Original Sin

[4Pillars]

Dear Ovedya,

What we inherited from Adam is our natural corruptable body (flesh and blood) not the "original sin" -- that is why you need to be Born Again Spiritually from natural birth in order to inherit the kingdom of God. -- if that's what your trying to accomplish.

Be very careful here. this strongly hints at Gnosticism. Man was flesh and blood from the beginning. He was created as such!

Read again...

1 Corinthians 15

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. v47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. v48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. v49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. v50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

See, even Adam had to be created in the image and likeness of God spiritually (born again) after they have sinned (Gen. 5:1-3) in order to inherit the kingdom of God. So, please, let us not continue blaming A&E for our own iniquity. Had it not been the case, perhaps, we won't be here enjoying our own little world -- waiting for the eternal life as promised.

BTW, I don't belong to any organized denomination. I am a born again Christian.

God Bless

This is actually the Gnostic heresy in a nutshell. The misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 15. is one of the serious errors involved with Gnosticism. I'm glad that you're not Jehovah's Witness, but they essentially promote the Gnostic heresy, and your theology is clearly leaning that way.

Dear Ovedya,

OIC, anybody who disagree with your religious assumption is considered heresy or promoting unchristian like doctrinal faith, would that be a fair assessment of your position. No rebuttal to offer on the above issues brought forth, correct?

How convenient.

Now, based on you assumption, please explain to us 1 Corinthians 15 and how it relates the first and last Adam . I like to say, I am pretty sure, just like your stand on the "original sin", your understanding is flawed -- but let me give you the benefit of the doubt, anyway. I am all ears.......

God Bless

[Ovedya]

God reprimands the children of Israel for thinking the child suffers for the sins of the father...

The word of the Lord came to me: "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: 'The parents eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child

[Ovedya]

Dear Ovedya,

What we inherited from Adam is our natural corruptable body (flesh and blood) not the "original sin" -- that is why you need to be Born Again Spiritually from natural birth in order to inherit the kingdom of God. -- if that's what your trying to accomplish.

Be very careful here. this strongly hints at Gnosticism. Man was flesh and blood from the beginning. He was created as such!

Read again...

1 Corinthians 15

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. v47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. v48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. v49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. v50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

See, even Adam had to be created in the image and likeness of God spiritually (born again) after they have sinned (Gen. 5:1-3) in order to inherit the kingdom of God. So, please, let us not continue blaming A&E for our own iniquity. Had it not been the case, perhaps, we won't be here enjoying our own little world -- waiting for the eternal life as promised.

BTW, I don't belong to any organized denomination. I am a born again Christian.

God Bless

This is actually the Gnostic heresy in a nutshell. The misinterpretation of 1 Cor. 15. is one of the serious errors involved with Gnosticism. I'm glad that you're not Jehovah's Witness, but they essentially promote the Gnostic heresy, and your theology is clearly leaning that way.

Dear Ovedya,

OIC, anybody who disagree with your religious assumption is considered heresy or promoting unchristian like doctrinal faith, would that be a fair assessment of your position. No rebuttal to offer on the above issues brought forth, correct?

No, that would not be a fair assessment. My reasons for pointing out your statements' close identity with various known heresies was to warn you. That is, if it was unintentional on your part to associate with those positions. No, I'm not "poisoning the well" here at all. But I am interested to know how you arrived at your conclusions with regard to the verses you interpreted.

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

As I explained above, Jesus was born with two natures: Human and divine. Scripture appears to imply that the fallen human nature (That is the nature of sin) is inherited from the father's lineage. Therefore, if that is indeed the case, Jesus possessed both the human nature in it's supreme state and the divine nature which is devoid of sin. Irregardless, Jesus was born without original sin. We need not quibble over the trivial affairs of humanity when it comes to the God-man! In fact, Phil. 2:7 implies that God's having assumed the form of humanity excluded that which is flawed with it by using the words, "in the form of." So either way, God was incarnated without original sin. Yet orignal sin persists in humanity from birth.

Hardly. There is no implication whatsoever. If that were in fact true, then you have another monster contradiction. Mary plays no role, but a simple receptacle. A vessel and has absolutely no connection with man nor Christ. Also, you now have two divine natures.

Jesus was born without original sin, that is the sin of Adam, but He was born with the consequences of the sin, namely born with a fallen human nature, which He got from Mary, a human being. He had a nature capable of death.

Within your view, Christ becomes totally meaningless for mankind. He is neither trully man, does not possess the fallenness of man in order to redeem mankind from that fallenness, namely give mankind life, immortality, eternal life through His Resurrection.

The text of Phil 2:7 is the form of a servant, as well as a form of God.

Original sin does persists, because neither God nor through Christ saw it meaningful to rid mankind in this life with mortality. Having to die physcially is the way man sheds his sinful flesh. Sin dies with the flesh permanently.

