Eastern Orthodoxy and original sin

[Yeshua1]

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.

Interesting! then John the Baptist misheard from God, that jesus was the lamb of God, dying on behalf/for sins of the world...

Paul misunderstood that God was in christ dying to reconcile sinners back to himself, and thast jesus was the sin bearer, mercy seat of offering to the father!

that without shedding of blood, no remission of sin!

hebrews got it wrong also, in assuming jesus death was to the propiation to God, as the substitute for sinners before Holy God!

Either jesus death paid for the sin debt to God, or else do you hold owed and paid it to satan?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You were not so gullible to believe this article were you?

I remain committed to the notion of "Original Sin" (I was raised that way) So....no,

The exposition he gives is atrocious!

That is simply not true...It was a very good article actually, The Most powerful fact being...that he actually placed a lot of "proof-texts" into their proper contexts instead of isolating them.

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.

That didn't occur. His article was well written. It does not help your argument to merely dismiss, out of hand, any opposing view, and act as though it was simply an "atrocious" or poorly written and exegeted work. You sound, to me, merely as someone committed to an ideology, and utterly unwilling to more deeply study the Scriptural counter-arguments he makes. This could be the most Brilliantly argued article in the world, and, quite-frankly, I think you would simply decree it as stultifyingly ignorant at first glance, and ignore it. I hope I am mistaken.

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

Sure they are....Do tell. Explain how he fails to demolish the Psalm 51:5 argument (by actually placing it into Scriptural context I might add). He does so here: http://www.dividingword.net/Original Sin/mother_of_david.html

If the above article doesn't inform: Then you are unteachable.
You are not learning and thinking, you are witch-hunting.

I am still an adherent of Original Sin....but I know good scholarship when I see it....And I begin to think that my fellow adherents who are proponents of the Psalm 51:5 proof-text are using it abyssmally.....This makes me question how abyssmally they may have treated other texts.

There was a reason I merely posted by saying that it was: "An interesting article". I can appreciate quality effort when I see it. You seem to have assumed I necessarily believed all of his conclusions...You appear to assume much, and it is to your detriment.

 

[The Biblicist]

I remain committed to the notion of "Original Sin" (I was raised that way) So....no,

Your statement in quotations is a cause of concern if that is the only reason you remain committed.

That is simply not true...It was a very good article actually, ...... His article was well written. It does not help your argument to merely dismiss, out of hand, any opposing view, and act as though it was simply an "atrocious" or poorly written and exegeted work.

It was a well written defense for that position and as good as one can defend that position.

However, even though it has all the APPEARANCE of a contextual based defense and a rational line of argumentation it can be demonstrated it was based upon eisgesis rather than proper exegesis as his arguments were faulty and can be shown to be faulty.

I have dealt many times with his arguments and so I see them for what they are - APPEARANCE of scholarship but EMPTY of real scholarship.

Perhaps I over reacted due to my acquaintence with these type of arguments. I will give him credit that he attempted to make his arguments based upon his perception of the context in which those texts are found but that is the end of it.

 

[DHK]

Found this interesting article on the topic for any interested

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

Someone posted this article before. I have already gone through it and refuted it step by step.

 

[The Biblicist]

Sure they are....Do tell. Explain how he fails to demolish the Psalm 51:5 argument (by actually placing it into Scriptural context I might add). He does so here: http://www.dividingword.net/Original Sin/mother_of_david.html

Look at his approach! He enters the study with a stated agenda right at the beginning declaring what he beleives it does not teach and then goes about to prove his agenda.

He offers absolutely no evidence that David was conceived out of wedlock or that Jesse was not his father. Nor can the child claim condemnation for the sins of his parents (Ezek. 18).

He makes conjectures at pivotal points in his line of reasoning that cannot be demonstrated.

