Does Denying Original Sin mean Denying the Cross?

[Yeshua1]

For if we are not sinners at birth, do not have the sin nature until we actually choose to sin, that means that we would have the capability to not sin as Jesus did, and be saved by our own good works?

 

[Yeshua1]

deleted misposted!

 

[Winman]

For if we are not sinners at birth, do not have the sin nature until we actually choose to sin, that means that we would have the capability to not sin as Jesus did, and be saved by our own good works?

Do the scriptures say Jacob and Esau were sinners in their mothers 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; )

The scriptures say Jacob and Esau had not done ANY evil in their mother's womb, so how could they be sinners?

You will claim they inherited Adam's sin, but God says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father or vice versa, each person dies for their own sin.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Many claim Romans 5:12-14 says all men sinned in Adam, but if you read carefully it actually says the EXACT OPPOSITE;

Rom 5:12 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.

Does verse 12 say Adam's sin passed upon all men? NO, it says death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Men die because they personally choose to sin just as Adam did. This verse does not say one word about Adam's sin being imputed to other men as many falsely teach.

In verse 13 Paul says until the law was introduced that sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Why then did men die? This is where many go wrong, they claim that all men die because Adam's sin is imputed to them. But verse 13 and 14 clearly refute that. In fact, verse 13 says SIN IS NOT IMPUTED. How can folks read this passage and not notice these words??

Verse 14 says men from Adam to Moses (note that it is not speaking of ALL men) died, even over them THAT HAD NOT SINNED AFTER THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM'S SIN.

Scripture is plain, men from Adam to Moses did not sin after the similitude of Adam's sin. In fact, it was impossible for them to do so. Why? Because until Moses there was only one law, that man could not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When Adam and Eve sinned, God chased them out of the garden. Men no longer had access to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, therefore no man could possibly commit the same sin Adam and Eve committed, it was impossible for them to do so.

So why then did men from Adam to Moses die? Because they broke the law written on their heart that Paul described in Romans chapter 2.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul had already explained in Romans 2 that persons without the law shall perish without the law. Why? Because they have the law written on their hearts. And scripture is clear that men from Adam to Moses knew right from wrong. These men knew it was wrong to murder, or steal, or lie. You do not have to have a written law to know and understand it is wrong to beat someone and take their money. So men from Adam to Moses (not all men) spiritually died because they willingly and knowingly sinned against their own conscience and law written on their hearts.

Romans 5:12-14 does not teach that Adam's sin is imputed to all men. In fact, this passage is not even speaking of all men, but only men from Adam to Moses when there was no written law. It says death passed on all men for that all have sinned, but it does not say one word about Adam's sin being passed to any man.

Now, physical death is another matter altogether. All men do die physically as a consequence of Adam's sin. (1 Cor 15:22). When Adam and Eve were chased out of the garden, all men were barred from eating of the tree of life and so physically die. This is a different issue altogether however.

 

[Revmitchell]

For if we are not sinners at birth, do not have the sin nature until we actually choose to sin, that means that we would have the capability to not sin as Jesus did, and be saved by our own good works?

So how is this related to denying the cross?

 

[quantumfaith]

Here is an interesting article by Peter Enns. I do realize the polarizing nature of Dr. Enns. There is much, in what I have read from him that I wrestle with. This article is worthy of consideration.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/02/5-old-testament-reasons-to-rethink-original-sin/

 

[Herald]

Here is an interesting article by Peter Enns. I do realize the polarizing nature of Dr. Enns. There is much, in what I have read from him that I wrestle with. This article is worthy of consideration.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/02/5-old-testament-reasons-to-rethink-original-sin/

Peter Enns, a member of Biologos. Peter Enns, canned from Westminster Philadelphia because of his unbiblical views. Peter Enns who is a proponent of theistic evolution and believes in the Genesis "myth". You mean THAT Peter Enns?

 

[Yeshua1]

So how is this related to denying the cross?

IF we are not seen as being dead in oursins, if not sinners at birth, then we would logically be all right with God, at least until wechose to sin, but If jesus was "Just like us", why couldn't some get saved by good works, for IF we had no imputed sin nature, why not keep Law as He did and bypass the Cross?

 

[Yeshua1]

Peter Enns, a member of Biologos. Peter Enns, canned from Westminster Philadelphia because of his unbiblical views. Peter Enns who is a proponent of theistic evolution and believes in the Genesis "myth". You mean THAT Peter Enns?

Both Jesus and paul saw Adam as a real historical human, so peter knows something they didn't?

 

[quantumfaith]

Peter Enns, a member of Biologos. Peter Enns, canned from Westminster Philadelphia because of his unbiblical views. Peter Enns who is a proponent of theistic evolution and believes in the Genesis "myth". You mean THAT Peter Enns?

