Original sin, biblical, or not?

Theology
1

image
image960×502 46.8 KB

Differing Views on the Doctrine of Original Sin
There seem to be two significant splits when it comes to the doctrine of original sin. Aside from those who do not believe it to be true, we see two major divisions with this doctrine: Eastern Vs. Western thought and Arminian Vs. Calvinist thought on original sin.

Eastern Vs. Western Thought

Before the church split into Catholic and Protestant, a previous church occurred, resulting in the Eastern Church and Western Church. The concept of original sin fell into different categories for each of these.

The Eastern Church, for instance, saw original sin as more of an ancestral sin, humans imitating the sinful actions of their predecessors. Although they believe humans inherited the death that came from Adam’s sin in the garden, they don’t believe humans inherited the guilt from that specific sin.
The Western Church, on the other hand, believes humans have inherited the guilt and the death accompanied by that sin. This line of thought, perpetuated by St. Augustine, believed people had an inherent guilt from the actions committed in the Garden of Eden.
Arminian Vs. Calvinist Thought

When it comes to original sin and free will, the church has also consequently split into Arminian and Calvinist groups of thought.

Arminian thought, according to Got Questions, asserts humans have a sinful nature. Innately, we just sin. However, this view does not place blame on us for Adam’s sin. We’ve sinned all on our own, according to this view, and reap the consequences of that sin.
Calvinists, on the other hand, will argue we inherited Adam’s sin nature and guilt (see Western thought above).
Where the two also differ comes down to just how much free will humans have when determining their sinful conditions and need for a Savior. Although entire books and centuries of debate have offered reasons for the Scriptural veracity of each, this article will not attempt to do so. In either case, both views acknowledge our need for a Savior and our inability to be saved without the work of the Holy Spirit.

No matter what view you adopt, all assert the sinful nature of humans (whether innate or acquired) and the need for a Savior. Romans 3:23 states all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.

From Adam’s impassivity in the garden to the sins we carry out in our daily lives, we need a Savior.

Bible Verses on Original Sin
Romans 5:12: “herefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.”

Psalm 51:5: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Isaiah 59:2: “But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear.”

Deuteronomy 1:39: “And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.”

Psalm 14:2-3: “The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.”

Ephesians 2:1-3: “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.”

Your thoughts?

J.

1 Like
Why do people sin?
2

Paul writes in Romans chapter 7 of the frustration he had trying to keep the law. He ends the chapter by asking who will saved him from this body of death. He answers this by saying the solution is in Jesus. The contrast between the life in the flesh in chapter 7 and the life in the Spirit in chapter eight highlights the difference in what the bible calls the “old man” or flesh and the new man which is in Christ.

When a person becomes a Christian and is spiritually regenerated he has the opportunity to transition from the compulsive character of the old nature to a new nature through Christ. This is usually contrasted by contrasting the flesh and Spirit.

Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

What is called “original sin” might be better called intrinsic selfishness.People usually think of sin as law breaking and generally do not think of themselves as law breakers. However, few will deny that they have been selfish. While selfishness may not grow to proportions that require incarceration, however, we all hurt ourselves and others because of this selfishness.

.

1 Like
3

I believe it goes much deeper than “intrinsic selfishness” @timf

J.

1 Like
4

I agree with you. It truly does go deeper. Intrinsic selfishness is certainly part of our sin nature, but Scripture gives a broader picture of human depravity. Ephesians 2 says we were “dead in trespasses and sins,” not just misguided or self-focused. Romans 8:7 even tells us that “the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God.”

1 Like
5

Please read the article first before responding.

A recent survey, The State of Theology, revealed that 64 percent of American evangelicals believe “everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God,” and 53 percent believe “everyone sins a little, but most people are good by nature.” While these statements contradict Scripture’s teaching, the lessons of history, and common sense, they comport well with the philosophies of a therapeutic age.

