Close Topic Options

The Doctrine Of Original Sin

Original sin is something that has caused problems within the church for many centuries. Indeed, the concept originated with a man, not the Bible. There are several platforms to which people stand on this issue:

1. The Bible fully supports the doctrine of original sin.
2. Original sin was created by man and not a facet of God at all
3. Original sin is support by the Bible but is interpreted to various degrees.

Definition:
This is my definition, not straight from the dictionary.
Original Sin is the path by which the sin of Adam (the first man) passes on to each man, woman, and child from his first child on. Every single human being is born with original sin and cannot be saved except through baptism. Even children are subject to the pang of original sin.

Who subscribes to which platform:

1. Catholics believe that original sin begins at birth, thus if an infant is not baptized, they go to hell. This was originally expressed by St. Augustine in Book I Chapter nine addressed to Marcellinus in roughly 412 CE. Original sin can only be wiped through baptism.

2. Mormons do not believe in original sin as expressed in article of faith 2. This is relatively new knowledge for me, please see this thread for more information.

3. Evangelicals and protestants have a wide variety of beliefs regarding original sin. For instance, I grew up in the Assembly of God church and it was taught that original sin passed from adam to every other person, but not until the age of accountability. Thus an infant that dies without baptism or Christ goes to heaven. Original sin could only be wiped through the saving grace of Jesus Christ. This theme varys from organization to organization, but all carry some form of this belief, while a few don't believe in it all.

But where did this doctrine come from?
The teaching did not originate until the early 5th century via Augustines Anti-Pelagian Writings. His teachings put the guilt of Adam on the whole of humanity. Unfortunately, this exact doctrine conflicts with the doctrine of the perfect Christ since no one could escape it. Thus the general dogma of Mary's purity to save Christ from original sin. But the Bible never mentions that Mary was sinless, thus the problem is both unsolvable by a non-circular argument.

Is there any Biblical backing for this doctrine?
Yes, but it is scarce and subject to interpretation, thus the many beliefs on the subject.

Positive Biblical Evidence:
Romans 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
Romans 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"
1 Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Negative Biblical Evidence:
Deuteronomy 24:16, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Ezekiel 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Jeremiah 31:29-30 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

Some other various scriptures back up these. Some state that no one is righteous, not one. While other point out that there were righteous men, even before Noah, and of course Job was righteous. So you see it is an interpretation of scripture that allows for debate. It should also be mentioned that there is no concept of original sin in the Jewish faith. According to the Jews, every man will die with his own sin or righteousness by way of Gods judgement.

Sin Original Doctrine The

I am no theologian, and sometimes I get out of my league when I get into these religious discussion, but I will partake nonetheless.

These references, in my opinion, are not negative to the concept of original sin. My take is that they are pointing out that children will not be held accountable for sins that their fathers have enacted; instead they will only be accountable for sins they themselves have enacted. That doesn't necessarily mean that original sin does not exist. Original sin, in my opinion, is not something that was passed down from Adam, instead it was created when Adam sinned.
Therefore all descendants of Adam would be born in sin and with sin, because of this original sin. It is not that they are inheriting the sins of their ancestors, but they are being born of the flesh, which is now dipped in sin because of the first sin committed by Adam.

The best biblical reference I can conjure to back this is Genesis 3:22

By eating of the tree of life, man was now condemned to see both good and evil and forced to make a choice between the two. Seeing evil meant that we born of evil, just as much as he is born of good. The ability to choose between good and evil means that he is much a part of good as he is a part of evil. Thus the concept of original sin. That is my simplistic view on the matter.

The Doctrine Of Original Sin Revealed Bible The

Isn't this a contradiction? Unless I did not understand exactly what you meant Malexander, for one side you said it is not something that it was passed down from Adam and by the other side you said all descendants of Adam would be born in sin. This sounds like you're saying in fact that the Original sin was passed down from Adam to his descendants.

One of the questions I would like to ask is: How Adam and Eve could possible "sin" if they did not know good from evil prior of partaking the fruit? If they did not know the difference, then they could have not sinned in the first place. In my opinion, they transgressed a commandment of God, which is quiet different in my opinion from sinning.

Condemnation or necessity? You see, when Adam and Eve were in garden of evil, the first commandment the Lord gave them was to "multiply and replenish the earth" and then he commanded them to not partake of the fruit of good and evil. They could not being able to fulfill the first commandment without breaking the second. Since both of them were "innocent" in every aspect to the point that they did not even know they were naked, then there was no way they could bring children into this world.

