False Doctrine of Original Sin 1 - What is it?

[Erap1muzik]

your theology is messed up

[alastairblakepeters]

@Erap1muzik way to offer a better alternative.

[alastairblakepeters]

ps: your not a heretic.

[alastairblakepeters]

thank you for this.

[vendlerius]

You sir, are a heretic.

[utff313]

Catholic view on reproduction does not say it is sinful in a marriage blessed by God. Rather the Catholic Church teaches on concupiscence, which is a seed towards sexual immorality existent in all of us; but by God's grace can be re-ordered to bring purity and children in a grace filled marriage. This is a beautiful teaching because it seeks to make sacred the gift of sexuality and to order it to its rightful place and objective. What is wrong with that?

[polopowers1]

We are born flesh. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. I did not inherit Adam's sin but his flesh and blood bound to die Flesh and blood must sin so we must be born again. Adam could not inherit the kingdom of God being flesh even without his sin.Consummation of Adam and Eve we inherit not lust but a body flesh which must sin.We do not sin in Adam but inherit death of blood that must die.Death passed upon men; men consummate as sinners.Never sin and flesh still inherits nothing.

[polopowers2]

@polopowers1 HAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS. I have a flesh sword for Jesus though ;)

[wilby1414]

Romans 5:17

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Adan's sin caused him to be a fallen man seperated from God and doomed to die. His isn did not pass onto us BUT his condidtion did--that condition is death. We were born from a fallen man under the curse of death therefore we to are destined to die.

Through Christ by baptism into Jesus name we are made alive!

[allsaintsmonastery]

Interesting that you did not consider the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Ancestral Sin (Augustine's notion of Original Sin is considered heretical by the Ancient, or, Orthodox Church). I suggest that you read Dr John Romanides' ON THE ANCESTRAL SIN, in which the notion of Original Sin is refuted.

[w96725]

I doubt not that Wesleyan s represent Wesley's views on sanctification more radically than he himself perhaps did. Every reformer usually gets out done alone the way. However, the fact still remains that the eradication fallacy would never have arisen had Protestantism not continued propagating the Catholic doctrine of original sin by which we have inherited all the doctrinal, and irrational difficulties therein.

[w96725]

Most of my life I have been a confused Wesleyan over the doctrine of entire sanctification, but once I realized that "eradication" (the Wesleyan emphasis on sanctification) was simply an attempt to deal with Catholic error ("original sin") carried over into protestantism by Calvin which Wesley some how never held suspect, then I saw the problem. The problem was not that sanctification was not possible, but that the "eradication" of our propensities to temptation was not possible.

[originaldanman]

@w96725 Though there have been some in the Methodist movement that taught "eradication" of the sin nature; of all I've read from Wesley, he never taught eradication. Also it was not his "attempt" to deal with it, it was what he believed. He wasn't the kind of person to throw out something he believed in just because some other group happened to agree with him on that same point.

[hays012]

After reading the comments I had just one question. If our desires are not inherently sinful and we are born sinless then are all babies that are born perfect just as Jesus was perfect? Because if no one is born inherently sinful then for a short time we would all be sinless and holy initially at birth right? Which would discount the need for Jesus to save us at that moment right? Because we would essential be perfect at the moment.

[johnmartinez321]

I'm confused... was the original sin lust or disobedience?

[sailing19100]

part 3: Therefore, original sin is real, but has nothing to do with the will of man; original sin is flesh, the willful marring of the potter in order to remake the pot into something fitting for his purpose. The creature was made subject to vanity by the potter Himself in hope. James tells us that the spirit of man lusteth to envy, and Jesus tells us that fornications and murders take place in the soul, and are only sometimes manifested in the flesh. End of three part comment.

[sailing19100]

part 2: God purposed Christ to come not to fix an error, but to finish the creation of a perfected bride for his son, that love might have an object capable of loving as he loves; knowing both good and evil, and having the senses exercised to be able to discern between the two as He does (Hebrews 5:14). It was Adam's sin that secured God's will and purpose, which is, God's own pleasure according to the counsel of His own will (Revelation 4:11).

