PDA

View Full Version : A closer look at "Original Sin"



holyrokker
Oct 12th 2008, 02:36 AM
I've been doing some serious thought on the doctrine of Original Sin.

I've started to put my thoughts to paper. Here is what I have so far. It's not complete. I'm hoping for some feedback:

Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

The notions of inherited sin and inherited guilt are nowhere to be found in Jewish tradition. Neither is there any indication that these ideas were held in the Church prior to the 5th Century AD. The doctrine of “Original Sin” originated with Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa.

The central passage of Scripture for this doctrine is Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (English Standard Version).

Notice that the passage says that death passed to all. It does not say that sin or that guilt passed to all men.

This is an obvious reference Genesis 2:16-17 "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Adam did indeed die on the day of his disobedience, but his death was not physical; rather it was a spiritual death. Just as physical death is the separation of man's spirit from his body, so spiritual death is separation of man from God. It is the opposite of spiritual life, which is fellowship and communion with God. Spiritual death is separation, alienation, from God. It is not something wrong inside of man, but a negative or wrong relationship between man and God. Spiritual death is like a barrier between man and God.

A careful interpretation of Romans 5:12 depends upon the Greek prepositional phrase eph hos. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun hos. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Since the relative pronoun hos is in the dative case, 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. In this passage, the Greek noun thanatos (death) is the nearest singular noun, making thanatos its logical antecedent. In this scenario then, the prepositional phrase eph hos would be equivalent to epi thanatos (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 the 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.

This idea is further developed in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in the third chapter of John. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6) Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus that a spiritual birth is needed in order to have a right relationship with God, since mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.

Biastai
Oct 12th 2008, 04:43 AM
The notions of inherited sin and inherited guilt are nowhere to be found in Jewish tradition. Neither is there any indication that these ideas were held in the Church prior to the 5th Century AD. The doctrine of “Original Sin” originated with Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa.


Greetings. And nice read.

R. L. Pfeiffer points out in History of the New Testament Times the doctrine of inherited sin was alien to the Jews until Jesus ben Sira introduced it in the 2nd century B.C. In his writing from that century translated by his grandson into Greek reads...

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die."
Ecclesiasticus 25:24

Another later work reads...

"For the first Adam bearing a wicked heart transgressed, and was overcome; and so be all they that are born of him. Thus infirmity was made permanent; and the law (also) in the heart of the people with the malignity of the root; so that the good departed away, and the evil abode still."
2 Esdras 3:21,22

The apocalypse in the book seems to end with the reign of Roman Emperor Domitian which suggests a late 1st century A.D. dating for this passage.

But if you found no earlier church documentation of this doctrine until the 5th A.D., what gives with the big gap of years?

Also your comments on Romans 5:12 interest me. What's your source on your info on that? I'd like to take a look at it.

markedward
Oct 12th 2008, 05:45 AM
1. Adam died spiritually, not physically, on the day he ate the fruit.
2. We are born spiritually dead as a result.
3. "The wages of sin is death."
4. Thus, if we are born spiritually dead, we are born with sin, because sin results in death.
5. Thus, if we are born with sin as a result of Adam's death, we are inherently sinful.
6. Thus, Adam's sin brought sin into all of us, and hence "original sin".

The Ezekiel 18 verses you quoted are telling us that one person's specific sins does not condemn another. Meaning, if I kill a man, you can't be held responsible since you weren't the one to kill him. But this isn't the same thing as individuals having an inherent "sin nature" as a result of "original sin".

matthew94
Oct 12th 2008, 05:49 AM
You are basically, it seems to me, expressing the Eastern Orthodox view of The Fall. What we need is more therapeutic in nature (restoration of Spirit-life) than juridicial (pardon for inherited guilt). I'm from the Wesleyan denomination. John Wesley was an avid reader of ante-nicene (eastern) church fathers. He has a somewhat blended east-west view of this subject. He believed that our separation from God leaves us with a bent towards sinning AND a passed down guilt. However, he also believes that God's restorative plan annuls that guilt for all men via prevenient grace. As a result, we are, at birth, separated from God due to our bent toward sin, but we are not guilty before God (since we have not yet voluntary acted upon that bent).

In other words, I know of 3 positions to take on this issue

1) No original guilt
2) Original guilt erased by prevenient grace
3) Yes original guilt

Richard H
Oct 12th 2008, 06:08 AM
... so spiritual death is separation of man from God. It is the opposite of spiritual life, which is fellowship and communion with God. Spiritual death is separation, alienation, from God. It is not something wrong inside of man, but a negative or wrong relationship between man and God. Spiritual death is like a barrier between man and God.

<snip>

...mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.
Hi HolyRokker, :)
Interesting expostition on the law of sin and death.

Richard

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Cor 15:42,49

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom 8:1-4

CFJ
Oct 12th 2008, 06:28 AM
The notions of inherited sin and inherited guilt are nowhere to be found in Jewish tradition. Neither is there any indication that these ideas were held in the Church prior to the 5th Century AD. The doctrine of “Original Sin” originated with Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa.