Furthermore, he ignores the overall context of the Psalm which is not about the sin of either of his parents which he has no control over but about his own sin.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

He offers absolutely no evidence that David was conceived out of wedlock or that Jesse was not his father

No, he doesn't because that isn't his argument...The article clearly states that Jesse was his Father...as do, of course, the Scriptures. It was his MOTHER that is the focus...considered to be defiled because of her former attachment to a pagan. They may have been "married" as well. And his evidence for his overall contention is quite good. I am not committed to it, but it is a reasonable article, even if mistaken.

Furthermore, he ignores the overall context of the Psalm which is not about the sin of either of his parents which he has no control over but about his own sin.

Yes, and an illicit union of any sort (he is repenting of HIS sin with Bathsheba) is of contextual signifigance. Moreover,

sin of either of his parents which he has no control over but about his own sin

That knife cuts both ways.

Your statement in quotations is a cause of concern if that is the only reason you remain committed.

Precisely...which is why I am looking into other options Most people hold the positions they do in large part due to their up-bringing. I am curious about some assumptions I have held for a long time. Original Sin, and it's parent Original Guilt are two of those.....If they ARE INDEED Scriptural I have no doubt that it will become settled. I do not fear exploration of alternative Theological ideas as long as they are not first order heresy. Prayerful study and debate of issues will strengthen one's faith. I will come away with one of two results.
1.) A more mature and stronger belief in Original Sin
or
2.) An abandonment of the notion as being ill-defended

I fear neither outcome. The Scriptures will speak for themselves.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Look at his approach! He enters the study with a stated agenda right at the beginning declaring what he beleives it does not teach and then goes about to prove his agenda.

He has, at that point, a settled mind on the issue. This wasn't an autobiographical re-telling of his journey of discovery. He has now, a settled point of view and is publishing his proof...People do that all the time. What would any article YOU would publish on the topic sound like? Unsettled? Uncommitted? We in the Western World are already enslaved to the idea of Original Sin....It requires an intellectual and moral courage to be able to break free of widely held dogma and read and think for oneself.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, he doesn't because that isn't his argument...

However, marriage legitimized all the births of Jesse's children through his wife and therefore it would be inaccurate to claim he was conceived in sin.

Secondly, there is no hard evidence that she was previously married to this Gentile King but may have been taken against her will and forced into the concubines.

Thirdly, this passage is in the very same kind of context as Job 14:1-4; 15:5 and other similar passages that have nothing to do with adultery or fornication.

Fourthly, there is a question about who "nahash" is in 2 Sam. 17:25 which other suggestions may prove his whole theory to be wrong and that it does not refer to the king at all.

Yes, and an illicit union of any sort (he is repenting of HIS sin with Bathsheba) is of contextual signifigance.

His illicit union with Bathsheba is MINOR in comparison to the willful killing of her husband which is inclusive of this confession of sin. To take a man's wife is one thing but to take his life is far worse.

Prayerful study and debate of issues will strengthen one's faith. I will come away with one of two results.
1.) A more mature and stronger belief in Original Sin
or
2.) An abandonment of the notion as being ill-defended

I fear neither outcome. The Scriptures will speak for themselves.

Quite true, IF that study is conducted with sufficient imput from other accountable sources. The most sincere students are led astray every day simply because they act as lone Rangers. Even the Scriptures advise us to seek many counselors who we know are not merely godly people but aged in the faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

He has, at that point, a settled mind on the issue. This wasn't an autobiographical re-telling of his journey of discovery. He has now, a settled point of view and is publishing his proof...People do that all the time. What would any article YOU would publish on the topic sound like? Unsettled? Uncommitted? We in the Western World are already enslaved to the idea of Original Sin....It requires an intellectual and moral courage to be able to break free of widely held dogma and read and think for oneself.

alright, but try to harmonize his interpretation contextually by its placement between verse 4 and verse 6 and the obvious PERSONAL responsibility that is clearly laid out in those texts! It simply does not fit!

 

[The Biblicist]

alright, but try to harmonize his interpretation contextually by its placement between verse 4 and verse 6 and the obvious PERSONAL responsibility that is clearly laid out in those texts! It simply does not fit!

