Featured Eastern Orthodoxy and original sin

Reading without comprehension is no better than being illiterate.

Of course it shows choice, that is what the terms, "either make" the tree good "or else make" the tree corrupt mean.

Jesus is directly telling these unbelievers to either make themselves good or to make themselves corrupt.

It is nonsense to argue otherwise, but I know you will continue in your error.

 

Of course when you are exposed just assert your error again. If Jesus wanted to say "make yourselves" he could have said that but he did not. He is merely using an expressing that limits the options. If you make the tree good then this is the consequence but if you make the tree evil this is the conseqence. Either way, the tree analogy exposes your position on sin to be erroroneous.

 

If all men are born upright, then in the course of human history, there surely would have been at least one human being that did not sin. But that is not the case. All people sin. Paul says that death proves that all are sinners because all die. He says that all die even if they did not commit the same sin as Adam because all are born of Adam.
All that are born of Adam die. All that are born of Christ live.

People have tried to live sinless lives. Monks and nuns cloister themselves away and have nothing to do with the world in an attempt to be holy, but they cannot because sin resides in them.
If you can point to even one person that lived a sinless life (other than Christ), I will change my mind and agree with you.

We need God's grace because we are sinners. We sin because we can do no other until we are born again of the second Adam and receive the Holy Spirit who gives the power to overcome sin.

 

No, he did not use the word "yourselves" he used the word "tree", but he was speaking directly to these unbelievers about themselves.

Why do you play games? You know as well as I do that Jesus was directly telling these persons to make themselves good, or to make themselves corrupt.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Adam and Eve were made perfect, and they lived in a perfect environment, and yet they sinned the very first time they were tempted by a piece of fruit.

We are all born into a corrupt world with literally thousands of temptations that assault us, what makes you think we would do any better than them?

Amy, you are buying into all of Calvinism's false arguments. Think for yourself.

Edit- And the term "in Adam" is found only once in scripture, in 1 Cor 15:22. This chapter is speaking of the resurrection of our physical bodies. When it says, "in Adam all die" it is speaking of physical death only.

In Romans 5, when it says by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, it means by example.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

"Many" here means all men, not just some. If all men were made sinners by Adam, then this verse also says "many" (all) men shall be made righteous by Jesus. But we know for a fact that all men will not be made righteous, and that the majority of men will perish.

Being made righteous by Jesus is not unconditional, a person must believe to be imputed righteous. Likewise, a person must sin as Adam did to become a sinner. Neither becoming a sinner, nor being made righteous is unconditional.

It is like saying, "Because of Karl Marx, many men were made communists". That is a very true statement, but it does not mean Marx'x personal beliefs were supernaturally imposed in other people's minds. When people believed Marx's example and follow his teachings they become communists.

Likewise, when men follow Adam's example of self-will and disobey God, they are made sinners. Likewise, when people follow Jesus and believe by faith, they are imputed righteousness.

 

When you are wrong you always resort to ridicule or redirection.

As Psalm 100:3 says it is God that "made" us and "NOT WE OURSELVES" as no man can rebirth themselves as that is a creative work that only God can do which the human will cannot do (Jn. 1:13; James 1;18; etc.)


Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

I gave you the correct interpretation of Matthew 12 text but your false doctrine won't allow you to accept it and so you pit scripture against scripture.

 

Many misunderstand the scripture in Jeremiah 13:23. Consider more carefully, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil”
Not everyone is accustomed to doing evil. There sure are people who are accustomed to doing evil, but again, not everyone.

 

Yes, the word "accustomed" literally means learned behavior, not something you are compelled to do by birth.

This verse is hyperbole and is saying these persons are so addicted and accustomed to practice sin, that it would be almost impossible to change their behavior, as it would be for a leopard to change his spots or an Ethiopian his skin.

Not only that, but this verse is not addressed to all men, but very specific men, and so cannot be used as a proof-text to prove Original Sin.

This particular verse was written to the house of Judah and especially Jerusalem. And if a person reads ALL the scripture in this passage, they will see God is not saying it is utterly impossible for them to repent.

Jer 13:15 Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud: for the LORD hath spoken.
16 Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.
17 But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD'S flock is carried away captive.
18 Say unto the king and to the queen, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.

God is telling these persons to hear and not be proud. He tells them to give glory to God and to humble themselves.

But in verse 17 God says, "but IF ye will not hear it". The word "if" shows these persons could repent and hear God, otherwise the word "if" is nonsensical.

