ECT The Myth of 'Original Sin'

[Jerry Shugart]

Its no myth its fact.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Later in the same chapter we see exactly why there is none righteous:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Ro.3:23).​

 

[genuineoriginal]

By Adam's sin he fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. Adam being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. Mankind is seen by God as sinful because of mankind's solidarity with Adam.

We sin because we are sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. This is why David lamented thusly (Ps. 51:5).

1. The universality of sin cannot be accounted for by pointing to societal or environmental factors.

2. The universality of sin is explained by the Fall of mankind.

3. Original sin does not refer to the first sin, but to the result of that sin.

4. All people are born with a sinful nature or "original sin."

AMR

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not from the tree of total depravity.

We are born with free will to do good or to do evil, we are not born as condemned sinners.

When Adam was exiled from the garden of Eden, the reason stated by God is to prevent Adam from having access to the tree of Life, because even after sinning Adam would be able to live forever if he was able to eat from the tree of life.

Genesis 3:22-23 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.​

Our "punishment" for being the descendants of Adam is not being born sinners, it is being born without access to the tree of life.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

4. All people are born with a sinful nature or "original sin."

If young children have a sinful nature then it would make no sense for the Lord Jesus to refer to them in this way:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these'" (Mt.19:13-14).​

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are born dead in sin but yet He would say that "the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these"? Of course not!

At another place we see the Lord Jesus speaking about little children and here the same truth can be seen:

"At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.18:1-4).

It is nothing but a fable that little children emerge from the womb dead in sin.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Its no myth its fact.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:


everready

If there were really none that are righteous, then this verse would not be written:

1 Peter 3:12 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.​

 

[Cross Reference]

If there were really none that are righteous, then this verse would not be written:

1 Peter 3:12 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.​

Excellent observation!!! :thumb: Something that was kindled in me as well but couldn't find the words to express as you just did.. Thanks!!

 

[Cross Reference]

By believing the gospel which comes in the power of the Holy Spirit:

"For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake" (1 Thess.1:5).​

And that truth is made even more clear when we consider these words of the Lord and Savior:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).​

None of that from you even remotely answers my question.

Next.

 

[Cross Reference]

Exactly.

For if we are sinners because we sin, and sin is set off by the Law; then it is God who is making man a sinner!

Wha-a-a-t!!!

 

[Cross Reference]

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not from the tree of total depravity.

We are born with free will to do good or to do evil, we are not born as condemned sinners.

When Adam was exiled from the garden of Eden, the reason stated by God is to prevent Adam from having access to the tree of Life, because even after sinning Adam would be able to live forever if he was able to eat from the tree of life.

Genesis 3:22-23 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.​

Our "punishment" for being the descendants of Adam is not being born sinners, it is being born without access to the tree of life.

But that is not a punishment but now a protection against living forever, because of Adam's sin.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

By Adam's sin he fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. Adam being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. Mankind is seen by God as sinful because of mankind's solidarity with Adam.

We sin because we are sinners. We are not sinners because we sin. This is why David lamented thusly (Ps. 51:5).

1. The universality of sin cannot be accounted for by pointing to societal or environmental factors.

2. The universality of sin is explained by the Fall of mankind.

3. Original sin does not refer to the first sin, but to the result of that sin.

4. All people are born with a sinful nature or "original sin."

AMR

What if, just like for Theology Proper, a proper understanding of Hamartiology would avoid any hint of Pelagianism (or Arminianism) AND vacate the fallacies of Augustinian Original Sin? (And what if this also resolved Ordo Salutis and Lapsarian issues and all squabbles over election, foreknowledge, and predestination?)

What if that hasn't been historically considered and there's a better answer for man's inevitable universal depravity of soul and body, and no hope of effecting one's own salvation in any manner? What if it is related to an understanding of man's constitution and functionality that has been obscured by the false binary of Dichotomism and Trichotomism?

What if "Anthropology Proper" missed ONE thing, just like ALL competing historical Theology Proper models ALL missed ONE thing?

The answer lies in understanding spiritual anthropology via pneuma, psuche, soma, sarx, prosopon, physis, ousia, hypostasis, hamartia, pathos, thanatos, nomos, dikaiosune, and a number of others all applied with an understanding of their interactive meanings (along with an appropriate understanding of tov and ra'a to establish Ponerology that truly excludes Dualism).

The truth flushes Platonism, etc. down the tubes, too. Just as it should be.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

None of that from you even remotely answers my question.

Of course I never expected that you would believe the Lord Jesus' words which shows exactly how the unregenerate receive life:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (Jn.6:63).​

Here the Apostle John shows that is by "believing" that the unregenerate receives life:

"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (Jn.20:30-31).​

I do not expect that you will believe what John wrote there either.

 

[Cross Reference]

What if, just like for Theology Proper, a proper understanding of Hamartiology would avoid any hint of Pelagianism (or Arminianism) AND vacate the fallacies of Augustinian Original Sin?

