Original Sin...

ReverendRV said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, what the Bible says about sin (Rom 4:15; 1 Jn 3:4; Rom 7:8-9; Eze 18:20; Eccl 7:29; etc) makes the man made idea of OS impossible. Man is a sinner for he chooses to sin therefore can justly, rightly be held accountable for his choices. Therefore men are sinners by following in the steps of Adam and Eve in choosing to sin. Man cannot be justly, rightly be held accountable for how he was innately born against his will.
 
Gomer said:
No, what the Bible says about sin (Rom 4:15; 1 Jn 3:4; Rom 7:8-9; Eze 18:20; Eccl 7:29; etc) makes the man made idea of OS impossible. Man is a sinner for he chooses to sin therefore can justly, rightly be held accountable for his choices. Therefore men are sinners by following in the steps of Adam and Eve in choosing to sin. Man cannot be justly, rightly be held accountable for how he was innately born against his will.
Click to expand...

"born again his will"?

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
 
christ_undivided said:
"born again his will"?

Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Click to expand...
God does not cause man to be innately born sinful then punish men for how God caused them to be born, that would be unrighteous, unjust of God.
 
Stephen said:
In the narrative, two things were cursed, the serpent and the earth. The curse on the earth is lifted at the end of the story. There is no promise at the end of the story of any curse on Adam and Eve being lifted. Death is described as being "defeated" rather than a curse being lifted.

The woman was told that she would have a mixed blessing of fruitfullness and bearing of many children, and she was going to suffer pain in birthing those children. If this is a "curse", there isn't a place in the bible where this curse is lifted. Similarly she is told that she and women after her would be envious of men and men would rule over women. God said that men and women would do this to each other on the cursed earth, not that this is how God wants it to be. These are simply the consequences of living outside of Eden on the cursed earth away from the tree of life and its healing properties (Rev 22:2) but aren't due to God giving new law.

God's direct actions are limited in the narrative 1) curse the earth, 2) curse the serpent 3) throw man out of the garden 4) set cherubim and swords to keep the way to the garden.

And as we read the narrative, the curse on the earth is lifted at Christ's return and the tree of life will be available once again for the healing of the nations. The serpent remains cursed, but the other consequences likely disappear with the removal of the curse on the earth.
Click to expand...
Unchecked Copy Box
1Co 15:22 - For as in Adam all die,even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
 
ReverendRV said:
I disagree with your synopsis that Man was not Cursed, but let's role with what you said. Isn't it true that the Animal Kingdom having the Fear of Man is a Generational Curse; otherwise it would only have lasted the Generation of Adam?
Click to expand...

The words "cursed are you" are not laid upon Adam. And neither are the words "the curse on you is lifted".

If I'm recalling the passage correctly, the animal kingdom having the fear of man is part of the blessings with Noah rather than a curse.

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.​


ReverendRV said:
I'm not going to spend a lot of time with you because I think you are ignoring the obvious. If you won't ignore the implications of the Curse from the Fall, we can go a long way. But why would you want to get in an everlasting discussion with someone who refuses to listen to good points? I wouldn't...
Click to expand...

I think you are ignoring the obvious also. That is why I entered the discussion.
 
ReverendRV said:
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...
Click to expand...

The problem I have with Doctrine of Original sin, does sin exist in reality? Or is it just describing the fallenness of humanity and the deep deception unbelievers find themselves under?
If no sin exists in God and God is the origin of the truth, consciousness, existence, belief, faith, morality, and reality itself, then the origin of sin must be a unbelieving mind.
 
ReverendRV said:
Do you accept the Doctrine of Original Sin?
Click to expand...
Yes.
ReverendRV said:
If so, what would you say the Doctrine of Original Sin teaches?
Click to expand...
The first act of disobedience by Adam affected Adam, Eve, and creation so much that all their progeny, in one way or another, bore the effects of that act. At a bare minimum, they became imperfect, and two imperfect creatures do not procreate perfect progeny. There is, in fact, evidence to support this effect occurred physiologically on a cellular level.
ReverendRV said:
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...
Click to expand...
"Unconditional Consequences"? Can you clarify that? The consequences of sin are conditioned upon si, or acts of disobedience, unrighteousness, and lack of faith. This is implicit in the command, "...from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." That is a conditional and causal statement. It was by the disobedient act of one man that sin entered the world (not just the man). However, In Genesis 3 and Romans 1 we see God ADDING to the naturally occurring consequences or effects of sin: He adds to the existing burden and gives one over to his/her lusts.