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:

The context in which Paul introduces this statement is the fact that we now have received the reconciliation (vv. 10-11) due to one man - Jesus Christ.

Romans 5:15-19 consistently contrasts two men and their indivdual acts of disobedience and obedience and its impact upon all other men.

The key issue here is how did death pass upon all men? The answer is provided by verses 15-19 that is by ONE MAN'S SIN many were MADE SINNERS just as by the obedience of ONE MAN many were made righteous. This is REPRESENTATION in its strongest expression.

Note that Paul does not say "by MANY MEN's SINS many were made sinners" which is the position you must come to if you reject original sin.

Rather it is by ONE MAN'S singular sin many were made sinners! Death is passed upon all men because the SIN nature obtained with ONE MAN'S sin passes upon all men from ONE MALE - Adam! That is precisely why jesus was born of the seed of a "WOMAN" not of a man!

 

[Winman]

You are not going to convince someone who posts one of the so called proof texts for original sin in his signature that Original Sin is a false doctrine.

The one scripture that utterly refutes Original Sin is Ezekiel 18:20 (though there are many more).

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.

Folks pull scripture completely out of context to attempt to prove Original Sin, and completely ignore scripture that directly deals with the imputation of sin. All of Ezekiel 18 speaks directly to this subject, and God himself says every man shall die for his own sin. God does not impute the sin of the father to his son or vice versa. It is clear as day.

But there is much more scripture than this, Ecc 7:29 directly tells us that all men are made upright, but all men go out in sin afterward.

Augustine's error was using a flawed Latin text that said "in whom all have sinned" which he interpreted to be speaking of Adam. Many Greek scholars have admitted this Latin interpretation was error and that the verse truly says "for that all have sinned" or "because all have sinned" and means every man dies because he has committed personal sin. Even scholars who hold to Original Sin have admitted this.

Original Sin is total error, it is illogical, and it is unjust. But most of all, it contradicts scripture that deals directly with this subject.

 

[Amy.G]

You are not going to convince someone who posts one of the so called proof texts for original sin in his signature that Original Sin is a false doctrine.

The one scripture that utterly refutes Original Sin is Ezekiel 18:20 (though there are many more).

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.

Folks pull scripture completely out of context to attempt to prove Original Sin, and completely ignore scripture that directly deals with the imputation of sin. All of Ezekiel 18 speaks directly to this subject, and God himself says every man shall die for his own sin. God does not impute the sin of the father to his son or vice versa. It is clear as day.

But there is much more scripture than this, Ecc 7:29 directly tells us that all men are made upright, but all men go out in sin afterward.

Augustine's error was using a flawed Latin text that said "in whom all have sinned" which he interpreted to be speaking of Adam. Many Greek scholars have admitted this Latin interpretation was error and that the verse truly says "for that all have sinned" or "because all have sinned" and means every man dies because he has committed personal sin. Even scholars who hold to Original Sin have admitted this.

Original Sin is total error, it is illogical, and it is unjust. But most of all, it contradicts scripture that deals directly with this subject.

And you are pulling Ez 18:20 out of context. If it is speaking of eternal death then the righteous also die an eternal spiritual death.

Ezekiel 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.


These verses are speaking of personal accountability for sins, not that a person dies spiritually when he sins. If they do, then you have the righteous losing their salvation according to 18:24.

 

[The Biblicist]

The one scripture that utterly refutes Original Sin is Ezekiel 18:20 (though there are many more).

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.

You are illustrating the complete basis of eisgeis that your doctrine is built upon.

1. Romans 5 deals with TWO representative men and the consequences of their REPRESENTATIVE actions in behalf of ALL they represent.

2. Ezekiel deals with POST-fallen NON-REPRESENTATIVE actions by NON-REPRESENTATIVE parents in regard to judicial consequences upon their children.

Apples versus oranges.

