Original Sin

[apothanein kerdos]

If man is not sinful when born, then he could conceivably be perfect.

It says that through Adam, death and sin entered the world. This, of course, would not be true if all of us were born free of sin. It would mean that sin enters the world on a daily basis, not through Adam. Paul would be wrong.

This really isn't a hard concept people.

Also, Ovedya is correct in his assessment of Gnosticism infiltrating this discussion. By stating the soul/spirit is inherently above the body, or that the body contains sin while the soul is always perfect, is Gnostic. At best, it's going to be Platonic...but at that point we're simply fighting a terminology game as Platonism and Neo-Platonism gave birth to Gnosticism. Regardless of if you call it Platonism or Gnosticism, it's heretical.

It is in the soul where sin begins - the body is merely the instrument used to give the physical manifestation to this sin.

[Ovedya]

Thaddeus, I'm going to take a different tack with you:

You have an unscriptural position in saying man is born with sin. He is born mortal which has the propensity to sin. To sin continually. He is born in sin, but not with sin.

Chapter(s) and verse(s) please. I've given you many and you have offered few. Please show a verse or passage which directly teach or through example show that man is born without sin.

You are not born to a disease of any kind except that death is also called a disease of mankind.

Chapter(s) and verse(s), please.

But, nevertheless, we become sick because of our fallen natures.

We become sick because of death? Then sickness is the result of the "death nature"? Perhaps then that sickness is a "little death" and when we become well again we experience a "little resurrection"?

Our mortality is the seat of all the evils and ills of this world. We know it was death, mortality because death affected everything in nature. Unless you can possit that a rock or tree or even and animal can sin, then we can have a mutual understanding. Are trees sinful or just part of the fallenness of this world?

Trees and rocks don't have souls or spirits. It would have been physically impossible for them to "fall." Animals live only according to the soul and flesh which are corrupted. Again, your argument stems from the misunderstanding of God's creation. Again, all things were created within their respective spheres: To be born, to live, to procreate, and then to die.

We know it was also death because Adam and Christ or paralleled. They are opposite sides or ends of an equation. As in Adam so also in Christ. Meaning. As death came from Adam, so also in Christ life came to all men. It never says that because Adam sinned, in Christ we no longer sin. Sin is not man's real and paramount problem. It is death. Death, thus mortality is the cause of our sin. Makes us sin. We are sinners because we sin and we sin because we are mortal. We are dead in our sins and treaspasses and through Christ all have been made alive.

Romans 7:7-21:

"What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! But I did not know sin except through the law; for neither did I know coveting, except the law had said, "You shall not covet.''

8 But sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, worked out in me coveting of every kind; for without the law sin is dead.

And I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.

And the commandment, which was unto life, this very commandment was found to me to be unto death.

For sin, seizing the opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

So then the law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good.

Did then that which is good become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin did, that it might be shown to be sin by working out death in me through that which is good, that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.

For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am fleshy, sold under sin.

For what I work out, I do not acknowledge; for what I will, this I do not practice; but what I hate, this I do.

But if what I do not will, this I do, I agree with the law that it is good.

Now then it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me.

For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but to work out the good is not.

For I do not do the good which I will; but the evil which I do not will, this I practice.

But if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me.

I find then the law with me who wills to do the good, that is, the evil is present with me.

Sin...seizing the opportunity...worked out in me...revived and I died [not physically!]...deceived me...killed me [still not physically!]...dwells in me.

Paul's teaching with respect to sin proves unequivocally that sin indwells humanity and causes us to do that which we do not will (ie. to sin). Paul did not die physically from sin and it did not literally kill him. So therefore Paul's death must have been spiritual in nature. It deadened him, cut him off from fellowship with God.

Eve is not the question. Eve as wife was to be in subjection to the husband. Thus it leaves the final decision to Adam. The moment he accepted the fruit from Eve and ate, the world, the universe was plummeted into death and corruption. Man immedicately became mortal. Was such a threat the the very universe now that God needed to eject him from the Garden, less he also eat of the tree of life, thus making corruption, and death eternal.

Stop. You wrote earlier that you hate the twisting of verses to prove a position, yet you did precisely that right there. The verse I gave does not state that God was concerned for corruption and death being eternal. It states that God did not want man to live eternally in his sinful condition. Big difference there.

Death would remain as a consequence so man can rid himself of the fallen flesh. We will be raised incorruptible, immortal through the death of the Incarnated Christ and his resurrection. Read I Cor 15 very carefully. All the faith in the world will not save a man, it cannot give life. Only Christ through the Resurrection gives life to mankind.

Really?