Hi holyrokker,

Though you could be right about Jewish tradition, the Old Testament is clear that we are born with sin or as sinners...


Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
In the New Testament this is more clearly underlined as our nature. The question is, where does this nature comes from...?


Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
I've discovered that there are two types of sin as there are two types of gifts, two types of prayers, two types of marriages, two types of Testaments, two types of covenants, etc.... You will find that this is mostly not part of Jewish traditions...

Clydson
Oct 13th 2008, 01:00 AM
Adam did indeed die on the day of his disobedience, but his death was not physical; rather it was a spiritual death.
Jake: Greetings holyrokker.

I believe you've made some very good conclusions. I'm going to speak to this particular part of your post. Not to argue against it, but to offer you some more gleaning. Consider the possiblility that Adam could have died physically on the day he sinned, and that this is what scripture means.

Gen 3:22
22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
KJV

The tree of life was Adam's source of physical immortality. When he was prevented to eat of it, he lost this source. In a single day Adam went from being immortal to being mortal, physically. In that respect it can be said that Adam died physically on the day he sinned.

I believe it is possible that this is what is meant. It also keeps the harmony of Romans 5:12.

Instrument
Oct 13th 2008, 03:48 PM
I've been doing some serious thought on the doctrine of Original Sin.

I've started to put my thoughts to paper. Here is what I have so far. It's not complete. I'm hoping for some feedback:

Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

The notions of inherited sin and inherited guilt are nowhere to be found in Jewish tradition. Neither is there any indication that these ideas were held in the Church prior to the 5th Century AD. The doctrine of “Original Sin” originated with Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa.

The central passage of Scripture for this doctrine is Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (English Standard Version).

Notice that the passage says that death passed to all. It does not say that sin or that guilt passed to all men.

This is an obvious reference Genesis 2:16-17 "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Adam did indeed die on the day of his disobedience, but his death was not physical; rather it was a spiritual death. Just as physical death is the separation of man's spirit from his body, so spiritual death is separation of man from God. It is the opposite of spiritual life, which is fellowship and communion with God. Spiritual death is separation, alienation, from God. It is not something wrong inside of man, but a negative or wrong relationship between man and God. Spiritual death is like a barrier between man and God.

A careful interpretation of Romans 5:12 depends upon the Greek prepositional phrase eph hos. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun hos. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Since the relative pronoun hos is in the dative case, 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. In this passage, the Greek noun thanatos (death) is the nearest singular noun, making thanatos its logical antecedent. In this scenario then, the prepositional phrase eph hos would be equivalent to epi thanatos (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 the 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.

This idea is further developed in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in the third chapter of John. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6) Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus that a spiritual birth is needed in order to have a right relationship with God, since mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.

Just a few questions. These are:

1. Then why we die?
Scripture says that the wages of sin is death.

2. Is it possible to inherit the death without inherit sin?
Did not see that death is a consequence of sin?

3. Do not know you the nature of sin or concupiscence of the flesh with which all human beings are born?

Greetings.

Amos_with_goats
Dec 1st 2008, 06:18 AM
I sought out this thread from your profile after seeing your points in the poll on sin you posted.

I copy my reply here for the sake of the discussion (I hope this is not seen as cross posting, since it really has to do with both threads... :hmm:;



.......
Here's an article that lists a few definitions of "original sin", a brief history of the doctrine, and a rebuttal to the doctrine.

http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/originalsin/The_Doctrine_Of_Original_Sin_Dean_Harvey.pdf (http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/originalsin/The_Doctrine_Of_Original_Sin_Dean_Harvey.pdf)

Wow, Thank you for sharing this link. I went into it with an open mind, and will continue to consider it. I have always believed that scripture supported Adamic sin, and still do.


"Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." (I John 3:4) shows a causal effect (we are accountable for our sin) but does not exclude Adamic (original) sin.


Here is where I think the argument against Adamic sin falls apart.


Rom 5:12 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


And the clincher;


Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


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


I have saved the link, and will pray and search the scripture to see "if it be so" Thank you and Blessings.


I said I was going to seek the Lord, and I will. There was one other point I wanted to make that I wonder if you have considered.

There are several 'doctrines' that are coming out of seminaries these days. One of them, that I see great peril with is one I call the "Born Holy" doctrine.

It is a slippery thing, that is some times used to justify the RC doctrine of the "age of accountability". It says that children are "Born Holy" but then defines "holy" as "set aside for a purpose" and holds them in a state where they are without sin.

Of course the problem with this is that without sin, there is no need for a Savior. I know that the age of accountability is widely held, but "born Holy" presents a slippery slope to any who might believe they are in no danger of hell because they are basically good, or that they have not "sinned bad enough to go to hell" as the most common 'natural man' defense presented against the Gospel.

