@jstump and Chad Meister have edited a new book! It’s a Multi-view book, which highlights 5 Original Sin doctrine perspectives. For a small glimpse into what the views they cover, check out Jim’s post about them. For the whole story, you’ll have to get the book. 
4 Likes
This is completely contrary to the bible. It said we literally ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is no room for evolution or interpretation. We were clearly created separate from monkeys. 
The similarities in us and monkeys are obviously just because we are similar species… minus conscience/knowledge of right and wrong and more complex minds and bodies. We really mustn’t stray from the creation story, for when we do we become heretics denying the divinity of God almighty and Jesus Christ as well. You mean to tell me Jesus was a evolved monkey? And that the fall and original sin did not happen? Seems like you are disbelieving in the nature of sin than mankind has and is…far from Genesis we stray…today for you I will pray.
I for one day original sin did not happen. It’s does not exist. But first you must clarify what you believe it is.
Original sin begin as the idea that all humans are guilty of the sins of Adam and Eve. That even small kids are born guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin. That if a unbaptized baby died, it went to purgatory or hell because it was guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin. That’s a concept not found in the Bible at all.
They also say that because of Adam and Eve’s sin, it caused all humans after them to be born with flesh that craves sin. That implies , from a literal interpretation, that prior to that Adam and Eve had a body that was not corrupted by the desire to sin.
So if they biologically could not sin, how did their flesh get enticed into sinning by the serpent? It’s clear their flesh was already susceptible to sin.
So if there flesh was already susceptible to sin, how is their flesh any different from ours? Another question to consider is that if Adam and Eve was immortal, and not biologically geared to sin, why was there the two trees in the garden? If death was let into the world, and death was just destruction of the body , and they were immortal the why was there a tree of life in the garden? Is they did not need the tree of life because they could not die, and if they would only need the tree because they were dying because of sin which meant they would be cast out of the garden it makes the tree absolutely useless.
If they were not susceptible to sin because they were not born sinful like everyone after them then why was there a tree of the knowledge of good and bad in the garden? How would it tempt them if they were different from us and not able to be tempted?
A better solution is that both trees served a purpose. The tree of life is what sustained them. Only God is immortal. Not even the angels are immortal. Adam and Eve could die physically. They are from the tree to continue their existence. The tree of life have them just that… life. They ate it to live.
The tree was there , and they were told not to eat it, meaning he was giving them a test , and a choice. Free will is real. God had always given us choices. We can choose goodness or sinfulness. For some amount of time they chose goodness.
So if they were able to die but kept alive by the fruit of the tree of life snd if they were able to be tempted by sin and choose evil how is there flesh any different from ours?
As for this book. It sounds interesting and I will try to get it soon, if it’s already out. I want to read it, especially since it’s a subject I’ve studied quite a bit not only from a accommodationist view, but also from the understanding of conditional immortality, I am really interested in how they theologically articulate their positions.
1 Like
Thanks. I made notes to look it up. IV Press looks like a good company too. Until recently, I’ve never thought about how Amazon is almost completely monopolizing many markets. Got interested in it specifically related to books because I have a handful of friends who deal with independent horror publishing companies and begin to realize that there are a bunch of small , and even larger publishing companies, that begin to disappear die to loss of book sales and so I’ve been trying to remember that an extra $5 for a book through a smaller company is helping to keep more jobs alive.
Though I understand you may have just randomly picked a company I was glad nonetheless to learn of a new company and book.
1 Like
Welcome to the 24th of November 1859.
2 Likes
It’s the publisher! 
I opted to post that link in lieu of the Amazon monster.
1 Like
It is incorrect to say that small kids are guilty of Adam’s and Eve’s sin. I interpret the fall of Adam and Eve differently than you’ve expressed it. Apply modern knowledge that is true at all times and in all places to read the Fall and Return correctly. Children behave instinctively from birth when they are helpless and can do nothing for themselves. They only learn as their sense of selfhood develops. Until they have developed self-consciousness, and can choose their own behaviors and BE SELF-ISH, they cannot sin. Babies never need redemption, just like animals don’t need redemption. They all behave instinctively, exactly as they were created to behave, although at a certain point, a baby grows up into a man or woman, capable of anything.
Jesus favored children and said so many times.
"If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Matthew 18:6
Gospel of Thomas logions refer to the primacy of children:
4 Jesus said: the man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live.
A CHILD IS INNOCENT.
37 His disciples said when will you become revealed to us and when shall we see you? Jesus said: When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like LITTLE CHILDREN and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one and you will not be afraid.
The Return from the Fall is in logion 37.