In 1973, famed psychiatrist Karl Menninger asked, Whatever Became of Sin? Previous generations, informed by the Judeo-Christian ethic, held individuals responsible for unloving behavior, but Menninger warned that some schools of psychology provided ways to escape that responsibility by shifting blame to other factors. He believed this diminished the hope of a moral and just society. What Menninger criticized in the 1970s opened the door for the self-esteem movement in the 1980s and ’90s. Adults were advised to boost self-esteem in children through giving unwarranted praise and avoiding negative criticism.

By 2024, psychologist Jonathan Haidt concluded that this well-intentioned coddling produced fragile children who are overprotected in the physical world, underprotected in the online world, unprepared for the advent of the smartphone, and caught up in an epidemic of anxiety.

The upshot is that for half a century, therapeutic trends have discipled many evangelicals to diminish, or even deny, the concept of universal sin and moral guilt.

What Is Original Sin?
The term “original sin” doesn’t refer to the first sin, committed by Adam, but to the result of that first sin. The Bible asserts not only that we sin a lot but that we’re sinful by nature. Therefore, writes Richard Phillips, “We have an inborn tendency to commit sin.”

As Paul wrote, “Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). All people, both in Paul’s day and ours, have sinned in the past. When did we sin? When Adam sinned. In his first sin, Adam represented his descendants with devastating results.

Every human being except the virgin-born Son of God is imputed with Adam’s guilt, inherits Adam’s corrupt sin nature, and then confirms that imputed guilt by committing actual sins. In this fallen state of spiritual death, all people are unable and unwilling to do what’s truly good, unless God sovereignly regenerates them, making them “alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5). As R. C. Sproul said, “We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we’re sinners.”

Therefore, we confess with the psalmist, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”’ (Ps. 51:5). We agree with Paul: “None is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10). We concur with Jesus in his startling bluntness: “No one is good except God alone” (Luke 18:19).

3 Reasons to Defend Original Sin
The man-humbling doctrine of original sin taught by Jesus and the apostles, developed by Augustine, recovered by the reformers, and captured in the major Protestant confessions is now locked out of many evangelical churches. But here are three reasons this difficult doctrine must be defended.

Your thoughts? Another topic that “faded into nothingness”

Dr. Craig explains his view of the fall of humanity into sin, and his opinion on the doctrine of Original Sin.

He is not advocating for the doctrine of Original Sin.

J.

6

3 Reasons to Defend Original Sin
The man-humbling doctrine of original sin taught by Jesus and the apostles, developed by Augustine, recovered by the reformers, and captured in the major Protestant confessions is now locked out of many evangelical churches. But here are three reasons this difficult doctrine must be defended.

  1. It checks theological drift.
    In 1731, Jonathan Edwards’s first published sermon, “God Glorified in Man’s Dependence,” warned against theological schemes opposing our absolute dependence on God: “So much the more men exalt themselves, so much the less will they surely be disposed to exalt God.” This principle governed Edwards’s work, including his last treatise, published in 1758, “The Great Doctrine of Original Sin Defended.” Edwards’s last word warns us that rejecting the foundational doctrine of original sin inevitably leads to the collapse of the gospel. “The doctrine of salvation,” he wrote, “must be built upon” the doctrine of original sin.

Every human being except the virgin-born Son of God is imputed with Adam’s guilt, inherits Adam’s corrupt sin nature, and then confirms that imputed guilt by committing actual sins.

Careful students of mainline decline see that Edwards has been vindicated. The same hermeneutic used to eliminate the offensive doctrine of original sin easily erases the gospel’s exclusivity, revises Jesus’s definition of marriage, undermines penal substitutionary atonement, and denies the existence of hell. Hell seems like overkill for people who are “born innocent,” only “sin a little,” and are “good by nature.” Likewise, God’s grace seems less amazing. The more we convince ourselves of man’s inherent goodness, the less justification we see for eternal punishment. However, churches and denominations with a robust doctrine of original sin are more likely to retain other cardinal doctrines out of fashion with the world.

Don’t dismiss Edwards. His lamentable justification for the institution of slavery only bolsters his argument for original sin. We all have a limitless capacity to recognize sin in others while rationalizing it in ourselves.

