Interesting Thoughts on Original Sin

I didn't use that specific language, and my frame of reference here is what the rest of the pagan world either practiced at the time, or accepted as part of its mythology. Packer's response assumes that social trinitarianism is true. Even setting that issue aside, I don't see any cogency in his remarks. The issue is that the theory of penal substitutionary atonement appears to violate a number of biblical prohibitions, as well as to deny the principle of the non-transferability of sin. For him to say "it's fine, because love and glory" misses the point.

 

I think you're misunderstanding what penal substitutionary atonement does.

Sin is not transferred; it remains with the sinner. Atonement is restitution. Sin incurs a debt with God that can only be satisfied by the death of the sinner. ("For the wages of sin is death." - Rom. 6:23) That bill was paid by someone else (Jesus on the cross), and the satisfaction of the bill is imputed back to us. This is why translators usually use the word "cover" for sacrificial atonement: the sin is covered (the debt struck through in the divine ledgerbook as satisfied), not erased. You can also use a judicial metaphor to describe it -- American jurisprudence doesn't allow it, but in past times some legal systems allowed a friend or relative to serve jail time on behalf of someone who had been judged guilty of a crime. The satisfaction of the jail sentence was accounted to the one who committed the crime, not the person serving the time.

Sin is a crime against God; hence the "penal" part of the formulation.

 

I get what you're saying, but the underlying issue remains: the theory of penal substitution assumes a medieval framework of crime and punishment that would have been foreign to the biblical writers themselves, and indeed runs counter to the Mosaic Law itself and its exposition by the Prophets:

10 “If he begets a son who is a robber, a shedder of blood, 11 who does none of these duties, but eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor’s wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, 13 lends at interest, and takes increase; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominable things; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself.
Ezekiel 18:10-13 RSV​

 

I think the best that can be said for 'penal substitutionary atonement' is that it is an answer to the question "How does the atonement work", but not the whole answer. The complete answer to "How does the atonement work"? is known only to God, The Holy Trinity, but it is possible to identify from scripture a number of other convincing factors which caused God himself to make arrangements for the salvation of the creation that He had personally set in motion when he said "Let there be LIGHT" and to put right whatever had gone wrong in it. For St. Paul, it is clear, that the atonement had cosmic consequences, not just salvific value for a few Christian believers, through the forgiveness and restoration of just a few human sinners.
.

 

I just don't think it has to be that complicated. "Repent and live" is a far more straightforward answer than the legalistic mechanics of Late Medieval elaborations of Anselmian 'satisfaction theory'.

 

It's not complicated!

God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us (believers), the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we (believers), are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal (to the world), through us.
.

 

John the Baptist preached: John 3:v.34-36

34 - He whom GOD hath sent speaketh the words of GOD: for GOD giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. - The Word is GOD -

35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand.

36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (-Terrible, very terrible for them which are unbeliever-)

John 15:v.22 - JESUS said: 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak(excuse) for their sin.

 

NOTICE though it is ONLY the ones that Jesus has SPOKEN TO that (shall not see life). Those who know not what he had spoken would not have sin. Therefore they do not yet forfeit life until REJECTING the words actually spoken TO them by Christ, if and when he speaks to them.
.

 

As far as I can see, the doctrine of "original sin" is not laid out as such anywhere in the Bible. The doctrine is based upon a cobbling together of disparate, unrelated scriptures which might be interpreted to support the doctrine but on the other hand could be interpreted otherwise. It's all rather 'wiggly', like a 4-story building made of cardboard. The "original sin" doctrine is a construct, an extrapolation from Biblical truth that goes above & beyond the same.

The idea of "original sin" is that all humans have a fallen, sin-prone nature. A 'defect', if you will. They can't help but sin eventually. This natural tendency to sin is called "original sin" and it is traced back to the first sin of the first Adam. The concept holds that every human being ever born is alienated from God by merely being born with this nature, through no fault of his own, and apart from actual individual culpability of having personally committed any sin. Furthermore, the concept holds that the singular way in which original sin is absolved by God is through the act of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

(Never mind that no one ever got baptized with this formula prior to the apostolic age, yet many were justified through faith in God. How could they be justified in God's eyes if they still carried the guilt of "original sin"?)

