Biblical concept of original sin

[NewCreation435]

Scripture says that we are born sinners and that we are by nature sinners
Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are “sons of disobedience.” Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all “by nature children of wrath.” If we are all “by nature children of wrath,” it can only be because we are all by nature sinners — for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam.

Scripture speaks of humans as unrighteous from infancy
There are also verses which declare that we are all unrighteous from the time that we are born. Proverbs 22:15 says “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child.” Genesis 8:21 declares, “. . . the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Jonathan Edwards, in his classic work The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, remarks that on this verse: “The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence . . . so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy.”

see rest of article about this at
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin

 

[Stravinsk]

I will not be bothering to address the Pauline passages that touch on this issue, as most everyone should know by now they are not proof texts to me.

Regarding Psalms 51:5


It is interesting that most of Christianity accepts a single verse taken out of context and used to promote the idea of original sin outside the Pauline writings.
The intro to this Psalm bears the context: It is just after Nathan has confronted David with his sin of having Bathsheba's husband murdered so he can lie with her.
Those familiar with the story will remember that this union resulted in a son. After being confronted by Nathan, David repents, prays and fasts, with the life of his son in mind. This is recorded in 2 Samuel chapter 12.
However, this son dies, just like Nathan said.
This Psalm is the expression of David's plea to God, while his son still lived.

Psalm 51:3 "For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me." - David's son, the result of his sin with Bathsheba, is ever before him.
Here is the critical verse:
Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me."

Does anyone else find it strange that this sole verse used to prop up Orginal sin outside the Pauline writings is found right in the middle of a Psalm expressing David's hope for the life of his son which was the result of sin?
David's sin is expressed in 3 ways:
1) Having Bathsheba's husband killed
Because
2) He coveted Bathsheba, another man's wife.
3) His union and the result of that initial union was a result of the first 2 sins.

Except for the personal pronoun "I" it's quite apparent that David is speaking for his son, and not himself. It fits the context of the Psalm and it fits the story as recorded in 2 Samuel.

That being said...
There are those who will insist that it does not follow, because "I" is elsewhere always referring to David himself.
Ok.
Who was David's mother? She is not named in the Hebrew Scriptures. If David's mother is the person who concieved him "in sin", how did this come about?
Why is this verse isolated from the context in which it appears?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I will not be bothering to address the Pauline passages that touch on this issue, as most everyone should know by now they are not proof texts to me.

Even if not, it would be interesting (to me) what you might make of them from an intellectual standpoint. I won't personally debate you on your points, if you choose to answer.

Regarding Psalms 51:5


It is interesting that most of Christianity accepts a single verse taken out of context and used to promote the idea of original sin outside the Pauline writings.
The intro to this Psalm bears the context: It is just after Nathan has confronted David with his sin of having Bathsheba's husband murdered so he can lie with her.
Those familiar with the story will remember that this union resulted in a son. After being confronted by Nathan, David repents, prays and fasts, with the life of his son in mind. This is recorded in 2 Samuel chapter 12.
However, this son dies, just like Nathan said.
This Psalm is the expression of David's plea to God, while his son still lived.

Psalm 51:3 "For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me." - David's son, the result of his sin with Bathsheba, is ever before him.

While an interesting point, how does it logically flow that the statement "my sin" refers to David's son, rather than what he plainly says (i.e. his sin)? Wouldn't it have to follow, then, that the same meaning applies for "I acknowledge my transgressions"? - i.e. his son is the transgression?

Here is the critical verse:
Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me."

Does anyone else find it strange that this sole verse used to prop up Orginal sin outside the Pauline writings is found right in the middle of a Psalm expressing David's hope for the life of his son which was the result of sin?

Why is it strange? What other meaning might it have, other than what it says - that David was "brought forth in iniquity" and "in sin (his) mother conceived (him)"?

David's sin is expressed in 3 ways:
1) Having Bathsheba's husband killed
Because
2) He coveted Bathsheba, another man's wife.
3) His union and the result of that initial union was a result of the first 2 sins.

Right, but there is an expression of sin in Psalm 51:5 not covered above.

