• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Question

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Site Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,978
8,072
✟542,711.44
Gender
Female
Faith
Messianic
The big problem is that the Summa only gives one very Medieval perspective on this doctrine. It's a massive mistake to think that Aquinas' own musings on this doctrine are in any way the epitome and final word on it. In fact, I don't think many RC scholars would agree with that portion of the Summa nowadays.
You are probably right... changing ....every changing.. but never really changing..
 
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟40,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Vis....that was what I have said all along: you are not guilty of Original sin. You suffer from its effects (as we all do), but you are not guilty before God any sins you did not commit.

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son" Ezek. 18:20

If we don't inherit the physical effects of sin from the fall, why do we die? Even the whole creation suffers for it:

Gen 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


Paul explains it this way:

Romans 5:12-19 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Here's a quote from ancient Jewish tradition, found in the LXX:

“O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants.” (2 Esdras aka 4 Ezra 7:118)

Sin is indeed the transgression of the Law, yet:

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.Job 15:14-16 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Depravity is the source of sin. Original Sin is the source of depravity. All creation suffers physically ans spiritually from the fall of man.

If one is not born into "Original sin" inheriting the sins of Adam and Eve, then why are the newborns, aborted fetuses condemned as sinners - they had no chance to sin. So what is the sin that the stillborn baby committed? You think maybe he was thinking of the best bank to rob? should he begin at sixteen when he gets his license or maybe wait, get some driving experiences down.
What of my grandbaby? What did she do in the 20 days of life she had. Oh sure, she got mad. Her blood pressure would rise when they'd stick things into her lungs to clear them of moisture, but then who wouldn't mad?
You or anyone else ever convince me that these two and all others, are forever forgotten because of something done 5000+ years ago, I'll just have to say, "Go ahead, take your little God, box him all up - he's too small for me."
I don't think Hashem fits that bill. And I'll just call it quits if I ever get convinced that he does.
Yeah, there's some touchy feely in here but sometimes that is what is called for. Hashem not only gave us our minds, he also graced us with emotions.
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If one is not born into "Original sin" inheriting the sins of Adam and Eve, then why are the newborns, aborted fetuses condemned as sinners - they had no chance to sin. So what is the sin that the stillborn baby committed? You think maybe he was thinking of the best bank to rob? should he begin at sixteen when he gets his license or maybe wait, get some driving experiences down.

Yedida, with respect, we've already established that this is not the conclusion of the majority of people in regards Original Sin. I don't know of any mainstream theologian that would be prepared to defend the notion that children are guilty of sin at birth. As explained already, the guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed, but the effects of being born in a state of spiritual separation from God (the degree of which can be debated) are present. Yes, they are born sinners, but no, they are guilty of committing a sin that would send them to Hell. You are arguing against a doctrine that I don't think anyone believes. I know you can find people that believe that here and there, but generally, most Christians would reject that.
 
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟40,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
Yedida, with respect, we've already established that this is not the conclusion of the majority of people in regards Original Sin. I don't know of any mainstream theologian that would be prepared to defend the notion that children are guilty of sin at birth. As explained already, the guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed, but the effects of being born in a state of spiritual separation from God (the degree of which can be debated) are present. Yes, they are born sinners, but no, they are guilty of committing a sin that would send them to Hell. You are arguing against a doctrine that I don't think anyone believes. I know you can find people that believe that here and there, but generally, most Christians would reject that.

Then I apologize to you. The last thing I read of yours on this sure sounded like this is what you were leaning toward (unlike earlier when I thought you were saying more of what is above on this post).
I'm a bit loopy these days, a walking drug store, so forgive an already worn-mind for being a bit more so in these next few days?
 
Upvote 0

ContraMundum

Messianic Jewish Christian
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2005
15,666
2,957
Visit site
✟100,608.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Then I apologize to you. The last thing I read of yours on this sure sounded like this is what you were leaning toward (unlike earlier when I thought you were saying more of what is above on this post).
I'm a bit loopy these days, a walking drug store, so forgive an already worn-mind for being a bit more so in these next few days?

