Original Sin, I was wrong.

[Christos Anesti]

I was wrong regarding some of the statements I made regarding original sin. Imagine that ?! I wanted to offer a correction though in the rare case that someone actually took what I wrote seriously.


Anyway, what I said was that one is only a sinner if they actually sin. That isn't exactly right because the term "sinner" can be used in more than one way. There is a sense in which we are "born into sin", "sinners" from birth, etc. Sinner in this context means - a person who has disordered passions that direct him toward sin. We all inherit death from Adam both spiritual and physical. Closely connected and bound up with this death are the disordered passions. This inheritance is likened to the garment of skins that Adam and Eve put on when they left Paradise. This garment of skins covers over and masks the image of God in man. It replaced the robe of Glory he wore in Paradise. Some people call these skins the "sin nature". Sin nature has become a like a second nature to man. A parasitic diseases on his true nature.

When a person caters to the disordered passions and commits actual sin they further entrench the passions and add to their ferocity. Actual sin sets our desire on fire for more sin. It becomes a deadly downward spiral. Only the grace of God accepted in humility by man can turn this spiral around.

I think the reason I fought against the concept of 'born a sinner' is because it is often linked with systems of double predestination and things of that nature. It doesn't have to be though. There is a perfectly orthodox understanding for the phrase.

 

[Jpark]

But to provide such garments of skin, God would have had to slaughter animals. Clothing Adam and Eve with blood stained garments actually symbolizes forgiveness.

 

[elopez]

This brings up the difference between our inherited sinful nature and the personal sins one commits. Since we are born with this sinful nature it is not something that we actively are aware of and so we cannot be held responsible for it, and nor can we bear responsibility for the first sin. This sin is contracted not committed.

Though do you believe that this sinful nature is evil in itself, or that it is not and becomes evil? In other words, do you think the sinful nature is sin itself or not?

 

[LoooveLikeFire]

We are responsible for our own sins. We aren't punished for Adam's sin, but we (biologically speaking) inherited his sinful nature. It is not sin in itself. God does not punish us for having a sinful nature, he punishes us for sining. We are predisposed to sin though, because we have a sinful nature. That's why God came down and died for us. So that we don't have to wear the consequences of our sin.

 

[DArceri]

This brings up the difference between our inherited sinful nature and the personal sins one commits. Since we are born with this sinful nature it is not something that we actively are aware of and so we cannot be held responsible for it, and nor can we bear responsibility for the first sin. This sin is contracted not committed.

Though do you believe that this sinful nature is evil in itself, or that it is not and becomes evil? In other words, do you think the sinful nature is sin itself or not?

Our sin nature is way more problematic than volitional sin. Our sin nature pertains to our very essence. We sin because we have the nature of sin already in us. It is 'ontological'. (Eph 2:3b-....Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.) Thus, it is not merely one's actions that are judged, but one's condition as well. In other words, it's not what we have done, but what we have become. A good example I once heard was that of a 'rabbid' dog. A rabbid dog does not get put down for it biting someone, it gets put down for its condition. This is why we need to be born again (ie. regenerated, renewed, restored). We are born 'spirtually' rabbid. But God has provided a way out. It is through Jesus Christ. He is the only way to 'ontological renewal'. This is why Christians believe that there is only one way to God.

 

[Jpark]

We are responsible for our own sins. We aren't punished for Adam's sin, but we (biologically speaking) inherited his sinful nature. It is not sin in itself. God does not punish us for having a sinful nature, he punishes us for sining. We are predisposed to sin though, because we have a sinful nature. That's why God came down and died for us. So that we don't have to wear the consequences of our sin.

Exactly. We are punished for Adam's sin, but in the place of Adam. And we inherited the sinful nature which was manifested in him when he disobeyed.

And also for not repenting of our sins. God punishes us for sinning and not repenting.

 

[Assyrian]

Where does the bible say we inherited Adam's sinful nature?

 

[DArceri]

Where does the bible say we inherited Adam's sinful nature?

It is basically interwoven and implied throughout scripture. When Paul uses the word 'flesh', alot of times he is talking about our sin nature. Also Paul speaks of being "in-Adam' vs being 'in-Christ'. Bottom line, unless you believe in what scripture says about the fall, you will never accept being born into corruption. In Genesis we see that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). However, after the fall, we see the wording change to, Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3).

 

[Christos Anesti]

Where does the bible say we inherited Adam's sinful nature?

We inerheit a nature that predisposes us to sin. We have passions which no longer function in an orderly and godly fashion. They tempt us to sin. When we give in to them they become further entrenched and we are urged on to more sin. We eventualy become habituated to various sins I think this is what the phrase "sinful nature" is pointing too. The same is often the case with "the flesh" too imo.

It's almost like a parasitic virus has attached itself to our human nature and makes it hard for the image of God in us to shine through. It wasn't a major struggle for Adam and Eve not to sin before the fall but it is for us.

