Did We get The Doctrine Of original Sin From Bible, or Catholic Church?

Was Seth's son in Seth's image? Yes
Was Seth in Adam's image? Yes
If Seth was in Adams image, and Seth's son was in Seth's image, then Seth's son is in Adam's image.

 

Not so. Seth's son could have been in his mother's image. My son looks more like my wife than me. We are not told Seth's son is in Adam's image...that is the very eisegesis I'm talking about.

This reasoning reminds me of...

God is love.
Love is blind.
Stevie Wonder is blind.
Stevie Wonder is God.

 

"All mankind" is made in the image of God only in a very general sense. We are not made in the image and likeness of God as Adam was. Adam has passed on to us a sin nature and has destroyed that image.

If this were true then Christ would be disqualified from being the perfect lamb of God. God needed a perfect lamb without blemish. Man has been blemished by Adam's sin and sin nature. Christ avoided the sin nature via the virgin birth. The virgin birth was more than just symbolic.

Christ was not under the curse of Adam. If he was that would make the truths of Gal.3 null and void.

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (Galatians 3:10)
--Every sinner that has not Christ puts himself under the law and is cursed.
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3:13)
--Christ was not under a curse; he was made a curse for us. This came via the virgin birth. He avoided the curse of Adam through the virgin birth. He avoided the sin nature via the virgin birth. He was MADE a curse for us, not born under the curse.

What do you mean "man's rendering--just because it goes against what you believe? Believe the Bible instead. Here it is:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)
--His son was born in Adam's likeness, and in Adam's likeness; not in God's. Why argue with Scripture? This is what Scripture teaches. Man had lost in part, the image and likeness of God through Adam's sin.

Satan wanted to be on par with God, and God cast him out of heaven.
Satan tempted Eve to be on par with God.
This is not so. There is a reason the Lord used words like: image and likeness. They don't mean "equality."

Nothing about image or likeness? What did you read?
We are to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is the image that God wants us to be conformed to. We have lost that image in the Fall. We have a sin nature. We are under a curse, as is the whole creation, which groans and travails in pain even now. Not only we, but all of God's creation waits for the coming of Christ when the curse will be lifted; when we no longer will have this sin nature and this corrupted body.
--When we are saved we are given abundant life, but not the complete life that we will be given at the resurrection when the curse will be lifted entirely and we no longer have to deal with this sin nature. Why does Paul describe a struggle with the sin nature and the new nature in Romans chapter 7?
The things that I do, I don't want to do; and the things I don't want to do, those I do.
Oh wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death.
He describes a great struggle raging within himself between two natures--the sinful inherited one, and the new one from Christ.

Only an answer that one would give who cannot refute what is given.

 

Scripture that supports that?

Since Christ never did sin, He retained being unblemished. Sin nature is not the blemish...SIN is the blemish. Is Christ 100% man or not? You state man has been blemished with the sin nature...but He avoided it biologically (which is an RC interpretation)

"exact" image and likeness is equality. There is no way around that.

If holiness is not to be understood, what conforming is needed the moment we are justified by being in Him?

...or when it is warranted.

 

He was as well as Seth's image

that's nice

sorry, but your son is made in your image(just you previously stated). It's not eisegesis. Don't just say "eisegesis" for the sake of it.
Adam
Seth in Adam's image
Enosh was made in Seth's image who was made in Adam's image.
Enosh's son was made in Enosh's image who was made in Seth's image who was made in Adam's image.

That would be invalid syllogism. I didn't do that. My reasoning was very sound.

 

Scripture that supports Adam was made in the image and likeness of God?
-- Genesis 1:26,27

Scripture that supports man has a sin nature, passed from Adam through Seth and on to other generations:
-- Gen.5:3; 3:15, 21,22; Psa.51:5; 58:3; Jer.17:9; 13:23; Rom.3:9-12,23; 6:23; Rom.8:18:-24; 5:12-19; Gal.3:10; Ecc.7:20.
--I think that is enough to start with.

The RCC believes in the trinity. Does that mean that we should forsake the doctrine of the trinity? This is your logic.
You are right in that Jesus was sinless. He was sinless in two ways. He was born that way, and he chose to be sinless or not to sin. Both have to be in place. The former can only be true if he was born of a virgin escaping the sin nature inherited through Adam. By not believing this you downgrade the importance of the virgin and make of no importance the prophecy given in Gen.3:15.

Chapter and verse please. Where does the Bible use the word "exact"? You are reading into the Scripture that which is not there.
Even in 1John 3:1,2, when it talks about his coming and believers seeing Jesus as he is, it still says:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)
--We will never be exactly like him.

What part of Romans 8:29 do you not understand??

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)
--His will for all believers is to be conformed to the image of His Son. Notice that was His will even before the foundation of the world.

 

As the norm, we will agree to disagree. You are taking the image thing beyond the intent of the text.

 

No, your "general sense" comment.

No, just the above. I already know this.

Red herring's are your logic.

Scripture stating having a sin nature eqates to being a sinner? A sinner is one who sins by the very definition of the word.

No, I just reject the RC mantra of the immaculate conception that you apparently embrace. Sin is not a physical entity passed through DNA.

