Eastern Orthodoxy and original sin

[Michael Wrenn]

A PM I received got me to thinking it might be useful to start this thread. Here is part of an article that states the difference between the EOC and the RCC -- and also Protestantism -- on original sin. It points out how Augustine's Latin translation of Romans led him to a different interpretation from the Greek translation of the Orthodox Church, which was undoubtedly correct, being that the NT was written in Greek and not Latin.

This one thing shows how the Latin West -- RCC and Protestant -- are so wrong on so many issues. People think the RCC and Magisterial Reformation were so far apart, but in reality they were not far apart in some basic things, and they were both corrupted by Augustinian doctrines. Interestingly, the Anabaptist views of sin had some commonality with the EOC.

"In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man (Adam) and Woman (Eve) chose rather to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus changing the "perfect" mode of existence of man to the "flawed" mode of existence of man. This flawed nature and all that has come from it is a result of that "original sin". All humanity shares in the sin of Adam because like him, they are human. The union of humanity with divinity in Jesus Christ restored, in the Person of Christ, the mode of existence of humanity, so that those who are incorporated in him may participate in this mode of existence, be saved from sin and death, and be united to God in deification. Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.

This view differs from the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) doctrine of Original Sin in that man is not seen as inherently guilty of the sin of Adam. According to the Orthodox, humanity inherited the consequences of that sin, not the guilt. The difference stems from Augustine's interpretation of a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 to mean that through Adam all men sinned, whereas the Orthodox reading in Greek interpret it as meaning that all of humanity sins as part of the inheritance of flawed nature from Adam. The Orthodox Church does not teach that all are born deserving to go to hell, and Protestant doctrines such as Predeterminism that derive from the Augustinian understanding of original sin are not a part of Orthodox belief.

In the book Ancestral Sin, John S. Romanides addresses the concept of original sin, which he understands as an inheritance of ancestral sin from previous generations. Romanides asserts that original sin (as inherited sin) is not a doctrine of the church nor cohesive with the Eastern Orthodox faith, but an invention of later church fathers such as Augustine. In the realm of ascetics it is by choice, not birth, that one takes on the sins of the world. Recent essays have emerged by various contemporary Orthodox scholars which attempt to reconcile and react to both the Creationist interpretation of Genesis 1-2 and the strict Darwinist theory of human evolution."

 

[The Biblicist]

"In Eastern Orthodoxy, God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow.

Here is why your theology is so messed up. Your final authority is historical theology instead of the Scriptures.

Jesus makes it very clear that a GOOD tree cannot bring forth CORRUPT fruit but that is exactly your view of the fall of man. You do not view the fall as the CORRUPTON of the total HUMANITY in Adam so that the fruit of the womb is EQUALLY CORRUPT. Instead you believe that the CORRUPTED NATURE of Adam can produce GOOD fruit of the womb and moreover that the GOOD children born of man can bring forth CORRUPTION.

Jesus says that is impossible. A Good tree CANNOT bring forth corrupt fruit and neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. First the tree must be made good for the fruit to be made good or else the tree is evil and the fruit is evil.

Jesus says this in the context of salvation and eternal judgement:

Mt. 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

There must be a TRANSFORMATION of the nature because there can be no REFORMATION of a bad tree:

Mt. 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Job speaking about the birth of man and the length of his life says and denies that a unclean source can bring forth clean fruit of the womb:

Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
3 And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

However, that is precisely what you are teaching! You believe that clean humanity can come forth out of a fallen unclean Adam and Eve.

Your only refuge is HISTORICAL THEOLOGY as neither your sources or you have any refuge in the scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is why your theology is so messed up. Your final authority is historical theology instead of the Scriptures.

Jesus makes it very clear that a GOOD tree cannot bring forth CORRUPT fruit but that is exactly your view of the fall of man. You do not view the fall as the CORRUPTON of the total HUMANITY in Adam so that the fruit of the womb is EQUALLY CORRUPT. Instead you believe that the CORRUPTED NATURE of Adam can produce GOOD fruit of the womb and moreover that the GOOD children born of man can bring forth CORRUPTION.

Jesus says that is impossible. A Good tree CANNOT bring forth corrupt fruit and neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. First the tree must be made good for the fruit to be made good or else the tree is evil and the fruit is evil.