"For to me, to 1alive is Christ and to die is gain." (Phil. 1:21)

"I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me." (Gal. 2:20)

"As the living Father has sent Me and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. (John 6:57)

Yes, but not a physical state. We are not physically IN Christ. We do not share His essence, but we partake of His divine nature.II Pet 1:4.

Right. But that contradicts your usage of the term "conventional." Unless I am misunderstanding here. Our essential relationship with Christ is much more in the realm of reality than our physical relationship to resurrection.

[Ovedya]

If man is not sinful when born, then he could conceivably be perfect.

It says that through Adam, death and sin entered the world. This, of course, would not be true if all of us were born free of sin. It would mean that sin enters the world on a daily basis, not through Adam. Paul would be wrong.

This really isn't a hard concept people.

Also, Ovedya is correct in his assessment of Gnosticism infiltrating this discussion. By stating the soul/spirit is inherently above the body, or that the body contains sin while the soul is always perfect, is Gnostic. At best, it's going to be Platonic...but at that point we're simply fighting a terminology game as Platonism and Neo-Platonism gave birth to Gnosticism. Regardless of if you call it Platonism or Gnosticism, it's heretical.

It is in the soul where sin begins - the body is merely the instrument used to give the physical manifestation to this sin.

BINGO! Thanks for stating it better than I was able.

[firehill]

If man is not sinful when born, then he could conceivably be perfect.

If Adam and Eve were made 'perfect' then how did they manage to fall? If Adam and Eve weren't even made perfect then I don't know where your argument about humankind being born perfect would even come from. In order for them to overcome their desire to eat they needed Christ too which is so profound...

It says that through Adam, death and sin entered the world. This, of course, would not be true if all of us were born free of sin. It would mean that sin enters the world on a daily basis, not through Adam. Paul would be wrong.

This really isn't a hard concept people.

God's image cannot be marred which is to say that if man is born in sin then God's image is devastated in us which I don't think is possible intell a person is accountable for their own sin. People are born in death...

[Ovedya]

Eve is not the question. Eve as wife was to be in subjection to the husband. Thus it leaves the final decision to Adam. The moment he accepted the fruit from Eve and ate, the world, the universe was plummeted into death and corruption. Man immedicately became mortal.

As long as we are building one thing onto another...

Er, come again? It was never about the woman being in subjection to the man. The world plummeted because Adam ate with eyes wide open knowing full well what he was doing. In the thread 'head over' or 'head of' in doctrinal questions this was addressed a little. Adam then was disobedient to God knowingly. Eve on the other hand was deceived and ate. This changes everything. These are noted when looking carefuly at the written text in what God had said to each one after the fall.

What if Adam had been the one deceived and then had fallen into sin and the woman had been the one to disobey God with eyes wide open? Where would that put this discussion?

Question remains for whenever: Why was Adam's blatant sin verses the woman's having been deceived who fell into sin held accountable for the fall?

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.

And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!" (Gen. 3:3-4)

Eve did not die the instant she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Neither did God kill her. Yet from the latter verses it is clear that she had inherited sin from that tree and so was spiritually dead:

Did Adam 'die' the instant he ate the fruit? Did God kill him?

Please do not steer this discussion into another direction. We are not addressing the male/female thing here.

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

Mary was born of a human father, no? Or perhaps she was also immaculately conceived? Mary had the fallen human nature (Which contains the nature of sin) which she inherited from her father. There is no contradiction. Jesus on the other hand was born of God and Mary, with the divine nature and the human nature, yet without sin.

What has that to do with Christ?

The immaculate Conception of the RCC is a doctrine that tries to correct the very view that you are espousing, namely the concept of "original sin" that we inherit the actual sin and guilt of Adam. This means, that Christ also must of necessity be born with sin because all humans are thus.

That is the error of that view. Christ assumes our fallen natures, not a sinful nature. It is a sinning nature, but that is why Christ overcomes sin. He is able to resist temptations and sin.

Mary did not inherit sin. She inherited a mortal, fallen nature, which sins.

If you follow your theology, Mary is useless. In order to heal mankind, Christ assumed our natures. Mary is as human as any other human. That is why Christ in assuming our natures and also the reverse with Adam, are consubstantial. Any change in any nature will effect every single nature of every human being. We are of the same nature. It is much like how a spread sheet works.

You can input and entry of a quantity and hit enter and that computes automatically all through the program to the bottom line which will change. You do not need to actually enter a hundred times some number that is supposed to be added or subtracted throughout the spread sheet.

It is impossible for either Adam not to pass on death, mortality through birth and Christ not to pass on life to all human natures because in Adam one nature died, thus all and in Christ all are made alive because He resurrected that human nature.

