Is "Original Sin" true? What are your verses for and or against it?

[Bible Highlighter]

Is "Original Sin" true?
What are your verses for and or against it?

 

[Tree of Life]

Properly defined, yes it is true.

Since you offered no definition I will take the opportunity to use my own. The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines it this way:

"...the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature..." (WSC 18).

So original sin consists in an original guilt (guilt from Adam's sin - Romans 5:19), a lack of original righteousness (Romans 3:10), and the corruption of every part of his being (mind, body, affections, will, etc - Ephesians 2:1, Psalm 51:5, Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21).

In other words, original sin is something we're born into. We're guilty and condemned before having done anything wrong personally because of Adam's sin. But we also are born opposed to God and in need of his grace to regenerate our hearts if we are to respond to him. Sin corrupts every part of our being.

 

[Danoh]

Is "Original Sin" true?
What are your verses for and or against it?

I have often found the answer to that question in passages like the following...

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Passages like those ever make it obvious that if just one soul had been born sinless to begin with, then Christ would not have had to die.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

In short, Romans 5:6-9

 

[JackRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[Tree of Life]

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

Does Spong believe that he is following Jesus?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Is "Original Sin" true?
What are your verses for and or against it?

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Once upon a time, long before John Calvin, it was written in SCRIPTURE:

Genesis 6:5-8,11-13 - Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually..... The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.

Genesis 8:19 - Then the Lord said in His heart, "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

Job 15:14-16 - What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is born of a woman, that he could be righteous? If God puts not trust in His saints, and the heavens are not pure in His sight, how much less man, who is abominable and filthy, who drinks iniquity like water!

Psalm 14:1-3 - The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any who understand who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one.

Psalm 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

Psalm 58:1-5 - Do you indeed speak righteousness, you silent ones? Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men? No, in heart you work wickedness; you weigh out the violence of your hands in the earth. The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.

Psalm 143:2 - Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous.

Jeremiah 17:9 - The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned– 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

The Doctrine of Original Sin in the Early Church "Fathers"

“Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; that ‘we are born sinners;’ and that we are entirely flesh, and no good thing dwells in us; he asserts the weakness and disability of men either to understand or perform spiritual things, and denies that man, by the natural sharpness of his wit, can attain to the knowledge of divine things, or by any innate power in him save himself, and procure eternal life,” (Epist. ad Zenam, p. 506.). Justin Martyr A.D. 150

“Having sometime before convinced us to of the impossibilityof our nature to obtain life, hath now shown us the Savior, who is able to save that which otherwise were impossible to be saved,” (Epist. ad Diognet. p. 500.). Justin Martyr A.D. 150

“Satan is “the angel of wickedness, the artificer of every error, the interpolator of every age; by whom man from the beginning being circumvented, so as to transgress the commands of God, was therefore delivered unto death, hence he has also made the whole kind, or all mankind, which springs from his seed, infected, partaker of his damnation,” (Tertullian. de Testimon. Animae, c. 3, p. 82.).Tertullian A.D. 200

“In Adam,56 as saith the word, all die, and are condemned in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, which the divine word says not so much of some one, as of all mankind—for the curse of Adam is common to all,” (Contr. Cels. 1. 4, p. 191.). Origenus A.D. 230

“Who will boast that he has a pure heart before God? No, not an infant, though but of one day, the original and law of sin remaining in us,” (Euarr. in Psal. 58 p. 392.). Hilarius A.D. 363

A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and On Original Sin by Aurelius Augustin, Bishop of Hippo Book II Chapter 50

“It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul.” NEW ADVENT CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

The Augsburg Confession (1530)

Article II: Of Original Sin.

“Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.

They Condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.”
___________________________________________________________________
Also among the great cloud of witnesses, is Martin Luther, who also held to the doctrine of original sin. So the doctrine of original is not an invention of John Calvin, nor is it a theory, it is Biblical, it is sound Biblical truth.
____________________________________________________________________

For Commentary on Psalms 51:5 see my blog entry

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death. What we are is a people that is still evolving. We are no longer "just animals" but something more.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

Your view is the product of modernist existential theology that denies the existence of an Infinite-personal God who created the universe and everything in it from nothing. Therefore your premise is the universe started with chaos and has no order and there is no rational purpose in human history. This theology merely results in pessimism and a sense of total hopeless because man is seen as just a bag of chemicals, a machine, with not real purpose at all. This is why the suicide rate is so high in the western world.

