Original Sin

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

I submit that "original sin" was dealt with at the cross.
The prophet said, "In sin did my mother conceive me..." (sic: I was conceived
in my mother's womb). Sin was inherited through Adam, and the prophet's own parents.
Additionally, we do not inherit our fathers' sins for "...the father shall not
bear the sins of the son, neither shall the son bear the sins of the father."
Today, we did not inherit Adam's sin; only his propensity to sin.

Your question is dubious: the Lord's sacrifice is moot unless we "Repent, and be baptized
everyone of you in the NAME of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." So we are made righteous BY HIS good works;
furthermore, man are OFFERED His righteousness via the cross.

I agree righteousness comes only through the work of the cross. By His good works. Why did you say my question was dubious? I am not universalist.

[Esaias]

The bible gives an unambiguous clear definition of sin: sin is the transgression of the law. If one cannot accept the plain statement of the bible one cannot be helped.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The bible gives an unambiguous clear definition of sin: sin is the transgression of the law. If one cannot accept the plain statement of the bible one cannot be helped.

That's not true in ALL CASES if you read Romans 7. Yes, in some, but not here:

Watch:

Sin is seen as a FORCE:

Rom 7:8 KJV But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Rom 7:11 KJV For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Rom 7:14 KJV For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Rom 7:16-17 KJV If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. (17) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Rom 7:20 KJV Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

In these instances it is not a transgression of the law.

[mfblume]

Peter said that Paul's words about righteousness are hard to be understood, and I think he primarily meant Romans 6-8.

SIN is a principle in Romans 7.

Same as in Romans 6:7. Until we follow context in these chapters, we'll miss the issue, I believe. Good luck. Hardly anyone touches the actual context of this part of the bible.

[Esaias]

"To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

"To interpret the phrase "made sinners" to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made sinners" because of Adam's transgression, it also says that all men are "made righteous" by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life "came upon all men" by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases "made sinners" and "came upon all men" the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam's sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they they refer to Christ's righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin."

But who said it was a SIN NATURE? That's my issue. To say Adam made us sinners is not to necessarily say he gave us a sin nature. Again, it's position, not activity.

Christ made us righteous. Is that a position or activity?

Christ's work in making us righteous is the polar opposite, and actually more than opposite, to what Adam did according to Romans 5.

That is not reading anything into it. It is taking it from the writing. how can we read into the picture anything after reading what Adam did is outdone by what Christ did in making us righteous?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But who said it was a SIN NATURE? That's my issue. To say Adam made us sinners is not to necessarily say he gave us a sin nature. Again, it's position, not activity.

Christ made us righteous. Is that a position or activity?

Christ's work in making us righteous is the polar opposite, and actually more than opposite, to what Adam did according to Romans 5.

That is not reading anything into it. It is taking it from the writing. how can we read into the picture anything after reading what Adam did is outdone by what Christ did in making us righteous?

So if I understand you, Adam made us sinners - not in "deed", and not "in nature", but "positionally"?

This means that all Adam's descendants are condemned... because of Adam's sin. It seems to contradict the principle that every man shall bear his own sin.

Further it would seem to imply that the cross dealt with our "position" in Adam and not our actual personal sins? Please explain how this plays out?

Also, it implies that all who die as infants are lost because "age of accountability" is irrelevant, since it is about being "in Adam" which means being descended from Adam?

Is this not a case of God condemning an entire family to eternal death simply because they are related to the transgressor?


Finally, how was Christ "not in Adam" if he is the Son of Adam/Man?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So if I understand you, Adam made us sinners - not in "deed", and not "in nature", but "positionally"?

This means that all Adam's descendants are condemned... because of Adam's sin. It seems to contradict the principle that every man shall bear his own sin.

Whatever it does, we have to still learn what Paul stated in Romans 5, and that is my argument -- what Romans 5 said.

Further it would seem to imply that the cross dealt with our "position" in Adam and not our actual personal sins? Please explain how this plays out?

Again, I am not dealing right now with how that plays out. I am just asking what Paul said in Romans 5. First we get what Paul was saying and work out any implications after the fact.

Rom 5:12-19 KJV Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Death came on all the world and even upon people who did not commit Adam's sin. But Adam's sin still affected them to render them worthy of death.

(15) But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.

Here is where we get to the contrasting. We read that the offence of Adam is not to be compared equally to the work of Jesus.

