What's original in original sin?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Marshall

But if “original sin” is about our inclination to sin and seeming inability to live without sinning (our being a “somewhat ‘broken’ creature,” as you put it), perhaps an evolutionary account suggests it shouldn’t be abandoned.

I think this makes the most sense.

@Marshall

Long before we were the human race, all sorts of instincts and behaviours were embedded into our being. Those instincts and behaviours now lead us to all sorts of sins, and they make sinning natural, even instinctual.

But I don’t think it is our red-in-tooth roots which are the problem. What has set us apart from the animal world is our capacity for machiavellian reasoning, for seeking our own advantage … the ability to pursue ends beyond need while cooly regarding our own kind as merely the opposition. Christianity’s best contribution might have been to provide a rationale for going another way. But the reason I think it works is that living in that cut throat way is intrinsically stressful, dissatisfying and alienating. A perspective like that advocated in the teachings of Jesus is the antidote (or at least one of them) for our ‘new’ condition. It is one way to live in close proximity to so many of our kind without going crazy.

[GJDS]

@Marshall

But if “original sin” is about our inclination to sin and seeming inability to live without sinning (our being a “somewhat ‘broken’ creature,” as you put it), perhaps an evolutionary account suggests it shouldn’t be abandoned. Long before we were the human race, all sorts of instincts and behaviours were embedded into our being.

I find some of these arguments odd - I cannot imagine my pet dog committing sins, nor would I attribute sin to any animal. Sin is intentionally breaking God’s law and command. The notion of original sin is the first time a human disobeyed God, without environmental impediments. This requires revelation of God to man, and the capacity to respond and understand the revealed command. If this criteria cannot be met, we cannot discuss sin.

[Marshall (Marshall Janzen)]

Yes, @GJDS, I also don’t want to attribute sin to animals. That’s why I avoided describing those instincts and behaviours as inherently sinful. It is in humans that “Those instincts and behaviours now lead us to all sorts of sins, and they make sinning natural, even instinctual.” I would think that happens after God has given humanity some greater revelation than the other beasts.

[GJDS]

Yet much of the discussion seems to link an evolutionary narrative with original sin, by arguing that animal-like characteristics are the basis for sin in general, and so original sin becomes a side issue - or at least that is how it comes over to me.

I think that without the teachings of Genesis (or if these are modified/rejected), the argument falls down.

[Paul_Allen1 (Paul Allen)]

One of the most volatile controversies of the 4th century involved the doctrine of original sin. The combatants were the famous Bishop of Hippo, Aurelius Augustine, and the monk Pela gius.

Pelagius took offense at Augustine’s famous prayer, “Grant what thou commandest, and command what thou dost desire.”

Pelagius disagreed that it is in any way necessary for God to “grant” what he commands of us. Pelagius assumed that moral responsibility always carries with it moral ability. It would be unjust of God to require his creatures to do what they are unable to do in their own power.

If God requires moral perfection, then mankind must be able to achieve perfection. Though grace facilitates our quest for moral perfection, grace is not necessary for us to reach it.

Augustine argued that grace not only facilitates our efforts to obey God, but because of our fallen nature, grace is necessary.

Before the fall, the requirement for moral perfection was already present. The fall did not change the requirement, but it did change us. What was once a moral possibility became, without grace, a moral impossibility. Augustine’s view is rooted in his doctrine of original sin. As the debate escalated, Pelagius aimed his guns at this doctrine.

Denying original sin, Pelagius argued that human nature was created not only good, but incontrovertibly good. Human nature can be modified, but the modifications can be only “accidental,” not “essential.”

This terminology again reflects Aristotelian categories, whereby the word accidental does not mean “unintentional” but refers to changes that affect only the surface of something, not its deepest essence. 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 basic tenet of humanistic philosophy. It also pervades evangelicalism. Many believe they are “basically good.”

At the heart of Pelagius’s concern in his debate with Augustine was a desire to protect the idea of man’s free will.

Man both obeys God and sins against him according to the activity of a free will. Adam was given free will, and his will was not affected by the fall.

Nor was guilt or fallen corruption transmitted to Adam’s descendants. According to Pelagius, Adam’s sin affected Adam and Adam alone.

There is no inherited condition of corruption known as original sin. Man’s will remains entirely free and retains the capacity for indifference, meaning it is not predisposed or inclined toward evil. All men are born free of any predisposition to sin. We are all born in the same moral condition as Adam enjoyed before the fall.