But modernist theologians have a conflict, because although believing that man is just a bag of chemicals produced by time and chance, in reality man is a personal being with self consciousness. Such a person could not have been created by time and chance. A scientist fed the question into the largest, most powerful computer in the world, going back 80 billion years, could a human being be produced as he is just by time and chance. The computer came back with a definite, "no".

So, in order to resolve the conflict, theologians, influenced by Soren Kierkegaard, decided to take a leap of faith and to believe that something out there somewhere is behind the universe, and so they called that something "god". They decided that because they could not find the historical Jesus outside of the Bible, which they believed was just a series of man made books, they decided to adopt "the Christ of faith". In fact, the theology is "faith in faith" and that man can find the answers in himself and not from something or someone outside of himself.

Therefore, your theology is an existential, humanist theology that has faith in a fantasy god, and a made up Christ, and these only exist in their minds because they believe they do.

This means that your "christianity" is fake, made up by humanist theologians, and is driven by a religious spirit and not The Holy Spirit. This means that you have no purpose, no hope, and no future.

Only those who have their faith in the true Infinite-personal God of the Bible and the real historical Jesus as described in the Bible, can truly have a hope and future.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is "Original Sin" true?
What are your verses for and or against it?

Unless you are walking in a Garden with God at your side
(stop and take a look)
then you are born into a sin condition where God is not
in constant communion with you.

You can pray constantly, and that is as close as you can get.

 

[JackRT]

Your view is the product of modernist existential theology that denies the existence of an Infinite-personal God who created the universe and everything in it from nothing. Therefore your premise is the universe started with chaos and has no order and there is no rational purpose in human history. This theology merely results in pessimism and a sense of total hopeless because man is seen as just a bag of chemicals, a machine, with not real purpose at all. This is why the suicide rate is so high in the western world.

But modernist theologians have a conflict, because although believing that man is just a bag of chemicals produced by time and chance, in reality man is a personal being with self consciousness. Such a person could not have been created by time and chance. A scientist fed the question into the largest, most powerful computer in the world, going back 80 billion years, could a human being be produced as he is just by time and chance. The computer came back with a definite, "no".

So, in order to resolve the conflict, theologians, influenced by Soren Kierkegaard, decided to take a leap of faith and to believe that something out there somewhere is behind the universe, and so they called that something "god". They decided that because they could not find the historical Jesus outside of the Bible, which they believed was just a series of man made books, they decided to adopt "the Christ of faith". In fact, the theology is "faith in faith" and that man can find the answers in himself and not from something or someone outside of himself.

Therefore, your theology is an existential, humanist theology that has faith in a fantasy god, and a made up Christ, and these only exist in their minds because they believe they do.

This means that your "christianity" is fake, made up by humanist theologians, and is driven by a religious spirit and not The Holy Spirit. This means that you have no purpose, no hope, and no future.

Only those who have their faith in the true Infinite-personal God of the Bible and the real historical Jesus as described in the Bible, can truly have a hope and future.

I believe as I do because it is the only way for me to preserve my spiritual and intellectual integrity. I am happy that you are content in your beliefs.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Does Spong believe that he is following Jesus?

