Eastern Orthodoxy and original sin

[Winman]

We cannot "make" our nature good or evil. Not a word is said about "choice" here or the will. This is a mere expression that means you have only one of two options. You are either a good or evil tree but whatever you may be it is revealed by the nature of the fruit.

Reading without comprehension is no better than being illiterate.

Of course it shows choice, that is what the terms, "either make" the tree good "or else make" the tree corrupt mean.

Jesus is directly telling these unbelievers to either make themselves good or to make themselves corrupt.

It is nonsense to argue otherwise, but I know you will continue in your error.

 

[The Biblicist]

Reading without comprehension is no better than being illiterate.

Of course it shows choice, that is what the terms, "either make" the tree good "or else make" the tree corrupt mean.

Jesus is directly telling these unbelievers to either make themselves good or to make themselves corrupt.

It is nonsense to argue otherwise, but I know you will continue in your error.

Of course when you are exposed just assert your error again. If Jesus wanted to say "make yourselves" he could have said that but he did not. He is merely using an expressing that limits the options. If you make the tree good then this is the consequence but if you make the tree evil this is the conseqence. Either way, the tree analogy exposes your position on sin to be erroroneous.

 

[Amy.G]

I believe God made all men upright, but all men have chosen to use their God-given free will and sinned. In your view God is responsible for sin, as all men are born sinners and cannot help but sin. In my view no man has an excuse, all men have chosen to sin of themselves and become sinners.

If all men are born upright, then in the course of human history, there surely would have been at least one human being that did not sin. But that is not the case. All people sin. Paul says that death proves that all are sinners because all die. He says that all die even if they did not commit the same sin as Adam because all are born of Adam.
All that are born of Adam die. All that are born of Christ live.

People have tried to live sinless lives. Monks and nuns cloister themselves away and have nothing to do with the world in an attempt to be holy, but they cannot because sin resides in them.
If you can point to even one person that lived a sinless life (other than Christ), I will change my mind and agree with you.

We need God's grace because we are sinners. We sin because we can do no other until we are born again of the second Adam and receive the Holy Spirit who gives the power to overcome sin.

 

[Winman]

Of course when you are exposed just assert your error again. If Jesus wanted to say "make yourselves" he could have said that but he did not. He is merely using an expressing that limits the options. If you make the tree good then this is the consequence but if you make the tree evil this is the conseqence. Either way, the tree analogy exposes your position on sin to be erroroneous.

No, he did not use the word "yourselves" he used the word "tree", but he was speaking directly to these unbelievers about themselves.

Why do you play games? You know as well as I do that Jesus was directly telling these persons to make themselves good, or to make themselves corrupt.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Winman]

If all men are born upright, then in the course of human history, there surely would have been at least one human being that did not sin. But that is not the case. All people sin. Paul says that death proves that all are sinners because all die. He says that all die even if they did not commit the same sin as Adam because all are born of Adam.
All that are born of Adam die. All that are born of Christ live.

People have tried to live sinless lives. Monks and nuns cloister themselves away and have nothing to do with the world in an attempt to be holy, but they cannot because sin resides in them.
If you can point to even one person that lived a sinless life (other than Christ), I will change my mind and agree with you.

We need God's grace because we are sinners. We sin because we can do no other until we are born again of the second Adam and receive the Holy Spirit who gives the power to overcome sin.

Adam and Eve were made perfect, and they lived in a perfect environment, and yet they sinned the very first time they were tempted by a piece of fruit.

We are all born into a corrupt world with literally thousands of temptations that assault us, what makes you think we would do any better than them?

Amy, you are buying into all of Calvinism's false arguments. Think for yourself.

Edit- And the term "in Adam" is found only once in scripture, in 1 Cor 15:22. This chapter is speaking of the resurrection of our physical bodies. When it says, "in Adam all die" it is speaking of physical death only.

In Romans 5, when it says by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, it means by example.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

"Many" here means all men, not just some. If all men were made sinners by Adam, then this verse also says "many" (all) men shall be made righteous by Jesus. But we know for a fact that all men will not be made righteous, and that the majority of men will perish.

Being made righteous by Jesus is not unconditional, a person must believe to be imputed righteous. Likewise, a person must sin as Adam did to become a sinner. Neither becoming a sinner, nor being made righteous is unconditional.

It is like saying, "Because of Karl Marx, many men were made communists". That is a very true statement, but it does not mean Marx'x personal beliefs were supernaturally imposed in other people's minds. When people believed Marx's example and follow his teachings they become communists.

