Inherited Sin? [Archive] - e-Jehovah's Witnesses: A Place for Jehovah's Witnesses and Interested Ones

Jeshurun

11-27-2008, 01:59 PM

PRAYSER

11-27-2008, 04:48 PM

Hello Brothers and Sisters,

Sir Chan's thread "The One Who Did Not Know Sin" is what prompted me to start this thread. Actually, I have several questions about our overall beliefs that would appear to be contradictions and need to be dealt with, but I'll begin with this one. I know that there are many here who may be able to help me sort these things out.

So here goes: If all sin, imperfection and death is inherited from Adam & Eve, we need to explain this scripture:

Ezekiel 18:19 "'And YOU people will certainly say: "Why is it that the son does not have to bear anything because of the error of the father?" Now as regards the son, justice and righteousness he has executed, all the statutes of mine he has kept and he keeps doing them. He will positively keep living. 20 The soul that is sinning—it itself will die. A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father, and a father himself will bear nothing because of the error of the son. Upon his own self the very righteousness of the righteous one will come to be, and upon his own self the very wickedness of a wicked one will come to be.

A confounded Jesh[/b]

JESHURUN

The difference is context. Ezekiel chapter 18 is not addressing sin and death inherited from Adam. Ezekiel chapter 18 is addressing Israelites sinning under the laws of the torah, the Mosaic covenant.

Having said that, I am also confounded by the Catholic/Protestant doctrine of original sin as historically taught. The WTS is not as detailed concerning this teaching. I think that the primary fault lies with theologians habitually trying to totally explain all of the aspects of doctrine not totally explained in Scripture.

Romans 5:14
Death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance him that was to come.

Adam was created without sin just as Jesus was conceived without sin and therefore the consequence of Adam's sin was greater than me sinning or you sinning. Being conceived in sin we have no sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam.

I Corinthians 15:22
For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.

Our sinfulness or sinful natures, not our individaul sins, can be attributed to Adam sin. And our dying as a result of our sinfulness or sinful nature can be attributed to Adam, because unlike Adam, we, being conceived in sin, do not have the option of not sinning. Adam, who was created without sin, did not have to sin or die as a consequence of personally sinning.

Romans 5:12
Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.

Ezekiel 18 does not apply to this because your son did not inherit his sinful nature from you. He inherited his sinful nature from Adam the same as you inherited your sinful nature from Adam and not from your own father.

Ezekiel 18 is dealing with the individual deeds of righteous and wicked persons and the consequences of those deeds as well as Jehovah God showing mercy toward repentant sinners. Specifically with regards to the administration of justice and mercy in Israel under the torah.

It was customary in ancient sociaties and still is in some modern societies to punish entire families for the crimes of the family head. Wives, sons and daughters may be sold into slavery or as prostitutes, etc. Jehovah God's law to Israel prohibited this. In Ezekiel chapter 18 Jehovah God is telling the Israelites that his standard of justice and mercy is far superior to their human standard of justice [or as we like to say in the USA - LAW AND ORDER].

I Corinthians 15:22
For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.

Just as your death is not the equivalent of Jesus' death with regards to consequences likewise your sinning is not the equivalent of the original sin of Adam with regards to consequences.

The historical Christian doctrine of original sin goes beyond scripture in trying to elaborate on the mechanics - the functional or technical aspects - of how we inherit sin from Adam. Like most historically Christian theology this explaination is too dependent on Hellenic Metaphysics and Hellenic Theology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The original sin in the Bible is the 1st - original - sin of Adam in the garden of Eden. According to scripture this resulted in human sinfulness and human death. The Bible does not give a detailed theological explaination.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who claim that Adam was created subject to death apart from sinning; that Adam was created to die anyway; are denying the teachings of the apostle Paul in Romans and Corinthinians.

The equivalency of sinless Adam and sinless Jesus Christ is the core aspect or foundation of the apostle Paul's Christology and Atonement / Ransom teachings.

An unfortunate pitfall of intellectuals and rationalists is that they have a problem putting faith in scriptural teachings unless every objection and question that they can raise is answered intellectually and rationally according to their satisfaction. The intellectuals, the rationalists and the theologians have fallen in the same pit - having approached it from different directions.

Respectfully

DJABRIL

FutureMan

11-28-2008, 01:50 AM

Adam an Eve were created with relative perfection. That is physically and mentally.
Adam and Eve was created without sin.

Spiritually speaking though, they both needed to develop this as they were not automatically created with spirituality. This they would learn over a period of time under the guidance of God's angels. One in particular that should have helped them to gain this spirituality was the cherub who was appointed to look after them in the garden of Eden. This he failed to do because of his own lack of spirituality and lack of appreciaton for his Creator and thus set mankind in the opposite course of true spirituality which involved a true appreciation and obedience to their Creator Jehovah God.
With this he forfeited his right as one of God's children and caused Adam and Eve to lose their inheritance as children of God as well.

Now because Adam and Eve were as to speak babes in the woods, spiritually speaking, which they had not developed to a large degree as yet, God show them mercy and instituted his arrangement for them and his descendants to be able to regain what they had lost.
(Genesis 3:15)

This is of course is where Jesus Christ came in by means of his life on earth as a human, and his sacrifice.