  1. It discourages political idolatry.
    A generation after Edwards, John Witherspoon became the sixth president of Princeton. As the only clergy member to sign the Declaration of Independence, he affirmed the necessity of the doctrine of original sin. One of his more famous students at Princeton was James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” who famously argued that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

While it’s difficult to demonstrate that Madison held to original sin as taught by his mentor Witherspoon, Madison’s pessimistic view of human nature was certainly informed by it. Historian Robert Tracy McKenzie convincingly argues that regarding original sin, the Framers “were much closer to biblical truth than the majority of Americans today.” In our 250th year as a nation, it’s important to remember that our founders knew no one could be trusted with much power. For that reason, the Constitution separates powers and limits government with an elaborate system of checks and balances.

Evangelicals, of all people, should be wary of flattering and charismatic leaders who seek political power while promising to be their protector. History shows, in the words of Lord Acton, that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” But the doctrine of original sin goes further, claiming people are corrupt long before they have power. Greater power merely provides the opportunity to express one’s corruption in more consequential ways. The Constitution is a gift of common grace to restrain the evil of fallen people.

Our own sinful nature inclines us away from our invisible God and tempts us to put unmerited “trust in princes” we can see (Ps. 146:3). But the doctrine of original sin should make us evangelicals more discerning citizens who don’t rely on a candidate to have “a good heart.” No candidate’s heart can be fully trusted because, like every person’s heart, it’s “deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jer. 17:9).

J.

7
  1. It aids in personal holiness.
    In 1877, J. C. Ryle noted that original sin explains how “a man may break God’s law in heart and thought, when there is no overt or visible act of wickedness.” Without attention to this doctrine, we easily overestimate our goodness and ability to resist temptation. The pursuit of personal holiness requires a healthy self-mistrust.

Like politicians, even pastors shouldn’t be trusted without qualification. “Trust but verify” is good foreign policy, but it’s also good church policy. In the Old Testament, God limited human government by separating kingly and priestly powers. In the New Testament, he prescribes a limited church government led by a plurality of elders with good reputations who are accountable to the congregation.

Like many seasoned Christians, I’m a relatively good person. Relative to most of the people I hear about in the news, I come out alright. But compared to Jesus, my sinful nature is painfully evident. I can externally conform to God’s moral law and, in the eyes of man, be counted above reproach. Yet I soberly recall that “man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). God sees not only what I do but why I do it.

Herman Bavinck quotes one philosopher as saying, “Our virtues are often no more than vices in disguise.” While Scripture commands us to love one another, it never commands us to trust one another. Trust must be earned and routinely verified.

While Scripture commands us to love one another, it never commands us trust one another. Trust must be earned and routinely verified.

Is there a point in our spiritual growth when deadly sins like pride, envy, greed, and lust no longer exert their pernicious influence? I can say from experience that it must be sometime after age 65. The daily struggle is real, and I have every reason to believe it’ll continue until my death or Christ’s return.

In 1973, Menninger was alarmed that Americans weren’t taking responsibility for what they did. A half century later, even evangelicals in America aren’t taking responsibility for who they are. Christ alone “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). He alone is worthy of my unqualified trust. He knows me better than I know myself, and nevertheless, he loves me. While the first Adam represented me in the garden, the last Adam represented me at the cross. When I was unable and unwilling to trust him on my own, God made me alive in Christ, gave me faith to believe, and declared me righteous.

That’s who I am. Fully known, deeply loved, totally pardoned, simul justus et peccator. At the same time righteous and a sinner.

J.

8

Selfishness goes much deeper than most think. It is common to think of someone who is rude as selfish and not think of a murderer as selfish. However, self is at the core of our nature

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

2 Likes
9

Your opinion on the doctrine of Original Sin @timf?

J.

10

Somebody had to be the first to sin. I’ve always wondered if “original sin” was a way to blame our sin on Adam and Eve.

