Romans 5:12-21

[MoreCoffee]

There's a thread about an allegedly biblical concept of original sin. Romans 5:12-21 ought to play a pivotal role in that discussion. What does Romans 5:12-21 teach and is "original sin" part of it?

• 12 Therefore, sin entered the world through one man; and through sin, death; and later on, death spread to all humankind, because all sinned. 13 As long as there was no law, they could not speak of disobedience, but sin was already in the world. 14 This is why, from Adam to Moses, death reigned among them, although their sin was not disobedience, as in Adam’s case—this was not the true Adam, but foretold the other, who was to come. 15 Such has been the fall, but God’s gift goes far beyond. All died, because of the fault of one man, but how much more does the grace of God spread, when the gift he granted, reaches all, from this unique man, Jesus Christ. 16 Again, there is no comparison between the gift, and the offense of one man. The disobedience that brought condemnation was of one sinner, whereas the grace of God brings forgiveness to a world of sinners. 17 If death reigned through the disobedience of one and only one person, how much more, will there be a reign of life, for those who receive the grace, and the gift of true righteousness, through the one person, Jesus Christ. 18 Just as one transgression brought sentence of death to all, so, too, one man's good act has brought justification and light to all; 19 and, as the disobedience of only one, made all sinners, so the obedience of one person, allowed all to be made just and holy. 20 The law itself, introduced later on, caused sin to increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 and, as sin caused death to reign, so grace will reign, in its own time, and, after making us just, and friends of God, will bring us to eternal life, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Comments:

• 12. Let us try to understand the thinking of Paul, inasmuch as he develops it here. In the first two chapters, he showed that without faith in Christ, humans lived in sin, including the Jews who had received the word of God. Then he asserted that salvation is brought about not by obedience to a law, but only by faith. Through this we are reconciled to God and we enter into a relationship of friendship with God who guides us towards the goal of the whole of life, which is to share the “glory” of God, or his life in eternity.

Paul now widens his horizon. Jesus has come not only to reconcile sinners, many sinners, but to save humanity as a whole. In modern terms, we would say that he came to save human history; in biblical language, he has come to save “Adam.”

For Paul, as for the Jews of his time, Adam meant both the first human created by God and the whole of humankind. The children of Adam are only one with the ancestor whose name they bear. Indeed, from the beginning of humankind to the present generation, only one Adam comes to life, distrusting, rebellious and violent.

Sin entered the world through one man (v. 12). Here Paul refers to the narrative in Genesis, but not to insist, as others have done after him, on the importance of the sin committed by the first human. In fact, Jesus did not speak of such sin, and the Scripture before him showed much reservation (see Wis 10:2 and Sir 49:16). Paul intends to point out a double solidarity that affects us: in Adam all humans are sinners, in Christ all have been reconciled. God created the world and has visited it to save the human race as a whole, united in Christ. This is why Paul puts the first parent of the old traditions in opposition to that that is the first in the plan of God. If the role of the first forebear remains very mysterious, Paul asserts clearly that humanity is not naturally at peace with God and that it cannot reach its goal as long as it is not saved by Christ.

We do not say that human nature is evil: God created it. It may perhaps be helpful to remember that during the 16th and 17th centuries, the history of the West was greatly influenced by the controversies about original sin. What nonsense was said (God had condemned all humankind to hell because of the sin of Adam)! This led to a reaction under the form of aggressive atheism in order to get rid of such a capricious and evil God. Thus it was asserted that humans are born good and that the society is guilty in making them evil.

The teaching of the apostles maintains that although human nature is good, we are born alienated. To speak to us of this situation, John uses two expressions: “the world” and “the ruler of this world,” that is, the devil (see commentary on Jn 3:16 and 1 Jn 2:15). Paul, for his part, will talk of sin. In these passages, sin refers to the totality of forces that have imprisoned humankind and which bring it to evil. We are not totally responsible for the sins that at times we do without really willing them (7:16-24), and this proves our slavery and alienation. And Sin begins with our difficulty in recognizing truth and judging according to truth.