Because of his ability to keep all of God's commandments that is the original commandments that God gave the Israelites under the Mosaic covernant, he proved that this could be acheived by a Perfect man. But even though his whole pre-human existence and knowledge thereof was not available to him until the time of his baptism and being baptized with Holy Spirit he did receive extensive instruction from his earthly parents and from other religious leaders at the temple and so on as he had an insatiable thirst for knowledge and understanding as we all should have today.

Even though Adam and Eve were taught by God's angels to some extent they did not have benefit of knowledge and hind-sight like that of Jesus Christ and us today.

Jesus Christ once he did receive Holy Spirit and was officially approved by God as his earthly Son as well as his heavenly son, was in a position to keep his integrity despite painful torture and finally death on a torture stake. Remember also that he was not really tested until he was baptized by both water immersion and the Holy Spirit.
His first test was when Satan tempted him out in the wilderness with three different situations after he had received all the knowledge from his heavenly father.

But because he had being personally taught by his father Jehovah God before he had come down to earth and this knowledge was revealed to him after his baptism and the receiving of God's Holy Spirit he thus had an enormous amount of spirituality.
His father Jehovah God had absolute trust in his son to be able to acheive his will and purpose. He knew that he would keep his integrity and pass with flying colors any test that would come upon his son.

In this way it can be said that Jesus was gauranteed to redeem mankind from their sorry plight to become once more children of God.

He proved to the whole universe and all living creatures in it, that beyond any doubt that a pefect being, a human at that, with true spirituality, could pass any test that could come on him and keep his loyalty and integrity to Jehovah God the creator of the universe.

More of my thoughts from FutureMan

Jeshurun

11-28-2008, 04:47 PM

Thank you Prayser and FutureMan for your input.

I was doing some research on differing opinions on this subject, and I found this very interesting view at deusvitae.com/faith/outlines/originalsin.txt

(I didn't want to post the link, you can cut and paste this address and put an http//www. in front of it)

II. The Origins of Original Sin
A. The doctrine of original sin does not originate in the Bible
or in the first century
B. Two of the early patristic authors, Irenaeus and Clement of
Alexandria, explicitly establish the innocence of children
(Against Heresies 4.28.3, Stromata 4.25)
C. The origins of original sin come about in the late third and
fourth centuries, with Augustine of Hippo being the principal
expositor of the doctrine
D. The doctrine of original sin comes about for a couple of
reasons
1. Justification of infant baptism
a. Original sin, to this day, under girds the concept of
infant baptism
b. If everyone is born into sin, everyone is liable to the
sentence of condemnation, even infants
c. Nevertheless, the concept of infant baptism came first,
and original sin later
2. Reaction to Pelagianism
a. Some, especially in the fourth century, were perceived
as taking free will too far, and were advocating an
idea that man is inherently good
b. Reaction to this belief went the other way, attempting
to establish that man is in no way at all good, and
born into that condition
E. Thus began the concept of original sin that has persevered
to this day

III. Original Sin: The Doctrine and Its Defense
A. What is original sin?
1. Original sin is the belief that not only is man born into
a world of sin, he actually is born with sin against him,
inherited from Adam
2. Since the Fall in Genesis 3, the sin of Adam has been
inherited by all who are his children, and therefore all
men, women, and children are in sin
B. This belief is mainly defended by four passages
1. Exodus 20:5: God visiting the iniquity of the fathers on
the children
2. Psalm 51:5: David's expression of his sinfulness
3. Romans 3:23: "all men" have sinned
4. Romans 5:12-17: sin and death through Adam
C. In a moment we will consider other passages from the Bible
and attempt to harmonize all of these ideas
D. First, let us consider the complications that ensued from
"original sin"

IV. Original Sin: Complications
A. A major complication of the doctrine of original sin is
Jesus of Nazareth
1. After all, Luke 3:38 establishes that Jesus is a son of Adam
2. If all the children of Adam have sin against them, that
would mean that Jesus of Nazareth was Himself born with sin
against Him!
B. This complication was acutely felt by the proponents of the
doctrine
C. The result: the "Immaculate Conception," not just of Jesus,
but also of Mary
1. Not just Jesus, but His mother Mary also, is given an
exception to the rule
2. Both are considered to have been born without the stain
of original sin
D. The Scriptures, of course, say nothing regarding any of this
E. It shows what happens when one deviates from the Scriptures,
and the constant additions that must be made to justify the
deviations
1. Infant baptism leads to original sin
2. Original sin leads to doctrines of immaculate conceptions
3. ...and the Scriptures say nothing about such things!

