Featured Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

No, little children are not sinners;

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; )

See, your argument is that someone whom the Bible clearly says has done no evil is a sinner. That is a ridiculous argument.

Now, it is true that the scriptures say "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". This seems to be a direct contradiction, but we know the scriptures cannot contradict themselves.

So what is the answer? The answer is that Romans 3:23 is speaking of adults, or at least of persons old enough to understand right from wrong.

In a figure of speech, yes. Paul said he was chief among sinners. But technically, all his sins are forgiven and he was washed white as snow and has absolutely no sin.

It is not a foolish argument at all. It shows that sin does not result directly in physical death. Animals cannot sin, yet they die. Therefore, physical death does not prove one is a sinner. You may not like that, but it is absolutely true and perfectly logical.

Now, God said Adam and Eve would die in "the day" that they sinned. Did they physically die that day? Nope. So this was not the death God spoke of, he spoke of spiritual death, which is separation from God.

But scripture doesn't show we are born spiritually dead. Paul said he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He could not have been saying he physically died, so we know for a fact he is speaking of spiritual death. Therefore, when he said he was alive without the law once, he meant before he knew the law he was spiritually alive. He was not dead in sin or separated from God.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

This scripture is very straightforward and simple. It is clearly describing when Paul learned the law as a young Jewish man. He said he would have not known sin but by the law, he would have not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet.

Paul thought that the law would lead to life, but instead, knowledge of the law made him accountable before God and convicted him as a sinner, therefore he spiritually died.

That is what this passage is saying, plain as day. But because you hold the false doctrine of Original Sin you must wrest this scripture with all sorts of convoluted theories.

As I showed earlier, 1 Peter 2:25 shows we were not born dead or estranged from God. It shows we were Jesus's sheep until we went astray, but now we are RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. Any honest person easily sees this shows we were not born dead in sin separated from God.

But you just go on and believe that Catholic hack from the 5th century and see where it gets you.

 

You keep using Scripture out of context and ridiculous arguments.
Let's look at if more closely.
First, in context, it is speaking of the nation of Israel as all of Romans 9-11 is.
Second, it is speaking of God's foreknowledge.
Take another example, a parallel example.
Abraham had one child, a child of promise:
Genesis 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Genesis 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
--Even before Isaac was conceived, before he was in the womb, he was chosen to be the heir of all things. He was the chosen one, the one that Jehovah would make his covenant with. He could not do any good or evil before he was conceived, before he even existed, could he?

Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
--Abraham had many other children. Count them all. There are many.
But look at verse 5: All that he had he gave to Isaac!
Before Isaac was even conceived he knew this would happen.

This also is the meaning of Romans 9:11. It is speaking of the purpose of God, as it says it is. It is not speaking of the depravity of man. You are reading that into the Scripture--eisigesis. It is your proof text, but has nothing to do with your errant doctrine.

You are the one contradicting the Scriptures. That is obvious. You are making the Scriptures contradict themselves.

This is true of every person who comes to Christ. There is no new doctrine here. Paul was a sinner saved by grace, as we all are.

So, animals are made in the image of God just like you are. Do you have the same image of God as your dog (if you have one)? or your cat? etc.
Do you have the same spiritual image as a rat?

Are you a created being? Then the comparison is irrelevant.
God said: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And they did. And every person born thereafter died also. Adam was the federal head of the human race and passed that sin nature to every person born of man. That is why Seth was not made in the image of God, but rather in the image of Adam, to stress that point to us. The image of God had been marred.

"You do err not knowing the Scripture...."
There has never been a time in the existence of mankind where there has been no law. Thus he was dead from birth, and needed to be born again. Why do you think there is a necessity of the new birth?
I have explained this passage more than once to you. You refuse truth. Go back and read my explanations.

It is not as clear as you think. For you simply force your thoughts and opinions into it; your teachings which are contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. You stand outside 2,000 years of orthodox Christianity.
Paul had the law as a very young child. I was always in his heart, just as it is always in the heart of every Gentile. It is called "conscience" which God gives every man. He did not have to be taught guilt when he did wrong, even at the age of two and three or perhaps earlier.

