Original Sin

[ViaCrucis]

Only if they die before sinning ie: unborn babies etc....already mentioned this in this thread.

Like I mentioned earlier, Pelagianism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

I found this and thought it was very interesting
http://www.chabad.org/thejewishwoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/nitzevet-mother-of-david.htm

 

[ewq1938]

Like I mentioned earlier, Pelagianism.

-CryptoLutheran

Irrelevant. Babies have no sin.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Irrelevant. Babies have no sin.

No personal sin, no. But each and every one of us enters this world a sinner, nobody enters the world free from the effects and consequences of the problem of sin.

And the problem of Pelagianism is not irrelevant, it's very much relevant. Pelagianism is heresy and firmly outside of acceptable Christian orthodoxy. Pelagianism is a fundamental rejection of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ewq1938]

No personal sin, no. But each and every one of us enters this world a sinner, nobody enters the world free from the effects and consequences of the problem of sin.

I disagree. This is not a scriptural teaching. Scripture teaches we receive the same death Adam did when we sin. Nothing at all about anything tainting us from birth....we are tainted only by our own personal sins.

And the problem of Pelagianism is not irrelevant, it's very much relevant. Pelagianism is heresy and firmly outside of acceptable Christian orthodoxy. Pelagianism is a fundamental rejection of the Gospel.

You misuse apply this:

Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. This theological theory is named after the British monk Pelagius (354–420 or 440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagianism has come to be identified with the view, (whether Pelagius agreed or not), that human beings can earn salvation by their own efforts.

A baby being born sinless is not "Pelagianism" nor is it only about original sin not tainting humans. It involves many things. Original sin did not taint humans, that is scriptural....original sin is not scriptural.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I disagree. This is not a scriptural teaching. Scripture teaches we receive the same death Adam did when we sin. Nothing at all about anything tainting us from birth....we are tainted only by our own personal sins.





You misuse apply this:

Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. This theological theory is named after the British monk Pelagius (354–420 or 440), although he denied, at least at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace assisted every good work. Pelagianism has come to be identified with the view, (whether Pelagius agreed or not), that human beings can earn salvation by their own efforts.

A baby being born sinless is not "Pelagianism" nor is it only about original sin not tainting humans. It involves many things. Original sin did not taint humans, that is scriptural....original sin is not scriptural.

If one enters the world perfectly free, and is therefore free to live righteously without the struggle of sin within them, then what need is there for anything but the strength of will to live a righteous life?

This is more than merely whether an infant is born "sinless" or not, I've already been quite clear that:

A) Infants have not committed personal sin.
2) Nobody enters this world guilty of Adam's personal sin.

The issue is this: There is a fundamental wrongness in the world, and it is not just a minor inconvenience for some, but is fundamentally pervasive throughout all people. Not one person goes through life sinless, not one person goes through life living a life of righteous obedience to God. The Apostle puts this clear in Romans 3, "All have sinned." Not some, not a few, not most, but all.

If we submit that one is born perfectly free and just and is only made a sinner once they have committed their first sin, then how do we make sense of the universal problem of sin? Or else is it not a universal problem, but only a problem for some.

Pelagius did deny some of the charges made against him, because the charges resulted in taking what Pelagius was saying and bringing them to natural conclusions. Pelagius wasn't trying to say that Christ was unnecessary, that grace was unnecessary, of course that wasn't his intent. Pelagius' motives were good and noble, he wanted Christians to strive toward a higher, moral life, a more faithful life. The problem is that terrible heresy can still come from noble intentions.

Pelagius was, fundamentally, guilty of what we all are often guilty of, the Opinio Legis, the Opinion of the Law. The idea that, yes, if we just try hard enough we can, eventually, be a righteous and obedient servant of God and, of our own merit, stand just before Him. That, yes, there is a ladder of righteousness and holiness that we can climb if we just keep trying. That, yes, we will improve day after day toward that destination of glory in this life if we just keep at it. That opinion of the law is so insidious, so virulent, and so diabolical; because the destination of this, as all theology of glory has, is despair and faithlessness. For it does not recognize our total inability to live righteously in our own strength, and it does not confess the total work of God by which all has been done for us already by Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ewq1938]

If one enters the world perfectly free, and is therefore free to live righteously without the struggle of sin within them, then what need is there for anything but the strength of will to live a righteous life?

I have highlighted your error. While we are all born sinless, we eventually do sin. No one can live a life without sinning. We all need forgiveness, hence the sacrifice Christ gave us. The "struggle of sin" is nothing more than the temptation to sin, which simply exists as part of being tempted to do something wrong. Take adultery, a man might find another man's woman attractive and gives in to temptation to have relations with her. The "struggle" is the same old basic temptation to do something you want and desire but is morally wrong. It applies to all sin.

If we submit that one is born perfectly free and just and is only made a sinner once they have committed their first sin, then how do we make sense of the universal problem of sin? Or else is it not a universal problem, but only a problem for some.

Sin is an individual problem that all experience. There is no need of an inborn flaw inherited from someone else.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why is ViaCrucis allowed to say that Adam and Eve never existed, plainly labeling the story as a myth, and yet Alla27 cannot take the parts of Genesis literally when God is quite clearly described as a man?