Except for the personal pronoun "I" it's quite apparent that David is speaking for his son, and not himself. It fits the context of the Psalm and it fits the story as recorded in 2 Samuel.

I would say questionable for the reasons I've given, which I'm sure you'll answer.

That being said...
There are those who will insist that it does not follow, because "I" is elsewhere always referring to David himself.
Ok.
Who was David's mother? She is not named in the Hebrew Scriptures. If David's mother is the person who concieved him "in sin", how did this come about?
Why is this verse isolated from the context in which it appears?

Is it a necessity for his mother to be named for David to recognize his inherent sin as well as his commission of sin in the situation with Bathsheba? If so, why?

 

[Stravinsk]

While an interesting point, how does it logically flow that the statement "my sin" refers to David's son, rather than what he plainly says (i.e. his sin)? Wouldn't it have to follow, then, that the same meaning applies for "I acknowledge my transgressions"? - i.e. his son is the transgression?

It's important to keep in mind when this Psalm was expressed.The intro gives that context. 2nd Samuel 12 shows it. The life of David's son is what is foremost in his mind. When the son dies, David stops praying and fasting. Again, 2 Samuel 12.

Why is it strange? What other meaning might it have, other than what it says - that David was "brought forth in iniquity" and "in sin (his) mother conceived (him)"?

Essentially, because of the context I just pointed out. David and Bathsheba's union was sin, because of commandment breaking (murder, coveting). In sin (David and Bathsheba's) their son was "brought forth in iniquity", and in sin David's son was conceived. The text in 2nd Samuel is quite clear. God struck David's son with sickness and caused that son to die because of principally his (David's) sin.

Is it a necessity for his mother to be named for David to recognize his inherent sin as well as his commission of sin in the situation with Bathsheba? If so, why?

If one comes to the passage already believing in Original Sin, then no. However, since there is 0 backstory to why David's mother conceived him "in sin", then the reader and believer in Original Sin is sort of left with the idea that sexual union itself may be sinful. A lot of Christians actually either believe this or lean that way - connecting sex (in general) with sin, disregarding context.

You of course can see how this works - since the doctrine of Original Sin itself and it's continuance through humanity is by the process of procreation. You're saddled with a sinful nature at conception or birth, and none of it is your fault, but your very existence and sinful nature was brought about by two people having sex. It's no wonder why Christians have such a historical hangup with this. Sad, really.

 

[Josiah]

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."

First John 3:4, "Sin is lawlessness"

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."



Historically, Christians have spoken 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).

Context tells us which is meant in Scripture, but often ORIGINAL SIN is spoken of in the singular ("he who is without sin cast the firs stone") whereas ACTUALIZED SIN is often spoken of in the plural (Galatians 5:19-21)



Thank you.


Pax Christi


- Josiah




.

 

[Stravinsk]

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).

One of the biggest problems with the concept of original sin (and Josiah, I think what you've said here describes what most Christians believe) is the utterly ridiculous position that it is all the things you describe

AND

Adam and Eve didn't have it, but sinned.

All the root of sin, the heart that leads to sin, the self centeredness, ego, rebelliousness that is said to be the ultimate causation behind sin in Pauline Christianity...

Is absent in Adam and Eve as an inborn trait to be passed on. The only unbegotten human beings didn't inherit it from anywhere. They weren't born as "vessels of wrath" nor could they blame "their flesh" for having some genetic or inherited trait as the ultimate causation for THEIR SIN. The rest of humanity can point to Adam and Eve and say it's their fault (if they are a Christian who believes Saul/Paul's teachings here), and actually what they are doing is blaming God since He must have known what would happen and willed it so....but Adam and Eve have no "original sin"...and yet they acted just like you described in your quote.

 

[Josiah]

One of the biggest problems with the concept of original sin (and Josiah, I think what you've said here describes what most Christians believe) is the utterly ridiculous position that it is all the things you describe

IMO, all one need do is open their eyes or read the morning newspaper and the reality of sin is OBVIOUS.

IMO, even the most silly of Atheist would admit that not everyone or everything is morally PERFECT.

