Charles and Original Sin

I asked Charles about original sin in an email, our conversation is recorded below

I wrote:

>also, i was perusing the scriptures and came to my favorite book,
>ecclesiastes, and found this
>
>Ecclesiastes 8:29 'This only have I found: God made mankind upright,
>but men have gone in search of many schemes.'
>
>and my question is how in the world does this teaching not conflict
>with the christian doctrine of original sin? i remember we talked
>about this before and know i think i have scritural support for my
>argument. i'd like to hear how a calvinist would respond.

He responsed:

Original sin has to do not so much with the first sin as it is the effects of thereof. It is not the first recorded sin, but the state of mankind thereafter. The Westminster Catechism defines sin as any want of conformity to the law of God. The first sin recorded in the Bible is in Genesis chapter 3. This chapter, historically, has been known as the chapter dealing with fall of man. In the preceding chapter, God enjoins Adam from eating from a particular tree; namely, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In the following chapter, particularly verse 6, Adams, ostensibly, does partake of it. Now, to be absolutely forthright, many in orthodox circles are divided in regards to the actual sin, for and from which all of humanity has and is currently suffering. Consider, for example, three views:

• One view holds that the sin resulting in and leading to original sin is that Adam partook of the apple.
• A second view maintains that the sin leading to the state of original sin is that Adam, as the head of his family, did not protect Eve from the wiles of the serpent.
• And still another view suggests that Adam first sinned by wanting to eat from the forbidden tree before he actually carried out that desire. Thus, the evil desire was the first sin.

There are also sundry views about original sin; that is to say, exactly in what way and under what grounds is sin transmitted. Here are the three prevailing ones:

• The pre-existent view suggests that every human being who has or ever will live did live with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and, along with Adam and Eve, ate the fruit from the forbidden tree. To be sure, all humans are responsible for the sin that Adam committed in the garden, because all humans literally ate of the fruit from the forbidden tree.
• The mediate imputation view suggests that God transferred Adam’s fallen (sinful) nature, not his guilt, to his progeny. Each man receives this fallen nature and from that each person sins, and thereby, incurs a moral debt, for which he cannot atone.
• The immediate imputation view argues that the judicial ground on which Adam’s progeny is condemned is the guilt of Adam’s sin. This view is rooted in the idea of a covenant. There are three components to a covenant: parties, condition, and promise. In this covenant, sometimes called the covenant of works, God and Adam are the parties. The condition of the covenant is obedience to God. The promise of the covenant is negatively recorded in the Bible: “in the day that you eat of it [the fruit from the forbidden tree] you shall surely die”(Genesis 2:17); which can also mean this: if you eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree, then you will die. By way of Modus Tollens, the following can be inferred: if you do not die, then you did not eat. Thus, proponents of this view are persuaded that the promise was one of eternal life. Now, while God made a covenant with Adam, Adam was functioning as a representative for his progeny. Adam, in theology, is sometimes referred to as a representative or a federal head. As such, the consequences of his behavior would not apply to him but to all his descendants. Thus when Adam fell (sinned), the whole race, in a legal sense, fell with him, and is thereby condemned. (It should also be noted that this notion of representation is the ground on which those who trust in Christ eschew from God’s wrath. Christ, as the second Adam, it is said, did not inherit Adam’s sinful nature and through his active obedience in accomplishing what Adam failed to do functions as a representative for those who are in Him; that is, those whom He represents. Therefore, all of humanity is said to have one of the two representatives: Adam or Christ)

When the above account is placed in the foreground of your question, it, I think, perhaps illumines some of the obfuscating elements. For if one were to adopt the immediate imputation view regarding original sin, then Ecclesiastes 7:29 would seem to jibe with this understanding of original sin. That is to say, the first part of the verse indicates that God made mankind (The New King James version renders the word “man”) upright. This is consistent with not only the function of Adam but the very meaning of his name. The word Adam denotatively means man or mankind. The second part of the verse indicates that they have sought out many schemes. I have to admit that I did not consult any commentaries, so as to gain a better understanding of in reference to what this part may be, thus I do not pretend to know exactly what is meant by this. However, it seems fair to admit that this second half is at least consistent with the immediate imputation account, for this could be suggesting that mankind, as a result of falling in Adam, have sought out many schemes.

I responded:

After thinking about it for a long while, I do think that the verse is not logically inconsistent with the views of original sin, as understood in some of the examples of it you gave, what I guess I have a problem with is the inference from Adam's sin the in Garden of Eden to a 'fallen nature' of all of humanity, which, taken your definition of sin, means that all humans are created not to conform to the law of God. I think that this is false and that humans are neutral or maybe even good in their nature, I lean more towards the latter. I guess that's the issue that I'm really trying to get at. I think God made mankind upright and he continues to make them upright and I think the inference from Adam's sin to a 'flawed nature' of all of humanity is not warranted or even Biblical. Doesn't that inference go against the idea in the Bible that the sins of the father will not be passed on to the sins of the sons, on any of your interpretations of original sin? But the sin of Adam was passed onto me by means of my original state of disobedience to the law of God, or original sin? I guess I'm wondering now how the idea idea of original sin is consistent (or not) with the idea of non-transferrable responsibility found in the Old Testament?

.