is The Doctrine Of Original Sin taught In Bible?

[webdog]

You seem to be so well versed in those abbreviations :thumbs:

Again, perhaps your own interpretation is different from my own!

I do not use those abbreviations at all, or anything that even appears vulgar. I'm not ignorant to what they mean, though (as well as yours)

I will not even use OMG even if I mean oh my goodness as it can be perceived to be vulgar. You should consider such an approach.

 

[Jarthur001]

Or is it just teachings gleaned from Augustine and others?

is this passage a picture of OS?

Deuteronomy 5:9-10 says, "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands [of generations,

 

[freeatlast]

I might have "mislabeled" the doctrine, but it would be the belief that the Bible teaches that ALL people have somehow been "linked/united" with the father of the Human race, Adam, and when he fell in his original Sin...

EVERY human born afterwards would been marred by that, would receive his Sin nature, no spiritual relationship with God, born depraived etc....

So that we as humans sin because we are sinners due to our very natures, not that we are sinners because wh choose to sin!

Well if thta is the meaning of original sin they I don't hold to it. I do believe thta we are all under the crse of sin because of Adam, but we do not sin because of any sin nature. We sin because we choose to sin. I challenge anyone to name me one sin that they had to do.

 

[JesusFan]

Well if thta is the meaning of original sin they I don't hold to it. I do believe thta we are all under the crse of sin because of Adam, but we do not sin because of any sin nature. We sin because we choose to sin. I challenge anyone to name me one sin that they had to do.

Adam before the fall COULD resist evil, make a "free will" choice as he was inn a sinlessperfect state..
AFTER his sin and the FALL
ALL humans born tainted/depraived by the Fall, with a sin nature from the womb, and will sin because that is our very nature...
Christians CAN choose to Obey God, or obey the sin nature, but that is something the unsaved cannot do, as they have a "bondage of the Will" that ONLY Christ can lift...

 

[Winman]

I do not agree with original sin for many reasons.

#1 If we are born with a sin nature, then so was Jesus, because the scriptures clearly teach his nature was exactly like ours.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the NATURE of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore IN ALL THINGS IT BEHOVED HIM TO BE MADE LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For IN THAT HE HIMSELF HATH SUFFERED BEING TEMPTED, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

These verses alone disprove Original Sin and Total Depravity to me. In James we read that God cannot be tempted with evil, but Jesus was tempted IN ALL POINTS as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15).

Jesus was God, but he came in the FLESH and had the same exact nature we are born with. In fact, in 1 John 4 it says he that confesses Jesus came in the FLESH is of God, but he that confesseth not that Jesus is come in the FLESH is that spirit of antichrist. Jesus had the exact same nature as us, he could be tempted, yet he never sinned.

And I believe that the scriptures clearly say that anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh and has the exact same nature as us is the spirit of antichrist.

Being born "flesh" (the scriptural term) does not make you a sinner, committing sin makes you a sinner.

#2 Ezekiel 18:20 clearly says the son shall not bare the iniquity of his father. In fact, this is stated several times in the OT.

#3 You cannot argue that sin is inherited only from the father, Job 15:14 refutes this:

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? AND HE WHICH IS BORN OF A WOMAN, that he should be righteous?

If sin is inherited, then Jesus would have inherited sin from Mary.

 

[JesusFan]

I do not agree with original sin for many reasons.

#1 If we are born with a sin nature, then so was Jesus, because the scriptures clearly teach his nature was exactly like ours.

Except that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit within womb of Mary, so would NOT have our sin nature, be more like sinless nature Adam was originally created with before the Fall..
he came in LIKENESS of human flesh, NOT exactly same as our Flesh...

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the NATURE of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore IN ALL THINGS IT BEHOVED HIM TO BE MADE LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 18 For IN THAT HE HIMSELF HATH SUFFERED BEING TEMPTED, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

These verses alone disprove Original Sin and Total Depravity to me. In James we read that God cannot be tempted with evil, but Jesus was tempted IN ALL POINTS as we are, yet without sin (Heb 4:15).

God the father and Spirit CANNOT be even tempted to sin, as they are "GOD" , but when God the Son became a man, Jesus, than God for first time put on "Flesh" and have limitations self imposed upon Himself... Could be hungrey, tired, feel pain etc... That was part of the Incarnation, as God by becoming a man experienced things NEVER could before...

