Original Sin

[MrLuke]

This is a debate that came up the other day between me and some friends: Original sin, true or false?

What I mean and understand when saying "original sin" is that the sin of Adam is passed on to all of his offspring everywhere so that we are born sinful thus needing a Saviour. We are not born "clean" and then become "dirty" by sinning. It's in us inherently.

What one of my friends argued was that we are born clean and that sin is a choice, it's by our wilfull sinning that we become unclean to God thus needing a Saviour. By that logic, we argued, someone could essentially choose not to sin and live a sinless life. But he refuted with that although the possiblilty to be sinless is there, it's beyond our capabilities to be like that.

The other argument he posed was that if Jesus is our example and that in John? (one of the Gospels at least, anyway) it says that we will do the things Jesus did and even greater still then we can be like Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit of course. For it to be impossible for us to be potentially sinless, then we can't fully follow Jesus' perfect example.

Then the argument of "if we are born sinfull and are deserving of hell, then if a baby dies it goes to hell" was put against the Original Sin stance. But by his thinking then, if a baby is born sinless, and it dies before having the choice and ability to sin, it is essentially a perfect being and another Adam, taking away the specialness of Jesus being the last and perfect Adam.

I still stand by the sin being inherent in us, for now. I'm open to change my view if it can be shown otherwise, but I'm just curious to how everyone here views this issue? What are your views/beliefs on it all?

[MeCajunboy]

This is a debate that came up the other day between me and some friends: Original sin, true or false?

What I mean and understand when saying "original sin" is that the sin of Adam is passed on to all of his offspring everywhere so that we are born sinful thus needing a Saviour. We are not born "clean" and then become "dirty" by sinning. It's in us inherently.

What one of my friends argued was that we are born clean and that sin is a choice, it's by our wilfull sinning that we become unclean to God thus needing a Saviour. By that logic, we argued, someone could essentially choose not to sin and live a sinless life. But he refuted with that although the possiblilty to be sinless is there, it's beyond our capabilities to be like that.

The other argument he posed was that if Jesus is our example and that in John? (one of the Gospels at least, anyway) it says that we will do the things Jesus did and even greater still then we can be like Jesus with the help of the Holy Spirit of course. For it to be impossible for us to be potentially sinless, then we can't fully follow Jesus' perfect example.

Then the argument of "if we are born sinfull and are deserving of hell, then if a baby dies it goes to hell" was put against the Original Sin stance. But by his thinking then, if a baby is born sinless, and it dies before having the choice and ability to sin, it is essentially a perfect being and another Adam, taking away the specialness of Jesus being the last and perfect Adam.

I still stand by the sin being inherent in us, for now. I'm open to change my view if it can be shown otherwise, but I'm just curious to how everyone here views this issue? What are your views/beliefs on it all?

Cajunboy::::Fair question Luke. Yes, we all inherit Original Sin. The mere fact that we have to choose throughout the day and our lives validates that we are "with sin." Had it not been passed on to us, I believe that we would still be in a place much like "paradise" and not have to make judgement calls on our lives each minute of the day. Also, I do no believe that satan would exist or be allowed to tempt or convict us.

As for the "unborn child" or the person who never even has the opportunity to "choose" to sin or not, I personally believe these people are already with God in Heaven. God is a fair God Luke, and we have to trust HIS judgement for us ! If nothing else, all these many people will have an even higher purpose in Heaven with Him!

Be Blessed

Cajunboy

[MrLuke]

So is that it? Is there no arguments for or against "original sin"? No one here to say we don't get born with sin just the nature to do it? No one here to say otherwise and argue the point that we have sin from conception?

Just me and Cajunboy?

Come on people! This is a fairy big subject - surely there must be more to say on it to see what it accurate with Scripture, what is just church tradition doctrine!

[Thaddaeus]

MeCajunboy,

I still stand by the sin being inherent in us, for now. I'm open to change my view if it can be shown otherwise, but I'm just curious to how everyone here views this issue? What are your views/beliefs on it all?

All the options that you mentioned all have a bit of truth to them.

Man does not share in the sin of Adam. We do not share in his guilt of that sin.

What we share is the condemnation of that sin, the consequences of that one sin of Adam. Adam was condemned to death for that sin. Mankind died, became mortal. It is our mortal flesh which we inherit from Adam. It is our mortal flesh that causes us to sin. The flesh rules our lives and overpowers the spirit of man. We are born with a fallen nature, we are born innocent, without sin, but we also have the propensity to sin through that fallen nature.

If we were actually born sinful, then Christ would have also been born sinful, since He assumed our fallen natures. It is the fallenness, the fall, death that Christ corrected on the Cross. He restored life to mankind. He arose so that all might have eternal life. It was death of mankind that precluded man from having a spiritual existance, a union or communion with God.

We were created to be eternal, to be in union with God. That is the position Christ restored mankind. It is then by faith that we enter into that communion. Free to enter and free to leave, just as Adam was free to choose.