Just a thought for consideration,

Thanks again.

holyrokker
Dec 7th 2008, 05:20 AM
Hi holyrokker,

Though you could be right about Jewish tradition, the Old Testament is clear that we are born with sin or as sinners...



Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.



Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
In the New Testament this is more clearly underlined as our nature. The question is, where does this nature comes from...?



Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

I've discovered that there are two types of sin as there are two types of gifts, two types of prayers, two types of marriages, two types of Testaments, two types of covenants, etc.... You will find that this is mostly not part of Jewish traditions...

Job 14 - The words there are attributed to Job. They are Job's opinion, not God's.
Job 15 - Here we find the words of Job's friend Eliphaz. Again, these are not God's opinion on the doctrine of sin.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As for Psalm 51:5 - it is a song of repentance. David is expressing, with strong language, the anguish of his guilt.

Notice the personal pronouns used:

blot out my transgressions
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity
cleanse me from my sin
For I know my transgressions
my sin is ever before me
Against you, you only, have I sinned

It is obvious that David is accepting full responsibility for his actions. He is not attempting to pass his sin off on a pre-existing condidtion.

Also notice the wording of verse 5

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is not a doctrinal statement of inherited sin. It doesn't even imply that David himself inherited a sin nature.

David is utilizing "hyperbole" - a standard poetic practice of exaggerating a statement. The purpose is to express intense emotions, or to make a strong empression upon the reader, and should not be taken literally.
A common American hybole is "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse".

David again uses this technique in verse 7:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Surely David isn't creating a doctrine of cleansing from sin in this statement.


An interesting article on Psalm 51:5 can be found here: http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/libraryoftheologycom/writings/originalsin/Psalms_Fifty_One_Five-WilliamMurray.pdf A Perspective on Psalm 51:5 by William P. Murray, Jr.


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


Psalm 58:3 is also part of a poem. Even if the style would allow for a literal interpretation, in couldn't be taken as support for the theory. Notice that the sentence ends by saying "they go astray from birth, speaking lies." Do the wicked really speak lies from birth? Most babies don't begin speaking until past 12 months of age.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
As for Eph 2:3, the context does not indicate that we are all sinners by nature, nor that we inherit sin from Adam.


I recommend Albert Barnes' commentary on this passage http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=eph&chapter=2


Another article I recommend can be found at http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_myth_of_original_sin_i.html

Sirus
Dec 7th 2008, 06:57 AM
Hoping to offer some food for thought?

Nature=the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE
Nature is the essence of a thing. You can’t pull out just the flesh, or the spirit, or the soul, and call it a nature by itself. The three parts make their one nature and their one essence. A thing can’t have two natures. That is a direct contradiction to the very meaning of the word nature.

“are we inherently good?”
At birth we are not more inherently (in our nature) inclined to do good or evil. We are innocent at birth but we face the impossible challenge of living in this world without God and not sinning. The reason our desire to do good is just as present as the desire to do evil at birth is because at birth the ‘desires’ are God given desires that we don’t have the wisdom and knowledge to know how to direct. We are just infants after all. The lusts and desires are just there. So yes, we are born inherently good with the ability to choose to direct the desires to evil by virtue of free will, no different than Adam and Eve, who were men just as we are. Being born and not knowing how to direct our God given desires doesn’t make us sinful or the desires themselves sin, anymore than Adam being created by God with the desires didn’t make Adam sinful or the desires sin. Adam having the commandment on what to do with the desires and acting contrary was sin. “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.“

To say otherwise means we can blame our condition on either God for how He created us, or Adam for sinning to our account, and Scripture never says guilt of someone’s sin in put on another’s account (imputed), and it does not say Adam’s nature changed to be sinful when he sinned in the garden and that we inherit that changed sinful nature. It DOES say because of (consequence) Adam’s sin we are born in an environment (death- physical, and a veiled relationship with God) that ensures all will sin, making all guilty of their own sin to be applied to their own account.

The consequence of Adam’s sin for Adam and us was death. What is death?
1) Separation from the tree of life was the physical death. Contrary to popular belief Adam and Eve were natural/earthy/mortal and needed the tree of life to live forever. Genesis 1-3 and 1Cor 15 says this but no scripture says they were immortal. Not one. Sorry, but ‘it is good’ and ‘death entered the world by sin’ doesn’t say they were immortal in there nature. That interpretation based on assumption ignores the fact that even after they sinned God said they would live forever in their guilty state if they continued to have access to the tree of life.
2) A change in relationship with God. We say ‘separated’ which, without repentance and faith, leads to the second death in the future.

You say, God said the day he ate he would surely die. Yes, and Adam was kept from the tree of life and banished from the garden the day he ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew for ‘shall surely die’ is ‘dying die’ or ‘dying you will die’. Meaning, if you disobey it will be certain that you die (no tree of life) because you are dying (mortal, corruptible, dust, decaying, natural, temporal, flesh). Death passed, and passes on all men. The Hebrew says it, translations say it, Hebrew scholars say it, and God said it removing man from the garden, guarding the tree, and saying man would live forever in a sinful state if he had access to the tree of life.