:laugh: I was quoting YOU. YOU said exact...and your question is the "exact" thing I was asking of YOU :laugh:

. No kidding...so stop using phrases like "exact image and likeness"

 

Yet more scripture that refutes Original Sin.

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

How can we go "astray" from God if we are born dead in sins, separated from God?

How can we be "returned" to God if we were born dead in sin, separated from God?

Compare this verse to the parable of the lost sheep in Luke 15:4-7 where Jesus said a man had 100 sheep. He lost one of them, left the 99, and searched till he recovered the lost sheep. The lost sheep was RETURNED to him.

Explain how 1 Pet 2:25 can be true if men are born dead in sin, separated from God.

 

You have lost me.
I don't understand how any of the above have anything to do with original sin? What's your point?

 

I guess the argument is over then. I posted Scripture that shows man has a sin nature passed on from Adam to Seth to all of us.
Your reply: "I already know this."
I am glad you agree.

 

DHK, you are an intelligent person, I think you know quite well the problem 1 Pet 2:25 presents to Original Sin. I have seen you on numerous occasions say man is born SEPARATED from God.

If so, it is impossible to say we are now RETURNED to God. Words have meaning, to return means to go again to a place you have been before. If you have never been to Alaska, you cannot say you have returned there when you go there for the first time. You can only say you have returned to Alaska if you have been there previously.

The only way we can be said to be returned to God is if we were previously with him, not separated.

I think you understand this perfectly well, a little child could understand this without difficulty.

 

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. (1 Peter 2:25)

Sheep is used in the Bible in more than one way.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)

Let me explain in very simple language.
The Bible in these passages (especially the latter) uses the word "sheep" because they are dumb, stupid, animals, without enough sense to "think" for themselves, but (as the passage says) they easily go astray; they turn each other to their own way; they are born followers, not leaders. They are just plain dumb and stupid animals with a very low IQ. That is why one good sheep dog can manage a few hundred sheep.

The Lord compares sheep to people. He is not very complimentary is he?
We don't think. We follow one another. If one of us jumped off a cliff the rest of us (like sheep) would follow in our foolishness. We lead each other astray. Do you have enough time to count all the cults in America?

It was for these reasons that the Lord "hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
--The designation of sheep, in no way represents saved individuals or those without original sin. It represents sinners too stupid to get saved. They need help; the help of a Savior; one who was willing to die for them. They need The Great Shepherd of their Souls. He is the only one that can save. The passage teaches nothing of original sin, and if anything would support it.

 

There seems to be the suggestion that Augustine invented the doctrine of Original Sin. I am no great expert on the Early Church fathers, and no great fan of them, but ten minutes study produced this. I only considered the Ante Nicene fathers:-

Irenaeus: Against Heresies

'In the first Adam we offended God by not performing His command; in the second Adam we have been reconciled, becoming 'obedient unto death.'

'As through a conquered man our race went down to death, so through a conqueror we ascend to life.'

As through a tree we were made debtors to God, so through a tree we receive the cancellation of our debt.'

Tertullian: On Patience

'Here is the primal source of judgement and sin......When [Adam] succumbed to discontent he ceased to mind the things of God, he ceased to be content with heavenly things. Thenceforth man is bound upon the earth, cast out from God's sight, and begins to be easily influenced, as a result of discontent, towards everything that is such as to offend God.'

Testimonium Animae

Satan.....the corrupter of the whole world. Through him man was beguiled in the beginning to transgress the command of God.....and in the result he has affected the whole human race by their desent from him, transmitting to them his own damnation.'

Origen: Commentary on the Song of Songs

'The serpent which seduced Eve and by his persuasive suggestion poured the poison of sin into her and infected all her posterity with the contagion of transgression.'

My purpose is not to commend the ECFs but merely to show that the Doctrine of Original Sin goes back a whole lot further than Augustine.

Steve

Steve

 

Did not see Adam's guilt transferring to all in the above. The link cypress posted is accurate.

 

What don't you see as clear?
The whole human race "by their descent" (from Satan) transmitting their damnation. The whole human race has inherited damnation and transmits this "damnation" from one generation to the next. I would conclude that this "damnation" is the sin nature of every man. We would not be "damned" without it.

 

Nice attempt at deflection. The issue is not whether the Lord calls us sheep or some other animal. The issue is that this verse says we are RETURNED to God. If man is born separated from God, then it would be impossible to describe salvation as being RETURNED to God.

 

It speaks of the curse not Adam's guilt. Due to Adam's action all humanity will sin, its inevitable and unavoidable. To say it refers to mankind being held accountable for Adam's sin and not their own is reading into the curse.

 

Young's Literal:

for ye were as sheep going astray, but ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls. (1 Peter 2:25)
Repentance is a turning back. It is a conversion of the soul.
They were going the wrong way; down the pathway of sin.
They turned back--back to the path of Christ--the Chief Shepherd of their souls. It describes repentance very aptly.

 

The sin nature is part of the curse. We sin because we want to sin. We sin because it is in our nature to sin. We sin because we have a sinful nature, not an innocent nature. There is no such thing as innocence in this world today. Everything, babies and all of creation has been tainted by the fall. We all have sin nature and all are awaiting the redemption of our bodies. We cannot escape the curse of sin. It won't happen until Christ comes again.