The came "alive" when the Holy Spirit convicted him of his sin.

Every Jew thinks they will be saved by keeping the law, even up to the age of 100 or as long as they live. The law came alive when he was convicted of the Holy Spirit.

The law condemns. It always condemns. It condemns from birth onward.

As I have told you before I tell you again.
The cults are the ones that use the method of "one word-one meaning" interpretation of Scripture. But words have more than one meaning. Until you admit this you will never be able to interpret Scripture properly.
1Pet.2:25 is irrelevant to OS, and doesn't prove your case at all. You simply don't accept the definition of words. You try to redefine them by taking scripture out of context.
"Astray as soon as they be born" is a good example of how you can't change the meaning of this word in some cases.

You stand outside 2,000 years of Christians orthodoxy. I am not the one in danger of heresy.

 

What does Isaac have to do with Romans 9:11? Romans 9:11 is speaking of Jacob and Esau when they were very much alive in their mother's womb. They existed. And Paul tells us they had done no evil at this point in their existence.

This refutes Original Sin, especially those that claim Paul was teaching all mankind "sinned" at one moment with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, a favorite claim of Iconoclast and Hank.

Isaac was born in chapter 21, I don't have an idea what you are rambling about here.

Gen 21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

I agree with you that Paul is discussing election here, nevertheless, he tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no evil while they were alive in Rebecca's womb. This absolutely refutes Original Sin that says all men sinned in Adam.

Look, you can't have it both ways, you can't say Paul is teaching everyone sinned with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, and then this same Paul tells us Jacob and Esau had not sinned while they were in their mother's womb. It doesn't matter that the subject is election, Paul gives us a fact that refutes Original Sin here.

That's ridiculous. The only thing I am contradicting is your ERROR.

Yes, but babies who die are not sinners and need no repentance as Jesus said in Luke 15:7

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

I didn't make up this story about 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, Jesus did. Do you really believe Jesus spoke nonsense?

It has nothing to do with being made in the image of God. Animals physically die, and animals cannot sin, therefore physically dying does not prove one is a sinner. The fact that babies physically die in the womb does not prove they are sinners. That is plain logic and common sense.

The law existed around 1400 years before Paul was born, but Paul wasn't born KNOWING the law. You don't get it, it is the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil that makes a person accountable. That is why Adam and Eve died, because they now understood between good and evil and were convicted as sinners.

I have shown Deu 1:39 dozens of times. God did not punish the little children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness. Why? Because they had no KNOWLEDGE between good and evil.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Why do you ignore plain scripture? Was there law in the world at this time? Sure, men knew right from wrong long before this. Did the little children know between good and evil? NO!

You are just being stubborn and resisting truth.

Yes, men are born with a conscience, but the conscience takes a few years to develop. Men are born with the ability to walk, but that takes about a year to develop, the ability to talk takes around two years to develop. Until men are able to clearly understand between right and wrong God does not hold them accountable and does not charge them with sin.

And this is what Paul is explaining in Romans 7. Like all young Jewish persons, he was required to study and learn the law. He believed that following the law would lead to life, but instead, the knowledge of the law made him accountable before God. He was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. Paul didn't say he "mistakenly thought" he was alive as some foolishly claim, he clearly says he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He could not possibly be saying he physically died, so we know he is saying he spiritually died. This shows that Paul was spiritually alive until he learned the law.

And I don't care what the church has taught for 2000 years if it is pure ERROR. That is why God gave us the scriptures, so we can study and know the truth, and not be deceived by the false doctrines of men.

 

The depravity of man (and thus original sin) was taught by the apostles, the early church and onward. Augustine may have coined the term "original sin," just like some other coined "trinity" but that doesn't mean the concept wasn't taught.
Consider the history that baptism by immersion, given to adults upon profession of their faith was universally practiced for the first two centuries. In the third century infant baptism began to creep in. Why? Because they feared that their infants would die and go to hell. This was before the origin of the RCC. This teaching came from the belief of the depravity of man. Because they were born in sin, sinners at birth, they must be baptized at infancy to guard against going to hell. Hence, baptismal regeneration--one of the first errors to enter into the Christian church.

