• 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.

Why do we inherit sin?

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,754
14,199
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,421,787.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The Orthodox Church holds that when Adam sinned against God, he introduced death to the world. Since all men are born of the same human stock as Adam, all men inherit death. Death means that the life of every human being comes to an end (mortality); but also that death generates in us the passions (anger, hate, lust, greed, etc.), disease and aging.
1 Cor 15:56-57 said:
Now the sting of death [is] sin, and the power of sin the law; but thanks to God, who gives us the victory by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:12-14 said:
For this [cause], even as by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death; and thus death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until law sin was in [the] world; but sin is not put to account when there is no law; but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even upon those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is [the] figure of him to come.
We don't die because we sin, we sin because we die.

John.
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
blighty said:
Hello muffler dragon.

Btw, in Judaism, there is such a thing as "evil inclination" but this is different from "original sin".

Interesting stuff. To see the same belief that Arminians have infecting the chosen people even back then? I suppose they believed this inclination could be overcome with God's help if one were willing, just like Rome says?HaHa!

Your cynicism and condescension is noted.

blighty said:
Y'shua, the Apostles, and first-century believers probably did not hold to this consideration.

That is also very interesting, your use of the word 'probably' is probably the first time I've encountered a 'probably' on a discussion forum! Usually everybody is certain! I must say it has taken my breathe away.
I see from the number of posts you have that this 'probably' had better be handled with caution!

You can handle whatever I say however you want. I couldn't care less. The same sentiment is felt for your attitude and manner of presentation.

"Probably" is not a common word for myself in posts. However, it obviously reflects a "greater than 50%" situation.

I'll be sure to evaluate all of your words with such self-aggrandizement in the future.

blighty said:
What is it, do you believe in original sin or not?

I do not.

blighty said:
Original Sin" is not a Jewish consideration;

No nor a lot of the Western Churches if I'm to believe what some say but that is not our business as Elijah discovered when He discovered that our Father has His people in reserve. My business is to preach the gospel and without original sin there can be no gospel as the fallen angels found.

johnp.

It appears our differences will mount the more I converse with you. Coupled with the attitude of your posts, I imagine that our introduction will be brief and short-lived.

I view the gospel differently than you; therefore, your premise for preaching your gospel is well without my range of interest or concern. That is also why your concept of "original sin" can fall and have zero impact on my considerations.

I think it might be best to discontinue communications between the two of us, as I find your type to be rather unpleasant.
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
For those so inclined, I thought I would present some information regarding the "evil inclination" according to Judaism.

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/233/Q5/

article said:
Marie Dupont wrote:
Dear Rabbi,

Thank you for your page. It is the most informative and enjoyable page on the web. I was wondering what Judaism say about man being born evil. Thank you for your answer. Regards.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Marie Dupont,

No, man is not "born evil."

The Torah says that "the inclination in man's heart is evil from his youth." (Genesis 8:21) The Talmud explains "youth" here to mean from the time of birth. However, this evil inclination is external; it is not intrinsic to a person's pure soul. Our pure soul is given to us even earlier, at the time of conception.

So, Judaism sees man as basically good, created in G-d's image, but with temptation towards evil. While the evil inclination is strong, Judaism believes that a person can choose to overcome it. This is the concept of free choice, which is basically the purpose of our existence: To choose good over evil.

Sources:

Yerushalmi Berachot 3:5
Bereishet Rabba 34

http://www.convert.org/differ.htm#FREE

article said:
FREE WILL AND ORIGINAL SIN

Judaism does not accept the notion of original sin, the idea that people are bad from birth and cannot remove sin by themselves but need an act of grace provided by the sacrificial death of Jesus as atonement for all of humanity's sins. For Christians, there are no other forms of salvation other than through Jesus.

In contrast, the Jewish view is that humans are not born naturally good or naturally bad. They have both a good and a bad inclination in them, but they have the free moral will to choose the good and this free moral will can be more powerful than the evil inclination. Indeed, Jewish ethics requires the idea that humans decide for themselves how to act. This is so because temptation, and with it the possibility of sin, allows people to choose good and thus have moral merit. The Jewish view is not that humans are helpless in the face of moral error.
 