V. The Bible and Original Sin
A. Let us now consider what the Scriptures say
B. We have already quickly examined the Scriptures provided by
those who would advocate the doctrine of original sin
C. Let us consider other passages
1. Ezekiel 18:1-22
2. Matthew 18:1-4
3. Mark 9:35-37
D. In these passages, we see inconsistencies between what they
say and the doctrine of original sin
1. Ezekiel goes directly against the idea of inherited sin,
establishing that the soul who sins dies
2. Jesus establishes the innocence of children, and such an
understanding of those passages is validated by second
century interpreters
E. On the surface, it would seem that we are lost in a hopeless
contradiction between the various passages
F. Let us seek a reconciliation of the passages
G. Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:1-22
1. How can these two passages be reconciled when they seem
to say opposite things?
2. There are two means of reconciliation
3. Reconciliation #1: God decides to visit the consequences of
iniquity not, necessarily on the first generation, but
visits the consequences on a later iniquitous generation
a. The Law is clear about the consequences of disobedience
to the Law
b. Nevertheless, God does not send Israel into exile after
the first, second, third, or even fourth generation of
iniquity!
c. He waits for hundreds of years, hoping for repentance
d. Finally, in Israel, in the generation of Hoshea, the
people are cast out (2 Kings 17)
e. Yet since Hezekiah was king in Judah, and he strove to
be faithful, Judah was not yet cast out (2 Kings 18)
f. God only cast Judah into exile after three descendants
of the faithful Josiah were unfaithful (2 Kings 25)
g. Not all the kings felt the consequences of their sin in
their own generation, but the consequences were felt by
other generations who were iniquitous, and God cannot be
charged with injustice
4. Reconciliation #2: Propensity of the children to follow in
their fathers' footsteps
a. What is the common saying? The apple does not fall far
from the tree?
b. We can see from experience that sons often follow after
their fathers
c. Fathers who were good many times will have sons who
are good
d. Likewise, and perhaps more prevalently, fathers who
commit sins, especially against their children, will see
that their sons do the same
e. It is harder to break this chain than it is to
perpetuate it
5. We can see, then, that we can make some sense of these
passages, and neither reconciliation concept demands that
people are born into sin
H. Psalm 51:5 and Matthew 18:1-4/Mark 9:35-37
1. Again, we seem to have a deadlock
2. In this circumstance, we need to consider the contexts to
see if there are any mitigating factors
3. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus is trying to help His disciples
understand the nature of the Kingdom using a child
a. While Jesus is speaking in terms of a comparison, if the
basis of comparison is not legitimate, neither can Jesus'
point be legitimate
b. If children are not humble and in a pure state, then to
compare a citizen of the Kingdom to a child is an
inappropriate comparison
4. In Psalm 51:5, however, we see that David is writing poetry,
and highly charged poetry at that
a. The introduction to the Psalm indicates that David wrote
it after his sin with Bathsheba was exposed
b. David is manifestly greatly disturbed by his sin and
pours out his heart to God
c. In this situation, do we take David as accurately
representing his own feelings on account of his sin or
the way things are in God's sight?
5. The context of Matthew and Mark seems to demand that
children are holy, and yet we see that the context of the
Psalm is poetic language that is highly charged
6. The best reconciliation, then, is to understand David as
speaking in exaggerated, highly charged language--
hyperbole-- representing his self-image on account of
his sin
7. David, then, was not literally a sinner from the womb; he
just felt that he was that sinful!
8. We can see, then, that children remain pure, and David's
exaggeration does not prove that we are all born in sin
I. Romans 3:23 and Matthew 18:1-4/Mark 9:35-37
1. Much is made of Romans 3:23 and Paul's use of the term "all"
2. "All," of course, is interpreted to refer to every single
human being regardless of age
3. Is that the way it should be interpreted?
4. Many times in the Scripture, "all" is used in slight
hyperbole, establishing that a great number of people are
involved
5. Matthew 3:5: did literally all Judea and Jerusalem go out
to see John, i.e. every single resident? That is hard to
believe!
6. In such cases, we understand that the greater part of the
people, but not necessarily every single person, did what
was recorded
7. The same is true for "all" in Romans 3:23
8. It is universally admitted that Jesus the Christ did not so
sin (Hebrews 7:26); therefore, we already see that not
literally all have sinned!
9. Matthew 18:1-4 and Mark 9:35-37 can then stand: Paul is
not striving to say that children have sinned in
Romans 3:23, but emphasizing how all who are accountable
are the ones who have sinned, and such is how we interpret
the use of "all"
J. Romans 5:12-17
1. To properly understand Romans 5:12-17, we must engage in a
deep reading to see what the text actually says and what
it does not actually say
2. Nowhere in the passage does it say, as is alleged, that man
has inherited actual sin from Adam
3. The text does show that sin entered the world through
Adam's transgression, and death with it (v. 12), and that
death reigned from Adam on (v. 14)
4. Many try to use verses 15-17 to say that men have died
from Adam's sin, but the text does not say that; it says
that the trespass "brought" condemnation, that death
"reigned" through that one man, and that the sin "led"
to condemnation
5. We can interpret this passage consistently with the rest
we have seen by seeing that Paul proves that sin entered
the world and that the world is permeated with sin on
account of the Fall, and as a consequence we eventually
succumb to the sin that so permeates this world
6. Furthermore, death is in the world because sin is in the
world, and as the example of infants dying attests, that
one dies is not necessarily an indication that one has
actually sinned, but that one lives in a world full of sin!
7. Viewed this way, the passage makes more sense and is
consistent with the rest of the witness of Scripture
K. We have now seen how all the Scriptures used to advocate the
position of original sin need not be interpreted to actually
promote that doctrine, but can be interpreted so as to be
consistent with the rest of the witness of Scripture
L. In the end, the idea of original sin stands refuted, not
present in the Bible but imposed on it for ulterior
doctrinal purposes
M. The truth of the matter is clear
1. The soul that sins dies-- not just because it is born,
but because one knows good from evil and chooses evil
(Ezekiel 18)
2. No one inherits sin-- one may inherit a sinful nature,
one may inherit a bad set of cards that prompts one to fall
into sin more easily than another, but one is only
responsible for the sins one commits
3. Small children and infants, along with those with
significant mental retardation, do not have the capability
of sinning since they do not have the understanding of
their actions

Jahsdisciple

11-28-2008, 11:31 PM

Ive always found it interesting that when you start to follow the bible and change your values according to the same as Jah..that good things start to happen. Of course you say ... but at the same time many bad things stop.