11

One might see original sin as inevitable when considering free will. Here is an interesting article that touches on this. The pursuit of self is inevitable with free will. The fact that we have a way out is a testimony to the love of God.

Robots in Revolt

A favorite science fiction theme is robots. This imagery can be useful for a mental simulation exercise that can illustrate man’s relation to God. If we think of God as an inventor and humans as robots, the first choice God would face was whether or not his robots would be programmed to follow his instructions or have the option to make their own choices.

A human inventor would be unlikely to allow his robots to act on their own as he would recognize the possibility and even likelihood that his invention could kill him. While humans cannot kill God, our running amok would serve no divine purpose. A key element in the design choice to give free will to the robots would be to devise a way for what is created to use their free will to recognize that it is in their best interest to align their choices with that of their creator.

Since the robots could not be programmed to know what is best, they would have to discover it for themselves. Since living for self is both destructive to others as well as oneself, and living for others is the discovery of love, one would think that an observant robot would quickly align himself with the desires of his creator and be able to escape the misery of making bad choices.

Many of the robots experiencing the pain of suffering would question if there was an inventor, why he would allow them to suffer. They fail to recognize that they were not created to experience comfort and ease, but to choose between selfishness and selflessness. The heart of the inventor would be grieved by the pain his robots experienced from the suffering they inflicted on themselves and others.

The inventor could choose some robots to communicate with so that they could tell others what was expected of them. He might pick one robot from whom generations of robots would accumulate his words. He might give them a list of rules and ask them to follow them. He might even communicate with some over time telling them what would happen in the future. He might even send his son to live among them to show them the way out of the suffering they persist in inflicting on themselves.

Those robots that managed to hear about the inventor and learn from his words what was expected would be able to see the world in truth. Truth can shatter the delusions of pride. Truth can bring shame for the harm caused to others. Truth can open eyes to reality. Truth can grow and become the way a robot can be connected to his inventor.

At a future point when all the robots have been deactivated, the inventor can identify those who trusted in the truth and reactivate them because they have learned to use their free will to choose the will of the inventor. There would be no need to reactivate those robots who could not give up seeking after self.

While stories about robots can be entertaining, they can also be used as an illustration to help us understand the purpose and goal of our existence. They can also help us understand why we have to endure for now the consequence of those “robots” who rebel against their creator.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. - 1 Timothy 2:3-4

12

I understand what you are trying to illustrate with the “robots in revolt” analogy, but I think the analogy actually takes us further away from the biblical text rather than explaining it.

The first problem is that you appear to be defining the human condition philosophically and then using that definition to explain original sin. You say that “the pursuit of self is inevitable with free will,” but Scripture never defines original sin that way. Romans 5 does not argue from free will to original sin. Paul argues from Adam. “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). Adam’s transgression is the starting point of Paul’s argument, not an abstract philosophical theory about autonomous choice.

Secondly, the robot analogy seems to assume that God created mankind morally neutral and then simply gave us the freedom to discover for ourselves that selfishness is destructive and selflessness is good. That is not the picture given in Genesis. Adam was not created as a morally neutral creature who needed to discover God’s will through trial and error. God gave him a command, and Adam was accountable to that command. The problem was not that Adam had insufficient information about what was best for him. God had already told him, “thou shalt not eat of it” (Genesis 2:17).

And this is precisely where Romans 5 becomes important. Paul says that through Adam’s “disobedience” many were constituted sinners (Romans 5:19), and that through his trespass condemnation came upon humanity (5:18). Paul does not say that humanity merely inherited a tendency to make poor free-will decisions. Something happened to humanity through Adam.

There is another difficulty. You describe salvation as God “reactivating” those robots who “learned to use their free will to choose the will of the inventor.” But that again is not Paul’s language. Paul does not describe salvation as autonomous creatures finally making the intelligent decision to align themselves with God. In Romans, salvation is grounded in God’s grace and in the obedience of Christ. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). The contrast Paul develops is not between robots who eventually figure out the right way to live and robots who don’t. It is between Adam and Christ.