"For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live," Romans 8:13 NIV

 

[Christos Anesti]

For some reason my spell check changed my misspelling of "disordered" into discorded for some reason on the opening post lol.

 

[Assyrian]

We inerheit a nature that predisposes us to sin. We have passions which no longer function in an orderly and godly fashion. They tempt us to sin. When we give in to them they become further entrenched and we are urged on to more sin. We eventualy become habituated to various sins I think this is what the phrase "sinful nature" is pointing too. The same is often the case with "the flesh" too imo.

Isn't sinful nature the NIV's translation of sarx or flesh? Now I like the NIV but sometimes it does take liberties, and in this case it is interpreting rather than translating, even dynamic equivalently. I do agree when we follow the desires of our flesh into disobeying God it leads to spiritual death and bondage to sin. But isn't this what we saw in the garden too, Eve following her natural desires into sin and death? Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband.

It's almost like a parasitic virus has attached itself to our human nature and makes it hard for the image of God in us to shine through. It wasn't a major struggle for Adam and Eve not to sin before the fall but it is for us.

Don't know about that, they just had one simple commandment too obey and they blew that.

"For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live," Romans 8:13 NIV

Rom 8:13 ESV For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Look at how James describes it. James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Isn't this what happened to Eve too?

 

[Assyrian]

It is basically interwoven and implied throughout scripture.

That's the problem. unless it is stated explicitly, how can we tell whether it is implied or simply assumed and read into the text.

When Paul uses the word 'flesh', alot of times he is talking about our sin nature.

Or is he talking about our physical bodies with its natural desires that lead us into sin, dead and slavery to our desires?

Also Paul speaks of being "in-Adam' vs being 'in-Christ'.

Christ is God the Son, risen from the dead and we are united in the living Christ through the Spirit of God. Adam (assuming he was literal) was a human being who died and whose dust returned to the ground. How can we be 'in Adam'? Unless Paul meant 'in Adam' simply as being part of the sinful human race, or as an apocalyptic figure standing for the human race as the church is called the Bride or the Body of Christ. In Adam make much more sense as a metaphor we certainly aren't literally in Adam.

Bottom line, unless you believe in what scripture says about the fall, you will never accept being born into corruption.

This is certainly true Of course I do believe all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but I don't think that is what you meant.

In Genesis we see that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). However, after the fall, we see the wording change to, Adam "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3).

That is reading a lot into two synonyms being switched around. Is 'in our image' that different from 'after his image'? Is 'after our likeness' different from 'in his likeness'? While Gen 1:26 says Adam was created after the likeness of God, Genesis 5:1 says in the likeness of God.

 

[Catherineanne]

I was wrong regarding some of the statements I made regarding original sin. Imagine that ?! I wanted to offer a correction though in the rare case that someone actually took what I wrote seriously.

Anyway, what I said was that one is only a sinner if they actually sin. That isn't exactly right because the term "sinner" can be used in more than one way. There is a sense in which we are "born into sin", "sinners" from birth, etc.

This is right. 'Original sin' is a potentiality, not an actuality. Sin itself is an actuality. Therefore we are born in original sin, but we are not sinners until we actually commit a sin, knowing that we do so. Until we have the knowledge of good and evil, just as with Adam and Eve, we cannot be said to have sinned.

Therefore, babies and very young children may be said to have been born in original sin, but are not sinners. Anyone without the ability to discern good from evil remains in a state of holy innocence all their life, and is not held accountable for any mistakes they may make.

Well done for checking this one out, CA. We all live and learn.

 

[Catherineanne]

We are born 'spirtually' rabbid. But God has provided a way out. It is through Jesus Christ. He is the only way to 'ontological renewal'. This is why Christians believe that there is only one way to God.

The only problem with this interpretation is that it rather overlooks the fact that God chose to make us fallible; we did not choose it for ourselves.

Therefore, the rabid dog metaphor does not apply. God made us fallible, then apparently expected perfection. When we failed to achieve perfection, why exactly was he surprised?

Perfectionism is dysfunctional in humans, and I think equally dysfunctional when attributed to the deity.

 

[DArceri]

The only problem with this interpretation is that it rather overlooks the fact that God chose to make us fallible; we did not choose it for ourselves.

Yes and No. God knew man would eventually fall. He is God. But, GOD HOLDS MAN ACCOUNTABLE. What we see is that God was in a right relationship with Adam before the fall. God and man were 'spiritually right' with each other BEFORE THE FALL. MAN at this time had the ABILITY to discern what God desired because Adam had the ABILITY to just go to God and ask. Instead of seeking God when the first temptation came (a test God placed in the garden), Adam chose to disobey. He failed the test. Thus, God held ADAM accountable for his free choice to not see God's advise on the matter. God was there for Him. Bottomline, before the fall, Adam had a one on one relationship with God and had the ABILITY to seek God's heart about all spiritual matters. After the curse, man is now 'spiritually discerned' because he no longer has a one-on-one relationship with God and thus is 'hostile' to God's wisdom. All of God's wisdom is now foolishness to man.