There was a change in Adam’s relationship not his nature. God was working His will and plan for the Lamb slain for the foundation of the world before man was created. This is evident in fact that God created the environment where Adam would have to trust what God said about the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and God leaving Adam in the garden after telling him to guard, protect, watch, keep, his dominion and subdue all things in the earth, which included Satan. Where was God when Eve was tempted and when Eve gave the fruit to Adam to eat? This is not to say Adam could not have called out to God, but we see man in some sort of relationship with God doing that and God answering all throughout Scripture.

The point here is that people say Adam died spiritually and therefore we are born spiritually dead. Well, if our spirits are from God as scripture says how would that dead spirit be inherited from Adam? Where does it even imply such a thing in scripture? It’s either from God or Adam, which is it? Scripture says from God, not from Adam. I can post 100 passages that show mans spirit functioning and alive and well, but you can’t show me one verse of a dis-functional or dead spirit, no, not even one. So why single out the spirit? Is the spirit any more separated from God than the body or the soul? The error here is that people assume Adam started out spiritual but no scripture even implies that.

1Cor 15 says pleased God to make Adam earthy after one image and that the natural man image was before the spiritual man image (Jesus (anointing) baptized with the Spirit without measure). So where is the change in Adam’s nature in scripture? I know death, which is physical and some ‘separation’ in relationship, but where is the change in his nature (body-soul-spirit) in scripture and how was it passed down to Adam’s descendants?

After Adam sinned God was ‘afar off’, no longer walking with him in the cool of the day in the garden unveiled. However, God was not completely out of the picture or completely severed from communication with man, because of His love, will, and pleasure. If that were the case we wouldn’t be here having this discussion, however because of man’s theology, ‘completely severed’ is how the word ‘separated’ is used and conveyed. Yet, Cain and Abel and all the others on down the line spoke with God and had some sort of relationship with God, but it was not in the garden walking with God in the cool of the day with the tree of life to live forever. The relationship changed, not the nature.

Rom 5:19 says ‘many were made sinners’. Made means designated/ordained’ or appointed to a position. It does not mean created with a thing or disease called sin, to be inherently born with and guilty of another’s sin. Still, the English/modern definition of the word ‘made’ is how most read and understand that verse. Reading the original language and intent of the original author with other scripture through the holistic method of interpretation is very enlightening! It says Adam’s sin brought death -separated us from the tree of life and changed mans relationship with God, appointing us to a position, causing all men to physically die and sin their own sin (Rom 5:12, Eze 18).
Here is how ‘made’ in Rom 5:19 is used in the Greek in Scripture.The nature of the person made is not changed as a result of being made.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Mat 24:45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

Luk 12:14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Act 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

Act 7:27 But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?

Act 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Moreover (v20) I would point out ‘much more’ is found five times from v9 to v20, and you should go read about how ‘much more’ the spiritual man-life giving spirit-Christ image affected man over how the natural-earthy-soul man Adam image affected man! ;) Jesus didn’t come just to restore what Adam lost, but to obtain a far greater inheritance through righteousness that Adam ever had.

Sirus
Dec 7th 2008, 07:01 AM
Some say; “Adam is our *father* therefore we are born with Adamic blood....we have to have new blood applied....Holy blood...His Blood.”
Where does scripture speak of more than one blood of man?
Where does scripture says Adam received a blood transfusion or had different blood before and after he sinned?
That Adam’s blood was the Fathers?
That Jesus’ blood was the Fathers?
That Adam’s, Jesus’, or our blood is or is not the Fathers?
Blood applied, covered, washed, cleansed, is not a blood transfusion. In fact, the very concept proves it is not to be likened to the blood in us. It’s a completely different purpose and application.
Where does scripture say we have different blood before and after being born again? You can say it’s future, but the resurrected Christ said he had ‘flesh and bone’ not ‘flesh and blood’ and we know ‘flesh and blood’ cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and ‘flesh and bone’ does inherit the kingdom of God, so what is this Fathers blood stuff, and where can I find it in scripture?
This blood transfusion theory doesn’t exist in scripture, just in man invented, made up, presupposition theology.

Jesus’ Father was God and not a man simply because the Messiah had to be 100% God and 100% man and for no other scriptural reason. Not because of blood. There’s no scriptural support for this claim that Jesus’ blood was different than ours. Jesus’ did not have a ‘God-edge’ to help Him overcome the world the flesh and the devil. If He did have a God-edge, He would not have qualified as the Savior of man, the man Christ Jesus (1Ti 2:5). He was 100% man, right? You can say yes, but having a theology that says he had different blood says otherwise.

