A Paper on Original Sin
Yesterday I traveled to Lakeland, Florida to speak in the evening to a group of followers of the Way about the difference between the Greek and Hebrew paradigms. Â After 2 hours we just got started, so I am sure I will be back.
Heather Celoria is part of that group. Â She previously sent me a paper she wrote for her seminary class in systematic theology. Â It is a study of the origins of the doctrine of original sin. Â I thought you might be interested in her findings, so I asked her if I could publish it to the community and she agreed.
I hope you find it challenging and insightful.
Click here to download the PDF.
Thanks for sharing with your group, Skip. I am so interested in feedback and hearing what others might think about the doctrine of Original Sin.
Peace,
Heather
I read your paper almost 2 years ago and found it very helpful. Unfortunately, the link to the PDF file is no longer active. Any chance I could get a copy? Hope things are well at Asbury. My wife got her Masters in Pastoral Counseling there. Thanks.
The paper was written by Heather Celoria, from Lakeland, FL. Unfortunately I do not have a copy other than through the link. If it is broken, I will try to fix it.
Sorry, Skip, missed your reply until now. The link appears to be broken. Any chance you can repair? Thanks
not for awhile but I will when I can. Got to find the original again
Well done and clearly stated. I had great problems with Augustine while a undergraduate student and have always appreciated John Wesley as a man who could walk the middle road. Nice work, Heather and keep the studies going.
Thank you, Heather (and Skip) . . . this is powerful, and answers many questions. I understand that to be created in God’s image means there must be, by necessity, a free will or choice available. But, the next question that brings up, completely apart from mankind, is “where did sin or evil come from in the first place if God did not create it?”
I am frequently engaged in a question posed by a friend that goes something like, “if God is the creator of everything, then how did sin itself originate?” or “if God didn’t create evil, why would there be a choice between good and evil in the first place?” The very nature of having a law or command would mean that there has to be an alternative available. So, this person’s question to me predates even the Genesis account of the creation of mankind, and questions the origins of sin itself. I would really like to be able to answer the question from a Hebraic perspective. That God is the creator of evil to make a choice available doesn’t bode well, but I haven’t been able to clearly respond. Hope I’ve made some sense here.
The problem is in the question itself. It assumes that sin is a “thing,” like a cancer cell or bacteria. But if sin is the ACT of disobedience, then God didn’t create it because it doesn’t exist apart from the choice. Your friend is employing a Greek concept of existence – things instead of actions – the same problem we find in Augustine and Aquinas when they define evil as the privation of good.
Skip, thanks much for clarifying. Like Dee in the reply below, I find this paper and your response sheds much light and is very timely.
Hi Skip,
I read the paper on Original sin and was surprised that these scriptures were not taken into consideration for the conclusion. According to scripture, there is no mention of the iniquity of “Original sin”. In any case, Iniquity can/is visited on the third and fourth generation.
Eze 18:18-20 “As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was not good among his people, behold, he will die for his iniquity.
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity?’ When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.
“The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Exd 20:5
“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exd 34:7
who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
Num 14:18
‘The LORD is slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations.’
Deu 5:9
‘You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me
As for Baptism:
The Jews believe that from the age of thirteen and onwards, a boy is considered a man and is thus obligated in all mitzvot. On his thirteenth birthday, the young man is called a “Bar Mitzvah,” which literally translates as: the Son of theMitzvah.
This is derived from the biblical verse that says that Shimon andLevi took their swords to kill the inhabitants of the city of Shechem (as punishment for the abduction and violation of their sister Dinah). When describing this, the Torahsays ish charbo, “each man took his sword,” implying that they were considered men at that point; and at that point in time, Levi had just turned thirteen. = http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1048736/jewish/The-Laws-of-Bar-Mitzvah.htm
I think the covenant of circumcision is dedicating the Hebrew child to God, and marks the child as part of the covenant God has with His people, it does not refer to Original sin either, so I am persuaded that we are not born already carrying that iniquity – and that coming from someone raised in the RC doctrine!
Ah ok I see what you are saying in that now, thanks…
Hi Antoinette, can you clarify a little more how you would have wanted to see those concepts in the conclusion?
