• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Bible Highlighter, Jul 18, 2018.

  1. SonOfZion

    SonOfZion Member

    143
    +25
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    To deny that the Story of Adam and Eve was real History as written in the Bible , Is to deny that YESHUA Himself was a real person.

    Since Adam is in His genealogy, so if Adam was a myth, then so was YESHUA

    Luke 3:38

    Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

    Starting at verse Luke 3:23 - If Adam was a myth, so is YESHUA's genealogy.

    1 Timothy 2:14

    Jude 1:14

    YESHUA thought the History of Adam was true, as did He the History of Noah and so does His Disciples Today.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  2. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Just believe the Bible and forget about the strawman arguments against it. I've yet to meet a Christian that blames their personal sins on Adam and Eve. The nature of mankind changed in the garden, and God Himself as punishment brought curses as a result. Evidence? The natural death of all those before us should be sufficient. Do we blame Adam and Eve or God for the fact we will naturally die, that our bodies age and break down? I should hope not, considering our nature in the flesh, have we any right to cast blame?
     
  3. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life Hide The Pain Supporter

    +5,561
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Wesley and the Remonstrants believed in Total Depravity. Prevenient Grace is a way of maintaining Total Depravity while also denying Irresistible Grace. IOW, Prevenient Grace and Total Depravity are not opposed to one another.
     
  4. dreadnought

    dreadnought Lip service isn't really service. Supporter

    +3,396
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    It only makes sense that a person sooner or later would disobey the Lord. By disobeying the Lord, and experiencing the consequences, we learn not to disobey him.

    You've never heard anyone blame their sin on original sin? Then what is the point?
     
  5. Bible Highlighter

    Bible Highlighter Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Supporter

    +5,170
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I am strongly against the Pre-existence of the human soul. I have argued against that topic many times before with Scripture and find it to be extremely unbiblical (with it being sort of like reincarnation).

    As for Deuteronomy 24:16:

    Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not?
    Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20

    1. Yes, they do.
      1. (Exodus 20:5)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
      2. (Deuteronomy 5:9)--"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
      3. (Exodus 34:6-7)--"Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
      4. (1 Cor. 15:22)--"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
    2. No, they don't.
      1. (Deuteronomy 24:16)--"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
      2. (Ezekiel 18:20)--"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
    Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the ten commandments. The Ten Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (20:2), laws (20:3-17), rewards (20:6,12), and punishments (20:5, 7).

    Covenantally, when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful, and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences--often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world; consequences of sin affected many generations.

    On the other hand, Deuteronomy 24:16 is dealing with legal matters as the context 24:6-19 shows. Ezekiel 18:20 is merely recounting the Law of the Pentateuch. Therefore, the context of the second set of verses is dealing with the legality aspect within the Jewish court system. The previous set of verses deal with God visiting upon the descendants of the rebellious the consequences of the rebellious fathers' sins.

    As a further note on this issue, there is a concept in the Bible called Federal Headship. This means that the male, the father, represents the family. We see this in the garden of Adam and Eve. She was the first one to eat of the fruit; she was the first one to sin. However, the Bible states that sin entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5)--not Eve.

    Source:
    https://carm.org/do-sons-bear-the-sins-of-their-fathers-or-not
    (Note: I am not a Calvinist. So I do not agree with everything this author or website teaches; I merely agree with this particular article).

    I see Hebrews 7:9-10 as talking about the genetic code of Levi was within Abraham's loins, so when Abraham tithed to Melchisedec, in a way Levi tithed to Melchisedec, too. For Levi would not exist without the genetic code of Abraham. Scripture says that Levi was within the loins of Abraham in some way. Levi was a part of Abraham. So in a way, Levi did tithe, too. We can say the same with Adam. Because all of humanity existed within the genetic code of Adam, when Adam sinned, we had sinned along with Adam (seeing we were a part of him).

    Are we not a part of Adam genetically speaking? Is not a "sin nature" something that is inherently sinful? Do you not think that a sin nature exists because we have the stain of sin on us? A scorpion stings because it is within it's nature to do so. Were not animals effected by the Fall (or Adam's sin) in some way? Has not sin diseased our bodies to live less and less? These are just things that we have to think about. They cannot have no root cause. They have to have an origin.
     
