The Origin of “Original Sin and the Fall”

Faith & Science Conversation
6

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
7

Welcome to the 24th of November 1859.

2 Likes
8

It’s the publisher! :slight_smile: I opted to post that link in lieu of the Amazon monster. :slight_smile:

1 Like
9

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.

10

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
11
12

I hope that you are a Jew.

Get past that interpretation of Romans 5 (et al) and Original Sin goes out the window.

Richard

13

I’m not. The meaning and relevance of your response eludes me.

2 Likes
14

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
15

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
16

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
17

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
18

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.

19

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
20

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
21

I had to look this up. The mistranslation is

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, in him all men sinned

when the correct translation is

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all men sinned

I find nonexistence claims to be silly. When people asked me in my youth if I believed in the existence of God, I replied the question isn’t whether God exists but what is God? The same applies in the case of original sin. The words exist. The only question is what real thing do these words refer to?

I could never believe in some built in inclination to sin, and I never have. But an original sin? Yes I believe in that. It is characteristic of human behavior that that once someone does something then others imitate this behavior and it spreads till many, most, or even all do the same thing. The Bible tells the story of such a thing in the case of murder starting with Cain.

I am reminded of dark matter in physics. It is essentially a fudge factor to explain the failure of physics to explain what we see and measure. I have always been rather skeptical, but discrepancy and need for an explanation certainly exists. It is only a question of what is the correct explanation.

22

It’s certainly true that there is “imitative sim”, if we see everyone around us doing wrong, we are more inclined to join in. Where Augustine, and the whole Western church, went wrong was to conclude that one man’s sin was GENETICALLY INHERITED by all his descendants. We inherit characteristics, not acts.

1 Like
24

Proof? Who are you trying to fool?

25

Dictionary definition of sin
sin

[sin]

NOUN

  1. an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law:

It has no substance. It cannot be transmitted, inherited or infect.

It cannot be part of the human DNA

SIn is a psersonal act done deliberately in full knowledge .Knowing that it is wrong

Jeremiah 31 v29ff
“In those days, it will no longer be said:

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,

and the teeth of the children are set on edge.’

30Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

Sin cannot even be passed from parent to child let alone all the way from Adam.

That is scripture

And Ezekiel confirms it Chapter 18

1The word of the Lord came to me: 2“What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

“ ‘The parents eat sour grapes,

and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?

3“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.

That is also Scripture

Richard

2 Likes