Original Sin

[Ron Beron]

After some thought I can only surmise that what is written by Paul regarding "original sin" by Adam is a radical remake of the connotation between sin and redemption. I believe Paul is indicating, something he designed, that since we are born through a sin initiated by Adam then we need a propitiation of that sin through Christ. To my knowledge this is not indicated in either the gospels or the OT. Please correct me if I am wrong.

It seems that to understand Paul's reckoning here is to understand his concept of the OT and the need for a salvific redeemer as well as the state of mankind.

It is truly ironic that while Paul considers mankind inherently good I Tim 4:4

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,

he also considers man to be in a fallen state awaiting the final redemption(Romans 8:20, "Against its will, everything on earth was subjected to Godâ??s curse."). Therefore, we become will not to God who makes everything good, but to a personal Satan who makes everything cursed and evil. There is no neutrality where man can work towards goodness, we are simply overwhelmed by this active and dynamic evil energy of Satan who perverts the very will of God. God ceases to be God of this world to replaced by the Devil. I consider this to be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles and to the nature of the OT. For this reason the laws of Moses are unnecessary because they are of zero efficaciousness and only through the redemptive power of Jesus can we be saved. No works and truly not even through faith can we be saved. Only through the salvific redemption of Jesus.

It is correct that people die, but they die because the body wears out. The cells entropy and die. This, however, is not because of sin, but because of natural consequence of being born and living. Adams eating of the fruit did cause the immediate death of Adam. In fact, Adam continued living for a great while longer. It caused the death of his paradise and of the lifestyle in which he was accustomed. In this sense not only does he die a physical, but ultimately a spiritual death.

The Hebrew text (â??dying you will dieâ?) does not refer to two aspects of death (â??dying spiritually, you will then die physicallyâ?). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.

the NET Bible

Because of that we have a unique spiritual separation from God. Jesus taught the way to heal this rift. To make a permanent and everlasting At-one-ment.

[volgadon]

I have no problem with original sin, it is utter depravity which is totaly false.

[Nevo]

After some thought I can only surmise that what is written by Paul regarding "original sin" by Adam is a radical remake of the connotation between sin and redemption.... There is no neutrality where man can work towards goodness, we are simply overwhelmed by this active and dynamic evil energy of Satan who perverts the very will of God. God ceases to be God of this world to replaced by the Devil. I consider this to be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles and to the nature of the OT.

I'm having trouble understanding one aspect of your post. On the one hand you say that "we have a unique spiritual separation from God" yet you seem to reject the idea that humankind is, by default, in a fallen (sinful) state. You suggest that Jesus and his disciples didn't recognize the presence of active, pervasive evil in the world, that they thought of humankind as existing in a state of "neutrality." If this is your argument, then I think it is mistaken.

The earliest Gospel opens with John the Baptist preaching a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4). Likewise, Jesus' initial message after his baptism by John is that "the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe the good news" (Mark 1:15). Eschatological salvation — and judgment — is at hand. Jesus accompanies his proclamation of the Kingdom of God with healings and exorcisms. The inbreaking of God's kingdom revealed in Jesus' ministry inaugurates the destruction of demonic powers (cf. Mark 1:24).

The whole setting of impending eschatological judgment assumes that the world (or Israel, at any rate) is in captivity to the devil. In John 12:31, Satan is called "the prince of this world." Jesus certainly believed in a "personal Satan" and in future punishment (hell). Sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels that pertain to a personal or collective eschatological judgment/punishment include the following:

• Q 10:12, 14, 15; 11:31, 32; 12:5; 12:8-9, 10, 46, 58-59; 13:24, 25, 27, 28; 17:27, 30, 34-35
  
• Mark 9:43, 45, 46-48; 12:40
  
• Matthew 5:22; 7:19; 12:36-37; 13:42, 49-50; 15:13; 22:13; 23:15, 33; 24:51; 25:30, 41, 46
  
• Luke 6:25; 12:20, 47-48; 16:23-24; 16:28
  

[Ron Beron]

'Nevo' writes,

I'm having trouble understanding one aspect of your post. On the one hand you say that "we have a unique spiritual separation from God" yet you seem to reject the idea that humankind is, by default, in a fallen (sinful) state. You suggest that Jesus and his disciples didn't recognize the presence of active, pervasive evil in the world, that they thought of humankind as existing in a state of "neutrality." If this is your argument, then I think it is mistaken.

Thanks for your challenge. I am not saying that the world is not depraved. It is easy to see that it is. I am simply saying that while sin came into the world because of Adam's transgression we are not born to that fate. For examply, we believe that infants who die in their infancy are automatically sent to heaven. Free ride. They are not, therefore, under Adam's transgression. I think that because we come into a world of entropy we will all given our nature fall to sin and therefore away from God's spiritual center.

The whole setting of impending eschatological judgment assumes that the world (or Israel, at any rate) is in captivity to the devil. In John 12:31, Satan is called "the prince of this world." Jesus certainly believed in a "personal Satan" and in future punishment (hell). Sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels that pertain to a personal or collective eschatological judgment/punishment include the following:

As I have oft times stated I am unsure of this concept of a personal satan looking at it rather as a distinct title of 'adversary' mentioned in the OT. We could get into the origins of satan, but that digress from the OP. Additionally, while I believe that the hearts of many are following after the "prince of this world" I think it is more apt to call him the "prince of worldliness". I think the planet itself is still within God's power the inhabitants or at least some them aren't.

[Chris Smith]

Original sin is taught by Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians alike. And although it may surprise you to learn this in light of some of the anti-orthodox polemic that makes the rounds in LDS circles, original sin is taught in the LDS scriptures as well. The most explicit text that teaches this theology is Moses 6:54-56. Here we read that although children are "conceived in sin," Christ has "atoned for original guilt" such that "they are agents unto themselves." As in Arminian theology, some taint remains, so that "they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good." 2 Nephi 2:26 similarly states that because Christ redeemed humans from the fall "they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon." This is basically an Arminian take on original sin. Arminius taught that due to original sin we have forfeited our freedom, but that due to Christ's atonement for original sin our freedom is restored through prevenient grace and we are again able to choose the good. Joseph Smith would have been exposed to the Arminian model in his Methodist membership classes, so it's not too surprising to find him teaching it.