Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2381Re: Ayn Rand on Original Sin

Expand Messages
  • r.hero
    Jul 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Heinz,

      Actually, the doctrine referred to here is called the Adamic Nature not Original Sin.

      The Adamic nature of man is speaking about his fallen nature (Greek sarx). Romans 7 contains the struggle between our fallen nature and our conscience. Galatians 5 tells us that we should walk in the Spirit and we will not fulfill the desires of the flesh. It is called the Adamic nature because we inherit it from Adan. All men are born with a fallen nature, a native depravity. We see that nature in small kids who demand their own way. Children are inclined to selfishness, and that selfish tendency is the old Adamiv nature... the flesh.

      This doctrine is widely accepted in Christendom but I, too, believe that it is a false doctrine.

      Regarding the old nature of man, I have read Dakes notes on this subject and I must say they make more sense. In Romans 7 he does not change the plainly written word of God to mean a struggle with our fallen nature and our conscience, therefore, seems more likely to be the true meaning.

      Dake writes on Roman 6:6 "
      The old man is none other than Satan himself, the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience ( Eph. 2:2,4:22-24,Col.3:9,Jn.8:44, 1Jn3:8 5:18). To call this our old nature is erroneous, for nothing happened to Adam other than his submission to Satan and a moral fall. Adam had the same body, soul, and spirit after the fall as before. The only difference was a change of masters. There is no such thing as an old nature other than man's own body, soul, and spirit dominated by satanic powers, as in the above passages."

      So it would seem that the small kids mentioned above just need to change masters, not that they can't help themselves because they have a fallen nature. To me, this makes more sense than to believe that God created Adam faulty¬ówith a fallen nature. Did the Catholics come up with the Old Nature doctrine? I ask this because I know that Catholics have a different philosophy on redemption.

      As for Gal. 5:16
      Dake writes, "this verse is much misunderstood as referring to constant warfare between the flesh and the spirit, making one the victim of the flesh and helpless to live right. This is not the thought at all. It does describe the condition of Galatians or anyone else fallen from grace and seeking perfection through the flesh and self efforts (Eph.1:6-8:3:1-5; 5:1-9, 13-15, 26). That it does not refer to the normal life of a Christian in grace, living and walking in the Spirit is clear from 5:16,18, 22-24;Rom6:14-23;8:1-13;2Cor.10:5-7Eph.6:10-18; Col.3:5-10;1Jn.1:7-9 3:8-10;5:1-4,18).



      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Heinz Schmitz" <christian_skeptic@...> wrote:
      > This has to be the best denunciation of Original Sin I have ever read:
      > This is an excerpt from John Galt's speech in the novel Atlas Shrugged-
      > "Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accepts his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
      > It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some explicable claim upon him - it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.
      > The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
      > Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
      > What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man.
      > Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."
      > Happy Canada Day everyone.
      > Heinz
    • Show all 24 messages in this topic