, even ‘original sin’?

Tony Johnson

Original sin is not a "reformation" doctrine. It goes back, at least, to Augustine, if not pretty clearly to Scriptural witness. Sin is both an ontological state - on par with death, evil, etc. - and the active moral rebellion to get. There is "sin" and there are "sins," they are not mutually exclusive. Sin has the appearance of being genetic because it is a metaphysical problem that is manifested physically, chiefly through the power of habit. Scripture is clear that we are born into iniquity - no doubt our parents are sinners, and our world, though beloved, is fallen and sinful, and we cannot help but be otherwise.

The beauty of orthodox doctrine is that it doesn't matter if it doesn't "make sense" to you. It doesn't have to. I suspect that what you describe as reading the Bible so that it "let's [sic] it make it's own sense" is, in reality, classic eisegesis.

Original sin is not a "reformation" doctrine. It goes back, at least, to Augustine, if not pretty clearly to Scriptural witness. Sin is both an ontological state - on par with death, evil, etc. - and the active moral rebellion that is indicative of the state of sin. There is "sin" and there are "sins," they are not mutually exclusive. Sin has the appearance of being genetic because it is a metaphysical problem that is manifested physically, chiefly through the power of habit. Scripture is clear that we are born into iniquity - no doubt our parents are sinners, and our world, though beloved, is fallen and sinful, and we cannot help but be otherwise.

The beauty of orthodox doctrine is that it doesn't matter if it doesn't "make sense" to you. It doesn't have to. I suspect that what you describe as reading the Bible so that it "let's [sic] it make it's own sense" is, in reality, classic eisegesis.

i agree that it is pre-reformation. augustine's influence on reformed theology in particular is strong. the ontological argument you raise is more properly placed with athanasius. now back to my question. if it is a metaphysical state, how is it transmitted and how do you explain how one act changed the metaphysical condition of human being? clearly athanasius, augustine, et. al. believed it to be hereditary (see, genetic) as some "thing" propagated through male semen. otherwise "mystery" must be invoked arbitrarily at a point where this no longer seems to hold together, no? that's my argument and why i call it a "little problem."

I think getting off track right in the beginning. Sin is not a DNA issue like the color of our hair or how tall we are. Spiritual matters cannot be put under microscope and studied like nuclear structures. Therefore you are mistaken to equate sin with such DNA traits.

Your assumption otherwise causes you to arrive at your conclusion... that Calvin does not make sense. You are failing to separate the physical man with the spiritual man, the body and the soul. We are animals in every way except for this small, but profound difference.

Also, don't forget that God called his creation "good", not perfect. You treat them as synonyms. Perfection will only be achieved through Christ. Man was never meant to remain perfect here because he was not created with perfection. That was God's choice and has nothing to do with Him being imperfect or making a mistake. It's hard to question God's motives.

1) the theologians who over centuries came up with penal substitutionary atonement absolutely thought it was a hereditary (which is a genetic transfer) through the male sperm. hence it was the sin of adam not eve that transmits the problem.

2) calvin makes sense, i just think he is wrong.

3) it was good indeed. which means that adam was indeed imperfect and culpable for making a bad choice. i agree with that. i don't agree that this choice magically transmits sin from gene pool to gene pool which is clearly what the doctrine implies.

Good thread:

1) i don't believe adam was a literal man but a representation of mankind as the name itself bears.
____________
We've discussed this before. He is referred to as a real person in other parts of scripture, including Romans and the Gospels, as well as genealogies found in Scripture. I think we agree to disagree on this one.
_______________
2) sin is a misuse of human freedom which was surely granted by god if human beings were to be god's image bearers. but this is part of an imperfect nature which humans have always had lest humanity stand in the place of god. the main problem is idolatry here and was for paul. it is recognizing that which is not god to be god and not recognizing god as god.
______________
Sin is disobeying God, ergo disobeying the Law, for which the wages are death. It is a direct offense against God, as is plainly taught and of which we are all guilty.
______________

3) it's not plainly evident in a 2 year old unless you choose to see it that way. i call it development and the problem of subjectivity versus objectivity in the adaptation of intelligence. calling the very structure of how the brain works something sinful might be intellectually satisfying in order to observe a particular doctrinal stance. i find that to be an arrogant presupposition that does not bear witness to scripture at all.
______________
Then we disagree on sin. Lying, cheating, stealing, complaining - if these are developmental issues, then we never develop because we all still do them. Again, refer to the various lists in Scripture which denote sin in its various forms. Those are not subjective lists. Most 80 year olds I know sin as much as the 2 year olds. The point is the 2 year old wasn't "taught" to sin - they do it anyway.
____________________

5) i also reject a penal substitutionary atonement. christ offered the gift of reconciliation through revelation of god's kingdom. this begins with the revelation of the true human being who acts in perfect obedience to god being of one mind with god. that's something adam and eve failed to do with their freedom, something we persist in failing to do, and so, it is only in the power of a resurrected christ that we can possibly become more like god. see "theosis."

