Through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all-Original Sin

[ewq1938]

Please explain. This makes no sense.

What needs to be explained?

 

[ewq1938]

That’s a bold assumption.

The only assumption was the concept of being tested and that's barely even an assumption. The rest are basic facts.

 

[redleghunter]

Fair enough but allow me to post some scripture that disagrees with the above statement:

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.


Other translations:


(CEV) I did learn one thing: We were completely honest when God created us, but now we have twisted minds.


(ESV) See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.


(GW) I have found only this: God made people decent, but they looked for many ways to avoid being decent."


(MSG) Yet I did spot one ray of light in this murk: God made men and women true and upright; we're the ones who've made a mess of things.


upright


3477

03477 yashar {yaw-shawr'}


from 03474; TWOT - 930a; adj


AV - right 53, upright 42, righteous 9, straight 3, convenient 2,
Jasher 2, equity 1, just 1, meet 1, meetest 1, upright ones 1,
uprightly 1, uprightness 1, well 1; 119


1) straight, upright, correct, right
1a) straight, level
1b) right, pleasing, correct
1c) straightforward, just, upright, fitting, proper
1d) uprightness, righteous, upright
1e) that which is upright (subst)



God hath made man upright, meaning righteous and good, but man seeks out things that alter this beginning.


Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.


Psalms 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.


Psalms 92:15 To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.



Even God describes himself as 03477 yashar and creating man as 03477 yashar means we are not born in sin and not created imperfect and flawed.


Matthew 12:45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.


Even here we see that a wicked man progressed in his wickedness. His ending state was worse than his beginning. Mankind is created upright and righteous but we all progress from that state in our unrighteousness. Not all end up as bad as the above example but we all do become more unrighteous than when we were first created.

Yes God did create man upright in His image and according to His likeness. His name was Adam.

You still won’t address Romans 5:13-21?

I also addressed the sins of the father argument by showing the sin of Korah in Numbers 16. His whole family and clan died for his sin.

 

[redleghunter]

The only assumption was the concept of being tested and that's barely even an assumption. The rest are basic facts.

Not that Adam did not eat of the ToL. We don’t know how long they were in the Garden.

 

[mark kennedy]

We aren't discussing that. We are discussing original sin and whether it is biblical or not.

Have you read Romas 5? It contrasts the disobedience of Adam the righteousness of God in Christ, it's the whole point of the passage.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes God did create man upright in His image and according to His likeness. His name was Adam.

You still won’t address Romans 5:13-21?

I already have. Nothing there changes what is said in verse 12 nor is there any support for original sin there.

I also addressed the sins of the father argument by showing the sin of Korah in Numbers 16. His whole family and clan died for his sin.

Nice try but that happened before the other verses were written. Here's another:

Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

There was a time children could pay for their parents sins but that ended.

 

[ewq1938]

Not that Adam did not eat of the ToL.

How is that an assumption? Adam did not eat of it because he was not immortal and died. Had he eaten of it he would have never died.

 

[ewq1938]

Have ypou read Romas 5?

I've read the whole bible brother. There is nothing in Romans 5 or anywhere that supports original sin. It is a man made fictional doctrine. And Paul himself wrote verse 12 which proves sin is not inherited so accepting that means original sin is untrue.

 

[redleghunter]

It means sin caused people to be spiritually dead which ultimately leads to the second death unless they are saved by Christ.

The text does not say that.

Do you know why that reign ended at Moses? Because the law provided a way to cleanse someone from sin. That was perfected in Christ's sacrifice bringing in a better covenant.

The text does not say the reign ended at Moses.

 

[redleghunter]

How is that an assumption? Adam did not eat of it because he was not immortal and died. Had he eaten of it he would have never died.

That’s a circular assertion based on a false premise.

Adam was cut off from the ToL after his sin of disobedience. Then we find out he dies later. There’s nothing in the text to suggest Adam and Eve were not eating from the ToL while in the Garden.

It is only when they sin are they told they will return to the dust which he came.

 

[mark kennedy]

No one is born with anyone else's sin, nor any sin at all.

I got you telling me that and Paul telling me something else entirely. Sin and death came by one man, Paul is crystal clear on that and insisting all sinned (Rom. 5:12). Paul went on for two and a half chapters explaining that, concluding that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom. 3:23). Paul never says some, he explicitly says all. He couldn't be more clear that we are sinners because of the disobedience of one man, Adam.

 

[redleghunter]

I already have. Nothing there changes what is said in verse 12 nor is there any support for original sin there.

I challenged your pretext with the full context of Romans 5. You have yet to address.

Nice try but that happened before the other verses were written.

