You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
June 06, 2005
Original Sin?
To tell you the truth, I don’t know what I think about “Original Sin.”
Once again, Steve Jones is able to capture a number of internal dialog I have had with myself over the years in a couple of simple, succinct paragraphs:
Think about it. God tells Adam not to sin, but he sins anyway. So as a punishment, God — who doesn’t want people to sin — punishes the man by giving him a nature that ensures that he will keep on sinning.Read the rest here.
What if a human judge did that? A man is convicted of stealing. As part of his sentence, the judge orders that a computer chip be placed in the man’s head that will give him an irresistible impulse to keep stealing. Does that make one molecule of sense? Would we hail such a judge for his wisdom?
Posted at 1:57 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (4):
i believe in original sin. here’s my understanding of it (in brief). it wasn’t a punishment, but the natural consequence of eating the fruit. God says to adam (paraphrased), “if you eat it, you’ll die,” not, “if you eat it, you’ll be punished with death.” i.e. “if you flip the switch, the light goes on; that’s simply how it works.” when He describes the consequences of their disobedience to Adam and Eve, i dont think He was passing judgment such that He bestowed upon adam a new sinful nature, but was describing the dire facts what what adam had done.
also, paul says “sin came into the world through one man…so death spread to all men” (romans 5:12). and i think this speaks of a nature, and not a learned tendency…the fruit consumed made adam imperfect and mortal, and his seed followed suit as a natural result.
paul further addresses that nature in romans when he talks about Christ being the Second Adam, and all who are born of Christ are redeemed; those of Adam, damned. Why? because both pass on to their children a nature which is either life or death.
one Christian author note that paul goes on to draw a very clear distinction that Jesus died for two things: our sins and our sinful nature. romans chapters 1-8 is pretty clearly divided: when paul talks about God deals with our “sins” (plural, i.e. individual transgressions) he links that with Jesus’ Blood (the blood covers our sins), but when he talks about how God deals with our “sin” (singular, i.e. our innate sinful nature-that which causes us to commit individual sins) he refers to redemption through the crucifixion, Christ’s broken body. why would paul draw the distinction if it wasnt important? because we do sin, and those sins need to be addressed, but we are also sinful creatures by nature, and that nature needs to die.
so, right. i think we are born flawed because of what adam did- not as a punishment, but because that’s what happens when one eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. which is why Jesus came to shed His blood and have His body broken (makes the distinction of bread and wine in communion seem that more signicant, i think)- because God wanted to redeem mankind not only from their sins, but also from their innate sinful nature, or as some say, “original sin”.
i hope that made sense. : )
also, paul says “sin came into the world through one man…so death spread to all men” (romans 5:12). and i think this speaks of a nature, and not a learned tendency…the fruit consumed made adam imperfect and mortal, and his seed followed suit as a natural result.
paul further addresses that nature in romans when he talks about Christ being the Second Adam, and all who are born of Christ are redeemed; those of Adam, damned. Why? because both pass on to their children a nature which is either life or death.
one Christian author note that paul goes on to draw a very clear distinction that Jesus died for two things: our sins and our sinful nature. romans chapters 1-8 is pretty clearly divided: when paul talks about God deals with our “sins” (plural, i.e. individual transgressions) he links that with Jesus’ Blood (the blood covers our sins), but when he talks about how God deals with our “sin” (singular, i.e. our innate sinful nature-that which causes us to commit individual sins) he refers to redemption through the crucifixion, Christ’s broken body. why would paul draw the distinction if it wasnt important? because we do sin, and those sins need to be addressed, but we are also sinful creatures by nature, and that nature needs to die.
so, right. i think we are born flawed because of what adam did- not as a punishment, but because that’s what happens when one eats the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. which is why Jesus came to shed His blood and have His body broken (makes the distinction of bread and wine in communion seem that more signicant, i think)- because God wanted to redeem mankind not only from their sins, but also from their innate sinful nature, or as some say, “original sin”.
i hope that made sense. : )
jared () - June 07, 2005 at 12:10 am
Thanks for the input, Jared… I mean, I understand what “Original Sin” is (from a theological aspect). What I don’t understand is why…
I don’t feel like I’m at a place where I can explain my issues with the concept eloquently enough. But, I do have questions (e.g., Why create us with a sinful nature? Why put us where Satan already was? Since God foreknew the outcome of the Tree of Knowledge, what was the point? Etc. — I could come up with a bunch of ‘em).
Here are two ideas:
1. Adam and Eve were not created perfect — if they were, they’d be God, right?
2. Adam and Eve were created “perfect” (that is to say, sinless), so they somehow learned to sin, as they wouldn’t have partaken from the Tree of Knowledge if sin couldn’t be learned (or coaxed — as by the serpent).
But, those aren’t the points for me, I guess. Whether I agree with the either concept or not, I do agree with the outcome: that Christ had to be sent to cover our sin (inbred or learned) with his death/resurrection.
So, as far as “Original Sin” is concerned, I may never know if I believe in it or not.
I don’t feel like I’m at a place where I can explain my issues with the concept eloquently enough. But, I do have questions (e.g., Why create us with a sinful nature? Why put us where Satan already was? Since God foreknew the outcome of the Tree of Knowledge, what was the point? Etc. — I could come up with a bunch of ‘em).
Here are two ideas:
1. Adam and Eve were not created perfect — if they were, they’d be God, right?
2. Adam and Eve were created “perfect” (that is to say, sinless), so they somehow learned to sin, as they wouldn’t have partaken from the Tree of Knowledge if sin couldn’t be learned (or coaxed — as by the serpent).
But, those aren’t the points for me, I guess. Whether I agree with the either concept or not, I do agree with the outcome: that Christ had to be sent to cover our sin (inbred or learned) with his death/resurrection.
So, as far as “Original Sin” is concerned, I may never know if I believe in it or not.
timsamoff () (URL) - June 07, 2005 at 10:01 am
oh, right, gotcha. i guess the why is a whole lot less clear. i have some guesses, but that’s pretty much it. i definitely dont believe adam and eve had original sin, but after they chose to eat the fruit, original sin entered the scene because of it. thier natures were changed, and so i guess cain would have been the first child born with such a nature. and so on.
interesting point about if adam and eve were perfect, then wouldnt they be God…i hadnt thought about that before. hmmm…at the very least, they were sinless. but also, they were given freewill and then given a choice. and i think the role of the serpent here is pivotal- they learned to disobey because they were taught (decieved though they were) something they wouldnt have learned otherwise- but i dont think it was innate for adam and eve. so i guess that implies that God didnt create original sin (or any kind of sin, really) but the capacity for it.
and at this point im just thinking out loud more than anything else. i do think original sin has a biblical basis, but the why of it all perhaps isnt really available. hmmmm…..
interesting point about if adam and eve were perfect, then wouldnt they be God…i hadnt thought about that before. hmmm…at the very least, they were sinless. but also, they were given freewill and then given a choice. and i think the role of the serpent here is pivotal- they learned to disobey because they were taught (decieved though they were) something they wouldnt have learned otherwise- but i dont think it was innate for adam and eve. so i guess that implies that God didnt create original sin (or any kind of sin, really) but the capacity for it.
and at this point im just thinking out loud more than anything else. i do think original sin has a biblical basis, but the why of it all perhaps isnt really available. hmmmm…..
jared () - June 07, 2005 at 1:12 pm
I had no idea the guitarist for the Sex Pistols had any theological stance to start with…. interesting.
dennisthemenace () - June 10, 2005 at 10:06 am