Sirus
Dec 7th 2008, 07:04 AM
Judaism doesn’t hold a sin nature/original sin/total depravity doctrine, why does Christianity? Judaism/Christianity, which do not contradict each other, say…..

God made man in his image and

Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor.
Psa 8:6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
Psa 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

So let me see if I have this right? I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made with a sin nature: it’s marvelous that I have this sin nature and that my soul is dead and knows very well, wrong and nothing right. ???
Are you serious?

Or

Psa 22:9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

These don’t jive too well with
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

We have a contradiction so which way is it? Well, which ones are supported by other scripture? How did the same man that said shapen in iniquity, say fearfully and wonderfully made, protected in the womb, knows what is right, that God visits man and crowned man with glory and honor, and my God from the womb? He wrote so much about desiring God to break the wicked and deliver the righteous but all of a sudden he claims to be born with sin?
Are you serious?

Which ONES (used to make doctrine) are praise and which ONE (never used to make doctrine) is lamenting?
Is there figurative and poetic language in the context?
When it seems there is a contradiction in scripture, it either doesn’t mean what we think it means, or we have wrong theology leaning us in a certain direction causing the wrong interpretation.

Psalm 51 is not a proof text for a sin nature. It just means David was brought into a world (flesh/without God) that ensured he would sin, and sin he did, which is the lamenting context. It says his mother was ‘in sin’ when he was conceived, and she was, just like every other man before the Messiah.
Shapen doesn’t mean to shape something like most English speaking people read it. The word is used many different ways, but below are a few examples of how the Hebrew word (in bold) is used in conjunction with birth.

Isa 45:10 Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

Isa 51:1 Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged.
Isa 51:2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bore you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.

The word is not applied to inside the womb but outside the womb to a child delivered and born into the world. Did a thing or disease called sin cling to David as he exited the womb and entered the world? Was he protected by God and fearfully and wonderfully made in the womb, then sinful as soon as he was born? Sin is something we do not something to be painted on. David was brought forth in iniquity and that’s what a lot of translations say. Psalm 51 is not an infant created with a sin nature. David is describing the state of his parents (in sin), and the world he was brought into that ensured he himself would sin. No? Then why do the verses both before and after speak of David’s own personal sin and have no mention of imputed sin from another? Why is there no mention of imputed sin from another anywhere in Scripture? Before Christ, we are dead in our sins as David’s parents were ‘in sin’, but it doesn’t say we are born that way. This is not a foreign concept to Christianity that says we are dead in our sin after walking naturally according to the course of this world. It says dead in our sin after living, not born dead in our sin. How can you be born dead in YOUR sin if YOU haven’t sinned?

David is very clear (as is all scripture) that it is his sin, not Adam’s or his fathers sin, he will be judged for even though consequences of Adam and possibly his fathers sin affected him.

Psa 51:2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
Psa 51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
Psa 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
...........
Psa 51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

Sirus
Dec 7th 2008, 07:06 AM
We are not born evil, corrupted, or perverted, which is the definition of depraved. David is clear above in Psa 51:4 that God is not to be blamed and can Judge and it is also in Romans 3.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

All scripture says man is judged according to his own deeds done in the flesh, and no one else’s.

How about this popular one out of the few verses that are twisted to propagate the sin nature?
Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

It says the wicked are born - THEN go astray. Again, clearly not born with sin or guilt. The wicked is not the infant. It is those mentioned in the context. Do you know of any infants born with teeth that David would like God to break out? Does the infant not obey the charmers? Does the righteous rejoice on this vengeance of God on that little infant? Talk about pulling out of context! Again it is figurative language that means the ‘wicked’ start on the road of sin very soon. It is not a proof text for a sin nature at birth. That would not only contradict other scripture, it would contradict the context itself!!!

Did Jesus have a sin nature? No! Yet, He took on the same nature we are born with to live victorious for us, didn’t He? If He wasn't ‘all we are’ then He was not victorious for what ‘we have done’ and ‘not qualified’ to be our Savior. The reason Jesus didn’t die spiritually because we don’t.

Scripture doesn’t say we are born in sin, with sin, and guilty of someone else’s sin. Scripture says that is what we become and is the direction we go. We become children of disobedience and wrath walking in this world without God. We are born holding the truth and knowing God and our heart is then darkened by sin. It is not dark at birth. It says we do not retain the knowledge God gave us and we change what God created by behaving contrary to our God given nature, which is why it is sin. It doesn’t say we behave according to our nature. If we did that we’d be obedient children. As life progresses we act according to our nature that we ourselves changed for ourselves, not according to what another man changed for us.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
…………………..
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins
Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
..........
Col 3:7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

Sirus
Dec 7th 2008, 07:11 AM
Some say; “The *old man* the Bible speaks of is that sin nature.”
OK, but how do you apply that to an infant?
I agree the old man can be called a ‘sin nature’, but the old man is not a newborn infant. Imagine that! Old man describes those that have lived and walked in this world, and have the understanding they need a Savior, and have been born again by Spirit baptism into Christ body. Therefore the body, soul, and spirit, have all been affected by the individuals sin and the individual needs a Savior. It says “our old man is crucified ……that henceforth we should not serve sin”, “the former conversation the old man”, “old man with his deeds”. So how would you apply this to an infant that hasn’t sinned? The sin nature doctrine says we are born with this nature/essence/state/old man, and that is what I contest. When we are born we are not all that we are when we are adolescents and adults after walking according to the spirit and god of this world.

