Do you believe in Original Sin?

Albion said:

Let's just read the passage rather than rely upon some webpage and a footnote:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (NIV)

or

Christ was without sin, but for our sake God made him share in our sin in order that we, in union with him, might share the righteousness of God. (TEV)

Not much question about the meaning there.


.

Click to expand...

The “interpretation” you use is quite controversial and in other places the same wording is translated “sin offering”.

Do we agree that in other places Jesus cruel torture, humiliation and murder on the cross were an atonement sacrifice?

In the original Greek “to be” was not in there so what does this possible mean?

1. Are you suggesting Christ somehow literally became the intangible sin itself?
   
   
2. If it is a sin offering we can understand the singular word “sin”, but if it is Christ becoming all of our sins it should be plural?
   
   
3. Did Christ suddenly become a sinner? That would mean Christ was getting what he deserved?
   
   
4. Did Christ become guilty of our sins? We are thus no longer “guilty” of our sins, than why do we need forgiveness? Again He would be getting what He deserved.
   
   
5. If Christ is in anyway “sin” than he is not the pure sinless offering of the atonement sacrifice? It cannot be both?
   

Christ and God allowed wicked people to torture humiliate and murder Christ, to allow Christ to be treated as a unrighteous sinner, but that does not mean Christ (the innocent person) took the place of the sinner and thus the guilty person is treated as innocent. There is no scripture say: "our sins were imputed to him”, but this verse might suggest it if there were no other explanation.

I adhere to another alternative explanation that would not make God to be unfair or unjust in the punishing of the innocent and allowing the guilty to go free. I see the value/benefit (ransom payment) of the crucifixion to and for those which believer. I see righteousness coming to only those understand what Christ did for them, because of what is does to them.

`

Frogster said:

You are not really discussing the actual text.

Are you righteous because of the one act of Christ? The text says so, so why think Adam's one acts, did not make you unrighteous?


15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.

Click to expand...

The text does not say unrighteousness, but specifically says death.

bling said:

The “interpretation” you use is quite controversial

Click to expand...

Someone must have told you that, but it is not true. That is the standard interpretation.

bling said:

`

The text does not say unrighteousness, but specifically says death.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, righteousness is clearly implied.The condemnation word is legal wordage, for not being righteous.


5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.