The doctrine of Original Sin

[ivdavid]

It is my understanding that this is a commonly held doctrine across calvinists and arminians. But are there any differences or nuances within each camp?

Rom 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:
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How do you justify many being made sinners by one man's disobedience? I have heard it paralleled with how many are made righteous by one Man's obedience - but unmerited grace is not an evil, unmerited condemnation is unjust though, right?

So how did we merit condemnation at birth itself? For what effective sin of ours do we have death reigning over us from when we're conceived? If it is not for our sin but for Adam's sin - doesn't it refute Eze 18?

I do believe this doctrine is true myself - am simply finding out how others justify this truth and reconcile with all of Scripture.

 

[Particular]

It is my understanding that this is a commonly held doctrine across calvinists and arminians. But are there any differences or nuances within each camp?

Rom 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:
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How do you justify many being made sinners by one man's disobedience? I have heard it paralleled with how many are made righteous by one Man's obedience - but unmerited grace is not an evil, unmerited condemnation is unjust though, right?

So how did we merit condemnation at birth itself? For what effective sin of ours do we have death reigning over us from when we're conceived? If it is not for our sin but for Adam's sin - doesn't it refute Eze 18?

I do believe this doctrine is true myself - am simply finding out how others justify this truth and reconcile with all of Scripture.

Here's my analogy (like all analogies, it has its flaws):

When Adam and Eve sinned, they fell into a pit from which they could not extricate themselves. All their offspring have subsequently been born in the pit because of sin.
Consequently all person's are in need of salvation. While God saves us in the pit, he does not extricate us from the pit until we die. Therefore all offspring of Adam and Eve are born in the pit and die in the pit. God, however, graciously chooses some, which he saves from just damnation. Instead their sins are placed upon the King who died for their freedom.

 

[ivdavid]

Here's my analogy (like all analogies, it has its flaws):

When Adam and Eve sinned, they fell into a pit from which they could not extricate themselves. All their offspring have subsequently been born in the pit because of sin.
Consequently all person's are in need of salvation. While God saves us in the pit, he does not extricate us from the pit until we die. Therefore all offspring of Adam and Eve are born in the pit and die in the pit. God, however, graciously chooses some, which he saves from just damnation. Instead their sins are placed upon the King who died for their freedom.

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

From the above, Adam's falling into the pit(eating sour grapes) shouldn't negatively affect his conceived yet unborn children right? The equivalent would be - the soul that falls into the pit, it shall die. How do you reckon adam's children fell into the pit themselves at birth itself?

Again, I'm not challenging your analogy - it is helpful. It's just how do you reconcile these passages?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is my understanding that this is a commonly held doctrine across calvinists and arminians. But are there any differences or nuances within each camp?

Rom 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:
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How do you justify many being made sinners by one man's disobedience? I have heard it paralleled with how many are made righteous by one Man's obedience - but unmerited grace is not an evil, unmerited condemnation is unjust though, right?

So how did we merit condemnation at birth itself? For what effective sin of ours do we have death reigning over us from when we're conceived? If it is not for our sin but for Adam's sin - doesn't it refute Eze 18?

I do believe this doctrine is true myself - am simply finding out how others justify this truth and reconcile with all of Scripture.

Federal headship, as God had both Adam and Jesus tempted for the sake of all those to be found in them, and firs tAdam fell, while second Adam did not!

 

[ivdavid]

Federal headship, as God had both Adam and Jesus tempted for the sake of all those to be found in them, and firs tAdam fell, while second Adam did not!

Agreed. So how do you justify federal headship itself?

Why must I be born into condemnation for another's sin? Why must I accept responsibility for Adam's failure, when I had no vote on having him as my head?

Again, not challenging truths - simply checking how people think through these...

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed. So how do you justify federal headship itself?

Why must I be born into condemnation for another's sin? Why must I accept responsibility for Adam's failure, when I had no vote on having him as my head?

Again, not challenging truths - simply checking how people think through these...

I look at it this way, God choose to have Adam stand before God for all humanity to come after him, and God gave to him paradise and a sinless nature, so we would have a much better chance with him before God than us before God, and Jesus standing between us and God far superior to us standing before God ourselves!

 

[Particular]

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
Eze 18:3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

From the above, Adam's falling into the pit(eating sour grapes) shouldn't negatively affect his conceived yet unborn children right? The equivalent would be - the soul that falls into the pit, it shall die. How do you reckon adam's children fell into the pit themselves at birth itself?

Again, I'm not challenging your analogy - it is helpful. It's just how do you reconcile these passages?

With all due respect, using Ezekiel 18 as your prooftext is a terrible use of the passage. Ezekiel is presenting a common excuse of exiles toward God when they complain that the actions of their fathers in Israel are being judged upon the children. Basically, they are trying to claim a self-righteous holiness and God will have none of their foolishness.