Thus, I disagree that the concept of sin (and with it, the inclination) is "ridiculous." IMO, what is "ridiculous" is that everything and everyone is morally perfect..... or even that we all start out that way and then, bingo, at 12:01 AM on our 12th birthday, all that radically changes.

Adam and Eve didn't have it, but sinned.

1. You are assuming that the account is historical/literal. I'm not sure I agree with that.

2. Assuming your "take" on this account, yes - we simply aren't told the ORIGIN of this fault, and I don't think it is the purpose of the Bible to do that. IMO, the point of this account is simply to say this has been a part of things from the beginning and is, sadly, universal. PERHAPS it is also the intent to say it's not God's desire or plan. You may disagree with that, but that is the biblical position affirmed by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

The rest of humanity can point to Adam and Eve and say it's their fault

None do that. Scripture doesn't do that. It affirms that this is original and universal, but the sin in us is sin IN US - not Adam. When I do wrong, I blame me, not Adam. If I sneeze, I sneezed.... I don't blame whoever was the first person to get a cold.

blaming God since He must have known what would happen and willed it so....

Again, I think you are IMPOSING a whole lot of your philosophy into the account. Yes, God knows all but it's absurd to argue that ergo He wills or causes such. I know the sun will rise tomorrow (well, not perfectly as God does) but my will has nothing to do with it and my knowledge doesn't cause it. Yes, there is God's "second" or "conditional" will involved here (as always) but you seem to be confusing that with primary will. God's primary will is for morality and love.... yet conditionally, God stands by and permits things to happen (without intervening) at times because of his secondary will. However, remember..... since you "take" Adam and Eve as you do, and stress Pauline material, then ALREADY, God establishes salvation at the time of the Fall... God's will responded to the Fall by establishing a much greater Paradise by supplying the Second Adam, the New Adam as Paul would put it. So.... God may not intervene to stop a college guy from running his 1999 Honda Civic into the car in front of it, doing $800.00 in damage to the car (totaling it), which makes all (including Dad) sad..... but Dad has a new Porsche 911 waiting for him in the driveway. That's the way Paul sees this.

Adam and Eve have no "original sin"...and yet they acted just like you described in your quote.

True. Already addressed.

I think you have chosen to entirely circumvent the point of the account. Even the universe had a start, lol. Sin has been a part of things from the beginning and it is universal. I think if you study history and current affairs, you might agree with that.




- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Interesting points in the preceding (cut for brevity), and I suppose that would be one perspective. But, as you say below, one may have to take the concept of "original sin" out of the question for it to work. Imo, though, David was speaking of himself - although petitioning for the life of his son - in the section in question. I'd suggest that when David stops praying and fasting it is a response to the judgment of God. God has answered - just not as David wished.

If one comes to the passage already believing in Original Sin, then no. However, since there is 0 backstory to why David's mother conceived him "in sin", then the reader and believer in Original Sin is sort of left with the idea that sexual union itself may be sinful. A lot of Christians actually either believe this or lean that way - connecting sex (in general) with sin, disregarding context.

Not necessarily. Sin is "inherited" (my preference) from our original ancestors, Adam and Eve. due to their disobedience in following God's law. And, yes, I believe Adam and Eve did exist - otherwise we do need another explanation for inherited/original sin (among other reasons). So in saying that his mother conceived him "in sin", David is recognizing two things: 1) the grave sin of his act with Bathsheba, and 2) the nature of his inherited sin.

You of course can see how this works - since the doctrine of Original Sin itself and it's continuance through humanity is by the process of procreation. You're saddled with a sinful nature at conception or birth, and none of it is your fault, but your very existence and sinful nature was brought about by two people having sex. It's no wonder why Christians have such a historical hangup with this. Sad, really.

As above, inherited sin is from disobedience, not necessarily from the sex act. We are "saddled with sin" at birth (inherited sin), but can be considered "at fault" for actual sin - sin by omission/commission (which might be another thread). We see both of these in David's pleading with God in the passage.

 

[Stravinsk]

IMO, all one need do is open their eyes or read the morning newspaper and the reality of sin is OBVIOUS.

IMO, even the most silly of Atheist would admit that not everyone or everything is morally PERFECT.