This foretold the other Adam who was to come (v. 14). To the picture of human destiny presented in Genesis (Chaps. 2 and 3), Paul presents in contrast another image, that of the crucified Christ. To the scene of sin near the forbidden tree, Paul compares that of redemption fulfilled on the “tree” of the cross. In the first scene there are three characters: Man (Adam), Sin (the serpent), Death. In the second, there are four: Man (Christ), Sin, Death and Justice (or new and holy life).

The gift of God more than compensated for sin (v. 16). The damage caused by sin from the very beginning increases each day; at times we feel crushed and powerless by the evil forces present everywhere. Paul, however, sees the greatness of the gift of God: while humankind increases and sin enters into all areas of society, God calls more people to free themselves.

There is something more. In this paragraph, somewhat complicated, Paul hints that the redemption of Christ does much more than correct the errors of humankind. God is not satisfied with helping us and making us better, for, after beginning to lift up men and women, he invites them to reign in life, which is to share his own glory.

How much more will there be a reign of life for those who receive grace (v. 17). Christ embraces all of us, gathers us in his sacrifice, and becomes the new head of humankind. Perhaps Paul is thinking at times of the salvation of only those who have listened to the Gospel, believed in Christ and entered the Church. Note however that he stresses the fact that Christ saves a world of sinners. Christ is the new Adam and the head not only of believers, but of humankind as well. Humans continue today to be drawn by the flood of evil originated by Adam. Humankind is also saved as a whole, as long as people try to lift up their brothers and sisters. He who does not share in this task loses salvation, because what God wants is not “my” salvation but the salvation of Adam.

The law caused sin to increase (v. 20). It was an error to see the law as the great gift of God (yet the Old Testament said it!). Let us say rather that because of the law the Jews discovered much sooner than other nations how great was their need to be saved. Its first result was to increase sin, because from then on they knew what their duty was and did not do it. (Source: from the footnotes of the Christian Community Bible)​

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholic Christians do teach about Original Sin but Catholic Christian teaching on original sin is very different from the ideas expressed in 16th & 17th century Protestant doctrine.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Catholic Christians do teach about Original Sin but Catholic Christian teaching on original sin is very different from the ideas expressed in 16th & 17th century Protestant doctrine.

Do they express it as latent potential for sin, or newborns being made naturally evil by their Creator?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do they express it as latent potential for sin, or newborns being made naturally evil by their Creator?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

It's a tendency towards sins. Concupiscence is the word that saint Augustine used. There is also an aspect of punishment (death specifically) that came as a result of Eve and Adam sinning. Romans 5:12-21 explains both why Adam's (man's) sin implicated all his progeny and also why Christ's (the second Adam [man]) obedience and goodness brings grace and forgiveness to sinners (people who have committed actual sins of their own). But these things are very far from "total depravity" in Calvinist theology and from Martin Luther's "bondage of the will" theology. Both Calvin and Luther, and many who followed in their footsteps, gave emphasis to guilt and eternal punishment as the right and proper sentence passed by God against all humanity as a result of Adam's sin (meaning Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden). Catholics did not walk down that path and saint Augustine didn't start the Catholic Church on that journey. The comments in the Christian Community Bible give a brief explanation of that and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the 16th century Catechism of the Council of Trent and even saint Augustine's writings all point to the corrupting influence of Adam's sin (Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden) but the extra steps taken by Calvin and Luther were not made in Catholic teaching. Those extra steps were a distinctly Protestant enterprise.

See http://christianityhaven.com/showth...l-concept-of-original-sin&p=128953#post128953

 

[popsthebuilder]

It's a tendency towards sins. Concupiscence is the word that saint Augustine used. There is also an aspect of punishment (death specifically) that came as a result of Eve and Adam sinning. Romans 5:12-21 explains both why Adam's (man's) sin implicated all his progeny and also why Christ's (the second Adam [man]) obedience and goodness brings grace and forgiveness to sinners (people who have committed actual sins of their own). But these things are very far from "total depravity" in Calvinist theology and from Martin Luther's "bondage of the will" theology. Both Calvin and Luther, and many who followed in their footsteps, gave emphasis to guilt and eternal punishment as the right and proper sentence passed by God against all humanity as a result of Adam's sin (meaning Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden). Catholics did not walk down that path and saint Augustine didn't start the Catholic Church on that journey. The comments in the Christian Community Bible give a brief explanation of that and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the 16th century Catechism of the Council of Trent and even saint Augustine's writings all point to the corrupting influence of Adam's sin (Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden) but the extra steps taken by Calvin and Luther were not made in Catholic teaching. Those extra steps were a distinctly Protestant enterprise.