  6. SonOfZion

    SonOfZion Member

    143
    +25
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    A couple Questions for any calvinist about that believes in total depravity, or that prevenient Grace is the alternative, which it is not.

    One is Whosoever believes is Predestined in Him from the beginning - The other is whosoever He picks is Predestined in Him.

    Choice or No choice.

    The first question

    2 Peter 3:9

    The Adonai is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    If irresistible grace is in play, what is He waiting on? long-suffering over?

    If it is all up to Him. We are dead, not able to make a choice, makes Zero sense.

    Him Waiting on the Elect, with long-suffering? That they repent and believe when it is all up to Him.

    and when the time comes, those elect calvinist can not resist The Holy Spirit

    Whatever: Acts of the Apostles 7:51
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  7. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    No I have not. The point? Reconciliation, restoration, the glory of God revealed in salvation in God the Son.

    If a person could obey God the Father perfectly til the end of their days, we should be able to point to an example, but I know of none with the exception of God the Son.
     
  8. dreadnought

    dreadnought Lip service isn't really service. Supporter

    +3,396
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    We are born with no knowledge. How do we learn?
     
  9. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    And on what basis do you hold to the Stoics tabula rasa theory?
     
  10. GingerBeer

    GingerBeer Cool and refreshing with a kick!

    +1,198
    Australia
    Christian
    Private
    What do you think "original sin" is?
     
  11. dreadnought

    dreadnought Lip service isn't really service. Supporter

    +3,396
    United States
    United Methodist
    Celibate
    What is a Stoics tabula rasa theory?
     
  12. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,186
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I first learned about it in a philosophy course, here's a helpful wiki page about it: tabula rasa I would argue that all human beings, as being made in the image of God, have an innate kind of knowledge of the basic laws of logic, not in a formal sense, but in an informal sense. I would argue this works in conjunction with sensory experience and interaction with external phenomena. In layman's terms, a baby knows the difference between a mother's nipple, and non-mother's nipple.
     
  13. friend of

    friend of Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,898
    Canada
    Non-Denom
    Private
    This is very true. No amount of A.I. will ever manufacture the soul or heart of man.
     
  14. PaulCyp1

    PaulCyp1 Well-Known Member Supporter

    664
    +526
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    Obviously if sin exists, there must have been a first, that is original, sin. The verses that state the truth of this belief of original Christianity are the promises of Jesus Christ to the one Church He founded: "The Holy Spirit will guide you into ALL truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". Jesus promised that the one Church He founded will teach nothing but the truth. That one Church teaches that the first humans committed the original sin. Therefore God Himself has declared it to be true. Do you believe the Bible of not? Believe the words of Jesus Christ, or not?
     
  15. MDC

    MDC Well-Known Member

    993
    +428
    Calvinist
    Single
    The fact that arminians deny irresistible Grace proves that they deny prevenient grace in salvation. Denial of irresistible grace is a nullification of grace altogether. Prevenient grace, according to free willers, is actually no grace at all. So actually total depravity is denied as well. It’s a smokescreen to hide their free will theology of pelagianism
     
  16. Dorothy Mae

    Dorothy Mae Well-Known Member

    +568
    Switzerland
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Since no writer of the Bible had ever heard of the theology of original sin, one cannot find verses that say, “original sin is untrue.”

    None of the verses quoted lead one to think original sin unless one reads the writings of men who already believed that first and so one already wears those glasses.

    The strongest verse against blaming Adam is found in Genesis where God addresses Cain concerning sin. (This occurred to me one day reading the bible, not theology books.) God said,
    1. Sin is outside you
    2. It desires to HAVE you
    3. You must resist

    Here was the perfect chance for God to explain to Cain that he was born with a sin nature. He gave a different reason or description of what happens when people decide to sin. So I noticed God doesn’t agree with the inborn sin nature concept. I then read the descriptions of different souls regarding salvation and didn’t see irrestible grace either.

    But if course it’s more appealing to blame a sin nature you’re not responsible for. The sin we let in loves not being at fault. It’s also nicer if God is responsible for me accepting Christ.

