Original sin.

Superhero Sam said:

When we have glorified bodies we can never sin. The angels in heaven now can't sin.

What questions do you have?

Click to expand...

Let me ask you this: “Would you prefer to be in a situation where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God forever (the Garden) or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God is dependent on your just accepting God’s charity (where you are today)?

God allowed Adam and Eve to sin and He allows all mature adults to sin, so would that mean sin has purpose and is possible necessary and also inevitable?

Should we be grateful to Adam and Eve for going through the Garden situation to show them and all of us how impossible it was and would be for humans to fulfill their earthly objective in such a situation?

Is sin really the problem since we all sin or is unforgiven sin the real problem?

Our situation is very different than Adam and Eve while they were in the Garden, but was it that different after they left the Garden?

Angels are a whole other subject.

Ron Gurley said:

The doctrine of "Original sin", also called "ancestral sin," is a FALSE DOCTRINE, unsupported by Scripture and probably a result of RCC dogma.

Click to expand...

No. Ancestral Sin is not the same as Original Sin. Original Sin (which was first taught by Augustine and worked its way into Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism, and Baptists) is the idea that Adam's guilt is judicially applied to all his offspring because he somehow represented all of mankind (and thus Christ as Second Adam is also representative of mankind and his righteousness is applied to all his "offspring"), plus the idea that Adam's guilt corrupted his nature and made it impossible for his offspring not to sin. Ancestral Sin (which is taught in Eastern forms of Christianity) is the idea that Adam's guilt corrupted his nature and only made it much, much harder for his offspring not to sin. There is nothing legal or fatalistic about Ancestral Sin. Salvation is seen not as judicial righteousness, but as communion with God (who is life) through the Sacrament of the Eucharist and mystic asceticism. We are not doomed to continue sinning in spite of God's best graces, but, as has been the case with some canonized Saints, it is possible (albeit rare) to receive so much grace from God that one comes very close to Adam's pre-Fall state.

Superhero Sam said:

It seems our situation is different from Adam and the angelic race falling from grace. I think they had the potential to be sinless forever.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. A Buddhist once tried to convince me that if God could forgive humans, then God could forgive Satan. I said that Satan would never repent. There was no path to redemption. He asked why Satan would be treated any differently than us, and I stated that it was my opinion that we are in a totally different situation from the Devil. He knew perfection, but intentionally fell. We were born into sin and are more or less victims of circumstance.

Some would argue that God provided us a way because we were made in his likeness. I will not argue against that.

TheSeabass said:

The point is if original sin were true, Christ would have been born with it- Hebrews 2:14-17; Hebrews 4:15; Philippians 2:6-7; Galatians 4:4...

Click to expand...

except for the fact that he was the 2nd adam(1 Corinthians 15:45).

both adam and Jesus were born without sin. the verses you have quoted merely note the fact that Jesus endured the human experience. Jesus was made human just as adam was and without sin but unlike adam Jesus never fell.

Superhero Sam said:

So we aren't guilty in Adam?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the belief. Your previous posts didn't seem to take account of it, however, even though you made the term be your title for this thread.

fhansen said:

And yet it's a subtle yet extremely critical difference where Heb 4:15 tells us that "He has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin." Original sin is the beginning of and reason for the proliferation of sin from the Fall on-and so the reason for human sin now.

Click to expand...

If original sin were true, then Christ would be a sinner. Since He did not sin means sin is not something one passively inherits at birth but actively commits.

Superhero Sam said:

Christ was born of a virgin.

Click to expand...

Yes and He was born without sin as all men are.

TheSeabass said:

If original sin were true, then Christ would be a sinner..

Click to expand...

You've already said that and it's been explained why it is not so.

THE W said:

except for the fact that he was the 2nd adam(1 Corinthians 15:45).

both adam and Jesus were born without sin. the verses you have quoted merely note the fact that Jesus endured the human experience. Jesus was made human just as adam was and without sin but unlike adam Jesus never fell.

Click to expand...

Adam was created without sin. All men are born without sin.