Likewise, when men follow Adam's example of self-will and disobey God, they are made sinners. Likewise, when people follow Jesus and believe by faith, they are imputed righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, he did not use the word "yourselves" he used the word "tree", but he was speaking directly to these unbelievers about themselves.

Why do you play games? You know as well as I do that Jesus was directly telling these persons to make themselves good, or to make themselves corrupt.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

When you are wrong you always resort to ridicule or redirection.

As Psalm 100:3 says it is God that "made" us and "NOT WE OURSELVES" as no man can rebirth themselves as that is a creative work that only God can do which the human will cannot do (Jn. 1:13; James 1;18; etc.)


Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

I gave you the correct interpretation of Matthew 12 text but your false doctrine won't allow you to accept it and so you pit scripture against scripture.

 

[Moriah]

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Many misunderstand the scripture in Jeremiah 13:23. Consider more carefully, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil”
Not everyone is accustomed to doing evil. There sure are people who are accustomed to doing evil, but again, not everyone.

 

[Winman]

Many misunderstand the scripture in Jeremiah 13:23. Consider more carefully, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil”
Not everyone is accustomed to doing evil. There sure are people who are accustomed to doing evil, but again, not everyone.

Yes, the word "accustomed" literally means learned behavior, not something you are compelled to do by birth.

This verse is hyperbole and is saying these persons are so addicted and accustomed to practice sin, that it would be almost impossible to change their behavior, as it would be for a leopard to change his spots or an Ethiopian his skin.

Not only that, but this verse is not addressed to all men, but very specific men, and so cannot be used as a proof-text to prove Original Sin.

This particular verse was written to the house of Judah and especially Jerusalem. And if a person reads ALL the scripture in this passage, they will see God is not saying it is utterly impossible for them to repent.

Jer 13:15 Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud: for the LORD hath spoken.
16 Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.
17 But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD'S flock is carried away captive.
18 Say unto the king and to the queen, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.

God is telling these persons to hear and not be proud. He tells them to give glory to God and to humble themselves.

But in verse 17 God says, "but IF ye will not hear it". The word "if" shows these persons could repent and hear God, otherwise the word "if" is nonsensical.

If men are utterly depraved and completely unable to repent, then there would be no IF concerning whether a man could hear God or not.

Just another example of pulling scripture out of context and using it to prove a point it is not making. This passage is not speaking of men's nature at birth, it is not speaking of "all men" at all. And if a person reads the whole passage and does not rip one verse out of context they would see God is not saying it is impossible for these persons to hear.

These same folks will ignore scripture that directly says men are made upright (Ecc 7:29) and that the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father (Eze 18:20) which directly addresses the condition men are born in.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Of course, when the Bible cannot support your position, when you have been proven wrong exegetically and exposed, the the answer is just reassert your error as though it were fact! Of course!

It is you who have been proven wrong and your error exposed, as Winman rightly pointed out.

Being the supposed Baptist that you are, you might try getting your doctrine from scripture rather than the Catholic Augustine, and Calvin and Luther.

The early church, which organized the canon, did not hold or teach what you do because that teaching was not scriptural. Your views were invented centuries later by the Latin, legalist West -- the pagan/Catholic Augustine, and the Magisterial Protestant Reformers. You should really try to break your chains of bondage to this brand of Christianity, being supposedly the Baptist that you claim to be.

 

[DHK]

I told you exactly why I believe God was speaking of eternal death in Ezekiel 18.

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.

God is not speaking of civil execution here, he is speaking of eternal death as Jesus was in John 8:24, he is speaking of a man dying in his trespasses and sins.

Your conclusion is wrong and John 8:24 has nothing to do with this passage. There is no eternal in this passage. You have inserted it. Why have you inserted words when they aren't there?

But there is more in this chapter. God is speaking of the "soul", not the physical body.

Oh you poor soul!!
The word "soul" often refers to the entire person.

Eze 18:27

Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.
28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

These verses throw a huge monkey wrench in your interpretation. First, God says that if a wicked man shall turn away from all his sins, his soul shall live.

Ezekiel 18:7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

Are you trying to tell me that a man could have been a murderer or an adulterer or a thief, and if he repents that the Jews were to let him go free? Total nonsense!

As quoted in the above verse (vs.7), there were a lot more crimes than just murder mentioned. Not all sins had the death penalty attached to it, so your conclusion makes no sense.

If a man turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
What transgressions? The ones that he has committed such as stealing, robbing the poor, oppression, violence, etc. These sins are not worthy of death.

