ORIGINAL SIN

[Khristeeanos]

Why does no one care about me? :c: :down:

[BobTriez]

I certainly believe that we are born with a tendency to sin, but we are innocent of such sin because we don't know good from evil.

Ezekiel made it clear (was it 18, 33?) that a child will not be punished for the sins of his father.

Deuteronomy (2) says that the children who have no knowledge of good or evil would inherit the land

Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to children.

I just wanted to post these references again. Yes all have sinned, but I don't think it is talking about children because we already have passages that say children have no knowledge of good or evil.

Psalm 51 is a poem of repentance. It also begs God to not take the Holy Spirit from him, something that most people believe can't happen either.

I think that it is not meant literally. When we are broken of our sins before God and are repenting, we tend to be a little hard on ourselves.

Consider that David broke all 10 Commandments in a very short time and spent at least 9 months unrepentant. We can understand why he made such a comment.

Jake,

I read what you are saying, and I agree in part ? But I don't think that's really addressing the original sin issue. I also do not believe that babies who die are necessarily hell bound. I don't have an answer for that other than God's mercy runs far deeper than we'll ever be able to fathom. What I'm getting at is that we, as a human race, are indeed a fallen race and subject to Adam's curse...but I'm looking into some of the references you provided.

God bless,

Bob

[Guest Called]

I certainly believe that we are born with a tendency to sin, but we are innocent of such sin because we don't know good from evil.

Ezekiel made it clear (was it 18, 33?) that a child will not be punished for the sins of his father.

Deuteronomy (2) says that the children who have no knowledge of good or evil would inherit the land

Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to children.

I just wanted to post these references again. Yes all have sinned, but I don't think it is talking about children because we already have passages that say children have no knowledge of good or evil.

Psalm 51 is a poem of repentance. It also begs God to not take the Holy Spirit from him, something that most people believe can't happen either.

I think that it is not meant literally. When we are broken of our sins before God and are repenting, we tend to be a little hard on ourselves.

Consider that David broke all 10 Commandments in a very short time and spent at least 9 months unrepentant. We can understand why he made such a comment.

Can I ask a question Jake? If children are innocent of sin at birth, at what age do they start to become guilty of it? When they know right from wrong? I have seen babies show their selfish nature at a few months old, but you can't reason with a baby at that age. We are all born sinful from the moment we were conceived. I guess it all comes down to whether one thinks Psalm 51:3-5 is meant to be taken literally. Do I think God is going to condemn a baby to hell, no, I do not, but to say a baby is born innocent, I don't agree with. I think this is the first time we have ever disagreed on something!

[Guest Dr. Hall]

Replies: 30

Views: 331 VI. Rom. 5:12, 18, 19 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned...Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."

This passage is interpreted by those who believe in the doctrine of original sin to mean that because Adam sinned, men are now born sinners that is, they become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by inheriting a sinful nature from Adam. But this passage does not teach the doctrine of original sin. It does not teach that men are born sinners. It does not teach that sin is transmitted physically or any other way from Adam to his descendants. It does not teach that the sin of Adam was imputed to his descendants. It does not teach that men have sinned "in Adam." On the contrary, Romans 5:14 teaches that Adam's sin was not the sin of his descendants: "Them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." (Those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression were certainly sinners. But their sin was different from the sin of Adam. They had sinned before Moses gave the law, and had only sinned against the law of their conscience, and not against a positive precept, as had Adam. Rom. 5:13-14. And the fact that Paul says they "had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" shows that Paul did not consider the sin of Adam to be their sin.)

Rom. 5:12-19 does not in any way teach the doctrine of original sin. Sheldon tells us what it does teach:

The Apostle here draws a comparison between the evil potency in the sinning Adam and the beneficent or saving potency in the righteous Christ...Both are pictured rather according to their tendency than according to literal fact. Surely the potency of grace in Christ does not actually come upon all men unto justification of life, but it tends to that end, and hence is so described. In like manner the evil potency in the sinning Adam is characterized according to its tendency.

To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.