____________________
I am confounded by this statement. Can you find any substantiation for this in Scripture? The entire Gospel account is based on God's pouring out His wrath on Christ for our sin. That is the essence of the message - that Christ received our penalty on our behalf so that we wouldn't have to. That is the unthinkable love that Christ has for us, expressed in his substitutionary atonement.
______________________________


7) i don't reject it because it's hard, i reject it because it nonsense. the semi-pelagian view is actually a much harder thing to follow because it requires the discipline of a re-oriented human agency. in short augustine and the reformers missed it. assuming they were correct is where theology has become anemic.
_____________________
Wow. Again, I'd love to see the full scriptural support for your thoughts. Entire portions of the Bible need to be struck in order to come to your conclusions. I see a lot of references to scholars (mostly liberal) but not to definitive passages. I then conclude that you don't hold the inerrancy of Scripture.

_______________________________

finally, genesis is not about creatio ex nihilo but about the ordering of pre-existing matter in order to glorify god. the very power of naming the creation and participating in its ordering is an act of co-creation that god bestows on humanity as creation's steward.
_______________________
No, the naming of the animals is a part of God's fulfilling Gen 1:28, whereby we are stewards of what God created, having dominion over it. That is a far cry from co-creators. There is only One who created something out of nothing, and it isn't us. We begin elevating our view of humanity if we begin to bestow that power on ourselves.

I can't find a stupid italics button or this would be a whole lot easier to read. Sorry.

1) Why is Adam, then, only mentioned in the NT? Why is he not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible?
2) It is not at all plain that sin is an act, as opposed to a state of ontological being (particularly in relation to how atonement is understood). This is one reason why we have varied denominations.
3) Actually, some of us move beyond prior sins. Sanctification can be understood varied ways (according to Scripture), and humility keeps us from seeing ourselves as greater or more holy than others. But if we do not allow an understanding for ourselves as people who grow, mature, or change, how can we ever know what it is to be redeemed? (Assuming of course that that means something other than or in addition to salvation from hell, which I think Scripture shows that it does - Calvin clearly writes that the point of our faith is union with Christ for the purpose of union with our Creator, not for our own selfish need to not go to hell). Speaking of which, the lists of sins in the Bible are often fruits of a sinful nature, rather than just lists of acts to obey or not obey (Gal 5:19-21, Mark 7:21-22, Romans 13 are three examples).
5) You don't think Scripture supports the notion that Christ was God's revealed Word, the revealed kingdom on Earth? Really?
I wonder if the language of "reconciliation" throws you off as sounding "liberal" or something, because the content of such language is clearly Biblical, even from a substitutionary atonement soteriology. And there's a lot more in Scripture and the Gospels referring to Jesus that does not necessarily point to atonement of sin as the sole focus of his ministry. Perhaps a closer reading of texts is in order.

6) I'm not really sure what you see as un-Biblical in what Drew argued. The notion that we can reject God's sacrifice? That he doesn't see Scripture as inerrant (not to say that he does *cough*)?

7) In terms of being a co-creator, it seems that the original language of Genesis, dealing with culture and cultivation and the classic dualism in theology between nature and culture that arises from this passage, shows that human beings are called to co-create within the world. Co-ordering nature involves how we use resources, not necessarily that we also conjure things from nothing. I sense some reading into the language that Drew uses that isn't really fair. You argue that it is an improper elevation of our humanity. But isn't it an shrugging off of responsibility to think that we don't impact the created order?

