Original Sin: A Definition

Not sure what this says about me, but the part of the BBC explanation that I like best - which is to say, the part that sounds most reasonable and true, the part that resonates with me and makes me go, "yes! that's it!", is the part labeled "secular":

"the doctrine is not literally true but it contains real truths about the human condition:

The world is not as good as we want it to be
We are not as good as we want to be
Individual behaviour is greatly influenced by things outside the individual's control
Many of these are historical things:
events in the individual's past
events in the past of the individual's family
customs that their culture has built up through history
These things affect humanity as a group as well as individuals"

is this not the human condition? I say yes. I especially like the first two statements, which paraphrase McLaren: "there is a gap between who I am and who I want to be." For me, it is the practices of following God in the way of Jesus that narrow that gap.

Also on p2 the "modern interpretation" is particularly good: "Jesus as the "Second Adam" re-established the relationship with God and showed how man can become perfectly human - which puts him in right relationship with both the creator and his creation."
This reminds me of, well, me. For years I've been saying (in one of my more dreadful spasms of alliteration) that Jesus is the one who shows me/us how to live with Creator, creatures and creation.

Tim, from that perspective, humanity is still in the typological slavery of sin, bondage in Egypt

The passage you pointed out in Romans 7 seems to be a reference to two "bodies" - I see Paul using his own flesh/physical body to describe the Old Covenant, the Law which brought death and kept him in bondage to sin, the Law which could not deliver him from bondage. In verse 11 he states that sin only came to life "when the commandment of the Law came" and only then he died. In Paul's eyes, the Law brought death and bondage.

The entire exposition is on that covenantal topic and I do not see him communicating a doctrinal point on original sin. In fact he wraps up everything in Romans 7:25 with thanks to God for allowing him to serve the "law of God" with his mind even though he is still enslaved to the "law of sin." He is comparing and contrasting the old and new covenants by using the physical and spiritual aspects of each covenant as examples: body of sin vs. body of life.

I have a really difficult time with the idea that we are still in bondage to the law of sin; the ministry of Christ was all about delivering humanity from that bondage.

Virgil,

My understanding is that Christ sets us free.

From death... to resurrection

From the demonic... to the Spirit

From sickness... to health

From bastards (a la Campbell)... to beloved children

From self-centered... to loving God and our neighbor

From "bondage to sin"... to righteousness

So- under my own power- I do not love God with my whole heart- I do not love my neighbor as myself. This "bondage" is what I need to be set free from. Therefore, as I see it, "original sin" is obvious and experiential. I see it in my life, my family, my church, my country, and the world. We are "curved in on ourselves"

Put it this way. Every baby I've known is cute. And when they grow up they all do crappy, self-centered things.

Count me as a "yes" vote on the doctrine of "original sin."

Tim