What if that hasn't been historically considered and there's a better answer for man's inevitable universal depravity of soul and body? What if it is related to an understanding of man's constitution and functionality that has been obscured by the false binary of Dichotomism and Trichotomism?

What if "Anthropology Proper" missed ONE thing, just like historical Theology Proper models ALL missed ONE thing?

The answer lies in understanding spiritual anthropology via hypostasis, ousia, physis, prosopon, soma, sarx, hamartia, pathos, thanatos, and a number of others all applied with an understanding of their interactive meanings.

The truth flushes Platonism, etc. down the tubes, too. Just as it should be.

<0h my, here we go with being worded to death.>

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

<0h my, here we go with being worded to death.>

Yes, I'm sure you hate words.

That's your problem. You, like most, make up all your own words as you go along with no consideration for actual truth beyond your own minuscule little concepts that are Satan's devices.

2Timothy 1:13
"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus."

 

[Danoh]

<0h my, here we go with being worded to death.>

An individual like that often sees many things all at the same time. Sort of the way a Mind map looks.

The book of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, some of Paul's writings, and the book of Revelation are like that - each, one, manifold [many folds] image.

Putting such in words, well, that's a different matter.

Words only allow a chronological description of, as I've just noted; what is often many things seen at the same time.

I have this same problem - I attempt to describe all I am seeing at the same time, as if words are able to accommodate such a complex image without having to break it down into various pieces due to the limit of words.

Problem is, I see it all, at the same time, lol

That cannot but throw off lesser minds.

While, noting that, appears to be out of arrogance. Here, it is not meant to be.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I have stated often that once one rejects that all are born in Adam, all manner of error ensues.

Jerry's public declaration denying original sin comports well with his error of claiming our Lord always existed as a man in heaven before He was born of Mary.

Jerry continues to demonstrate how far outside the camp he resides.

Spoiler

The church has long spoken of these things:

418 AD - Council of Carthage (Early Christian Church)

This council's position on original sin was, even "new-born children... have in them... original sin inherited from Adam".

529 AD - Council of Orange (Early Christian Church)

"... it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was 'changed for the worse' through the offense of Adam's sin..."

"...also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race..."

1530 - Augsburg Confession (Lutheran Church)

"...since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, ...and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again..."

1537 - The Smalcald Articles (Lutheran Church)

"... sin originated [and entered the world] from one man Adam, by whose disobedience all men were made sinners, [and] subject to death and the devil. This is called original or capital sin."

"This hereditary sin is so deep and [horrible] a corruption of nature that no reason can understand it, but it must be [learned and] believed from the revelation of Scriptures..."

1618 - The Canons of Dordt (Reformed Church)

"Man brought forth children of the same nature as himself after the fall. That is to say, being corrupt he brought forth corrupt children. The corruption spread, by God's just judgment, from Adam to all his descendants – except for Christ alone – not by way of imitation (as in former times the Pelagians would have it) but by way of the propagation of his perverted nature."

"Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin;..."

"... original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race..."

"... unregenerate man is... totally dead in his sins... [and is] deprived of all capacity for spiritual good..."

1618 - Belgic Confession (Reformed Church)

"... by the disobedience of Adam original sin has been spread through the whole human race."

"It is a corruption of all nature-- an inherited depravity which even infects small infants in their mother's womb, and the root which produces in man every sort of sin. It is therefore so vile and enormous in God's sight that it is enough to condemn the human race,..."

1644 - First London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)

"... first Eve, then Adam being seduced did wittingly and willingly fall into disobedience and transgression of the Commandment of their great Creator, for the which death came upon all, and reigned over all, so that all since the Fall are conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity, and so by nature children of wrath, and servants of sin, subjects of death,..."

1646 - The Westminster Confession of Faith (Presbyterian Church)

"Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit."

"By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body."

"They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation."

"Every sin, both original and actual,... bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God, and curse of the law, and so made subject to death..."

1689 - Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (Baptist Church)

"Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body."

"... and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death,..."

Q. E. D.

AMR

Could you delineate, in as detailed a manner as possible, the "how" of human progeny genetically (and/or otherwise) and/or spiritually receiving sin from their parents? (And it may need to include a nod to Propagation of Souls and other considerations by mention.)

Not Statements of Faith as tradition. A true and pure lexical and exegetical survey of the exact "hows" of sin allegedly being passed constitutionally somehow from human to human.

I equally and vehemently oppose both Augustinian Original Sin AND any form or degree of Pelagianism.

Man is conceived in spiritual death, with inevitable ensuing sin (singular articular); the wages for which is physical death.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

An individual like that often sees many things all at the same time. Sort of the way a Mind map looks.

The book of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, some of Paul's writings, and the book of Revelation are like that - each, one, manifold [many folds] image.

Putting such in words, well, that's a different matter.