Some of these things that stop are actually called 'sins' in the bible. So the result of applying what Jah says is the reduction of sin in our lives.

Sometimes we sin because of being from adam,but we can bring sin into our lives via false values.

Sin can be in our lives for 2 reasons.
1/ We are imperfect.
2/ We sin because of ignorance.

This is the benefit from following Jesus and the twofold gains by him.
1/He will do away with adam's genes.
2/We can reduce sin by following his example and seeing that our values also cause sin.

So 'sin' is not just because we inherit something from adam,we can reduce it even before we are perfect in the new world. TO sin can be a choice,but if we are taught that there is another way that will bring happiness into our lives,then why wouldnt we follow it as it will bring happiness. JD

SlaveForJah

11-29-2008, 02:57 AM

So, then what did Christ save us from, if not from sin?

Agape

SlaveForJah

PRAYSER

11-29-2008, 06:42 PM

JESHURUN

K. We have now seen how all the Scriptures used to advocate the
position of original sin need not be interpreted to actually
promote that doctrine, but can be interpreted so as to be
consistent with the rest of the witness of Scripture.

Scripture should never be taken out of context and interpreted to contradict clearly articulated / stated scriptural teachings.

as our ransomer - redeemer - saviour.

If we reject this doctrine we may as well practice Islam, Judaism or become Unitarian Universalist, all of which claim that there is no sin or sinfulness inherited from Adam and therefore Jesus is not necessary for anyones salvation.

Respectfully

DJABRIL

PRAYSER

11-29-2008, 07:38 PM

II. The Origins of Original Sin
A. The doctrine of original sin does not originate in the Bible
or in the first century

The phrase original sin is not in the Bible, however, the apostle Paul clearly stated that we humans have inherited our sinful nature and our subjection to death from Adam. We do not die because of our individual personal sins because we were born subject to death because of Adam's disobedience in the garden of Eden.

B. Two of the early patristic authors, Irenaeus and Clement of
Alexandria, explicitly establish the innocence of children
(Against Heresies 4.28.3, Stromata 4.25)

Inherited traits have nothing to do with innocence or guilt. We can only be guilty or innocent
of personal actions, however, a terminal condition can kill us even if it is hereditary and therefore we are not personally responsible for our condition. Infants and children also die from inherited conditions and illness.

C. The origins of original sin come about in the late third and
fourth centuries, with Augustine of Hippo being the principal
expositor of the doctrine
D. The doctrine of original sin comes about for a couple of
reasons
1. Justification of infant baptism
a. Original sin, to this day, under girds the concept of
infant baptism
b. If everyone is born into sin, everyone is liable to the
sentence of condemnation, even infants
c. Nevertheless, the concept of infant baptism came first,
and original sin later.

The Bible makes it clear that we are all subject to the sentence of death [the penalty for the sin of Adam]. We all know this from personal experience and observation - eventually everybody dies. Scriptural teachings should not be junked just because false teachers and theologians have attached non-Bible teachings like; infant baptism, immortal souls, eternal torment in hell-fire; to the scriptural teachings.

2. Reaction to Pelagianism
a. Some, especially in the fourth century, were perceived
as taking free will too far, and were advocating an
idea that man is inherently good.
b. Reaction to this belief went the other way, attempting
to establish that man is in no way at all good, and
born into that condition.
E. Thus began the concept of original sin that has persevered
to this day.

Humanity was created in the image of God therefore we have an inherent goodness, however if we have not inhereted our sinful nature and our subjection to death from Adam, then where do they come from. If we could be perfectly righteous naturally then out of the billions of humans who have ever lived we should be able to identify several perfectly righteous cultures and nations in history and out of the billions of humans currently living there should be a few billion perfectly righteous humans currently alive.

Between AUGUSTINE and PELAGIUS we have two theologians accepting only a part of what the scriptures teach about sin, death, atonement, and salvation.

PRAYSER

11-29-2008, 08:16 PM

III. Original Sin: The Doctrine and Its Defense
A. What is original sin?
1. Original sin is the belief that not only is man born into
a world of sin, he actually is born with sin against him,
inherited from Adam
2. Since the Fall in Genesis 3, the sin of Adam has been
inherited by all who are his children, and therefore all
men, women, and children are in sin.

The Bible clearly teaches that humans are born into a condition of enslavement or servitude to sin and death due to the disobedience / sin of Adam in the garden of Eden. The Catholics have named this teaching "original sin" and defined it in theological terms that go beyond scripture; however, the core doctrine is scriptural.