Or it is impossible for Christ to redeem individuals. Only if they are of a different nature. Whatever nature Christ possessed, died and raised, if possessed by any human being will also be raised.

Since we do in fact possess the same human nature, then all shall be made alive through Christ's resurrection. If Christ saved one, then of necessity He saved all from death through His resurrection. This is what is so vividly explained in I Cor 15. The paramount importance of the Resurrection. Faith, does not give life. All the faith, all the union and communion, spiritual life In Christ would be meaningless, in vain, if Christ had not been raised.

Your argument essentially hinges upon "fallen nature" meaning "physical death." I dealt with that issue with the verses from Genesis. Man was created to be born and to die. Physical death is not evil. Nor is it the result of the fall. Spiritual death on the other hand is both.

yes, absolutely, completely, truer words were never spoken.

It would be rediculous for God to create man in His own Image, created to be eternal, in communion with Him and die. Hardly eternal. Yet, you say man was created to die. Death is separation of body and soul, non existance. Death is the annihilation of the human being. Adams punishment was to return to dust. There can be no other possible meaning to "fallen" other that death and mortality. What in your view is even the purpose of man?

Spiritual death cannot be physical death. They are not the same, nor interchangeable. So you believe Christ resurrection was a spiritual event. Why would Christ ask Thomas to put his finger in his hand and side. Did Jesus have a spiritual nature, rather than a physical nature. Do we have a spiritual nature, rather than a physcial nature. When we die and are buried, you are saying we die spiritually?

Physical death of man is unnatural. But it has become a blessed event theologically. It permits man to rid himself of the fallen flesh, and it is but a temporary state before the body and soul will be reunited in the Resurrection. Death has been overcome. Satan has lost the scrimmage and will lose the battle at His Second Coming when the last enemy will be defeated, death will be no more.

There is absolutely nothing spiritual about it. Christ is the firstborn of the dead, the first fruits of them that slept. He is the first to be raised in victory, all men shall follow at his coming.

[Ovedya]

If man is not sinful when born, then he could conceivably be perfect.

If Adam and Eve were made 'perfect' then how did they manage to fall? If Adam and Eve weren't even made perfect then I don't know where your argument about humankind being born perfect would even come from. In order for them to overcome their desire to eat they needed Christ too which is so profound...

It says that through Adam, death and sin entered the world. This, of course, would not be true if all of us were born free of sin. It would mean that sin enters the world on a daily basis, not through Adam. Paul would be wrong.

This really isn't a hard concept people.

God's image cannot be marred which is to say that if man is born in sin then God's image is devastated in us which I don't think is possible intell a person is accountable for their own sin. People are born in death...

And the wages of sin is....what?

[apothanein kerdos]

What I'm also seeing on this thread is an unwitting support of existential theology concerning the fall of man and sin.

If we look to the neo-orthodox position of the fall (which stems from theistic existentialism), we see that many of the proponents (Barth, Niebuhr, Bultmann, et al) question the historicity of the events, such as the fall, and demythologize the event and add a theological significance.

To them, we all became Adam - born into this world sinless, we re-enact the fall. The Fall becomes existential, not something that happened that we all suffer from, but instead a here and now thing we must deal with. As Carnell says, the Fall is, "...a mythological description of a universal experience of the race" (Theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, p. 168).

Though no one is taking it to such an extreme in this thread, what we are doing is teaching that our experience is what makes us sinful. It is not that we are inherently sinful, or inherently guilty, but instead that we each choose to sin, and therefore by our experience become sinful. This teaches the absolute autonomy of man and denies the Biblical unity concerning man's consequences. We all have to live with the consequences of sin. The consequences of Adam's sin is that we would all be guilty before God from the moment of conception, in that we would go on to sin. Though we do sin in our own experience, sin transcends time and our experience and will affect us all equally. We are guilty of sin before we are ever born.

Just thought I would also add that to the discussion.

[Ovedya]

Ovedya,

Mary was born of a human father, no? Or perhaps she was also immaculately conceived? Mary had the fallen human nature (Which contains the nature of sin) which she inherited from her father. There is no contradiction. Jesus on the other hand was born of God and Mary, with the divine nature and the human nature, yet without sin.

What has that to do with Christ?

The immaculate Conception of the RCC is a doctrine that tries to correct the very view that you are espousing, namely the concept of "original sin" that we inherit the actual sin and guilt of Adam. This means, that Christ also must of necessity be born with sin because all humans are thus.

That is the error of that view. Christ assumes our fallen natures, not a sinful nature. It is a sinning nature, but that is why Christ overcomes sin. He is able to resist temptations and sin.

