Original Sin

[Van]

Arguments against the Biblical support of Original Sin

Lets number them:

1. Adam's sin could not have consequences for mankind because that would violate Eze 18:20. Here God's word teaches the son shall not bear (carry the penalty of sin) of the father. So what this verse teaches is that the son will not be punished for the sins of the father. But sin has consequences for others, and the consequence of the sin of Adam is mankind's separation from God. Note God does "visit" the sin of the father on the generations who hate God, Exodus 20:5.

2. Next it is asserted that through the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners, condemned to a separated state at conception cannot be true because it makes no sense. But it does make sense. Remember how God reduced the size of Gideon's army in order to bring more glory to God? In the same way, when fallen men, separated from God, repent, it brings glory to God. So the fall is consistent with God's purpose of creation.

3. Romans 5:12 is claimed to say "sin entered all men" because "all men sinned" i.e. the reason for sin entering rather than the result is all men sinned. But the idea is actually the opposite, the consequence of anyone’s sin is separation from God, thus the consequence of Adam’s sin, separation from God, was “visited” upon all mankind. Thus “in Adam” “all men sinned.” The key is to see that it is the result or judgment against sin that is being called sin, therefore all men sinned because the judgment against Adam’s sin, separation and corruption, are applied to all “in Adam.” So at conception all in Adam die because they are conceived in iniquity, thus conceived in a separated from God state.

4. Romans 8:20 is said to refer to creation in general, rather than specifically to mankind, but again this simply misreads the passage. However "the creation" is identified as mankind, because all the plants, animals, and earth will be destroyed, so "the creation" refers to mankind, and more specifically to those looking forward to being resurrected in glorified bodies. Only the "new creation" will be brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Therefore this passage again clearly teaches mankind was subjected to futility not because they sinned by choice, but because God visited the consequence of Adam’s sin upon mankind.

 

[JamesL]

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

 

[HankD]

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

 

[JamesL]

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

 

[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

 

[Van]

Hi JamesL, the OP is crystal. If you get the impression it means the opposite of what it says, have at it.

 

[Van]

I will repeat one point, sin is sometimes referring to the errant thought or action, and at other times the judgement against the person. All have sinned refers in my view, that all have the separation judgement applied to them. Thus, (1) they had done nothing wrong, and (2) they did not share Adam's guilt, but were made sinners (made separated and corrupted) as a consequence of Adam's sin.

 

[StefanM]

I will repeat one point, sin is sometimes referring to the errant thought or action, and at other times the judgement against the person. All have sinned refers in my view, that all have the separation judgement applied to them. Thus, (1) they had done nothing wrong, and (2) they did not share Adam's guilt, but were made sinners (made separated and corrupted) as a consequence of Adam's sin.

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.

 

[Van]

That may be a theory, but in my opinion it is unbiblical. Scripture teaches our souls are formed by God within us, and therefore do not come in some manner from our sinful parents. (Zechariah 12:1) In this biblically supported view, we are given our human spirit by God in a separated from God and corrupted condition (Ecc. 12:7) thus "made" sinners because the judgment of Adam's sin is applied (visited) on us.

 

[StefanM]

That may be a theory, but in my opinion it is unbiblical. Scripture teaches our souls are formed by God within us, and therefore do not come in some manner from our sinful parents. (Zechariah 12:1) In this biblically supported view, we are given our human spirit by God in a separated from God and corrupted condition (Ecc. 12:7) thus "made" sinners because the judgment of Adam's sin is applied (visited) on us.

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.

 

[Van]

That theory, sinful condition passed biologically is also unbiblical. When Adam sinned, both Adam and Eve's eyes were opened (corruption of the spirit). Thus the corruption is passed spiritually.

As far as reading scripture the other way, it says God formed our spirit within us. He gives the spirit. Consider Ecc. 12:7 where the physical returns to dust from which it came, and the spirit to God from which it came. Clearly points to a non-physical creation, in my opinion.

 

[StefanM]

That theory, sinful condition passed biologically is also unbiblical. When Adam sinned, both Adam and Eve's eyes were opened (corruption of the spirit). Thus the corruption is passed spiritually.

As far as reading scripture the other way, it says God formed our spirit within us. He gives the spirit. Consider Ecc. 12:7 where the physical returns to dust from which it came, and the spirit to God from which it came. Clearly points to a non-physical creation, in my opinion.

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.

 

[StefanM]

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.)

 

[Van]

I am pretty much sold on my view. I am a two parter, body and spirit, with our core attributes (soul) being part of the spirit. As far as the validity of Original Sin, the doctrine that by the disobedience of the one, the many (everyone but Christ) were made sinners, I have presented what I believe is biblical doctrine.

 

[StefanM]

I am pretty much sold on my view. I am a two parter, body and spirit, with our core attributes (soul) being part of the spirit. As far as the validity of Original Sin, the doctrine that by the disobedience of the one, the many (everyone but Christ) were made sinners, I have presented what I believe is biblical doctrine.

And I can respect that.

 

[JamesL]

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

Christ is the remedy (so to speak)?

HankD

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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

 

[HankD]

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.

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

 

[JamesL]

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

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)

 

[JamesL]

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

I get that, Hank.

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