[sailing19100]

Adam and Eve were sinful even before they ate of the tree. They were naked but not ashamed, because they were spiritually blind. Their sin came from within them, not without, and not because of the tempter. This is why levitical sacrifices contain both the sin offering and the trespass offering. Jesus' flesh was exactly the same as Adam's flesh, as is ours. The purpose of God in Christ before the foundation of the world was to create a new species. see part 2 please

[NewDirection4us]

We are all born in sin. As sinners, we are all spiritually dead until the Holy Spirit comes into us and makes us alive again. That is when we come to Christ in faith and belief. Dead men cannot respond to the gospel on their own; only through God's mercy extended to those whom Christ saved at the cross. I have a question for you "free willers". Did Christ die to save anyone or everyone? Did He accomplish anything, or did he just make salvation possible to only those who decide for Christ?

[polopowers1]

Men cannot please God because all men are flesh.The flesh is powerless death in everymen to sin.And I did not inherit Adam's sin but Adam's flesh which cannot please God.And all flesh is death that must sin.And even if I did not sin I cxannot please God in the Flesh

[sailing19100]

@polopowers1 I think you hit the nail on the head. Flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God. Adam and Eve were fallen even before they ate of the tree. Jesus did not come to fix something that was broken; He came to finish up a process.

[blackshadowsnoopy]

Is Augustines view of original sin in the organic sense and the view that we as humanity all took part in Adams sin, related at all to how our sins can be passed on down through several generations ? like in Exodus 20 ?

[originaldanman]

You don't have to throw away the doctrine of original sin to believe in Christian perfection, (of which I believe in both). I do agree other things you've said, but firmly disagree on this. Try reading Wesley as well as Finney. What do you think it means in James where "he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed". It's not the devil, but his own sinful nature that entices him! What is the "lusts of the flesh", but an inward desire to sin? Of which we never have to obey!

[bibletheology]

Eve was tempted because of her own natural desires that God gave her. Jesus was tempted because of his natural desires which God gave him. Neither Jesus nor Eve had a sinful nature, yet they were tempted by their flesh. Our flesh has natural desires that we can gratify naturally or unnaturally, lawfully or unlawfully. The devil tempts us to gratify our flesh unnaturally and unlawfully. It is not sinful to have flesh, but it is sinful to live after the flesh or to live for it.

[originaldanman]

I see your point and it makes since, I've never thought about that. This therefore causes me to modify my previous statement. Your argument shows that being tempted neither proves nor disproves one has a sinful nature. A desire may be evil or good in itself, but what makes a good desire evil is when God commands us (at least for that moment) to abstain from it, and also sin can be sin when in thought only. However Gen. vi:5, Jer.17:9, Ps 561:5, 1cor 15:22, still prove the sinful nature.

[sailing19100]

@originaldanman about "being tempted" I see in James 4 that the spirit in us lusts to envy (in general, without a need for intelligent provocation from outside of us). Dan may I ask you, had Adam and Eve never eaten of the tree, would we not have been nothing more than a zoo full of pets to God? In other words, would that state have been superior to having the mind of Christ?

[originaldanman]

@sailing19100 I don't believe we would be like animals anymore than the angels are. Also to question whether the state would have been superior is a matter of opinion. But in one since you can say yes because we wouldn't have the same faults and such because of the fall and curse. But also no because I'm not sure if we'd be able to fully grasp the meaning of grace, and experience the depths of his love, nor would He have been able to demonstrate it (as well as his mercy) without the fall.

[sailing19100]

@originaldanman I am aligned with your final statement. Outside of the fall, we would have no concept of the nature or purpose of God. The angels are pure intelligence, higher than us, to minister God's purpose for us, to be relegated below us when whe are glorified in Christ as his body. I see in scripture that God's purpose is bigger than orthodox theology, and could not have been accomplished without the "fall".

[sailing19100]

@bibletheology All flesh is sinful. All flesh is naked.  Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. As true before Eve at the fruit as after she ate it. Both Jesus and Eve had sinful natures. This is what it means that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Not just an image of sinful man, but made sin, not at the cross, but when he was born of a woman, born under law. To deny this is to misunderstand God's purpose in creation.

[originaldanman]

@bibletheology

Did you forget the part about the serpent (satan) tempting her and the Lord? Clearly your interpretation that you try to fit into your theology does not line up with scripture. No where does it say it was their flesh, but rather satan himself. The fact that Eve and our Lord were tempted without a sin nature does not disprove the doctrine of in bred sin. Our natural desires are not sin, drinking,eating, sleeping, etc... It is the perversion of them that is.