Therefore, the rabid dog metaphor does not apply.

YES IT DOES...Again, God did not make man dysfunctional from the beginnning. Man was spiritual right with God before the fall. Genesis SAYS God put a curse on ALL of Creation AFTER Adam CHOSE not to go to God about what had happened in the garden with the serpent. HE HAD THE ABILITY TO GO TO GOD AT THE TIME. As a matter of fact, all of creation was set to decay and corruption AS JUDGEMENT. pLEASE NOTE THOUGH THAT THIS WAS THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE OF GOD'S GRACE. God had every right to destroy mankind the moment he sinned against God. Instead GOD chose to have a redemptive plan for mankind.

Romans 8:20-22, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes God knew man would eventually fall. He is God. But, the facts of the beginning are the facts. God was in a right relationship with Adam before the fall. God and man were 'spiritually right' with each other BEFORE THE FALL. MAN at this time had the ABILITY to discern what God desired because Adam could just go to God and ask. Instead of seeking God when the first temptaiton came (a test God placed in the garden), Adam chose seek what supposeldy only God knew. Adam failed the test. God held ADAM accountable for his free choice to seek autonomy for himself.
YES IT DOES...Again, God did not make man dysfunctional from the beginnning. Man was spiritual right with God before the fall. Genesis SAYS God put a curse on ALL of Creation AFTER Adam CHOSE autonomy for himself. As a matter of fact, all of creation was set to decay and corruption and decay:

Romans 8:20-22, "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."

Do you think using different colours, bold and underscore makes your argument stronger? It doesn't.

God chose to make humankind fallible, and then apparently punished that fallibility in a most intemperate way. This is not what we would regard as healthy parenting, so I see no reason to regard it as healthy behaviour by the Deity, whatever colour font you use to describe it.

 

[Christos Anesti]

natural desires that lead us into sin,

I think we might just be disagreeing over the terminology of "sin nature" then. When I say "sin nature" all I mean is the disordered passions and desires that tempt us to sin- the flesh, the carnal mind, the law of our members, etc.. You seem to be saying that such a reality exists in man you just hesitate to call it "sin nature" and believe that it was an improper translation?

 

[DArceri]

Do you think using different colours, bold and underscore makes your argument stronger? It doesn't.

God chose to make humankind fallible, and then apparently punished that fallibility in a most intemperate way. This is not what we would regard as healthy parenting, so I see no reason to regard it as healthy behaviour by the Deity, whatever colour font you use to describe it.

Sorry, by using font colors, I am trying to convey an important thought. It has nothing to do with arguments being made stronger. LOL.

As for your response, yes I agree that God KNEW that man would fall from grace. But you are missing the key point I made. (note: I added to my response. I did not realize you were online at the time. Please reread the finished product.) That being said, THROUGH THE FALL, God is able to reveal ALL His Divine Nature (ie. Trinune Godhead) and His Divine attributes to mankind, ie. GRACE, LOVE, JUSTICE, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. If that is how God wants to reveal Himself, who are we to fault His Divine decree. He is the Creator. (Read JOB)

...BTW, God is no more held accountable to all the human standards He gives to His created, than a parent is held accountable to the parental standards that is placed on a loved child, ie mandatory curfews, spanking rules, etc...(Note: Can a child spank a parent or can a child hold a parent accountable to a child's curfew time?) There is an ontological 'ranking' relationship you are not taking into consideration. As long as God is faithful to His Divine Name and His Divine Council (The perfect harmony within His Trinune relationship), God can make the rules over HIS created any way He sees fit.

.

 

[Assyrian]

I think we might just be disagreeing over the terminology of "sin nature" then. When I say "sin nature" all I mean is the disordered passions and desires that tempt us to sin- the flesh, the carnal mind, the law of our members, etc.. You seem to be saying that such a reality exists in man you just hesitate to call it "sin nature" and believe that it was an improper translation?

I think our flesh describes how God created us, fearfully and wonderfully made, no different from the 'flesh of my flesh' described in Genesis 2. It does become corrupted and disordered, but my point is this happens when we follow our own natural desires and sin. I don't know of anywhere in scripture that describes us inheriting a disordered version from Adam because he sinned.

 

[holyrokker]

A person could lead a completely righteous life according to the law, yet still be sinful. This is because sin is not the act, but the purpose of heart.

We are not "born sinful" in that sin is some "thing" that is part of our humanity. Instead, we are born without the Holy Spirit: we are born "flesh". Without a connection to the Spirit of God, we cannot find that which pleases the Spirit. The result is that we do that which pleases the flesh.

At a very early age, we are deceived by the desires of our flesh, and easily trapped thereby.

As James says: But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Sin is not the cause of sin. Sin is the result of a person's own yielding to one's own desire.