But there is much more scripture than this, Ecc 7:29 directly tells us that all men are made upright, but all men go out in sin afterward.

He is referring to when man was "made" in Genesis 1:26 not to individual birth of each person. He is referring to the consequences of the fall of Adam upon all men from that illustrous beginning in the garden as illustrated in Romans 5:19 "by one man's disobedience MANY WERE MADE SINNERS."

 

[Winman]

You are illustrating the complete basis of eisgeis that your doctrine is built upon.

1. Romans 5 deals with TWO representative men and the consequences of their REPRESENTATIVE actions in behalf of ALL they represent.

2. Ezekiel deals with POST-fallen NON-REPRESENTATIVE actions by NON-REPRESENTATIVE parents in regard to judicial consequences upon their children.

Apples versus oranges.


He is referring to when man was "made" in Genesis 1:26 not to individual birth of each person. He is referring to the consequences of the fall of Adam upon all men from that illustrous beginning in the garden as illustrated in Romans 5:19 "by one man's disobedience MANY WERE MADE SINNERS."

Baloney, you can deny all you want, but God himself said the soul that sins shall die, the son shall not BEAR the iniquity of his father. This verse directly addresses the subject of the imputation of sin. But you will pull numerous verses out of context that are not addressing this subject and offer them as proof texts, such as the verse you show in your signature. This verse was not addressed to all men, and it is not speaking of physical birth, but you claim it supports Original Sin. Pure nonsense.

But I don't expect you to change, you have already bet the house on this.

And Ecc 7:29 IS saying all men are made upright. The word "they" that points to the word "man" shows God is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

Time will tell.

 

[DHK]

Baloney, you can deny all you want, but God himself said the soul that sins shall die, the son shall not BEAR the iniquity of his father. This verse directly addresses the subject of the imputation of sin.

Please take the time to read the chapter. If a man murders someone. That man will pay for his crime. His children will not pay for the crime of his father. Why should they. They didn't do it. The one that did the crime of murder pays for the crime and no one else. That is what the verse teaches. It is criminal law 101. Study the chapter, the context. There is no spiritual application there, except to obey the law.

Unfortunately it happens sometimes that when a man with a bad reputation, or who has been stigmatized with a terrible crime, that his children bear the shame of the crime as well just because they are his children. Human nature is like that.

This Scripture teaches against that. Children shall not pay for the crimes of the father.

 

[Winman]

Please take the time to read the chapter. If a man murders someone. That man will pay for his crime. His children will not pay for the crime of his father. Why should they. They didn't do it. The one that did the crime of murder pays for the crime and no one else. That is what the verse teaches. It is criminal law 101. Study the chapter, the context. There is no spiritual application there, except to obey the law.

Unfortunately it happens sometimes that when a man with a bad reputation, or who has been stigmatized with a terrible crime, that his children bear the shame of the crime as well just because they are his children. Human nature is like that.

This Scripture teaches against that. Children shall not pay for the crimes of the father.

I have read the chapter, many times. God says the son shall not BEAR the iniquity of his father. You don't need a PhD in theology to understand this.

And God is not speaking of civil law, this is shown when God says a man shall die "in his sins", the same language Jesus uses in John 8:24 when he says that if a man believes not he shall die "in his sins". So, God is not speaking of being executed for sins, he is speaking of being eternally punished for his sins.

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Again, God is not simply saying a man shall be executed and die, he is saying that IN HIS TRESPASS, and IN HIS SIN that he hath sinned, IN THEM shall he die. This is speaking of eternal damnation, not temporal death.

 

[The Biblicist]

Baloney, you can deny all you want, but God himself said the soul that sins shall die, the son shall not BEAR the iniquity of his father. This verse directly addresses the subject of the imputation of sin. But you will pull numerous verses out of context that are not addressing this subject and offer them as proof texts, such as the verse you show in your signature. This verse was not addressed to all men, and it is not speaking of physical birth, but you claim it supports Original Sin. Pure nonsense.