Yes, that Peter Enns. I personally (proudly, without arrogance) have no problem with evolutionary models, including theistic evolution, although I lean more toward the Intelligent Design side of the equation. I did preface by saying that he (Dr. Enns) is polarizing in many ways. If that means you cannot read any commentary or thoughts by him, so be it.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, that Peter Enns. I personally (proudly, without arrogance) have no problem with evolutionary models, including theistic evolution, although I lean more toward the Intelligent Design side of the equation. I did preface by saying that he (Dr. Enns) is polarizing in many ways. If that means you cannot read any commentary or thoughts by him, so be it.

Well, if he denies a historical fall and Adam, either jesus is right, or peter is!

I would bet on God for the win there!

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, if he denies a historical fall and Adam, either jesus is right, or peter is!

I would bet on God for the win there!

That is a great drive by Yeshua 1. Certainly there might be some (or much) for you to find wrong about Dr. Enns ( I do as well) However, you could consider at times things he may if fact have to say, or questions to ask.

I have read his book....have you? I am not comfortable with his position on Adam being a historical person. But he does bring interesting questions and thoughts to debates and discussion.

 

[Herald]

Yes, that Peter Enns. I personally (proudly, without arrogance) have no problem with evolutionary models, including theistic evolution, although I lean more toward the Intelligent Design side of the equation. I did preface by saying that he (Dr. Enns) is polarizing in many ways. If that means you cannot read any commentary or thoughts by him, so be it.

Peter Enns has apologetical value. He is an example of what happens to individuals who fall into the trap of liberal-progressive theology. He played a major part in a dear family member of mine slipping into the same error. He also denies the substitutionary atonement. In short, he is a theological train wreck.

 

[Revmitchell]

IF we are not seen as being dead in oursins, if not sinners at birth, then we would logically be all right with God, at least until wechose to sin, but If jesus was "Just like us", why couldn't some get saved by good works, for IF we had no imputed sin nature, why not keep Law as He did and bypass the Cross?

First having a sin nature does not equal having sinned. Scripture is clear in Romans 5 that we have a sin nature imputed. But none of that leads to denying the cross no matter how you look at it. You are employing a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Winman]

That is a great drive by Yeshua 1. Certainly there might be some (or much) for you to find wrong about Dr. Enns ( I do as well) However, you could consider at times things he may if fact have to say, or questions to ask.

I have read his book....have you? I am not comfortable with his position on Adam being a historical person. But he does bring interesting questions and thoughts to debates and discussion.

I am a full fledged young earth creationist, yet I think Dr. Enns makes some great points.

His best point is why don't the scriptures mention that God cursed Adam so that all his descendants would be born with a sin nature?

We are specifically told that man will have to work very hard to maintain a living, and we are told that man will physically die and return to the dust, but we are not told that Adam's posterity would be cursed with a sin nature as a result of his sin.

That is sort of a MAJOR thing to skip over if it is true don't you think?

Now this next statement was written by a Unitarian preacher, but it is a valid point;

"If this doctrine is true, God did not tell man the true penalty, neither the truth, nor the whole truth, nor a hundredth part of the truth. To have told the whole truth, according to this hypothesis, He should have said, 'Because ye have done this, cursed be that moral nature which I have given you. Henceforth such is the change I make in your natures: that ye shall be, and your offspring, infinitely odious and hateful in my sight. The moment their souls shall go forth from my hand...if they are suffered to live, such shall be the diseased constitution of their moral natures: that they shall have no freedom to do one single good action, but everything they do shall be sin....What an awful blot would such a curse be on the first pages of Scripture!"6

Burnap is right, if Original Sin is true, how could God overlook telling us about it? There is not one word in all the scriptures until Romans 5 was written to support this theory. And there it is very vague and obscure to say the least. None of the early church fathers held to this theory until around the 4th century, where it was suggested for the first time. It did not become official doctrine until Augustine argued for it, almost exclusively from Romans 5:12 alone. The Greek church did not agree with Augustine's interpretation of a flawed (as admitted by many scholars) Latin text, and said this scripture taught that all men became sinners by personal sin.

Enns is right, where is the evidence for Original Sin in the Old Testament?

 

[Revmitchell]

We are specifically told that man will have to work very hard to maintain a living, and we are told that man will physically die and return to the dust, but we are not told that Adam's posterity would be cursed with a sin nature as a result of his sin.

Sure it does:

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

 

[Winman]

First having a sin nature does not equal having sinned. Scripture is clear in Romans 5 that we have a sin nature imputed. But none of that leads to denying the cross no matter how you look at it. You are employing a begging the question fallacy.

Likewise, the fact that all men sin does not prove we were born with a sin nature. Were Adam and Eve created with a sin nature? NO, yet we see in scripture that she was tempted by lust BEFORE she sinned.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

This verse describes Eve BEFORE she sinned, and describes the three worldly lusts shown in 1 John 2:16;

1 Jhn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

First, Eve saw that the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. Second, she saw that the tree was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes. Third, she saw the tree was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life.

Eve had all these lusts within her BEFORE she sinned. Did God call her evil in this state? NO, God said she was very good (Gen 1:31).

This proves that a sin nature is not necessary to sin. This proves that we can be born sinless and yet lust after things of the world.

