Original Sin...

Do you accept the Doctrine of Original Sin?

If so, what would you say the Doctrine of Original Sin teaches?

If you don't accept it; why not?

I accept the Doctrine of Original sin. After being here at CARM Forums for so long now, I think Original Sin (or the lack there-of) plays a Fundamental part concerning the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism; and let's say Traditionalism and other Liberal Christian beliefs. So I'll start out by saying the Doctrine of Original Sin teaches there are "Unconditional Consequences" dealt out because of the Fall of Man, which are a Generational Curse...
Here's a thought. If you took out terms like "Doctrine," "Original Sin," "Arminianism," "Calvinism," "Traditionalism," "Liberal," "Christian," "Unconditional Consequences," "Fall of Man," and "Generational Curse" you would be left only with having to describe simply what the Bible says. That is, the truth unimpeded by tradition. It's so much to poke around with that one has difficulty seeing the trees for the forest.
 

Exeter

Active member
That is what i have concluded as well. WE are not included as sinners in Adam's sin and also not included in his personal guilt
Are you perhaps related to Alexander the Great?

Anyhow, here's the Scriptural conclusion all Christians should agree with:

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Rom 5:18-19 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

(19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Are you perhaps related to Alexander the Great?

Anyhow, here's the Scriptural conclusion all Christians should agree with:

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Rom 5:18-19 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

(19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Not sure Paul was saying what you think he was saying.

He was expalining his doctrine, that Jesus won.

Not that we are of Satan.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Here's a thought. If you took out terms like "Doctrine," "Original Sin," "Arminianism," "Calvinism," "Traditionalism," "Liberal," "Christian," "Unconditional Consequences," "Fall of Man," and "Generational Curse" you would be left only with having to describe simply what the Bible says. That is, the truth unimpeded by tradition. It's so much to poke around with that one has difficulty seeing the trees for the forest.

In the documentary, "A Brief History of Time", Roger Wheeler points out that there are just so many times you can describe something as, "a region of infinite density and zero size". So they coined the term, "Black Hole".

And that's what happens with BIblical concepts as well. They are Biblical, but when we recognize them, we can either use long and awkward phraseology to describe them, or we can choose succinct descriptive terms.
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
No, I'm not seeing it.

Let's start with the general, and go to the specific, shall we?

Eccl. 7:20 Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

Rom. 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one.”

Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Gal. 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

1John 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.



Matt. 5:21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment. 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.



Matt. 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.



Ex. 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”



You seem to be arguing a straw-man.
The question was whether there is anyone who never sins.
You seem to have CHANGED it to "there is no one who has committed EVERY sin."

Even if your argument were valid that "there are those who haven't committed sins A, B, or C, they've STILL committed sins, D, E, F, H, L, P, S, X, Y, Z, etc.

But even so, your argument fails utterly:

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.



Nobody is denying that it is a "choice".
So this is ANOTHER straw-man on your part.
Nobody is "forced" to sin against their will.
They WILLINGLY sin.



You're fallaciously shifting the burden of proof.

YOU need to show us where there is ANYONE in the Bible (or in human history, other than Jesus) who has "not sinned". Of course, this would contradict the Bible, so I suggest you don't go there.

Btw, have you noticed that you (almost?) NEVER quote Scripture to support your ideas?
(Sorry for the question, I didn't mean to ask it. Don't feel obligated to answer it.)

Everyone else has...
no.
 

Alexander the adequate

Well-known member
Are you perhaps related to Alexander the Great?

Anyhow, here's the Scriptural conclusion all Christians should agree with:

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

Rom 5:18-19 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

(19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
my point was in your quote: because all sinned. That is the reason, because each person sins
 
In the documentary, "A Brief History of Time", Roger Wheeler points out that there are just so many times you can describe something as, "a region of infinite density and zero size". So they coined the term, "Black Hole".

And that's what happens with BIblical concepts as well. They are Biblical, but when we recognize them, we can either use long and awkward phraseology to describe them, or we can choose succinct descriptive terms.

Yes, of course, I understand that, but there comes a time when jargon is used to obfuscate, manipulate or monopolize. So, take original sin. What does that mean and does it accurately reflect the events it refers to. If, with a black hole and the simple term to describe it - should become doctrinal jargon like oh, economist jargon. who is going to benefit from that and to what end?