Augustine, on the other hand, argued that sin is universal. Man is incapable of elevating himself to the good without the work of God’s grace within.

[Realspiritik (Jennifer Thomas)]

@MarkD

Christianity’s best contribution might have been to provide a rationale for going another way. But the reason I think it works is that living in that cut throat way is intrinsically stressful, dissatisfying and alienating.

I think this is an important observation. We have the capacity, as human beings, to create harm (as @Marshall has been highlighting), but we also have the capacity to dislike the harm we create. If we were really the sorry creatures Augustine judged us to be, would it even be possible for us to be so deeply stressed by intentional harm?

Why do we have a conscience (some of us, at any rate)? Why do we have a sense of morality? Why do we weep at injustice? Why do we struggle so hard to learn from our painful mistakes and not repeat them?

What about our mysterious emotions such as love? Empathy? Wonder? Grief? Why do we yearn so intensely to feel God’s presence in our lives? Is it because we’re miserable, worthless wretches (as Augustine supposed) who can’t make any positive changes in our lives through our own initiative? Or is it because we’re children of God who are walking a difficult path as human beings so we can better know our beloved God?

When Christians are talking about the doctrines of original sin and all these doctrines entail, it’s often overlooked that if we fully accept what Augustine (and Western orthodoxy) say about human nature and the certainty of sin, we must set aside what Jesus taught us about Divine Forgiveness.

Paul’s Grace and Jesus’ Forgiveness are mutually exclusive paradigms. The doctrines of original sin are completely and logically consistent with Paul’s Grace, so if Grace is the path that seems more meaningful to an individual, then original sin (as well as many other orthodox beliefs) will make sense.

Jesus’ Forgiveness is a very different beastie, however. It’s a much harder path than the path of Grace, but believing with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength that God will forgive you in the present even when you make mistakes is a limitless source of courage. Forgiveness is such a powerful gift and blessing that you start to realize you don’t want to abuse it or take advantage of it. So you begin to use your free will in ways you never thought possible. This is when the doors of change, transformation, and redemption really start to open.

I believe this potential to be our best selves is one of the great gifts of Christianity.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

As an outsider noting that many of these beliefs make sense within my own experience, I also note that they work just as well with or without the back story regarding creation or the ever-after conclusion.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Paul_Allen1

Pelagius took offense at Augustine’s famous prayer, “Grant what thou commandest, and command what thou dost desire.”

Pelagius disagreed that it is in any way necessary for God to “grant” what he commands of us. Pelagius assumed that moral responsibility always carries with it moral ability. It would be unjust of God to require his creatures to do what they are unable to do in their own power.

This is a good example of the extremes to which these two theologians went. In this particular case, I would side with Augustine. But Augustine also went too far at times, such as when he suggested that salvation was just a matter of God replacing the fallen angels by selecting a few humans as raw material for the creation of replacements. And many other things which Pelagius advocated were later adopted by the Protestants. These two really needed to sit down together and work out their differences rather than simply trying to have the other declared heretical.

@Paul_Allen1

If God requires moral perfection, then mankind must be able to achieve perfection. Though grace facilitates our quest for moral perfection, grace is not necessary for us to reach it.

I think there is a rather unfortunate confusion here which equates the perfection that heaven requires (“You must be perfect even as your heavenly Father is perfect.”) with never making any mistakes, and I think this non-Biblical phrase “moral perfection” plays into that confusion. Jesus’ constant refrain was, “your sins are forgiven, so go and sin no more,” so the perfection of which Jesus spoke was not about never making mistakes but about getting rid of these self-destructive habits which were tearing us down. This is important because, making mistakes is part of the natural process of learning and guilt for sin should never be about kicking ourselves any more than what it takes to change.

@Paul_Allen1

Augustine argued that grace not only facilitates our efforts to obey God, but because of our fallen nature, grace is necessary.

Before the fall, the requirement for moral perfection was already present. The fall did not change the requirement, but it did change us. What was once a moral possibility became, without grace, a moral impossibility. Augustine’s view is rooted in his doctrine of original sin. As the debate escalated, Pelagius aimed his guns at this doctrine.

One can agree that grace is necessary without believing that human nature was essentially altered by the fall to make it impossible for us not to sin – the latter looks way too much like self-justification.

@Paul_Allen1

Denying original sin, Pelagius argued that human nature was created not only good, but incontrovertibly good. Human nature can be modified, but the modifications can be only “accidental,” not “essential.”