If this doctrine of original sin were correct, and if it were of as great importance to the spiritual well-being of the church as folks have made it out to be, then why is there no clear teaching on it by either Jesus or the apostles? Most certainly, Jesus taught and preached in order to convince the people what they must do to have eternal life. Clearly, Jesus and the apostles taught about repentance from sin, trust in Christ, and walking thereafter in a renewed spirit with love and humble obedience. Why is there not even a peep about getting rid of "original sin"? A doctrine which (allegedly) is absolutely vital to the receipt of spiritual health should be spelled out in the Bible, don't you think? Did Jesus, Paul, James, etc. simply forget to address it? That makes no sense.

The Bible teaches us that God makes us a "new man" by spiritual rebirth, and that we receive this gift by grace through faith in Christ.
2Co_5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Gal_6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
To be "in Christ" is to be spiritually reborn, remade by God. Remember, some of you like to say that circumcision is the OT equivalent to (or precursor for) water baptism. But none of that (neither circumcision nor baptism nor uncircumcision nor unbaptism) "availeth any thing," for we must be "in Christ," by trusting in Him as our Lord and Redeemer, to receive the gift of grace and spiritual renewal. Water baptism isn't what makes us "in Christ," but it is meant to be the outward sign and obedient act by which we (1) signify the inward transformation that God has wrought and (2) are admitted into the visible church.

Paul's letters always finished with exhortations to live holy lives, to shun sin, to do good, etc. Isn't it worth noting that those exhortations do not include counsel to make sure all the babies are baptized to rid them of original sin?

By His very nature, Jesus disproves the doctrine of original sin. We believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man, right? We know that Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). For Jesus to be fully man, He had to have a human nature. And since the human nature of all humans is a fallen nature, Jesus would logically have had to be born in original sin. Being born of a virgin does not solve this dilemma, because that's like saying His nature was "quasi-human" or something. No! Jesus was fully human as well as fully God.

You see, if Jesus did not have a fallen human nature (and we are sure He did not, btw), then He could not be tempted as fully and thoroughly as the rest of us; and if He could not be tempted in the same way as a "fallen natured" human could be tempted, then Jesus was not as "fully man" as the rest of us. That fallen human nature is a huge handicap for us all, isn't it? It is what allegedly makes it so hard (impossible) for us to remain sinless. For Jesus to be tempted in every way and to the same degree as we are tempted, He would necessarily have had to partake of the original sin that all humans are born into (assuming that the doctrine of original sin is correct); otherwise He had an "unfair advantage" compared to us. Since we are certain that Jesus (1) was fully human and (2) was born without original sin, it stands to reason that the human proclivity to commit sin is not, in and of itself, either sin (of any type) or sinful.

Let us take note that Adam and Eve possessed the same human nature, the same proclivity to commit sin. Yet they lived in a state of complete innocence before God, until they committed actual sin. That was the original sin. The tendency toward sin, not the original sin itself, is what we inherit by being born of human beings. That is why Jesus, born of a human mother, could have the full human nature (which verily yearns to sin) and yet be without sin. And the fact that Jesus was born with that emotionally-overwhelming desire and proclivity to rebel against God in sin, yet resisted every single temptation, is what shows us how difficult, triumphant, and wondrous His entire mortal life and His self-sacrifice were.

The belief that water baptism somehow causes or ushers in or enables spiritual regeneration is a concept that is inextricably linked to the doctrine of original sin. It is the 'original sin' doctrine which leads to the assignation of tremendous spiritual import to the physical act of baptism. Without that doctrine, there is no need to elevate baptism to such a degree that it could ever overshadow (as it did in the medieval church for centuries) the correct emphasis of salvation "by grace through faith... not of works." The original sin doctrine empowered the clerical hierarchy to rule the nations in despotism, for without RC baptism for redemption from original sin, no one could receive eternal life. What a mighty cudgel! This cudgel was wielded against kings and peasants alike.

 

First let me congratulate you Rexlion for this contribution to the debate. It is closely reasoned, biblical, soundly scriptural and utterly convincing. Well written.

I would only add that infant baptism is only legitimately connected to the faith of Jesus Christ by virtue of the New Covenant as expressed through the original covenant promise of God, to Abraham and his offspring after him. It is the right of every child born to a 'faith covenant' covered parent, to be accepted into the church as 'holy'. Baptism is the sign and seal of this acceptance by God's holy people, as one of them.