Therefore, it would appear the consequences are condition - conditioned upon the act - but some of them are a directly related to the cause-and-effect of the act itself and some of them are conditioned upon God adding effects not inherently related to the act.




I might, therefore, also amend the op to say the divide between Arms and Cals is an effect of sin, just as is the often-occurring rancor, straw men, ad hominem, and all the other fallacious content we read on a daily basis, but my synergist brother in Christ may be no greater or lesser a victim of original sin than me.
 
Gomer said:
God does not cause man to be innately born sinful then punish men for how God caused them to be born, that would be unrighteous, unjust of God.
Click to expand...

Are we not the offspring of Adam?

Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Man gained independence from God in his sinful action.

I don't understand your reasoning. By one man sin entered this world and death by sin.

Rom 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—
 
Gomer said:
No, what the Bible says about sin (Rom 4:15; 1 Jn 3:4; Rom 7:8-9; Eze 18:20; Eccl 7:29; etc) makes the man made idea of OS impossible. Man is a sinner for he chooses to sin therefore can justly, rightly be held accountable for his choices. Therefore men are sinners by following in the steps of Adam and Eve in choosing to sin. Man cannot be justly, rightly be held accountable for how he was innately born against his will.
Click to expand...
Thanks for answering...

No one should favor Man-Made ideas about the Bible; but what about the Bible's teaching on Original Sin? Is pain in childbirth an Unconditional Consequence of the Curse for the Fall of Mankind?
 
Stephen said:
The words "cursed are you" are not laid upon Adam. And neither are the words "the curse on you is lifted".

If I'm recalling the passage correctly, the animal kingdom having the fear of man is part of the blessings with Noah rather than a curse.

Genesis 9:1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall on all the beasts of the earth, and on all the birds in the sky, on every creature that moves along the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.​




I think you are ignoring the obvious also. That is why I entered the discussion.
Click to expand...
Thanks for responding. I'll go just one more further; why is it not okay to have true Doctrine and Theology without the words pertaining to it being in the Bible? These ARE the Theology Boards. The Hypostatic Union is true despite the title not being in the Bible...

From then on, when I respond to you it will be for the Lurkers sake. Thanks for trying though...
 
Last edited:
Josheb said:
Yes.

The first act of disobedience by Adam affected Adam, Eve, and creation so much that all their progeny, in one way or another, bore the effects of that act. At a bare minimum, they became imperfect, and two imperfect creatures do not procreate perfect progeny. There is, in fact, evidence to support this effect occurred physiologically on a cellular level.

"Unconditional Consequences"? Can you clarify that? The consequences of sin are conditioned upon si, or acts of disobedience, unrighteousness, and lack of faith. This is implicit in the command, "...from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." That is a conditional and causal statement. It was by the disobedient act of one man that sin entered the world (not just the man). However, In Genesis 3 and Romans 1 we see God ADDING to the naturally occurring consequences or effects of sin: He adds to the existing burden and gives one over to his/her lusts.

Therefore, it would appear the consequences are condition - conditioned upon the act - but some of them are a directly related to the cause-and-effect of the act itself and some of them are conditioned upon God adding effects not inherently related to the act.




I might, therefore, also amend the op to say the divide between Arms and Cals is an effect of sin, just as is the often-occurring rancor, straw men, ad hominem, and all the other fallacious content we read on a daily basis, but my synergist brother in Christ may be no greater or lesser a victim of original sin than me.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you asked for clarification...

'Unconditional Consequences' is a term I use to support 'Unconditional Election'. When almost every Christian believes in the Unconditional Consequences of the Fall, the foot is in the door for the Unconditional Consequences of Election to be the God's honest Truth. If you are used to me by now, you know that I like to use a play on words to get my thoughts across better; Like Prevenient faith, Unmerited Election, or Filthy-Rag faith, etc. The Truth is, the Curse of the Fall is either 'Real Participation' as Ken Hammond said (but then the Consequences wouldn't be Unconditional/Unmerited); or Adam is our Federal Head and his Curse is Unconditionally our Curse. Pain in Childbirth is an Unconditional Consequence of the Fall of Mankind. Election is an Unconditional Consequence of the Choice of God. So I decided to get Christians to agree that Unconditional Consequences are true of the Bible regarding Original Sin, then use this 'shared belief' to try and get them to start believing in Unconditional Election...

Tactics...
 
Last edited:
Stephen said:
Death is a consequence of losing access to the tree of life.
It isn't described as a curse either
Click to expand...
Adam still had access after sinning until he was removed
he had already died somehow

"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” - therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life." Genesis 3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top