See http://christianityhaven.com/showth...l-concept-of-original-sin&p=128953#post128953

Thank you for the explanation.

No thanks on the video.

peace

your seeming unbiased honestly is still noted.....and admirable sir.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

The Protestant Concept of Original Sin:



Fundamentally, "original sin" is the belief that all humans* have a fundamental spiritual "disease." It is universal (not limited by age, race, gender, ethnicity, education, etc.). It means we "fall short" (the meaning of the word "sin") of God's character and will, His righteousness and love. We have this propensity.



What is the Law? The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.


Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."



What does the Law mandate? Essentially, that our character be identical to His.


Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."



What is Sin? The word literally means "to miss the mark." In ancient Greece, if an archer missed the target he therefore "sinned." It means to fall short of a standard, to miss the goal.


Romans 3:23 "For all sin and fall short."



Most Protestants speak of ORIGINAL SIN and ACTUALIZED SIN.....


Original: The inclination, the propensity, that DISEASE that means we are self-centered, egotistical, self-serving, rebellious. It's what is in our hearts that LEADS to sins, it is the root of sin. When a man shoots his boss, the "problem" didn't start with the bullet entering the guys' chest, it began with something deep in the heart of the shooter - which LEAD to the chain of things that ultimately meant his pointed his gun and pulled the trigger. If I have a cold, I may sneeze. The sneeze is not the disease, it flows from the disease (which I may have even if I'm not sneezing at that microsecond; even if I take enough pills to never sneeze I still have a cold).


Actualized: These are the symptoms. They may be our thoughts or our words or our deeds. They may be known (observed) or not (even the sinner may not be aware of them). They may be thoughts or words of deeds we SHOULD have had but didn't (being imperfect)... they may be thoughts or words or deeds we should NOT have had but did (being sinful).



That's the PROTESTANT view...

But these things are very far from "total depravity" in Calvinist theology and from Martin Luther's "bondage of the will" theology. Both Calvin and Luther, and many who followed in their footsteps, gave emphasis to guilt and eternal punishment as the right and proper sentence passed by God against all humanity as a result of Adam's sin (meaning Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden). Catholics did not walk down that path and saint Augustine didn't start the Catholic Church on that journey. The comments in the Christian Community Bible give a brief explanation of that and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the 16th century Catechism of the Council of Trent and even saint Augustine's writings all point to the corrupting influence of Adam's sin (Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden) but the extra steps taken by Calvin and Luther were not made in Catholic teaching. Those extra steps were a distinctly Protestant enterprise.

Very wrong.

Luther's "Bondage of the Will" and Calvin's idea of "total depravity" are part of their monergism and the subject is justification (narrow). Catholicism condemned Luther at the Council of Trent (a bit after Luther's death) NOT because of some concept of original sin (see above for the Protestant view on that) but because the RC Denomination officially condemned monergism and declared his teaching that Jesus is the Savior to be apostate and heresy, so detestable that it chose to once again split itself over this.

I do not agree with you that the RCC holds that God was wrong to condemn Adam and Eve and wrong to punish later generations for their sin. That's sure not what our Catholic teachers taught us! We were taught that God is just and right to condemn sinners (including me), that it's exactly what all sinners deserve. But God's mercy in Christ means that we can apprehend His grace and forgiveness through Christ (which is also the Protestant view).




* Jesus, being fully God as well as man, is seen as the one exception to this: His divine nature "communicating" with His human so as to eliminate this. However, Jesus suffered the consequence of sin because He took on OUR sin thus suffering for OUR sin, not His own.




Thank you.


- Josiah





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thank you for the explanation.

No thanks on the video.

peace

your seeming unbiased honestly is still noted.....and admirable sir.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

It is not a video friend popsthebuilder, it is a link to a post in CH that gives a definition of original sin. http://christianityhaven.com/showth...l-concept-of-original-sin&p=128953#post128953

 

[MoreCoffee]

"That's the PROTESTANT view..."
[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], you know as well as we all do that there is no such thing as "the Protestant view" on almost anything much less on Original sin. Some Protestants deny it altogether, some see it as original guilt, some see it otherwise.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Informative. Thank you.
Btw, let's keep responses to the topic at hand (Romans 5:12-21 with explanation) as opposed to a continuation of a closed thread. Thanks!

