Original Sin

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Michael Wrenn, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,130
    Likes Received:
    207
    Another false doctrine by Eastern Orthodox! The beginning of the article incorrectly identifies only Pauline writings as the source of original sin but it is taught throughout the Old and New Testament scriptures as my subscripts demonstrate.
     
  3. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: Here, DHK obviously posts this verse thinking that it supports the notion of universal original sin. Simply another verse misused in support of a favorite false notion he imbibes.

    This is simply another clear illustration how that those believing in Augustinian original sin will use anything to support their dogma, and twist any context to assume their presupposition.

    The plain truth is, this text neither states nor implies any such notion as original sin.
     
  4. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is John Wesley on original sin.


    “The Scripture does not, that I remember, anywhere say, in express words, that the sin of Adam is imputed to his children; or, that the sins of believers are imputed to Christ; or, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers: but the true meaning of these expressions is sufficiently found in several places of Scripture.” “Yet since these express words and phrases, of the imputation of Adam’s sin to us, of our sins to Christ, and of Christ’s righteousness to us, are not plainly written in Scripture we should not impose it on every Christian, to use these very expressions. Let every one take his liberty, either of confining himself to strictly Scriptural language, or manifesting his sense of these plain Scriptural doctrines, in words and phrases of his own.”
    One thing we should all agree on is that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and are in need of a Savior. I personally feel that the only Scriptural definition of sin is; sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God."

    Wesley also stated that "strictly speaking, nothing is sin but a willful transgression of a known commandment of God."
     
  5. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of the most important issues noted, was the truth of Augustine as the father of the doctrine of original sin, i.e., guilt being imputed to all on the account of Adam's sin. No such notion was held by the early church prior to Augustine, and no such notion is taught in Scripture.
     
  6. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134

    Before posting would could be taken as misinformation, could you document and verify as true the information you have posted. Quote from reliable sources. Be sure that you have included all and any sources before Augustine that may have believed in the depravity of man.
     
  7. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have taken the time in the past to document such comments, using some of the best educated and capable men, but has that changed your mind?

    Do your own research if you disagree and prove me wrong if you can. :thumbs:
     
  8. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134

    I have not seen any such documentation. It is incumbent on the poster to provide proper evidence and verification that such information that he posts is true and accurate. One doesn't want to be liable for misinformation, plagiarism, libel, slander, etc. Thus your information must be documented. Give your sources please.
     
  9. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Two points: (1) Yes, you surely have. (2) What you say about Augustine is true, no question about it. It is verifiable; all anyone has to do is research it.

    Now I don't mean this to be a pejorative comment, but there seems to be a willful ignorance on the part of some when it comes to the history and theology of the church. Why? Because it contradicts what some would like to believe, and it's not easy having the rug pulled out from under your presuppositions.

    Augustine was influenced by his Manichaeist past; that's what led to his position on original sin and total depravity.

    As for Calvin, the murderer and legalist, well, need I say more.
     
    #9 Michael Wrenn, Mar 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2012
  10. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you desire to read something for yourself, try "The life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah" or "The Temple" by Edersheim, along with "The History of Christian Doctrines" by Louis Berkoff or "The History of Christian Ethics" by George Wolfgang Forellfor starters. I use these books and others for my own reference and understanding of the issues involved. :thumbs:
     
  11. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Michael!
     
  12. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are quite welcome. Facts must be defended.
     
  13. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Being the nice guy that I am, I will cite one reference I have not given for a while by Augustine himself, that shows clearly the roots of his beliefs on sin and evil.
    You will find the origin of the notion of original sin introduced into the church by Augustine, and he mixed the heathen Manichaeans notion that taught ‘an evil nature, unchangeable and coeternal with god” as cited in ‘Earlier writings’ by Augustine LCC, 6:102.

    Enjoy.
     
  14. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    To show genuine goodwill and the willingness to do another's leg work for the sake of Christian charity, I will post once again the comments Alfred Edersheim, in his book entitled "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah." This quote deals with the truth that the Jews did not hold to any such notion as original sin in any of their writings, the Old Testament being some of them .

    I will begin reading on page 52. Quote:. "The statement that as in Adam all spiritually died, so in Messiah all should be made alive, finds absolutely no parallel in Jewish writings........ the doctrine of hereditary guilt and sin, through the fall of Adam, and the consequent in tire and helpless corruption of our nature, is entirely unknown to Rabbinical Judaism."

    I do not think that anyone could cite a better authority on Jewish thought than Alfred Erdersheim. Again on page 165 ibid, Erderheim wites: quote" so far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings, the great doctrines of original sin, and of the sinfulness of our hold nature, were not held by the ancient Rabbins. "

    This is a good start of documentation to understand clearly that the Jews did not, and have never held to, any such Augustinian notion of original sin.

