Was "Re: Xians, "Original sin" is WRONG!"

[b***@allvantage.com]

Re: Xians, "Original sin" is WRONG!
Hi.
It is. If you admit free will, you have to deny original sin. If you
believe that choices make a person who they are, then when they are a
baby and have made no choices, there can be no "sin" there, as they
have not actually done a wrong. Also, it relies on a literal
historical interpretation of Genesis, that Adam and Eve REALLY
existed, REALLY ate this fruit, etc. instead of it just being a moral
story (the best interpretation.). But the Genesis account is NOT
history -- for one, where does it say it is? It doesn't. Interpreting
it as such also contradicts science (evolution, etc.). Why would God
decieve us (one argument I've heard against science)? Your Bible says
that God is all-good. Lying is bad. Therefore, God does not lie. This
can not be used to justify a literal interpretation either, since God
did not put up there a declaration "THE FOLLOWING IS AN ACCOUNT OF
LITERAL HISTORY."
"Original sin" is a bad doctrine. Christianity and many othe religions
choose to take doctrines like it as "canon" even though one's
*interpretation* of canon is *NOT* canon.
I'm curious, why then do a lot of Christians
... believe in original sin, and
... believe that the Bible must be taken literally?

Hello,

The whole Bible is not to be taken "literally". Some parts are clearly
symbolic etc. (such as the seven-headed wild beast of the book of
Revelation-- 13:1) Context, original Greek and Hebrew words, other
related Scriptures etc, all help to get the meaning behind difficult
or symbolic verses. (actually, most of the Bible is written in easy to
understand words, like "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself",
etc. --Mt 19:19)

The Bible does teach that "sin" entered the world through one man.
(Adam-- Ro 5:12) Thus there was an 'original sin' here. But where most
people get misdirected, is that they think of "sin" as only meaning
the willful doing of what is wrong. The Bible's word for sin is more
broad. The Bible uses the word "sin" at times to mean IMPERFECTION.
This can be seen clearly by the Psalmist's words at Ps 51:5,

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
conceived me. " (NIV)

Obviously a newborn baby has not broken any of God's written laws such
as not to steal, or lie, etc. Rather, the "sinful" condition being
referred to here means imperfection of the human body; being born
"impure" (Job 14:4), etc.

Thus the "sin" passed on to Adam's descendants from his 'original sin'
was imperfection of mind and body. And of course being imperfect means
not having a perfect will to obey God's laws, thus Adam's children are
also more prone to "sin" against God's laws.

I hope this has helped you to see the BIBLE'S view of 'original sin'.


Sincerely, James

**If you wish to have a discussion with me, please use email since I
do not follow ng threads

***********************************
Want a Free home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

[B.G. Kent]

To me sin meaning mistake..or missing the mark...our overly identifying
with the ego was our first "sin" and we are trying to get back to focus on
the "one". I don't see sin as an evil thing..but as a mistake to hopefully
learn from.

I.M.O

Bren

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by B.G. Kent
To me sin meaning mistake..or missing the mark...

But all this means is that you do not know the meaning of the word. We have been
overt his before.

Post by B.G. Kent
our overly identifying
with the ego was our first "sin" and we are trying to get back to focus on
the "one".

But you cannot do this as long as you egotistically insist on your own personal
WRONG definition of the word 'sin'.

Post by B.G. Kent
I don't see sin as an evil thing..but as a mistake to hopefully
learn from.

But this is just another example of you not knowing the definition.

[Dave]

Re: Xians, "Original sin" is WRONG!
It is. If you admit free will, you have to deny original sin. If you
believe that choices make a person who they are, then when they are a
baby and have made no choices, there can be no "sin" there, as they
have not actually done a wrong.

Would you say that a person is a sinner because he sins, or that he
sins because he is a sinner? In other words, what is the effect and
what is the cause?

Dave

[l***@hotmail.com]

Post by b***@allvantage.com
The whole Bible is not to be taken "literally". Some parts are clearly
symbolic etc. (such as the seven-headed wild beast of the book of
Revelation-- 13:1)

Well, actually it is. However, "literal" or "normative" reading
makes allowance for figures of speech. For instance, your
notation of the seven headed beast, is to be read literally in that
seven is an actual numerical representation. It doesn't mean
five or 77 or 666. It means seven. Also, John''s literary style
grants his readers indicators to when he is writing figuratively.
His indicators are normal, "like as unto," "appearing as." There
are other times when he expects the readers to simply know
their Bible, most especially OT prophetic passages which use
similar figuration.

So to make a blanket statement, "The whole Bible is not to be taken
'literally'" needs an asterick or expounding.