 

[hedrick]

It's a tendency towards sins. Concupiscence is the word that saint Augustine used. There is also an aspect of punishment (death specifically) that came as a result of Eve and Adam sinning. Romans 5:12-21 explains both why Adam's (man's) sin implicated all his progeny and also why Christ's (the second Adam [man]) obedience and goodness brings grace and forgiveness to sinners (people who have committed actual sins of their own). But these things are very far from "total depravity" in Calvinist theology and from Martin Luther's "bondage of the will" theology. Both Calvin and Luther, and many who followed in their footsteps, gave emphasis to guilt and eternal punishment as the right and proper sentence passed by God against all humanity as a result of Adam's sin (meaning Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden). Catholics did not walk down that path and saint Augustine didn't start the Catholic Church on that journey. The comments in the Christian Community Bible give a brief explanation of that and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the 16th century Catechism of the Council of Trent and even saint Augustine's writings all point to the corrupting influence of Adam's sin (Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden) but the extra steps taken by Calvin and Luther were not made in Catholic teaching. Those extra steps were a distinctly Protestant enterprise.

See http://christianityhaven.com/showth...l-concept-of-original-sin&p=128953#post128953

There's less distinction between this and Calvin than you might think. For Calvin, the fall corrupted human nature. That corruption makes it impossible for us to be morally perfect. For Calvin that meant that without Christ's intervention, we were unable to be saved. This is actually pretty similar to concupiscence. Note that Calvin denied that Adam's actual sin or guilt are inherited.

Where he did differ is that he believed that the corruption of our nature separates us from God, even before we commit the first actual sin. On the other hand, the Calvinist tradition (and I think Calvin himself) believe that infants are saved, so the effects of corruption absent actual sin is minimized. The difference is perhaps in how that happens. Calvin would maintain that in principle the corrupt nature would damn people even before their first sin. But this doesn't actually happen, because God in his grace accepts infants anyway, through Christ. So in some sense the difference is hypothetical.

I don't entirely agree with the OP. Paul seems to be setting up an analogy and contrast between Adam and Christ. Just as Adam's started sin, and it spread to his children, so Christ brought salvation, and it spreads to his spiritual children. The comparison is not perfect, however, because we get salvation from Christ alone, through solidarity with him (Rom 6), whereas we don't quite get sin from Adam. At least not with the most likely translation, which is "and so death spread to all because all have sinned." (So also New Jerusalem. I don't have the NAB online.)

Of course I don't think there was ever actually an actual Adam. As far as I can tell, we developed out of pre-human ancestors with no sharp dividing line. Nowhere in the process was there ever anyone morally perfect, if indeed that's even possible. One major property of humans is that we learn from experience, including trial and error. (Luke 2:51 implies that Jesus learned through experience also.) Having us start out morally perfect would conflict with the basic nature of humanity.

Calvin believed that righteousness could only come from moral perfection. If Adam was morally perfect, and the fall lost that, it's at least a conceivable view (though a misunderstanding of Paul's use of the term righteousness). In fact Scripture considers righteousness to apply to people who have faith, and repent when they sin. So moral perfection isn't really required. While I don't think human nature has perfection as a property, even in ideal form, the impact of sin is limited by the fact that humans are intended to love God and neighbor. As long as this is true, and we repent, there are limits to what sin can do. Of course it's not true of all people...

In my view, the lesson from Gen 3 is not that sin suddenly came into a previously perfect human nature, but that human nature was imperfect from the beginning, such that humans sinned the first time they faced temptation. Rom 5 doesn't actually take any position on this. It simply says that sin came into life through Adam, and we're like him because we all sin. What came through Christ wasn't moral perfection, but grace.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=63]hedrick[/MENTION], I see the points you've made. I am not so sure that biological evolution was in saint Paul's thinking but it is right to point out that he (in Romans 5:12-21) is not attempting to explain why all people deserve hell. The truth is that saint Paul appears to be using the story in Genesis as evidence for his own reasoning about vicarious "atonement" though he does not use the word in quotes. HIs message is first that Christ's life, death, and resurrection along with his ascension have a vicarious influence/significance for humanity and the fall of Adam (and Eve) provides a good and practical support for his argument. Catholic theology on the matter of original sin can be summed up as follows:

