Doctrine of Original Sin

[RabbiKnife]

I've been teaching Sunday School for the last several weeks, and next week I'll be in Genesis 2 and 3.

I already know the question of "original sin" as most protestants and evangelicals currently understand the caricature of the doctrine is going to come up.  I'm sure without knowing the names, propositions from everyone from Augustine to Calvin to Arminius to Pelagius to the Nicean Council will be spouted as Gospel truth without possibility of discussion, and charges of heresy if one does not agree.

What say ye?  Where do you folks fall on the spectrum?   I find the subtle distinction of the Eastern Orthodox between "what is the effect of original sin" and "what is the effect of actual sin" to be quite interesting. 

Essentially, the EO (as I understand their position, which is essentially the same as what Arminius actually said) hold that the effect of Adam and Eve's original sin was to strip mankind of original innocence/holiness, and that the punishment for original sin was the removal of that original innocence/holiness/purity -- creating a condition in which the deterrent to actual sin was removed, making the human much more susceptible to temptation and acting in sin; ergo, the current human is not punished again for Adam's original sin, the removal of the original holiness being a just punishment.  This is not, however, the "humans have a sin nature and are already damned because of the federal headship sin of Adam." 

Is that an oversimplification?

What say the folk?

[Athanasius]

I think that describes my own view, which I would re-iterate, does not include this notion of "corrupted human nature", particularly as Adam and Eve were well capable of sinning while in the garden.

I understand the curses to be descriptive not prescriptive, and we are otherwise as we were created. This I think makes more powerful the incarnation. Jesus didn't cheat by instantiating a prelapsarian version of humanity -- we are still that version of humanity (lest someone accuse me of Pelegianism), and there is no other version of humanity. And we all inevitably repeat that original sin in our own ways, and then multiply it.

[RabbiKnife]

Agreed

I’m going to get in so much trouble…

[Athanasius]

Agreed

I’m going to get in so much trouble…

Yeah but I'm pretty sure everyone in the room would be able to read Greek better than Augustine could.

[RabbiKnife]

Agreed

I’m going to get in so much trouble…

Yeah but I'm pretty sure everyone in the room would be able to read Greek better than Augustine could.

It's their English reading and comprehension I'm worried about...

[Fenris]

This is a purely Christian topic. I therefore have no opinion. I will read the replies with interest, however. Always good to learn something new.

[Athanasius]

This is a purely Christian topic. I therefore have no opinion. I will read the replies with interest, however. Always good to learn something new.

As you might imagine, suggesting that Adam and Eve's sin did not result in ontological corruption of humanity, such that we did not inherit a sin-corrupted nature ('nature' here is heavily borrowing from Plato), is very contentious. If you aren't immediately accused of being Pelegian, you're more generally accused of suggesting that someone could work their way to righteousness, and live a sinless life purely through their own effort.

Point out that ontological corruption strips everyone of culpability? No no, Pelegian. Point out that separated from God, each other, the world, etc., our sinning is all but assured? No no, Pelegian. Point out that the very fact of separation is as much a state of sin as any other? No no, Pelegian.

The divide is maybe simplified like this: one group locates the motivation for people's sin in corruption of human nature, while the other group locates the motivation for people's sin in the world. Nature necessitates in a unique way that the world does not. And as a consequence another simplification may be to posit the difference in restoration: one group sees it is forensic, the other, relational.

Sometimes I would love to find the notion of a nature-corrupting "original sin" compelling. I could say, "I am compelled! My nature made me do it! I didn't want to, but I had no choice!" Well but instead I must admit, that I'm an idiot because I choose to be an idiot. And well it has this curious other effect... Suddenly, God doesn't hate everyone. God seeks to restore relationship with all, not just a limited elect while damning the rest because sovereignty.

[Fenris]

That was very detailed. Thank you for that explanation.

[RabbiKnife]

That was very detailed. Thank you for that explanation.

He ^^^ knows his stuff.  His (and mine) is not the majority view.  Many of my evangelical friends could consider this view heretical.  And they wouldn’t be slow to call it heresy.

The theological apologetic is very subtle, and unfortunately, many(most) conservative Christians are not known for either their subtlety and nuance or for their intellectual vigor.  Name calling and labeling before cancelling are just so much easier.

[ProDeo]

Put 2 toddlers in a room with loads of beautiful toys, close the door and watch what is going to happen. They will enjoy all the toys one by one until........... one toddler wants to have the toy of the other toddler which the other toddler refuses to give. Then watch the violence.

Who told them ?

Nobody.

[RabbiKnife]

Put 2 toddlers in a room with loads of beautiful toys, close the door and watch what is going to happen. They will enjoy all the toys one by one until........... one toddler wants to have the toy of the other toddler which the other toddler refuses to give. Then watch the violence.

Who told them ?

Nobody.

No one suggests otherwise.

They both fall fighting over the truck and crush their little skulls.

Do they go to hell because of their “sin nature” inherited from Daddy Adam?

[ProDeo]

Depends on who you ask -

Augustine - nagging, pushing, persisting selfish babies who insist the mother's breast.

Paul - Efez 2:3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

David - Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Instead of sin-nature I suggest :

1. Fallen state.

2. Made lower.

3. In need for Christ.

[Athanasius]

What does "fallen state" mean? I'm assuming "made lower" refers to Hebrews 2:7.

[ProDeo]

What does "fallen state" mean? I'm assuming "made lower" refers to Hebrews 2:7.

I don't mean Hebrews, I do mean that unlike A&E we never had a choice, sinners by default.

[Athanasius]

What does "fallen state" mean? I'm assuming "made lower" refers to Hebrews 2:7.

I don't mean Hebrews, I do mean that unlike A&E we never had a choice, sinners by default.

As far as we know, A&E were never children. And I agree that we're in a state of separation by default, and as a consequence of that we sin, but that is a choice in a way that ontological corruption isn't. You, and I, and everyone here could say no. And in fact many times we do. But that doesn't resolve the separation (Jesus restored that), and very many times we don't (say no).

So what does "made lower" mean?