Adam disobeys.

Christ obeys.

Adam brings condemnation and death.

Christ brings justification and life.

That is Paul’s actual framework.

I would also be careful with the statement that “living for others is the discovery of love.” Christian love certainly involves self-giving, but the gospel is not fundamentally a philosophical discovery that selflessness works better than selfishness. The gospel is that God loved us and Christ gave Himself for us. “We love him, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). The direction of the biblical argument is therefore from God’s love to ours, not from human moral discovery to God’s acceptance.

Finally, I don’t think 1 Timothy 2:3–4 establishes the free-will argument you are making. Paul says that God “will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” In its immediate context Paul is discussing prayer “for all men,” including kings and those in authority (1 Timothy 2:1–2), and then grounds this in the fact that there is “one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (2:5). Whatever position one takes on the scope of “all men,” the passage does not say that humanity was created as free-willed robots whose purpose is to discover through suffering that selflessness is preferable.

So I would distinguish the things we can actually establish from Scripture from the philosophical illustration.

Scripture teaches that God created man good, that Adam sinned, that sin entered the world through Adam, that death came through sin, that death spread to humanity, that Adam’s transgression brought condemnation, and that Adam’s disobedience constituted many as sinners.

Scripture also teaches that God genuinely commands, warns, judges and holds human beings responsible for their actions.

But whether one wants to call that “free will,” define free will as autonomous libertarian choice, or argue that the purpose of creation is for creatures to discover through free choice that selflessness is preferable, those are additional philosophical propositions. They need to be demonstrated from Scripture rather than assumed and then read back into Romans 5.

In fact, I think the better question is not, “Why did God create robots with free will knowing they would rebel?” That question already assumes the analogy.

Paul’s question is essentially, “What did Adam’s disobedience do to humanity, and why does Christ’s obedience answer Adam’s failure?”

And Romans 5 gives us the answer.

J.

13

Original Sin.

The idea of original sin is to describe a reason for mankind’s present separation from God. Some try to explain it as a biological defect that has been inherited from Adam. However, it may be as simple as creatures given free will will always seek after their own interests rather than those of their creator. This is less a rebellion then it is prioritizing that which seems to serve self.

Serving self or being selfish does not sound too bad. It is often thought of a simply being rude. However, when takes a look at history there are many examples of the self-righteous killing people. Selfishness has a much darker potential than just being rude. Most people learn to limit their selfishness enough to stay out of jail.

Severe consequences are not enough to motivate all to limit their selfishness. The two people next to Jesus when he was crucified were thieves. Apparently the death penalty for theft was insufficient enough to discourage thieves. We get a picture of how intense human pursuit of self is from the flood. God cursed the earth after Adam and Eve left the garden. This level of difficulty did not help them restrin their selfishness. We are told that every imagination of their hearts was only evil continually.

The changes with the flood (shorter lifespan, susceptibility to disease, and environmental changes like winter and droughts produced enough hardship that people would be forced to care for each other and even be open to hearing about God. However, since the Industrial Revolution technological innovations have reduce the difficulty in life so that our human selfishness has again demonstrated our disinterest in God.

There is nothing that can save society. However, individuals can find the solution to the problem of selfishness by getting rid of it. Most people do not see any advantage in this. However, for Christians it is expected. We are to not live for ourselves (2Cor 5:15). We are to mature into Christ-likeness (Eph 4:13). This is done by putting to death (Rom 8:13) the works of the flesh (Gal 5:17-21). This is accomplished through starvation (Rom 13:14).

This is so alien to our natural self, that it can seem ridiculous. However, we can observe that in life the natural selfishness of children has to give way in marriage and parenthood so that the needs of others can be accommodated. Many families have been destroyed because people could not give up even some of their natural selfishness.

While many people think of sin as law breaking and do not think of themselves as lawbreakers, most everyone can recognize some of their natural selfishness. So rather than trying to apply the theological construct of original sin, it might be more accurate to define our separation from God as a result of our natural inclination to seek after ourselves more than be interested in God.