• "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world" (⇒ Wis 1:13; ⇒ Wis 2:24).
• Satan or the devil and the other demons are fallen angels who have freely refused to serve God and his plan. Their choice against God is definitive. They try to associate man in their revolt against God.
• "Although set by God in a state of rectitude man, enticed by the evil one, abused his freedom at the very start of history. He lifted himself up against God, and sought to attain his goal apart from him".
• By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.
• Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".
• As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").
• "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'".
• The victory that Christ won over sin has given us greater blessings than those which sin had taken from us: "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (⇒ Rom 5:20).
• Christians believe that "the world has been established and kept in being by the Creator's love; has fallen into slavery to sin but has been set free by Christ, crucified and risen to break the power of the evil one. . ."

 

[Albion]

It's a tendency towards sins. Concupiscence is the word that saint Augustine used.

As always there is that problem of trying to answer for the whole range of Protestants, which is just about impossible to do accurately in a simple statement.

However, my understanding of the Protestant POV--if we are speaking of the older and most post populous Protestant denominations, such as the Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed, etc.--is that

...Original Sin is defined basically the same way Catholics define it.

 

[hedrick]

A useful summary. I would think Calvin would agree with all of them.

On the first item: Calvin said one place that God never intended us to live forever on earth. Without sin we would have transitioned peacefully to eternal life. He distinguishes this from death, although my opinion is that in a literal sense it meets the definition. Does the Catholic tradition agree?

I'm not sure I agree with any of them, except maybe the last two, depending upon interpretation. Essentially while I agree that we are sinful by nature, I think the specifics listed here are tied to understanding Genesis, particularly Gen 3, as historical. I don't see how that's possible today.

At one point the Catholic Church considered evolution acceptable, but required a literal Adam and Eve, and fall, to be embedded in the evolutionary history. Is that still the case? It's an interesting way to preserve traditional theology in the light of the current scientific model, but I don't think in the end the compromise is going to turn out to work. But a serious rethink of the Augustinian heritage would be very difficult for Catholics. It's just as difficult for most Protestants, but my tradition is about Christianity in the light of the Enlightenment.

I agree that Paul wasn't thinking of evolution. The contrast between the old life and the new life in Christ still works, although even for Paul Rom 5 probably oversimplifies the historical context. It suggests that salvation began with Christ, while it's pretty clear that at least Abraham had faith. Perhaps he wouldn't limit being one of Christ's to being chronologically after Christ.

There's one other odd thing about Rom 5. Death was from Adam to Moses, not Adam to Christ. Does he see Moses as the start of Christ's people? If so, why not Abraham? Or Noah? Or perhaps it's not chronological at all, but grace is available to everyone.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A useful summary. I would think Calvin would agree with all of them.

On the first item: Calvin said one place that God never intended us to live forever on earth. Without sin we would have transitioned peacefully to eternal life. He distinguishes this from death, although my opinion is that in a literal sense it meets the definition. Does the Catholic tradition agree?

I'm not sure I agree with any of them, except maybe the last two, depending upon interpretation. Essentially while I agree that we are sinful by nature, I think the specifics listed here are tied to understanding Genesis, particularly Gen 3, as historical. I don't see how that's possible today.

At one point the Catholic Church considered evolution acceptable, but required a literal Adam and Eve, and fall, to be embedded in the evolutionary history. Is that still the case? It's an interesting way to preserve traditional theology in the light of the current scientific model, but I don't think in the end the compromise is going to turn out to work. But a serious rethink of the Augustinian heritage would be very difficult for Catholics. It's just as difficult for most Protestants, but my tradition is about Christianity in the light of the Enlightenment.

I agree that Paul wasn't thinking of evolution. The contrast between the old life and the new life in Christ still works, although even for Paul Rom 5 probably oversimplifies the historical context. It suggests that salvation began with Christ, while it's pretty clear that at least Abraham had faith. Perhaps he wouldn't limit being one of Christ's to being chronologically after Christ.