Words only allow a chronological description of, as I've just noted; what is often many things seen at the same time.

I have this same problem - I attempt to describe all I am seeing at the same time, as if words are able to accommodate such a complex image without having to break it down into various pieces due to the limit of words.

Problem is, I see it all, at the same time, lol

That cannot but throw off lesser minds.

While, noting that, appears to be out of arrogance. Here, it is not meant to be.

Immeasurably insightful and exactly correct.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

-DELETED-

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Man is conceived in spiritual death, with inevitable ensuing sin (singular articular); the wages for which is physical death.

When we look closely at this verse where Paul speaks of how he was saved we can understand that an infant emerges from the womb spiritually alive:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth:

"renewing of the Holy Spirit."​

If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Danoh]

That's what you end up at, Jerry, when you attempt to prove what you have concluded before the fact of its thorough examination.

The Body is a New Creature. It is Israel that is regenerated. The word "genesis" also carries the sense of the beginning of a new creation - Gen. 1:1.

Paul might use similar terminology; but his sense differs when viewed through the Mystery he alone had preached.

Our "almost 28ers" do the same thing - MidActs people who see two hopes Paul was supposedly in chains for when the fact of that matter is that the hope is the same in both - the resurrection of Christ - its its two-fold intent that is the actual difference.

Of the seed of David (Israel's Cross based hope) and yet according to my gospel (the Mystery; also based on the Cross).

I'm sure saying this to you will go over well with you, lol

I doubt we will agree, but that's fine by me. I don't need to be right to the extent that you appear to.

For me the opportunity to think things through in light of the Mystery is more than enough reward.

Sort of like the issue of whether a view originated with Augustine, or some other view originated with so and so.

That matters not. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

For, what matters for me, is the analogy of faith - of the whole witness; not just one passage here or there.

If any man be in Christ; he is a new creature. The faith of the operation of God circumcizes the old and begins something new.

Even Christ is no longer known per Paul after the old.

We're talking a new creature!

 

[HisServant]

Do you believe that people come out of the womb wholly inclined to all evil?

I believe they come out of the womb totally separated from God and it is not within their ability to bridge that gap.

It is God that bridges the gap and saves whom he wants for his own good purposes.

Who are you or I to question his sovereign choice!.. he is the creator and anything he does to his creation is righteous.

The image of God that you worship is not the same God that commanded the slaughter of every man, woman (and yes some were inevitably pregnant) and child in the cities of the promised land as the Israelites progressed through it. The same God that destroyed the earth by flood and personally killed countless humans according to his good pleasure.

You need to learn your place in his creation.

 

[ttruscott]

Please quote your evidence from the Scriptures which speak of an attempted murder of the twins while they were in the womb.

Not OF the twins, but BY the twins...

Gen 25:21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies JOSTLED each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord.

23 The Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;

Jostled: Strong's H7533 - ratsats
Outline of Biblical Usage
to crush, oppress
(Qal)
to crush, get crushed, be crushed
to crush, oppress (fig)
crushed (participle passive)
(Niphal) to be crushed, be broken
(Piel)
to crush in pieces
to grievously oppress (fig)
(Poel) to oppress (fig)
(Hiphil) to crush in pieces
to grievously oppress (fig)
(Poel) to oppress (fig)
(Hiphil) to crush
(Hithpoel) to crush each other

Even struggled or wrestled is better than jostled but they all allow the namby-pamby interpretation that they were merely crowded in a tight space but TO CRUSH, TO CRUSH TO PIECES as was so clearly written was deliberately misinterpreted to avoid the consideration that they were sinners in the womb and not innocents.

Even to oppress each other, grievously or not, shows a sinful attitude though not the murderous attitude contained in trying to crush each other to pieces.

So keep your interpretation if you like but please remember when you think about my theology that my interpretation has a wee bit stronger support in the language.

And segueing into my theology: the answer GOD gives to Rebecca as to why they are fighting is to mention that she is bearing twins and the elder shall serve the younger. How could their lives in the future have anything to do with her question? Did HE ignore her or did HE answer her? If we consider HE ignored her question, then hey, the reason they were trying to crush each other in her womb remains undisclosed.

But if HE was answering her, then we know that they were fighting with murderous intent over their primogeniture...a possibility that is ludicrous if they were created at their conception but interestingly applicable if they were created before the creation of the physical universe, in sheol where they made free will decisions to be sinners and learned what their lives would like be on earth before they were born and so hated one another.

This ties directly into Christ's teaching that the people of the kingdom and the people of the evil one are SOWN into the world already separated into two groups: Matt 13:38
good seed are sown by the Son of man
tares are of the wicked one 39 sown by the devil
And notice that sown cannot mean created because the devil sows also. I do not remember all the times I've quoted the parable of the sinful but good seed with no one ever trying to give me an alternative (except to mix the people of this parable with the seeds of the previous one) let alone a workable one.

Peace, Ted