Theologians now generally accept that the Western doctrine of “original sin” dates from St. Augustine’s misunderstanding, due to a mistranslation, of Romans 5:12. “Original sin” was unknown to the Jews and to the early Church. If it means anything it is the innate tendency of all of us to sin, to do things for selfish or survival reasons which we know will cause harm.
4 Likes
- You might want to reconsider that myth: Notes on the Jewish Roots of the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin.
I hope that you are a Jew.
Get past that interpretation of Romans 5 (et al) and Original Sin goes out the window.
Richard
I’m not. The meaning and relevance of your response eludes me.
2 Likes
You are claiming something on their behalf. And telling them what they believe.
The non-existence of original SIn in Judaism is not a myth, from what I have seen and heard from actual Jews. And I tend to believe someone who is in the faith over someone who claims a biblical correction.
Richard
1 Like
Judaism was not monolithic in its beliefs. It is not difficult to believe that some group developed doctrines resembling original sin. One possible source of such a belief was the idea that the germs of humans were in the testicles of their father, meaning that all descendants of Adam were present when Adam sinned - guilt by participation and inheritance. Ezekiel 18 comments on the idea of guilt by inheritance.
‘Original sin’ was probably not a widespread concept among the first Christians, at least not in the sense later formulated by St. Augustine. One proof of this is that the church in the east (orthodox) never adopted the doctrine as it was believed in the western (Latin) tradition after St. Augustine.
2 Likes
Original sin is definitely a belief that developed later on within Catholicism. It originally meant that everyone born, including babies, who were not baptized would go to hell or purgatory when they died. That we are all born carrying the guilt of Adam. That his sin placed a curse of sin and its guilt in everyone. Which is why everyone dies. That when a young baby dies it dies because of the wages of sin in their hearts even if they are obviously too young to do so.
Original sin was something that pushed for the development of an Anabaptists. I personally find the doctrine of original sin to be one of the most disgusting theological views ever developed. The belief that babies need to be purified in hellfire is just disgusting.
3 Likes
And I agree wholeheartedly. There is so much wrong with it I am amazed that people who call themselves Christian can just go along with it. it is callous, and unforgiving and imposes a burden onto the whole of humanity that only Christianity can remove. Brilliant!
Richard
1 Like
I read a text from Luther where he concluded that a baby that is not baptized will not be judged to hell because the baby has not done anything against the law. Lutheran church has inherited the doctrine of original sin from the Roman-catholic church (or St.Augustine) but even the ‘father’ of the Lutheran church could not swallow the worst conclusion of the doctrine.
Many doctrines are matters of interpretation. If someone is stuck in a particular interpretation and has burrowed to a defensive bunker, what others tell will not change the opinion. The only hope is that the Holy Spirit can guide the person towards growing understanding about the will of God. Arguing does not help because it just keeps the person in the defensive bunker.
The problem is that people have taken Paul’s words out of context. He is talking about the law and how it identifies sin but cannot remove it. Adam’s sin was before the Law was given, but even though the law had not identified it, he still sinned. Adam was the first known sinner. The original sinner (if you like) and the consequence of that sin was the knowledge of good and evil. It is that knowledge that enables us to sin. It is that knowledge that Adam gave. It was not passing on his sin, but passing on the ability to sin.
Paul goes to great lengths to compare and contrast the first sin and the first (and only true) cancelation of it.
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
It is like for like, Paul is having a conversation with himself but only writing down the answers, not the questions. He tries to second guess all complaints and in doing so ties himself and the readers in knots. So people get hung up on this talk about Adam and his sin instead of the redemption of Christ.
The law can’ only identify the sin, be it Adam’s or any other, but it cannot redeem or even prevent it. Christ cancels it. That is the whole point. It is not whether it existed but whether it persists. And it doesn’t.
Paul is not claiming that Adam’s sin persisted. He is only claiming
He is a pattern of the One to come
Adam in, Christ out. Nothing more, nothing less.
Even if Paul thought that the sin of Adam could be passed on, he was saying that Christ canceled it all.
Original sin does not exist. it never has existed, and Christ has canceled it anyway.
The law came in so that the trespass would increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more
it is about the law. Not sinning.
so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Grace is free. Grace needs no verification. The righteousness is not ours but Christ’s
The grace of God canceled the penalties of sin. So why are people trying to reinstate them?
Romans 6 starts
What then shall we say? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may increase?
He is still arguing. it is a contimnuation. The argument started in chapter 2 and continued to chapter 8. Chapter 5 is the middle. It is not a stand-alone passage or argument. It is not a thesis on Original Sin.
Richard
2 Likes
Good share, @knor. I know very few among the Reformed who take the hardline view when it comes to infants, the unborn, those with severe cognitive deficiencies, etc. Obviously, there are some, but then there are bad apples in every bushel. Views on Original Sin are as broad and complex, as the doctrine itself.
1 Like