Upvote 0

armothe

Living in HIS kingdom...
May 22, 2002
977
40
51
Visit site
✟24,061.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Constitution
blighty said:
There is no age limit to being regenerated and as with John there is no other requirement to be made for regeneration other than to exsist as one who was chosen before the creation of the world for the love of God to be lavished on.

Nice to meet you too.

Could you please address why God told the Israelites why their infants and children could not distinguish between good and evil? Thus, they were exempt from the sins their fathers and were able to enter the promised land along with Joshua and Caleb (the only adults who had faith in God).

Ask most Christians and they will agree that the entance into Canaan was an antitype for Christ's future kingdom. There are those who believe and are saved into the new promise, those which disbelieve, sin and are prevented from entering, and those who enter because they are incapable of sinning.

-A

PS. Elizabeth's use of her baby (John) jumping in her womb is an expression most women use when they get excited about something. That passage in no way indicates that John- while in the womb- fully heard, comprehended and reacted to Mary's news.
 
Upvote 0

blighty

Member
Jan 15, 2005
18
0
75
nottingham
✟22,628.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hello muffler dragon.

I think it might be best to discontinue communications between the two of us, as I find your type to be rather unpleasant.

I must apologise if I have caused offence to you, this was not in my thoughts when I posted.
I'm unsure why you feel the way you do. I can see that an insensitivity is there in my post, a certain flipancy, but I thought I was taking up your mood. I erred. I am sorry. If it is a question of style this can be changed. If you set bounderies I will not cross them.

I'll be sure to evaluate all of your words with such self-aggrandizement in the future.

I do expect people to correct me if I am out of line. This is the way we can all get on together, by adujusting. If we speak only to those we like or agree with what do we learn. Jesus said we must love one another, bear with one another and in this way we can be friends and affect each others life for the better.

I think it might be best to discontinue communications between the two of us, as I find your type to be rather unpleasant.

I do hope not. I can change my attitude and and style, I can't change what I believe but maybe you could help me learn how to present myself and my beliefs in a more sensitive way.

Again I am sorry for the offence.

johnp.
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Blighty:

I have to admit that I am taken aback by your post.

Apology accepted.

blighty said:
Hello muffler dragon.

I think it might be best to discontinue communications between the two of us, as I find your type to be rather unpleasant.

I must apologise if I have caused offence to you, this was not in my thoughts when I posted.
I'm unsure why you feel the way you do. I can see that an insensitivity is there in my post, a certain flipancy, but I thought I was taking up your mood. I erred. I am sorry. If it is a question of style this can be changed. If you set bounderies I will not cross them.

My style is simple, and my process has become the same. I joke after I have known people for a while and see how they present themselves. If I do it as an introductory consideration, I let them know.

Until I get to know you better, it may be best to put some sort of "smiley" or mood type language to let me know where you're coming from.

blighty said:
I'll be sure to evaluate all of your words with such self-aggrandizement in the future.

I do expect people to correct me if I am out of line. This is the way we can all get on together, by adujusting. If we speak only to those we like or agree with what do we learn. Jesus said we must love one another, bear with one another and in this way we can be friends and affect each others life for the better.

I never came into this thread to establish a debate. Instead, I answered the OP, and brought the information from a different point of view. That is my M.O.; especially since there are few on this entire forum that see things as I do. I don't care if someone accepts what I write or not; instead, I care about respect and an open ear.

blighty said:
I think it might be best to discontinue communications between the two of us, as I find your type to be rather unpleasant.

I do hope not. I can change my attitude and and style, I can't change what I believe but maybe you could help me learn how to present myself and my beliefs in a more sensitive way.

Again I am sorry for the offence.

johnp.

Apparently, the lack of knowledge of each other has caused a semi-divide. Your congeniality and remorse has (in my eyes) re-established the time line and I'm more than willing to start over.

*hand shake*

Let's move on...
 
Upvote 0

prodromos

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2003
23,754
14,199
59
Sydney, Straya
✟1,421,787.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
muffler dragon said:
For those so inclined, I thought I would present some information regarding the "evil inclination" according to Judaism.
The quotes you posted line up pretty much with the view held by the Orthodox Church.

John
 
Upvote 0

blighty

Member
Jan 15, 2005
18
0
75
nottingham
✟22,628.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
armothe.

Could you please address why God told the Israelites why their infants and children could not distinguish between good and evil?