The excuse of a modified nature making it impossible not to sin was probably the bee in his bonnet, and I find that no easier to swallow than Pelagius did. We both want it crystal clear that we are fully responsible for our sins as something we have chosen to do. On the other hand, I would completely disagree with this idea that sins only make a superficial change in us. Sin is a rot in the very core of our being and that rot can grow to consume us utterly – our free will itself being one of the casualties. This is indeed the whole problem of sin in the first place.

@Paul_Allen1

This terminology again reflects Aristotelian categories, whereby the word accidental does not mean “unintentional” but refers to changes that affect only the surface of something, not its deepest essence. Sin does not change our essential moral nature. We may sin, but we remain “basically good.”

I see this as a flaw in all of ancient Greek philosophy which confuses the artifacts of language with reality itself. This is something which gives us in modern times a huge advantage in the perspective we have from modern science rooted in mathematics rather than language and thus revealing the influence language had on the ancient Greek understanding of reality.

With Pelagius I reject the idea that the fall of man altered our basic nature while disagreeing with the idea that sin does not alter our basic nature. Obviously, I am rejecting both notions that our spirit is something given to us and that we are born with sin. Our spirit is something we create with our own choices and without choices made there is no sin.

@Paul_Allen1

The idea of mankind’s basic goodness is a basic tenet of humanistic philosophy. It also pervades evangelicalism. Many believe they are “basically good.”

It is one of the most basic beliefs of Judeo-Christianity, that we are created by a God, who only creates good things. But not only the world but our very selves is not a result of the work of God alone, for we also have a hand in shaping the world and more importantly making choices that shape our own identity. The existentialist maxim that existence precedes essence removes the basic flawed thinking that sin is only a superficial facade covering a essence of goodness, for it tells us that our essence is not the circumstances of our existence but rather what we choose to do with it.

@Paul_Allen1

At the heart of Pelagius’s concern in his debate with Augustine was a desire to protect the idea of man’s free will.

Indeed! And perhaps what he failed to understand was that sin destroys free will.

@Paul_Allen1

Nor was guilt or fallen corruption transmitted to Adam’s descendants. According to Pelagius, Adam’s sin affected Adam and Adam alone.

Except that it is a basic fact of life that everything we do has an effect and impact on our descendants. Our mistakes is a mess that they have to live with.

@Paul_Allen1

There is no inherited condition of corruption known as original sin. Man’s will remains entirely free and retains the capacity for indifference, meaning it is not predisposed or inclined toward evil. All men are born free of any predisposition to sin. We are all born in the same moral condition as Adam enjoyed before the fall.

Agreed. Our nature remains the same. It is only the circumstances which are different – and the most important of these is a relationship with God, broken by the simple fact the relationship can do more harm than good if God becomes a scapegoat rather than a teacher and parent.

@Paul_Allen1

Augustine, on the other hand, argued that sin is universal. Man is incapable of elevating himself to the good without the work of God’s grace within.

And in this Augustine was completely correct. But I am not convinced that Pelagius did not understand this. I rather suspect that a lot of rhetoric thrown at each other was getting in the way.

[Marshall (Marshall Janzen)]

Thanks for adding that, @Sinner. That’s an interesting article, especially in the talk page that shows how contentious the Orthodox view seems to be, even among the Orthodox.

I’m curious if Ancestral Sin is also thought to come down only through the male line (through Adam, not Eve), and if it is common and acceptable among Orthodox to expand it to something not tied to an individual person. But no worries if that’s not something you feel you can speak to!

[heiresnt (Neal Heires)]

Man was created with a free will, and it is in his nature to pursue his own knowledge of good and evil, which in essence is the root of all evil in the world - the original sin. Most if not all people who live without God in their life believe they are good. This can lead to a range of evils. As an extreme example you have Adolf Hitler that believed it was good to kill millions of Jews and Russians. So as man is tempted by Satan, he will choose to do what he thinks is good, rather than submit to God’s will which IS good. He does not choose the fruit of the tree of life, but the fruit of the tree of his own ideas of good and evil - choosing to sin. Thus as soon as man was created, sin was born from this choice. Christianity is all about choosing God’s will through Jesus way and for that we are deemed righteous. It is amazing how the Adam and Eve fall, relates to the fall of all mankind, and the need for a savior - pointing directly to Jesus. So did we inherit this original sin from Adam and Eve? Yes in that we are all born from them into this world with the same free will. No matter how good we think we are, pursuing the tree of life by doing God’s will through following Jesus’ way is the only way to life and escaping this original sin.