Original vs. Ancestral Sin

[Fervent]

The actual main point of this thread is Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin. I don't see how man is exempt from the guilt of Adam's sin. In Adam, all die. In Christ, all shall be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22). This is why I reject Ancestral Sin. Ancestral Sin also sets up a problem with thinking that aborted babies and children can be saved without Christ's sacrifice. This means there is another way of salvation besides Jesus. This is an insult to what our Lord did for us.

What a horrible thought that aborted children and babies don't go to hell. How inhumane and unbearably cruel.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your doctrine forces a Christology that isn't fully human, though, because the sin nature is part of the human nature if it exists. Either Christ was fully human, just as we are, or His nature was different from ours in some critical way. Either, as the Bible says, Christ faced the same temptations men face(which would include being under the influence of a sin nature) or He didn't participate fully in the human experience. To say that we have a sin nature that Christ does not is to say Christ's nature is not like ours, and therefore not fully human.

You are discussing the wrong topic of this thread. The thread topic is Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin. I only brought up Jesus and His Incarnation by way of a virgin to make a brief point and it was not to engage in an off topic discussion.

 

[Fervent]

You are discussing the wrong topic of this thread. The thread topic is Original Sin vs. Ancestral Sin. I only brought up Jesus and His Incarnation by way of a virgin to make a brief point and it was not to engage in an off topic discussion.

No, it's well within the topic because it is a consequence of the doctrine of original sin. It's Augustine's gnostic upbringing bleeding into mainstream Christianity and the fact that some form of docetism is inescapable shows that original sin is not a true teaching but instead came from Augustine's imagination.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What a horrible thought that aborted children and babies don't go to hell. How inhumane and unbearably cruel.

That's what would have happened if Jesus did not go to the cross. Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the whole world. This would even include taking away Adam's sin because Jesus comes from the line of Adam. So if Jesus took away Adam's sin (i.e. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world), then there would be no ancestral sin to pass down to anyone anymore. Jesus would be reversing the curse. Although God prevented aborted babies in going to hell because of the promise of the Messiah, the consequences of Adam's sin would be physical death.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, it's well within the topic because it is a consequence of the doctrine of original sin. It's Augustine's gnostic upbringing bleeding into mainstream Christianity and the fact that some form of docetism is inescapable shows that original sin is not a true teaching but instead came from Augustine's imagination.

Again, your making assumptions about what I believe about Christ's nature, and yet, I have not given you enough information yet to make any kind of conclusion. There are three different views of Original Sin explained at Gotquestions. Of these views, they are not even the same as mine exactly. So you can just keep assuming if you like.

 

[Fervent]

That's what would have happened if Jesus did not go to the cross. Jesus is the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the whole world. This would even include taking away Adam's sin because Jesus comes from the line of Adam. So if Jesus took away Adam's sin (i.e. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the whole world), then there would be no ancestral sin to pass down to anyone anymore. Jesus would be reversing the curse. Although God prevented aborted babies in going to hell because of the promise of the Messiah. So the consequences of Adam's sin would be physical death.

I'm confused what you're arguing for/against here. Yes, the consequences of Adam's sin is physical death and at the cross Jesus reversed physical death through submission to it and rising as the first fruits. Jesus is reversing the curse and will fully reverse it at consummation. Sin is no longer an issue, persistent unbelief is the issue. The righteous and the damned alike will be raised again in the flesh to face judgment, and that is because Jesus overcame death at the cross. Is this supposed to be problematic?

 

[Fervent]

Again, your making assumptions about what I believe about Christ's nature, and yet, I have not given you enough information yet to make any kind of conclusion. There are three different views of Original Sin explained at Gotquestions. Of these views, they are not even the same as mine exactly. So you can just keep assuming if you like.

I'm not terribly interested in what gotquestions says, you forwarded a pretty Augustinian view of original sin down to it being passed down through the father. Your nature of Christ, then, necessarily is missing whatever component comes from having a human father meaning His nature is not human in the same way that everyone else's nature is human. No matter how you slice it, a human nature that is different from an ordinary human nature is not fully human and forwarding that Adam's sin re-worked human nature by imputing sin requires a docetic solution where Christ did not fully assume a human nature but was pseudohuman.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm confused what you're arguing for/against here. Yes, the consequences of Adam's sin is physical death and at the cross Jesus reversed physical death through submission to it and rising as the first fruits. Jesus is reversing the curse and will fully reverse it at consummation. Sin is no longer an issue, persistent unbelief is the issue. The righteous and the damned alike will be raised again in the flesh to face judgment, and that is because Jesus overcame death at the cross. Is this supposed to be problematic?