Jesus was "made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7) if men are made sinners-have a sin nature then Christ would also. Hebrews 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,.." If Christ's brethren had original sin, then Christ would have it also. Hebrews 4:15 cannot be true if men are born with sin/sin nature but Christ was not.

Albion said:

You've already said that and it's been explained why it is not so.

Click to expand...

It for a certainty has not been explained away. It is where one error leads to another error. Original sin is not biblical and it makes Christ a sinner therefore more unbiblical reason(s) have to be dreamed up to find a way for Christ not to be born a sinner....create another error to cover error.

TheSeabass said:

Adam was created without sin. All men are born without sin.

Jesus was "made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7) if men are made sinners-have a sin nature then Christ would also. Hebrews 2:17 "Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren,.." If Christ's brethren had original sin, then Christ would have it also. Hebrews 4:15 cannot be true if men are born with sin/sin nature but Christ was not.

Click to expand...

Hebrews 4:15 is talking about the fact that Jesus was tempted and overcame. that's what the infirmities were. part of the human experience. it says nothing of him having a sin nature. all your verses merely speak of what Jesus had to face as a human being.

psalms 14, psalms 51:5 and psalms 58:3 tell us that man is born in sin. romans 5 also explains how adam, our federal head, caused all of mankind to fall through his transgression. those in adam die, while those in Christ will live.

saying that Jesus had to have had a sin nature because he was born through a woman is saying that the power of sin is greater than the power of God. this enters into heretical territory.

THE W said:

Hebrews 4:15 is talking about the fact that Jesus was tempted and overcame. that's what the infirmities were. part of the human experience. it says nothing of him having a sin nature. all your verses merely speak of the fact that Jesus endured the human experience.

Click to expand...

If original sin were true and Christ was NOT born with original sin then Christ did NOT have the "human experience" of being born with sin and having a sin nature where He could only choose to do what is wrong. Therefore Christ could not know the "feeling of our infirmities" having not been made in the likeness of man meaning Christ was NOT in "every respect" been tempted as we are.

THE W said:

psalms 14, psalms 51:5 and psalms 58:3 tell us that man is born in sin. romans 5 also explains how adam, our federal head, caused all of mankind to fall through his transgression. those in adam die, while those in Christ will live.

Click to expand...

First, Psa 51:5 speaks of conception and Psa 58:3 speaks of birth. Conception and birth are two distinct points separated by about 9 months. So if original sin is true, does one become a sinner at conception or at birth? If one becomes a sinner at conception (Psa 51) then he cannot become a sinner at birth (Psa 58) for he already is a sinner. IF one does not become a sinner until birth, then he cannot become a sinner at conception. So work out this contradiction and determine when one becomes a sinner.

Secondly, "born in sin" is NOT the same as being born a sinner. The NIV perverts the underlying original language putting words in David's mouth that David NEVER said. My mother could have been in China when she went into labor and gave birth to me. Being "born in China" does not make me Chinese no more than being "born in sin" makes one a sinner. Being in China I was surrounded by Chinese culture, language, people yet born in that environment does not make me CHineses. The bible describes the world as being full of sin and iniquity yet being born in that enviroment does not make one a sinner.


Similar language is used in Acts 2:8 after the apostles spoke in tongues it is said every man heard them speak in our own tongue where in we were born. IF I was there I would say I heard them speak in the English language wherein I was born. THis does not mean I was born speaking English but born into an environment where English was spoken and in time I learned the English language myself.
Like wise all are born in an environment full of sin and when men learn right from wrong Isaiah 7:15-16 then men choose to sin


Lastly in Psa 51:5 Dvid was speaking about his mother's sin'

In sin my mother conceived me
in a drunken rage a husband beat his wife

Who was in a drunken rage? The husband. Who was in sin? the mother. The NIV perverts the verse taking sin from the mother and putting it upon David. Also Psa 58:3 says men "go astray" as soon as they be born. 'Going astray' shows personal culpability in sinning and not how one was passively born against his will. Genesis 8:21 "...the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth.." From YOUTH not birth.

THE W said:

saying that Jesus had to have had a sin nature because he was born
through a woman is saying that the power of sin is greater than the power of God. this enters into heretical territory.