BTW: You completely ignored my Romans vs. Genesis argument

Then you missed it. you will find it in post #29.

[Diolectic]

That "mortal nature" is infused with sin:

Si is not a substance to be infused.

We sin because we have the sin nature. The "sin nature" is synonymous with the "fallen nature."

One only sins because they don't know the Law Maker who enables them to not sin.

The inclination of our will effects individual choices that we make. The choice that you make will naturally follow your inclination.

Consequently, if you love yourself or the world more than the one commanding you, you cannot consistently do things that please the commander. Your decisions are in bondage to your effections and inclinations so that you only do what you have favor towards.

Love God, hate sin; Love yourself and the world, hate God.

Sin is the fruit of an object, therefore, It is not correctly called a sin nature. It is called a selfish nature be cause selfishness is all unregenerated man knows; sin is the fruit of mans knowlege.

Nature is described by its root cause, not by its fruit. An Apple tree does not have a nature called an apple bearing nature, it has a fruit tree nature, because that is all it knows; to bear fruit.

now look at Genesis 3:22, the bolded part. This is after the fall of man. God purposefully blocked the way to the tree of life (that is, obviously, eternal life) so that man would not eat of the tree and live forever. And had that verse been completed is probably very well would have said "...in his sin." because obviously that's why God blocked the way to the tree of life.

So man in the garden did not inherit physical death, but spiritual death, and was in need of eternal life. Yet for man to have access to God's eternal life, sin and Satan had to be thoroughly dealt with. Jesus accomplished such a dealing on the cross. Now we have access to the tree of life, which is Jesus, through the blood of Christ.

Gen 3:21 is Adam recieving spirituallife again. Why didn't we "inherit" that?

Children receive and believe things in a simple way. Jesus' teaching has nothing to do with the presumed "innocence" of children. In Adam all have died.

Nothing upsets me more that a christian twisting scripture to fit there biased doctrine.

It is not, "In Adam all have died"

1Corinth 15:22 For as in Adam all die...

If we are born spiritualy dead, the verse would say, "In Adam all have died" or "In Adam all are dead"

However, this vires tells us that if you remain in Adam, you will die.

We know this because of the previous verse:

1Corinth 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

If Jesus resurrection of the dead is physical, then the death that we inherit is physical.

Edited June 2, 2007 by Diolectic

[firehill]

Horizoneast:The Bible teaches that

[Ovedya]

Hardly. There is no implication whatsoever. If that were in fact true, then you have another monster contradiction. Mary plays no role, but a simple receptacle. A vessel and has absolutely no connection with man nor Christ. Also, you now have two divine natures.

Mary was born of a human father, no? Or perhaps she was also immaculately conceived? Mary had the fallen human nature (Which contains the nature of sin) which she inherited from her father. There is no contradiction. Jesus on the other hand was born of God and Mary, with the divine nature and the human nature, yet without sin.

Your argument essentially hinges upon "fallen nature" meaning "physical death." I dealt with that issue with the verses from Genesis. Man was created to be born and to die. Physical death is not evil. Nor is it the result of the fall. Spiritual death on the other hand is both.

[Thaddaeus]

Ovedya,

contents taken for post 31 in response to my statements on your response Diolectic,

Have you not read my last TWO (perhaps three) responses to this issue? Address the argument directly as I presented it, please, rather than reiterating what you've already written.

Yes, and I have responded to them as have others. You have an unscriptural position in saying man is born with sin. He is born mortal which has the propensity to sin. To sin continually. He is born in sin, but not with sin.

You are not born to a disease of any kind except that death is also called a disease of mankind.

But, nevertheless, we become sick because of our fallen natures. Our mortality is the seat of all the evils and ills of this world. We know it was death, mortality because death affected everything in nature. Unless you can possit that a rock or tree or even and animal can sin, then we can have a mutual understanding. Are trees sinful or just part of the fallenness of this world?

We know it was also death because Adam and Christ or paralleled. They are opposite sides or ends of an equation. As in Adam so also in Christ. Meaning. As death came from Adam, so also in Christ life came to all men. It never says that because Adam sinned, in Christ we no longer sin. Sin is not man's real and paramount problem. It is death. Death, thus mortality is the cause of our sin. Makes us sin. We are sinners because we sin and we sin because we are mortal. We are dead in our sins and treaspasses and through Christ all have been made alive.

Again, asked and answered. Please address my argument rather than reiterating your own points.

Your arguements have no validity in scripture. You are trying to state something that is not there. The texts you use for support, are actually speaking contrary to your view.

"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.

