Fairness and Adam's original sin

I’d agree Randy. Regardless of what the text says even if impossibly perfectly translated. If all we can bring to the text is the most literal historical-grammatical method as our epistemology then we’re damned, or rather the vast majority of humanity is.

Can you clarify details? I think Paul is not even talking about salvation here. Thanks.

I would agree with you on other texts but I think Enns’ and Hart’s point is that Augustine completely missed Paul’s point.

Are we talking Romans 5 only or 9-11 too? I see Paul talking about salvation throughout, that’s the point. I like Enns (5) and Hart (9-11) but better translation will never convince those allegedly using the historical-grammatical method. That would require objectivity, disinterest. Fear, the mind killer, has them by [the] throat. To me Paul is struggling to include his beloved unconvertable Israel in salvation. Just because the East refuses to see something that the West refuses not to, doesn’t make either of the[m] right.

Ooh, I love this stuff. I’ll have to wait till tonight or tomorrow to think, read and comment better, though. Thanks.

Me too! I must detail my response before that.

Later:

It’s not possible, it would take too much all round. Even a synopsis of Romans 5 alone. To me it’s soused in salvation! And in PSA that liberals and Orthodox pretend isn’t there and nasty Protestants, who picked up Augustine’s torch, hold up as the singularity at the heart of God’s pure, true, pathologically righteous, arbitrary, meaningless justice. It can’t be helped if one is suspended in all meanings, caged above that by a ‘high view scripture’.

1 Like

Yes, Randy, I appreciate this struggle that the concept of Original Sin could bring, that it is not fair for God to judge me for Adam’s (or anyone else’s) sin. Thank you for stating that so clearly. This concern is clearly held by many, and so has got me thinking over the past couple of days…

What if we could look at it from an opposite point of view: Perhaps rather than thinking of Original Sin as being unfair, Original Sin is the great equalizer. Since the Fall, all of humanity is now in the same “state” such that no one person can claim to be better than another. We are all guilty of sin, we cannot earn our salvation by doing any number of good works or paying any amount of penance. We are all in the same boat. Thus, by holding to the doctrine of Original Sin, we are setting up the idea of equality between all people. This idea of Original Sin also explains why God’s great sacrifice of Himself, Jesus on the Cross, was necessary for the the salvation of all, and why Jesus would say “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Which was a point that @Paul_Allen1 was making.

I would agree with that assessment that God is not vindictive, but wants the best for us, as a parent cares for their children. That idea is supported in passages like this one in Hebrews 12:

4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6
For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”

7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

I do not agree with the argument against Original Sin that Peter Enns sets up in that article you sited, because there are clear examples of paradox in the Bible, in which two seemingly self-contradictory ideas are actually both true at the same time (bringing this over from comments I already made on Jay’s original sin thread).

One paradox example is:

  • Man’s free will
  • God’s sovereignty
    Those ideas seem to be mutually exclusive, yet somehow they are both held to be true in the Bible

There are likewise some mysteries about Original Sin, so paradoxes could be contained within that concept, too:

  1. We are all responsible for our own sin
  2. At some point in time in human history, Sin entered humanity, and it became true that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23) and “there is no one righteous” (Romans 3:12, Psalms 14:3; Psalms 53:3; Ecclesiastes 7:20)

Notably, point #2 differentiates us from the rest of creation. We do not hold a predator morally responsible for killing its prey. Nor do we say that it is immoral for an alpha male to fight with others of his species to maintain dominance

I do not find the arguments made by Enns or Hart convincing. In Romans, Paul is not only addressing the problem of Judiazers. Paul is addressing both that problem and the problem of our own sin.

2 Likes

Your characterization of Protestant Christians and our beliefs is completely unfair. Please tone down your rhetoric. You are setting up a straw man to then try to tear it down. God’s justice is NOT pathological, arbitrary or meaningless.

It is when it justified as writ. With no sense of rhetoric. Without being toned down at all.

You wouldn’t agree that The Fall is a sacred myth? But it is a metaphorical fact? Riiight. And yes, I agree, moral taste receptors can evolve no further I more than suspect.

Yes. A metaphor of the creation. If youve seen the Noah movie i think the creation sequence is pretty much accurate to the bible and the evolution. Expect the evolution of man the part of the creation the movie shows is what might have happened . Its a metaphor not a myth.

Take a look


It doesnt show the evolution from ape to man of course but the other part its pretty much what happened i believe. And it doesnt show the evolution of dinosaurs.Notice that the days" are not actual days pf course but imersive timelapses .Plus it accounts adam and eve as historical which might not be the case.But again its a metaphor adam for humanity eve for life. And of course i dont post this because i believe the movie is accurate or represents exactly wjat happened. But the creation of the universe amd such its pretty much a metaphor and rhe scene here explains it very well.