Jesus says this in the context of salvation and eternal judgement:

Mt. 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

There must be a TRANSFORMATION of the nature because there can be no REFORMATION of a bad tree:

Mt. 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Job speaking about the birth of man and the length of his life says and denies that a unclean source can bring forth clean fruit of the womb:

Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
3 And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

However, that is precisely what you are teaching! You believe that clean humanity can come forth out of a fallen unclean Adam and Eve.

Your only refuge is HISTORICAL THEOLOGY as neither your sources or you have any refuge in the scriptures.

Think "Historical theology" is good IF those theologies that have been held and assumed to be the truth were defined from and found in the word of god ALONE...

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Here is why your theology is so messed up. Your final authority is historical theology instead of the Scriptures.

Jesus makes it very clear that a GOOD tree cannot bring forth CORRUPT fruit but that is exactly your view of the fall of man. You do not view the fall as the CORRUPTON of the total HUMANITY in Adam so that the fruit of the womb is EQUALLY CORRUPT. Instead you believe that the CORRUPTED NATURE of Adam can produce GOOD fruit of the womb and moreover that the GOOD children born of man can bring forth CORRUPTION.

Jesus says that is impossible. A Good tree CANNOT bring forth corrupt fruit and neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. First the tree must be made good for the fruit to be made good or else the tree is evil and the fruit is evil.

Jesus says this in the context of salvation and eternal judgement:

Mt. 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

There must be a TRANSFORMATION of the nature because there can be no REFORMATION of a bad tree:

Mt. 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Job speaking about the birth of man and the length of his life says and denies that a unclean source can bring forth clean fruit of the womb:

Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
3 And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

However, that is precisely what you are teaching! You believe that clean humanity can come forth out of a fallen unclean Adam and Eve.

Your only refuge is HISTORICAL THEOLOGY as neither your sources or you have any refuge in the scriptures.

You are wrong: My final authority IS the scriptures: I merely use historical theology to confirm and affirm what the scripture teaches. The early church confirms the NT teaching of sin and denies the Latin Western view as seen in the Augustine-dominated RCC and Magisterial Protestant churches -- and the Particular Baptists who slavishly follow them.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are wrong: My final authority IS the scriptures: I merely use historical theology to confirm and affirm what the scripture teaches.

I have read you sufficient to see that your final authority is historical theology and you simply use the scriptures to confirm and affirm your own views taken from historical theology. In one sense you are no different than the Catholics who have their sacred tradition and use scripture to confirm it.

The early church confirms the NT teaching of sin and denies the Latin Western view as seen in the Augustine-dominated RCC and Magisterial Protestant churches -- and the Particular Baptists who slavishly follow them.

You would not know the NT teaching of sin if it starred you in the face. You teach the very opposite to what every Biblical writer taught on sin. You flatly contradict both Christ and Paul who contribute the majority of teaching on sin in the New Testament.

Again, Christ taught that a "good tree" CANNOT bring forth evil fruit and a "bad tree" CANNOT bring forth "good" fruit but you teach the very opposite.

Job, Paul, and John taught the very same principle which you deny. You teach fallen parents of humanity can bring forth "good" fruit of the womb. You teach that this "good" fruit of the womb can bring forth "evil" fruit.

Your doctrine of sin is directly opposite of the scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are wrong: My final authority IS the scriptures: I merely use historical theology to confirm and affirm what the scripture teaches. The early church confirms the NT teaching of sin and denies the Latin Western view as seen in the Augustine-dominated RCC and Magisterial Protestant churches -- and the Particular Baptists who slavishly follow them.

the Apostles taught clearly that the death of jesus was a penal substitutionary atoning work to the father, so regardless who held differently in history regarding that, they were wrong!

 

[billwald]

If the Bible is clear then why are there over 100 Protestant denominations?