I am asked; “Do we just one day turn into sinners? When is that day? The day we commit our first sin? Just curious.”
Yes, actually, well sorta. Being born in this world without an unveiled relationship with God and having flesh, works us into a life of sin, but where there is no law there is no sin because the law brings knowledge of sin. So even for a Gentile without the written law that is not under that written law, but has the law of conscience Romans 1-3, there has to be a period for development of understanding (Isa 7:14-16). You have to know you are sinning for it to be put on your account (imputed). Do you execute consequences for disobedience upon your children for doing what they didn’t know they shouldn’t do? Is God more unjust than we are?

What day, week, month, year? God knows. If there was a period in which Jesus didn’t know to choose the good over the evil, it is at least correct and right to say there is a period when man doesn’t know either, don’t ya think? What’s good for the Messiah of man is good enough for man, right? Yes, that is what scripture says…..he was one of us, 100%.

Total Depravity advocates a change in Adam’s nature that is passed to all men making them guilty at birth. Does infant baptism ring any bells? If you believe in original sin you either have to believe in infant baptism, which is not at all Biblical, or you at least have to believe infants are guilty of Adam’s sin and deserving of hell and damned because of it, which is also not Biblical. Jesus took little children in his arms and said they were an example to us for the kingdom of God. So where was their sinful nature? A prophecy concerning Jesus said this about his nature

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Yet because of the Total Depravity doctrine man had to come up with a reason Jesus didn’t have Original Sin so they say it is because He didn’t have mans blood. Sorry, but if He didn’t have mans blood then He wasn’t a man. Act 17:26 says…. And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth……..
If Jesus wasn’t a Hebrew He wasn’t the Messiah and the promised ‘seed of the woman’. Even without that there’s no scriptural support for this ‘blood from the Father’ concept. It simply doesn’t exist.

I advocate a change in Adam’s relationship that changed his environment (death) that is passed to all men making it certain all will sin and be responsible for their own person sin. Man being responsible for his own actions is diametrically opposed to total depravity through original sin since it says we are damned because of Adam’s sin. Adam didn’t have the power to recreate or change the image of God in man and no scripture says that is what happened. No man has the power to damn another man through his sin. Adam was created by God to have mortal, corruptible flesh (need for food-and fruit to live forever), lusts (eyes), and desires (able to make wise) and guess what? Adam did not please God either and it wasn’t because of banishment or a sin nature.

Nature is the essence of a thing. We have a spirit, soul, and body. There is no scripture that says our spirit and soul, which are from God, are sinful at birth. There’s no scripture that says we are born with a thing called sin in the flesh either. It says man that has walked in this world and sinned has sin in the flesh, not infants. Infants are born with lusts and desires that are God given. Adam and Eve, having flesh just as we do, had the same lusts and desires. Were they sinful just because they had the lusts and desires from God, or did they have to sin? It is when the lusts and desires are conceived outside the will of God that sin occurs! Adam and Eve had the need for food and need for fruit to live forever, lusts of the eyes, and pride of life able to make one wise. Adam and Eve, having the commandment directly from God and knowing better, followed lusts and desires contrary to how God told them to.

So, we need to define ‘sin nature’ and based on what’s been said here thus far, the common view seems applicable. Something we are born with that makes us guilty of sin, deserving of hell, causes us to choose to sin so that we cannot choose otherwise and are slaves to sin. That’s a very common and pretty simple definition IMO. Agree?

I have no problem saying we are guilty of sin, slaves to sin, and deserving of hell as vessels fit for destruction and are children targeted for God’s wrath, as we have gone about living our lives according to the natural course of this world and the spirit and the god of this world. That’s undeniably Biblical. It is not Biblical to say we are born in that condition, and it’s absolutely absurd to say we can’t do any good or righteousness. There’s only about, what, a thousand verses that say otherwise?

The sin nature doctrine comes from ancient Greek and Eastern philosophy and mysticism, and Gnostic Dualism, and it has plagued the church starting with the likes of Origen, refined by Augustine, and perfected my Calvin, into what we have today and its many variations in the Church. The most obvious problem with this is the idea of having two natures at once. No. You have an inward and outward man but they are not natures by themselves. They are part of one nature, one being, one person. You.