Thus, I disagree that the concept of sin (and with it, the inclination) is "ridiculous." IMO, what is "ridiculous" is that everything and everyone is morally perfect..... or even that we all start out that way and then, bingo, at 12:01 AM on our 12th birthday, all that radically changes.

Nice misquote. You are very dishonest sir, as you have shown in numerous places.

My quote that you are responding to includes a big AND which it connects to a following statement about Adam and Eve. This connects them as a single statement to be answered, not what amounts to a misquote by leaving it out. Of course, by disconnecting them, you can misrepresent a position like you have done here and then proceed with arguments against a position not made. Quite disgustingly, too, I might add.

1. You are assuming that the account is historical/literal. I'm not sure I agree with that.

2. Assuming your "take" on this account, yes - we simply aren't told the ORIGIN of this fault, and I don't think it is the purpose of the Bible to do that. IMO, the point of this account is simply to say this has been a part of things from the beginning and is, sadly, universal. PERHAPS it is also the intent to say it's not God's desire or plan. You may disagree with that, but that is the biblical position affirmed by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Dude. Get your head out of Lutheranism and Pauline literature for a moment. "Original sin" as a concept that is largely described and defined by Saul/Paul, is rejected by both most Jews and Muslims.

Your hero Saul/Paul says that death and sin come from Adam, and through Adam sin and death come to all men. If sin and death comes through Adam and Eve to all men, this could honestly be described as the origin of such. Unfortunately for people who hold this position of inherited sin nature - Adam and Eve before the fall don't have this excuse. No sin nature, no parents to blame, no ancestors to blame and yet - they had the evil inclination and acted on it.

None do that. Scripture doesn't do that. It affirms that this is original and universal, but the sin in us is sin IN US - not Adam. When I do wrong, I blame me, not Adam. If I sneeze, I sneezed.... I don't blame whoever was the first person to get a cold.

According to Pauline doctrine, all sin and death comes from Adam, also called "the fall" or "the fall of mankind". The "sin nature" or "original sin" had it's origins in the Garden, according to him. Again, one of the big problems with this is that neither Adam and Eve have a inherited sin nature or original sin to blame for their inclinations and their actions on them.

Again, I think you are IMPOSING a whole lot of your philosophy into the account. Yes, God knows all but it's absurd to argue that ergo He wills or causes such. I know the sun will rise tomorrow (well, not perfectly as God does) but my will has nothing to do with it and my knowledge doesn't cause it. Yes, there is God's "second" or "conditional" will involved here (as always) but you seem to be confusing that with primary will. God's primary will is for morality and love.... yet conditionally, God stands by and permits things to happen (without intervening) at times because of his secondary will. However, remember..... since you "take" Adam and Eve as you do, and stress Pauline material, then ALREADY, God establishes salvation at the time of the Fall... God's will responded to the Fall by establishing a much greater Paradise by supplying the Second Adam, the New Adam as Paul would put it. So.... God may not intervene to stop a college guy from running his 1999 Honda Civic into the car in front of it, doing $800.00 in damage to the car (totaling it), which makes all (including Dad) sad..... but Dad has a new Porsche 911 waiting for him in the driveway. That's the way Paul sees this.

It most certainly is not absurd to draw the conclusion that if God is all knowing and all powerful, and He KNEW that Adam and Eve would sin and He KNEW that by their sin all men would sin or be inclined to sin then it logically follows that He Willed it to happen and in fact, this is something your apostle also teaches.

Try Romans 9 where Saul/Paul teaches that God makes people rebel or submit according to His will. In other words, God makes some people sinners then condemns them for it.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Nice misquote. You are very dishonest sir, as you have shown in numerous places.

It helps to see who you are responding to first. I wondered what I'd said???

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

1. (Strav is) assuming that the account is historical/literal. I'm not sure I agree with that.

How does one reconcile Inherited (Original, if you prefer) sin with an account that is not historical/literal?

 

[Josiah]

Nice misquote. You are very dishonest sir, as you have shown in numerous places.