If men are utterly depraved and completely unable to repent, then there would be no IF concerning whether a man could hear God or not.

Just another example of pulling scripture out of context and using it to prove a point it is not making. This passage is not speaking of men's nature at birth, it is not speaking of "all men" at all. And if a person reads the whole passage and does not rip one verse out of context they would see God is not saying it is impossible for these persons to hear.

These same folks will ignore scripture that directly says men are made upright (Ecc 7:29) and that the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father (Eze 18:20) which directly addresses the condition men are born in.

 

Your conclusion is wrong and John 8:24 has nothing to do with this passage. There is no eternal in this passage. You have inserted it. Why have you inserted words when they aren't there?

Oh you poor soul!!
The word "soul" often refers to the entire person.

Ezekiel 18:7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

As quoted in the above verse (vs.7), there were a lot more crimes than just murder mentioned. Not all sins had the death penalty attached to it, so your conclusion makes no sense.

If a man turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
What transgressions? The ones that he has committed such as stealing, robbing the poor, oppression, violence, etc. These sins are not worthy of death.

Oh you poor soul. God says this man's person shall live. The passage does not talk of a serial killer. You are reading into this passage things that are not there. I don't believe you have read the chapter carefully.

I don't believe you have read the chapter with any degree of objectivity.

 

This is very good information that you wrote here.
I so enjoy reading the truth from others.

 

No, it would be just as possible for them to change their behavior as it would be possible for the leopord to change his spots and the Ethiopian his skin.

All three are EQUALLY as possible!

Their "behavior" is rooted in their own nature as much as the spots of a leopard are rooted in its nature or the skin of the Ethiopian is rooted in his nature.

There are not some Ethopians born without skin any more than are some people born without this kind of behavior rooted in their nature.

 

Wrong! Being "accustomed" to doing evil is the whole point of the analogy! Being accustomed to doing evil is being compared to ABILITY to change the spots on the leporard and to the ABILITY to change the skin on the Ethiopion.

Both the Ethiopion and lepord HAVE NO ABILITY to change because the change invovles what is INHERENT BY NATURE. Likewise, man has no ABILITY to change what he is "accustomed" or DOING EVIL because doing evil is INHERENT BY NATURE! If it were not inherent by nature he could change it! If the spots on the lepord and the skin on the Ethiopian were not INHERENT BY NATURE they could change them.

Bottom line, it is just as difficult for man who is "accustomed" to doing evil to change as it is for Ethiopians to change skin - IMPOSSIBLE. It is just as easy for man who is "accustomed" to doing evil to change as it is the lepord to change his spots - IMPOSSIBLE. The impossibility of all three is due to INHERENT NATURE that none can change but God.

 

No, the choice of analogy demands it! He could have chosen an analogy that was developmental rather than one that is fixed by nature. However, he did not. He intentional chose an analogy that NATURE is the cause of the impossibility.

It does not break down at that point except in YOUR THEOLOGY. The analogy is consistent all the way through. The overall context of scripture reinforces that truth from the oldest scriptures (Job 14:1-4; 15:14-16) right into the New Testament (Jn. 3:17-18; Rom. 5:15-19; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). Humans are born in "unbelief" (Jn. 3:17-18) and "UNDER SIN" (Rom. 3:9) and therefore from birth are subject to condemnation due to sin which is death! They are "accustomed" to evil because they are born with a fallen nature which is evil and as soon as they be born they demonstrate that evil nature! You do not need to teach children to do evil because they are born with a nature that is evil and manifests itself as soon as they are born.

 

Man's inherited sin nature


IMO, the main reason for the Holy Spirit being Jesus' "father"
was so man's inherited sin nature was not passed along to Jesus.
If He had man's sin nature, He never could have been the sinless/perfect sacrificial Lamb of God.

IMO, Joseph could not be Jesus' father because man's sin nature is passed on through the male sperm.
The Holy Spirit provided a sinless male sperm for the conception (Matt 1:20, Luke 1:31),
which was a normal one (sperm + egg), except for the Spirit's involvement.
.

 

My question with the Orthodox perspective is this. How then does attonement work? How can God say "by his stripes we are healed?" If guilt isn't directly applied? Are you suggesting that this is only for those sins we have committed? And what need to be Baptized if the universality of original sin doesn't come with guilt? Couldn't Jesus died universally expunging the taint of original sin leaving all men free of sin nature tendancy and leave them only guilty for their sin for which only the people who have sinned can obtain baptism?