This article needs some reworking so that it addresses the doctrine of Original Sin, which is a specific Christian doctrine dealing with the inheritance of Adam's original sin, rather than just a title assigned to the sin that Adam committed.
I believe that a lot could be added to this article for someone knowledgeable. There are probably implications of this doctrine for such things as infant baptism, the Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception, and perhaps the differences in the Protestant and Catholic approaches to this issue. I also suspect that the comment in the following comment sounds a little Protestant to me, and may not be quite how Catholics see it, but perhaps I am wrong: "The only way we are justified in God's eyes and reconciled with God is by humbly asking for forgiveness, believing that his son Jesus Christ through his death and crucifixion? took on himself the due punishment for our sins and trespasses (atonement?, and living life in obedience to God" -- Egern
I once read that Augustine held that even if you lead a perfect life and humbly ask God for forgiveness etc., He can still through you into hell because of the original sin. There does not appear to be a way to wash it off, you have to hope for mercy and have no right to expect it. I wonder if this is still doctrine, and whether catholics and protestants disagree on that point. --AxelBoldt
That certainly sounds like Augustine. Augustine probably marks the earliest point of theological departure between the Western (Catholic and Protestant) and Eastern branches of Christianity. (And this has nothing to do with the filioque clause or cultural issues like leavened/unleavened bread.) Augustine taught that you inherit the guilt of Adam's sin (maybe of everyone between you and Adam, I'm not sure), whereas Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that we inherit a corrupted human nature with a tendency to choose sin, but that we are only guilty of our own sins. Original sin is why the Catholics felt a need to come up with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, I think in the 19th century. The Eastern Orthodox church sees no need for such a doctrine, because Mary wouldn't inherit any guilt anyway, just like everyone else.
Because Augustine wrote in Latin, and wrote such large quantities, most of his contemporaries in the East didn't read much of his work, and so didn't have any immediate reaction at all, positive or negative. The Western church of course paid it much closer attention. As for as Protestantism, Augustine's doctrine of original sin still shows up in various forms, particularly in Calvinism (see Total depravity under TULIP, I think) and to some extent in Lutheranism. Arminianism doesn't hold to total depravity, but I can't remember what they do with original sin right off.
Do jews have an equivalent doctrine, or do they just ignore it? And muslims? -- James
- I believe that the most recent change from "Judaism" to "Judaeo-Christian" really misses the point of the article, which is to trace the development of the idea from a traditional Jewish one to the idea as it developed in Christianity. Also, the term "Judaeo-Christian" is controversial and fraught with difficulties (see the article on that subject in this encyclopedia). Therefore, I propose undoing the last change to the article. -- Egern
In line with the first comment on the talk page, I have revised the first paragraph with an eye towards NPOV. Given that different people/religious traditions read the Bible in very different ways, I think it is especially important to distinguish clearly between what the Bible says and specific ways in which the story is read.
First, I changed the account from a description of a "sin" to a description of an "act." The Bible describes an act. It does not explicitly label it as a "sin." It is only specific traditions that interpret it as a sin, or even as the "original" sin.
Second, I deleted the association of the serpant with satan, for two reasons. First, I am not sure the text actuaually identifies the serpant as satan. Second, I am sure that what the Hebrew word "satan" means is open to question. Some religious traditions identify "satan" with a specific entity or power, some do not. I think most native english speakers will assume "satan" is just the name of a specific entity. But this is an interpretation, not the plain meaning of the text, so I think the article must be clear.
Third, I changed "apple" to "fruit." The Bible does not identify the fruit as an apple. People may call it an apple in the sense that "apple" is sometimes used generically to refer to fruit (thus, in french, a potato is a pomme de'terre, and apple of the earth). But most native English speakers think "apple" is the specific fruit of a specific class of trees, and to call the fruit an apple here would be misleading.
Finally, I changed "embarassed" to "ashamed" which I do think is closer to the language of the text.