I am sorry if I misunderstand, please bear with me. There are many pitfalls in this question. I believe that if the children could not distinguish between good and evil it was because they were not taught to distinguish between good and evil. For one not to be able to distinguish between good and evil would leave one in total darkness.

Thus, they were exempt from the sins their fathers and were able to enter the promised land along with Joshua and Caleb (the only adults who had faith in God).

I have a real problem with that.
They were not exempt from the consequencies of their father's sins. It was this generation that were the ones that had to take the land. If their father's had obeyed 40 years earlier they would have have been living in a land of peace and secrurity. Instead they had to finish their father's business because their fathers had no faith in God. Faith is a gift.
We do not need exemption from our father's sins. We are not judged for our father's sins we are judged for our own and the ones that others cause because of us but we do suffer from the consequences of our father's sins.

Joshua and Caleb were not the only ones who had faith in God, Moses also possessed faith but he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land.

That the Israelite's children were exempt from the sins of their fathers? I'm not sure what you mean. That they did not have to go round and round in circles in the wilderness any more because of their parents refusal to trust in God and cross the Jordon is true but God told those that refused they would never cross, He did not say the Israelites would not. He never said He would leave Israel without a land but had promised them a land of milk and honey and He is the God of the promises.
That they crossed did not depend on the spirituality of the Israelites but on God's promise. They, the children of the stiff-necks, were no different in nature to their parents but God was for them, He had plans, as He was against their parents, because that was His will, and His will does not depend on us, so it was with their children. Servant Israel had the major role in God's plan, His plan to reveal His glory, in all it's glory to all His creation and to that end Israel was moved by the Sovereign will of God to cross the Jordon, as a type, against the odds.
That was a great sin of their fathers, not trusting in God. To fear those in the land of giants instead of believing. 1948, 1967 and 1973 shows us without a shadow that God is fulfilling His promise in that Israel is back and immovable for the purpose of God is that Israel shall be when He returns. The end is nigh.

The Body of Christ is the antitype. The Holy Nation is the Israel of Israel. We are the reality whether we are Jew or Gentile, male or female. Being reborn in the image of God makes you one with the Almighty. Being reborn is the reality of crossing the Jordon. Being reborn is the crossing of the Jordon into God's rest. His Sabbath, His resting from labour in everlasting love in a land of milk and honey. Strawberries and cream!
Not all of Israel is Israel. Only those having Abraham's faith are Abraham's children.

As it was in Israel so it is with the Church. Only those of Abraham's seed enter into His presence with unveiled faces. The rest are blinded.

I am sorry if I failed to answer your questions.

johnp.
 
Upvote 0

blighty

Member
Jan 15, 2005
18
0
75
nottingham
✟22,628.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Hello Kripost.

This is what I think.

We don't inherit the guilt of Original Sin, only the consequences.

We don't inherit the guilt of Original Sin I agree. The consequencies of Adam's actions to us though are onerous.
As Adam was created in the image of his Maker we are created in the image of ours, Adam. Gen 5:1-3. It is this condition, separated from God, conceived out of communion with God, that are the consequencies of Adam's disobedience, our condemnation, visited on us.

Romans 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Transmission of guilt of Original Sin is an innovation found only in the west.

I think there is confusion over this transmission of sin. No one is ever guilty for the sins of another. That type of transmission is wrong but I would not say that it originated in the West. People are people, if it was thought of in the West then it would have been thought of in the East, North and South. People are people. Where the word of God flourishes so do opinions.
There are in this world two peoples. The saints and the sinners. Those that find themselves in Christ and those that find themselves in serious trouble, neither able to claim their estate was of their making, unable to claim the glory as selfmade saints or selfmade sinners.
I do not believe the above because I was born English but because I was born again.

I think there to be only two ways of looking at the original sin's effects. One way is to think that it damaged us, crippled us but did not prevent us from seeking God. The second way to think of it is that it caused a total inability to do good, to love the Lord our God with any of our whole being.
The wages of sin is death. Babies die. Babies are receiving the wages of sin. Babies are guilty of something.
I don't believe any are found guilty for Adam's sin but their lack of communion with God in spirit. Man's spirit, man's communion with his Maker was severed the moment Adam touched that fruit. He died spiritually and his will was overpowered by the fallen nature. It is in this condition we are all conceived in because Adam was the mould we were made from.

johnp.
 