B. This belief is mainly defended by four passages
1. Exodus 20:5: God visiting the iniquity of the fathers on
the children

Exodus 20:5 has no bearing on the doctrine because it is dealing with the personal actions of individuals and God's judgements within that context. Willful sin is not "original sin". Willful sin is not inherited sinfulness or inhereted sinful nature. Willful sin is a deliberate act of will.

2. Psalm 51:5: David's expression of his sinfulness

David expression of his sinfulness is correct. The statements made in this verse are NOT expressions of David specific sins [adultry and murder] willfully committed.

Psalm 51:5
With error I was brought forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me.

3. Romans 3:23: "all men" have sinned.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

This scripture is probably chosen to refute because it does not mention Adam nor sinfulness per se, and therefore can be interpreted to refer to personal acts of will [individual sins] only.

4. Romans 5:12-17: sin and death through Adam

Romans chapters 5 & 6 explains how sin and death came about and how the atonement / ransom works. If we reject the statements about the origin / reason for human death and sinfulness [stated as inherited from Adam; due to Adam's one transgression], we nullify the atonement / ransom, thereby making Jesus useless.

PRAYSER

11-29-2008, 09:31 PM

IV. Original Sin: Complications

A. A major complication of the doctrine of original sin is
Jesus of Nazareth
1. After all, Luke 3:38 establishes that Jesus is a son of Adam
2. If all the children of Adam have sin against them, that
would mean that Jesus of Nazareth was Himself born with sin
against Him!
B. This complication was acutely felt by the proponents of the
doctrine

This so-called complication is merely an example of silliness and simplemindedness. The only way to even think this is to presume that Almighty God who could create the first man, Adam, from dust [the nonliving elements of the earth] is unable to miraculously conceive a human son by the power of his holy spirit who is without sin. This argument is worthy of an atheist or a materialist - but no self-repecting Christian should even pose this so-called complication - objection.

C. The result: the "Immaculate Conception," not just of Jesus,
but also of Mary
1. Not just Jesus, but His mother Mary also, is given an
exception to the rule
2. Both are considered to have been born without the stain
of original sin

The Catholic "Immaculate Conception" doctrine is not the result of believing in a doctrine of original sin or in the Bible's teaching that we humans have inherited our sinfulness or sinful natures and our subjection to death from Adam. None of the non-Catholics who believe in original believe in the "Immaculate Conception" of the mother of Jesus. The "Immaculate Conception" doctrine is the result of Catholic idolatry, worship of saints, and of attributing the atonement to someone other than to Jesus alone.

D. The Scriptures, of course, say nothing regarding any of this

The scriptures say nothing regarding the "Immaculate Conception" of the mother of Jesus. The Bible clearly state that Jesus was without sin.

E. It shows what happens when one deviates from the Scriptures, and the constant additions that must be made to justify the deviations.

The point to be clear about is whether it is the theological formulations of the Catholic / Protestant churches that are being refuted or is the purpose to refute the clearly stated teachings of the Paul and other writers of the Bible regarding the nature of human sinfulness and human death. Additions to or misuse of clearly stated scriptural teachings cannot nullify scriptural teachings.

1. Infant baptism leads to original sin.

The fact that the Catholic Church misused the clearly stated Bible teaching that human sinfulness and human subjection to death is inherited from Adam and is due to Adam's disobedience in the garden of Eden to validate infant baptism, does not nullify the clearly stated Bible teaching.

2. Original sin leads to doctrines of immaculate conceptions

The purpose of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is to elevate her to the status of equality with the Catholic trinitarian God-Head. If the point is to deny - immaculate conceptions [plural] -, then it is also being denied that Jesus was also conceived without sin, and is therefore not the son of God. Of course, those who deny that human sinfulness and subjection to death is inherited for Adam, due to the disobedience of Adam in the garden of Eden, do not need a savoiour anyway.

3. ...and the Scriptures say nothing about such things!

The scriptures clearly state [it is written and therefore does not have to be interpreted] that human sinfulness and human death is due one act of transgression of Adam in the garden of Eden. [Read Romans chapter 5 and chapter 6]. This teaching has nothing to do with false teachings regarding infant baptisms, immaculate conception of the mother of Jesus or any other false teaching.

Whether we use the phrase:original sin does not matter.

If we reject the clearly stated Bible teaching regarding how we became subject to sin and death we are also rejecting the atonement / ransom, and we are making Jesus into just another Jewish Rabbi.

PRAYSER

11-29-2008, 10:24 PM

This entire section [A. through M.] of the post is a gross example of taking scriptures that say nothing about inherited sin and misapplying them to out of the context of what they actually address.

V. The Bible and Original Sin

A. Let us now consider what the Scriptures say

B. We have already quickly examined the Scriptures provided by
those who would advocate the doctrine of original sin

C. Let us consider other passages

1. Ezekiel 18:1-22

As stated previously Ezekiel 18 does not address inherited sin and death due to Adam's sin at all, therefore it is not revelant to the subject. If you can read, please read Ezekiel 18 you will see that it is discussing the willful acts of individuals and God's judgements of those individuals.

2. Matthew 18:1-4

Matthew 18:1-4
In that hour the disciples came near to Jesus and said: "Who really is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?" So, calling a young child to him, he set it in their midst and said: "Truly I say to you, Unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens. Therefore whoever humbles himself like this young child is the one that is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens.