 

[billwald]

THis is only US Baptist denominations

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_denominations

United States
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Free Will Baptist
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Macedonia Baptist World Missions
Mainstream Baptist Network
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Primitive Baptists
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Roger Williams Fellowship
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Southern Baptist Convention
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions
United States - Regional bodies
Association of Fundamental Baptist Churches of Northern California
Association of Independent Baptist Churches of Illinois
Baptist General Association of Virginia
Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma
Baptist General Convention of Texas
Dakota Baptist Association
District of Columbia Baptist Convention
Empire State Fellowship of Regular Baptist Churches
General Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, Inc.
Inter-Mountain Baptist Fellowship
Minnesota Baptist Association
Minnesota Baptist Conference
Mountain States Baptist Fellowship
New England Evangelical Baptist Fellowship
Ohio Valley Association of Christian Baptist Churches of God
Southern Baptists of Texas Convention
Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches
North America - Regional Bodies
North American Baptist Fellowship

 

[Yeshua1]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptist_denominations

United States
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Missionary Association of America
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Free Will Baptist
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Macedonia Baptist World Missions
Mainstream Baptist Network
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Primitive Baptists
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Roger Williams Fellowship
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference
Southern Baptist Convention
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions
United States - Regional bodies
Association of Fundamental Baptist Churches of Northern California
Association of Independent Baptist Churches of Illinois
Baptist General Association of Virginia
Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma
Baptist General Convention of Texas
Dakota Baptist Association
District of Columbia Baptist Convention
Empire State Fellowship of Regular Baptist Churches
General Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, Inc.
Inter-Mountain Baptist Fellowship
Minnesota Baptist Association
Minnesota Baptist Conference
Mountain States Baptist Fellowship
New England Evangelical Baptist Fellowship
Ohio Valley Association of Christian Baptist Churches of God
Southern Baptists of Texas Convention
Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches
North America - Regional Bodies
North American Baptist Fellowship

many parts, still ONE Body! Christians who happen to belong to baptist churches!

 

[Walter]

If the Bible is clear then why are there over 100 Protestant denominations?

That is right, Billwald! Numerous denominations! And each claiming the fullness of the faith. Each and every one of these denominations argues that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and came to their 'truth' by that means. I know that God is active in all these denominations, but the diversity of belief within Protestantism must be viewed as troublesome since it is contrary to the unity that Christ so desired.

 

[The Biblicist]

many parts, still ONE Body! Christians who happen to belong to baptist churches!

Hogwash! The mere title "Baptist" does not make one a Christian or a historical New Testament church in faith and doctrine no more than sitting in a chicken pen makes you a chicken!

There is no such thing as a universal invisible body of Christ. You cannot find any metaphor used in scripture that teaches the body of Christ is "universal" or "invisible." You cannot find the words "universal" or "invisible" used in scripture to characterize the church.

The "we" and "us" in scripture is found in a first century context of churches that are all "one" in faith and practice but many "churches."

The doctrine of the universal invisible church is the cause of confusion, division and denominational multiplication and dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ.

The body of Christ in scripture is united, working together without schism where ALL of its members can sorrow or rejoice with ONE of its members and that is utterly impossible for the so-called universal invisible whatamacallit!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hogwash! The mere title "Baptist" does not make one a Christian or a historical New Testament church in faith and doctrine no more than sitting in a chicken pen makes you a chicken!

There is no such thing as a universal invisible body of Christ. You cannot find any metaphor used in scripture that teaches the body of Christ is "universal" or "invisible." You cannot find the words "universal" or "invisible" used in scripture to characterize the church.

The "we" and "us" in scripture is found in a first century context of churches that are all "one" in faith and practice but many "churches."

The doctrine of the universal invisible church is the cause of confusion, division and denominational multiplication and dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ.

The body of Christ in scripture is united, working together without schism where ALL of its members can sorrow or rejoice with ONE of its members and that is utterly impossible for the so-called universal invisible whatamacallit!

Assumption that was implied to have been understood was that one would be a saved person attending different baptist churches!

As merely membershipping/ attending a baptist church makes one saved about same as getting dunked in water as baby... NOT AT ALL!

 

[The Biblicist]

Assumption that was implied to have been understood was that one would be a saved person attending different baptist churches!

As merely membershipping/ attending a baptist church makes one saved about same as getting dunked in water as baby... NOT AT ALL!

However, no such mistake can be made with the "kingdom" as we must first be born again to see or enter the Kingdom of God.

You are making a similar mistake Augustine and Luther did in regard to the parable of the Kingdom and the "tares". You are interpreting the "seed" to be the "church" when it is expressly identified as the Kingdom of God. The church is given the "keys OF THE KINGDOM" which means it cannot be synonmous with the kingdom as that would be giving the keys of the kingdom to the kingdom. The spiritual Kingdom of God is univeral as it is spread all over "the field" which is by interpretation "the world"(not the church) and is invisible to the human eye because the rule of God is in the heart. The church is the VISIBLE MANIFESTATION of the kingdom of God on earth because that is where you see kingdom children gathered and administering the ordinances.

