The theory of Original Sin is FALSE

[cygnusx1]

It's just a coincidence! Maybe a government conspiracy.

and the fact we are all born with consciences too , my that was lucky !

 

[cygnusx1]

No God is good all the time.

man , I had to read that a couple of times , punctation makes all the difference

Therefore God does not create sinners. Babies may be potential sinners, but they are not sinners.

OK , God makes potential sinners , and as it happens all of them sin pretty quickly , so yes God makes sinners .

Tell me at what age are God's people instructed to teach their offspring the Law ?

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnusx1,

absolutely Kevin , not once in this entire thread have the deniers of Original sin explained why sin is so universal , they just seem to ignore what is yelling at them .

can anything be more universal than death.

You haven't read the thread very well.

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnusx1,

one might begin by sins ability to deceive us , that is right , sin is not merely a conscious act it is a usurping power.

Sins don't deceive, Two things basicly decieve you. Your nature's influence upon your desire and will and satan.

the Law was given to increase sin not bring about obedience , if the command of God is aimed at our ability then all can be saved by the Law .

The law did not increase sin. It merely showed us what constitutes sin. We are not saved by the law, but we are saved by obedience through love. Love supercedes the law. It is an obligation of we being creatures that we align our wills with His will. The law could never give life. This is why you have such a difficult time in understanding the fall. We are not being punished, we are not being saved from God or God's wrath as it is understood in the west. We are not saved by works because works cannot give life. That is why Christ needed to come. Only the creator of life can restore life and Christ did that through His death defeating death by His resurrection.

Those commands are expressly directed at you because you have all the capability and ability to follow them, IF you desire to do so. That is the problem. Desire.

we sin by submitting to our sin nature ; the flesh

Correct, which denies the whole issue of imputation of sin or a sin nature. Your person, the heart, desire, will is influenced by our flesh, our fallen nature and you submit to it or to satan. Your nature cannot submit to anything.

man is a slave of sin , only those in Christ have been set free and even they have to continue putting their sin nature ; flesh , to death , Paul said "I die daily." why die if he could simply choose not to sin ? because Paul knew the root , the spring , the source of his sin , it doesn't just appear .

ONLY those who have been saved from death, have been set free of that bondage. That happens to be all men without exception. Unless you know of some who never died, are not mortal.

And therein lies the use of our free will. A believer is constantly warring against the flesh and the spirit. He is warring against satan and his spirit. That can only be done by a free will. We are not even automatons of our nature. Which is what a sin nature implies or imputation of sin.

The root of sin is death. The sting of death is sin.

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnusx1,

can anything be more universal than death.

You haven't read the thread very well.

without sin there is no death , Original Sin is what this thread is about not Original death .

fix death without fixing sin and what have you got ? everlasting sin !

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnusx1,

Sins don't deceive,

I am not talking about the act of sin but sin itself , sin has the power to deceive .

"one might begin by sins ability to deceive us , that is right , sin is not merely a conscious act it is a usurping power."

even as sin crouching at the door is certainly not an act of sin , it is the sin nature / the flesh personified , it crouches waiting to deceive and control .

sin actions don't occur spontaniously they have a source , Christ crucified that source .

Rom.6

[1] What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
[2] God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
[3] Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
[4] Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
[5] For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
[6] Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

 

[Zeena]

Hey Zeena

Hi there Joveia, welcome to the thread

*snip*
Original sin is working out good and evil for yourself. You have the choice to see things from a selfish point-of-view. And with that ability, everyone does what is right in their own eyes, so all have fallen short of God's glory.

Not possible 'cuz God said 'they've become LIKE US, knowing good and evil'

Unless of course, you're gonna accuse HIM of 'original sin'?

IOW;

It's not a 'sin' to know good and evil, but a 'sin' to commit evil

 

[cygnusx1]

Cygnusx1,


The law did not increase sin. It merely showed us what constitutes sin. .

I sure wish you knew your Bible , and I don't accept my quoting it is simply my misunderstanding it , words have meanings !