Sin Original Doctrine The

The very definition of transgression is to sin or commit a sin, so I don't see why the two would be different. Yes, Adam and Eve did not know about sin, but apparently did not lack the fortitude to commit one. Once they committed this sin, then and only then were they able to see the difference between good and evil.

As for my opinion of original sin, what I was trying to say is that the sins of Adam are not passed down to his children and so forth. However, the concept of original sin exists within each human when they are born, which means I believe that everyone is born with sin. Please realize this is my interpretation of what I have read, and I am not claiming it is right. It is simply my opinion.

Sin Original Doctrine The

It is different because as you acknowledged Adam and Eve did not know about sin, therefore how could they "sin"? The right word for me is transgressed (the went beyond the boundaries or limit, ). A transgression is a violation of religious law without the perpetrator's understanding and sin is when you know the difference.They did not sin because simply they did not know good from evil, therefore, it cannot be called "sin" in my opinion.

I am trying hard to understand your concept but I just do not get it. Sorry about that. You're a Catholic, right? I thought Catholics believe that the original sin of Adam is passed down to his children and so forth and that's why the whole concept of being born in sin or is this your personal interpretation? I do not know what do you exactly mean by "the concept" of original sin. We are born with sin or without and if we are born with sin, means someone passed to us. Sorry if I do not understand it quickly, I am trying my best to get your point. Thanks.

Edited: LDS_forever on 30th Mar, 2006 - 10:29pm

The Doctrine Of Original Sin

Did you ever see the movie 'Blue Lagoon' with Brooke Shields. It's about two children who are marooned on an island and are the only survivors. They grow up together and learn a lot about life, even though they had no one to teach them. They even have a child together, not having learnt about intercourse, etc. I guess this is a bad example, but it is the only one I could think of at the time. In my opinion, not knowing about sin doesn't mean that one cannot sin. It is also possible that Adam was created with sin, since God's intention was for him and Eve to sin, therefore they would realize they were naked, and subsequently populate the earth like you mentioned. Only God knows.
As for my religious affiliation, I honestly don't have one right now. I go to the Catholic church because my wife is Catholic, but I myself am not Catholic. Honestly, I don't know what the full Catholic teaching on original sin is, other than they believe that people are born with it. I appreciate the perspective on this discussion though; I just don't agree with it at the moment

The Doctrine Original Sin

sin
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology.
1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

When God told them not to eat of the tree, it was a law he laid down, the one law. Thus eating of the fruit was indeed sin. It also fits the second definition since Gods will was known.

Why is it continually thought that they didn't have sex until after the downfall, that the downfall was required to have sex? If they were partners made for each other, would not pleasure gained by the other partner have been completely alright with God and beneficial to each other?

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Sex between a united couple was not beyond innocence, that sex can only occur due to sin is a church dogma with no biblical backing. Thus there was probably sex before the fall. And it doesn't say they didn't know they were naked.

Genesis 2:25
The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Feeling no shame doesn't mean your not attracted to your mate. It just means you don't have anything to be ashamed of. That doesn't imply ignorance of your situation, merely ignorance of good and evil. And indeed, doesn't imply lack of understanding of right and wrong. After temptation, Eve knew what was right to do, she even quoted why she shouldn't eat.

Genesis 3:2
he woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

She obviously knew what was the right thing to do or the wrong thing, or how would she have been able to make a decision about the tree. If she didn't know right from wrong, then how would she know that eating the fruit, or even disobedience to God was wrong? She would not have known if ANYTHING was wrong including disobedience. Good and Evil are separate from Right and Wrong. Adam and Eve knew right from wrong and thus could sin. But, not having knowledge of good and evil, they would not have had the ability to do good deeds or evil deeds.

Since the tree was dual fold, knowledge of both Good and Evil, you have to understand that if they couldn't do evil, they couldn't do good. If their lack of knowledge prevented them from doing evil deeds, then indeed the opposite must also be true. But the decision by Eve shows and understanding of right and wrong, why to make the right decision and why to make the wrong decision.

Edited: konquererz on 31st Mar, 2006 - 2:03am

The Doctrine Original Sin The Bible Revealed

She didn't know if it was right or wrong, she simply knew that there was a consequence (you will die) to a certain action. Adam, too, knew there was a consequence, but not good from evil or right from wrong.

That is exactly correct, which is why eating the fruit of the tree was not a sin, but a transgression. They were incapable of sin, not knowing good/right from evil/wrong. Thus, there can be no "original sin."

The consequence of their action was to "die," or become mortal, which brought death upon us all. But that's not the same thing as sin.

As I understand it.
Roz