I of course have no objection to the following section explaining how some people think this act was a sin, how some people think that the snake was Lucifer, or how some people think the fruit was an apple. I just think the initial description of the Biblical story should be neutral. SR
- For what it's worth, I heartily agree with your changes, for the reasons you gave. I didn't know about the Hebrew word for "satan", always thought it came from the Greek "satanos" for "tempter". But you're right, calling it sin and identifying the snake as satan were later interpretations, and calling the fruit an "apple" is an old pet peeve of mine. --Wesley
BY THE WAY -- the text also makes clear that eating the fruit does NOT lead to a sure death "on that day." Doesn't this mean that God lied? And surely, isn't THAT the "original" sin? (just trying to be a little bit of an "adversary!") -- SR
- Well... I don't mean to take this any more seriously than it was meant, but if the "days" in Gen. 1 and 2 are ages instead of 24-hour days, couldn't a "day" in Gen. 3 be an age as well? Another interpretation might be that Adam's spiritual death began the day he ate the fruit and chose independence from God, the source of all life, and that this only played itself out in physical death many years later. If there is a God and He did lie, then we all have a very big problem. :-) --Wesley
- God did not lie; Satan (the serpent lied), according to the Unification Church (of which I am a member). We interpret Luke 9:60 ("Let the dead bury their own dead") and similar NT verses as describing two types of death: (1) literal physical death of the body, and (2) spiritual death, i.e., inability to love and to receive God's love. In Luke 9:60 Jesus suggested that the spiritually dead (sense 2) relatives of the deceased (sense 1) conduct the funeral, while exhorting the young man to forget all that and follow Him. Likewise, the death spoken of in Gen. 2:17 ("in the day that you you eat of it you will die") was not physical death but spiritual death. -- Ed Poor
- Perhaps in committing the first sin God is inviting us to learn how to forgive! In any case, the splendour of the book (well, a part of it, at least) is that just as a diamond sparkles from many facets, the Bible invites such a variety of equally valuable interpretations! ;) SR
- Interestingly enough, the story is about a serpent who apparently had legs. The serpent was also punished for the "act" as much as Adam and Eve were, and the serpent's punishment was to have to have to travel by slithering on the ground. Clearly this story originally had nothing whatsoever to do with Satan. -- Egern
The standard explanation of this, I believe, is that God did not lie, but he was speaking in metaphor.
Ed, you deleted the part of the entry that pointed out that many people mistakenly believe that Satan is part of the story. You made the cryptic comment that "this isn't NPOV". What do you mean by this? Who do you believe that this statement is towards towards, and who against? We are talking about the text of a book. This isn't a matter of religious or theological debate. This isn't a religious belief. The simple fact is that many millions of unread people mistakenly assume that Satan is part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible. That, obviously, is false. The Satan character wasn't introduced into the story until many centuries later, and then this was only done in different books. The actual text of Genesis was never rewritten, even in Christianity. Does your Church use a new Hebrew text for Genesis that does mention Satan? If so, this new version should certainly be mentioned, but we cannot hide the fact that the standard version used by both Christians and Jews does NOT have this. RK
- The claim that people mistakenly assume that Satan is part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible needs to be attributed to a scholar or other authority. Moreover, if there is controversy over the interpretation of the "serpent" the article should simply say that some people interpret the serpent as Satan while others interpret it as (whatever).
- I haven't heard of anyone literally saying that Genesis says Satan tempted Eve -- rather the common (prevalent?) belief about Satan tempting Eve is a conclusion or interpretation.
- It's similar to the verse "the saints who had fallen asleep were raised" quoted in discussions of the rapture. The phrase fallen asleep is usually interpreted as meaning "died" althought the text is always quoted as "fallen asleep."
- Nonetheless, I am not going to fight with you on this. Restore the deleted text, if you wish.
An afterthought: I just read the Satan article, which says Later Christian theologies interpreted this serpent to be Satan, to the point where many American Christians are unaware that the actual Hebrew text does not identify the snake as Satan. I think there is confusion between the word "Satan" and the concept of Satan.
The word "Satan" does not, of course, appear in Genesis. It is possible that some "unread" people are unaware that Genesis uses only the word "serpent" or "snake".