    I know full well that this is only one piece to the puzzle concerning original sin, but it is a great place to start establishing a sound truthful understanding of the origins of that doctrine. Trust me. It is not in the OT period. Not in Psalms 14, 51, 58 or any other passage in the OT that are quoted so often in support of the notion of original sin.

    DHK, may I kindly suggest that if you're truly interested in this subject or in my views about it that you establish yourself a file and copy and paste this post to it so you will have it for future reference, and so that I will not be falsely accused of not establishing my points by well-known and respected scholars or plagiarizing someone by my own remarks. :thumbs:

     
  15. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    On the issue of 'the anthropology of the Greek fathers' concerning their notions of sin, Louis Berhoff in his book entitled "The history of Christian Doctrines" makes the following points. Quote: "their view of sin was, particularly at first, largely influenced by their opposition to Gnosticism with its emphasis on the physical necessity of evil and its denial of freedom of the will. They stressed the fact that Adam's creation in the image of God did not involve his ethical perfection, but only the moral perfectability of his nature. Adam could sin and it sin, and best came under the power of Satan, death, and sinful corruption. This physical corruption was propagated in the human race, but is not itself sin and did not involve mankind in guilt. There is no original sin in the strict sense of the word. They do not deny the solidarity of the human race, but admit it's physical connection with Adam. This connection, however, relates only to the corporeal in sensuous nature, which is propagated from father to son, and not to the higher and rational side of human nature, which is in every case a direct creation of God. It exerts no effect on the will, but affects this only mediately through the intellect. Sin always originates in the free choice of man, and is the result of weakness and ignorance. Consequently infants cannot be regarded as guilty, for they have inherited only a physical corruption."

    This should serve as further evidence that the doctrine of original sin was not held by the early Greek fathers antecedent to Augustine.

    I wonder how many on this list have Gnostic tendendecies, either known or unknown by them as such?
     
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,130
    Likes Received:
    207
    Gentlemen,

    You can quote UNINSPIRED sources till your blue in the face but one solitary INSPIRED text is sufficient to repudiate your absolute nonsense! Edersheim can quote rabbinical literature until he is blue in the face but there is more than sufficient Old Testament INSPIRED scriptures that completley repudiate rabbinic literature.

    We have defended many scriptures in Job, Psalms, Isaiah against your attempts to reinterpret them and exposed the falacious arguments you have made.

    Adam passed SPIRITUAL DEATH down to all men as only SPIRITUAL DEATH separates from God and results in PHYSICAL death and infants die. All mankind, the entire race, the entire human nature acted when Adam acted and the will of Adam was the will of the whole human nature extent within Adam.

    You are simply spouting philosophical nonsense and espousing interpretations that can be proven to be eisgetically based. - PERIOD!

    Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

    Parables, Metaphors are all rooted in reality not in fiction. This text completely repudiates your whole theory!
     
    #16 The Biblicist, Mar 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2012
  17. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: Read carefully Biblicists comments, then take a good long look at the verse he posts, that he obviously believes makes his point. If he can look himself in a mirror with a straight face as he lectures us, the mirror is obviously broke. Maybe he just did not put enough exclamation points after his comments. :rolleyes::)
     
    #17 Heavenly Pilgrim, Mar 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2012
  18. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0



    HP: I need to memorize this line.:laugh:
     
  19. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Your sources are not good enough.
    Augustine may have been one of the first to have written extensively on the subject, but the early church preached it. The Bible teaches it. Those that denied it were labeled as heretics--Pelagians. It was labeled as heresy at virtually every council held. Your unorthodox belief, the denial of the depravity of man, has been outside of the realm of orthodox Christianity since the time of the Apostles. That is what history shows.
     
  20. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have been refuted on this verse before, it is not speaking of physical birth, but of Israel coming out of Egypt and sinning in the wilderness. I even quoted Calvinist theologians who gave this interpretation.

    And notice it says FROM the womb. This would mean AFTER a person was born. Just as Israel did not sin until AFTER they came out of Egypt. That "from the womb" means AFTER birth is shown in Job.

    Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

    We also know from Paul himself that children have committed no sin in their mother's womb.

    Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

    You are pulling a verse completely out of context to teach that which it is not teaching. This verse is not teaching Original Sin whatsoever.

    We have scripture that shows man belonging to God in the womb and afterward.

    Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

    Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
    21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

    Of course, you will completely ignore and dismiss these scriptures to hold to your man-made doctrine.
     

Share This Page

Loading...