1) i don't believe adam was a literal man but a representation of mankind as the name itself bears.
____________
We've discussed this before. He is referred to as a real person in other parts of scripture, including Romans and the Gospels, as well as genealogies found in Scripture. I think we agree to disagree on this one.
-------------------------
well and good.
_______________
2) sin is a misuse of human freedom which was surely granted by god if human beings were to be god's image bearers. but this is part of an imperfect nature which humans have always had lest humanity stand in the place of god. the main problem is idolatry here and was for paul. it is recognizing that which is not god to be god and not recognizing god as god.
______________
Sin is disobeying God, ergo disobeying the Law, for which the wages are death. It is a direct offense against God, as is plainly taught and of which we are all guilty.
--------------------
if you read romans carefully, paul is actually arguing that the law itself is a source of condemnation. why? since human beings are not god, the law is impossible to perform and so we "all sin and fall short." hence, christ fulfilled that law that we do not have to and the sermon on the mount is the re-interpretation of that law as a law of grace. that's the new covenant. http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2009/04/17/does.... and disobeying god is a misuse of freedom no? the last bit is that what i am advancing here holds the incarnation, work, person, execution, resurrection, and ascension of christ as a continuum of god's revelation of the kingdom simply better.
______________

3) it's not plainly evident in a 2 year old unless you choose to see it that way. i call it development and the problem of subjectivity versus objectivity in the adaptation of intelligence. calling the very structure of how the brain works something sinful might be intellectually satisfying in order to observe a particular doctrinal stance. i find that to be an arrogant presupposition that does not bear witness to scripture at all.
______________
Then we disagree on sin. Lying, cheating, stealing, complaining - if these are developmental issues, then we never develop because we all still do them. Again, refer to the various lists in Scripture which denote sin in its various forms. Those are not subjective lists. Most 80 year olds I know sin as much as the 2 year olds. The point is the 2 year old wasn't "taught" to sin - they do it anyway.
---------------
they do it out of ego development. adults should have a better understanding of right and wrong even as you note they sometimes do not. to say that a 2 year old is guilty of sin and therefore deserves hell is exactly what augustine thought. it's consistent, but if they do it anyway, man that's a hard core burden on a level of cognitive development that cannot handle altruism yet. see: kohlberg.
____________________

5) i also reject a penal substitutionary atonement. christ offered the gift of reconciliation through revelation of god's kingdom. this begins with the revelation of the true human being who acts in perfect obedience to god being of one mind with god. that's something adam and eve failed to do with their freedom, something we persist in failing to do, and so, it is only in the power of a resurrected christ that we can possibly become more like god. see "theosis."

____________________
I am confounded by this statement. Can you find any substantiation for this in Scripture? The entire Gospel account is based on God's pouring out His wrath on Christ for our sin. That is the essence of the message - that Christ received our penalty on our behalf so that we wouldn't have to. That is the unthinkable love that Christ has for us, expressed in his substitutionary atonement.
______________________________
it is in the incarnation that christ begins the work of redemption by revealing the kingdom of god. the hypostatic union is where humanity and god literally become one, ergo atonement. a sinful and idolatrous people nonetheless kill jesus and therefore god. however, while god should wipe out those who kill him, the judgment is grace through resurrection. same gospel, different and much much older way of understanding it in harmony with the gospels and paul.

7) i don't reject it because it's hard, i reject it because it nonsense. the semi-pelagian view is actually a much harder thing to follow because it requires the discipline of a re-oriented human agency. in short augustine and the reformers missed it. assuming they were correct is where theology has become anemic.
_____________________
Wow. Again, I'd love to see the full scriptural support for your thoughts. Entire portions of the Bible need to be struck in order to come to your conclusions. I see a lot of references to scholars (mostly liberal) but not to definitive passages. I then conclude that you don't hold the inerrancy of Scripture.
---------------------
nope. i actually think inerrancy is a subtle form of idolatry: http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/11/09/the-...

paul only notes that they are god-breathed and there he is not talking about his own letters unless you assume that to be true without evidence. his concern there is the hebrew scriptures and perhaps a few gospel manuscripts that were floating around at the time. remember, there was no canon of 66 books for another few hundred years. besides, the bible we have is an amalgamation of fragments that were collected over hundreds of years with very incomplete manuscripts. as one new testament scholar says, all translations are interpretations. inerrancy is an answer looking for questions that don't exist. oh, and i am not sure that cassian, irenaeus, gregory of nyssa and others are even remotely in the liberal camp. calling the founding fathers of the eastern orthodox communion liberal is not something they would likely appreciate ;-)

a problem i have with modern evangelicalism and neo-calvinism is a relegation of to the background. it's as if paul never said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling or that jesus gave rather clear commands regarding how to observe the commandments, etc. it's not either grace or works. it's both grace and works. that's the paradox of the yoke of christ.