Ah....no problem! All is good. Be well, healthy and happy. :)
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Lots of different propositions have come out the discussion of sin in the history of God's people. Not all of them "fly" all that well for my mind either.

However, the bottom line of the doctrine of sin is what all who claim to be orthodox have in common, despite differences over theories about its outcome.
.

Some of it gets interesting when it comes to considering some of the realities that Original sin may have in regards to the afterlife.


If the OT Saints like Noah and Enoch could be saved without ever HEARING the name of Jesus…and with men simply seeking the face of the Lord the best they knew how, then why is it that we have totally said otherwise today with issues of salvation and original sin? For indeed, no one can be saved apart from the work/power of the LORD Jesus Christ.

What has never been discussed by Scripture is that those never knowing audibly of His name are unable to be saved/encounter HIM....and for those saying people never knowing of Christ are doomed to live without Him, I must ask "why the assumptions?" Taking it further, why is it that everyone on all sides of this argument always assumes that people can only make their decision for or against Christ before they die?
Does the Bible even say that?

Most tend to start with this verse inHebrews 9:27/Hebrews 9:26-28..but that says that one faces judgement after death. Nowhere is the verse even qualifed to saying all the dynamics of what happens at the judgement/differing situations taken into account of what happened during the time of living. I guess for those people who believe in soul sleep it makes sense that no one could choose Christ after death …but for anyone who believes that our spirits/souls are alive and awake even though our bodies are dead, I think the question is valid.

As it is, most say that what matters is that once one dies, that’s it——-but on the issue, where in the Bible does it say that once one dies, they have no other options?

If the impacts of original sin means that all men are born sinners/need to repent--yet they can still have the chance to come to the Lord/repent after death, I must wonder..... I’m sure it Iwould remove a lot of the reservations some people have. Athiests wouldn’t be able to say there was no God if they were standing in front of him. And CS Lewis in his book “The Last Battle” seems to suggest that there is an opportunity at the end.

Some of what I'm saying goes into the view of puragatory--and of course, I'm aware that many may have issue with that. However, I must say that the view has some reasonability to it. On the issue of purgatory, its something that I wish was discussed more. In discussing the issue with many of my brothers in the Eastern Orthodox Church, it has always been interesting to see some of their perspectives on the issue--as well as of those in liturgical circles such as Catholic..and some others. For those who are Hebrew Catholics ( as discussed here in #15 #4 /#33 ) and who feel Jewish culture is well reflected in the concept, that's something to consider as well (IMHO). Outside of that, it is already an historical fact that the early Christian practice of prayer for the dead was not an odd thing to do. …with many of the early Church fathers in the 1st through 3rd centuries speaking often on the subject. …whether it be with Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Tertullian or many others.

As it relates to Jewish culture/a Hebraic perspective, The Maccabees apparently PRAYED for the dead (and gave us the “gift” of “Purgatory”). ..and though others may take issue with it, one must keep in mind the historicity of the book—especially seeing its description of the Jewish Feast of Hannakah, also refered to as the celebration of the the Feast of Dedication in John 10:21-23/ John 10 .


For an excerpt from the book on the issue:
A)nd they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. (2 Macc 12:42-45


Granted that Maccabbees…both the 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees ) …..had one element where they took things to the “Puragotory” level–and Jews do not regard 2 Maccabees as canonical, perhaps because of its theological innovations……but the book is historical……and there are many elements I’ve been intrigued by when seeing other scriptures. For Jesus did indeed celebrate the Holiday of Channakuh that came out of the Maccabees account....and although he didn't comment on it, I must wonder what he'd say about it on certain aspects if he was willing to participate in a holiday that endorsed it.

There are other scriptures within the protestant cannon that have had many pondering purgatory—-one of which may refer to a prayer for the dead, found in 2 Timothy 1:16-18, which reads as follows:
May the Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain, but when he was in Rome, he sought me diligently, and found me (the Lord grant to him to find the Lord’s mercy on that day); and in how many things he served at Ephesus, you know very well.
As with the verses from 2 Maccabees, these verses refer to prayers that will help the deceased “on that day” (perhaps Judgement Day).



