The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

ok why do people think there is original sin?? bcs Augustine taught it or greek philosophers that said flesh is bad???

and what it Original Sin??? i think it is completely foreign idea to the Bible and jewish thought! tyvm

alexey

_________________
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

dont get me wrong there was Original Sin that was made by Adam and sin entered in to the World but they teaching about that original sin is in all humans is wrong !

_________________
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

It's basically an agreement with 1 Cor 15:22 that all have indeed died with Adam. That fact is then linked to how the death of Jesus is able to save us.

The Christian Cyclopedia gives a fair number of references without being that long. (inherited; hereditary; principal; capital; Adam's sin; nature-sin; person-sin). 1. In its ordinary meaning this term does not refer to the origin of sin but to the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring (hereditary guilt, Ro 5:12–19; Eph 2:3; cf. FC SD I 9) and the corruption of man's nature that occurred when sin entered and which inheres in the human will and inclinations. Cf. Gn 5:3; 6:5; 8:21; Jb 15:14; Ps 51:5; Jn 3:6; Ro 14:23. Original sin is not an activity but a quality, a state, an inherent condition. It exists, though there be no conscious, voluntary act of internal or external powers, of mind or body. It is “the chief sin, a root and fountainhead of all actual sins” (FC SD I 5).

Lot's of groups disagree. They say mankind didn't fall, that each person falls at some point when he gets old enough. Or they say we didn't die, we are just sick or blemished. But the basic thing is that we are indeed dead, opposed to God and cannot do other than our nature except by the grace of God. When we are saved, a new nature is there.

_________________
Marv
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NeXt Bible Learning Environment
The Bible NETwork Blogs

BeneSHOP: Help support Bible.org at no additional cost to you when you shop!

We know what the original sin was and we know the consequences. The consequences...death...has passed to all for all have sin.

In other words, we are all IN ADAM at birth, we all suffer the consequences of his sin, that is, we all must die. The solution is that we now must be IN CHRIST if we are to live.

Why should all humanity die because of the sin of Adam?

Adam represented all humanity. He was created with desires that could, if he so chose, oppose the will of God. Without the law there is no sin. If God had not established a law then there would have been no sin, and consequently, no death. But since God had established a law man was capable of breaking such law and subject to its consequences.

God's plan from the beginning was give hope to people that can and do sin. He did not create puppets whose only choice would be to submit to thier Creator. The establishment of more and more laws would only insure the fact that all are under sin and its penalty. They (the laws) actually, or ought to, cause us to seek salvation, not from ourselves but from God. The laws show us the weakness of our human flesh.

So, the fact that no man can keep God's laws perfectly means that he/she is still in Adam and must die. However:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:16-21)

Anyone who does not believe that God sent his son into the world to save the world is condemned already...they are still in Adam and his sin and are subject to death's destruction. To believe in Christ is to be in Christ and the only way to overcome sin and death
.

you are entitled to your opinion -- you are also entitled to be wrong

the wages of sin are death -- anyone born that cannot die of natural causes would merit the designation, "sinless" -- good luck with that

here's a goofy idea -- if Eve came from Adam then her DNA must be the same as his since it was an extraction vs. a coupling -- so that makes Adam's chromosomes XX -- yet guys today are always XY -- so 1 conjecture is the Fall caused a mutation in the male genes & this defect has been passed on ever since -- it's perhaps 1 reason for the Virgin Birth

the whole pt is moot since EVERYONE SINS...

So alexy, you are a Pelagian. By the way, David said "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." (Ps 51:5) This is what "original sin" means.

A very good verse, psycho. I must learn it. I didn't know it yet. It comes very close to what that term means in my eyes: sin was inherited by all descendants from Adam (and Eve), or Adam transmitted it to all his children, the children to Adam's grandchildren, the grandchildren to Adam's grandgrandchildren ... and so forth until today. At least this is the idea I connect to "original sin".


frenzy

Ps 51 rocks -- some argue it's poetic language & so should not be taken literally -- i would argue they're in da Nile...

This isn't exhaustive, but here are four readings of Psalm 51:5:

1. When God knit David together in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16), he made him sinful, ensuring that David received the taint that comes from the first human.
    
2. David is using hyperbole, similar to "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Psalm 58:3, KJV). This isn't speaking of demon children that can speak as soon as they are born, but is emphasizing their wickedness through a poetic exaggeration.
    
