Original sin

[John]

What is your guys view on original sin?

i personally dont bleive in it... i will get the scriptures later. (dont have time right now). i think that it is an honest attempt from augustine to try and solve some theological problems he was haveing, resulting in his antisemeticness.

but give us your opinions..

[pioneer]

Apr 16, 2009 16:07:39 GMT -5 John said:

What is your guys view on original sin?

i personally dont bleive in it... i will get the scriptures later. (dont have time right now). i think that it is an honest attempt from augustine to try and solve some theological problems he was haveing, resulting in his antisemeticness.

but give us your opinions..

The act of. I believe. The dogma not so much.
The restoration of the "Image of God", how can you are anyone doubt that we must be restored to his image?

[Never Looking Back]

I believe in original sin because for me it seems to be what the Bible points to.

Without original sin, I see no reason for Jesus to have to come and lay down His own life. If humans did not have a tendency towards sin, we could all save ourselves. Jesus was the only one after Adam and Eve to not have the tendency towards sin, thus He is called the second Adam in Scripture. Jesus had no original sin, and that is why He was able to live a sinless life.

Without original sin, the gospel is meaningless. What do we need to be saved from? Why do we need to be saved? Why must Jesus die for us? Why did Paul write Romans?

It was only after Adam and Eve sinned that God said that death and disease came about. Both physical and spiritual death was a direct result of Adam and Eve's sin.

That's my view.
Romans 5
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 5But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.

19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[John]

ORIGINAL sin and a TENDENCY to sin is not the same thing. even the jews aqknowledge the yetzer hara (evil inclination).

but augustines doctinre of original sin is a load of crap... as shaul would say- rubbish.

adams sin cast a generational curse on us all. but this curse does not hold us responsible for the actual sin of ha'adam. we are all born with a yetzer hara because of ha'adam. but we can still avoid sinning.

yeshua was the only person to acheive perfection, but it is definately doable. Yeshua was tempted in EVERY WAY JUST AS WE ARE. that means that we have just as much of a chance of attaining YHVHs standard of perfection as he does., which is NOT a big chance, which shows just how great a responsibility Yeshua took on.

also, we can make our task to be sinless after salvation (go and sin no more) by accepting Yeshua. after this we are baptised in his name. the holy spirit comes in his name (the holy spirit CAN come before baptism however). the holy spirit is YHVHs fingre-- what he wrote the torah with. so with YHVHs hand we are spiritually circumcised through Yeshua. this means that the yetzer hara- (the foreskin of our human nature) is cut off. So we now have NO evil inclination and now we have a STRONGER good inclination by the HS. this definately helps in getting rid of sin.

[Jonatan]

I agree. With HS, with being born again - sin is defeated in the level of spirit. After this, we are easily able to avoid and combat sin.
But on the other hand, there exist familiar demons and curses that are inherited by sinful life of parents (unto 4th generation - Exodus CH.20). And Adam and Eve are also our parents. If Adam and Eve didn't fell, we wouldn't have even sinful tendency.
But yes - there's one important thing to mention - that is, that there's difference between gentilic environment and environment of Yisrael. Sons of Israel, in OT, having the Tabernacle, God's presence among them, temple, sacrifices and obligatory Torah, they created demon-less system where it's discussable to say whether they were born with sin or without - because Yeshua needed spiritually pure environment to be born in - such as was Israel. This was the main plan for Yisrael - environment where the Messiah can be born.

[John]

i have changeed my view a little on this subject. but i want to direct you to a thread on anochrias board. i will record some of my posts for you to see and tell me waht you thingk. this is one of my favorite subjects:

we cannot inherit adams guilt. each man pays for his own sin by the guilt from it, but the guilt of the father will not be passed onto the son. however, if the son is raised by the father then certainly the son will be more likely to sin this way. but he does not inherit it genetically.

for example, christ did not take our guilt on him. the guilt of our sin is our own. however, the penalty of sin which is death, that is what he took on him. he walked into the courtroom, with satan as the accuser and us as the guilty. God was about to bang the gaveel when Jesus cried out "i object." and then he told God that becuase he has ot borken ANY law, than he is able to take the punishment for any man that had broken the law. all have sinned, and if a man keeps the whole law except for offending one point, he still ends up guilty of the whole law (james). this is becuase all these laws come from the same person. the same who said dont commit adultry also said dont murder.

so if we dont commit adultry but we do commit murder, than have we not broken the whole law even though one of the laws were not broken? (james). so since Jesus did not break ANY than he could take our penalty for sin. he could die in place of us. but our guilt is still our own.


so we all pay for the fathers sin unto the thousands of generations (dt) by dying, for our natural death is inherited. but the sdecond death is the payment for our own sins, the death that we bring upon ourselves. but jesus already payed this second death. all we have to do is accept that death as atonement.

as for "sin nature" i dont beleive in that. we will not inherit the propensity to sin or to the guilt of our fathers sin. the guilt is his own. however, if we are raised in sin, of course we will gain an evil inclination (yezer hara). now, this is not to exlude littel children from the salvation of God through Yeshua. they are still in need of it. The law was to condemn so that ALL would be in need of redemption. it cannot be followed unless we recieve the spirit, which came through the atonement and from El Shaddai, Adonai Yireh, the almighty, the provider.

once again, i am rambling. but this is one subject in my theology that i have fully matured to the point that not many people can find questions that i cant answer in it. but i am still open ot say it is wrong, although you would have to have as strong a theory as me with as much evidence.


augustine WAS a great theologian, but he was also a man who go tthings wrong. he was correct that all men have an inclination towards evil, but this is not inherited from the fathers, but rose up inside of us as a byproduct of living in evil. This is why enoch would go into caves any time he wasnt witnessing to evil (jasher) and why Paul said to flee from even appearances of evil. pure religion is undefiled from the poluution of this world (james).