My quote that you are responding to includes a big AND which it connects to a following statement about Adam and Eve. This connects them as a single statement to be answered, not what amounts to a misquote by leaving it out. Of course, by disconnecting them, you can misrepresent a position like you have done here and then proceed with arguments against a position not made. Quite disgustingly, too, I might add.

I addressed both points, as the "and" would suggest.

Dude. Get your head out of Lutheranism and Pauline literature for a moment. "Original sin" as a concept that is largely described and defined by Saul/Paul, is rejected by both most Jews and Muslims.

Dude. I'm not going to answer from a position of falsehood.

Dude. Jews and Muslims DO NOT assume that all people and all things are perfect and just the way God desires and that everything is holy and right and wonderful.... and they do NOT believe that people are without any wrong propensity of sin until 12:01 AD on their X birthday. They do NOT assume that evil just springs from NOTHING and has nothing whatsoever to do with our attitudes, thoughts, plans, etc. but only the actual deed. I agree, Jews, Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Christians for that matter don't give it the same emphasis or importance... or understand this identically to Catholics or Protestants, but that doesn't mean they reject the concept.

Your hero Saul/Paul says that death and sin come from Adam, and through Adam sin and death come to all men. If sin and death comes through Adam and Eve to all men, this could honestly be described as the origin of such. Unfortunately for people who hold this position of inherited sin nature - Adam and Eve before the fall don't have this excuse. No sin nature, no parents to blame, no ancestors to blame and yet - they had the evil inclination and acted on it.

1. Quote me where I called Paul "my hero." Frankly, I never met him.

2. Yes, Scripture indicates that sin and death are universal.... and embraced the first human beings.

3 No. I don't blame ANYTHING or ANYONE for my sin.... I blame me. Just as Paul blamed himself.

Again, one of the big problems with this is that neither Adam and Eve have a inherited sin nature or original sin to blame for their inclinations and their actions on them.

I don't see it as a "problem" at all.... just a point Scripture doesn't address. You just may find that not every issue in the universe is addressed in the Bible, not every question is answered. As I stated, the point of the "Fall" account is to note what I would expect you'd by now know - things are not perfect. And to note this is universal and from the beginning. It is a part of the reality that is. We may disagree with that, I realize. Physics now exists.... there was a microsecond when it came into existence.... nothing before then explains how physics which didn't exist could cause physics. But it doesn't mean there's a "big problem" only that you and I may not know how this happened. Adam and Eve had no sin.... then they did. The Bible doesn't tell us how that came to be the reality.

This reality is not "inherited" in the physical sense you may seem to desire to impose; there's no hope of genetic engineering. It IS a part of the reality that is.

No, I don't blame Adam and Eve for my sin..... I blame me. Which is why I confess MY sin, not theirs; why I ask for forgiveness of MY sin, not theirs; why I stated that it is MY grievious fault, not theirs.

It most certainly is not absurd to draw the conclusion that if God is all knowing and all powerful, and He KNEW that Adam and Eve would sin and He KNEW that by their sin all men would sin or be inclined to sin then it logically follows that He Willed it to happen and in fact, this is something your apostle also teaches.

1. My apostle says nothing about God willing Adam and Eve to fall. I'm not LDS; you have me confused with some Mormon.

2. I've already addressed primary vs. secondary will.

3. Yes, God KNEW what would happen. My neighor knew Trump was going to win but that doesn't mean he caused Trump to win.... or even wanted that (he didn't). You have foreknowledge and predestination entirely confused

4. Yes, God KNEW what would happen.... which is why He put the Gospel into place, promising the Savior who would not simply "undo" what they did wrong - but grant far MORE than that. You are deleting all Paul's language of the New Adam.

Try Romans 9 where Saul/Paul teaches that God makes people rebel or submit according to His will. In other words, God makes some people sinners then condemns them for it.

1. Romans 9 says nothing about God forcing people to sin.

2. God made NO ONE a sinner (did you read that Adam and Eve story?)

3. God doesn't like evil. I guess that disturbs you, perhaps you wish God would be in favor of evil. Well, He isn't.



Back to the issue of this thread....
If you don't like or want the biblical teaching on this, then this may not be the right thread for you (you might want to notice the first word of the title of the thread).



Blessings to you!