Upvote 0

holyrokker

Contributor
Sep 4, 2004
9,390
1,750
California
Visit site
✟20,850.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Death is the result of sin in the world. Death is not a direct result of each individual person's sin. I will die someday, not because of any particular sin that I have committed, but because it death is what we have "inherited".
It is not a sin nature that has been inherited. We are born into this world with bodies, but without the Holy Spirit. (John 3:7) Doesn't it make sense that we would follow the inclinations of our bodies apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit?

Here's a link to a very good article on Romans 5:12 http://www.cybertime.net/~d2l/romhtml/rom5b.html

Here's a brief quote from it:
"5:12b. The consequence of Adam's sin is expressed in the next clause of Romans 5:12, "and death through sin." God had given to Adam an explicit command, a prohibition, the transgression of which would result in death. "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.'" (Gen. 2:16-17) At the serpent's suggestion Eve ate of the tree and gave it to her husband, Adam, who also ate (Gen. 3:6). Thus did Adam transgress God's command and he died. In what sense did they die that day as a result of their transgression? Obviously they did not die physically. Since they did not die physically that day they must have died spiritually that day. This is apparent from the fact that they hid themselves from the presence of the God (Gen. 3:8) and eventually they were driven out of the garden away from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24).

As physical death is the separation of man's spirit (person or self) from his body, so spiritual death is separation of man's spirit from God. It is the opposite of spiritual life, which is a personal relation to God, fellowship and communion with God (John 17:3; 5:24; Eph. 2:1). Spiritual death is separation, alienation, from God (Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21). It is not something wrong inside of man, but a negative or wrong relation between man and God. Spiritual death is like a barrier or iron curtain between man and God. Death is also a power. It is personified in the Scriptures as a king who reigns over the whole human race. Paul says, "by the offense of one, death reigned through the one" (Rom. 5:17; see also Rom. 5:14). Death as a kingly power separates man from God (spiritual death) and brings about eventually the separation of man's spirit from his body (physical death). Physical death is the outward final expression and natural concomitant of spiritual death (Psa. 88:3-5; Isa. 38:10-19).

5:12c. The effect of Adam's transgression on the whole race of Adam's descendants is expressed in the next clause of Romans 5:12, "and so death passed unto all men." Man today, Adam's posterity, is thus different from Adam himself. As Adam was originally created, he was spiritually alive, walking in fellowship with God. There was no barrier between him and God. But this not true of us, his descendants. We are born spiritually dead and in the process of dying physically. From birth we are in a state of alienation from God. Not because of anything we have done, but because of Adam. Thus "sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam." (Rom. 5:13-14) Man is spiritually dead not because of his own sins but because of Adam's sin. This spiritual death along with physical death was transmitted unto all men from Adam.

Note that Romans 5:12 does not say sin passed unto all men but instead it says that death passed unto all men. It is death, not sin, that has been transmitted from Adam to his descendants. This verse contradicts the assumption of the doctrine of Original Sin which assumes that it is sin that has passed unto all men from Adam. Paul, however, teaches in this passage that it is death, not sin, that is passed unto all men (See also verses 14 -- "death reigned", verse 15 -- "by the trespass of one the many died", and verse 17 -- "by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one".)

5:12d. The connection between Adam's sin and the sin of his descendants is given in the last clause of this verse, eph ho pantes hamarton, "because of which all sinned." The interpretation of this clause hangs on the meaning of the Greek prepositional phrase at its beginning, eph ho. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun ho. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Its primary meaning is superposition, on, upon. Since the relative pronoun ho is in the dative case, the metaphorical meaning of ground, or reason seems best here for the preposition epi. Thus it should be translated "on the ground of", "by reason of", "on the condition of", "because of". The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language the relative pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number and gender. Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender. If the relative pronoun ho is taken as masculine and the word ho thanatos [the death] in the preceding clause, which is nearest noun in the singular and masculine, is taken as its antecedent, then the prepositional phrase eph ho would be equivalent to epi thanato [because of death]. In that case the phrase should be translated "because of which" or "upon which condition." With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated "because of which all sinned" and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin. But how is it possible for all men to sin because of death? How does death lead to sin? This may be explained in the following way. Since man is born into this world spiritually dead, not knowing the true God personally, and since man by the structure of his freedom must choose a god, then he will obviously choose a false god because he does not personally know the true God. Since the true God is not a living reality to him, and since he must have a god, man will choose some part or aspect of reality as his god, deifying it. "...they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator..." (Rom. 1:25). Paul, writing to the Galatians, described this relation of death to sin when he reminded them of their condition before they became Christians. "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods" (Gal. 4:8). Not to "know God" personally as a living reality is to be spiritually dead. And a man is "in bondage to beings that are no gods" when he chooses them as his gods. He is in bondage to them because he does not personally know the only true God, that is, because he is spiritually dead. Thus man sins (idolatry basically) because he is spiritually dead. This relationship between death and sin is what Paul is describing in the last clause of Romans 5:12. Because of death all men sinned. Spiritual death in the case of Adam's descendants leads to sin; not the other way around."
 