But I don't expect you to change, you have already bet the house on this.

And Ecc 7:29 IS saying all men are made upright. The word "they" that points to the word "man" shows God is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

Time will tell.

You are either completely deceived or absolutely dishonest! Ezekiel 18 is a context of personal responsibility in regard to POST-FALLEN individuals who do not act as REPRESENTATIVES for anyone but themselves.

Romans 5:12-19 is explicitly and repeatedly clear that TWO men and their ACTS are representative in behalf of "many" others. Adam is representing others in a PRE-fallen REPRESENTATIVE state.

You cannot JERK Ezekiel 18 out of its POST-FALLEN non-representative context and READ IT into a PRE-fallen and Representative context! That is pure dishonesty and the height of eisegesis!

Neither can you deny that Adam is presented in Romans 5:12-19 in a REPRESENTATIVE capacity prior to the fall as Paul repeatedly states "BY ONE MAN....many were..."


In regard to Ecclesiates he does not say "man was BORN upright" but was "MADE" upright and God ceased making man in Genesis 1:26 because he "made" him to reproduce after his own kind through natural reproduction just as he ceased making animals and all other living things after Genesis 1 because they were "Made" to reproduce after their own kind. The Hebrew term for man is "adam" and it can be very well translated "made Adam."

The truth does not suit your doctrine and so you are intentionally perverting God's Word to suit your own desires.

 

[Winman]

You are either completely deceived or absolutely dishonest! Ezekiel 18 is a context of personal responsibility in regard to POST-FALLEN individuals who do not act as REPRESENTATIVES for anyone but themselves.

Romans 5:12-19 is explicitly and repeatedly clear that TWO men and their ACTS are representative in behalf of "many" others. Adam is representing others in a PRE-fallen REPRESENTATIVE state.

You cannot JERK Ezekiel 18 out of its POST-FALLEN non-representative context and READ IT into a PRE-fallen and Representative context! That is pure dishonesty and the height of eisegesis!

Neither can you deny that Adam is presented in Romans 5:12-19 in a REPRESENTATIVE capacity prior to the fall as Paul repeatedly states "BY ONE MAN....many were..."


In regard to Ecclesiates he does not say "man was BORN upright" but was "MADE" upright and God ceased making man in Genesis 1:26 because he "made" him to reproduce after his own kind through natural reproduction just as he ceased making animals and all other living things after Genesis 1 because they were "Made" to reproduce after their own kind. The Hebrew term for man is "adam" and it can be very well translated "made Adam."

The truth does not suit your doctrine and so you are intentionally perverting God's Word to suit your own desires.

The scriptures say God has MADE all of us, not just Adam.

Psa 100:3 Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

Next...

 

[The Biblicist]

And God is not speaking of civil law, this is shown when God says a man shall die "in his sins", the same language Jesus uses in John 8:24 when he says that if a man believes not he shall die "in his sins". So, God is not speaking of being executed for sins, he is speaking of being eternally punished for his sins.

The chapter introduces both the practice and the place where this is practiced and it is not before the Great White judgement seat of God:

Ezek. 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.


Now Winman WHERE is this practice occuring? "concerning the land of Israel" and "in Israel."

Now Winman WHAT is this practice? It is a practice IN ISRAEL being practiced by the JUDICIAL SYSTEM God instituted in his behalf.

The phrase "die in their sins" always refers to PHYSICAL DEATH.

God is simply clarifying proper application of His own Judicial law He established to be carried out IN ISRAEL "concerning the land of Israel."

No Ph.D is required to figure this out as it is plainly stated in the introduction of this chapter!

 

[Amy.G]

Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Again, God is not simply saying a man shall be executed and die, he is saying that IN HIS TRESPASS, and IN HIS SIN that he hath sinned, IN THEM shall he die. This is speaking of eternal damnation, not temporal death.

Since when do the righteous receive eternal damnation??