3. Mark 9:35-37

Mark 9:33-37
Now when he was inside the house he put the question to them: "What were you arguing over on the road?" They kept silent, for on the road they had argued among themselves who is greater. So he sat down and called the twelve and said to them: "If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all." An he took a young child, stood it in their midst and put his arms around it and said to them. "Whoever receives one of such young children on the basis of my name, receives me, and whoever receives me, receives, not me only, but also him that sent me forth.

D. In these passages, we see inconsistencies between what they
say and the doctrine of original sin.

These passages do not address the doctrine of original sin or inherited sinfulness and death in any form.

1. Ezekiel goes directly against the idea of inherited sin,
establishing that the soul who sins dies.

Ezekiel 18 is about willful sinful acts - personal wickedness - and God's judgements regarding willful sinful acts.

2. Jesus establishes the innocence of children, and such an
understanding of those passages is validated by second
century interpreters.

Matthew 18:1-4 & Mark 9:33-37 is not about the innocence of children with respect to inherited sinfulness and death due to the sin of Adam. The apostles were concerned about which one of them would be the greatest in the kingdom Jesus uses a child to teach them the necessity of humility. The lesson taugh in these scriptures is clear to anyone who bothers to read what is clearly stated, there is no need to seek out highly educationed theologians to interprete what is plainly stated.

Sections E - M follow the same pattern of taking scripture out of context and trying to refute a clearly stated teaching of scripture.

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

That human sinfulness - sinful nature and human death is due to the disobedience of Adam in the garden of Eden.

Adam was created without sin and was not subject to death, he brought the sentence of death upon his descendants by his 1st act of disobedience in the garden of Eden.

Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and was therefore a human without sin just as Adam was at his creation and this is why Jesus could atone for our sin - both our sinfulness or sinful nature and well as for our individual personal sins.

This is the Bible's explaination of how atonement works. - Romans chapters 5 & 6.

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

Those who claim that humans did not inherit sin and death due to the sin of Adam are deny the Bible's explaination of the atonement and salvtion and making Jesus out to be just another religious teacher.

PRAYSER

11-29-2008, 10:51 PM

Jeshurun

11-30-2008, 04:08 AM

Ive always found it interesting that when you start to follow the bible and change your values according to the same as Jah..that good things start to happen.[/b]

JD, you have obviously captured the essence of the point I was trying to make. The idea that babies are born with a sinful nature goes completely against scripture and the idea of a loving and just God. God does not create sinners. If we are all sinful by nature than it is tantamount to saying we are all children of the devil. We were created in the image of God and God is not a sinner.

Prayser, I do believe that the doctrine of original sin as we have been led to understand it is God-dishonoring, and goes completely against the teachings of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. I'm sure that if we brainstorm it, we could come up with quite a few reasons why we needed a Messiah other than some sort of viral infection passed down from Adam that basically removes the onus of sin from us and places it on our being born in sin. What a perfect excuse to sin. I do not have the time to get into a long winded debate with you, because it isn't much different than trying to reason with a Watchtower elder. I am about halfway through a very interesting book on this subject. Perhaps you might find that we have been hoodwinked by the early Church fathers once again...

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

Love,
Jesh

uglyandthin

11-30-2008, 04:29 AM

JESHURUN

ETHAN does a poor job on his website in making his case against the Catholic doctrine of original sin. The document is poorly done, to be charitable. As a Evangelical trinitarian he would probably focus on the DEITY of Jesus for an explaination as to how the atonement works.

In other words: ALMIGHTY GOD died for our sins - Case closed.

It is probably best not to use the expression original sin becauce of the baggage that comes with it provided that we are clear that the scriptures teach that:
[1] we inherited our sinfulness, sinful condition or sinful nature from Adam and
[2] are subject to death because of the sin of Adam in the garden of Eden.

The atonement works because:
[3] Jesus was conceived and born without sin just as Adam was created without sin.

By remaining faithful Jesus could redeem repurchase what Adam lost:
[4] the right to life for himself and all of his descendents [Jesus becomes our eternal father in place of Adam]
[5] and a righteous standing with God [for those who put faith in him].

Respectfully

DJABRIL[/b]

Hi Prayser:

You nailed it and could not have been any clearer, in my estimation that is. Don't know what all the difficulty in understanding this concept is?

<div align="left">12 That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned—. 13 For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him that was to come.</div>
15 But it is not with the gift as it was with the trespass. For if by one man’s trespass many died, the undeserved kindness of God and his free gift with the undeserved kindness by the one man Jesus Christ abounded much more to many. 16 Also, it is not with the free gift as it was with the way things worked through the one [man] that sinned. For the judgment resulted from one trespass in condemnation, but the gift resulted from many trespasses in a declaration of righteousness. 17 For if by the trespass of the one [man] death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and of the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one [person], Jesus Christ.

Does repeating this scripture help? I hope so.

uglyandthin

Rogue

04-16-2009, 10:42 AM

<div class='quotemain'>Ive always found it interesting that when you start to follow the bible and change your values according to the same as Jah..that good things start to happen.[/b]

JD, you have obviously captured the essence of the point I was trying to make. The idea that babies are born with a sinful nature goes completely against scripture and the idea of a loving and just God. God does not create sinners. If we are all sinful by nature than it is tantamount to saying we are all children of the devil. We were created in the image of God and God is not a sinner.