Of coruse it is not stated that Onesiphorus, for whom Paul prayed, was dead. However, some scholars infer this based on the way Paul only refers to him in the past tense, and prays for present blessings on his household, but for him only “on that day”. And towards the end of the same letter, in 2 Timothy 4:19, Paul sends greetings to “Prisca and Aquila, and the house of Onesiphorus”, distinguishing the situation of Onesiphorus from that of the still living Prisca and Aquila.

There’s also consideration of how other things Jesus said seem to indicate that there will be forgiveness in the world to come—as seen in Matthew 12:31-33 /Luke 12:9-11………..and, for that matter, how God could forgive the sins of others who were acting in ignorance when they were nailing them to the cross in Luke 23:33-35—without any record of their ever asking God’s forgiveness in THIS lifetime since they were unaware of who the Christ was..


Something else to consider..
1 Corinthians 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
1 Corinthians 15:28-30 1 Corinthians 15
I was curious as to what your thoughts would be on this. Obvious is the case that many in in the faith have always had a view of taking the Word literally..and I’m reminded of many conversations where it seemed that this was brought up in theological discourses on taking the WOrd seriously and yet many being unwilling to accept what Paul said here–showing in action that many really do not believe in taking the Word seriously and more specifically, taking the WOrd wherever it’s in line with their paticular views.


Personally, I take the scripture literally—and I see no reason as to why not. Many may say “So, you’re basically being for the concept of PURGATORY/THINKING DEAD RELATIVES can be redeemed??!!”, with the reaction often being based on what may often be seen in many liturgical circles


Though difficult, I don’t see the verse as a problem to take literally since there’ve been numerous interpretations given to it…..with one reasonable view being that “they…who are baptized..” refers to living believers giving outward testimony to their faith in baptism by immersion due to how they were originally drawn to the Lord by the examples of other exemplary, faithful beluievers who were witnesses of the power of God and who had already died subsequently. This paticular perspective is very much what often occurs with the concept of Icons in Eastern Orthodox–where pictures of previous saints that have already gone before us (including those in Hebrews 11/Hebrews 11:11 with the Hall of Faith).


For in the view of Eastern Thought, those who’ve gone ahead of us are not merely elsewhere in the “Great Beyond”–but very much aware of what is happening down below. Kind of like what happens for many when Grandma died and loved ones–whether those who were believers inspired by her example to continue walking godly or those who were not saved and yet were won to the Lord by her actions/chose to dedicate their lives to Christ— were wondering of the woman who kept the family together in Christ think “I know that Grandma is looking down upon me right now…and I hope she’s proud”. It’s the reality that the saints are with us in spiritual connection:
Hebrews 12:1
[ God Disciplines His Sons ] Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
Hebrews 12:1-3

By no means am I saying, by the way, that it’s appropiate for others to act as if they can have conversations with Grandma as with what often happens when a family member dies and they say that they’re still in the house and every morning they wake up they still hear that the tea pot’s whistling every morning before church just like it was when she was alive/making tea for everyone (lol lol ). But For anyone who has studied the book of Hebrews fully, the deceased individuals of Hebrews 11 is something I keep in mind when it comes to identifying who the “witnesses” are that’re looking on toward us. Personally, what comes to my mind is not only the thought of others whose past lives of faith encourage myself to do the same and have given godly examples to follow/give motivation…..but it is also the thought of actually having a crowd up in Heaven made of heavenly saints cheering me on actively that captivates my mind.