I don’t think you picked up on the parallel. God judged Korah and his household. The transgression of Adam was against God. What you quoted was what God established for civil Law for Israel. Meaning the human judges could not punish a son for the sins of the father.

But again it’s not me who is creating contradictions using out of context proof texts.

Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Using your line of reasoning I too can say Romans 5 is after Jeremiah.

There was a time children could pay for their parents sins but that ended.

The Law was changed?

 

[mark kennedy]

I've read the whole bible brother. There is nothing in Romans 5 or anywhere that supports original sin. It is a man made fictional doctrine. And Paul himself wrote verse 12 which proves sin is not inherited so accepting that means original sin is untrue.

Paul says the exact opposite of what you are telling us. You clearly don't accept a fact of redemptive history that sin and death came through Adam, contrary to the teaching of Paul.

Something else, Adam is mentioned 8 times, always as the first parent of humanity. Luke ends his genealogy with 'Adam son of God', indicating special creation with no human lineage previously. Over 400 times Adam is used synonomously with humanity in the OT, Just as Israel is named for Jacob.

Finally, if we can take the first Adam as fictional, why not the second? If I'm not going to believe God created life in the beginning, whats that say about the resurrection, the incarnation and the new heavens and new earth.

For a guy who read the whole Bible you have some real issues with the clear testimony.

 

[redleghunter]

It means sin caused people to be spiritually dead which ultimately leads to the second death unless they are saved by Christ.

That’s the half of it.

Why did Jesus die physically and then was Resurrected Bodily? I asked that before. I’m sure you believe in the Bodily resurrection of Christ. If we are only truly dead spiritually then why all the torture and blood and need for the Resurrection?

 

[mark kennedy]

It means sin caused people to be spiritually dead which ultimately leads to the second death unless they are saved by Christ. Do you know why that reign ended at Moses? Because the law provided a way to cleanse someone from sin. That was perfected in Christ's sacrifice bringing in a better covenant.

So the former commandment is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the Law made nothing perfect ), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18-19)
​

You read the entire Bible, including the New Testament and came to that conclusion? The Law convicts us of sin, righteousness comes by grace through faith 'in Christ'. That's the message of the New Testament, not that the Law was wrong exactly, but because it couldn't provide the righteousness everyone needs to be saved.

 

[mark kennedy]

Actually the text says they would die that same day and they did. It was a spiritual death. Physical death was not mentioned as part of their punishment because it is natural for mortals to die.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That expression actually means, 'dying you shall die', it's a literary feature in the Hebrew that doesn't really come out in the translation. Adam and Eve had a choice between life and death, they choose death. Now they may very well have been created mortal, I wouldn't argue otherwise, but the Tree of Life was available as well, that tree actually still exists. Figuratively, Proverbs (3:18; 11:30; 13:12; 15:4) and literally, Revelation (2:7; 22:2,14,19).

 

[redleghunter]

I've read the whole bible brother. There is nothing in Romans 5 or anywhere that supports original sin. It is a man made fictional doctrine.

Obviously not.

 

[Hammster]

I've read the whole bible brother. There is nothing in Romans 5 or anywhere that supports original sin. It is a man made fictional doctrine. And Paul himself wrote verse 12 which proves sin is not inherited so accepting that means original sin is untrue.

The fiction that you are supporting is this “age of accountability”. That doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

The fiction that you are supporting is this “age of accountability”. That doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture.

Well said.

 

[redleghunter]

What does federal head mean?

I believe @Jonaitis is referring to federal heads of covenants. B.B. Warfield explains how with the Arminian opposition explaining the imputations in federations helped unify Reformed theologians using 'Federal heads.' It's deeper in this piece which is a very good source:

Imputation by B. B. Warfield | Monergism

Ping for @ladodgers6 too!

Excerpt:

Rationalism almost ate the heart out of the Lutheran Churches; and the Reformed Churches were saved from the same fate only by the prompt extrusion of the Arminian party and the strengthening of their position by conflict with it. In particular, about the middle of the seventeenth century the "covenant" or "federal" method of exhibiting the plan of the Lord's dealings with men (see "Cocceius, Johannes, and his School") began to find great acceptance among the Reformed Churches. There was nothing novel in this mode of conceiving truth. The idea was present to the minds of the Church Fathers and the Schoolmen; and it underlay Protestant thought, both Lutheran and Reformed, from the beginning, and in the latter had come to clear expression, first in Ursinus. But now it quickly became dominant as the preferable manner of conceiving the method of the divine dealing with men. The effect was to throw into the highest relief the threefold doctrine of imputation, and to make manifest as never before the dependency of the great doctrines of sin, satisfaction, and justification upon it. ​