Fairness and Adam's original sin

Faith & Science Conversation
54

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
55

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.

56

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

57

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.

58

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.

59

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.

60

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

1 Like
61

@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?

62

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

63

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

64

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

65

My fault Nick.

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

66

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”.

67

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
68

@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.

69

You know what to do about that.

70

Hi Randy,
I enjoy my discussions with you, as well! :slight_smile:

Yes, this question about people who have never heard the Gospel was one of the main ones I had before I became a believer. I asked this question of many friends in a University Christian group I was visiting as a seeker.

While we cannot know how God reaches those who have not have not had access to the Gospel, we do know that our God is completely loving and completely just. Thus, we can assume that God must judge people based on the knowledge that they do have, what little knowledge that might be.

To specifically address a couple examples you mention, I believe that children in the womb are innocent and go directly to heaven when they die, as do newborn babies. This is why David expected to see his deceased child again in heaven:

2 Samuel 12

22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

By the way, I have a strong preference for believers baptism, rather than infant baptism, because I believe that Faith saves, not any type of Work.

I have also read about and heard testimonies from people who have been saved through dreams and visions in places where they are isolated from the Gospel. Thus, God is completely able to draw to Himself all people who would call on His name and believe in Him.

Hebrews 11 also talks about how people who knew God before Jesus came to earth were also saved by their faith in God. They believed that God had a future heavenly city prepared for them:

13 All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance, admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. 14 People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15 If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

On the other Original Sin thread, Mi Krumm posted this, which I agreed with. Note that Mi Krumm states on this thread that he does not believe in Original Sin. However, I think that these statements that he made about how free will would fit with God’s sovereignty are true regardless of your belief in or against Original Sin, but they could help us come to terms with the concept of how God handles our sin.

You also asked

You could ask that question even in the absence of the concept of Original Sin. In the same way, we could ask: Couldn’t God make people who would not be capable of sin? Couldn’t God make us all have faith, believe and follow Him? However, He does not compel our obedience. And for some reason, all people do sin. I do not see the Christian faith as being any more or less acceptable in the presence or absence of the concept of Original Sin. Yet, somehow the Gospel tells me the truth about humanity and about myself. I sin, and all of humanity sins. It is somewhat mysterious as to when and why that became true, but somehow it is true. Thus, I affirm the concept of Original Sin. Others would like to think about it in a different way. Saying that God holds us accountable for our own Sin and requires belief in Jesus’s death and resurrection (with or without believe in original sin) raises those same questions. Calling that concept “original sin” is not any more abhorrent than saying that we all need a sacrifice for the sins that we ourselves have committed.

“all have sinned” (Romans 3:23)
“there is no one righteous” (Romans 3:12, Psalms 14:3; Psalms 53:3; Ecclesiastes 7:20)

1 Like
71

To be clear, original sin does not refer to the first sin committed by Adam and Eve, but to the result of that first sin. Original sin is the corruption or hereditary sinful taint visited on the progeny of our first parents as punishment for the original transgression.

Original sin is not an act, but a spiritual condition.

We distinguish between Sin and sin.

  • Sin with a little s refers to the bad deed,
  • Sin with a capital S refers *to the condition that produces the act.

Original sin refers to the depravity of our heart that resulted from the sin of Adam that has been the source of sinful acts ever since.

Is that fair you ask? I don’t get a choice? Why should I suffer because Adam blew it?
Yet we all benefit because of the one-act Christ’s substitutionary work.

Our sins come out of our sinful nature. By way of contrast, Adam started out with a good nature and then sinned. The punishment for Adam’s sin includes the sinful nature. That is again… original sin is not the sin of Adam but an aspect of the punishment for Adam’s sin.

Some may ask why should I be punished for Adam’s sin?
Why should I die along with 300 passengers because the captain of the aeroplane committed suicide?
But this view says in essence in Adam we all had our hands on those controls with the captain. I disgress.

Original sin is both sin, and also the punishment for sin. The punishment that we inherit

The degree of corruption involved with original sin has been a perennial point of debate among theologians. The consensus of historic Christianity, nevertheless, is that the biblical view of the fall requires us to affirm some concept of original sin.

However, denying original sin, Pelagius argued that human nature was created not only good but incontrovertibly good - Sin does not change our essential moral nature. We may sin, but we remain “basically good.” The idea of mankind’s basic goodness is a cardinal tenet of humanistic philosophy, and some Christians hold this view.

Pelagius said the idea of original sin was a blasphemous theory.