[sailing19100]

@originaldanman amen. Christian perfection is given by Christ, who also had sinful flesh, giving him the right to give to us what we could not obtain on our own. As Paul says "you are dead, and your life is hid in Christ". The secret and mystery of the gospel is that Adam and Eve were sinful even before they ate of the tree, and that flesh is sinful apart from any sin we knowingly or unknowingly commit under the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[originaldanman]

@sailing19100

Every once in a while I hear some strange doctrine I've never heard before thinking that it can get any crazier, then I read something like this. According to your misinterpretation of scripture Adam and Eve were not created perfect, but sinful, and contrary to scripture Jesus was also born a sinner. So I guess the angels were created sinful because they sinned in heaven, right? "God created man and said it was good, (except for his sinful flesh)" - The sailing19100 version

[sailing19100]

@originaldanman thanks for the response. I understand where you are coming from. It also pleased God to bruise Jesus. "It is good" simply means that it is fitting for God's purpose. Yes, you understood me correctly: Adam and Eve were created flawed, subject to vanity, on purpose. Jesus was not born a sinner, he was sinless, but his flesh was the same as yours and mine, and Adam's: corruptible: Not capable of inheriting the Kingdom of God. Feel free to write again.

[originaldanman]

@sailing19100

Well, like all those who twist scripture to fit their belief's, this is just another one and it's new to me. However I've yet to see a scripture that could be twisted to this to mean this, but I'm sure you have one. However, I do believe that people can believe all kinds of wild interpretations and still be followers of the same King that I serve. So God bless you, and remember the most important thing, is holiness, without which no man will see the Lord.

[sailing19100]

@originaldanman That is a soberminded and true response, thank you for it.

[w96725]

@originaldanman

Though Fenny admired Wesley's Plain Account of Christian Perfection because of it's scriptural emphasis on the holiness God requires of all believers in this life, he was not in agreement with the notion of genetic sinfulness. Finny taught we are all personally responsible for the condition of our own moral character and that it is impossible for this to be passed down genetically.

[originaldanman]

What's this?

Rom 5:14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 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. Rom 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

[bibletheology]

See LibraryofTheology .c om for my booklet "The Fall of Mankind" where I explain Romans 5 and Eph. 2:3. Those are the typical proof texts that I deal with all the time.

[apostleds]

Can't hear any sound yet.

My computor got a bad virus and had to be reformatted.

Not all done yet.

I will save it for later.

Brother Don

[timestandingstill]

Adam and Eve had a choice, God Knew they would eat from the tree of knowledge of Good and evil, but it had to be their choice. God said they would surely die, the flesh sins so it is subject to death, the Spirit does not sin. When Adam became rebelious to God after this knowledge God Kicked them out of the Garden of Eden. The Vessel became broken, God is rebuilding a Spiritial Adam, The Word of God thru Jesus, became our Grace and rebirth.

[777denny]

It is proper to expose false gospels like Calvinism. All TULIP doctrines are false, just as John Calvin was a murderer and had no eternal life abiding in him, since he persecuted the true body of Christ, which Calvinistis, Lutherans and Catholics all regarded as "Anabaptists." The reason why these non-denoninational Christians were called Anabaptists was because they re-baptised people who had been baptised by the three false churches at birth. Gnostic teachings and Calvinism go hand in hand.

[1OfTheRest]

There is a clear idea that this guilt and uncleanness (and even "Sin") can come about unintentionally. There *is* an idea of deliberate, defiant sin; but also you can sin unintentionally and even be *unaware* of your sin. Many unavoidable things in everyday life can make you unclean (in the OT that is). What was this meant to teach us? And how does it fit in with your idea that sin must be deliberate, intentional choice if the person is to be considered responsible or guilty in any way?

[sailing19100]

@1OfTheRest I see what you see in scripture. The sin offering is different than the trespass offering. We are sinful first and in essence because we are flesh, not because anything we do or fail to do. Jesus did atone for sin on the cross, but that is not when he was made sin for us. He was made sin when he was born of a woman, born under law, because that is when he took on flesh...the same exact flesh of Adam, Abraham, you and me.

[1OfTheRest]

What about the teaching in the Old Testament, certainly in Exodus and Leviticus, about Sin, Guilt and Uncleanness. (I think they're called that.) They seem to be connected but distinct. But they all defile you and make you unfit to worship God, and if you do worship Him "incorrectly" then you're liable to be destroyed by God.

[1OfTheRest]

I've only listened to this teaching once and I haven't specifically checked it against the Bible, but from my memory of the Bible I have a question about it. I am, by the way, not a Christian and I've only very recently started studying the Bible in a way that could at all be termed "study", so this is very tentative. But...