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

In Psalm 14:2–3 we read: “The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” Here again we see unrighteousness as a property of the human race: “they have all turned aside . . . there is no one who does good.”

Job 15:14 similarly declares that sinfulness is a property of humanity: “What is man, that he should be pure, or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?” Verses 15–16 then speak of the human race as a whole in shocking terms expressing our general corruption: “Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight; How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water!”

Jeremiah 17:9 says that “the heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?” This seems to assume original sin — wickedness is a property of the human heart. Ecclesiastes 9:3 declares a similar truth: “. . . the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil, and insanity is in their hearts through their lives.” Again, the human heart is sinful, and therefore all humans are sinful.

These texts indicate, then, that human nature is corrupt. Therefore, even infants are corrupt because they are human. And if infants are corrupt, then this is the same as saying that we are born corrupt — which means we are born with original sin. One may, however, object that these texts speak nothing of infants, only those who are old enough to make moral decisions. All of those people are sinful, but this doesn’t mean that infants are.

This is an ingenious objection, but it does not succeed. First, the texts do not seem to restrict themselves to people who are old enough to make intelligent decisions. They seem to speak of human nature as a whole, a classification under which infants certainly fall. Second, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, “. . . this would not alter the case. . . . For if all mankind, as soon as ever they are capable of reflecting, and knowing their own moral state, find themselves wicked, this proves that they are wicked by nature.”

In other words, even if these verses were only speaking of people old enough to mentally understand sin, they would still be teaching original sin. For on that view, these verses would be saying that all people, as soon as they know good from evil, find themselves sinners. But if all people, as soon as they are capable of moral decisions, find themselves sinners, this proves that they are that way by nature.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin

 

[psalms 91]

Original sin is and has always been the case. For those who argue against it then explain a baby because by nature they are selfish and therefore sinful. Ever seen a kid throw a temper tantrum? Saying a baby is sinless is rubbish

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I'm not sure we can infer the wickedness of the human heart as pointing to original/inherited sin, but to man's inclination toward it. Original sin must point to an origin (hence the word "original")

 

[JRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[Stravinsk]

I addressed both points, as the "and" would suggest.

I see you have reading comprehension difficulties. It is a single point, not points. I don't think you really missed that, but you chose to be dishonest instead.

The single point that has two parts, is simply this: It is illogical and ridiculous to cast blame on, or responsibility for sin (in general) or the inclination to sin (in general), saying that they originate from Adam and Eve's sin (which Saul/Paul teaches) - AND also maintain at the same time that Adam and Eve had no original sin.

If not separating the statements is difficult for you, try this:

You cannot call an object fully black AND at the same time call it fully white. You see how this is one statement, not two?

Dude. I'm not going to answer from a position of falsehood.

Dude. Jews and Muslims DO NOT assume that all people and all things are perfect and just the way God desires and that everything is holy and right and wonderful.... and they do NOT believe that people are without any wrong propensity of sin until 12:01 AD on their X birthday. They do NOT assume that evil just springs from NOTHING and has nothing whatsoever to do with our attitudes, thoughts, plans, etc. but only the actual deed. I agree, Jews, Muslims and Eastern Orthodox Christians for that matter don't give it the same emphasis or importance... or understand this identically to Catholics or Protestants, but that doesn't mean they reject the concept.

The subject matter at hand is the concept of original sin. And by and large, both Muslims and Jews reject the idea, contrary to your fantasies of the opposite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#In_Judaism

Or look up the topic yourself on a site dedicated to Judaism or Islam.

1. Quote me where I called Paul "my hero." Frankly, I never met him.

2. Yes, Scripture indicates that sin and death are universal.... and embraced the first human beings.

3 No. I don't blame ANYTHING or ANYONE for my sin.... I blame me. Just as Paul blamed himself.

1. You're Lutheran. Much of your theology (as with most Christians) depends on Saul/Paul's teachings. I've attended Lutheran churches and know what it's like. Most Bible passages repeated are from Saul/Paul, or if not, they are interpreted through Saul/Paul. So I don't need to quote you to know that Pauline literature is dominant in your denomination and highly esteemed. Nor do I need to cite a direct quote to observe the status his writings hold in many Christian's mind, especially those who's theology heavily rests on them.