There's one other odd thing about Rom 5. Death was from Adam to Moses, not Adam to Christ. Does he see Moses as the start of Christ's people? If so, why not Abraham? Or Noah? Or perhaps it's not chronological at all, but grace is available to everyone.

The Catholic Church has not dogmatically define anything to do with biological evolution and is not likely to do so any time in the foreseeable future so people are at liberty to debate it and accept or reject it but the historical position of the Catholic Church is not to read Genesis as history as if it were a bit of reportage compiled to keep the Israelites and Christians informed about the past. That is more in the province of fundamental/evangelical movement groups. The position found in several of the early church fathers is to read Genesis (at least from chapter 1 to around 15) as religious typology (in modern terms one might say mythology). And I am inclined to say that Eve & Adam (real persons or mythological designations for mankind and the mother-of-the-living) would likely die an earthly death just as the fruit that they ate died in being eaten (a natural process when you think about it) despite saint Paul's argument that the whole of creation is sentenced to futility because of Adam's sin and that death entered because of sin. I suspect that saint Paul may have been thinking of death as primarily separation from God as the source of life rather than as physical dissolution so for him the kind of death that entered the world because of sin is a kind of death proper only to human beings who become separated from God by wilfully sinful actions.

I agree with you that Romans 5:12-21 is a simplification of the theology behind Genesis and the rest of the OT and NT. Saint Paul was using Genesis to supply an "historical" and theological justification for his reasoning about the saving work of Jesus Christ. He wanted to make a case for "headship" based on the Jewish model of Adamic headship for the human race. Paul's intention is to treat Christ as Adam (Man/mankind) for redeemed humanity. That is why his argument is so cursory in its treatment of Eve & Adam's story in Genesis - it is used as a justification for what he says about Jesus not as a historical fact that ought to be accepted as if it were "news" from the past.

No saint Paul does not see Moses as the start of redeemed humanity he sees Moses as the start of Law and hence the start of sins as acts of disobedience to the Law. As he says "where there is no Law there is no accounting for sin" and that is the core of his argument regarding "original sin" he argues that people died (both physically and spiritually) despite the lack of any laws for them to disobey and he concludes that they died because death become a human characteristic once Adam disobeyed and as head-of-humanity his death became death for all his progeny (all of humanity). It's an interesting argument, maybe one that Rabbis would appreciate in the first century but from a strictly logical perspective it seems like overreaching from scant facts to a massively weighty conclusion.

 

[Josiah]

The Protestant Concept of Original Sin:



Fundamentally, "original sin" is the belief that all humans* have a fundamental spiritual "disease." It is universal (not limited by age, race, gender, ethnicity, education, etc.). It means we "fall short" (the meaning of the word "sin") of God's character and will, His righteousness and love. We have this propensity.



What is the Law? The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.


Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."



What does the Law mandate? Essentially, that our character be identical to His.


Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."



What is Sin? The word literally means "to miss the mark." In ancient Greece, if an archer missed the target he therefore "sinned." It means to fall short of a standard, to miss the goal.


Romans 3:23 "For all sin and fall short."



Most Protestants speak of ORIGINAL SIN and ACTUALIZED SIN.....


Original: The inclination, the propensity, that DISEASE that means we are self-centered, egotistical, self-serving, rebellious. It's what is in our hearts that LEADS to sins, it is the root of sin. When a man shoots his boss, the "problem" didn't start with the bullet entering the guys' chest, it began with something deep in the heart of the shooter - which LEAD to the chain of things that ultimately meant his pointed his gun and pulled the trigger. If I have a cold, I may sneeze. The sneeze is not the disease, it flows from the disease (which I may have even if I'm not sneezing at that microsecond; even if I take enough pills to never sneeze I still have a cold).


Actualized: These are the symptoms. They may be our thoughts or our words or our deeds. They may be known (observed) or not (even the sinner may not be aware of them). They may be thoughts or words of deeds we SHOULD have had but didn't (being imperfect)... they may be thoughts or words or deeds we should NOT have had but did (being sinful).



That's the PROTESTANT view...



.

Josiah, you know as well as we all do that there is no such thing as "the Protestant view"

It is the general view.... certainly of the Lutherans and Calvinists that you specifically mentioned. As others noted, the RCC and the majority Protestant view on original sin are very similar.