Upvote 0

armothe

Living in HIS kingdom...
May 22, 2002
977
40
51
Visit site
✟24,061.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Constitution
blighty said:
I believe that if the children could not distinguish between good and evil it was because they were not taught to distinguish between good and evil. For one not to be able to distinguish between good and evil would leave one in total darkness.

Actually, that leaves them where Adam and Eve were prior to their sin -Sinless

blighty said:
They were not exempt from the consequencies of their father's sins.

Of course. A person's sin may indeed have consequences spread to another. I'm not denying that. But what you stated above is a far cry from a genetic impuning of sin.

blighty said:
It was this generation that were the ones that had to take the land.

God's promise of Canaan was made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph - to be carried out by the generation which left Egypt (see below verse 30).

blighty said:
If their father's had obeyed 40 years earlier they would have have been living in a land of peace and secrurity.

So what does this tell you?

Numbers 14:22-23 & 30 - "Surely all the men who have seen My glory and My signs which I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet have put Me to the test these ten times and have not listened to My voice, shall by no means see the land which I swore to their fathers, nor shall any of those who spurned Me see it...surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to settle you, "

One must admit either:

1) God's plan for that particular generation to enter Canaan was thwarted by their (man's) act of disobedience.

2) It was God's plan/will that these people sin against Him. That is, God must have made them sin in order for His holy will to be accomplished.

blighty said:
We are not judged for our father's sins we are judged for our own and the ones that others cause because of us but we do suffer from the consequences of our father's sins.

Again, we seem to agree here, but your previous statements seem to indicate that you believe young children are sinful (born sinful?) and are in need of regeneration.

blighty said:
Joshua and Caleb were not the only ones who had faith in God, Moses also possessed faith but he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land.

Moses demonstrated lack of faith when he hit the rock with his staff instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20). Because of this he was not allowed to enter the promised land.

blighty said:
That they crossed did not depend on the spirituality of the Israelites but on God's promise. They, the children of the stiff-necks, were no different in nature to their parents but God was for them, He had plans, as He was against their parents, because that was His will, and His will does not depend on us, so it was with their children.

Yet His will was dependent on who would see the promised land. He planned for the parents to see Canaan. They sinned. God punished them and turned the promise over to their children (who were not sinful at that time).

My original point was that infants and children do not sin.

-A
 
Upvote 0

muffler dragon

Ineffable
Apr 7, 2004
7,320
382
50
✟31,896.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
armothe said:
Moses demonstrated lack of faith when he hit the rock with his staff instead of speaking to it (Numbers 20). Because of this he was not allowed to enter the promised land.

Sorry for being pedantic, but it was actually disobedience. He was told to speak to the rock, but instead, struck it twice.

Six one way, half a dozen the other; but sometimes it makes a difference.

m.d.
 
Upvote 0

St. Worm2

Active Member
May 15, 2004
356
25
68
✟16,771.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Here is an interesting passage that I don't believe has been brought up yet in this discussion:

"You were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)." (Ephesians 2:1-5)

I haven't studied this subject for quite some time, but isn't Adam considered by many to be the 'federal' (or representative) head of our race, and that as a result of his sin, we too are counted sinners, his sin being imputed to us .. :confused:

Here is a web site that's teeming with articles by various authors on this very subject.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/originalsin.html

Yours and His,
David
 
Upvote 0
P

Pilgrim and stranger

Guest
theotherguy said:

Q. 26. How is original sin conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity?

A. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin. (Psalm 51:5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. Job 14:4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. John 3:6. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.)
 
Upvote 0