I propose including both ideas in the article:
- that some people think Genesis specifically mentions "Satan", and
- that many people (knowingly) interpret the serpent as meaning Satan
Still, as I have been chided several times recently for unwarranted deletions, I will leave the text alone for a while. Let's try for consensus, please. -- Ed Poor
- Well, I just made some changes that I hope both RK and Ed Poor (and of course others) will agree are accurate and consistent with NPOV.
- First I identified "theologians" as "christian" -- it is my understanding that original sin as discussed here is an issue for Christians. If I am wrong, I hope someone will add to my change to make it more accurate/complete. But I do think that just to write "theologians" is a little too vague and broad.
- Also, I made a minor revision to Ed's re-write. Since I believe that people can interpret texts however they want to, it is hard for me to call any particular interpretation as "mistaken," so I appreciate Ed's point. Nevertheless, I think it is very important in articles such as these to distinguish between the plain text and various interpretations. My point is not at all to privilege one interpretation, just to make clear what is an interpretation and what isn't. This is why, Ed, I see no reason for providing some authoritative citation or authority to prove that "satan is not in the Genesis story. All you need to do is read Genesis 3 without any assumptions and you see that Satan just isn't there. Now you can certainly interpret the story to see Satan's presense there. I know many do -- and for that reason this interpretation must be explained in an article.
But it must be explained in such a way that readers will not leave the article thinking that this is the only interpretation, or that this is not an interpretation at all but a simple reading of the text. I consider these two provisos absolutely crucial for an NPOV article. SR
- I agree with you, SR, and perhaps I am biased because for my entire adult life I have believed that the serpent mentioned in Genesis is a symbol for Satan (see Unification Church/fall of man). Certainly my church's interpretation is not the only one. I don't even know whether it is a common one or a relatively rare one. In any case, it is absolutely not a simple reading of the text; you are 100% right about that. We have each given our reasons, and at this point I think I trust you better than I trust myself to write neutrally about this, so I am going to bow out. Thank you for your courteous attention to this matter. Ed Poor
-- Ed Poor writes "The claim that people mistakenly assume that Satan is part of the Adam and Eve story in the Bible needs to be attributed to a scholar or other authority."
- I would have to disagree The fact that many people have this belief is well known; it isn't contested by anyone. RK
"I haven't heard of anyone literally saying that Genesis says Satan tempted Eve"
- I have! In fact, most Chrisitians I have ever met has said precisely this, including Catholics and liberal Protestants. This is also true for Christian publications I have read, and broadcasts that I have heard on TV and radio. Its a very mainstream Christian belief. I am not going to unilaterally change the text of the article, but I just wanted to address these two points. RK
As an ex-Southern Baptist, I find this conversation an amusing diversion from some of the others in which I have been involved during my admittedly short tenure here on Wikipedia. ;) F. Lee Horn
Meaning of the story
Some people attribute the expulsion from Eden as punishment for disobeying God's commandment. Others interpret the fruit as the symbol of something so precious that Adam and Eve would risk their lives to "eat of it."