But these things are very far from "total depravity" in Calvinist theology and from Martin Luther's "bondage of the will" theology. Both Calvin and Luther, and many who followed in their footsteps, gave emphasis to guilt and eternal punishment as the right and proper sentence passed by God against all humanity as a result of Adam's sin (meaning Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden). Catholics did not walk down that path and saint Augustine didn't start the Catholic Church on that journey. The comments in the Christian Community Bible give a brief explanation of that and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the 16th century Catechism of the Council of Trent and even saint Augustine's writings all point to the corrupting influence of Adam's sin (Eve's and Adam's sin in the garden) but the extra steps taken by Calvin and Luther were not made in Catholic teaching. Those extra steps were a distinctly Protestant enterprise.

Very wrong.

Luther's "Bondage of the Will" expresses monergism and the subject is justification (narrow). Catholicism condemned Luther at the Council of Trent (a bit after Luther's death) NOT because of some concept of original sin (see above for the general Protestant view on that) but because the RC Denomination officially condemned monergism and declared his teaching that Jesus is the Savior to be apostate and heresy, so detestable that it chose to once again split itself over this. If you want to start another thread on Justification, we can do it but that's not the issue here.

I do not agree with you that the RCC holds that God was wrong to condemn Adam and Eve and wrong to punish later generations for their sin. That's sure not what our Catholic teachers taught us! We were taught that God is just and right to condemn sinners (including me), that it's exactly what all sinners deserve. But God's mercy in Christ means that we can apprehend His grace and forgiveness through Christ (which is also the common Protestant view).



A blessed Holy Week to all....



- Josiah





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], isn't that the second time you copied that post from the The biblical concept of original sin thread and posted it in here despite this thread being specifically about Romans 5:12-21? Please stop re-posting it here.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION], isn't that the second time you copied that post from the The biblical concept of original sin thread and posted it in here despite this thread being specifically about Romans 5:12-21? Please stop re-posting it here.

Seconded. Stick to the topic.

 

[MennoSota]

What does the text say? At this point in the discussion I couldn't care less what Calvin, Luther, Rome or Charles Taze Russell say. I simply want to know what the text itself says.
Romans 5:8-21
[8]But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners.
[9]And since we have been made right in God’s sight by the blood of Christ, he will certainly save us from God’s condemnation.
[10]For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son.
[11]So now we can rejoice in our wonderful new relationship with God because our Lord Jesus Christ has made us friends of God.
[12]When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.
[13]Yes, people sinned even before the law was given. But it was not counted as sin because there was not yet any law to break.
[14]Still, everyone died—from the time of Adam to the time of Moses—even those who did not disobey an explicit commandment of God, as Adam did. Now Adam is a symbol, a representation of Christ, who was yet to come.
[15]But there is a great difference between Adam’s sin and God’s gracious gift. For the sin of this one man, Adam, brought death to many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of forgiveness to many through this other man, Jesus Christ.
[16]And the result of God’s gracious gift is very different from the result of that one man’s sin. For Adam’s sin led to condemnation, but God’s free gift leads to our being made right with God, even though we are guilty of many sins.
[17]For the sin of this one man, Adam, caused death to rule over many. But even greater is God’s wonderful grace and his gift of righteousness, for all who receive it will live in triumph over sin and death through this one man, Jesus Christ.
[18]Yes, Adam’s one sin brings condemnation for everyone, but Christ’s one act of righteousness brings a right relationship with God and new life for everyone.
[19]Because one person disobeyed God, many became sinners. But because one other person obeyed God, many will be made righteous.
[20]God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God’s wonderful grace became more abundant.
[21]So just as sin ruled over all people and brought them to death, now God’s wonderful grace rules instead, giving us right standing with God and resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[MoreCoffee]

What does the text say? At this point in the discussion I couldn't care less what Calvin, Luther, Rome or Charles Taze Russell say. I simply want to know what the text itself says.
...

Romans 5:12-21 was quoted in the first post in this thread but thank you for posting the verses (and a few more) again.

 

[MennoSota]

Romans 5:12-21 was quoted in the first post in this thread but thank you for posting the verses (and a few more) again.

Your welcome. You also went straight to a commentary rather than observe what it says yourself. Then you went on to talk about other commentaries without actually observing what the text says. So...what does the text say?