It is the Work of Christ that freed mankind from the bondage to death and sin, or to the fall, Adam.

Man was freed and now the responsibility or our eternal existance falls squarely upon man. Man will be judged on what He does with that freedom. What he does in answer to the call to repent. How he chooses will determine his eternal abode.

[Ovedya]

MeCajunboy,

I still stand by the sin being inherent in us, for now. I'm open to change my view if it can be shown otherwise, but I'm just curious to how everyone here views this issue? What are your views/beliefs on it all?

All the options that you mentioned all have a bit of truth to them.

Man does not share in the sin of Adam. We do not share in his guilt of that sin.

What we share is the condemnation of that sin, the consequences of that one sin of Adam. Adam was condemned to death for that sin. Mankind died, became mortal. It is our mortal flesh which we inherit from Adam. It is our mortal flesh that causes us to sin. The flesh rules our lives and overpowers the spirit of man. We are born with a fallen nature, we are born innocent, without sin, but we also have the propensity to sin through that fallen nature.

If we were actually born sinful, then Christ would have also been born sinful, since He assumed our fallen natures. It is the fallenness, the fall, death that Christ corrected on the Cross. He restored life to mankind. He arose so that all might have eternal life. It was death of mankind that precluded man from having a spiritual existance, a union or communion with God.

We were created to be eternal, to be in union with God. That is the position Christ restored mankind. It is then by faith that we enter into that communion. Free to enter and free to leave, just as Adam was free to choose.

It is the Work of Christ that freed mankind from the bondage to death and sin, or to the fall, Adam.

Man was freed and now the responsibility or our eternal existance falls squarely upon man. Man will be judged on what He does with that freedom. What he does in answer to the call to repent. How he chooses will determine his eternal abode.

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

If we are not born with a sinful nature, but are born with a fallen nature and a flesh that, rules our lives and overpowers the spirit of man" then how can we not have been with a sin nature?

The Scriptures appear to indicate that the sin nature is passed on from the head of the household, through man. That in an d of itself canbe a subject of debate. But if that is true then Jesus would not have been born with a sin nature because His true Father is God. He had the life and nature of God, therefore He was born without the nature of sin. Sin was not found in Him, and no guile was in His mouth (A loose paraphrase). He was born like us in all respects yet without sin.

Paul clearly acknowledged that sin was present in his flesh in Romans 7. He even personified his sinful nature in that chapter: "Sin, seizing the opportunity..."

[Leonard]

This argumentation was thoroughly covered some 1700 years ago by Augustine and Sabellius. If you read their arguments you will see how the doctrine of Original Sin developed as an answer to the heretical thought of Sabellius.

[Guest]

This argumentation was thoroughly covered some 1700 years ago by Augustine and Sabellius. If you read their arguments you will see how the doctrine of Original Sin developed as an answer to the heretical thought of Sabellius.

:

In twenty five Short words or less.....

No Not One

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Their feet are swift to shed blood:

Destruction and misery are in their ways:

And the way of peace have they not known:

There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Romans 3:10-18

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them.

Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

If we are not born with a sinful nature, but are born with a fallen nature and a flesh that, rules our lives and overpowers the spirit of man" then how can we not have been with a sin nature?

they are theological terms that have specific meanings. We have a fallen nature which propels us to sin. We do not have a sinful nature, but we do sin. Big difference in that if we actually had and were born with a sinful nature, then Christ would have assumed a sinful nature, rather than just a fallen nature. Christ assumed our fallenness to raise it to life. He did not assume a sinful nature, but was able through the Incarnation and the submission of the human will to the Divine will resist the temptations of the devil and sin. A huge difference.

The Scriptures appear to indicate that the sin nature is passed on from the head of the household, through man.

No, the fallen nature is passed on. Mortality. It is our mortal natures that propels us to sin. We sin in the flesh.

He was born like us in all respects yet without sin.

yes, we are also born without sin but do sin. Christ was able to resist sin. Christ suffered, was tempted because he did have the ability to sin. Fallen nature made this possible but He did not. That is why He is our exempliar, our example as well. It is why He was able to satisfy the law where we cannot.

Paul clearly acknowledged that sin was present in his flesh in Romans 7. He even personified his sinful nature in that chapter: "Sin, seizing the opportunity..."

yes, we sin in the flesh. It is the flesh that governs our appitites, our desires.

[Thaddaeus]

Leonard,

This argumentation was thoroughly covered some 1700 years ago by Augustine and Sabellius. If you read their arguments you will see how the doctrine of Original Sin developed as an answer to the heretical thought of Sabellius.

Not sure what you refer to by argumentation, but Augustine is usually linked with Pelagius. Augustine was born in 354 while Sabellius in 230.

However, it matters not as two views were condemned by the Church, Augustine's were never accepted. They also were not taught or accepted until much later by the Roman Catholics, then later Protestants.

[Leonard]

OOPS!!!! Pelagius!!! I meant pelagius!!!

Sorry, most my work has been Pastoral the last 7 years, rather than academic......