And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!" (Gen. 3:3-4)

Eve did not die the instant she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Neither did God kill her. Yet from the latter verses it is clear that she had inherited sin from that tree and so was spiritually dead:

Eve is not the question. Eve as wife was to be in subjection to the husband. Thus it leaves the final decision to Adam. The moment he accepted the fruit from Eve and ate, the world, the universe was plummeted into death and corruption. Man immedicately became mortal. Was such a threat the the very universe now that God needed to eject him from the Garden, less he also eat of the tree of life, thus making corruption, and death eternal. Death would remain as a consequence so man can rid himself of the fallen flesh. We will be raised incorruptible, immortal through the death of the Incarnated Christ and his resurrection. Read I Cor 15 very carefully. All the faith in the world will not save a man, it cannot give life. Only Christ through the Resurrection gives life to mankind.

Adam immedialely does sin. He blames his wife. My that bastion of husbandry cannot even take the blame for his own actions. He blames Eve. The spiritual condition to which you refer and all through the bible is not a state of being, but a relationship. And yes, man becomes spiritually dead, separated from God by sin. Sin and God do not mix and they don't today any more than in the day of Adam.

This is more Gnosticism! AGAIN, I addressed the issue of mortality and the mistaken assumption that death is evil in my previous response. Will you not meet this argument head-on?

I have been taking it headon from the get-go. By the way, the biblical position which I and several others are stating is the opposite of Gnosticism. Gnosticism is the separation of temporal or physical things from the spiritual. Christianity ties them constantly together. Now, you want to keep them separate.

This is absolutely false according to Scripture. A "conventional relationship" with Him? No! An essential relationship with Him. Even in Him. with Him, and by Him!

Yes, but not a physical state. We are not physically IN Christ. We do not share His essence, but we partake of His divine nature.II Pet 1:4.

Now you're on to the Universalist heresy...as well as Gnosticism. What will you arrive at next?

You throw terminology around but do you really understand what they mean. You already showed a misunderstanding of Gnosticism, what about Univeralistism.

[Ovedya]

One only sins because they don't know the Law Maker who enables them to not sin.

One sins because he has sin.

The inclination of our will effects individual choices that we make. The choice that you make will naturally follow your inclination.

Consequently, if you love yourself or the world more than the one commanding you, you cannot consistently do things that please the commander. Your decisions are in bondage to your effections and inclinations so that you only do what you have favor towards.

Love God, hate sin; Love yourself and the world, hate God.

Now we're on to the will. Do you or do you not want to involve Calvinism/Arminianism into the discussion? Paul experienced that he had to will to do good but could not because sin was present within him.

Sin is the fruit of an object, therefore, It is not correctly called a sin nature. It is called a selfish nature be cause selfishness is all unregenerated man knows; sin is the fruit of mans knowlege.

Selfishness is only one result of sin. It is the evidence of it - the fruit of it.

Nature is described by its root cause, not by its fruit. An Apple tree does not have a nature called an apple bearing nature, it has a fruit tree nature, because that is all it knows; to bear fruit.

Right. You continue to provide evidence to my argument. An apple tree is one among many fruit trees. Yet it bears the life of an apple tree, not a pear or an orange tree. So actually the nature of an apple tree is "apple bearing." So also the sinful nature bears the fruit of what it is: sins.

Gen 3:21 is Adam recieving spirituallife again. Why didn't we "inherit" that?

"And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them."

Nothing upsets me more that a christian twisting scripture to fit there biased doctrine.

It is not, "In Adam all have died"

1Corinth 15:22 For as in Adam all die...

If we are born spiritualy dead, the verse would say, "In Adam all have died" or "In Adam all are dead"

However, this vires tells us that if you remain in Adam, you will die.

We know this because of the previous verse:

1Corinth 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

If Jesus resurrection of the dead is physical, then the death that we inherit is physical.

You are making a presumption about the verses that simply is not there. The point if the passage is to show that Christ is the means by which we can be resurrected from the dead. It's a rebuttal to the charge that there is no resurrection (v. 12). It does not state or imply that physical death is the result of Adam's fall.

[firehill]

Eve is not the question. Eve as wife was to be in subjection to the husband. Thus it leaves the final decision to Adam. The moment he accepted the fruit from Eve and ate, the world, the universe was plummeted into death and corruption. Man immedicately became mortal.

As long as we are building one thing onto another...

Er, come again? It was never about the woman being in subjection to the man. The world plummeted because Adam ate with eyes wide open knowing full well what he was doing. In the thread 'head over' or 'head of' in doctrinal questions this was addressed a little. Adam then was disobedient to God knowingly. Eve on the other hand was deceived and ate. This changes everything. These are noted when looking carefuly at the written text in what God had said to each one after the fall.

What if Adam had been the one deceived and then had fallen into sin and the woman had been the one to disobey God with eyes wide open? Where would that put this discussion?

Question remains for whenever: Why was Adam's blatant sin verses the woman's having been deceived who fell into sin held accountable for the fall?

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.

And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die!" (Gen. 3:3-4)

Eve did not die the instant she ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Neither did God kill her. Yet from the latter verses it is clear that she had inherited sin from that tree and so was spiritually dead:

Did Adam 'die' the instant he ate the fruit? Did God kill him?