Yes it is well known that most EC leaders do not like original sin, or do not want to connect it to descent. That’s fine, however there remain a large number of theologians that aren’t ready to take that leap. Maybe they are wrong, or not, but they are part of the audience.
Your position here certainly has some defenders. I’m just not convinced. I see some real challenges to that view. I’m fine with you (or anyone else) holding it, but I think it misses something.
Also, I’m not putting forward an “Augustinian” view.
Regarless, it seems that his whole argument is an argumetn from absence:
What this means is transparent: There isn’t a single verse in the entire Hebrew Bible that produces the theology put forth by the traditional interpretation of Romans 5:12. The idea that Adam’s guilt was transmitted to all humanity is completely absent from OT theology. One would think that, given its central importance to the whole idea of salvation, if this view were accurate, at least one writer in the OT during the 2000 year history of Israel from Abraham to Jesus would have put the idea out there. But none did (under inspiration to boot).
This is, it seems, an argument from absence. However, I’m not sure it is absent. You see the outlines of this in the OT very clearly. Perhaps I am wrong, but statements like that make me just wonder if he even knows what I am talking about.
Yes, Ezekiel 18:20 is a common proof text against original sin. This, however, misses the context of that passage, and is very much a selective reading of the OT. The larger narrative is of exactly the opposite. We see Isreal in exile and occupied because of the sins of their fathers. God mercifully provides provision for people, but they are subject to the sins of their fathers. Passages like Jeremiah and Ezekial what talk about God treating them for their own sins are not a statement about the world as they find it, but about God’s intention and desire.
Once again, I think it is hard to read it any other way in light of the context. Children are suffering under God’s judgement because of the sins of their fathers in story after story in the OT. One of the most important ones on which I explicate is I Samuel 12 and Psalms 51, where David says he was “concieved in sin”, as he grieves the death of his unnamed son whose life was taken due to David’s sin. Here it is clear that God decrees this to happen, even though David’s son has done no wrong. This is one of the clearest example of the “unfairness” those who dispute original sin seek to avoid. But here, in the OT, we see it clearly laid out.
Also, @jongarvey and @Jack.collins reflections are helpful on it in that there is a difference in emphasis in the easter and western views. One focuses on “guilt” while the other focuses on “perishability.” With that in mind, we see clearly that Adam’s sin closed off access to the garden for everyone. That is a statement of original sin too. He closed to the door for everyone, not just himself. With that closed door, there is no more access to immortality, so all become perishable. Once again, we do see that notion of original sin right there in Genesis. It affects all his descendants. They inherit a world from Adam without access to the Garden. In that sense, they inherit his original sin.
I’d have to see some of those passages and narratives engaged before I’d be able to agree with that argument.