General Various interpretations of "original sin"

[Lori Jane]

The question of whether humans are born sinful has been a significant theological debate, particularly within Christianity. Various perspectives exist, shaped by different interpretations of scripture and theological traditions. Below is a summary of the main positions - which one resonates with you?:

1. Traditional Christian Doctrine of Original Sin​

• Augustinian View: Augustine of Hippo argued that humanity inherited both a sinful nature and guilt from Adam's original sin. He believed that all humans are born with a corrupted nature and lack the freedom to avoid sin (non posse non peccare). This view heavily influenced Roman Catholicism and Protestantism1.
• Reformed Theology: Protestant reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin emphasized "total depravity," asserting that original sin completely corrupts human nature, leaving individuals incapable of doing good without divine grace1.
• Biblical Support: Verses such as Romans 5:12–21, Psalm 51:5, and Ephesians 2:3 are often cited to support the idea that humanity is inherently sinful due to Adam's fall27.

2. Roman Catholic Position​

• The Catholic Church teaches that humans inherit a fallen nature but not personal guilt from Adam. Baptism is believed to erase original sin but does not remove the inclination to sin (concupiscence)1.
• The Church emphasizes that humanity retains free will, though weakened, and is called to spiritual struggle against sin1.

3. Eastern Orthodox Perspective​

• Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea of inherited guilt but acknowledges that humans inherit the consequences of Adam's sin, such as mortality and a fallen environment. Humans are seen as bearing God's image but living in a corrupted world1.
• This position focuses on ancestral sin rather than original sin, emphasizing the distinction between inherited consequences and personal responsibility for sin1.

4. Pelagianism​

• Pelagius, a 4th-century theologian, denied that humans are born sinful or inherit a sinful nature. He argued that individuals are born morally neutral and capable of choosing good or evil without divine intervention1.
• This view was condemned as heretical by the early Church.

5. Seventh-day Adventist View​

• Adventists believe in an inherited weakness or tendency toward sin but reject the notion of inherited guilt. They emphasize personal responsibility for sin and view death as the primary consequence of Adam's fall1.
• Their position aligns more with Wesleyan theology than with Augustinian/Reformed traditions.

6. Modern Alternative Views​

• Some modern theologians argue that humans are born innocent and only become sinful through personal choices influenced by their environment. These views often challenge traditional doctrines of original sin6.

Key Points of Agreement and Disagreement​

Aspect	Augustine/Reformed	Catholic Church	Eastern Orthodoxy	Pelagianism
Inherited Guilt	Yes	No	No	No
Inherited Sinful Nature	Yes	Yes	Consequences only	No
Role of Free Will	Destroyed (Reformed) / Weakened (Catholic)	Weakened	Retained	Fully intact

In conclusion, while most Christian traditions agree that humanity is affected by Adam's fall, they differ on whether this involves inherited guilt, a corrupted nature, or merely environmental consequences.

Citations:​

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
2. https://www.gotquestions.org/born-sinners.html
3. https://centeredonchrist.substack.com/p/are-we-born-sinners
5. https://headsupchristianity.com/home/are-we-born-sinners
6. https://restitutio.org/2022/03/15/are-we-born-guilty-of-adams-sin-sin-1/
7. https://412teens.org/qna/are-people-born-sinners.php
8. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-biblical-evidence-for-original-sin

---

Answer from Perplexity: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-the-various-positions-J1gCGut2Tj62ns14XPQ.hQ

 

[Lori Jane]

I lean more towards #4 and #6. Of course the heretical view

The source link for #6 lead to this article on Restitutio - a person that is know to me and I happen to agree with on this. He did a thorough job of explaining the different positions and is worth a read.

Are we born guilty of Adam's sin? (Sin 1) - Restitutio

Last Sunday I preached on “Original Sin” at Living Hope Community Church. In that sermon, I commented at length on the original sin of Adam and Eve from Genesis 2&3 and then went to Romans 5.12-21 to show how their sin affected humanity. In my treatment of the topic, I didn’t get a chance to...

restitutio.org

This is the part I agree with:

3. Corruption-Only​

Adam and Eve’s guilt are their own–a consequence of their own choices to sin. Everyone is born innocent before God rather than guilty. This is the view I currently hold. Corruption-only advocates point to the slew of scripture that challenge the imputation of guilt upon an innocent person. Here is a selection of the most salient:

Deuteronomy 24.16
Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Jeremiah 31.30
But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Ezekiel 18.4, 17, 20
Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die. …“he shall not die for his father’s iniquity; he shall surely live. …The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

These texts, clearly show that both for human justice and divine justice, people are held accountable for their own sins. This is not to say that no consequences from ancestors affect them, but they are not held guilty for something someone else did. Consider and alcoholic mother who drinks during pregnancy. This is her sin, not her baby’s. The baby is not guilty of drinking while pregnant, but the baby still suffers the consequences of the mother’s actions.

Even if we’re all born innocent, we are also born with a corrupted nature. McCall explains the two dimensions of this corruption:

Traditionally, two aspects have been recognized as central to the notion of hereditary or original corruption (corruptio hereditaria). The first is the loss or privation of the original righteousness that was enjoyed by Adam and Eve in their prelapsarian state, while the second, which follows from it and comes to fill the void that is left by the loss of righteousness, is the perversion of the moral nature of humanity.<a href="javascript%3Avoid(0)">8</a>

To these two, I would add a third–corrupted physical nature. Without access to the tree of life, we die. Depending on your view of how God made the first humans to be in the Garden, we may have originally been impervious to aging, disease, and injury too. If so, then these realities are also part of our inherited corrupted nature.