PS.If any moderator find this against the community guidlines and rules feel free to remove this or message me about it.

Not a patch on The Book Of Life. Gives me Stendhal’s. Weeping right now to it. Too beautiful.

1 Like

@Klax

Who justifies something as a writ?

What does it mean to justify something as a writ?

What does the sentence mean “No sense of rhetoric”?

What needs to be toned down so that YOU will tone down?

Glad you like it Klax. It is my favourite scene on movies based on the bible. It connect the creation story with science.

Sorry Nick, the The Book Of Life gives me Stendhal’s. Too beautiful.

Ahhh didnt understand that . Well i hope you liked that clip too. Anyway my point was just to show you my opinion on the subject.Take care

My fault Nick.

Just watch the 1st 4 minutes of this. As loud as you can bear, full screen.

My apologies for the egregious solecism corrected above. Yours is in interpolating the indefinite article. Google is your friend. Definition 1.

You need to tint, shade and tone up. Get a bigger, better, more nuanced colour solid.

By “No sense of rhetoric”, which is not a sentence I used, I meant in context that the fundamentalist historical grammatical hermeneutic has no sense of the rhetorical, no sense of the Bible as literature, that it is no less 100% fully human, of its time, place, culture than Jesus. But it is certainly much, much less divine.

We are metaphorically autistic, illiterate with fear; we regress on hearing the words of Jesus, which was not His intent which was for the time, place, culture[,] and worked there. Barely. The disciples didn’t know what He was on about until they saw.

He started a trajectory and as usual in social evolution, we try every cul-de-sac deviation from it. Which cannot be helped. There is no lesson of history but that.

So tone down the fear, the judgement, the condemnation, the knee jerk, the Bible says. The damnationism.

Tone down justifying God as a pathologically righteous genocidal sadist guilty until somebody else dies instead anachronism and calling it Love. Saying, “It’s a Good Life”.

Thank you, again, for your kind (as always) response.
I’m not sure I agree. If sin is indeed so evil that one single sin would separate us from God (or cast us into Hell), is endowed sin an equalizer? And what of those who never heard or could not understand adequately? Does the sin equalize them? If God made us inherently sinful, is that not His fault?

Is a fetus guilty of sin? When can a child be considered able to make decisions of this magnitude, that he or she would wind up in eternal condemnation? Paul, like many in the Bible, uses sweeping statements that are meant for emphasis (“I am the worst of sinners.”) Such equalizing actually seems to me to be a gnostic impression, rather than truly to do with correction.

What of the “righteous man” that is often spoken of throughout the OT and especially Psalms?

There is a great deal of nuance here, and Enns “Evolution of Adam” incorporates the intertestamental books, including “Wisdom of Solomon,” in assessing Paul’s interpretation.

But this can’t refer to salvation, can it; it’s spoken before His death and resurrection, to a few people. From that time, all the Jews and even gentiles who did not know of Him did not go automatically to condemnation. This passage deserves a different contextual interpretation, I think you will agree.

True, but in that case is he really going to send people to Hell for what He caused us to do? This is a quote of the OT, appropriated in regard to NT believers. Eternal conscious torment would appear to be vindictive or retributive, not corrective. On the other hand, C S Lewis and Macdonald appeared to believe in universal reconciliation, where Hell is actually an area of continuing correction (not torment; see Lewis’ comments on Macdonald, and Macdonald’s sermon on “Justice.”)

Psalm 103–“As a father has compassion on his children, the Lord has compassion on those who fear Him. For He knows our frame; He remembers that we are dust.”

Thank you again for your discussion. I appreciate your time sincerely.
In thinking over this, it’s a monumental task. I agree that quoting those brief points from Enns can be misleading in isolation. Lewis, Macdonald and Rachel Held Evans’ books provide pathos and reasoning for me to search for nuance on this; Enns has helped in this book to provide some. I need to listen to “Evolution of Adam” again. He does go into Jewish exegesis and his training from Harvard helps here. Beverly Gaventa’s (Baylor) interview with him on his podcast also helped. Also, I need to re read Romans again. Have a good Sunday. We are having church using the “Bible Project” for the kids, and likely streaming a podcast from a local church.
I have a lot more to read.

2 Likes

@klax,

Apparently you are not here to be understood. You have my personal encouragement to discuss these points with anyone else other than me.

To me, you are a hugely distracting time sink.