No, God says this man's SOUL shall live. He is not saying that the Jews should let a serial killer live, that would be total nonsense.

Oh you poor soul. God says this man's person shall live. The passage does not talk of a serial killer. You are reading into this passage things that are not there. I don't believe you have read the chapter carefully.

This is the last I will argue with you on this, we will have to agree to disagree. But I find your interpretation to be ridiculous.

Believe what you want.

I don't believe you have read the chapter with any degree of objectivity.

 

[Moriah]

Yes, the word "accustomed" literally means learned behavior, not something you are compelled to do by birth.

This verse is hyperbole and is saying these persons are so addicted and accustomed to practice sin, that it would be almost impossible to change their behavior, as it would be for a leopard to change his spots or an Ethiopian his skin.

Not only that, but this verse is not addressed to all men, but very specific men, and so cannot be used as a proof-text to prove Original Sin.

This particular verse was written to the house of Judah and especially Jerusalem. And if a person reads ALL the scripture in this passage, they will see God is not saying it is utterly impossible for them to repent.

Jer 13:15 Hear ye, and give ear; be not proud: for the LORD hath spoken.
16 Give glory to the LORD your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.
17 But if ye will not hear it, my soul shall weep in secret places for your pride; and mine eye shall weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD'S flock is carried away captive.
18 Say unto the king and to the queen, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.

God is telling these persons to hear and not be proud. He tells them to give glory to God and to humble themselves.

But in verse 17 God says, "but IF ye will not hear it". The word "if" shows these persons could repent and hear God, otherwise the word "if" is nonsensical.

If men are utterly depraved and completely unable to repent, then there would be no IF concerning whether a man could hear God or not.

Just another example of pulling scripture out of context and using it to prove a point it is not making. This passage is not speaking of men's nature at birth, it is not speaking of "all men" at all. And if a person reads the whole passage and does not rip one verse out of context they would see God is not saying it is impossible for these persons to hear.

These same folks will ignore scripture that directly says men are made upright (Ecc 7:29) and that the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father (Eze 18:20) which directly addresses the condition men are born in.

This is very good information that you wrote here.
I so enjoy reading the truth from others.

 

[The Biblicist]

This verse is hyperbole and is saying these persons are so addicted and accustomed to practice sin, that it would be almost impossible to change their behavior, as it would be for a leopard to change his spots or an Ethiopian his skin.

No, it would be just as possible for them to change their behavior as it would be possible for the leopord to change his spots and the Ethiopian his skin.

All three are EQUALLY as possible!

Their "behavior" is rooted in their own nature as much as the spots of a leopard are rooted in its nature or the skin of the Ethiopian is rooted in his nature.

There are not some Ethopians born without skin any more than are some people born without this kind of behavior rooted in their nature.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No, it would be just as possible for them to change their behavior as it would be possible for the leopord to change his spots and the Ethiopian his skin.

Correct

All three are EQUALLY as possible!

Correct

Their "behavior" is rooted in their own nature

Not according to this verse...according to this verse,
Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
The Leopard and Ethiopian are as they are by "nature"....but, according to this verse... the sinner is as he is because he is "Accustomed" to doing evil.

as much as the spots of a leopard are rooted in its nature or the skin of the Ethiopian is rooted in his nature.

No

There are not some Ethopians born without skin any more than are some people born without this kind of behavior rooted in their nature.

That is the point to be proven....and this verse simply does not do that. It does not say that the sinner is as he is by nature, it clearly states that he is as he is by long habit and practice. This does NOT mean that they cannot BOTH be true...it is not as though you have to give up a belief in O.S. simply by admitting this....understanding that this verse does not itself teach that men are sinners by nature does not necessarily mean the death knell of that doctrine. There have been many "proof-texts" I have learned over the years that I have had to admit did NOT, in fact, teach what I thought they did. That does not mean that there are no others. How many do you need? Why not simply admit that O.S. may indeed be true, but that this passage simply doesn't prove it? Truth is, Winman is correctly reading this verse at face value and is adding nothing to it, and you have to pour a pre-conceived notion of O.S. into it to force it to read that way.
Man could be depraved by BOTH long practice AND by nature....In fact, if indeed he is by nature, then it follows that there would probably be verses which also suggest that he is by long habit as well.

 

[The Biblicist]

Not according to this verse...according to this verse,
Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
The Leopard and Ethiopian are as they are by "nature"....but, according to this verse... the sinner is as he is because he is "Accustomed" to doing evil.

