Enjoy rotting in eternal hell, Irene, leftist slime.

It’s always a pleasure, talking with you, Steve, and I’ll talk with you soon, on another thread!

I respect the thinking and research that you have done on this, yet I also understand we differ. The doctrine of original sin, and the doctrine of the Fall, I’m sure you’ll agree however, do have profound implications on the rest of our theology. Anthropology, the study of man and his nature, whether man’s nature was impacted at the Fall, and how he comes to knowledge, being ones that we have discussed before.

Since this thread is rapidly moving down the list of posts at Evangel, I propose that we further our prospective views in light of other threads? Or if you have specific questions for me, maybe one or two at a time, we can continue here as long as we can find each other?

the more I have studied the eastern Orthodox perspective, vis a vis original sin, the more I like. Inclination towards sin, seems to me to make more sense. It seems incoherent to me, for Original Sin, to refer to actual sin, since Adam and Eve were the people responsible, and the rest of humanity, did not exist yet. How can one be guilty of something, if one didn’t exist when the guilt occurred?

One could talk of some “genetic”, or comparable type of “transmission”, of original sin, but it still faces the conceptual hurdles that I mentioned in my previous paragraph: for guilt to have meaning, the one guilty must exist at the time of the guilty act, and have an intention or intentions to engage in the guilty act. Also, it seems that we all would be committing the same sorts of sins, since we all have an equal amount of original sin. But, clearly, some people are robbers, some murderers, some cheats, some, unfortunately, all of these things and more. It’s hard for me to see how original sin can account for the differences. I certainly could be missing something, here, but it’s a conceptual road blck, for me.

It seems that the act, of Adam and Eve, if they were real people, would only make them actually guilty. One could then argue that, through some genetic transmission, (analogous, say, to someone transmitting a proclivity toward cancer, or obesity) that the sinful inclination, spread to all of humanity.

You ask a good question, regarding my views of the historical nature of Adam and Eve. Were they actual people? I honestly don’t know. I’m willing to be persuaded either way. Right now, however, I inclined toward believing that they were not. I don’t believe that the legitimacy of Christianity is contingent on Adam and Eve actually existing (I DO believe, however, that the legitimacy of Christianity is contingent on Christ actually being resurrected. The historical evidence for this, is very good, in my view).

Your citing of John, is important. I really don’t know how to fully reconcile it, with the notion that all will be saved. It’s possible that, it’s an attempt to “scare” people, for lack of better words, into accepting the truth. That is, the individuals, who these passages are specifically addressed, perhaps are not very sophisticated. Therefore, if they were given deep, philosophical justifications for accepting Christ, it would go over their heads. But since it’s to their obvious benefit to accept Christ, the “scaring” is justifiable. Some might, reasonably argue, that this says God “lies”. Perhaps an answer could be, that, God, creator of all (including morality) can “break” His own rules, for some greater good. After all, we don’t argue that God is a “murderer” for allowing huriccanes and earthquakes, to kill people.

It could also be a threat to send them to a “purgatory” or similar place, which may not be the same that Catholics advocate, but it’s an unpleasant place, where they get reformed prior to going to heaven. Wouldn’t it be better to avoid this place all together, by accepting Christ, just like it would be better to avoid the unpleasant nature of jail, be behaving morally?

I look forward to continuing the discussion! Talk with you soon! Blessings to you, too!

I think to start we need to make clear our definition and understanding of ‘fundamentally depraved’, or ‘intrinsically evil’. Scripture never says we were created ‘fundamentally depraved’ as you rightly note above ‘being created in the image of God’, and a ‘VERY GOOD’ creation, but that Adam and Eve were created sinless and immortal, and that an historic act of disobedience against the command of God in an exercise of their will changed this dynamic completely. This is what Augustine called ‘original sin’. The original sin of our first parents Adam and Eve. I don’t think it can be described as an inclination, but true moral guilt in an act of disobedience to God’s command in real space-time history. I’m not sure how you can read Genesis 2 and 3 and come to a different conclusion. (Maybe you can speak to your understanding of this. I’m not sure whether you believe Adam and Eve were ‘real’ historic people or representative of mankind in general? But then was there really an historic space-time ‘Fall’ in your view?) The Apostle Paul’s references in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15, as well as King David’s reference in Psalms 51 seem to support this.