I agree with what you stated except for your statement that says, “sin is no longer an issue.” Sin still plagues many people today (including believers). Sin can harden a believer's heart whereby they can depart from the living God in unbelief (See: Hebrews 3).

 

[chad kincham]

Babies are exposed to the sinful world the moment they're born and every day after.

No they aren’t. There are many stay at home mothers, like my wife - toddlers in that situation are not exposed to the world until preschool or kindergarten - yet they lie and disobey with no bad examples to emulate.

 

[Fervent]

I agree with what you stated except for your statement that says, “sin is no longer an issue.” Sin still plagues many people today (including believers). Sin can harden a believer's heart whereby they can depart from the living God in unbelief (See: Hebrews 3).

So Jesus' work on the cross was incomplete? It's not finished?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I'm not terribly interested in what gotquestions says, you forwarded a pretty Augustinian view of original sin down to it being passed down through the father. Your nature of Christ, then, necessarily is missing whatever component comes from having a human father meaning His nature is not human in the same way that everyone else's nature is human. No matter how you slice it, a human nature that is different from an ordinary human nature is not fully human and forwarding that Adam's sin re-worked human nature by imputing sin requires a docetic solution where Christ did not fully assume a human nature but was pseudohuman.

As I stated before. Jesus is fully God, and fully man. So you are beating a dead horse here. I don't like Ancestral Sin because of two reasons. Ancestral Sin goes against a normal reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Romans 5:15-17, and it is saying that there is salvation in another way besides Jesus Christ (i.e. Babies can die without the sacrifice of Jesus and still be saved). Acts of the Apostles 4:12 says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

 

[Fervent]

No they aren’t. There are many stay at home mothers, like my wife - toddlers in that situation are not exposed to the world until preschool or kindergarten - yet they lie and disobey with no bad examples to emulate.

The sinful world isn't simply people outside of the Christian fold. It's every inch of the Earth which has been stained with Adam's sin. You and your wife participate in it and bring it home with you. My point is not a matter of being influenced by bad behavior of others but being touched by sin which is a spiritual sickness that pervades creation and will continue to pervade creation until Christ returns and heaven and earth are made new.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So Jesus' work on the cross was incomplete? It's not finished?

Do you live in a world without sin then? It's called the “Provisional Atonement” for a reason. Think of what Christ did for us as writing a check to cancel out your debts, but it is up to you to receive the check, and to pay off those you are in debt to. The check is good. It is more than enough to pay off all your debts. But you need to receive the check, and deposit it, and pay off those who are in debt to. It's why we are saved by God's grace through faith. Faith has two sides. One side starts off as a belief in Jesus as the Savior, and believing that He died for our sins, and He was buried, and He was risen three days later on our behalf, and the other side of the coin (that follows) is the work of faith. This faith (both sides of the coin) accesses the saving grace of God.

 

[Fervent]

As I stated before. Jesus is fully God, and fully man. So you are beating a dead horse here. I don't like Ancestral Sin because of two reasons. Ancestral Sin goes against a normal reading of 1 Corinthians 15:22, and Romans 5:15-17, and it is saying that there is salvation in another way besides Jesus Christ. Acts of the Apostles 4:12 says, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

It doesn't go against either of those verses, unless you have a poor translation of Romans 5:12 that translates ek as "in" rather than "have." 1 Corinthians 15:22 is speaking of the federal headship of Adam vs Christ but it is using Adam to mean the natural order as it is speaking of the first and last things. It is not referring to the beginning, but the end. And ancestral sin doesn't present any other way to salvation, it is Christ and Christ alone because Christ is the one who has made all things clean and done away with the stain of sin.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The sinful world isn't simply people outside of the Christian fold. It's every inch of the Earth which has been stained with Adam's sin. You and your wife participate in it and bring it home with you.

I no longer watch sin filled worldly movies or partake in other forms of worldly entertainment anymore. But do these things of this world condemn a believer?
Anyways, I primarily watch Christian movies that seek to inspire others to follow the Lord or the Bible.

My point is not a matter of being influenced by bad behavior of others but being touched by sin which is a spiritual sickness that pervades creation and will continue to pervade creation until Christ returns and heaven and earth are made new.

This sounds rather mysterious. Please explain in more detail.