we are to minister to the sinful, but we are to keep from evil as well, especcially those that know the truth and deny it or refuse to follow it. (heb; 1 cor)


uggghh. i got into rambling again. i hope i am not boring you. i hope you understand my position.


shalom- john

also this:

A crack baby is "condemned" to crack addiction, but not guilty of it. (sorry for the overuse of this analogy, but it makes my point)

i like this analogy. but i would like my view on this to be clear. the crack baby is condemned to a crack addiction, but is not guilty of the sin of the mother. however, if that baby later does crack, then they ARE guilty, but for their own sin.

however, i dont think that this is to say that our propensity to sin comes from inheited genes and such. now, we can have a propensity of a certain sin because our mothers or fathers do it (like issac lying that his wife was is sister, like abraham did) but that sin was not an inherited trait.

however, we do all have an "ego" where we do anything to profit ourselves, and not others. where we love ourselves, and even lust after ourselves, but we do not love others. we become a glutton to ourselves. this is the root of evil. we sin because the law says to love ohters, but we want only to love ourselves. the point of the law is to love others, but we sin because we only want to love ourselves. however, most people point out that the ego is acquired and learned. psychology especially. we gain our ego from the poeople around us. it is not a gene thing.

now, the Torah condemns but also redeems (in the since that yeshua is the living Torah), it gives death, but it also gives life. God tells us to choose life. The Torah condemns so that we would be in need of redemtion from the mashiach, the one who would follow it completeyly so that he could take the curses for us, and redeem us through it. it gives us death not because it is not Holy, but because we arent, for we disobey it and that causes it to give death. but it is made unfollowable without the spirit so that we would be reconciled to God.

now, why he chose this complex process is a mystery, another subject.

but the point is that we do NOT inherit sin. nor do we inherit th epropensity of that sin. however, we do inherit the lust of that sin after we ourselves commit sin. the crack baby only wants to do crack because he knows his mother does it. but he is not addicted to it unless he himself makes the action to sin. and this addiction eventually leads us to the redeeming christ, offered by God all mighty, the judge of those of the resurectino unto life.

rambling again. but i love this subject.

shalom -john

and this:

Propensity towards sin is the same thing as an evil inclination. And I do believe we all inherit that in Adam. Inherited inclination toward sin is different than inherited guilt.

i am aware tha tthe propensity towards sin and the evil inclination were the same. but i dont think that this propensity towards sin was inherited through genes and such. i dont think that it is the guilt of sin either, as you said. but i deny the fact that it was inherited and not brought out into us.

Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

This inclination is born with us.

this is what the KJV says, closer to the literal translation:

behold i was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother concieve me

so inother words, he was RAISED in iniquity. he SHAPED to be a sinner. and even his own mother concieved him out of SIN. it is not saying that she bore him and he was sinful, but that she was sinful and in sin when she bore hiim. it was to increase his case to God that he was sinful and that God was full of grace to wash these sins from his account.

So, you're saying it's nurture not nature? Are you then saying that if we dropped off a bunch of infants on a desert island and somehow (theoretically) cared for them to maturity without influencing them in any negative way that they would grow up not having a propensity toward evil? I don't think that is realistic.

well firstly, no. i think that psychologically we have to look and realize that they will still develop ego. and ego is what causes us to sin, as i ahve exlplained elsewhere. we sin because we want to benefit only ourselves. also, we have the need for God, so they will probably go into idolotry not understandging the nature around them, and worshipping it. i thnink that this is unrealistic. however, our ego is often influenced by the people around us- often, i mean always- so we influence the people who are born into this world. we give them examples to follow, and out of love they follow us. so we help them develop their evil inclination, but the evil inclination itself is not totally caused by you.

so let me explain real quick that i do beleive the cause of the evil inclination, the ego, is something that we all develop naturally. however, it still develops, for we are not born with a conscious ego, we are born with unconcious instincts to survive which do shape our ego. so i dont think a baby starts out with an evil inclination, but they all develop one through childhood. now, the ego in itself is not bad either. we need this evil inclination and this ego to lead us to God. but we must control the ego, the I, with the You. we must beenfit ourselves but not only ourselves... other too.

so i do beleive that the inclination is a natural development, caused by things that ARE inherited. but it develops from things that are inherited- it is not inherited itself.



so i guess i explained my position.

shalom- john

and this:

Furthermore, as to our sinful nature or evil inclination, in Paul's metaphors the old man and the new creation co-exist. We are to daily die to the old nature and be constantly renewed in Christ.

the old man spoken of by paul is the yetzer hara as Paul was conveying it to the greeks. but i dont think that we are to let the old man raise agian and then kill it, raise again and then kill it, etc... i think that we are to continually crucify it, never giving it the time to raise again. instead, we are to let the new man continually live. The Yetzer hara is not a bad thing per se. its like an athletes anger that can cause two things to happen (1) it can cause the player to be disqualified if he takes it out on another player or (2) he can do better at the game by controlling th anger and using it to motivate him in the game. the yetzer hara is this anger, that eitherr the good inclination can use for motivation, or we can let the Yetzer hara take full control and hurt others by it. so when i say they cannot co-exist i mean that both cannot be in full control at one time.

Is this "evil inclination" you speak of different than or the same from actual sinful acts? In other words, can a Christian still sin?

the evil inclination is not the sins themselves, only the inclination to do those sins. if it is in full control than we have an addiction, almost uncontrollably sinning. but if we use our good inclination, the Yetzer hatov, to control it than we can use it for the bettering of our living a godly life.

tell me what you think

shalom- john