Rom 5:20

[20] Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnusx1,

it wasn't simply a text , there are several scripture showing what sin nature is ;

the human body is good , but , flesh (sin nature) is evil

You haven't produced one as yet. Including this one. You have not explained just how a nature can be evil and then have us actually do sin. What is happening is that we sin because of the immense influence of the flesh, the passions upon us. So much so that we do them involuntarily. Again, if we sinned by nature you have put satan out of business. Maybe that is what you also believe. Western theologies all make sin, death as a result of God's acts of creation. Nothing in the Bible ever says this.

You can keep coming up with texts but not a single one balances with the concept of a sin nature or that sin is imputed somehow. Our nature is not even evil. It produces evil in our members.

the sin nature is hereditary ;

you will not find that in scripture either, It is death or our mortal nature that is inherited. Never says sin nature. We are sinful because we sin. We don't sin because we are sin.

far from Paul reducing sin to an act of the will which is utterly false , Paul even says that sometimes he sins without his consent ! is that not evryones experience ? it is mine .

Yes, involuntary sins. But even those If we focus on them we can ascertain them and control them. If we have a sin nature they cannot be controlled, they cannot even be prevented. Addictions are this type. The abuse has so riddled our bodies that it demands that we continue. But all addictions are correctable which would be impossible with a sin nature. The problem with a sin nature is that Christ's redeeming work would be worthless for man.

That is the problem with western theologies because they all see man as being saved from wrath. Being saved by Christ who was the scapegoat and paid the ransom to the Father. As if the Father holds us in bondage. This stems from the idea also that God created or ordained death and sin.

Salvation is first Christ granting the life lost through Adam. Then the reconciliation of man to God by forgiveness of sin. But repentance means to turn from sin. To curb sin. None of this is possible if either sin is imputed, or we have a sin nature. They both demand necessity.

In western theologies Christ is simply a blanket. Man continues to sin as usual. But Christ does not see the sin because He has covered it with His righteousness. There is no change in man, but there is a change in God's disposition. The theologies have everthing backwards. they have it backwards because of one man, maybe two.

Augustines concepts were dead until Anselm developed his forensic or satisfaction theory and RCC accepted it and all protestant reformers simply adopted or took it without question. What he did was to take only one of the metaphors in scripture which describes ways one can look at Christ and man's salvation and made it a stand-alone doctrine of salvation.

 

[Zeena]

What you are saying is that David is exaggerating. Hyperbole is commonly used in scripture to press home a point by making a sometimes comically, and wildly ridiculous statement to illustrate that point (Like Jesus did when he told us to take the plank of wood out of our eye in order to remove the speck of dust from our brothers eye.)

If David were using hyperbole there would be an undeniably extravagant obvious and intentional exaggeration employed. He doesn't do that. He makes a statement that has no plainly obvious ring of exaggeration to it. Unless of course for the purposes of eisegesis some may want to read out of it what they want it to say to fit their preferred interpretation.

David does EXACTLY that for the Jewish people NEVER thought of man being 'born a sinner'. This is evident in wedding vows;

Harei atah mekudah li

"You are HOLY unto me."

It is not possible to be 'holy' and a 'sinner'.

 

[elman]

man , I had to read that a couple of times , punctation makes all the difference

Sorry about that, should have put the comma in.


OK , God makes potential sinners , and as it happens all of them sin pretty quickly , so yes God makes sinners .

Tell me at what age are God's people instructed to teach their offspring the Law ?

the law of love others? From infancy.

 

[Zeena]

Because the thread title is the assertion that the theory of original sin is false. The question of whether God tortures infants in hell is, granted related to the subject of original sin but is really a sub category of this specific discussion. Your contribution has the potential to derail the discussion off into another category and should be discussed under that category.
I noticed from your public profile that you are an attorney so I am sure you are well acquainted with the importance of remaining within the context of the immediate and specific topic under discussion.
I would be happy to discuss the question that you raise. But is is really quite irrelevant within this immediate context.

Jesus came a man, He was BORN, will you accuse HIM of original sin?