Also that adult baptism, (and those baptised as infants are still entitled to submit to this, though it is not required of them to secure the salvation they already have, if faithfully keeping the New Covenant through faith in Jesus Christ), signifies symbolically a volutary submission to God's just sentence of death for sin and also an intention to personally attribute their rising to new life 'in Christ', to Christ, from henceforth, for evermore.
.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth. Rexlion’s contribution is the best by far. Excellently written.

 

Let us re-remember what JESUS said.

JESUS said: Matthew 28:v.18-20
18 Jesus came and spake unto His disciples saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the END of the world. Amen. (By the way, the END arrived and is running, this after 2000 years of preaching the Gospel. JESUS came 2000 years ago, and 4000 years after Adam).

John 1:v.5 to 13
5 The Light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. (the Baptist)
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light(the Greater Light-Genesis 1:v.16), that all men through him might believe.
8 He (John) was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He -the Light- was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

11 He came unto His own (the Jews), and His own (the Jews) received Him not. (and they receive not JESUS until today, It because JESUS was/ is of the house of David. The Jews REBELLED against the house of David-1Kings 12:v.19, Check it. Read from verse 16 to 19)

12 But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of GOD, even to them that believe on His name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Luke 19:v.24-27
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given(very very good); and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. (too bad, too bad)

24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given...

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

John 12:v.46-50
46 I am come a Light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to Judge the world, but to save the world.

48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the Word that I have spoken, the same shall Judge him in the last day. (That is the seventh and last Day, the Lord's Day, or seventh and last millennium, the millennium of Vengeance, the millennium of Judgment, the Judgment Seat of Christ) https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...xactly-240-years-in-the-jewish-calendar.2354/

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

50 And I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

 

John 12:44-50
Summary of Jesus’ Teaching

Then Jesus cried aloud: ‘Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in me should not remain in the darkness. I do not judge anyone who hears my words and does not keep them, for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.’​

The origins of the Doctrine of Original Sin, are largely attributed to Augustine of Hippo, a Latin Father, and not well received in the East, partly because he did not write in Greek, and partly for a number of his doctrinal positions. I suspect Augustine would be better received in the East on his own words, rather than the much that has been built upon his words by those who came after.

The Reformation and the Enlightenment have ushered in a new era, where the notion of the individual is amplified, and the notion of community diminished. Are we defined by our community, or is the community simply the aggregation of individuals? The notion of the corporate personality, of Adam defining us as a fallen race, can in my view be lost in translation a little when we perceive the communal state as individual guilt.

Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness will not put it out, however feebly we flicker.

 

I chalk some of this up to the fact that Christians don't read the Old Testament deeply enough. God does levy corporate punishment for corporate sin. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their corporate sin. He mandated the destruction of the Canaanites for their corporate sin. And God constantly punished Israel for their corporate sin, ultimately resulting in the sack of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the dispersion of the Jews across the earth. It is possible for the corporate body -- a nation, a church -- to be in sin even if individuals in that body are righteous. The OT prophets fall into this group -- they share a measure of Israel's punishments even when they themselves are righteous before God.

I think you are correct in thinking that modern culture is too individualistic, though I'd attribute this more to the Enlightenment than Reformation Protestantism per se. Christians think -- or at least should think -- of themselves as a member of a universal group of believers (the "invisible church") under the Lordship of Christ. We call each other "brother" and "sister" because we have been adopted into Christ's family. On earth and (we pray) in Heaven, we live as members of this family. One cannot live a Christian life alone because sanctification can only happen in relation to other people, through the church.

But when a church or nation falls away from Christ, we share in the earthly results of that fall even if we remain faithful ourselves. Just as the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, sometimes so does God's wrath. Our reward for our faith is in Heaven, not on earth.