Regarding the generational iniquity, I was aware of those points and I do think people have used them as a support for original sin doctrine. Are you saying that you think they are or that they should have been clarified in some other way?
Regarding baptism and bar mitzvah, are you saying that under a Hebraic view there is no sin before that age?
Thanks for your input!
Heather
Hi Heather,
According to scriptures mentioned above- we do not carry the iniquity of “original sin, since we are past the 3rd or 4th generation.
But according to the Hebrew circumcision covenant and the BarMitzvah – there is no need for baptism because the child is under his father’s protection or cover – until he becomes a man. Wives and daughters are also under the cover of their husbands/fathers as far as commitments or vows are concerned, so a man really needs to be aware of what goes on in his family, because he represents them as part of himself to God!
I like your paper -thought provoking, and conducive to digging a little deeper on my part. Thanks!
But since we all sin (which I understand to be: make a choice that misses the mark of Torah as lived perfectly by Jesus) wouldn’t the 3rd and 4th generation iniquity visitation issue just perpetually be going on?
Heather
Just to clarify, the idea that iniquity is visited on the 3rd and 4th generation, found in God’s self-definition in Exodus 34:7, requires a very careful re-reading of the usual English translation. Please consult the TWOT and other sources. The thought is not that God advances the punishment due to the fathers. That would contradict the prophets. The English word is really from a much older cultural background and concerns the idea of a “visitation,” i.e., observable oversight. God “oversees” the iniquity of the fathers. I have argued elsewhere that this is the equivalent of God RESTRAINING the full potential of the deserved consequences so that the sins of the fathers do NOT produce all the tragedy that they could have. If we read this in English, we are sent in the wrong direction, viewing it as causative rather than restraining.
Wow, that helps! I had been wondering about how to understand “visit the sins” in light of Ezekial 18 especially, for a long time…
So, I guess He is perpetually visiting mercy on us.
For a God who uses the word rahum/raham as the first picture of who He is, I think continuously visiting mercy is a lot better fit than sending the punishment on to the 3rd and 4th generations.
Heather and Skip…EXCELLENT paper…and INCREDIBLE timing….confirms exactly what i was reading in a book at 2 am this morning by a thoughtful orthodox Jew (Moshe Kempinski) who was trying to explain to Christians one of our core differences……as I prepare to teach (in 2 different venues) on this very topic…interwoven with Atonement. I think God just shed MUCH light on my path…and am most encouraged today by Him thru you!
Did you know that I have several video interviews with Moshe? One is on the first DVD Lessons from Israel series and the other two are on the second DVD series – as bonus discs for those who purchase the entire set. Moshe is great in person – and on video. What book of his are you reading?
Good reminder about your DVD series (will order BOTH today!)..I’ve started reading “The Teacher and the Preacher, a Dialogue” (2nd edition, 2007) by Moshe Kempinski. Had a most productive conversation when I met him at his Shorashim Bookstore in the Jewish Quarter, Old City last month.
Unfortunately I can’t print the file; anyone else have that problem? Perhaps that’s because of original sin…
Only those suffering from original sin are unable to print this file. 🙂 Mine prints fine if I right click on the open file itself.
Ah, the right click opens up a hitherto unknown parallel universe for us original sinners…
The Wesleyan Quadrilateral,[1] or Methodist Quadrilateral,[2] is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. The term itself was coined by 20th century American Methodist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral
Hmmm
My dear great aunt was a devout Methodist and my father was something of a Methodist
I never heard of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, but being based on
– “scripture,”
– “tradition”
– “reason”
– “experience”
Would not qualify it as a “methodology” because it is not systematic or logical IMO
It’s common sense to read “scripture” in a “tradition” and use your “reason” and “experience”
I don’t tend to believe in original sin as a concept, but rather as part of a narrative that explains
– Why we don’t live in Paradise
– Why our choices have consequences
– Why we should obey God
In short that we are responsible in so far as we are free to choose
If Jesus was a Jew who believed in Judaism, then what value does Methodism add?