 

First just for the record my view of "original sin" (I don't even use that phrase) is not exactly the usual traditional view.

There is a significant difference between Romans 9:11 and Romans 5:12.

Romans 9:11 uses the phrase "practice" evil while Romans 5:12 uses "all sinned".

IOW the sentence of sin was there in both Jacob and Esau in 9:11 it just hadn't borne its adamic fruit yet through the exercise of there individual wills and therefore neither had incurred guilt.

HankD

 

We have ALL ran away from God, that we are sinners who are away from God, at war with him, as our natural selves neither seek after Him, nor can even know Him in a saving sense !There is NOTHING in our flesh that can make peace with God, as we MUST be born again and have a new nature in order to make that happen!

 

Interesting, as he has stated that we are right with God until we actually choose to sin against Him!

 

Also just for the record and something I have known for a long time is that "original sin" was taught in one form or another before Augustine.

One of the reasons I don't like the phrase "original sin" I have stated many times.

Another is that the early church fathers didn't use the phrase itself but yet taught sin passed on from Adam, here is a list and where you can find it.

Be sure to read them all (there are others as well) because it might be denied, so read and decide for yourselves as it seems that at least one opponent assigns all the credit to Augustine.

I don't like citing the ECF but to clear up a point of church history concerning what is commonly called "original sin" is that it goes far back beyond Augustine.

IRENAEUS - 180AD
TERTULLIAN – 200AD
ORIGEN – 244AD (yes, not a good guy)
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE – 250AD
METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI – 300AD
APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE - 340AD

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ch...h-fathers.html

HankD

 

IF, as He supposes, mankind was NOT affected by the Fall as assuming a sin nature, that God did not judge us all already guilty in Adam, then would he have to state then that all of us are born OK, and not away from God until we choose to sin and get the sin nature then?

 

I am not imputing sin. I am not imputing sin. I am repeating because you seem unable to grasp I am not imputing sin. If you cannot present my view accurately, you need to quit.

Pure fiction. All in Adam were made sinners, all in Christ were made saints.

 

Correct, those who sin as Adam did are judged "sinners" as Adam was and sentenced to death as he was. It is not saying we were all transformed into sinners as you believe.

Yes, and babies die as a consequence of Adam's sin as do animals, but that does not prove they are sinners.

What a bunch of nonsense. Abraham had faith and was therefore imputed righteous.

His faith was made righteous?? What does that even mean? Nonsense.

Again, nonsense.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Sin is not imputed when there is no law, but sin IS imputed when there is law.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

No one went to heaven until Jesus ascended and gave gifts (the Holy Spirit) to men. Abraham was completely without sin when he died, but he did not ascend until after Jesus rose from the dead. There is no reason to believe it would be any different for little children who died before they could sin.

It's pretty hard to debate with someone who completely redefines practically everything in scripture as you do.

 

It is certain the corruption that passed upon all men and creation had a profound effect on men. I would even say man's judgment was affected by physical corruption, men are not as intelligent as they might be, and might be more prone to make poor judgments which would lead to sin. Even the curse of having to earn bread by the sweat of our brow tempts a man to steal. So this corruption could absolutely tempt men to sin.

My view is very similar to what the Eastern church believed.

I do not agree that we get our soul and spirit from our parents, but directly from God.

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We do receive our physical bodies from our parents, which is affected by the corruption that passed on all creation, but we receive our soul and spirit directly from God. To teach that we have evil spirits and souls is to directly blame God and make him the author of sin.

 

Yes, this from Wiki

I don't know if I like the term "fallen nature", but I do believe our corrupt physical bodies do have an effect on us and could make us more prone to give in to temptation. We are not as intelligent as we might be, and our judgment is very likely affected as well for the worse. The scriptures also speak of our "infirmities" or weaknesses.

But again, the scriptures are clear we receive our soul and spirit from God. God does not make evil spirits and souls. We become evil when we make a willful and knowing choice to violate one of God's laws.

Jesus said the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Compare this verse to the end of Romans chapter 7 and I think you will have a scriptural view of the state of man.