Seeking after self is a sort of self consumption that ultimately leads to isolation, self-stimulation, and frustration with others. Selflessness is liberating and in love can seek after the good of others. Selfless love is the character of God and is available to Christians who choose to abandon the flesh and walk by the power of the Holy Spirit.

2Co 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

14

Great discussion guys! If I can humbly add, it seems to me that the missing element is our responsibility to believe God.

If the first humans had believed God, they would have known that obeying God would have been in their best interest. Selfish in a way. Their free choice.

Seems to me that unbelief was the original sin. And it’s the sin that makes separation from God permanent.

1 Like
15

I know what’s coming, but will give my 2 cents anyway.

I think Genesis 3 actually gives us a much sharper distinction than the one you’re making. Unbelief was the serpent’s weapon; disobedience was Adam and Eve’s transgression. Those are related, but they are not identical, and Genesis never calls unbelief itself “the original sin.”

Look carefully at the sequence. God said, “thou shalt not eat” (Gen. 2:17). Satan then challenged God’s word: “Yea, hath God said?” (Gen. 3:1), and ultimately contradicted Him: “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4). The result was that Eve believed the serpent’s word rather than God’s word. But what did she actually do? “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat” (Gen. 3:6). Adam did the same. The sin was not merely an internal failure to believe; it was the deliberate violation of God’s explicit command.

And God’s judgment leaves no room for ambiguity. He tells Adam. “Because thou hast… eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it” (Gen. 3:17). God identifies the offence by reference to the command that Adam violated. The issue is not difficult to identify: God commanded; Adam disobeyed.

Then Paul gives us the inspired interpretation of what happened in Eden: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (Rom. 5:19). That is the apostolic explanation of Adam’s Fall.

Paul does not say, “by one man’s unbelief.” He says disobedience.

There is therefore a biblical contrast we should not blur:

God said, “You shall not eat.”
Satan said, “You shall not surely die.”
Eve rejected God’s warning and accepted Satan’s lie.
Then she disobeyed God’s command.

So yes, unbelief preceded the act of sin, but unbelief and disobedience are not interchangeable terms. The unbelief explains why they were willing to disobey; it does not erase the fact that the thing God prohibited was actually done.

And your statement that unbelief is “the sin that makes separation from God permanent” goes beyond Genesis altogether. Genesis 3 says that sin brought death, judgment, shame, alienation and expulsion from Eden. It does not say that unbelief is a separate category of sin that makes separation permanent. In fact, Genesis 3:15 immediately introduces God’s promise concerning the seed of the woman who would defeat the serpent. Judgment is real, but so is God’s promise of redemption.

So I would put it this way- the Fall began with distrust of God’s word, but it became transgression when God’s command was violated. Satan’s question was, “Did God really say?” Eve’s answer was effectively, “I will trust another word.” And the evidence of that rejection was that she ate what God had commanded her not to eat.

If we are going to call something “the original sin,” we should use the language Scripture itself uses. Genesis gives us disobedience, and Romans 5:19 explicitly confirms it. Unbelief is part of the story, but Scripture does not give us permission to replace Adam’s “disobedience” with “unbelief” as though they were the same thing.

Rom 5:19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Rom 11:30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,

Rom 11:32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

2Cor 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.

Eph 2:2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—

Eph 5:6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Heb 2:2 For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,

Heb 4:6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience,

Heb 4:11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.

As per Genesis 3 and there is more I can unpack, but this should suffice.

Use with caution.

J.

16

People go to hell (permanent separation) because of unbelief, right?
Sin is an outward manifestation of an inward state of the heart.

The term “original sin” is not in the Bible. It’s puzzling that you would use it, while admonishing me to use biblical terms to describe it.

17

The concept of “original sin” is biblical and I said in Genesis 3 it is about “disbedience”
However…

The noun ‘disobedience’ does not occur in Genesis 3, but the act of disobedience is exactly what Genesis 3 describes. God commanded Adam not to eat, Adam ate, and God explicitly judged him for violating that command. Paul subsequently interprets Adam’s act as παρακοή, ‘disobedience,’ in Romans 5:19.