OR, will you make some twisted doctrine to imagine Him incapable of sinning, in keeping with the saying that He came 'without sin'.

He was tempted like as we are, in all points, YET without sin.

 

[Zeena]

the law of love others? From infancy.

And THAT..

Is the FULFILLMENT of the law!

 

[elman]

without sin there is no death , Original Sin is what this thread is about not Original death .

fix death without fixing sin and what have you got ? everlasting sin !

I don't think the consequences of sin is physical death. We all die physically, both the righteous and the unrighteous. Sin is about spiritual death, the killing of the soul. When we have put on Christ, we still die physically. It is spiritual life that we hope for in Jesus.

 

[Zeena]

and the fact we are all born with consciences too , my that was lucky !

The FACT that we are all born with a CLEAR conscience is evident;

Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

A conscience can only BECOME defiled if it is once UNdefiled.

 

[Zeena]

*snip*
OK , God makes potential sinners , and as it happens all of them sin pretty quickly , so yes God makes sinners .

Sin is in the world!

People sin, children see this, and so they grow up KNOWING what sin is!

 

[Kevin777]

Jesus came a man, He was BORN, will you accuse HIM of original sin?

OR, will you make some twisted doctrine to imagine Him incapable of sinning, in keeping with the saying that He came 'without sin'.

He was tempted like as we are, in all points, YET without sin.

In post 842 Zeena says this in response to one of my posts.

"apart from the Faith that is in Christ Jesus, man is incapable of abstaining from sin. He lacks the Power of God to resist temptation"

So I see her own words in contradiction here, Do you?

Looks like no one had to come up with a twisted doctrine ,she twisted her own doctrine

 

[elman]

Sin is in the world!

People sin, children see this, and so they grow up KNOWING what sin is!

I think God writes on our hearts that loving others is good and being unloving to others is sin.

 

[oworm]

In post 842 Zeena says this in response to one of my posts.

"apart from the Faith that is in Christ Jesus, man is incapable of abstaining from sin. He lacks the Power of God to resist temptation"

So I see her own words in contradiction here, Do you?

That's why I have stopped responding to Zeena's posts to me.

 

[Rightglory]

Jesusfreak5000,

I suppose I have come to realize in the study of this topic (Original Sin) that this is one of the most problematic theological areas.

That depends on where you stand. I don't have a problem with it as an Orthodox. The teaching of the early Church regarding creation, creation and purpose of man, and the fall were delineated by early Church Fathers, Iraneous, Justin, Clement of Rome and others. None of them even mentioned the notion that sin or guilt of Adam is transferable. All put death the consequence of Adams sin as the basis of the fall.

It was not ever a point of disagreement, even now with the Church for 2000 years. When Anselm wrote what later became RCC doctrine of the notion of "Original Sin" as understood by them the western See had departed from the Church and established the RCC. By the time of the Reformation it was a basic doctine of Catholocism. We know they saw an inherent problem because it was not until 1854 that they declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary to correct it.

The protestant reformers simply adopted the whole concept from beginning to end. The biggest problem with protestantism as it has developed is that if there is a problem, it is disregarded and those that disagree with Original Sin would simply start a new church. I am not aware of any starting on that issue.

Another issue which has been shown in this thread is that there is no apparent theology or explanation of just what a sin nature might be, or how sin can be imputed and by whom. Proof texts have been presented but none of them either use the terms, imputed sin, or a sin nature as the basis of the fall. None of them show that man sins of necessity or is sin.

No one has disagreed that sin is the cause of the fall, but is not the fall itself. The fall is the consequence or the condemnation against that sin. Man became mortal, man lost the vivifying life of God/Christ.

It effected the entire universe since man is so intrinsically interconnected with matter. What is also a logical outcome of such a notion as imputed sin, satan is banished as a moving force in this world. All that is wrong with the world is laid upon God because He created it. When the blame goes directly to satan who held the world through the power of death and sin resulting from that death. It is he who took man captive and it is Christ that freed mankind from that captivity. Christ defeated death. Death is what holds man for ransom, not God or even Satan. Christ paid that penalty.