For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

After stating there is no equal comparison between Adam and Christ, we read the reasons. Adam's offence caused MANY to die, but the grace of God is not equal in balancing that, but far more weightier because the gift of God ABOUNDED greater than Adam's effect, because one man Jesus caused the grace of God to come upon many. In other words, it not only matched Adam's negative effect, but went further and grace forgave many,

(16) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

Another comparison above shows inequality again, saying while one man sinned whose single OFFENCE brought judgment by that single man, the free gift (which we learn is righteousness) dealt with MANY OFFENCES. Compare one offence to many offences. And God took many offences and justified us.

(17) For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Death was ONE entity that ruled due to Adam's sin. But MANY OF US RULE IN THE SPIRIT NOW DURING OUR LIVES because of the gift of righteousness.

(18) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (19) For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

And here is where I made my point that I am awaiting a response for. IF ADAM MADE US ALL SINNERS by his single disobedience that none of us committed, then JESUS MADE US RIGHTEOUS BY THE FREE GIFT OF IT THAT HE GAVE TO US.

So, let's reverse that. If Adam did not make us all sinners, then Jesus DID NOT MAKE US ALL RIGHTEOUS. One demands the other according to Paul's context. That means that since Adam's sin did not make us sinners, causing it to be that Jesus did not make us righteous, then we have to make ourselves righteous. And that means salvation by works.

And THAT is the detail everyone's been skirting. THAT is what I need to chat about before my mind can be changed, because I cannot see context allowing us to make any other conclusion.

Forget the implications for a moment. Forget how we must work that. What did Paul say? Did he say Adam's sin made us sinners as much as Christ's obedience made us righteous or not?

Now, the concept of universal salvation has been taken from a twisted reading of all of this, so don't even go there with me. Universalism is simply the result of a uneducated reading of the context, and inability to follow context properly.

So, once again, we'll work it out after. But we have to start with the proper context of this chapter.

You are skirting that context, and saying it cannot be so, regardless of what Paul actually did write, because you cannot agree with the implications you feel it demands. But who said you are getting the proper implications, anyway? But whatever the case, we have to deal with that AFTER we get what Paul said.

It's like you're saying Paul CANNOT be saying what we think, because the implications are wrong. Again, I think you're mistaken about the implications, but that still does not give us license to not study the context and exegete the passage in Romans 5 and learn what it is saying BEFORE we work it out.

[Lafon]

The answer is found in understanding the "seed," a principle that God established in the beginning. All things would, including mankind, continue its presence by means of the "seed" that was present within itself.

When Adam sinned and God imposed the judgment of death upon his body, then this meant that the "seed" of all humanity became corrupt, and because the "seed" of all things God created is reproduced after its own kind, then we, as with all mankind born of Adam's "seed" have inherited Adam's propensity (call it "nature" if you will) to sin, as well as inherited the penalty of death by this same means.

Christ Jesus' progenitor was NOT the corrupted "seed" of Adam, rather that of the Spirit, therefore He did not inherit a "propensity" (aka, "nature") to sin, although because His fleshly body was formed in and came out of sinful flesh, then after this manner He, like all of humanity, inherited the penalty of death. This is why the Hebrews writer tells us that it "behoved" (that is, was necessary) for Him to be made like unto His brethren.

So bottom line ...... It is all in the "seed."

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by Lafon

The answer is found in understanding the "seed," a principle that God established in the beginning. All things would, including mankind, continue its presence by means of the "seed" that was present within itself.
When Adam sinned and God imposed the judgment of death upon his body, then this meant that the "seed" of all humanity became corrupt, and because the "seed" of all things God created is reproduced after its own kind, then we, as with all mankind born of Adam's "seed" have inherited Adam's propensity (call it "nature" if you will) to sin, as well as inherited the penalty of death by this same means.
Christ Jesus' progenitor was NOT the corrupted "seed" of Adam, rather that of the Spirit, therefore He did not inherit a "propensity" (aka, "nature") to sin, although because His fleshly body was formed in and came out of sinful flesh, then after this manner He, like all of humanity, inherited the penalty of death. This is why the Hebrews writer tells us that it "behoved" (that is, was necessary) for Him to be made like unto His brethren.
So bottom line ...... It is all in the "seed."

The "Third Law of Creation" explains the seed in man very well. However, Jesus was
born of the seed of the woman, hence he DID NOT inherit the propensity to sin. The
resurrection is proof that Jesus did not sin, because death could not hold him ("...the
soul that sins shall die..."). The only penalty Jesus incurred was for OUR sins.

Yes! "It is all in the seed."