Jesus was God, but he came in the FLESH and had the same exact nature we are born with. In fact, in 1 John 4 it says he that confesses Jesus came in the FLESH is of God, but he that confesseth not that Jesus is come in the FLESH is that spirit of antichrist. Jesus had the exact same nature as us, he could be tempted, yet he never sinned.

See above point, COULD NOT be just as our flesh, as he was not conceived in Sin, due to Holy Spirit conceiving Him directly...

And I believe that the scriptures clearly say that anyone who denies that Jesuscame in the flesh and has the exact same nature as us is the spirit of antichrist.

again, Jesus came in "likeness" of our flesh, but "different" than our flesh, as he is God in flesh, so had a sinless nature from Human side... Don't think we can claim to have that!

Being born "flesh" (the scriptural term) does not make you a sinner, committing sin makes you a sinner.

Than both the prophet and Peter and Paul were liars, as all claimed that we ALL are like sheep gone astray, wayword from the Lord...
#2 Ezekiel 18:20 clearly says the son shall not bare the iniquity of his father. In fact, this is stated several times in the OT.
Shows that God judges us on an individual basis
#3 You cannot argue that sin is inherited only from the father, Job 15:14 refutes this:

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? AND HE WHICH IS BORN OF A WOMAN, that he should be righteous.

If sin is inherited, then Jesus would have inherited sin from Mary.

Not possible, as the Holy Spirit conceived Him, God is his father, born w/o a sin nature due to his unique status of being God incarnate!

 

[Winman]

Not possible, as the Holy Spirit conceived Him, God is his father, born w/o a sin nature due to his unique status of being God incarnate!

False, Jesus was directly related to Adam, as he was a descendent of Seth.

Jesus was the seed of the woman, he was not just God, but was 100% man. This is proved in that he could be tempted at all, as God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13).

Whether you realize it or not, you are denying that Jesus is come in the flesh.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: EVERY SPIRIT THAT CONFESSETH THAT JESUS IS COME IN THE FLESH IS OF GOD: 3 AND EVERY SPIRIT THAT CONFESSETH NOT THAT JESUS IS COME IN THE FLESH IS NOT OF GOD: AND THIS IS THAT SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST, WHEREOF YE HAVE HEARD THAT IT SHOULD COME; and even now already is in the world.

Read the scriptures, man is called "flesh". This is not just speaking of our bodies, but our nature as well. And the scriptures clearly say Jesus is come in the flesh and was made like his brethren in all things. If being flesh makes you a sinner, then Jesus would have been a sinner too. I refuse to believe that Jesus had a sin nature, a term NEVER found in scripture.

And I could care less what your Reformed teachers have taught you.

 

[DHK]

False, Jesus was directly related to Adam, as he was a descendent of Seth.

No, he was the second Adam, the seed of the woman.
He is not the seed of Adam. You are attacking his divinity.

 

[freeatlast]

Adam before the fall COULD resist evil, make a "free will" choice as he was inn a sinlessperfect state..
AFTER his sin and the FALL
ALL humans born tainted/depraived by the Fall, with a sin nature from the womb, and will sin because that is our very nature...
Christians CAN choose to Obey God, or obey the sin nature, but that is something the unsaved cannot do, as they have a "bondage of the Will" that ONLY Christ can lift...

Your logic is flawed. Here is why. You say that the lost cannot make a choice not to obey their sin nature. I know of many a person who was lost and their nature as you call it would have them sleep with someone other then their spouse and they resist the temptation. Many lost people would kill someone at certain times but chose not to.
This is the problem when we hold doctrines that disagree with scripture or are simply not present. There is never anyplace taught that men have a sin nature. By sin nature a nature that they have to surrender to. it is like the hog and the dog. The hog does not have to wallow in the mire, but that is where he is confortable. The dog does not have to lick up his vomit, but that is what makes him happy. Do all hogs always wallow, no. Do all dogs always eat their vomit, no. The same with sinners. It is a choice, preferred yes, but because humans have the ability to make choice we do not have to sin. What we are born with is a condition of being separated from God, or lost, dead in sin. However even the lost can choose not to sin. The very fact that they do it from time to time is the proof.
While their righteous deeds are like a fitly rag because they are not subject to God or His word and cannot be without being born again they still can resist temptation
The same for the believer however even more so. We do not have a sin nature and a new nature at the same time. Sin is a simple choice by all men and with the Spirit abiding we never again can practice sin. However even the amount we do sin as Christians is a choice. it is not about having to sin, but if we sin.

 

[Winman]

No, he was the second Adam, the seed of the woman.
He is not the seed of Adam. You are attacking his divinity.