The general idea, and there are many variations, is that when we sin it’s the old man and we need to strengthen the new man through religious exercises so the new man gets stronger than the old man. That’s man’s religion not Biblical Christianity. Biblical Christianity says the old man is dead and the new man lives. So if you attach the word nature to the man, or the being that is one nature, you’d say the old nature is dead and the new nature lives. Some people believe this way and that’s fine I guess because at least they realize they are not two natures and the old is dead. However, the most common teaching is a form of Gnostic Dualism where two natures live together in one being. That’s religious confusion, contrary to the gospel, and an excuse to continue in sin and in some sort of struggle, when the struggle is over, and we are to cease from work and rest in faith as God did.

When we are born again we receive the addition of the Spirit. We have been buried in a Spirit baptism in Christ and therefore we are crucified, dead, buried, and risen to newness of life and washed in the blood. Justified and Sanctified by one complete and finished work of Christ. We don’t get a new nature. The addition of the Spirit certainly affects our nature and we are renewed through the knowledge of the gospel and the Word, but you still have the same body, soul, and spirit after you are saved you had before you were saved. Do you know any scripture that says differently?

CFJ
Dec 7th 2008, 09:27 AM
Total Depravity advocates a change in Adam’s nature that is passed to all men making them guilty at birth.

Can you explain the following then?


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.
(Rom 5:12-18 KJV)

Yet because of the Total Depravity doctrine man had to come up with a reason Jesus didn’t have Original Sin so they say it is because He didn’t have mans blood.

Are you sure you've got it right about the blood, is'nt it that Jesus did not have sin because He was not conceived by a man's seed?

CFJ
Dec 7th 2008, 10:38 AM
Job 14 - The words there are attributed to Job. They are Job's opinion, not God's.
Job 15 - Here we find the words of Job's friend Eliphaz. Again, these are not God's opinion on the doctrine of sin.


holyrokker,

According to God, Job was the most devout man on earth, a man of integrity, he was decent, he feared God, and he stayed away from evil.

If Jod said this about himself, what about the rest of humanity?

Yukerboy
Dec 7th 2008, 02:23 PM
Wikipedia defines Total Depravity as the following: (definition in black, Scriptures in Purple)

As a consequence of the Fall of Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Man) (For as in Adam all die; the many died by the trespass of the one man; the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men), every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin) ("Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.'"; death came to all men, because all sinned; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness.) and, apart from the efficacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace) or prevenient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_grace) grace of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace) (and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus; For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace; And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace; For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—; , is utterly unable to choose to follow God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or choose to accept salvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation) as it is freely offered. ("None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."; "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God." "Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins."; 'No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.'"; "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.")

Sirus
Dec 7th 2008, 10:37 PM
Total Depravity advocates a change in Adam’s nature that is passed to all men making them guilty at birth.Can you explain the following then?
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.
(Rom 5:12-18 KJV
Explain what with that passage?
-change in Adam’s nature
-nature that is passed down
-guilt passed down

I have addressed every aspect of that passage.

Nothing there says Adam’s nature changed, and no scripture does, so how can a change that didn’t happen be passed down?

The passage doesn’t say guilt is passed down, it says a judgment to condemnation (death) is passed down. That judgment is both physical and “spiritual” death. Imputing the sin of one man to another is not Biblical. Only our own sin can be imputed to our own account.

Sin is not a tangible thing or disease floating around that entered the world. Sin is an action or not trusting God. If an action or not trusting God enters the world through one committing sin and Satan was already a ‘fallen‘ creature that was in this world that sinned in this world, why was not sin already in the world? Because man was crowned with glory and honor and had dominion over ALL the works of God’s hands, including Satan. Sin was not in mans dominion because man had not sinned. It comes down to a biblical understanding of authority and dominion.

When Adam sinned he opened the door, so to speak, for all men to sin their own sin and for all men to physically die. Adam was banished from the garden and therefore the tree of life so physical death was inevitable and part of the judgment received for the sin. No man would have access to the tree of life until the regeneration. “Spiritual Death” (veiled relationship) for all men was a part of the condemnation (judgment) as well. This ensured that all men would sin their own sin.

Neither Adam or his environment was absolutely perfect. He needed the tree of life to not physically die because he was earthy, natural and corruptible (1Cor 15), and he needed to labor (dress) in the garden. Through Adam we received an even less perfect environment. No tree of life to sustain us physically and no walk with God in the cool of the day in His garden. Sin is certain for all. Through Christ all men are offered a gift but a gift must be accepted. So if you are going to try and say that the guilt of Adam’s sin is upon all men without the choice or action of each individual, then we must equally say justification of Christ is upon all men without the choice and action of each individual. My bible doesn’t say that anywhere, does yours? Just as we must choose to sin our own sin in order to be guilty we must choose Christ in order to be justified.




