Featured Original Sin

So...
are you arguing for or against Original Sin ?

I'm not trying to be funny. The first time I read it, seemed you were arguing against. The second time, I got the opposite impression.

btw, the argument that "it doesn't make sense" is probably the weakest and most uninformed position to take. And I don't even know what side you're on

 

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: or (all had sinned).

These in the KJV which are emboldened are indicative aorist active so as far as I am concerned they all happened simultaneously in the past.

YLT Romans 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin;

In other words (my paraphrase) - we were all there in Adam when he sinned.

Incoming!?

HankD

 

I'm firmly convinced that Paul was writing about the inner man up thru chapter 4, and the outer man (physical body) in chapters 5-6

That set the stage for the conflict of dichotomy displayed in chapter 7

As it relates to chapter 5, have you ever noticed that this notion of universal condemnation in Adam sounds exactly like what Paul wrote in 1Corinthians 15 about the physical body? In Adam all die, in Christ all will live

 

Yes, offhand I do - James what is the far reaching implication in your opinion?

Christ is the remedy (so to speak)?

HankD

 

A Traducian theory of the soul/spirit explains how a person could be sinful and guilty without having committed sins personally. You're inheriting a flawed soul/spirit, just like inheriting a genetic disease with 100% transmission rate.

 

I see your point, but it can be read both ways. God creates many things through natural processes, begun with his initial creative acts. By creating Adam's soul (and possibly Eve's), the process could continue naturally with God ultimately being responsible for the spirit's creation. This does not require creation of each spirit de novo.

In case anyone asks, I believe that the sinful nature is passed through the man, so Jesus was sinless because he had a human mother but was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

 

I don't believe in the total separation of the soul/spirit and the physical body. They are distinct entities, but they are linked (which illustrates the point of the resurrection of the dead physically and spiritually, not just spiritually). Our sins have both physical and spiritual elements, too. They can't be separated. Even thoughts occur through processes in the brain.

With respect to your Ecc. 12:7 reference, return to Genesis. Man was created from the dust of the earth, but the breath of life was breathed into him by God. I don't think the parallel is accidental. Ultimately, all flesh will return to dust, but the spirit will live on in paradise or in perdition.

I think there is clear consensus that the initial fall was not done through reproduction. No proponent of traducianism would claim otherwise.

That being said, your points are well taken. I'm not 100% married to traducianism anyway, and it's a doctrine I can give up easily. I'm just not yet convinced of an alternative.

 

Another possibility to consider:

If we accept a tripartite division of humanity (spirit, soul, body), then both traducianism and creationism could theoretically be true.

The body and soul could be created through reproductive processes, and God could create the spirit de novo.

The tainted soul would then provide a sin nature that taints the spirit.

This option avoids the issue of having to explain how a spirit created by God would immediately acquire a sinful nature.


(I know this may be somewhat incompatible with your opening posts, Van, if I understand them correctly, but I wanted to offer an option to consider.)

 

And I can respect that.

 

For sure Christ is the remedy. But the breadth of implication is astounding, imo

The doctrine of Original Sin, and pressing it onto Romans 5:12-21, has these flaws:

It doesn't jibe with Romans 1:18-25 as far as who carries the guilt of condemnation.

It doesn't have any answer at all as for how to adequately interpret Romans 1:18-25

It doesn't jibe with an "age of accountability". Scripture clearly shows that eternal life is to the one who believes. But babies can't believe. So the doctrines are at odds while being held by most.

It puts a strain on the flow of Romans, as if Paul can't keep it together long enough to stay on track with his thoughts - Although this could be considered subjective. But interesting how chapter 6 makes so many mentions of body, members, flesh, etc.

That interpretation of Rom 5:12-21 ignores the language of 1Corinthians 15 relating to bodily death and resurrection.

It creates a Christ who isn't biblical - either He was a sinner (not biblical), or He was not made like His brethren in all things (Heb 2:14-17). The answer is extra-biblical doctrine to relieve tension. Either sin didn't pass through mothers, or an Immaculate Conception.

All these tensions are removed by acknowledging the distinction between spirit and body.

 

God created every other creature on earth to reproduce after its own kind . Mankind is body and spirit and that is reproduced in birth

 

Granted There are several views in opposition to the "orthodox" view of original sin and I respect most objections but haven't been convinced, there was a protracted debate a few years ago.

Scan through the archives for "original sin" you will probably find it.

I was part of the melee. Sorry.

Don't really want to go down that path again but simply wanted to give my view.

HankD

 

Eccl. 12:7 says the dust shall return to the earth as it were, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.

The body is all that's reproduced. Zechariah 12:1 also says God places the spirit of man within him

Our body is likened to a tent by 3 of the apostles, and Paul says we are naked without the body.

Traducianism seems to have been developed by Tertullian, who was trying to make sense of Romans 5:12 misapplied

From what I have been able to tell, the church mishandled the Gnostic debate and went almost completely silent on the distinction between spirit and body.

This seems to have impacted the church's view of sin and righteousness with very drastic consequences

It also began a long string of extra-biblical doctrines about Christ which end up portraying Him as NOT partaking in the same flesh and blood, and NOT being made like His brethren in all things (Heb 2:14-17)

 

I get that, Hank.

What I've encountered is that people are afraid to consider a differing view at all. Peace