Your reference to John 3:17 above ‘that God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world’, makes no reference to John 3:18 that ‘ he who does not believe (the Son) has been judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God’. Following on in verse 19, Jesus refers to the judgment, ‘the light (Jesus) has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil’. Ending this segment and chapter in verse 36 Jesus clearly delineates and divides those ‘who believe the Son will have eternal life, those who do not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him’. If everyone is ‘saved’, how is it that Jesus says the wrath of God will abide on those who do not obey the Son?

My wife is calling to help with some of the preparations, (one can be too selfish in sitting in front of the computer, right?), so I’ll stop here and will pick up later. Blessings.

There’s the philosophical conundrum, of why God made humans with the inclination to sin. Some might argue, understandably, that God has “stacked the deck” against us, and then contrived to have Christ save us, fro this “deck stacking”. although an understanable view, it’s way too glib, on the part of this hypothetical objector.

It seems to be beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are prone to sin. But our cores must be good, otherwise why would Genesis indicate that we were created in the image of God. Indeed, this passage doesn’t say we’re similar to God, but fundamentally different, but in the image, of God. That’s striking language, that seems to conflict with the notion that we’re infected with original sin, otherwise it would imply that God has this sin too, which is absurd. Amiddle interpretation is warranted: humans are inclined to sin (original sin), but, due to our being created in the image of God, we’re fundamentally good.

I hope you have a great, and enjoyable thanksgiving, Steve!

The first portion of Genesis, talks about God’s creation of the Heavens, and the earth, including us. He points that the creation, (including us) is GOOD. this clearly implies that we are fundamentally good.

Also, we’re created in His image. How could we be created in His image, if we’re fundamentally flawed? This is, of course, just a start, vis a vis biblical sources, of human goodness, but it’s a start.

So with that in mind, what Scripture(s) would you point to that support the view that “I am disinclined to view humans as intrinsically evil”?

Let’s maybe start there, and then move on from that.

I respectfully agree with you, Bret Lythgoe.

Your views are pretty consistent with the Orthodox view. Inherited weakness is not the same as literal guilt.

my views on this issue are an inchoate state, with plenty of room to develop. But I’m disinclined to view humans as intrinsically evil.I believe that our reason is basically intact, but our will, has problems. That is, our will is predisposed toward selfishness, which I would conclude is the equivalent of “original sin”. But humans have also been created by God, to have moral inclinations. most humans (the exception being those with antisocial personality disorder. These people, according to the latest statistics, constitute one to five percent of the population, an alarming number, if true), have consciences, and therefore are guided toward the moral good.

Pelagius, although somewhat misguided, is, in my view, to be admired for asserting that, if one follows the example of Christ, one can become great, even “perfect”. Certainly, we all, to the best of our ability, should follow Christ. But perfection, for humanity, seems like utopian fantasy, to me. Hence, our need for Christ’s saving us. But my view is, that Christ saving us, is not contingent on us accepting, explicitly, His saving grace. Because we are so fallable, we often don’t know what’s in our best interests. So, when when “rejects” Christ, either explicitly, or implicitly, it’s analogous to a mentally ill person rejecting treatment. To reject treatment, presupposes the existence of the rational capacity, and judgment (to decide whether mental health treatment is for him), but these qualities our absent in the mentally ill person!

Similarly, if Christ is the savior of the world, then it makes no sense that someone could make an informed decision to reject Him. How could that possibly be in his/her best interests? Christ would necessarily be in everyone’s interest! So someone “rejecting” him, really is not in his/Her right mind, and God takes that into account, and saves all.

I guess I’m curious as to your views on the doctrine of original sin, shared by Catholics, Easthern Orthodox, and Protestants alike, i.e., that we are born in sin, inherited from Adam, and not as Pelagius thought, a ‘tabula rosa’ (blank slate), and are free to choose not to sin.

What are your doctrinal views here and can you point to the Scriptures that support your views?

You mention in the quote I referenced above that we cannot be as horrible as some evangelicals claim, so I’m trying to clarify at least as a starting point, your view of original sin, whether you follow after Pelagius, or possibly take a semi-Pelagian view? I realize these terms may have Protestant connotations, but I would like to discuss this with you if you are willing?

Blessings to you, too. Talk to you, soon.

It’s a good thing you didn’t join the RCC.