 

[Fervent]

Do you live in a world without sin then? It's called the “Provisional Atonement” for a reason. Think of what Christ did for us as writing a check to cancel out your debts, but it is up to you to receive the check, and to pay off those you are in debt to. The check is good. It is more than enough to pay off all your debts. But you need to receive the check, and deposit it, and pay off those who are in debt to. It's why we are saved by God's grace through faith. Faith has two sides. One side starts off as a belief in Jesus as the Savior, and believing that He died for our sins, and He was buried, and He was risen three days later on our behalf, and the other side of the coin (that follows) is the work of faith. This faith (both sides of the coin) accesses the saving grace of God.

You're mixing in human theology again. What does 1 John say? "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." Nothing provisional about that. I have been set free from sin, because sins power is the fear of death and thanks to Christ I have no fear of death. From top to bottom your theology is filled with human ideas that have been mingled in with the Bible that picture God as a pagan deity whose bloodlust can only be slaked with the death of a virgin. That's not the God of Scripture, that's not how atonement works, that's not what sin and salvation is. It's a mockery.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The sinful world isn't simply people outside of the Christian fold. It's every inch of the Earth which has been stained with Adam's sin. You and your wife participate in it and bring it home with you. My point is not a matter of being influenced by bad behavior of others but being touched by sin which is a spiritual sickness that pervades creation and will continue to pervade creation until Christ returns and heaven and earth are made new.

I watch a few family friendly romance films with my wife, and nature documentaries on rare occasion. But I primarily watch Christian movies. These are the kinds of films that I really love. Christian movies is what excites me the most. I have given up movies like the Avengers, James Bond, and Star Trek because they are filled with the sinful things of this world.

Anyways, if you are looking for some good Christian movies to watch, I have 30 really good ones in my collection that I would highly recommend. These are films that teach a Biblical message, or they seek to inspire a person to follow the Lord and or to read their Bible. You can check them out at the following CF thread link:

My Christian DVD Collection.
(Includes movie artwork, trailers, and where to rent or buy).

 

[Fervent]

This sounds rather mysterious. Please explain in more detail.

I can see how it would sound mysterious, but it's a historic hamartiology. As I said earlier in the thread, one of the things that makes original sin palatable to western audiences is that sin is seen as an abstract thing, a violation of a law which primarily brings about guilt. But ancient minds didn't think like that, and Leviticus among other places give a different view of sin in which it is an anti-substance. Apart from the guilt incurred there is also the stain from the sin, an uncleanness that covers the person, their clothes, the house they are in, every material thing. Sin corrupts the world around us, and the corruption in the world around us leads to further corruption in us. The sacrifices of the OT were given as a temporary covering to preserve the nation of Israel, but these temporary measures never truly did away with sin. Christ's blood, though, has the power to cleanse everything it touches and sin and death are overcome.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It doesn't go against either of those verses, unless you have a poor translation of Romans 5:12 that translates ek as "in" rather than "have." 1 Corinthians 15:22 is speaking of the federal headship of Adam vs Christ but it is using Adam to mean the natural order as it is speaking of the first and last things. It is not referring to the beginning, but the end. And ancestral sin doesn't present any other way to salvation, it is Christ and Christ alone because Christ is the one who has made all things clean and done away with the stain of sin.

Curious. How does Christ clean away the stain of sin? When does that happen? Babies died even before Christ's sacrifice. I get the impression that Ancestral Sin is saying that we each die for our own sin and not the sin of Adam. So this means that a baby that is aborted is innocent and not needing a Savior will then be able to be saved on his own merits without Christ. This is why I have a problem with Ancestral Sin unless you can explain it better for me.

 

[Fervent]

I watch a few family friendly romance films with my wife, and nature documentaries on rare occasion. But I primarily Christian movies. These are the kinds of films that I really love. Christian movies is what excites me the most. I have given up movies like the Avengers, James Bond, and Star Trek because they are filled with the sinful things of this world.

Anyways, if you are looking for some good Christian movies to watch, I have 30 really good ones in my collection that I would highly recommend. These are films that teach a Biblical message, or they seek to inspire a person to follow the Lord and or to read their Bible. You can check them out at the following CF thread link:

My Christian DVD Collection.
(Includes movie artwork, trailers, and where to rent or buy).

I just wanted to say I appreciate our discussion so far since we are so far apart theologically and strong words have been exchanged, but I don't sense any hostility in the exchange. Just passionate defenses of our given positions.