3. Oh? Well that's good. But you are wrong about Saul/Paul. Here, Lutheran, have a look at the following:

Romans 11:32(NIV) For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

You see? God makes people disobedient according to Saul/Paul. This of course ties in with "original sin" very nicely as God makes all sinners so he can have mercy on all according to your apostle.

1. Romans 9 says nothing about God forcing people to sin.

2. God made NO ONE a sinner (did you read that Adam and Eve story?)

3. God doesn't like evil. I guess that disturbs you, perhaps you wish God would be in favor of evil. Well, He isn't.

So you haven't read Romans 9 then. Try this little gem:

Romans 9:18-21

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”


But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ 


Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
​

 

[Stravinsk]

How does one reconcile Inherited (Original, if you prefer) sin with an account that is not historical/literal?

LOL.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am not convinced that scripture has "a concept of original (or ancestral) sin".
Psalm 51 (in the Hebrew numbering it is 51 but in LXX Greek numbering it is Psalm 50 and the versification also differs, the quote below follows Greek conventions)

1 For the leader. A psalm of David, 2 when Nathan the prophet came to him after he had gone in to Bathsheba. 3 Have mercy on me, O God, in your love. In your great compassion blot out my sin. 4 Wash thoroughly away my guilt; cleanse me of evil. 5 For I acknowledge my wrongdoings and have my sins ever in mind. 6 Against you alone, have I sinned; what is evil in your sight, I have done. You are right when you pass sentence; and blameless, in your judgment. 7 For I have been guilt-ridden from birth; a sinner from my mother’s womb. 8 I know you desire truth in the heart; teach me wisdom in my inmost being. 9 Cleanse me, with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, I shall be whiter than snow. 10 Fill me with joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice. 11 Turn your face away from my sins and blot out all my offenses. 12 Create in me, O God, a pure heart; give me a new and steadfast spirit. 13 Do not cast me out of your presence nor take your holy spirit from me. 14 Give me again, the joy of your salvation; and sustain me, with a willing spirit. 15 Then I will show wrongdoers your ways and sinners will return to you. 16 Deliver me, O God, from the guilt of blood; and of your justice, I shall sing aloud. 17 O Jehovah, open my lips, and I will declare your praise. 18 You take no pleasure in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, you would not delight in it. 19 O God, my sacrifice is a broken spirit; a contrite heart, you will not despise. 20 Shower Zion with your favour: rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. 21 Then, you will delight in fitting sacrifices, in burnt offerings, and bulls, offered on your altar​

It is noteworthy that all of the psalms are poetry so poetic license is present in what is said in this psalm. "David" says he was a sinner from his time in his mother's womb but this does not explicitly say "all human beings are sinners from their mother's womb". It may be a reasonable conclusion for a theologian to see David's statement as support for a doctrine of sin that teaches that all people are sinners from the moment of the conception but that is quite unlike saying that holy scripture explicitly teaches this doctrine.

 

[Stravinsk]

Original sin is and has always been the case. For those who argue against it then explain a baby because by nature they are selfish and therefore sinful. Ever seen a kid throw a temper tantrum? Saying a baby is sinless is rubbish

Just about the lamest and most thoughtless reason I have heard to date.

psalms 91, as an infant...

P91: Waaahh! I am hungry, but I don't know how to speak yet!
Mom: You are crying? You want food? Selfish! Sinful! You are a child of wrath!
P91: Waaahhh! My diaper is dirty, but I don't know how to communicate this yet!
Mom: You are crying? You need assistance? Why don't you change your own diaper?! You selfish little devil! You exemplify original sin!!

3-5 years later...

P91: (At grocery store) I want this!
Mom: No.
P91: I want this and I want it now!!! NOOOOOWWWW!!!!
Mom: No
P91: Waaaahhhh! I want it I want it I want it (screaming)
Mom: You little sinful being! You have been crying to get what you want since that is the only thing you knew to do to survive and communicate! But it is not simply a matter of unlearning a previously needed behavior, it is a prime example of the SINFUL NATURE!!!!