Prayser, I do believe that the doctrine of original sin as we have been led to understand it is God-dishonoring, and goes completely against the teachings of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. I'm sure that if we brainstorm it, we could come up with quite a few reasons why we needed a Messiah other than some sort of viral infection passed down from Adam that basically removes the onus of sin from us and places it on our being born in sin. What a perfect excuse to sin. I do not have the time to get into a long winded debate with you, because it isn't much different than trying to reason with a Watchtower elder. I am about halfway through a very interesting book on this subject. Perhaps you might find that we have been hoodwinked by the early Church fathers once again...

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

Love,
Jesh
[/b][/quote]

Hi jesh,

I came across this topic, and reading your post I felt I had to reply...
I just wanted to express where in my opinion your reasoning (which is somewhat similar to gnostic reasoning) goes wrong:
You said that it is blasphemes to say that babies are born as sinners, because that would say that our good God creates evil creation, if we were all born evil, then we must be sons of the devil. Well, in my humble opinion, God didn't create any other humans than Adam, Eve and Jesus. I was born because my parents propagated, not because God made me... God made Adam perfect, His creation was good. But when Adam sinned (the result of free choice) he was punished with imperfection, and so was Eve... not, it is not hard to understand that two imperfect humans cannot create perfect children. A simple illustration: I have one baking tin to make cake. It is a perfect baking tin and the cake I make is perfect of shape. But after the first cake, the tin falls from the dresser and gets a dent! Now, if I make cakes with that baking tin in the future, every cake I make will have a dent as well, it is impossibel to make flawless cakes with that tin! In that way, humans are dented, they received imperfection and therefor sin from Adam.. the Bible clearly says that all humans sin, and that we received sin from Adam. So yes, babies are born as sinners, that is why every person needs Jesus' ransom. This doesn't mean we have an excuse to sin, as explained before... there is a difference between innate sin and deliberate sin! We don't get to use the ransom as an excuse to sin, Jehovah sets standards for us that are possible to uptain, we don't have to commit sins that can lead to us loosing our right to live in His Kingdom, those are not sins we cannot help committing... But what are the sins we cannot help committing? Well, what is the literal meaning of sin? Isn't it to miss one's goal? Don't we imperfect people all miss our goal? Jehovah intended mankind to be perfect and live forever, and that is why we mortal, imperfect men miss are goal... so being born a sinner means being born immortal and imperfect, our body is flawed, we can get sick, injured, we die, we don't use our full brain... in that way we sin, we cannot help having bad thoughts, we can work hard to ban them, but we cannot help having them in the first place.. there are lots of ways in which we miss our goal (sin)... but Jesus evened the scale by his ransom and made it possible for everyone to have eternal life... he didn't provide an excuse to commit sins!

I hope I make some sense.. :)

shikinah

04-16-2009, 01:38 PM

"Ezekiel 18:19 "'And YOU people will certainly say: "Why is it that the son does not have to bear anything because of the error of the father?" Now as regards the son, justice and righteousness he has executed, all the statutes of mine he has kept and he keeps doing them. He will positively keep living. 20 The soul that is sinning—it itself will die. A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father, and a father himself will bear nothing because of the error of the son. Upon his own self the very righteousness of the righteous one will come to be, and upon his own self the very wickedness of a wicked one will come to be."

Its a difficult one this, as we can see that the nephilim tried to destroy our gene pool. If this is the case then humans would have been contaminated which they were, and Jehovah wiped them out. My theory has always been that our human line has still been contaminated, and if so this would explain why some heart conditions are real evil while others arnt. Why Jehovah killed certain tribes and left others. But this scripture does contradict other scriptures and explains why people end up having to do so much research to understand. A test was carried out on people in Japan to answer questions, they chose 1000 from the main blood groups and found they each answered the same according to their blood group. So is it a genetic thing which determine our hearts and how sinful we are? not necesseraliy our immediate parents but influence of how much degenerated DNA we posses? Heres a section on blood types.

Having met with initial scepticism in the western world, the use of blood type analysis as a tool for determining personality and other psychophysical characteristics began to be accepted. A father and son team of physicians in North America (the D’Adamo’s) published a book called ‘The D’Adamo Diet’. In it they postulated that different blood types could react differently with dissimilar types of food. In his research James D’Adamo found this to be true. People of blood type A and AB could thrive on a vegetarian diet, and those of blood type B could survive, although not as well. Type ‘O’ people, experienced severe difficulty when deprived of animal protein. The explanation behind this finding is that type ‘O’ is the oldest blood type, and because of the near carnivorous nature of the diet in days gone by, people with this type of blood have a large genetic need for meat. Different blood types evolved over millions of years because of the need to adapt to specific food shortages through the ages.