Mary did not inherit sin. She inherited a mortal, fallen nature, which sins.

If you follow your theology, Mary is useless. In order to heal mankind, Christ assumed our natures. Mary is as human as any other human. That is why Christ in assuming our natures and also the reverse with Adam, are consubstantial. Any change in any nature will effect every single nature of every human being. We are of the same nature. It is much like how a spread sheet works.

You can input and entry of a quantity and hit enter and that computes automatically all through the program to the bottom line which will change. You do not need to actually enter a hundred times some number that is supposed to be added or subtracted throughout the spread sheet.

It is impossible for either Adam not to pass on death, mortality through birth and Christ not to pass on life to all human natures because in Adam one nature died, thus all and in Christ all are made alive because He resurrected that human nature.

Or it is impossible for Christ to redeem individuals. Only if they are of a different nature. Whatever nature Christ possessed, died and raised, if possessed by any human being will also be raised.

Since we do in fact possess the same human nature, then all shall be made alive through Christ's resurrection. If Christ saved one, then of necessity He saved all from death through His resurrection. This is what is so vividly explained in I Cor 15. The paramount importance of the Resurrection. Faith, does not give life. All the faith, all the union and communion, spiritual life In Christ would be meaningless, in vain, if Christ had not been raised.

Your argument essentially hinges upon "fallen nature" meaning "physical death." I dealt with that issue with the verses from Genesis. Man was created to be born and to die. Physical death is not evil. Nor is it the result of the fall. Spiritual death on the other hand is both.

yes, absolutely, completely, truer words were never spoken.

It would be rediculous for God to create man in His own Image, created to be eternal, in communion with Him and die. Hardly eternal. Yet, you say man was created to die. Death is separation of body and soul, non existance. Death is the annihilation of the human being. Adams punishment was to return to dust. There can be no other possible meaning to "fallen" other that death and mortality. What in your view is even the purpose of man?

Spiritual death cannot be physical death. They are not the same, nor interchangeable. So you believe Christ resurrection was a spiritual event. Why would Christ ask Thomas to put his finger in his hand and side. Did Jesus have a spiritual nature, rather than a physical nature. Do we have a spiritual nature, rather than a physcial nature. When we die and are buried, you are saying we die spiritually?

Physical death of man is unnatural. But it has become a blessed event theologically. It permits man to rid himself of the fallen flesh, and it is but a temporary state before the body and soul will be reunited in the Resurrection. Death has been overcome. Satan has lost the scrimmage and will lose the battle at His Second Coming when the last enemy will be defeated, death will be no more.

There is absolutely nothing spiritual about it. Christ is the firstborn of the dead, the first fruits of them that slept. He is the first to be raised in victory, all men shall follow at his coming.

I really am having difficulty unraveling this. You are essentially repeating yourself ad-nauseum here without Scriptural evidence to back up your position.

I'll try again later when my brain isn't so overwhelmed with the confusion you have written here.

[apothanein kerdos]

If Adam and Eve were made 'perfect' then how did they manage to fall? If Adam and Eve weren't even made perfect then I don't know where your argument about humankind being born perfect would even come from. In order for them to overcome their desire to eat they needed Christ too which is so profound...

Perfection does not necessitate perfect epistemological unity or experience. What it necessitates is being born in a perfect moral state, that is, free from sin and its ethical consequences. An example of this is Jesus, who was born free from sin and its ethical consequences.

Adam and Eve were created perfect - to assert otherwise is to assert that God can create a less than perfect world. Just because they held the freedom of choice, and chose to go the wrong way, does not mean they were not ethically perfect to begin with. Again, this perfection does not encompass the totality of man, specifically his epistemological outlook, but instead his morality and function.

God's image cannot be marred which is to say that if man is born in sin then God's image is devastated in us which I don't think is possible intell a person is accountable for their own sin. People are born in death...

If the image cannot be marred then we can never sin. What you said is utterly ridiculous and irrelevant.

Regardless, the image of God is devastated and marred from conception. This is why children, even before cognitive in thought, can still do bad things. When they begin to talk, they lie - it comes natural to them. If sin is not a natural part of who we are, then children would need to be taught to sin. It is essentially treating children as if they are born tabula rosa, which we know is not true. Humans, even from a young age, will always head toward sin. Jesus is the exception, the only exception, to this. David even says that he was brought forth in iniquity, that is, before he was even born he was guilty (Psalm 51:5).

The entire point of the New Testament is to show that Jesus is the restored image of God to whom we are to be conformed. How can He be the restorer of the image of God if it was never marred? Why do we have to conform to His image if our own image of God is not marred?