3. David is speaking of the nature of his conception: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." He was conceived through an extramarital relationship by either his mother or father. Like the other two options, this is speculative, but it would explain some other details in David's story. For instance, when Samuel meets with Jesse to anoint one of his sons king, David is not thought to be necessary in the proceedings (1 Samuel 16). David is not consecrated with the other sons (v. 5), and Jesse allows him to be out keeping the sheep (v. 11). Jesse only presents David when prompted, as if he didn't consider David a full son. Perhaps it is just because David is not favoured by his father, but young age alone should not have disqualified him from being present, and he is already strong enough to tend sheep by himself.
    
4. David is speaking of the sinfulness of the sex act.

My vote goes to either 2 or 3 (or even a combination), but the point is that the verse is not an open-and-shut case for any reading. The only reading I see as totally untenable is the fourth.

_________________
"Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (1 Cor. 15:58, NRSV)

Unmarked Scripture is from the ESV.

anyone who has every honestly looked into the depths of his/her own heart acknowledges the truth of this psalm ....

It's companion in the NT is Romans 7 ... especially :

Romans 7:14-25 14 For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin. 15 For I don’t understand what I am doing. For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me. 18 For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh. For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want! 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me. 21 So, I find the law that when I want to do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inner being. 23 But I see a different law in my members waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Context (NET)

again, anyone who has tried not to sin will understand the force of Paul's words.

_________________
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Hi alexey,

Christianity has at least six versions of the doctrine of original sin (the main ones being based on the theories of Pelagius, Augustine, Arminius, Placeus, Cocceius, New England 'New School'), all dealing with different interpretations of its two components (original pollution and original guilt). Strong, in his Systematic Theology reviews the various interpretations at pages 593-660. Berkhoff, in The History of Christian Doctrines, traces the development of the various doctrines at pages 127-158.

To say that the doctrine of original sin is:

somewhat overstates the case. The traditional Jewish view is closest to the Pelagian theory (ie all sin by following Adam's example). In Jewish thought, we've all inherited mortality and an 'evil inclination' (yetzer ra') from Adam, but not Adam's guilt; neither does the inherited 'evil inclination' confer guilt on Adam's descendants (some Christian doctrines assert that it does). Stern, in his Jewish New Testament Commentary, goes through the main Christian theories and the objections to them, plus a discussion of the Jewish beliefs, at pages 358-373, bringing a Messianic Jewish perspective (though not a Messianic Jewish doctrine) to the debate.

BTW, Ps 51:5 (Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me) does not say that David was born guilty of sin - it refers to his mother's state. And, when speaking of the universality of sin and its consequences, perhaps we should consider verses such as 1 Cor 15:22 (For as in Adam all die) in the light of what happened to Enoch and Elijah.

So, getting back to the original question and your follow-up post where you said:

it seems you've already picked out a particular view of original sin that you don't agree with. So perhaps one might respond with the question: To which theory of original sin do you refer?

even if Original Sin does not exist, people in the whole universe still SIN...

_________________
Angelee Pogay
It's about "WHO" matters the most.

Paul answered your question 2000 years ago,

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinnned," Romans 5:12 NAS

"For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19 NAS

Read Romans 5:12-21. This pericope provides the clearest teaching on this issue in the entire NT.

_________________
There is a tradition throughout the history of theology, of saying things vigorously, combatively. William Edgar, Christian Apologetics, Cornelius Van Til

And so you offered a demonstration on how to be wrong. how nice! TYVM!

heh.

Original sin, meaning the first sin that set the train rolling. There was a first sin. Ultimately whatever combination of mouth and tongue twisting grunts you put to it, (whatever you call it), it comes down to man trying to take charge of his life and not let God have the control. Hubris, Pride, Narcissism, ME ME ME ME ME ME. That's the source of all sin.

AND when paul preached on FLESH. HE DID NOT MEAN YOUR BODY. You'd make more sense of some verses studying the verses with SARX in them to learn the difference. It's subtle, metaphorical, but obvious with any study at all.

The Greek philosophy over the flesh, existed before Paul used the term that way I think. I may be confused now to be honest. But I think tha ttime frame is right.

XC -- people who reveal a lil' too much emotional, dogmatic argumentativeness in their posts merit a lil' gentle ribbing imo -- the fact behind what i wrote (that you quoted) is also something we each need to accept...that being, we are all wrong about some doctrinal belief -- so we all need to chill all when discussing non-core doctrine