you only have to strike scripture if your desire is to hold tightly to a theory that i am arguing does not make sense. moreover, it assumes that there is only one understanding of atonement in scripture. to say that what is presented in hebrews is exactly the same as presented in matthew or luke, or romans for that matter is a hard sell i no longer buy. this was not from reading "liberal" theologians. it was from exegesis.
_______________________________

finally, genesis is not about creatio ex nihilo but about the ordering of pre-existing matter in order to glorify god. the very power of naming the creation and participating in its ordering is an act of co-creation that god bestows on humanity as creation's steward.
_______________________
No, the naming of the animals is a part of God's fulfilling Gen 1:28, whereby we are stewards of what God created, having dominion over it. That is a far cry from co-creators. There is only One who created something out of nothing, and it isn't us. We begin elevating our view of humanity if we begin to bestow that power on ourselves.
--------------------------------
again, it is simply not clear in genesis that god creates something out of nothing. the co-creator activity i am suggesting is to continue the work of ordering things from chaos as an act of sovereignty. i am sensing something semantic here and we probably agree more than disagree. also kind of tangential.

You write: "1) i don't believe adam was a literal man but a representation of mankind as the name itself bears."

If that is the case, you don't believe that it took God create the heavens and earth in a literal 6 days. In doing this, you are saying that the Bible is not true, therefore God is not God.

it was not a literal 6 days. why? look up heat death in stars and the expansion of the universe and get back to me. sorry , but the bible has to deal with truth as it presents itself in observation. as calvin said all truth is god's truth.

if that's the way you read the bible i would say that your interpretation is not true and therefore you have misunderstood the god revealed in it. reading the bible is an act of interpretation. this means that truth ass we perceive it is a range of possibilities we can understand at a given moment in time. may the spirit intervene in your myopic discontent.

beautiful Drew... I love seeing ideas run to their end - can be nicely revealing of logical inconsistencies.
in response to jhsteele, i'm currently hanging on the word "perfecting" as one of the many vectors i see present in our universe.

What I am missing here - and I am probably just dense - is how we get from a perfect God to an imperfect world? Not just fallen humanity, but earthquakes in Haiti. Did God just light the spark to start it all and then sit back and watch for humanity to get here billions of years later? Letting us evolve with the freedom to not be who we were created to be is somewhat troubling but workable. We at least have some choice in the matter. But what for God is the joy, point, purpose of being perfect and allowing or creating a universe to go on for billions of years that is so unpredictable and that involves so much suffering for all God's creatures.

Or is the perfect God just a metaphorical opposite of all the world is not?

Intriguing insight. I'm wondering how you reconcile your viewpoint with Romans 5:

"12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Original sin may or may not be related to human genetics. As sin corrupted every aspect of nature, it is plausibe that there is some sort of sin gene, but perhaps more likley that we exist in a state of spiritual corruption.

Original sin is plainly evident in every two year old child. No one teaches them to lie and hit, but they seem to do it anyhow. There has never been any two year old child who has chosen not to sin. Except Christ of course.


God's pronouncement about creation came before the fall. It was good as it was created before its corruption occured in Adam. Humans were never created as co-creators. We are the created, not the creators. Additionally we know that God did not make creation sinful. Sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience, corrupting every apsect of creation.

You trivialize the original sin itself, claiming Adam sinned because he was hungry. The temptation was, of course, to become like God or become a God. Satan's temptation convinced Adam and Eve that they could usurp God's position by becoming like him - pride, greed, whatever. It was, is, and will be the temptation for humans to elevate themselves to deity - something we all perpetually strive to do in our sinfulness.

Christ's sacrifice is certainly minimized in the absence of original sin. If no one is righteous, no not one, then we ALL desperately need saving. If there is nothing we can do to earn salvation (and you are suggesting otherwise in that we can choose God), then we depend on the saving faith and grace of God alone. Again, Romans and the Gospels bear this out clearly.

But if we are all trying to find out way back to God, then His sacrifice loses its effectiveness. We would then have the ability to reject His sacrifice, going against what Scripture says in John 10:

25Jesus answered them, "(AH)I told you, and you do not believe; (AI)the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.

26"But you do not believe because (AJ)you are not of My sheep.

27"My sheep (AK)hear My voice, and (AL)I know them, and they follow Me;

28and I give (AM)eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and (AN)no one will snatch them out of My hand.

29"[a]My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

30"(AO)I and the Father are one."

Your viewpoint may be more emotionally satisfying (indeed I find it so) and make more sense to our human understanding. Yet that does not mean it is scriptural or correct. There are many doctrines that I don't like, but that doesn't make them untrue. As Calvin, Packer, and others attest, both the sovereignty of God and free will are taught in Scripture. They are not reconcilable to our minds, but they apparently are in God's.