Paul does not affirm an involuntary, necessary, or irresistible connection between either the sin of Adam and mankind, or the righteousness of Christ and mankind. Otherwise, verse 18 would teach the universal salvation of mankind: "The free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." We know that universal salvation is not taught in the Bible. Men are not saved involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the obedience of Christ. Nor are they "made sinners" involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the transgression of Adam. But the context shows that men are "made sinners" in the same way that they are "made righteous," that is, voluntarily or willingly. Rom. 5:18, 19, 21. In verse 18, Paul compares the judgment that came upon all men because of Adam with the free gift of life that came upon all men because of Christ, and says "as" the one, "even so" the other. In verse 19, he compares the way the many were "made sinners" with the way the many were "made righteous," and says "as" the one, "so" the other. And in verse 21, he compares the reign of sin through Adam's transgression with the reign of grace through Christ's righteousness, and says "as" the one, "even so" the other. The context and language of this passage require that we understand the connection between Adam's sin and the sins of the rest of mankind to be moral and voluntary instead of physical and involuntary.

Paul did not teach that men are "made righteous" involuntarily through Christ, nor did he teach that men are "made sinners" involuntarily through Adam. He did not teach that sin is a substance that dwells in the flesh. He did not teach that sin is inherited from Adam through "natural generation." He did not teach that we receive a sinful nature from Adam that is the "fountain and cause" of all our "actual" sins. He did not teach that men are born sinners or that sin is transmitted physically from Adam to his descendants. All of this has been the fabrication of man's imagination. Paul's whole message, and only message, in this passage is the message that the power of Adam's transgression to bring sin, death, and condemnation upon all men has been transcended by a much greater power the glorious, liberating power of God's grace in Christ Jesus, which breaks the power of sin and brings justification, righteousness, and life upon all men. Rom. 5:15-21

Edited August 20, 2004 by Dr. Hall

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

I stand on the notion of original sin. You stand on the notion of sin by commission.

The Bible says all men's hearts are desperately wicked and that we run to sin. Therefore God had to provide a way. By His own arm.

So we admit we have sin.

So how is yours atoned for?

Who is Jesus Christ? :il: Is He a madman or the Son of God?

Peace,

Dave

[AllforJesustheLord]

Well I believe originally people Adam, and Eve did not have sin, and through Christ we can go into that position again, but if people do not believe in the good news, then they stay in the sin which was established by Adam, and Eve, with the evil help of the adversary. Everything is possible if we believe in The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit.

[BobTriez]

Steve ? You gonna offer your input on this topic ? I don't wanna do all the "talking" here....I'm interested in your thoughts on this....

God bless,

Bob

[stevehut]

Steve ? You gonna offer your input on this topic ?

Well, I didn't ask u to do any talking, Bob, so please don't feel obligated here.

My original question was a yes or no question, and some of these responses didn't really answer that q. And it looks like there's a lot of confusion and disagreement in here, as to exactly what Original Sin is.

So maybe I'm not much better off now than before.

[BobTriez]

Well, I didn't ask u to do any talking, Bob, so please don't feel obligated here.

My original question was a yes or no question, and some of these responses didn't really answer that q. And it looks like there's a lot of confusion and disagreement in here, as to exactly what Original Sin is.

So maybe I'm not much better off now than before.

Yer missing my point Steve...it's not outta obligation - I want to hear what you think here....you know ? A conversation ? Discussion ? Unless that's not what you desire. And by all means, don't feel obligated either....thought it might be nice to exchange thoughts is all

God bless,

Bob

[stevehut]

I want to hear what you think here....you know ? A conversation ? Discussion ?

OK Good enuf, Bob.

This is my understanding of the subject, based upon my recent research. An excerpt from a book that I'm writing:

Do you believe in Original Sin? Again, as with any highly consequential doctrine, we must examine the lessons of our spiritual ancestors. This teaching developed slowly over time, and did not gain wide acceptance until the 5th century. A pivotal moment: Augustine beheld an apparent contradiction in the church