If the simple descriptive term becomes more complicated than the thing it is describing then that's what's happening.
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
Yes, of course, I understand that, but there comes a time when jargon is used to obfuscate, manipulate or monopolize. So, take original sin. What does that mean and does it accurately reflect the events it refers to. If, with a black hole and the simple term to describe it - should become doctrinal jargon like oh, economist jargon. who is going to benefit from that and to what end?

If the simple descriptive term becomes more complicated than the thing it is describing then that's what's happening.

Yup .....

Let's just convert to Satan / Original sin.

Doesn't make much sense.

But many are trying to insist on it.

IMO .... Paul warned about it.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
my point was in your quote: because all sinned. That is the reason, because each person sins

I know you get triggered by questions, so I'll just pose it this way....

Since you're trying to speak on the meaning of a verse in Rom. 5, I wonder when was the last time you read/studied the chapter in its entirety.... That's just me wondering....
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Rom 5:18-19 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

(19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
Which version are you going with? That ALL men were made sinners or many were made sinners?
 

Leatherneck0311

Well-known member
Which version are you going with? That ALL men were made sinners or many were made sinners?
I’m going with this one:
Unchecked Copy Box
Rom 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I know you get triggered by questions, so I'll just pose it this way....

Since you're trying to speak on the meaning of a verse in Rom. 5, I wonder when was the last time you read/studied the chapter in its entirety.... That's just me wondering....
Seth-ism?
 
Yup .....

Let's just convert to Satan / Original sin.

Doesn't make much sense.

But many are trying to insist on it.

IMO .... Paul warned about it.
I want to clarify what I was implying and what I wasn't.

When I was a kid my mother favored my younger brother. She would scold me, insisting I include him in play. But when me an another friend played tag and he was "it" she would see us running from him and make me sit down for a long time. A time out. She thought we were running away from him instead of including him. If one of us was "it" she would do the same, saying we were chasing him as in bullying. She would just go to sleep and it took me a while to realize I didn't have to sit there for hours, but I digress.

One spring evening, during one of these timeouts, there was a movie on the television about an innocent man who was being horribly persecuted. And though I was young in an unbelieving household, and wouldn't become a believer for years I certainly did relate to that man, Jesus Christ. In that movie Jesus had friends who were among those who were unjustly persecuting him. One of those, being asked what he thought of Jesus's teachings, said something like: "Much of what he teaches is what we teach, but he has a unique presentation."

Jesus taught much of what the religious leaders taught but he taught it in a way that the common people would understand. It isn't necessarily that one was right and the other wrong, it was more dependent upon the audience and therefore, the purpose. In theological discussions complex terminology familiar with those participating are useful. But they can be misleading. They can also be a religious trap.

My implication was borne of unfamiliarity. I'm a simple man with a practical spirituality and mistrust of organized religion. Perhaps I'm the one out of place?
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
I want to clarify what I was implying and what I wasn't.

When I was a kid my mother favored my younger brother. She would scold me, insisting I include him in play. But when me an another friend played tag and he was "it" she would see us running from him and make me sit down for a long time. A time out. She thought we were running away from him instead of including him. If one of us was "it" she would do the same, saying we were chasing him as in bullying. She would just go to sleep and it took me a while to realize I didn't have to sit there for hours, but I digress.

One spring evening, during one of these timeouts, there was a movie on the television about an innocent man who was being horribly persecuted. And though I was young in an unbelieving household, and wouldn't become a believer for years I certainly did relate to that man, Jesus Christ. In that movie Jesus had friends who were among those who were unjustly persecuting him. One of those, being asked what he thought of Jesus's teachings, said something like: "Much of what he teaches is what we teach, but he has a unique presentation."

Jesus taught much of what the religious leaders taught but he taught it in a way that the common people would understand. It isn't necessarily that one was right and the other wrong, it was more dependent upon the audience and therefore, the purpose. In theological discussions complex terminology familiar with those participating are useful. But they can be misleading. They can also be a religious trap.

My implication was borne of unfamiliarity. I'm a simple man with a practical spirituality and mistrust of organized religion. Perhaps I'm the one out of place?
Welcome to CARM...

The Worship Service is to be decent and Orderly; this is orgainized religion...
 

Slyzr

Well-known member
After going back several pages all I have seen in you post are your opinions minus any scripture to support your position so I agree never mind.

lol ......

Ockay, we are of Satan / Adam and christ died for nothing.

Which seems to be many of the OS crowds thingy.

Should I really have to dig up scripture to rebuke that?

Sheesh .....

Let me guess, to much theology?
 
Top