He has rejected the historical Jesus and is following a "christ of faith". His theology is an existential, humanist theology which denies the existence of an Infinite-personal God who created the universe out of nothing. He does not recognise the Bible as the product of this real God communicating to man and instructing him to make a written record of what He has communicated. He believes that the universe the world and man are products of evolution, and that man is no more than a bag of chemicals, a machine. But in order to explain how man has a personality and self consciousness, he takes a blind leap of groundless faith and believes that by some mystical process man develop his personality and self consciousness through evolution. One philosopher maintained that it is impossible to conceive that the universe did not have something or someone to start it all off, so, ignoring the Bible account, which God told Moses to write, Spong makes up a faith "god" to try and explain that mystery entity, and his "christianity" revolves around a faith "christ". He does not base his faith on the Bible in the same way that traditional orthodox Christians do. He bases his faith on what he personally believes. That is the great difference between what Spong teaches and what Orthodox Christianity teaches.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I believe as I do because it is the only way for me to preserve my spiritual and intellectual integrity. I am happy that you are content in your beliefs.

I can understand that. You are following the path of all modernist existential theologians. To counter the pessimism and hopelessness of man being nothing, a mere machine, there has to be a set of beliefs to try and resolve personal integrity. One cannot believe that man is a personal, self conscious being and just a machine at the same time. The two positions are contradictory. No scientist has ever been able to create a personal being from an impersonal source. They could create the best robot in the whole world with absolutely perfect artificial intelligence, but it could never have a personality or self consciousness. A robot with personality can only exist in science fiction.

So I can understand that you have to have a set of personal beliefs to assure yourself that you are something more than just an impersonal machine, and that you have some hope for future, and that history must mean something. But outside of the Bible, there is no evidence that the god you believe in, or the christ you are following actually exists at all. So in order to preserve your personal integrity, you have to have a god and a christ of faith and hope that you are correct. But your faith and hope is based on what you personally believe. By the same token I could believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, but we all know that is not true, but if I believe it, according to Spong's theology, then the moon must be made of green cheese. That is what faith in faith is.

But you have no real evidence that your "god" and your "christ" are actually real. The only way you can maintain your belief is that you believe it, nothing more.

 

[dreadnought]

Is "Original Sin" true?
What are your verses for and or against it?

I am not a student of original sin. I just don't think we should blame our sin on Adam and Eve. That's too easy. I can go into a store and steal something, and then blame original sin. I don't think that works.

 

[JackRT]

I can understand that. You are following the path of all modernist existential theologians. To counter the pessimism and hopelessness of man being nothing, a mere machine, there has to be a set of beliefs to try and resolve personal integrity. One cannot believe that man is a personal, self conscious being and just a machine at the same time. The two positions are contradictory. No scientist has ever been able to create a personal being from an impersonal source. They could create the best robot in the whole world with absolutely perfect artificial intelligence, but it could never have a personality or self consciousness. A robot with personality can only exist in science fiction.

So I can understand that you have to have a set of personal beliefs to assure yourself that you are something more than just an impersonal machine, and that you have some hope for future, and that history must mean something. But outside of the Bible, there is no evidence that the god you believe in, or the christ you are following actually exists at all. So in order to preserve your personal integrity, you have to have a god and a christ of faith and hope that you are correct. But your faith and hope is based on what you personally believe. By the same token I could believe that the moon is made out of green cheese, but we all know that is not true, but if I believe it, according to Spong's theology, then the moon must be made of green cheese. That is what faith in faith is.

But you have no real evidence that your "god" and your "christ" are actually real. The only way you can maintain your belief is that you believe it, nothing more.

From what I can understand from your posts, I am a straw man that you have conceived out of your own imagination. Such straw men are easy to knock down because they were conceived to be knocked down. I am not the straw man that you have made up. However your posts are gradually revealing the sort of person you are.

 

[bcbsr]

Is "Original Sin" true?
What are your verses for and or against it?

With regards to the idea, as in Calvinism, in which the GUILT of Adam's sin was imputed to his descendants, to me, and the Bible, that's obviously unjust and therefore wrong. The Federal Headship concept of imputed guilt is guilt by association, the same as prejudice, racism, and the like.