 

More than 90% of the German population 1n 1939 were enthusiastic followers of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime, even if some of them disapproved of some of the unfortunate effects of his policies upon the Jews. Around 90% of the German population were at least nominally 'Christian'. Either Roman Catholic or Protestant. They certainly, in spite of their 'faith', (however faithfully they practiced it), suffered the wrath of the consequences of their corporate choices, and some would say it may have been the wrath of God they experienced, when he rose up the Allies against them and flattened their cities to rubble. Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind. Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

On the other hand it may be that God stood back, didn't take sides in human politics, and let the whole sorry Nazi Regime suffer the natural consequences of it own corporate stupidity and selfishly evil intent. God is after all impartial and not to be held responsible for the injustices commited by human beings.
.

 

To everyone who posted in this thread: What was the original sin really? Who knows? It was...what?

 

The temptation was not to accept the gift of God, his image and likeness, but rather to aspire to achieve it for ourselves by our own actions, so really original sin is to think that we have made ourselves rather than to accept our divine and glorious creation, and so to God with ourselves.

 

To what Botolph wrote, I will add:
They saw that the fruit looked desirable: lust of the eyes
They wanted to taste it: lust of the flesh
They wanted the knowledge which the serpent said they would receive and would make them more like God: this was the pride of life
They chose to trust the deceiver instead of trusting what God said, that they would surely die of they ate the fruit

In other words, the original sin was multi-faceted.

 

Hi brothers

This thread is about the original sin ocurred around six complete millenniums ago, it was/is one of the most sad happenings in the ancient time and revealed in the Old Testament. Our GOD revealed this sad event to Moses around 1500 years BC or 2500 years after Adam, i.e. after two days and half of work for restitution of all things.

Reading the two posts above, it seems that both comments describe more the effects of the original sin, than the original sin itself, that is the cause of all things that were above described. What GOD said to the man was/is prophetic, and fulfilled LITERALLY because of sin. But what was/is the main sin, the original sin, that caused and still causes total disgrace on GOD's creation? Was not it first because of desobedience(rebellion) of the Word of GOD, paying attention to Satan and to what does he convey by his own MOUTH? Give a look to Revelation 16:v.13-15 combined with 2Corinthians 11:v.13-15..

What does the Word of GOD say about disobedience? 1 Samuel 15:v. 23 - The rebellion (disobedience) is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

GOD had said to the man He had created: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Satan), thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eat thereof thou shalt surely die". Gen.2:v.17. Satan was in the Garden of Eden, of the same manner he is among the believers in Christ JESUS today, who eat what he offers (2Corinthians 11:v.13-15) dies. Who eats what JESUS offers, lives for ever.

In my understanding, the disobedience was the original sin, the rest were/are consequences, continuity of the original sin.

Folowing what GOD revealed to Moses, as is written in His Word, after He formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; the man became a living soul. And the Lord GOD planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put THE MAN whom He had formed.

We know that in the beginning, i.e. in JESUS, was the Word, the Word was GOD, GOD the Father, and is for ever and ever, and All things were made by JESUS; and without JESUS was not any thing made that was made. JESUS -GOD- was in the garden of Eden-John 17:v.5- JESUS is the true GOD, and Eternal life-1John 5:v.20-, JESUS was/is the tree of life.

By the way, Psalm 1 says: Blessed is the MAN that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he-the MAN- shall be like a TREE planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. Psalm 1:v.1-3

There was a population of celestial beings-angels-(by alegory are trees) created by GOD in the garden of Eden, and they were ruled by a Cherub. But the ruler of the Garden of Eden, the Cherub, and his followers, rebelled against GOD, against JESUS. The battle of GOD-JESUS- against Satan comes from Eden, and the angels which kept not their first estate(angelical estate), but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the Judgment of this great Day - the Lord's Day - that is the seventh and last Day according GOD's Plan, or the seventh and last millennium, just or freshly started.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:v.6-7

THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS - WHY FROGS? | Pure Bible Forum (and see www.sinaiticus.net )

 

How about believing a liar and not believing God, then the whole human race habitually going on doing it.

Human beings were already created in the image and likeness of God. A liar convinced them that a change in diet would somehow give them what they already had. (i.e. to be like God). They both fell for it and the human race has believed too much in liars eversince. Just look at Joseph Smith's, David Coresh's, Adolf Hitler's, Joseph Stalin's, Mau Tse Dung's, Vladimir Putin's, Donald Trump's and Boris Johnson's followers.

We should ALL be only following the only person who is The Way, The Life, The Truth.
.