 

[fatboys]

I found this and thought it was very interesting
http://www.chabad.org/thejewishwoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/nitzevet-mother-of-david.htm

Even before I found this information from the Talmud I have always felt that David was lamenting the choices he made and that he felt he was filthy from before birth. Whether you accept this version of David's life he had made bad choices

 

[fatboys]

No personal sin, no. But each and every one of us enters this world a sinner, nobody enters the world free from the effects and consequences of the problem of sin.

And the problem of Pelagianism is not irrelevant, it's very much relevant. Pelagianism is heresy and firmly outside of acceptable Christian orthodoxy. Pelagianism is a fundamental rejection of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

We don't become sinners until we understand the law

 

[Hawkins]

We don't become sinners until we understand the law

You understand Law by default. The criminals in your country don't read law books before they are sent to prison, do they?

Even human legal system will have to rely on the Law God has written in our hearts to work at all fundamentally.

 

[fatboys]

You understand Law by default. The criminals in your country don't read law books before they are sent to prison, do they?

Even human legal system will have to rely on the Law God has written in our hearts to work at all fundamentally.

Even though you may break the law and the consequences are the same it does not mean you repent if you didn't know the law. If a person does not have the experience to understand the law or its consequences the atonement covers this without the need for repentance.

 

[ViaCrucis]

We don't become sinners until we understand the law

Knowing or not knowing the law is irrelevant. Hurting another person is still wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

Knowing or not knowing the law is irrelevant. Hurting another person is still wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

Didn't say it wasn't. I drive school bus with all ages. been doing it for over twenty years. One thing I have learned is that a kindergartener does not hold back their opinion no matter how hurtful it can be. They don't do it to hurt the other person for the most part they tell it like it is. They don't get it that it is rude.

 

[BigDaddy4]

We don't become sinners until we understand the law

Which is where you err and deviate from the Biblical description of sin and original sin. See Romans 3:23 and a host of others.

 

[fatboys]

Which is where you err and deviate from the Biblical description of sin and original sin. See Romans 3:23 and a host of others.

Oh I forgot you hang on every word as if God wrote it down himself.

 

[St_Worm2]

Oh I forgot you hang on every word as if God wrote it down himself.

Hi Fatboys, it's true that God didn't "write" the words of the Bible down Himself, but we believe the words of Holy Scripture are His nonetheless (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

If you believe the Bible is only partially the word of God, on what basis do you decide which parts of it are really from Him and which parts aren't? Or do you believe that the Bible is simply a collection of men's musings about God and that NONE of the words were ever actually His?

Thanks!

--David

 

[fatboys]

Hi Fatboys, it's true that God didn't "write" the words of the Bible down Himself, but we believe the words of Holy Scripture are His nonetheless (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21).

If you believe the Bible is only partially the word of God, on what basis do you decide which parts of it are really from Him and which parts aren't? Or do you believe that the Bible is simply a collection of men's musings about God and that NONE of the words were ever actually His?

Thanks!

--David

Do you listen to yourselves? You say God doesn't have the power to program Adam and Eve to be perfect but has the power to have a perfect bible.

 

[St_Worm2]

I know, I know, for some CRAZY reason God decided to make man in His own image, which included giving us, "Free Will" But no one would ever say that He didn't have the power to make Adam/Eve (and the rest of us for that matter) into robots if He wanted to, He being omnipotent and all.

No doubt it took both skill and a bit of power for God to get the human authors of the Bible to write His words down just the way He wanted them, but I'm thinking there are at least a couple of things He's done that probably required even more skill, effort, and power on His part than that, starting with Genesis 1:1

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - so if you believe the Bible is only partially the word of God, on what basis do you decide which parts of it are really from Him and which parts aren't? Or do you believe that the Bible is simply a collection of men's musings about God and that NONE of the words were ever actually His?

 

[fatboys]

I know, I know, for some CRAZY reason God decided to make man in His own image, which included giving us, "Free Will" But no one would ever say that He didn't have the power to make Adam/Eve (and the rest of us for that matter) into robots if He wanted to, He being omnipotent and all.

No doubt it took both skill and a bit of power for God to get the human authors of the Bible to write His words down just the way He wanted them, but I'm thinking there are at least a couple of things He's done that probably required even more skill, effort, and power on His part than that, starting with Genesis 1:1

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - so if you believe the Bible is only partially the word of God, on what basis do you decide which parts of it are really from Him and which parts aren't? Or do you believe that the Bible is simply a collection of men's musings about God and that NONE of the words were ever actually His?

The bible has been watered down or changed from the original intent. I'm not saying the bible is partially false. I'm saying that because God has to work with imperfect men the result is not going to be perfect. The second Gods word reaches mans ears it becomes imperfect. The bible has not only imperfect prophets to deal with but those who handled it and copied it were imperfect. I mean look at the thousand of different interpretations it has. Was Gods intent to have so many different interpretations? "One lord, One faith, On baptism".
Look all good comes from God. The OP is about original sin. Mormons don't believe in original sin. We believe in original transgression which brought about sin. Because of transgression Gods plan was able to work. There are those who believe that because of original sin little children who have not been able to understand the full consequences of disobedience are destined to hell. Christ never said or inferred that little children are anything but saved through his stoning sacrifice. What being that has influence would want us to believe that little children are not saved?