He insisted it would be unrighteous of God to transmit or impute the sin of one man to others. God would not usher new creatures into a world laden with a burden of sin that was not their own.

Original sin would involve changing man’s constituent nature from good to bad. Man would become naturally bad. If man were bad by nature either before or after Adam’s sin, then God would again be deemed the author of evil.

If man’s nature became sinful or bad, then it would also be beyond redemption. If original sin is natural, then Christ would have had to possess it and would be unable to redeem himself, let alone anyone else.

For Pelagius, Adam’s sin affected Adam and Adam alone. Hence Randy’s kid’s comments. For Pelagius, there is no inherited condition of corruption known as original sin. Our will remains entirely free and retains the capacity for indifference, meaning it is not predisposed or inclined toward evil. All people are born free of any predisposition to sin. We are all born in the same moral condition as Adam enjoyed before the fall.

For Pelagius, there is no connection between Adam’s sin and ours. The idea that sin could be propagated via human generation is absurd. “If their own sins do not harm parents after their conversion,” Pelagius says, “much more can they not through the parents injure their children."

Pelagius also taught that it was possible for people to live holy lives in accordance with God’s will and merit salvation by good works.

Pelagianism is rejected by all orthodox Christians including Calvinists, Arminians, and Wesleyans, though the strain of thought is prevalent in modern secularism and humanism

2 Likes
72

@Paul_Allen1

But that would mean God pretty much EXECUTES that broadcast of corruption…

There is no quantum, physical or biological taint that can cause this corruption of our environment… it is not caused by toe nail clippings… it is not caused by brain waves.

And if you are fine with that … then I don’t think you need the Augustine view of Original Sin any more, right ?

73

The doctrine of original sin is central to Augustine’s understanding of both grace and free will. Original sin makes grace necessary. Original sin defines the bondage of the will. One’s view of grace and free will is inseparably related to one’s understanding of original sin. He who embraces Augustine’s view of original sin is compelled to probe his understanding of grace and the fallen will.

Augustine understood the will to be a faculty that is part of the constituent nature given to man in creation. Brain waves, toe clippings - no. It makes man a volitional creature and makes it possible for him to be a moral creature.

Creatures who lack minds or wills cannot be moral beings. To be capable of moral action, either virtue or vice, a being must be able to make moral choices.

For example, when a drop of rain falls to the ground, we do not regard this as a moral falling. A fall from the sky is not a fall from righteousness.

Gottfried Leibniz distinguished between several types of evil, such as metaphysical evil, physical evil, and moral evil.

Metaphysical “evil” refers to finitude or the lack of pure being (like that found in God).

Physical “evil” refers to natural disasters like floods or earthquakes. We think of such events as bad, but we do not attribute moral culpability to the water that floods or the earth that shakes.

Moral evil refers to the actions of volitional creatures.

Augustine regarded man as fallen and as a sinner, but he did not mean that in the fall man had lost his moral agency.

Indeed, it is because man remains a volitional being that he is culpable for sin. “There is … always within us a free will—but it is not always good,” Augustine says.

“For it is either free from righteousness when it serves sin—and then it is evil—or else it is free from sin when it serves righteousness—and then it is good.”

Augustine clearly affirms that man before and after the fall possesses free will.

The ability to choose, or the faculty of the will, remains in man even after the fall. Augustine insists we “always” have a free will. **The direction of the will, however, may be to either good or evil.

We can have a good free will or an evil free will.

Augustine defined free will as the ability to make voluntary decisions free from external constraint or coercion. It is self-activity. Self-activity refers to actions caused by the self, not to actions caused by an external force.

The person is not an inert object or a passive puppet. This freedom is a necessary condition or prerequisite for moral behaviour of any kind.

At times Augustine seems to deny all freedom to the will of fallen man. In The Enchiridion, for example, he writes: "when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost.”

How can we square this statement with Augustine’s insistence elsewhere that man always has freedom of the will?

The sinner sins because he chooses to sin, not because he is forced to sin.

Without grace, the fallen creature lacks the ability to choose righteousness. He is in bondage to his own sinful impulses.

To escape this bondage the sinner must be liberated by the grace of God.

For Augustine the sinner is both free and in bondage at the same time, but not in the same sense.

He is free to act according to his own desires, but his desires are only evil.

In an ironic sense, he is a slave to his own evil passions, a slave to his own corrupted will. This corruption greatly affects the will, but it does not destroy it as a faculty of choosing.

1 Like