Yet because of the Total Depravity doctrine man had to come up with a reason Jesus didn’t have Original Sin so they say it is because He didn’t have mans blood.Are you sure you've got it right about the blood, is'nt it that Jesus did not have sin because He was not conceived by a man's seed? Can you show me this concept with scripture? I’ll post again what I have already said but will add here for you 7 verses;

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Phi 2:7-8 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Some say; “Adam is our *father* therefore we are born with Adamic blood....we have to have new blood applied....Holy blood...His Blood.”
Where does scripture speak of more than one blood of man?
Where does scripture says Adam received a blood transfusion or had different blood before and after he sinned?
That Adam’s blood was the Fathers?
That Jesus’ blood was the Fathers?
That Adam’s, Jesus’, or our blood is or is not the Fathers?
Blood applied, covered, washed, cleansed is not a blood transfusion. In fact, the very concept proves it is not to be likened to the blood in us. It’s a completely different purpose and application.
Where does scripture say we have different blood before and after being born again? You can say it’s future, but the resurrected Christ said he had ‘flesh and bone’ not ‘flesh and blood’ and we know ‘flesh and blood’ cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and ‘flesh and bone’ does inherit the kingdom of God, so what is this Fathers blood stuff, and where can I find it in scripture?
This blood transfusion theory doesn’t exist in scripture, just in man invented, made up, presupposition theology.

Jesus’ Father was God and not a man simply because the Messiah had to be 100% God and 100% man and for no other scriptural reason. Not because of blood. There’s no scriptural support for this claim that Jesus’ blood was different than ours. Jesus’ did not have a ‘God-edge’ to help Him overcome the world the flesh and the devil. If He did have a God-edge, He would not have qualified as the Savior of man, the man Christ Jesus (1Ti 2:5). He was 100% man, right? You can say yes, but having a theology that says he had different blood says otherwise.

What makes you think different blood would make a difference anyway?

Sirus
Dec 8th 2008, 12:15 AM
I've been doing some serious thought on the doctrine of Original Sin.

I've started to put my thoughts to paper. Here is what I have so far. It's not complete. I'm hoping for some feedback:

Ezekiel 18:19-20 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

The notions of inherited sin and inherited guilt are nowhere to be found in Jewish tradition. Neither is there any indication that these ideas were held in the Church prior to the 5th Century AD. The doctrine of “Original Sin” originated with Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in North Africa.

The central passage of Scripture for this doctrine is Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (English Standard Version).

Notice that the passage says that death passed to all. It does not say that sin or that guilt passed to all men.

This is an obvious reference Genesis 2:16-17 "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Adam did indeed die on the day of his disobedience, but his death was not physical; rather it was a spiritual death. Just as physical death is the separation of man's spirit from his body, so spiritual death is separation of man from God. It is the opposite of spiritual life, which is fellowship and communion with God. Spiritual death is separation, alienation, from God. It is not something wrong inside of man, but a negative or wrong relationship between man and God. Spiritual death is like a barrier between man and God.

A careful interpretation of Romans 5:12 depends upon the Greek prepositional phrase eph hos. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun hos. The preposition has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Since the relative pronoun hos is in the dative case, 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. In this passage, the Greek noun thanatos (death) is the nearest singular noun, making thanatos its logical antecedent. In this scenario then, the prepositional phrase eph hos would be equivalent to epi thanatos (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 the 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.

This idea is further developed in the conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus in the third chapter of John. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” (John 3:5-6) Here Jesus is telling Nicodemus that a spiritual birth is needed in order to have a right relationship with God, since mankind is born spiritually dead (separated from God). Jesus is not saying that there is an inherent sinfulness to the physical birth; simply that a physical birth is not sufficient. Since God is Spirit, we must be born of the Spirit to have a relationship with Him.

Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?

Exodus 20:3-6 was not intended to be used for generation sin or sin nature/original sin/total depravity and God said no more would the Israel use their parents sins as an excuse because all have their own sin, which Jesus confirmed with a man born blind. What follows in Ezekiel 18 is what we see throughout Scripture. God blesses those that obey Him and brings judgment upon those that do not. God even used an example of a righteous son born from a wicked man in Ezekiel 18! That’s God’s example not man’s!!! Where is inherited sin and generational sin now? Kinda throws a wrench in that theology doesn’t it?

We are not born evil, corrupted, or perverted, which is the definition of depraved. So we certainly are not Totally Depraved. Man created in God's image, crowned with glory and honor, totally depraved? Whatever....David is clear in Psa 51:4 that God is not to be blamed and can Judge and this is also in Romans 3.

Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

All scripture says man is judged according to his own deeds done in the flesh, and no one else’s.
Eze 18:21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

The same is found in Jeremiah 18 as we take a trip to THE Potters house.
Jer 18:8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
........
Jer 18:10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

That doesn't fit the Reformed and Calvinistic view of the potter of Romans 9 because Reformed and Calvinistic Theology doesn't understand there is only one Potter that has no respect of persons and that all men decide what sort of vessel we will be and are. Not one example in Romans 9 is an example of making any man do anything he didn't already have a heart to do already.