Pelagianism

I wish to discuss the topic of Original Sin, started in other threads, here.

It appears to me that Original Sin is entirely a creation of the post-Pauline christian churches. Although 'sin' is mentioned in the Old Testament, Original Sin, at most, is only implied. Judaism itself does not have a doctrine of original sin. Neither does Islam. It seems that the doctrine of original sin was first developed by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, in the second century. Not all of the early christian community accepted that doctrine, however. Pelagius was one who did not. He developed a theological theory called Pelagianism, which bears his name. The following is a paragraph from Wikipedia about it:

It (Pelagianism) is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. Thus, Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin. Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example). In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for its own salvation in addition to full responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will), Jesus' execution is devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Christian theology.

This doctrine seems to be in line with the main points I was making in some other threads. It certainly seems more palatable than the vile doctrine of original sin. Of course Palagianism was declared heretical and had ceased to exist by the 6th century.

The Mormons (to their credit) do not accept original sin either. Also from Wikipedia:

Mormons do not believe in the concept of original sin as it is generally used in modern Christendom, but believe that everyone will be punished for their own individual sins and not for any transgression of Adam or Eve. Neither do Mormons believe that children come into the world with any guilt. Rather, Jesus Christ atoned for any "original guilt" and the sins of parents cannot be answered upon the heads of their children. Furthermore, Mormons hold that little children are incapable of committing sin and, as such, have no need of (saving) baptism until age eight when they can discern right from wrong, and are thus capable of sin and can be held accountable. Little children who die before reaching the age of accountability (even though they are unbaptized) are automatic heirs of salvation and are saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Those who are incapable of understanding right from wrong, such as mentally handicapped persons, are also saved under the atonement of Jesus Christ without baptism.

Even though I have no use for Mormonism, this particular aspect seems far superior to what christianity came up with.

Originally posted by rwingett
I wish to discuss the topic of Original Sin, started in other threads, here.

It appears to me that Original Sin is entirely a creation of the post-Pauline christian churches. Although 'sin' is mentioned in the Old Testament, Original Sin, at most, is only implied. Judaism itself does not have a doctrine of original sin. Neither does Islam. It seems that ...[text shortened]... monism, this particular aspect seems far superior to what christianity came up with.

It is not only the Mormons who hold that belief. Can you tell me which Christian churches believe that infants, young children, and mentally handicapped people are lost when they die? Baptists do not hold with the idea that water baptism is necessary for salvation, by the way.

As a topic that I think is relevant to my examination of the doctrine of original sin, I would like to bring up Elaine Pagel's book "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas".

In it, she examines the rich and diverse history of early christianity and how, in her opinion, the Gospel of Thomas was in competition with the Gospel of John. That villain, Irenaeus, supported John, which subsequently made it into the canon. The differences between them are very interesting. According to Pagels, Thomas offered readers a message of spiritual enlightenment. Rather than promoting Jesus as the only light of the world, Thomas taught individuals that "there is a light within each person, and it lights up the whole universe. If it does not shine, there is darkness."

According to this interpretation (if I understand it correctly, which I may not), Jesus urged people to look within themselves and uncover the goodness that was an inherent part of their makeup, but which had become clouded. It was not Jesus' death which provided salvation. Jesus assisted people in bringing about their own salvation by helping them uncover that divine spark that was inherent to each of them.

According to Pagels, John was written as a refutation of Thomas and portrays the apostle Thomas as a fool who doubts Jesus. Irenaeus backed John and excluded Thomas and a host of other early writings. His list of approved texts became the basis for the New Testament when it finally become fixed, nearly 300 years after Jesus' death.

It is apparent that what passes for christianity these days is a sham. It could very well have turned out differently, and most likely would have been the better for it.

Originally posted by rwingett
As a topic that I think is relevant to my examination of the doctrine of original sin, I would like to bring up Elaine Pagel's book "Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas".

In it, she examines the rich and diverse history of early christianity and how, in her opinion, the Gospel of Thomas was in competition with the Gospel of John. That villain, Ir ...[text shortened]... very well have turned out differently, and most likely would have been the better for it.

perhaps you might do better if you actually consulted the ancient record itself rather than the dubious sources of Apocrypha and uninspired musings of human authors. OK ill do it for you, its really quite simple chowder-dude as both the prohibition (not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad) and the subsequent pronouncement of the sentence passed upon the disobedient pair (death and a return to non existence) emphasize the fact that it was the act of disobedience in eating the prohibited fruit that constituted the original sin, Genesis 3:3 whether Judaism or not advocates this idea, or any of the other religions or theological authors is neither here nor there, for that it is certainly scriptural and biblically based is incontrovertible!

I have to get drawn into this a little even though I cannot and would not debate based on knowledge of writtings outside of the Bible.

rwingett you appear academically well read in this subject (I'd be interested to know how or why if you would be willing to divulge btw?), and I know little to nothing of the texts you and robbie mention. So this where this topic possibly needs some defining or ground rules

Are we debating:
1) the morality of 'orginal sin' as contested by various non-biblical writters over the years, or
2) the authenticity of it's grounding as a doctrine (for want of a better term) within in the Bible itself?

