Originally posted by David Ekstrom:
I've got two theological problems with your view. The first is Orig Sin. It's not clear to me how, in your view, I am born in sin.
We are born in a sinful environment. Sin is all around us, and without God's revelation and grace, we would repeatedly succumb to it. With each sin we'd further our bondage to it and increase sin's bondage on others as well.
Which verses do you think teach that we are created with sin within us? In Psalm 51:5 the psalmist says that "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." I take that as a similar expression to Psalm 58:3 where the same psalmist says that "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies." I think it's pretty clear that both of these verses are employing hyperbole to make their point. Less exaggerated language is found in Genesis 8:21 where God says that "the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth."
In Romans 5:12, Paul says that "just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". Paul doesn't say that Adam's sin spread to all humans, but rather that death spread to all humans because they all sin. And, verse 14 clarifies that death also reigned over those who didn't sin by breaking a law. The consequence of Adam's sin was that humans die: we no longer have access to what the tree of life and the garden of Eden represent; we are separated from God's perfect sustenance. This affects babies who have not yet sinned themselves as well as mature humans, all of which have sinned.
> It's not clear to me what "the flesh" is in your view.
Flesh isn't our body. In many cases, "the flesh" and "the world" and "human wisdom" are interchangeable in Scripture. They refer to knowledge and desires that are set against God or refuse to acknowledge God.
> Is there a part in us that is inherently evil?
No, there's no flaw in how we are created, but our autonomy gives us the capacity to do evil, and left to our own devices, sooner rather than later we will. It is only by God's revelation and grace that we can submit our will to God's. Our ability to respond to God (even if we choose not to exercise it) is evidence of the goodness of our creation.
> If there is, is it a universal condition of mankind? If so, did God create it? If God didn't create it, and it is univeral to all mankind, then it was acquired somehow.
I think our ability to reject God was acquired when God endowed his image in humans. Before that, we were not capable of rejecting God. But when God revealed himself, it happened:
"For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:21-25)
They claimed to be wise (metaphorically, they had eaten of the tree of knowledge), but the knowledge they gained was futile when separated from God. They proceeded to serve their own desires, rather than serving their Creator.
> If it was only acquired at the individual level then it couldn't be universal because, hypothetically, there'd be those who didn't acquire it (unless God ordained it, which I strongly doubt you would hold). It seems that an acquired, universal condition of mankind must be traced back to a common source. That common source has got to be a unity, that is, quite literally, one man who is the father of all humanity.
Or one community. Falling short of God is an inevitable consequence for those with a free will who lack perfect knowledge.
> I'm not even sure what you believe "sin" is.
Sin is us going against God and in some way falling short of God's will for us. It's not something we're born with, but rather something we do (even if just by thinking).
> Let me spell out my problem. Pelagius taught, if I'm not mistaken, that people are sinners by choice, not birth. Adam may have provided a bad example and his descendants may have created a bad environment, but the individual is free to sin or not to sin. If he is a sinner, it's because he sins.
I agree with him that we are sinners because we sin, but aside from God's revelation and grace, we would have no hope of being rescued from our sins. And, as I said above, sinning is inevitable for every human who has freedom and yet lacks God's wisdom.
> (In contrast, I would say that he sins because he's a sinner.)
I think that passes the buck for our sinfulness both back to Adam, and back to our Creator. I think we are personally responsible for our sin. That also makes Jesus' sinlessness far less amazing: he couldn't sin, because he wasn't a sinner! By contrast, Hebrews says that Jesus was made like us in every way, was tempted as we are, and as a result is a high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses (Hebrews 2:14-18, 4:15). That does not make sense if Jesus lacked the nature that would make the temptation real.
> It seems to me that if one held Pelagianism, he would have to concede that, at least theoretically, a person could be born, live, and die without ever sinning.
Yes, and that's exactly what Jesus did! He was human just like us, tempted just like us, but without sin. Now, it's also possible that an embryo or baby could be killed before they ever sinned. I realize that. The Bible doesn't provide a lot of details about those cases, but (un)fortunately, none of us who discuss these kinds of issues are in such a predicament. We've all sinned. Sinning comes naturally (yes, I believe that too), and we haven't managed to do what Jesus did in perfectly submitting to his Father's will.
> Such a person apparently would not need Christ as Savior.
Such a person (an embryo or baby who had not yet sinned) would also not have any way to consciously accept what Jesus has done for them. I think Jesus has a way of granting eternal life to them too, but it isn't clearly defined in the Bible. (Perhaps for good reason -- fetuses and babies can't read.)
> Hypothetically, a person could be saved on his own merit apart from the work of Christ.
Jesus conquered death and Hades, and that benefits both those of us who have sinned, and those who did not live long enough to be able to sin. Neither group is saved by their own merit, but rather by Christ's work. I don't see how the other option is more palatable. Others say that babies are sinful from before birth, but that they aren't yet accountable for their sinfulness, so they somehow are treated as though they were righteous in God's eyes. If a person really took the sinfulness of babies seriously, then they would believe in infant baptism (it's no coincidence that the doctrine of Original Sin was formulated in a church that practiced infant baptism).
A second problem is with Federal Headship. Christ is said to be our Second Adam. All humanity stands as sinners in Adam. Believers stand as righteous in Christ. Just as we are guilty in Adam, we are righteous in Christ. Just as we died in Adam, we are made alive in Christ. But if we are not really guilty in Adam, then how can the analogy of our righteousness in Christ work?
My view is that Adam represents the first humans -- people just like the ones described in Romans 1:21-25. We have two templates to choose from. Adam is one template, and Christ is the other. We die in Adam and we fully live in Christ. Adam's sin causes our death while Christ's sacrifice makes possible our eternal life. As for our guilt, there's no need to look to a distant ancestor for that -- we need only look in a mirror. We personally are guilty before God. But, Christ has lived the perfect life, died for our sins, risen to show the defeat of death. In Jesus we have God incarnate revealing a different template for our lives than what we find in Adam. He's paid for our sins -- they no longer need to separate us from God. We need only to accept what he's done and make him Lord of our life. When we do, we'll be given a new life that starts now and lasts beyond the grave into eternity. We'll work with God to bring in his kingdom now while also anticipating his final triumph.
To zero in on one verse, Romans 5:19 says that "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." I interpret both halves the same way. We're made sinners by what Adam did because we choose to follow his template (and aside from Christ, there's no other option). We're made righteous by what Christ did because we choose to follow him. I think that if one advocated an stricter approach to this verse that left out the choice, it would lead to universalism: in Adam all were made sinners, but in Christ all will be made righteous.
If our standing in Adam is metaphorical, then is our standing in Christ metaphorical?
Yes, but still real. We aren't literally, physically born of God. It's a metaphor. But, it refers to something real that is more than the physical metaphors, not less than them.
You're probably chuckling and saying, "This guy just doesn't get it!"
Well, I'm thinking that our disagreement has more to do with how we feel about Calvinism than how we feel about creation and evolution.