One explanation for how this all works relates to DNA, the information we inherit from our parents. Geneticists are just beginning to grasp the role our inherited genes play in predisposing us toward deadly illnesses and harmful behaviors. See for example, “Genetic determinants of aggression and impulsivity in humans.” What if our first parents were wired to have perfect impulse control? They could just as easily choose sin as righteousness. Then after they carefully considered and chose rebellion, they suffered epigenetic consequences? Although this tack may not account for everything scripture says about “the flesh,” it does make some progress in that direction.

Moo described our morally corrupt nature as “a fatal, God-resisting, bent in all people, inherited from Adam. …for it was Adam’s sin that corrupted human nature and made individual sinning an inevitability.”<a href="javascript%3Avoid(0)">9</a>

An advantage of the corruption-only and Pelagianism (below) positions is that they appear to agree with the pre-Augustinian church fathers that we did not inherit Adam’s guilt. J. N. D. Kelly writes:

There is hardly a hint in the Greek fathers that mankind as a whole shares in Adam’s guilt, i.e. his culpability. …But they have the greatest possible feeling for the mystical unity of mankind with its first ancestor…Their tendency is to view original sin as a wound inflicted on our nature.<a href="javascript%3Avoid(0)">10</a>

Critics of corrupted nature theories (whether realism, federalism, or corruption-only) point to another justice worry. How is it fair for God to corrupt human nature and then to hold us accountable for the very corruption he caused us to be born with? Would it be fair to cut off a man’s leg and then punish him if he couldn’t walk? Also, just how corrupted are we? Can humans do any good whatsoever prior to salvation? To these questions and more, we will return in our next part in this series.

Individuals associated with corruption-only include Ulrich Zwingli, Arminius, Wesleyans, Richard Swinburne, and Stanley Grenz

 

[LeeB]

Both Adam and Eve were created spiritually neutral or spiritual blanks that needed additional growth. Neither one of them had the knowledge of good and evil which is what is required in order to sin. James 4:17 This growth would be in the choice Adam would make between two trees. The tree of life would have given immortality but also the Holy Spirit without ever committing sin. Adam and Eve would also gain knowledge but with the Holy Spirit the power in their lives to never sin as they would have had the divine nature of GOD and would always do good and never evil. Even their thoughts would be pure agape completely righteous. In other words they would have been what the second Adam ,Jesus Christ , was . In Jeremiah 18:3,4 the flawed vessel was Adam and the second vessel is Jesus. This is related to Romans 9:20,21 Isaiah 64:8 2 Timothy 2:20,21 Isaiah 45:9 Isaiah 29:16 2 Corinthians 4:7 The symbolism of the potter and the clay contains much spiritual significance. Adam became marred in the hand of the potter and we all are marred as a result of his sin. The serpent went after Eve planning to use her to get to Adam. GOD had already warned Adam about the forbidden fruit. After Eves deception kicked in she offered her husband the forbidden fruit and Adam knowingly and willingly ate it to please his wife, showing that Adam loved his wife more than his GOD. The eating of the forbidden fruit by Adam opened the eyes of understanding good and evil in both of them. Yes they now had the knowledge to sin and without the Holy Spirit would add to their sin of disobedience and lost the hope or opportunity for immortality because GOD sealed off the tree of life from them showing that GOD will not allow a sinner to live forever.
This became the time that Jesus became the slaughtered lamb. Jesus became the tree of life, his body and blood must be eaten to have the hope of immortality again that his sacrifice would provide. You see Christ, the second Adam gives humanity the same choice Adam had ; agape GOD above all else and agape your neighbor, the law that came afterwards was to be a teacher that would lead us to Christ and for those who learn it’s lessons they are drawn by the FATHER to HIS son. They are called Christians and have eaten of the fruit of life. They have embarked on a way empowered by the spirit of GOD that leads to the kingdom of GOD in which they receive immortality and impeccability.
This is why I call the Christ event Genesis 2 . Genesis 1 was the shadow event but Genesis 2 a great light. Genesis 1 was symbolism but Genesis 2 is substance. Genesis 1 was law but Genesis 2 is grace. Genesis 1 explains the problem and Genesis 2 is the answer.

 

[LeeB]

Everything before Christ involving salvation was a shadow with no substance. Even Adam was a shadow. There were certain people that GOD did call and choose that had HIS Holy Spirit that looked forward from their time to a future where Christ would be that substance. All of these ancient saints looked forward to what we now read in the gospels. They all understood the gospel , Christ and the FATHER. They believed that what GOD revealed to them was a sure thing with no chance at all of failure. They believed in what GOD said, Isaiah 55:11 Isaiah 7:14 and many other scriptures from the Old Testament confirmed that the prophecies were indeed a sure word that we today would do well to heed, 2 Peter 1:19 With all this in mind how would it affect your understanding of the Christ ?

 

[Outcast]

I see the truth is #4. When a child does not know right from wrong, he is taught that the world revolves around him: cuddling, feeding, sleeping, entertainment from adults, etc. The child is still innocent.

At some point, the parents teach them to share, be nice, and have "manners." This is growth and removed the self-centered learning from the years prior.

At one point, when the child reverts to "its all about me," the sin begins. A child can do that because it is in his nature to do so. Without learning differently, they grow up to be adults who still desire to be the center of everyone's world.