On 'Original Sin'

[dizerner]

Do you think you have inherited righteousness from Christ? Unless of course you earned yours. But I don't see it as "inherited guilt," I see it as "inherited death." And as I pointed out that can't be just physical death (a blessing not a curse). Because if all died in Adam, that's past tense not future tense. Just as all believers live in Christ, but many are now dead in their sins until they find him and pass from death to life (the moment they believe they pass—not the future resurrection of the body). And I don't see that as "extraneous" but a fundamental Gospel truth. I do however think there are a lot of misconceptions about the doctrine.

However, it wasn't an apple that they ate.

I don't think anyone here is even thinking of arguing this. It was disobedience they ate, and the result is death.

the author was not saying that Levi (Abraham's great grandchild) was actually, literally responsible for tithing to Melchizedek.

He clearly says Levi was "in his loins" when he tithed. You realize I was not drawing a direct parallel but an indirect parallel, right? That should be obvious that I don't think Levi tithing to Melchizedek proves original sin. Also to me it's not a case of responsibility but being effected by something. If one man pushes the button to a nuclear warhead, we won't be culpable for it but it will fundamentally affect us. Besides the fact that, if in any way you believe Adam "increased our chances" of sinning (putting us in a world of sin, giving us a weak flesh, whatever) then you have the exact same moral dilemma, that Adam's sin has somehow eventually resulted in our culpability which we otherwise would not have. Saying we don't inherit Adam's guilt does not get rid of the perceived injustice of one man's sin affecting everyone else. Adam only had one Law in the garden, and had he kept it, there would be no Law of Moses or need for redemption. Besides the doctrine feeling somehow unjust, what else makes people react adversely to it? If a person takes Scripture at all seriously it's pretty hard to escape.

[Singalphile]

But I don't see it as "inherited guilt," I see it as "inherited death." ... And I don't see that as "extraneous" but a fundamental Gospel truth.

I thought you held to a definition of "original sin" which included universal inherited guilt. That is what I said seems extraneous to me ("But the idea of inherited guilt (i.e., our collective guilt for Adam/Eve's sin) seems extraneous (at best).") If that is not your view, then I don't think we have any major disagreement, which is good.

He clearly says Levi was "in his loins" when he tithed. You realize I was not drawing a direct parallel but an indirect parallel, right?

I'm not sure. I thought you were saying that the principal from Heb 7 is that children are personally involved in and/or responsible for their parents' behavior before the children exist. I was trying to show that that is not necessarily, or even likely, what the writer meant to say.

Also to me it's not a case of responsibility but being effected by something. If one man pushes the button to a nuclear warhead, we won't be culpable for it but it will fundamentally affect us.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that idea. Children often suffer because of their parents' sin and punishment. I guess I misunderstood how you define "original sin". There are different definitions of the concept, as you know, and I thought you held to Augustine's view (i.e., that "Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit."). If not, then ... that's good, I think.

Adam only had one Law in the garden, and had he kept it, there would be no Law of Moses or need for redemption.

General comment to all: What if Adam had was unkind to Eve or had illicit sexual relations or over-ate, etc.? Wouldn't those things have been immoral, too? It's that line of thinking that made me tend to think that the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and the eating of its fruit are symbolical rather than literal (though I can't see how it matters one way or the other).

[dizerner]

That is what I said seems extraneous to me ("But the idea of inherited guilt (i.e., our collective guilt for Adam/Eve's sin) seems extraneous (at best).") If that is not your view, then I don't think we have any major disagreement, which is good.

Yea, I agree, the idea that we are guilty for what Adam did is extraneous and unbiblical.