Originally posted by divegeester
I have to get drawn into this a little even though I cannot and would not debate based on knowledge of writtings outside of the Bible.

rwingett you appear academically well read in this subject (I'd be interested to know how or why if you would be willing to divulge btw?), and I know little to nothing of the texts you and robbie mention. So this wher ...[text shortened]... city of it's grounding as a doctrine (for want of a better term) within in the Bible itself?

I am interested primarily in the morality of original sin. I've presented two alternate views on the matter which I think are morally superior to mainstream christian dogma. The doctrinal groundings for original sin interest me far less, especially since I do not consider the bible to be an accurate depiction of Jesus' teachings.

I've read several books on the formative years of christianity. Bart Ehrman is a favorite author of mine. I also admittedly spend a lot of time trawling on Wikipedia, as my posts here will attest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
perhaps you might do better if you actually consulted the ancient record itself rather than the dubious sources of Apocrypha and uninspired musings of human authors. OK ill do it for you, its really quite simple chowder-dude as both the prohibition (not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad) and the subsequent pronouncement of ...[text shortened]... er here nor there, for that it is certainly scriptural and biblically based is incontrovertible!

That Adam and Eve sinned is Biblical.

That this sin tainted all humans since is not Biblical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That Adam and Eve sinned is Biblical.

That this sin tainted all humans since is not Biblical.

1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That Adam and Eve sinned is Biblical.

That this sin tainted all humans since is not Biblical.

yes it is! if you hold the inspired record to be true that is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That Adam and Eve sinned is Biblical.

That this sin tainted all humans since is not Biblical.

Apologies this is off topic but...

Romans 5 v12 and/thru v18 for example?

Edit: 'off topic' from rwingett's prefered direction of this thread I mean - see my question earlier.

Originally posted by divegeester
Apologies this is off topic but...

Romans 5 v12 and/thru v18 for example?

If this is going to devolve into a verse quoting competition, then I think this will be a very short thread.

I would instead suggest that you approach this thread from a different angle. If you were capable of setting aside the belief that your religion is infallible and that, like Akbar the Great, you were going to create a new one, would you still retain the doctrine of original sin? If you could put anything you wanted into a religion, do you think this is the best view among all the competing views out there? Or would you quietly leave the doctrine of original sin on the cutting room floor?

Originally posted by rwingett
If this is going to devolve into a verse quoting competition, then I think this will be a very short thread.

I would instead suggest that you approach this thread from a different angle. If you were capable of setting aside the belief that your religion is infallible and that, like Akbar the Great, you were going to create a new one, would you still ret ...[text shortened]... ws out there? Or would you quietly leave the doctrine of original sin on the cutting room floor?

It's difficult to respond to an unsubstantiated claim that something is unbiblical without quoting scritpture; the basis of sin originating in the world through Adam is so clear in the Bible it's difficult to understand why someone would think otherwise.

However it's worth mentioning that the Bible indicates that there is a distinction between 'sin' as in sinfull nature, and 'sin' as in a person commiting a specific sin. E.g. Adam was without sin when he initially sinned indicating that the capability to 'specifically' sin runs parallell to the sinfull nature we have inherited; so we all have a level of personal accountability.

Anyway, I take your point about scripture quoting.

From a moral point of view I have no issue with the teaching of original sin (if that is it's name).

Apolgies for the edits - spelling is terrible this time of night!

Originally posted by Rajk999
1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Sorry, I never pay attention to Paul's ravings in his letters.

The argument is circular anyway; people relying on Pauline ideas put the doctrine of Original Sin into Christianity. Then when they decided what writings were going to be in the Bible, they put in what was now Orthodox i.e. Paul's musings. That Original Sin was unsupported by the OT or anything Jesus said was Pelagius' point.

Originally posted by rwingett
If this is going to devolve into a verse quoting competition, then I think this will be a very short thread.

I would instead suggest that you approach this thread from a different angle. If you were capable of setting aside the belief that your religion is infallible and that, like Akbar the Great, you were going to create a new one, would you still ret ...[text shortened]... ws out there? Or would you quietly leave the doctrine of original sin on the cutting room floor?

The type of Christianity a lot of posters here like requires that human beings think of themselves as utterly worthless without the magical intervention of their Super Duper Friend. Original Sin is a necessary component of such a self-loathing belief system.

Originally posted by rwingett
I wish to discuss the topic of Original Sin, started in other threads, here.

It appears to me that Original Sin is entirely a creation of the post-Pauline christian churches. Although 'sin' is mentioned in the Old Testament, Original Sin, at most, is only implied. Judaism itself does not have a doctrine of original sin. Neither does Islam. It seems that ...[text shortened]... monism, this particular aspect seems far superior to what christianity came up with.

I have no use for the idea of original sin, but I can see where it came from.

What the Bible actually teaches is that we are born with a sin nature. That is, because of Adam's disobedience, we inherit a sin nature which seperates us from that relationship with God that we were created to enjoy.

It is the sin nature that seperates us from God, not some kind of original sin thing.

The sin nature has to do with the spirit and is in our flesh. Because we are spiritually dead to God, we are bound by the flesh to do that which is against the law of God. It is when we do that which is against the law of God that we sin.

Jesus was born without a sin nature because God was His father. Jesus was obedient unto death which He endured on our behalf so that God is now justified in imputing the righteousness of Jesus to those who believe.

That's as simple as I can put it.