Wrong! Being "accustomed" to doing evil is the whole point of the analogy! Being accustomed to doing evil is being compared to ABILITY to change the spots on the leporard and to the ABILITY to change the skin on the Ethiopion.

Both the Ethiopion and lepord HAVE NO ABILITY to change because the change invovles what is INHERENT BY NATURE. Likewise, man has no ABILITY to change what he is "accustomed" or DOING EVIL because doing evil is INHERENT BY NATURE! If it were not inherent by nature he could change it! If the spots on the lepord and the skin on the Ethiopian were not INHERENT BY NATURE they could change them.

Bottom line, it is just as difficult for man who is "accustomed" to doing evil to change as it is for Ethiopians to change skin - IMPOSSIBLE. It is just as easy for man who is "accustomed" to doing evil to change as it is the lepord to change his spots - IMPOSSIBLE. The impossibility of all three is due to INHERENT NATURE that none can change but God.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Being "accustomed" to doing evil is the whole point of the analogy!

Uhhh.....yes it is the point. They are indeed assustomed.

Being accustomed to doing evil is being compared to ABILITY to change the spots on the leporard and to the ABILITY to change the skin on the Ethiopion.

Correct again

Both the Ethiopion and lepord HAVE NO ABILITY to change because the change invovles what is INHERENT BY NATURE.

Correct again

Likewise, man has no ABILITY to change what he is "accustomed" or DOING EVIL

Correct again

because doing evil is INHERENT BY NATURE!

NO, not because it is inherent by nature, this verse does not say that, you do. You have assumed this. Whatever theological system you are assuming...This is not being a "Biblicist" on this verse...You are clearly engaged in eisegesis here.

If it were not inherent by nature he could change it!

According to this verse...no, he could not. This is the obvious point, it is equally as impossible for those so "accustomed" to evil to change, as it is for the leopard or Ethiopian to change what they are by nature.

If the spots on the lepord and the skin on the Ethiopian were not INHERENT BY NATURE they could change them.

Yes, but all analogies break down...and that is the difference between how the Leopard and Ethiopian are, and how the sinner is...They are all three equally incapable of change, two due to nature, one due to habit.

Bottom line, it is just as difficult for man who is "accustomed" to doing evil to change as it is for Ethiopians to change skin - IMPOSSIBLE.

DING! DING! the Impossibility is precisely the same. The REASON it is equally impossible is not the same. This is where this analogy breaks down, as all analogies do.

It is just as easy for man who is "accustomed" to doing evil to change as it is the lepord to change his spots - IMPOSSIBLE.

YUP!!!!

The impossibility of all three is due to INHERENT NATURE

According to Biblicist, yes, according to Jeremiah, however, no, but rather it is because two are as they are by nature, and the other because of habit. You seem to think that admitting this destroys the doctrine of O.S. it doesn't. But continuously defending this indefensible interpretation of yours of this passage weakens your argument. You seem unable to grasp that the sinner might just as easily be incapable of change for 2 reasons, not just one.

Reason 1.) Because it is his nature [this is the crux of the debate...]there may indeed be plenty of Scriptural arguments to prove this, but this verse simply is NOT one of them
Reason 2.) One so accustomed to evil as the Bible actually says, via habit, has rendered themselves incapable of choosing good. That is what this passage is clearly saying.

that none can change but God.

Again, granted...I would not argue otherwise.

 

[The Biblicist]

NO, not because it is inherent by nature, this verse does not say that, you do. You have assumed this. Whatever theological system you are assuming...This is not being a "Biblicist" on this verse...You are clearly engaged in eisegesis here.

No, the choice of analogy demands it! He could have chosen an analogy that was developmental rather than one that is fixed by nature. However, he did not. He intentional chose an analogy that NATURE is the cause of the impossibility.

It does not break down at that point except in YOUR THEOLOGY. The analogy is consistent all the way through. The overall context of scripture reinforces that truth from the oldest scriptures (Job 14:1-4; 15:14-16) right into the New Testament (Jn. 3:17-18; Rom. 5:15-19; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). Humans are born in "unbelief" (Jn. 3:17-18) and "UNDER SIN" (Rom. 3:9) and therefore from birth are subject to condemnation due to sin which is death! They are "accustomed" to evil because they are born with a fallen nature which is evil and as soon as they be born they demonstrate that evil nature! You do not need to teach children to do evil because they are born with a nature that is evil and manifests itself as soon as they are born.

