Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A closer look at "Original Sin"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A closer look at "Original Sin"

    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.
    Last edited by holyrokker; Oct 12th 2008, 05:35 AM.
    You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought.

    Charles G Finney



    http://holyrokker.blogspot.com

  • #2
    Originally posted by holyrokker View Post
    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.
    "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?'
    And I said, 'Here am I. Send me!'"
    Isaiah 6:8

    Comment


    • #3
      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".
      To This Day

      Comment


      • #4
        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
        The Matthew Never Knew
        The Knew Kingdom

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by holyrokker View Post
          ... 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

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by holyrokker View Post
            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...
            The Rapture

            My dearest friends, I’m so sorry… so sorry
            but I must confess, don’t worry
            the rapture is not before the Great Tribulation
            it’s before God’s wrath!!!

            Because His wrath is not meant for you
            it’s for all the people in the zoo
            think about it and refresh…
            you will see there’s no way out of here, in the flesh

            If you really believe, you will see
            the rapture is for you and me
            when we decide to leave from here
            that very day, oh! God adhere…


            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by holyrokker View Post
              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.
              Jake

              What does the bible say?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by holyrokker View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What about... &quot;Born Holy&quot;?

                  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... ;

                  .......
                  Originally posted by holyrokker
                  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
                  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.
                  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * ** * * * ** * *** * * * * ***** * * * * ** * * * * ** ** * *
                  ~ * You get 10 'reps' to bless others with each day... don't log off until you have used them up......
                  ....Live your life the same way.... ~ *

                  Please pray for the 'Persecuted Church'.


                  Bible Forums Vision: "To be a community of believers who are actively engaged in pursuing the truth of God as revealed in His Son Jesus Christ by way of studying the Scriptures diligently in order to discover this truth."


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CFJ View Post
                    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/li...liamMurray.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/vi...=eph&chapter=2

                    Another article I recommend can be found at http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_...nal_sin_i.html
                    You were made to think. It will do you good to think; to develop your powers by study. God designed that religion should require thought, intense thought, and should thoroughly develop our powers of thought.

                    Charles G Finney



                    http://holyrokker.blogspot.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X