 

[Yeshua1]

However, no such mistake can be made with the "kingdom" as we must first be born again to see or enter the Kingdom of God.

You are making a similar mistake Augustine and Luther did in regard to the parable of the Kingdom and the "tares". You are interpreting the "seed" to be the "church" when it is expressly identified as the Kingdom of God. The church is given the "keys OF THE KINGDOM" which means it cannot be synonmous with the kingdom as that would be giving the keys of the kingdom to the kingdom. The spiritual Kingdom of God is univeral as it is spread all over "the field" which is by interpretation "the world"(not the church) and is invisible to the human eye because the rule of God is in the heart. The church is the VISIBLE MANIFESTATION of the kingdom of God on earth because that is where you see kingdom children gathered and administering the ordinances.

My understanding o fthis differs though from RCC as I do not see church exact same as the Kingdom, just an aspect of it, and do NOT see salvation as residing in the Church visible on earth, no ONE church here on earth vested with it, as RCC see it!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have read you sufficient to see that your final authority is historical theology and you simply use the scriptures to confirm and affirm your own views taken from historical theology. In one sense you are no different than the Catholics who have their sacred tradition and use scripture to confirm it.



You would not know the NT teaching of sin if it starred you in the face. You teach the very opposite to what every Biblical writer taught on sin. You flatly contradict both Christ and Paul who contribute the majority of teaching on sin in the New Testament.

Again, Christ taught that a "good tree" CANNOT bring forth evil fruit and a "bad tree" CANNOT bring forth "good" fruit but you teach the very opposite.

Job, Paul, and John taught the very same principle which you deny. You teach fallen parents of humanity can bring forth "good" fruit of the womb. You teach that this "good" fruit of the womb can bring forth "evil" fruit.

Your doctrine of sin is directly opposite of the scriptures.

Everything you said is a blatant lie.

YOUR doctrine of sin is unknown in the scriptures, and untaught until Augustine. The Eastern Church and the Anabaptists hold the scriptural teachings on sin.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

the Apostles taught clearly that the death of jesus was a penal substitutionary atoning work to the father, so regardless who held differently in history regarding that, they were wrong!

The apostles taught no such thing, and, as I have repeatedly shown, this false doctrine was invented by the Magisterial Reformers whose were influenced by Augustine and his pagan background.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That is right, Billwald! Numerous denominations! And each claiming the fullness of the faith. Each and every one of these denominations argues that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and came to their 'truth' by that means. I know that God is active in all these denominations, but the diversity of belief within Protestantism must be viewed as troublesome since it is contrary to the unity that Christ so desired.

There is as much Theological discord in R.C.C. as anywhere else....they simply hide it better.

 

[The Biblicist]

Everything you said is a blatant lie.

YOUR doctrine of sin is unknown in the scriptures, and untaught until Augustine. The Eastern Church and the Anabaptists hold the scriptural teachings on sin.

Jesus said it is impossible for a "bad" tree to bring forth "good" fruit and that is said in the context of salvation. Yet that is precisely what is demanded by your historical theology as you believe that fallen parents can bring forth "good" fruit of the womb.

Jesus said it is impossible for a "good" tree to bring forth "evil" fruit and that is said in the context of salvation. Yet that is precisely what is demanded by your historical theology as you believe "good" people by nature can bring forth "evil" fruit.

Job denied that an unclean thing can bring forth anything clean and he said that in the context of human birth and growth (Job 14:1-4) and yet your historical theological position on sin demands Job is a liar.

You can deny, accuse, complain, grumble and mumble all you please, but it does not change the fact that your position on sin contradicts Christ and Job as well as Paul and John and the above facts prove it.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Found this interesting article on the topic for any interested

http://www.dividingword.net/Original Sin/biblically_refuted.html

 

[The Biblicist]

Found this interesting article on the topic for any interested

http://www.dividingword.net/Original Sin/biblically_refuted.html

You were not so gullible to believe this article were you? The exposition he gives is atrocious!

The only way original sin can be denied is to do what this writer has done - use eisgesis instead of exegesis in interpreting the texts he deals with.

His arguments are full of holes and his reasonings are perverted.