 

[evangelist-7]

Man's inherited sin nature


IMO, the main reason for the Holy Spirit being Jesus' "father"
was so man's inherited sin nature was not passed along to Jesus.
If He had man's sin nature, He never could have been the sinless/perfect sacrificial Lamb of God.

IMO, Joseph could not be Jesus' father because man's sin nature is passed on through the male sperm.
The Holy Spirit provided a sinless male sperm for the conception (Matt 1:20, Luke 1:31),
which was a normal one (sperm + egg), except for the Spirit's involvement.
.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

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."

My question with the Orthodox perspective is this. How then does attonement work? How can God say "by his stripes we are healed?" If guilt isn't directly applied? Are you suggesting that this is only for those sins we have committed? And what need to be Baptized if the universality of original sin doesn't come with guilt? Couldn't Jesus died universally expunging the taint of original sin leaving all men free of sin nature tendancy and leave them only guilty for their sin for which only the people who have sinned can obtain baptism?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

No, the choice of analogy demands it! He could have chosen an analogy that was developmental rather than one that is fixed by nature. However, he did not. He intentional chose an analogy that NATURE is the cause of the impossibility.

This is an unwarranted assumption sir. I am sorry, but we have no way of knowing that this is the case. What "developmental" analogy would you have used? All analogies DO by definition, and by default, ultimately break down. Therefore, the analogy does not describe the ultimate conclusory point in ALL details. The detail missing in Jeremiah's analogy, is that some are as they are by nature, and others by "reason of use". His point was well taken, and you understood it, and it was about the IMPOSSIBILITY of those who are utterly depraved to change themselves outside of the grace of God. But this verse does not warrant ANY claim about the sinner being as he is by nature. It says what it says...that they are ACCUSTOMED to sin, or do you deny God's Word?

It does not break down at that point except in YOUR THEOLOGY.

I wonder if you know what one means when they say an analogy... "breaks down"...you seem not to....and you are false when you speak of "My Theology"....as I have already stated on this thread, that I remain an adherent of the doctrine of Original Sin as you do....I am simply unwilling to support my claims dishonestly.

The analogy is consistent all the way through.

You must explain what "consistency" means as referencing an analogy. I don't know what this means.

The overall context of scripture reinforces that truth from the oldest scriptures (Job 14:1-4; 15:14-16) right into the New Testament (Jn. 3:17-18; Rom. 5:15-19; 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14). Humans are born in "unbelief" (Jn. 3:17-18) and "UNDER SIN" (Rom. 3:9) and therefore from birth are subject to condemnation due to sin which is death!

This statement here is the proof that you are super-imposing your Theological pre-suppositions upon this verse rather than exegeting it for what it says as any actual "Biblicist" would.....I am already....for perhaps the reasons you have stated, an adherent of Original Sin, and it is in large part because of the passages you cite here...But you are forcing these Scriptures onto the back of this verse, and it is unwarranted. The verse clearly states what it states...and what it states is that the sinner is no more capable of altering his own wicked bent (because he is accustomed to it) than is the leopard capable of changing his spots or the Ethiopian his skin. This is not hard to understand.

They are "accustomed" to evil because they are born with a fallen nature

THAT MAY BE TRUE!!! And for the 53rd time....I have yet to deny that!!! But the verse is simply SILENT as to whether they are that way "by nature" or not!! THIS VERSE, simply compounds the condemnation of the sinner by speaking of his "growing accustomed" to wickedness....that is all it says...it is not a verse which gives us a total end-all-be-all of Hamartiology...It does not claim to. You, again, seem to think that my clearly stated exposition of this passage somehow threatens the truth of this Original Sin dogma that you hold so dear...It doesn't. And it is not contradictory to it either.

which is evil and as soon as they be born they demonstrate that evil nature! You do not need to teach children to do evil because they are born with a nature that is evil and manifests itself as soon as they are born.

O.K. Fine....but does it not ALSO stand to reason that if they are in fact BORN with said nature, that they also will consistently and repeatedly compound the problem by growing accustomed to repeated wickedness as well? Sir....you are obviously and shamelessly adding to this verse more than it states...It is only two sentences long...it says what it says...and it does NOT contradict the notion of Original Sin which you hold so dear....It simply does not PROVE it either...

 

[HeirofSalvation]

And what need to be Baptized if the universality of original sin doesn't come with guilt?

Because Baptism doesn't wash away sins. One needs to be Baptised because one should obey Christ's command to make public profession of faith, but not because it washes away sin...Original sin (as a doctrine) is partially guilty (along with the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration) for the un-Scriptural practice of baptizing infants.