May I have clarification of what is meant by the phrase:
also have a role in participating in their salvation
In its context, this is put in contrast to Calvinism, as though Calvinists do not believe that man has a role in participating in their salvation. I wonder, what sort of calvinist is that? What would salvation be if it can't be participated in, or if the calvinist has no role in it? Certainly not one that follows Calvin or any of the Reformed confessions. Unless, what is meant is,
also have a role in making their salvation possible or also have a role in accomplishing their salvation
This would be a true contrast with Calvinism. It is true that calvinism excludes the idea that salvation is a shared accomplishment of God and Man, and it's certainly true that according to calvinism Man contributes nothing of himself that makes salvation possible. Are either of these alternatives acceptable to the authors of the original statement? Mkmcconn
- also have a role in accomplishing their salvation would I think be closer to what was intended. Another option would be also have a role in working out their salvation. In that middle ground, God's grace is completely necessary for salvation, but the proper exercise of man's free will is also necessary, in contrast to John Calvin's picture of salvation as "the holy rape of the unsuspecting soul" where no free will is involved. Wesley
- Yikes. Where does Calvin say that? No, it is absolutely essential to calvinism as it is believed and taught, that God's decree "does no violence" to free will. It is synergism, but not in the Eastern Orthodox sense, because it is not freedom of will in the Eastern Orthodox sense. Mkmcconn 16:21 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)
On this point I disagree. Calvin did make clear that men have no free will. That is the basis of Calvinist doctrin. In the Institutes Calvin wrote, "In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of Scripture, we assert that by an eternal and immutable counsel God has once for all determined both whom He would admit to salvation, and whom He would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on His Gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom He devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment." Man is elected by God based on God's whim, and free will is a sham. End of story. We need to rewrite the article on Canvinism and on Predestination to reach this teaching, even if we personally find it to be repugnant and immoral. RK
Calvinists even today clearly teach that man's actions have no bearing at all on whether or not we can be saved. All of choices are meaningless, and we have no ability whatsoever to affect our afterlife outcome. This is made crystal clear in this quote:
- According to Calvinism, our salvation comes from the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose us; the Son died for us; and the Holy Spirit makes all this known to us. Without the intervention of the Spirit, we could not know Christ's death. Thus, our response by faith and repentance could not happen because of the clouding of our sin that blinds us to His Word and call. Without the power and intervention of the Spirit, we could not become Christians, because we could not obey the Gospel. Therefore, the entire process of our election, redemption, and regeneration is solely by the work of God. It is by grace alone, through our faith alone. Thus God, not we, determines who will be recipients of the gift of salvation.
- ..."Unconditional Election" means to select or to choose. God chose us by His purpose. PERIOD. It was by nothing else, neither by our means nor His foreknowledge. (Romans 9:15,21; Eph. 1:3-14; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10) This doctrine states that God chose those with whom He is pleased to bring to them knowledge of Himself. This is not based upon any merit by anyone. Thus, the object of His grace is not based upon looking down the corridor of time to discover who would accept the offer of the Gospel of Christ. God has elected us based solely upon the His own Will for us, to do good works, which do not save us. (Ephesians 2:10; 1 Peter 2:10)
- I understand that some Calvinist apologists will bend over backwards to prove that this also allows for man to have free will. But that is clearly an irrational position, made out of emotional desperation. Some people have an innate desire to accept certain beliefs as true, even when they are morally repelled by them on an intellectual level. Thus thus affirm that both mutually contradictory beliefs are true, even if that is impossible. This is equivalent to claiming that 1 = 2. You can say that you believe it to be true, but deep down inside you know that there is a contradiction, and that this cannot possible be true. RK
Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Predestination
- It will be acceptable to me if it is re-written to include this view, but not if it is re-written to this conclusion. The doctrine of predestination is not only morally repugnant, it is contradicted, if freedom of will in the calvinist understanding of it is removed. The same objections that you are raising here, could be raised about orthodox Christology, or the doctrine of the Trinity, or any number of other things that Christians call "mystery" and the world calls "nonsense". If the aim of the Christian faith were to systematize the logical conclusions based upon the presupposition that reason is autonomous, it would be Enlightenment humanism, not Christianity. Mkmcconn
- I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Christianity is illogical? That reason plays no role in theology? I would have thought that most enlightened Christian theologians would argue that faith complements reason, rather than contradicting it. soulpatch
- No, I am saying that reason is not autonomous. It is subject to rules not of its own making. So, it doesn't matter in orthodoxy, whether autonomous reason says "the Trinity is illogical. 1+1+1=3 gods". That is not how it adds up, in orthodoxy. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. This is not only logical in orthodoxy, it is necessary to logic as orthodoxy understands logic. Likewise in christology: autonomous reason may say "Chalcedon asserts an impossibility". But orthodoxy will always answer that "possiblility" must include as a minimum what is true, therefore autonomous reason is asserting an impossibility if it will not submit to what is true. And I might as well add, to stay on topic, Original sin involves the same challenges to autonomous reason. Mkmcconn