Rom 5:19 For as by the disobedience of the one man [as sinners were established many]; so also by the obedience of the one man [as righteous shall be established many].

Transliteration: parakoēs
Morphology: N-GFS
Noun - Genitive Feminine Singular
Strong’s no.: G3876 (παρακοή)
Meaning: Disobedience, imperfect hearing.

παρακοή
parakoḗ; gen. parakoḗs, fem. noun from parakoúō (G3878), to disobey. In its strictest sense, it means a failing to hear or hearing amiss, with the notion of active disobedience which follows this inattentive or careless hearing (cf. Rom_5:19; 2Co_10:6; Heb_2:2).
Syn.: apeítheia (G543), disobedience; parábasis (G3847), transgression; apostasía (G646), apostasy.
Ant.: hupakoḗ (G5218), obedience; hupotagḗ (G5292), submission.

I said I knew what is coming, here it is, and gave you my “2 cents”

Cheers mate.

J.

1 Like
18

But I do agree with your distinction between disbelief and disobedience.

The trouble with humans is that we have so many, often conflicting, beliefs. So we are often stuck in a state of confusion and “halting between two or (twenty) opinions”.

So, we act on the belief that we have decided is most in our best interest at the moment. Often with possible deep regret later. Our free-will is epistemic in nature. We believe what we choose to believe, pick the belief that we think is going to benefit us the most, and act on that.

That’s the disobedience part.

EDIT - Unless we’ve chosen to believe God, which is always in our best interest.

1 Like
19

Hey we are solving some stuff, right?

Same to you brother!

20

I agree that people act according to what they believe, but I think we need to be careful about making “choosing what we believe is in our best interest” the framework for conversion.

The apostolic language is not, “Choose the belief that will benefit you most.” It is, “Repent and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15), “Repent … and be converted” (Acts 3:19), and “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 16:31).

Paul actually summarizes his preaching as “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).

So I would say the biblical issue is not primarily, “Are we choosing Jesus from among competing beliefs?” The issue is that God commands the sinner to repent and believe the testimony concerning His Son. Faith is directed toward Christ, and repentance is directed toward God.

Of course, the sinner genuinely believes and genuinely repents. But I would hesitate to reduce that response to an autonomous epistemic choice based upon what we calculate to be in our own best interests. Scripture gives us a much more concrete category: repent and believe the gospel.

Unless we have repented and believe eis Messiah Yeshuah and recant of these “gnostic reformers” right @Pater15?

Edit…We believe what we choose to believe.

This from Justin…

Selfishness is the sin that kills relationships.

Self-righteousness is religion.
Self-esteem is pride.
Self-gratification is lust.

When our self is inconvenienced, infringed, impugned, or injured we get angry, bitter, mean, and hateful.

Selfishness destroys your relationship to God and those around you.

The original sin was selfish when an entitled man and woman became vain in their imagination, darkened their hearts, and professed themselves to be wise.

Vanity is defined in the Bible as living for yourself.
Darkness in your heart is not able to shed light on anyone else, and selfish people always think they are wiser than everyone else.

If you only serve yourself you serve a fool (Rom 1:22).

The opposite of selfishness is grace. Grace is entirely unselfish. You cannot be selfish and gracious at the same time. Grace is doing for others, especially when they can’t do, have not earned, or deserved.

If selfishness kills relationships, grace heals them.

We are saved by grace through faith in what God did for us through Christ. We are reconciled to God by his grace toward us.

Grace crucifies our self with Christ (Gal 2:20; Rom 6:5).
Grace esteems others better than ourselves, pleases our neighbour for his good, and is grateful to God for all he did for us.

Selfishness kills relationships, but grace gives, forgives, and provides new life and peace.

Make grace the principle in your relationship, and live peaceably with God and all men.

“Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” – Phil 1:2

For His glory,

~ Just a grace believer.

J.