Click to expand...

saying original sin and sin nature exists yet Christ not having it even though He was made in the likeness of His brethren is inconsistence. It shows error was started with and more error created to cover the first error.

TheSeabass said:

If original sin were true and Christ was NOT born with original sin then Christ did NOT have the "human experience" of being born with sin and having a sin nature where He could only choose to do what is wrong. Therefore Christ could not know the "feeling of our infirmities" having not been made in the likeness of man meaning Christ was NOT in "every respect" been tempted as we are.

Click to expand...

which is why he was the "2nd adam". adam was born without sin and he fell. Jesus did not. yet again, the verses you brought up deal with Jesus being tempted and overcoming those temptations by the power of the Spirit. he was also hungry, sleepy, tired, felt pain, and even died. stepping down from where he was in the bossom of the Father to experience these things is most definitely feeling our infirmities, at least according to the verse you have cited.

TheSeabass said:

First, Psa 51:5 speaks of conception and Psa 58:3 speaks of birth.

Click to expand...

and we are sinners in both instances. there's no contradiction. you're a sinner when you're in the womb and a sinner when you come out. just like you're a human being when you're in the womb and human being when you come out(despite what abortion advocates want to tell you). garbage in, garbage out(in regards to our sin nature anyway).

since comparing locations/culture to anthropology(which those verses I cited are in reference to) is a false equivalency your second point doesn't follow and I didn't use the NIV as my citation.


is it your position that Jesus, born of the Holy Spirit of God through mary, could not overcome Mary's sin nature to be born without a sin nature? such a position would be heretical in saying that the power of God is in subjection to the power of sin.

THE W said:

is it your position that Jesus, born of the Holy Spirit of God through mary, could not overcome Mary's sin nature to be born without a sin nature? such a position would be heretical in saying that the power of God is in subjection to the power of sin.

Click to expand...

Right. It would deny God his own nature.

TheSeabass said:

If original sin were true, then Christ would be a sinner. Since He did not sin means sin is not something one passively inherits at birth but actively commits.

Click to expand...

Well, first of all God can do whatever He wants, and if Jesus is the Father's only begotten Son as Scripture tells us, then the inheritance that the rest of us receive by human propagation is broken. So Jesus is fully God, where no sin is possible, and fully human, except for sin because, well, He's God, for one thing. This is what qualifies Jesus as the unblemished lamb, whose sacrifice, alone, is worthy of obtaining our redemption.

In the understanding I'm familiar with and have come to appreicate, the chief consequence of Adam's original sin, resulting in what is known as the state of original sin for Adam's descendants, is, simply, spiritual separation from God, aka the death of the soul, aka deprivation of sanctifying grace or original holiness/justice. Man's problem, with sin, doesn't come first of all from his desire to sin, but rather from his lack of communion with God, which he was made for.

And this lack is evident everywhere we look. To begin with, we're born without knowledge of God, let alone intimate relationship or communion with Him- with love for Him IOW. And sin abounds on this planet, along with pain, suferring, and death. This is simply not God's original intention, or ultimate goal in the end, for humankind, not the way it was "meant to be".

Superhero Sam said:

So glorified bodies are good come out of bad?

Click to expand...

I do not see how this addresses my questions?

A lot of times what we consider bad is actually good for us; they can be Loving disciplining or just there to help us down the road. Paul prayed earnestly to have a thorn removed, but God said it was there for his good, but I do not know what you are talking about?

The questions are:

Let me ask you this: “Would you prefer to be in a situation where your eternal close relationship with God was dependent on your personal ability to obey God forever (the Garden) or in a place where your eternal close relationship with God is dependent on your just accepting God’s charity (where you are today)?


God allowed Adam and Eve to sin and He allows all mature adults to sin, so would that mean sin has purpose and is possible necessary and also inevitable?


Should we begrateful to Adam and Eve for going through the Garden situation to show them and all of us how impossible it was and would be for humans to fulfill their earthly objective in such a situation?


Is sin really the problem since we all sin or is unforgiven sin the real problem?


Our situation is very different than Adam and Eve while they were in the Garden, but was it that different after they left the Garden?


Angels are a whole other subject.