"Children shall not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deut 24:16

"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Ex 23:7

"Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both." Pr 17:15

In contrast Classical Calvinists, like John Gill, hold to an Augustinian theory. Note how he interprets these verses, "though the posterity of Adam are habitually sinners, that is, derive corrupt nature from Adam, yet this is not meant here; but that they are become guilty, through the imputation of his sin to them; for it is by the disobedience of another they are made sinners, which must be by the imputation of that disobedience to them; he sinned, and they sinned in him, when they had as yet no actual existence; which could be no other way, than by imputation, as he was reckoned and accounted their head and representative, and they reckoned and accounted in him, and so have sinned in him."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

From what I can understand from your posts, I am a straw man that you have conceived out of your own imagination. Such straw men are easy to knock down because they were conceived to be knocked down. I am not the straw man that you have made up. However your posts are gradually revealing the sort of person you are.

If you are a disciple of Bishop Spong, then all I am doing is explaining his theology. His theology is not orthodox Reformed theology. It is modenist, existential, humanist theology. By your own admission, you do not believe the Bible to be the true account of what the Infinite-personal God has communicated to man. Spong believes that the Bible is just a collection of myths that have a religious purpose but is not historically accurate or accurate in terms of cosmology. To be truly Christian, one has to believe that Christ is an historical Person and that His death and resurrection were historical events in space and time. Spong does not believe this, and if you are a follower of Spong and his theology, then neither do you.

I am not suggesting that you are not sincere in your theology. All I am doing is explaining the basis of it, and how it is different from traditional Christianity, and why you do not believe in original sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

With regards to the idea, as in Calvinism, in which the GUILT of Adam's sin was imputed to his descendants, to me, and the Bible, that's obviously unjust and therefore wrong. The Federal Headship concept of imputed guilt is guilt by association, the same as prejudice, racism, and the like.

"Children shall not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deut 24:16

"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Ex 23:7

"Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both." Pr 17:15

In contrast Classical Calvinists, like John Gill, hold to an Augustinian theory. Note how he interprets these verses, "though the posterity of Adam are habitually sinners, that is, derive corrupt nature from Adam, yet this is not meant here; but that they are become guilty, through the imputation of his sin to them; for it is by the disobedience of another they are made sinners, which must be by the imputation of that disobedience to them; he sinned, and they sinned in him, when they had as yet no actual existence; which could be no other way, than by imputation, as he was reckoned and accounted their head and representative, and they reckoned and accounted in him, and so have sinned in him."

While I do currently believe in "Original Sin," it is one of those doctrines that I am not entirely convinced of 100% (even though I just defended this doctrine in another thread just recently). In other words, I am actually open to verses to seeing the other side of the debate with Scripture (if there is evidence in the Bible for it).

How do you interpret Hebrews 7:8-10? Did Levi really pay tithes in Abraham or not? It says Levi was still yet in the loins of his father Abraham when he met Melchisedec. The text says that Levi paid tithes in Abraham.

If this is the case, is it not conceivable that we sinned while in the loins of Adam when he sinned?

If man is born 100% innocent and without sin, then shouldn't there be at least one person out of the billions of people who have lived who did not sin (Besides Jesus)?

Wouldn't you think that because man sins it is because he is tainted by sin (or the Fall of Adam) in some way?

Side Note:

Please take note that I am not a Calvinistic in any way. So I do not believe in Calvinistic Total Depravity. I believe in Prevenient Grace. That God draws man and man is able to respond of his own free will (or not) based upon God's drawing. I believe "Original Sin" teaches that all men are born with the sin of Adam upon them and they have an inclination to sin (i.e. a sin nature) as a result.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

With regards to the idea, as in Calvinism, in which the GUILT of Adam's sin was imputed to his descendants, to me, and the Bible, that's obviously unjust and therefore wrong. The Federal Headship concept of imputed guilt is guilt by association, the same as prejudice, racism, and the like.

"Children shall not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deut 24:16

"Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Ex 23:7

"Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both." Pr 17:15

In contrast Classical Calvinists, like John Gill, hold to an Augustinian theory. Note how he interprets these verses, "though the posterity of Adam are habitually sinners, that is, derive corrupt nature from Adam, yet this is not meant here; but that they are become guilty, through the imputation of his sin to them; for it is by the disobedience of another they are made sinners, which must be by the imputation of that disobedience to them; he sinned, and they sinned in him, when they had as yet no actual existence; which could be no other way, than by imputation, as he was reckoned and accounted their head and representative, and they reckoned and accounted in him, and so have sinned in him."

