Jump to content

Original Sin


Recommended Posts

I always thought that the bible was crystal clear as to mankind being imputed

with the sin of Adam. Someone here posted that original sin was not biblical. I finally got the time today to look it up in Romans. In Romans 5:12-14 it says:

 

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through

sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned-for before

the law was given, sin was in the world . But sin was not taken into account

when there was no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a commandment, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

 

I don't think this scripture is the model of clarity, but I'd like your thoughts.

Were all people condemned to death after Adam or not?

 

In v.12 it says, "death came to all men because all sinned." Yet in v.14, it says,"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by

breaking a command, as did Adam , who was a pattern of the one to come."

 

It seems to be saying that, because sin reigned in the world after Adam until the

law was given by Moses, every one was deemed a sinner even if they didn't violate a command of god.And the implication is that after the law, everyone sinned.So everyone was condemned to death. What do you think?

 

The thing that makes it unclear,IMO,is the sentence that says sin is not taken

into account when there is no law. v.13

What do you think? bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that the bible was crystal clear as to mankind being imputed

with the sin of Adam. Someone here posted that original sin was not biblical. I finally got the time today to look it up in Romans. In Romans 5:12-14 it says:

 

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man and death through

sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned-for before

the law was given, sin was in the world . But sin was not taken into account

when there was no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a commandment, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

 

Well, that pretty much nails it down. According to Romans, everyone is a sinner. Thanks for finding that.

 

Now when we say death, this just means all people die, right? But not all people burn  forever in hell. I don't mind not living forever. I think it would get boring.

 

I wonder how many people have been alive forever, like it says believers will be in John 3:16. I know of nobody. They've all died. Whether or not they carried on heaven or hell...meh, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Wait... If sin was not taken into account before the law was given, as the scripture says, then what was god doing when he killed everyone in the flood?  Didn't he do that because of... sin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait... If sin was not taken into account before the law was given, as the scripture says, then what was god doing when he killed everyone in the flood?  Didn't he do that because of... sin?

Rabbinic Judaism thinks Adam (and therefore all of mankind) was given six commandments. After the flood, a seventh was added. The Christian stance on this is less clear, and varies more by theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems to me that Romans 5:12-14 have two inconsistent positions:First, if there is no law sin is not

counted.Second, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command.....

 

Aren't those two inconsistent? bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they're trying to say in Romans is that sin counted before sin counted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think what they're trying to say in Romans is that sin counted before sin counted." midniterider

 

 

That can't be. We all know the bible is perfect and has no contradictions. So when appears to have a

contradiction, the correct interpretation is the one that fits our belief. It never fails. bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the early church there was debate about original sin. in the bible itself, as with almost everything there are passages supporting original sin and against original sin.

 

It was fixed as a theology of the western church (catholocism, protestanism) by Augustine of Hippo in the 300's.

 

The lack of original sin was argued by Pelagius around the same time, and this was the stance taken by Eastern or orthodox Christianity.

 

Sorry I dont know what the exact passages are, but there are many google hits if you search for verses supporting original sin.

 

The wikipedia pages for Augustine of Hippo and Pelagianism are also interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, wyson. That's very helpful. As a matter of fact you sparked a memory of mine about Augustine discussing how much of a terror very young children are to justify their being born sinful. It is disgusting.

But I'm gotten curious about what others think the meaning (if anything) of Romans 5:12-14 is? Is it a

nonsensical conflict, meaning nothing or is there some sensible meaning that one can be derived from it? This has become sort of word puzzle for me. Anybody? bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what they're trying to say in Romans is that sin counted before sin counted.

Paul is fun in that people want his theology to be systematic and consistent, but even if you look at things that most likely were authored by him it turns out this is not quite the case. His theology is close enough to being systematic that one could possibly force a system into it by forgetting some parts or introducing some stuff he probably never thought of, but that tells us more about the theology of whoever tries his hands at it than it tells us about the theology of Paul.

 

Any serious attempt to tease out what Paul thought basically has to admit that

1) his thinking wasn't consistent

2) his thinking probably changed over time

3) he has more of the flair of rhetorician than the consistency of a thinker - thus he will probably say things to drive home points that he hasn't really thought too much through. (However, he is clearly influenced by thinkers, and might very well have thought of himself as a systematic thinker.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Paul" and "Thinker" in the same sentence... How cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.