Post by b***@allvantage.com
Context, original Greek and Hebrew words, other
related Scriptures etc, all help to get the meaning behind difficult
or symbolic verses. (actually, most of the Bible is written in easy to
understand words, like "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself",
etc. --Mt 19:19)
The Bible does teach that "sin" entered the world through one man.
(Adam-- Ro 5:12) Thus there was an 'original sin' here. But where most
people get misdirected, is that they think of "sin" as only meaning
the willful doing of what is wrong. The Bible's word for sin is more
broad. The Bible uses the word "sin" at times to mean IMPERFECTION.
This can be seen clearly by the Psalmist's words at Ps 51:5,
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother
conceived me. " (NIV)

When ALL of scripture is brought to bear on this subject, it is quite
clear that it declares that men, even while in womb, have but one
single inclination, that being to pleasure or serve self. That, my
friend, is the simple explaination of the reformation's teaching
concerning
total depravity. It is only speaking of inclination. Thus there is
no
reason to scramble for explaining passages such as Paul's Rom 3:10ff.
It doesn't mean to say that evil is without restraint in mens hearts
or
that men are always as bad as they possibly can be. It means that
their hearts are always oriented to selfish gain. Jeremiah and others
speak of this truth besides David's declaration in Ps 51. Compare
Job 14:1, 4; 17:14; Isa 48:8, Ps 58:3,4; Gen 8:21, and the only
repeated Ps. 14 & 53 where the standard English translations fail
at rendering the Hebrew accurately. These two Ps should read,
"THE fool [Adam] said in his hear, 'No God!'
THEY [his descendents] are corrupt..."

The point is clear, "Every oneof them has turned aside;
together they have become corrupt." That "turning aside"
is what is commonly termed, "the fall." It is where and
when the original inclination of man's heart was only
referenced to please God and to seek after His understanding.
That inclination was annihilated when Adam "inclined"
himself to follow after his wife. The externals are secondary
proceeding from the primary causation -inclination. ALL
choices have but a single inclination. Thus when a man
is truly regenerated, having restored to him the original
inclination to please God, that James correctly concludes
that such a faith naturally bears the fruit thereof or godly
works. If your life doesn't bear godly fruit then you have
never actually been "born again" and yet remain in your
sin.

And yes, "sin" needs to be defined. Sins are what you
*do* while sin is what you *are.* By nature we are
bearers of a sin nature or only possessing an inclination
to serve self, thus, "There is none that does good, no
not one".

Post by b***@allvantage.com
Obviously a newborn baby has not broken any of God's written laws such
as not to steal, or lie, etc.

And thus the need to distinquish between sins and sin.

Post by b***@allvantage.com
Rather, the "sinful" condition being
referred to here means imperfection of the human body; being born
"impure" (Job 14:4), etc.

No if you don't read it into the verse or if you take into account
what
the rest of the bible declares on the subject. Paul's accounting of
all
men residing under the condemnation of God (other denote this as
the wrath of God abiding on mankind) presumes the reality that all
mankind has but one inclination.

Post by b***@allvantage.com
Thus the "sin" passed on to Adam's descendants from his 'original sin'
was imperfection of mind and body.

You are making grandious conclusions without any scriptural
evidence.

Post by b***@allvantage.com
And of course being imperfect means
not having a perfect will to obey God's laws, thus Adam's children are
also more prone to "sin" against God's laws.

"perfect will to obey God's laws." Well there is a statement that we
could write volumes on. What is "will?" What is "choice?" What
is the biblical definition of "perfect?" What are the "laws" of God
that
you refer to?
"prone" that is a figurative term. It could mean to "lay down" thus
the "prone position." Or it could mean exactly what I have said
when using the term, "inclination." The only position/bias, of man is
the "prone position," or the "fallen condition," and man cannot get
up! ;-)

Post by b***@allvantage.com
I hope this has helped you to see the BIBLE'S view of 'original sin'.
Sincerely, James

Well, it would have helped if you had better defined your terms and
explain your reasoning. It would also have helped if you had
supported
your conclusions with scriptural references and exegetical criticism.

It would also help if you could explain how a finite man (your view of
Jesus, not mine) could die an infinite death to satisfy the infinitely
offended justice of an infinite God? Your finite "savior" spilled
blood
that was no more significant than that of finite "bulls and goats."
Your entire redemptive theology does not answer the requirements
of God's infinite holiness. And because you "savior" is finite,
you and those like you are yet abiding under the coming wrath of
God. It was of you that Christ Himself declared, "in that day many
will come to Me saying, 'Lord, Lord' but I will say, "Depart from Me
for I never knew you."

"Knew you." You have no intimate relationship with the God-man
who was declared to be Immanuel, clearly defined to mean, "God
with us," who John declared to be but one member of the Godhead
when he properly did not use the definite article in Jn 1:1c and
in 1:14 used the ingressive aorist to illustrate the fact that God
[contextual reference to YHVH in Ex 33 & 34] had entered into a
new condition by means of the incarnation. Thus for the Christian,
who has God as his Savior, being both by nature Just (only God
is good) and the Justifier (in having made an infinite sacrifice for
sin) now has an infinitely adequate basis for salvation from the
wrath of God.

You see, theological system are consequential. What you believe
at one point has bearing on all other points. In that you deny the
Deity of Jesus, every other conclusion you reach is void of the
enlightenment of the indwelling Spirit for the Spirit is only given to
those who declare, "My YHVH and my Elohim."

Jesus Christ is "The YHVH our righteousness," the "righteous
branch (vine) of David." Jere 23 Eze 34 Zech 11:4ff