There is a lot we don't know about the change in man that resulted in the Fall. But we do know that man changed from what he was when he was first created. He became mortal as God promised that he would if he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God said that if he ate of it he would die. That happened around 600 years later. Also, the world itself changed, and what were good productive plants, became noxious weeds and thistles, wild animals became dangerous to man (which they were not before), and harmless microbes became carriers of sickness and disease. All these were the result of the Fall of man. If we had exhaustive knowledge about what happened to mankind, we would not be having debates about it. Some try to describe it as "original sin", but I would more be, on the information we are given in the Bible, that man received the sentence of death in himself and was doomed to have a limited life span.

 

[JackRT]

Christian belief and practice has been very diverse over the years, so much so that it makes it difficult to discern what is or is not traditional Christianity. I don't mind that your beliefs are somewhat different from mine. After many decades as a "traditional Christian", I now allow myself to think outside the box and be informed by biblical, historical and scientific evidence. This apparently bothers you but at long last I am content in my walk with God. I hope that you are too.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Here is my recent defense of "Original Sin" in another thread.

Note: When I say "Original Sin" this does not mean I believe in Calvinism, or Total Depravity where man is unable to come to God. Granted, God cannot come to God without the Lord drawing Him. I believe in Prevenient Grace, where God (Christ) draws all men unto Himself and man is able to respond or reject God's drawing based upon man's free will.

I believe "Original Sin" doctrine teaches that sin has passed down upon every man, woman, and child (by the male seed) from Adam's one time sin. This explains our inherent sin nature that we have to overcome or crucify by the power of Jesus Christ. It's why our bodies are condemned to live less and die today. It's because sin has infected our world like a disease. It's in man because of Adam.

I also do not believe in Eternal Security (and or nor do I believe in a sin and still be saved type belief). Yet, I believe in the Substitutionary Atonement. I believe that both a belief in Christ (Romans 3:25) and obedience to God's Commands (walking in the light) (1 John 1:7) applies the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to my life. I believe the Substitutionary Atonement holds the key to understanding Federal Headship and or Original Sin.

 

[bcbsr]

While I do currently believe in "Original Sin," it is one of those doctrines that I am not entirely convinced of 100% (even though I just defended this doctrine in another thread just recently). In other words, I am actually open to verses to seeing the other side of the debate with Scripture (if there is evidence in the Bible for it).

How do you interpret Hebrews 7:8-10? Did Levi really pay tithes in Abraham or not? It says Levi was still yet in the loins of his father Abraham when he met Melchisedec. The text says that Levi paid tithes in Abraham.

If this is the case, is it not conceivable that we sinned while in the loins of Adam when he sinned?

If man is born 100% innocent and without sin, then shouldn't there be at least one person out of the billions of people who have lived who did not sin (Besides Jesus)?

Wouldn't you think that because man sins it is because he is tainted by sin (or the Fall of Adam) in some way?

Side Note:

Please take note that I am not a Calvinistic in any way. So I do not believe in Calvinistic Total Depravity. I believe in Prevenient Grace. That God draws man and man is able to respond of his own free will (or not) based upon God's drawing. I believe "Original Sin" teaches that all men are born with the sin of Adam upon them and they have an inclination to sin (i.e. a sin nature) as a result.

There is a a heresy known as Traducianism whereby the soul exists in the fabric of one's ancestors. But given that the Bible states, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin." Deut 24:16, one cannot attribute sin to one's descendants and therefore the individual is considered separate from his ancestors. Nor are ancestors reckoned a composite of their descendants. Traducianism had been a basis for misconceptions concerning original sin and a basis for racial prejudice but is inconsistent with Biblical Christianity.

And therefore I take the Heb 7:10 reference to be figurative rather than literal, which is also supported from the phrase in verse 9 "so to speak".

As for why sinning is characteristic of people, it's due to the sinful nature, which is a completely different issue than reckoning people guilty of crimes they didn't commit.