I am not actually Methodist, but I attend a Wesleyan/Arminian/Methodist Seminary (Asbury Theological Seminary). The requirements of the paper included using what is termed as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral and identifying how I included each of those items. So, that’s what I did in the best way it made sense to me.
I actually know very little about John Wesley or Methodism, though I will have to take a few courses on him and his methodology. I do know it was really sort of identified by those who followed and studied him, it was not any attempt of his to create a theological method nor did he claim it as such.
So, just to kind of explain that aspect of the paper 🙂
So, yeah, I’m not sure what Methodism adds, I just had to reference Wesley’s personal opinion on Original Sin and use the four points of the Quadrilateral in my own assessment.
“I am not actually Methodist, but I attend a Wesleyan/Arminian/Methodist Seminary”
Hi Heather,
I didn’t think you were a Methodist, but I did interview for a job at Wesleyan University
About 30 years ago
It is obvious to me that you did a lot of research and deep thinking on the subject
My comments were directed at the concepts themselves more than your paper
Regarding your paper, I think you would benefit by beginning with an outline
In this type of paper you need to be more mechanical, more “structured” IMO
In the opening paragraph, you need to introduce your topic
And then clearly state your thesis and the main points you want to make in your paper
The points can become the topic sentences of your paragraphs
After you make your point in the paragraph, you need to find evidence to support it
By going to the books that you have read and quoting the expert’s content (tell then show)
Before doing any research, I would go to wiki to get a general understanding of the topic
It makes learning a lot easier 🙂
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Roman_Catholicism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral
Hope this helps 🙂
A thought for Bev Guy on good and evil. This universe we live in as created by God is a universe of opposites. If there is an up there is a down, a right there is a left, cold or hot. and by nesessity since God is the author of good there had to be evil. I have not been able to think of anything that does not have an opposite in this universe.
“since God is the author of good there had to be evil.”
Hi John,
I’m no expert on this subject, but I think the logic of the Bible is that God created Man
With two desires, good and “evil”
Everything that happens in nature is God’s will (Good)
Ha Satan himself is not a “free agent”; as we see in Job
Ha Satan has God’s permission to test Job’s faith
Hi Mikie!
Just so you know, Cain was that seraphim’s (shiny snake…humph) child. READ AND STUDY TO SHOW YOUR SELF APPROVED, A WORKMAN WHO NEED NOT BE ASHAMED.
Of course, God is Omniscient though. Ain’t life grand?
John, About your surmize that we live in a universe of opposites, ie,up, down etc… And you are absolutely correct especially in that God created-hence the “opposite” man created god. And sadly, men walk around, like kiplings elehaphant blinding trying to desribe it by different partd of it.
the truth of the point is now we know in part, we prophesy in part…Yeshua said, if you have seen me you have seen the father.
None of todays audience has seen Yeshua or our heavenly father or anything about our heavenly
abode. We only have snapshots that Saint John remembered from his celestial vision on Patmos Island. About what how sin got started, who started it etc; it is mostly circumspect or supposition on our part, no? The way my bible reads is in the begining God created…what happened before that I don’t know and if God wanted me to know, he would have told me so. Thats good enough for me!
I didn’t get time to read this until late Sunday evening, so my apologies. My thoughts are a little different. It strikes me you’ve assumed everyone knows what sin is. So that’s where I think you need to start.
1. The word sin comes from the Anglo-Saxon word synn. What was the meaning of synn at the time the King James translators chose it? For that you need the Oxford Dictionary. But what Hebrew word is it translating and what does the Hebrew word mean?
2. According to Kenneth Wuest there are nine (9) different words all translated sin in the Greek NT and they all mean something different. What are those words and what do they mean other than sin?
3. what does the word chabad (the Hebrew word translated synn if memory serves) have to do with the definition of Torah?
4. How many other Hebrew words are translated sin and what is their original meaning?
5. I think that yatsar with the double yod certainly has a place in this consideration, too.
My writing perspective is this: before you discuss any aspect of sin, first you have to define it. And to do that, we must go back to the original language to understand God’s intent, which is usually more simple then what theologians come up with.
My two cents.
PA
I understand your point, and I would do that for another audience. This was a school paper for a professor who defined original sin doctrine during the course so it was kind of unnecessary since we were on the same page regarding what I was discussing in the paper.