The context of Ezekiel 18 has nothing to do with our conversation.

What is correct is that all humans born in this pit of sin are also sinners in their own right as well. Thus, we are conceived in sin as the psalmist proclaims.

 

[ivdavid]

With all due respect, using Ezekiel 18 as your prooftext is a terrible use of the passage.
The context of Ezekiel 18 has nothing to do with our conversation.

Why so? Paul uses God's dealing with Pharaoh several centuries ago to show God's ways in dealing with the Israelites during Jesus' time - the common context is established in what we see of God. Similarly, we see God's heart and ways of judging in Eze 18 and that never changes - so if God is particular to reveal that He will not condemn the children based on the sins of the father, how does this unchanging God do that in the case of Adam?

What is correct is that all humans born in this pit of sin are also sinners in their own right as well.

I agree this must be the right conclusion. But how did they become sinners at birth? Doesn't one become a sinner because they are attributed sin - what sin is attributed to the as yet unborn to become sinners then? Nobody is imputed sin and declared a sinner based on what they would do in the future - Adam when created was not termed a sinner. It's post-fact attribution, right?

 

[Particular]

Why so? Paul uses God's dealing with Pharaoh several centuries ago to show God's ways in dealing with the Israelites during Jesus' time - the common context is established in what we see of God. Similarly, we see God's heart and ways of judging in Eze 18 and that never changes - so if God is particular to reveal that He will not condemn the children based on the sins of the father, how does this unchanging God do that in the case of Adam?


I agree this must be the right conclusion.

But how did they become sinners at birth? Doesn't one become a sinner because they are attributed sin - what sin is attributed to the as yet unborn to become sinners then Nobody is imputed sin and declared a sinner based on what they would do in the future - Adam when created was not termed a sinner. It's post-fact attribution, right?

We are born in the pit of sin.
Your last question (final paragraph) is pelagian thinking and declaration. Christianity rejected the thought. Not surprisingly, it still creeps up. Charles Finney, the father of many cults spurred out by his "revival" camp fire meetings was one who reignited pelagian thinking.

 

[ivdavid]

We are born in the pit of sin.

The original OP question was - how do you justify why we are we born in the pit of sin?
You reply - we are born in the pit of sin.
That just amounts to - that's the way it is. I'm fine with that - Just was interested in knowing any sound justification if anyone had one.

Your last question (final paragraph) is pelagian thinking and declaration. Christianity rejected the thought.

Right. Pelagius denied Original Sin - and I don't. Asking questions itself shouldn't be heretical though right? How does Christianity answer these questions apart from a that's how it is.

 

[ivdavid]

From Eze 18, if God is particular to reveal that He will not condemn the children based on the sins of the father, how does this unchanging God do that in the case of Adam?

Anyone has thoughts on this?

 

[Particular]

The original OP question was - how do you justify why we are we born in the pit of sin?
You reply - we are born in the pit of sin.
That just amounts to - that's the way it is. I'm fine with that - Just was interested in knowing any sound justification if anyone had one.


Right. Pelagius denied Original Sin - and I don't. Asking questions itself shouldn't be heretical though right? How does Christianity answer these questions apart from a that's how it is.

1.
Romans 5:9-14 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

2.
Your question is a pelagian question. It was answered by Augustine.

 

[Particular]

From Eze 18, if God is particular to reveal that He will not condemn the children based on the sins of the father, how does this unchanging God do that in the case of Adam?

Anyone has thoughts on this?

Ezekiel 18 isn't applicable to Adam.
The proverb was regarding God's judgment on Judah in Palestine being felt by exiles in Babylon. God rebuked their self-righteous complaint that they, themselves were somehow without fault.
You are attempting to compare an apple to an elephant.

 

[Yeshua1]

From Eze 18, if God is particular to reveal that He will not condemn the children based on the sins of the father, how does this unchanging God do that in the case of Adam?

Anyone has thoughts on this?

that passage has nothing to do with sin and eternal life/death, but is only describing if God will demand capital punishment for a person who does not sin in same way the father did to deserve his physical death!

 

[ivdavid]

Ezekiel 18 isn't applicable to Adam.

is it applicable to God is the question. God sure was addressing specific people in Eze 18 but in so doing, He was revealing His own attributes. That's what I'm picking on - not the people being addressed there. What God told about Himself and His ways -

Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

When you read this statement of God, do you limit it only to the souls of the exiles in Babylon? This is a universal fact right? Likewise, the soul that sins must die is also a universal fact determined by God right? So a natural question is, what sin did the as yet unborn commit for it to die? Logical so far? The question doesn't seem taboo as such - and we know the truth of the conclusions. We're only exploring the pathway that connects the two.

Your question is a pelagian question. It was answered by Augustine.

Right. I'll read up on this but do you have any knowledge on the same yourself apart from holding this to be a question not to be considered at all?