original sin, actual sin

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gavin

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi all,
would you say that original sin and actual sin are two parts of sin, like a root and branch; or would you say original sin and actual are two separate types of sin, like an apple and a pear.
 
Last edited:
I would liken it more to the first, although I don't know that analogy is airtight. Remember, we sin because we are sinners, not the other way around. What I mean is, the reason we commit actual sins is because we are sinners by nature (fallen in Adam). Often, modern evangelicalism gets it the other way around and says that because we commit sins that is what makes us sinners. This is why they fall into problems with "age of accountability" and other unbiblical concepts.

This might also be helpful:

WCF 6.6
Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death, with all miseries spiritual, temporal, and eternal.
 
Original sin refers to the sin of Adam. He introduced a sinful principle into the race of man. From this principle flows a corruptness in every behavior we exhibit. I would liken the behavior unto a fruit and sin as the sap.

Certain actions are also designated as sin, in order to distinguish them from actions that are good. This is another use of the word.

Blessings!
 
Just to add a wrench into the topic, I should add that original sin IS actual sin in God's eyes. That a person has a proclivity to sin thereby demonstrates their alienation from God and their intrinsic hate for him. While keeping all this in mind, I would use the root and branch illustration.

What do others think?
 
Hi all,
would you say that original sin and actual sin are two parts of sin, like a root and branch; or would you say original sin and actual are two separate types of sin, like an apple and a pear.

I look to the doctrine of original sin like this. When Adam sinned it is "as if" we all sinned and that sin was imputed to us. With all of us born in Adam and the original sin is imputed to us. This is the reason all are by nature children of wrath or sinners. The sin that follows is simply icing on the cake in that we verify our nature by a continuation of sinning. I am not sure classifying sin as having "two parts" is helpful when we speak of fallen men because all men are born sinful. Adam was created mutable (able to change) but good and not sinful.
 
There is some debate in Reformed circles over whether only the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to us leading to corruption (e.g. John Murray, The Imputation of Adam's Sin, immediate imputation) or whether corruption is transmitted alongside guilt being imputed (e.g. Dabney, Systematic Theology).

The other (third) view is mediate imputation, i.e. that the corruption is transmitted initially thus leading to the sharing of the guilt. I don't know how much reception this has had in Reformed circles.

I think Dabney's points are well made. Both corruption may be transmitted and guilt imputed to the child in the womb at the same point.

Since each human being is mysteriously individually implicated in Adam's sin, Christ had to die for that sin for each of his elect, whereas for the reprobate He did not.

Adam, himself, may or may not, have been one of the elect.

This book explores the issues, but I would have to look at it again to see if it gets any closer to explaining original sin:

http://www.amazon.com/Original-Sin-...&qid=1350904057&sr=8-2&keywords=henri+blocher

I don't know much about Blocher, but he may be somewhat "liberal" in places. E.g. I know he's a great one, as Kline was, for the Framework Hypothesis.

There must be something about man as man that makes the federal representative arrangement of the CoW possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top