My going definition of sin for this paper is that in Hebrew and Greek it is defined as an action that “misses the mark” of God’s will or instructions. Original sin is a doctrine that defines sin more as an entity, thing, nature or disease which is what I was trying to show is a primary basis to question the doctrine compared to Hebraic understanding.
Try the Companion Bible Peter. It’s original KJV with facts, not semantics. A man compiled it though. Even he said that a man (ish) has but to touch a thing….. I can tell when it’s him (the compiler(s)) talking just as well as i can tell when it’s me talking to me. Full of good facts though.
I highly recommend it.
p.s. regarding your two cents, if you double that every day for 1 yr, you’ll have a million dollars. i’m sure you know that though.
GREAT BIG HUG,
moi
For starters, I would go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_sin
Judaism regards the violation of any of the divine commandments to be a sin. Judaism teaches that sin is an act, and not a state of being. Humankind was not created with an inclination to do evil, but has that inclination “from his youth”(Genesis 8:21).
The first mention of sin as a noun is a zoomorphism, with sin (khattath) crouching at Cain’s door. The first as a verb is Abimelech being prevented from sinning (khata) against God in a dream.
People do have the ability to master this inclination (Genesis 4:7) and choose good over evil (conscience)(Psalm 37:27).[1]
Judaism uses the term “sin” to include violations of Jewish law that are not necessarily a lapse in morality.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: “Man is responsible for sin because he is endowed with free will (“behirah”); yet he is by nature frail, and the tendency of the mind is to evil: “For the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen. viii. 21; Yoma 20a; Sanh. 105a).
Therefore God in His mercy allowed people to repent and be forgiven.”[2] Judaism holds that all people sin at various points in their lives, and hold that God tempers justice with mercy.
Hebrew has several other words for sin beyond khata, each with its own specific meaning.
The word pesha, or “trespass”, means a sin done out of rebelliousness.
The word aveira means “transgression”. And the word avone, or “iniquity”, means a sin done out of moral failing.
The word most commonly translated simply as “sin”, khata, literally means “to go astray.”
Just as Jewish law, halakha provides the proper “way” (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path.
Judaism teaches that humans are born with free will, and morally neutral, with both a yetzer hatov, (literally, “the good inclination”, in some views, a tendency towards goodness, in others, a tendency towards having a productive life and a tendency to be concerned with others) and a yetzer hara, (literally “the evil inclination”, in some views, a tendency towards evil, and in others, a tendency towards base or animal behavior and a tendency to be selfish). The yetzer hara in some forms of Judaism means that Satan is merely an idiom or parable, rather than the fallen angel of traditional Christianity
Thanks for all the research. Good stuff to know.
what up ole Skip, ole buddy, ole pal? you remind me more and more of that friend of mine. He was a good guy. I miss him a lot.
Heather Celoria’s paper did a good job in covering the history of the doctrine of original sin. Ezek. 18 has been a text that refuted the idea of original sin. “The soul that sins shall die.” Pass on to Heather a “well done” for me. Also have two things to pass on (1) Thanks for your work! (2) Keep me in prayer. Struggling!
Very thoughtful work. I have been at odds with the concept of original sin and all that entails and teaches within church doctrine and ideology for as long as I have been a believer. Notice I do not refer to myself as a “Christian” as I am also at odds with western theology and the misrepresentation and twisting of scripture of which the church is expert. Anyway, the paper confirms my conclusion that what was lost in the Garden was relationship, thus the reason for God clothing Adam and Eve after their decision to follow self over God, and the need for Yeshua to walk the earth in the clothes of humanity. The whole of His ministry was about relationship – to God and to fellow man. Relationship is a journey, no 2 will be the same and yet are the same – learning and becoming as we walk along with God thru our lives within the boundaries He set forth. I loved and appreciated the way the author logically and systematically walked thru the development of church doctrine and hi-lighted how those ideas have affected what we now know as church doctrine; original sin, infant baptism and the like. Excellent excellent work – very enlightening. I have chewed on the contents for a couple of days and will likely continue to do so!! In His Name…..