That God didn't create sin but allowed it, that God didn't create evil but allows it (and uses it to His glory), that we are corrupted because of our federal representative in Adam are all hard and sometimes uncomfortable doctrines.

Ultimately we must be reminded of the Gospel every day, that God, in His Grace, rescues us from the sin and corruption brought into the world in Adam through Christ.

1) i don't believe adam was a literal man but a representation of mankind as the name itself bears.

2) sin is a misuse of human freedom which was surely granted by god if human beings were to be god's image bearers. but this is part of an imperfect nature which humans have always had lest humanity stand in the place of god. the main problem is idolatry here and was for paul. it is recognizing that which is not god to be god and not recognizing god as god.

3) it's not plainly evident in a 2 year old unless you choose to see it that way. i call it development and the problem of subjectivity versus objectivity in the adaptation of intelligence. calling the very structure of how the brain works something sinful might be intellectually satisfying in order to observe a particular doctrinal stance. i find that to be an arrogant presupposition that does not bear witness to scripture at all.

4) i don't trivialize original sin, i flat out reject it, hence the tongue in cheek.

5) i also reject a penal substitutionary atonement. christ offered the gift of reconciliation through revelation of god's kingdom. this begins with the revelation of the true human being who acts in perfect obedience to god being of one mind with god. that's something adam and eve failed to do with their freedom, something we persist in failing to do, and so, it is only in the power of a resurrected christ that we can possibly become more like god. see "theosis."

6) this is not emotionally satisfying because it rests the problem of sin on every human being's misdirected freedom (see hamartia) and challenges us to choose the paradox of christ as the true human being which we cannot truly follow without the presence of god. it's still the choice that counts rooted in the new covenant.

7) i don't reject it because it's hard, i reject it because it nonsense. the semi-pelagian view is actually a much harder thing to follow because it requires the discipline of a re-oriented human agency. in short augustine and the reformers missed it. assuming they were correct is where theology has become anemic.

finally, genesis is not about creatio ex nihilo but about the ordering of pre-existing matter in order to glorify god. the very power of naming the creation and participating in its ordering is an act of co-creation that god bestows on humanity as creation's steward.

Is it possible that what took place in the garden wasn't a physical change (i.e., genetics, etc.) but rather a spiritual change? As we have the story in Genesis something definitely changed when Adam & Eve at the apple, but it would be strange to insist it was a physical change. That is unless there was something special about the apple... I think there is a bit of mystery here that may not ever be resolved.

For what you said as a possible alternative to original sin, would it not be possible then for someone to make all the right choices?

i think the garden is a representation of how a mis-directed human freedom undoes the ordering that god performs. god established a kind of order to incite worship. this is part of human imperfection. if we agree that adam and eve were imperfect then they were susceptible to a misuse of human freedom before the "fall"' ever took place. it's an illustration of how human being is not god. so not everyone can make all the right choices. even when given one command adam and even failed. the same is true with paul's explanation of the law as something that condemns. it reveals innate human incompleteness. the incarnate god in christ was therefore revealed to be the true human being who was obedient even to death.

Drew, I'm not with you 100% on this, but you do bring up an important question: the (almost) age-old question of whether "sin" is a metaphysical problem or a moral problem. I think what you say here is pretty consonant with Barth and others in that it is a metaphysical problem. I think we also do well to remember that the Bible itself makes a distinction between sin and trespasses. Sin is imperfection, "missing the mark," while trespassing is overstepping the boundary lines. Too often people think of sin as some kind of entity, a cosmic blob of bad stuff, whereas the Bible speaks of sin as "falling short." Trespasses or transgressions, on the other hand, are the "bad stuff" we do, because we are imperfect.

Deep thoughts for an early morning (for me anyway).

the issue i have is that we have made a distinction between some kind of metaphysical mystery with human agency. missing the mark as you note is a metaphor for what sin is taken from the action of an archer literally missing the target. so it is a moral problem rooted in the problem of choice. sin requires agency, even if only a mental manifestation of that agency (e.g., thinking about killing someone or thinking about coveting your neighbor's wife). one can miss the mark with something due to lack of vision, foresight, poor frame of reference, lack of knowledge, etc. sin this way can be a very unconscious thing rooted in human imperfection. jesus had a very different frame of reference and that his disciples did not understand it, and we still don't fully understand it, is part of the whole issue of why we "miss the mark."

a trespass is a conscious boundary breach like eating the apple.

at least i think that's kind of what you are saying.