Others can disagree---but as it concerns the states of those who are dead and their in need of continual prayer (just as they'd be here if they were alive), it may be more than reasonable to say that original sin's impacts are not limited to this life alone...and on the issue of those who pass,
I'd tend to see provision in the sense of Mercy…..as God often made clear that He judges people on the basis of what they know rather than what they didn’t.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
guilty[/u] of sin at birth. As explained already, the guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed, but the effects of being born in a state of spiritual separation from God (the degree of which can be debated) are present. Yes, they are born sinners, but no, they are guilty of committing a sin that would send them to Hell. .
Interestingly enough, it'd seem that there's a bit of a universalistic dynamic that occurs with children. For due to the fact that they are innocent in the Lord's eyes, they all get into the prescence of the Lord/are saved by default--and alongside that would go others who may be in similar situations of helplessness (i.e. impaired/mentally disabled, those who are unable to truly tell differences). Grey Boyd discussed the issue in-depth in another place when it came to what he labeled baby universalism.

Of course, there are others who'd extend the view of Original Sin impacting all men via Adam and saying that the atonement of Christ (the Second Adam) would perhaps work in reverse by effectively ensuring all men will be impacted in reverse by ensuring they can have relationship again. But many differ. Dr Michael Brown came out against this in light of the book by Rob Bell entitled "Love Wins"--in which Bell stated that he believed in essentially what's known as Universal Reconcilliation...and Brown was on the opposite side stating that the death of Christ makes freedom from sin possible, but by no means does it mean that all men will find freedom from the effects of Adam's sin. On what Dr.Brown noted, some of what he said was discussed more in-depth elsewhere...as seen here in #59. Though I see where Brown was coming from, on some things I disagree. For even in believing in the effects of Original sin, as being for Evangelical Inclusivism ( as discussed in #3 , #20 #51 and #75 ), I'm of the mindset that we'll probably see more people in the life to come than we think--and for some who we may see, we may be more surprised to see them than we can often care to admit.

Others may be lost, of course--and that's always an issue. But God's Mercy is truly something difficult to comprehend many times (as Matthew 20 /Matthew 20:2 seems to note in regards to the parable of the workers in the vineyard).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Good posts and points, easy G!
Not certain as to what specific point you were speaking in reference to which you felt was good. But cool nonetheless
 
Upvote 0

Keffiyeh

Orthodox Jew
Oct 26, 2011
106
23
Visit site
✟15,340.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Orthodox Judaism completely rejects the doctrine of original sin.
In Genesis 2:7, the Bible states that G-d formed (vayyitzer) man. The spelling of this word is unusual: it uses two consecutive Yods instead of the one you would expect. The rabbis inferred that these Yods stand for the word "yetzer," which means impulse, and the existence of two Yods here indicates that humanity was formed with two impulses: a good impulse (the yetzer tov) and an evil impulse (the yetzer ra).

The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d's law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments. See Bar Mitzvah.

The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.

The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. The Talmud notes that without the yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs), man would not build a house, marry a wife, beget children or conduct business affairs. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion.

The yetzer ra is generally seen as something internal to a person, not as an external force acting on a person. The idea that "the devil made me do it" is not in line with the majority of thought in Judaism. Although it has been said that Satan and the yetzer ra are one and the same, this is more often understood as meaning that Satan is merely a personification of our own selfish desires, rather than that our selfish desires are caused by some external force.

People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

Criada

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 6, 2007
67,838
4,093
58
✟138,028.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Mod Hat On
dr-seuss-cat-in-hat-2.jpg


This thread has been cleaned to remove some flaming posts.
Please remember to address the post and not the poster.
Thanks

Mod Hat Off
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟187,250.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I don't know of any mainstream theologian that would be prepared to defend the notion that children are guilty of sin at birth. As explained already, the guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed, but the effects of being born in a state of spiritual separation from God (the degree of which can be debated) are present. Yes, they are born sinners, but no, they are guilty of committing a sin that would send them to Hell. .
Found something from one of my brothers in Christ that I really appreciated (coming from an EO viewpoint not often heard by certain circles). It's found in the article entitled Ancestral Sin vs. Original Sin--and the essay details the vast divergence between western/Scholastic theology and Orthodox Patristic theology with regard to the sin of Adam.

Shalom:):cool:
 
Upvote 0