A person does not have to have a sin nature to sin, they need only free will, and a lack of faith in God's word. This is why both Adam, Eve, and even Satan sinned.

 

[Winman]

Sure it does:

Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

If your interpretation of this verse were correct (it isn't) then ALL men would be saved. If this verse is saying that condemnation is UNCONDITIONALLY imputed to all men because of Adam's sin, then likewise justification to life would be UNCONDITIONALLY imputed to all men because of Jesus's obedience.

But salvation is not unconditional, it is conditional upon the the condition that we believe on Jesus. Likewise, condemnation is conditional upon the condition that we personally sin. This is what Romans 5:12 is actually saying:

Rom 5:12 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:

Romans 5:12 does not say Adam's sin is imputed to all men, it says DEATH passed upon all men, FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED.

This is not unconditonal. It is saying death passed on all men because they have personally sinned.

It was Augustine with a flawed Latin text that caused the problem. His Latin text said "in whom all have sinned" which he interpreted to refer to Adam. The Greek church that used only Greek texts disagreed with and opposed Augustine's interpretation, saying that this verse taught that death passed on all men because all men have committed their own personal sin.

This is historical fact that can easily be researched.

Romans 5:12 is not teaching that death and condemnation unconditionally pass on men, it is teaching that death passed on all men, FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED.

For that - ἐφ ̓ ᾧ eph' hō. This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom." Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned." The Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom (Adam) all have sinned." The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation in this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

Here you see the flawed Latin text I told you of that influenced Augustine.

(1) if ῳ ō be a relative pronoun here, it would refer naturally to death, as its antecedent, and not to man. But this would not make sense.

(2) if this had been its meaning, the preposition ἐν en would have been used; see the note of Erasmus on the place.

(3) it comports with the apostle's argument to state a cause why all died, and not to state that people sinned in Adam. He was inquiring into the cause why death was in the world; and it would not account or that to say that all sinned in Adam. It would require an additional statement to see how that could be a cause.

(4) as his posterity had not then an existence, they could not commit actual transgression. Sin is the transgression of the Law by a moral agent; and as the interpretation "because all have sinned" meets the argument of the apostle, and as the Greek favors that certainly as much as it does the other, it is to be preferred.

All have sinned - To sin is to transgress the Law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all people have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all people are sinners, He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact - that all people experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that people sin in their own persons, sin themselves - as, indeed, how can they sin in an other way? - and that therefore they die. If people maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

As you can see here, Barnes interprets Romans 5:12 to say all have personally sinned, and this is why death has passed on all men.

Albert Barnes got in a lot of trouble for his honest interpretation of Romans 5. It is not teaching that Adam's sin is imputed to all men. That is an invention of the Roman Catholic Church, Augustine in particular.

 

[Revmitchell]

If your interpretation of this verse were correct (it isn't) then ALL men would be saved. If this verse is saying that condemnation is UNCONDITIONALLY imputed to all men because of Adam's sin, then likewise justification to life would be UNCONDITIONALLY imputed to all men because of Jesus's obedience.

This is another begging the question fallacy. One does not have to lead to the other. what is clear from that verse is that all men are led tocondemnation because of Adam's sin. We just cannot get around it.

 

[Winman]

This is another begging the question fallacy. One does not have to lead to the other. what is clear from that verse is that all men are led tocondemnation because of Adam's sin. We just cannot get around it.

No, it is not begging the question. Paul is using a form of parallelism, what applies to the first phrase in each verse EQUALLY applies to the second phrase in each verse.

Your interpretation of Romans 5:18 is inconsistent. You interpret it to say that condemnation is unconditionally imputed to all men because of Adam's sin, but justification is conditionally imputed to all that believe on Jesus.

No, if you are consistent, you have two choices;

#1 Condemnation is unconditionally imputed to all men because of Adam's sin, therefore justification is unconditionally imputed to all men because of Christ's obedience. This would lead to Universalism, and indeed, this verse is their greatest argument for this doctrine.

#2 The condemnation that was introduced by Adam's sin is imputed to all those who conditionally sin as Adam did, and the justification to life introduced by Jesus is conditionally imputed to all those who believe on Jesus as Jesus believed on his Father.

To be consistent with the form of argument Paul is using in Romans 5, you only have #1 or #2 as options. Your interpretation is inconsistent with the form of argument being used.

 

[DHK]

Rom 8:20-23 (ESV)
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope
21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

All of creation, including man himself, waits for the Coming of Christ when this curse will be lifted. Until then every plant that grows, from the very day that it starts to grow it starts to decay. Every animal that is born into this world from the time it is born it is born into a world of frightening existence where danger lurks everywhere. It fights for its very existence. There is no peace in the animal world. From the very first day of their existence, they are under a death sentence.
From birth man is under a death sentence. It comes with a curse. It is a result of the fall. As the nature of animals was changed with the fall so was the nature of man. Man inherited a sin nature, and sinned without being taught. His nature; his conscience, told him right from wrong, but he chose to do wrong anyway. The Bible has recorded story after story of those who chose wrong over right. They gave into their sinful natures.