It is because these basic connections between blood type and diet were easily proven that experts began focusing on less obvious connections, such as personality traits. It was theorised that because evolutionary change altered immune systems and digestive tracts (hence the development of blood types), that mental and emotional characteristics would also be likely to change over such a long time. These basic changes could over millions of years develop into distinct behaviours and psychological patterns. Here is a guide to the personality traits that are supposedly common in the different blood types. "Obviously we know no millions of years were needed"

Elizabeth

littleone

04-16-2009, 02:27 PM

Rogue

04-16-2009, 03:15 PM

Genetics or no genetics... the bible bears witness that some people out of "all nations, tribes and tongues" will put faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, when it comes to our relationship with Jehovah, putting faith in Jesus Christ is something that we all the capability to do. When all is said and done, genetic flaws will mean very little... as we've all inherited sin from Adam. Yet, Jesus' redeeming power is capable of redeeming everyone that puts faith in him. This is something we all have the ability to do... from the greatest to the least.[/b]

Exactely what I ment to say: Jehovah doesn't aqcuire anything from us that we cannot give. That we all have inherited sin from Adam doesn't mean we can't help sinning, that is not what the Bible says! We CAN help it, we don't have to do the things that Jehovah clearly says we shouldn't... Satan wants us to, but we can resist... we can't help being sinfull by birth, but this simply means when we are born, we already miss our goal, our purpose, and we will keep missing our goal (sin) untill we are made perfect by Jehovah, which Jesus made possible... therefor it is correct to say that a baby is born a sinner, but it isn't correct we cannot avoid breaking Jehovah's commandments because we are born sinners...

Also, it is not correct to say that Jehovah created us as evil persons, so He cannot be a good God... this is what gnostics say, but it is not true, Jehovah didn't create evil people, He created Adam, a perfect human being, all the imperfect human beings that came after Adam, and that commited sins, were not directly created by Jehovah, they were the product of reproduction. Jehovah has only ever created perfect humans: Adam, Eve and Jesus...
And some may say: in order for Jesus to be perfect, Maria must have been perfect too, because otherwise she could not have beared a perfect child... some people can reason so fleshly, instead of spiritualy... didn't Jehovah implant Jesus into the whom of Maria? Was she not just an ordineary girl? Didn't Jehovah create the human body Jesus had, a perfect human body. Jehovah might even have thrown in some perfected genetic treats that Maria (and maybe even Joseph) had, so that Jesus would realy look like their child, maybe Jehovah even used an ovule of Maria and a sperm of Joseph, perfected them and layed Jesus' personality into it... who knows!!! Nothing is impossible for an Almighty God, but people who think fleshly can never understand these things...

imjustaskin

04-16-2009, 07:55 PM

""Exactely what I ment to say: Jehovah doesn't aqcuire anything from us that we cannot give. That we all have inherited sin from Adam doesn't mean we can't help sinning, that is not what the Bible says! We CAN help it, we don't have to do the things that Jehovah clearly says we shouldn't... Satan wants us to, but we can resist... we can't help being sinfull by birth, but this simply means when we are born, we already miss our goal, our purpose, and we will keep missing our goal (sin) untill we are made perfect by Jehovah, which Jesus made possible... therefor it is correct to say that a baby is born a sinner, but it isn't correct we cannot avoid breaking Jehovah's commandments because we are born sinners...""

I see where you're coming from, but I think it is true that we cannot avoid breaking Jehovah's laws because we are born sinners. As it was pointed out earlier, there is a difference between intentional sin and sin through error or ignorance. We can avoid the first type but not the second.

I had a discussion with a Mormon once, who said that their belief is "we die for our own sins, and not those of Adam". That's kind of tricky, because yes the sins are our own, but the option of not sinning is what was taken away from us by Adam. I asked the Mormon, then if someone tried really hard enough, could they not sin? And he actually said yes. THAT goes against the ransom concept. We do not have the CAPABILITY of serving Jehovah perfectly without sinning. So in that way it is true that because of our inherited sin we cannot avoid breaking Jehovah's laws. We can avoid and are expected to do our best, to avoid ever breaking them intentionally however. That is how we show our appreciation for the ransom.

I heard an illustration once, that the ransom only makes up for the difference between the best we can do and perfection. It doesn't cover the amount that is less than the best we can do. IE, if the best we can do, given our knowledge, mental and physical makeup, emotional makeup, inherited traits, etc., is a 7, then Jesus sacrifice makes up the difference from a 7 to a 10. But if we are only doing a 5...then we have some trouble. That's why it's futile to judge others...only Jehovah knows what their best really is.

So, Jehovah does not ask of us what's not possible for us to give, but only he really knows to what extent it IS possible.

shikinah

04-16-2009, 08:43 PM

Yes i see your point, but my sister and father are very much alike in every way, very straight laced, hardly any faults, always doing things right, yet they took the truth very easily no problems what so ever. Im like my mother lively, boistrous, fun loving, jokers and have struggled with the truth all our lives. Why is this? Its easy to love and do Jesus will, but to do the truth is difficult. Is it a persons fault what characteristics make it easier for them than others. I know lovely people who just cannot sit patient through a watchtower while others find its exciting. Another thing thats against us in this generation, is the fact of hidden truth which wasnt known of in bible times. The Jews knew Jehovah was the true god and so did the nations, there wasnt various forms of Jehovah worship and then try to decifer which is the genuine one, you just knew there was Jehovah or pagan gods. Now theres hundreds to choose from, so we are at a disadvantage and have to spend more time decifering which is genuine as thhere all made to look like like the truth.

Elizabeth