    So one take God’s view....
    or one can prefer the more appealing to the sin in us Westminster view.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  17. Dorothy Mae

    Dorothy Mae Well-Known Member

    +568
    Switzerland
    Non-Denom
    Married
    God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Pride nullifys grace, not denying Calvinism.
     
  18. Dorothy Mae

    Dorothy Mae Well-Known Member

    +568
    Switzerland
    Non-Denom
    Married
    You have to keep the teaching of Jesus to come into truth, not attend a Calvinist teaching church. They aren’t the same thing, btw.
     
  19. thesunisout

    thesunisout growing in grace Supporter

    +1,355
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Genesis 3:6-7

    When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

    Romans 5:12

    Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

    Original sin is a loaded phrase because it is connected to Catholicism. The idea of it is true, which is that the first sin corrupted the entire human race and we became a race of sinners. Human beings are evil from our youth and slaves of the devil according to scripture.

    This is why Jesus had to come, to deliver us from bondage to sin and death and reconcile back to God.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  20. Oscarr

    Oscarr Senior Veteran Supporter

    +7,353
    New Zealand
    Pentecostal
    Married
    It doesn't really bother me at all. What I like about these threads is the stimulating and healthy debate from all sorts of people with different view points. I don't force my views on anyone, but I will state my case for people's information.

    Basically, my view is that the Bible is accurate in its history and science. But it is not an exhaustive text book on history or science. There is enough information in the Bible to show us who God really is, and who we really are. It also shows us God's plan of salvation, and that it is the only plan for which anyone can be saved.

    There are some who believe in the "young earth" theory. I am not one of them. God could quite easily have taken billions of our years to create the universe and the world we live in. After all, because He lives outside of the limits of our time frame, He can take as long as He likes to create something. There is a statement in Genesis that the earth was "without form and void" before the plants and animals were created. This suggests to me that God created the universe and our world over billions of years, but took six days to turn a planet without form and void into the environment we see now.

    Also, it is interesting that God said, "Let there be light" before the sun was set alight which happened a couple of days after He made that first statement. So where did the light come from? It could not have come from the sun because the sun was not set alight yet. The sun and the moon were there of course but remained darkened until He set fire to the sun. So the question is, where did the original light come from when God said, "let there be light?" Interesting question...

    So, the geology of the earth might not be inconsistent with God creating it. Also, as one philosopher maintained that there had to be something or someone to start the whole universe off, it is quite conceivable that God created the stars, galaxies and planets out of nothing, and set off the big bang that caused the expansion of the universe. Science tells us that the universe is expanding, and scientists believe that the universe started from one central point. That would not be inconsistent with the Bible - it is just that we are not given that specific information - because it was not the purpose of the Bible to give us comprehensive information about the formation of the universe. But what He has given us is totally accurate.

    Scientists are now discovering that mankind originates from one genetic pair. The theory that mankind has been on earth only 6,000 years is disproved by anthropology, because it has been proved that people migrated from Eastern Russia to North America as far back as 20,000 years ago. Some have tried to form a geneology from the Bible, but they have misunderstood the way the Bible has described its geneology. It does not describe generations of actual individuals, but of cultural groups, with great gaps between them; so it is quite believable that human beings have been on earth more than 20,000 years. Yet the geneology of the Bible is accurate if we understand how it is compiled.

    So, when we think about all these things, we discover that there is nothing in science or history that actually disproved the accuracy of the Bible in what it does tell us. What science has done is to fill in some of the details that the Bible has not told us, and none of that has been inconsistent with the Biblical record.

    It is not a matter of what I believe. This is a characteristic of humanist thought: "You can believe what you want and what works for you, and I can believe what I want and what works for me". This means that one person's moral code can include kindness toward others, and another's (example Adolf Hitler) moral code can include incredible cruelty because that worked for him. Because man is just a machine (according to modernist theology) there is no difference between kindness and cruelty - it all depends on what an individual believes. This is because the basis of people's moral code comes from within themselves, and not from a common moral code from outside of them (such as the Ten Commandments).

    So I have no problem with what you believe because you sincerely believe it works for you and it brings a level of peace and hope for you. Good luck on that. :)
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
Loading...