Yes, he was the seed of the woman. Now whether you believe that to be Eve or Mary makes no difference, as both were sinners. Mary offered a sin offering after Jesus was born as the law required (Luke 2:22-24). Mary also called Jesus her Saviour. Saviour from what?

And Mary was absolutely descended from Adam according to the flesh.

And Job 15:14 refutes that sin is only inherited from our father.

I am not denying that Jesus is God at all. I fully believe Jesus IS God.

At the same time, he came in the flesh and had our nature. He was made like unto his brethren IN ALL THINGS. He could be tempted IN ALL POINTS as we are, yet he never sinned. (Heb 2:16-18, Heb 4:15).

It is those that deny Jesus had the nature of a man that deny scripture. I have posted scripture to support my position, show me where I am wrong.

Do I understand how Jesus could be fully God and fully man? No, but that is what the scriptures teach.

 

[jbh28]

Your logic is flawed. Here is why. You say that the lost cannot make a choice not to obey their sin nature. I know of many a person who was lost and their nature as you call it would have them sleep with someone other then their spouse and they resist the temptation. Many lost people would kill someone at certain times but chose not to.
This is the problem when we hold doctrines that disagree with scripture or are simply not present. There is never anyplace taught that men have a sin nature. By sin nature a nature that they have to surrender to. it is like the hog and the dog. The hog does not have to wallow in the mire, but that is where he is confortable. The dog does not have to lick up his vomit, but that is what makes him happy. Do all hogs always wallow, no. Do all dogs always eat their vomit, no. The same with sinners. It is a choice, preferred yes, but because humans have the ability to make choice we do not have to sin. What we are born with is a condition of being separated from God, or lost, dead in sin. However even the lost can choose not to sin. The very fact that they do it from time to time is the proof.
While their righteous deeds are like a fitly rag because they are not subject to God or His word and cannot be without being born again they still can resist temptation
The same for the believer however even more so. We do not have a sin nature and a new nature at the same time. Sin is a simple choice by all men and with the Spirit abiding we never again can practice sin. However even the amount we do sin as Christians is a choice. it is not about having to sin, but if we sin.

People having a sin nature doesn't mean that people have to always choose to sin. You are correct in your examples. An unsaved man can love his wife. The sin nature(or basically total depravity) doesn't mean that we are as evil as we can be(which would be if we could only choose to sin).

 

[freeatlast]

People having a sin nature doesn't mean that people have to always choose to sin. You are correct in your examples. An unsaved man can love his wife. The sin nature(or basically total depravity) doesn't mean that we are as evil as we can be(which would be if we could only choose to sin).

Agreed and we who are saved are not as good as we can be, but both the saved and the lost live as the result of personal choice that is not governed in any way by force. It is always choice.
The difference in the lost and the saved is that the lost are doing what they do to please themselves even if they deny themselves certain sins. The saved are doing what they do to please the Lord when they deny themselves certain sins.
The Lost always do what pleases them and can never please the Lord and the saved mostly do what pleases the Lord, but could always do so if they would.

 

[Winman]

Agreed and we who are saved are not as good as we can be, but both the saved and the lost live as the result of personal choice that is not governed in any way by force. It is always choice.
The difference in the lost and the saved is that the lost are doing what they do to please themselves even if they deny themselves certain sins. The saved are doing what they do to please the Lord when they deny themselves certain sins.
The Lost always do what pleases them and can never please the Lord and the saved mostly do what pleases the Lord, but could always do so if they would.

I can't agree with this. There are many folks who believe in God, yet have not heard or understand the gospel who try to obey God's commands. The young rich ruler kept many of the commandments.

Cornelius is a better example, the scriptures say he was devout and feared God, he gave much alms and prayed always. And the scriptures say God heard his prayer and sent Peter to tell him the gospel, at which point he was saved.

Paul said the Gentiles follow the law by their nature, showing the law written on their hearts, and their conscience either accusing or excusing themselves.

This doctrine of Total Inability is utterly false and refuted by much scripture.

 

[DHK]

Yes, he was the seed of the woman. Now whether you believe that to be Eve or Mary makes no difference, as both were sinners. Mary offered a sin offering after Jesus was born as the law required (Luke 2:22-24). Mary also called Jesus her Saviour. Saviour from what?

And Mary was absolutely descended from Adam according to the flesh.

The "Adamic" nature came through Adam, and thus is called "Adamic" for a reason.

And Job 15:14 refutes that sin is only inherited from our father.

Study your Bible young man; study your Bible!
Who is speaking in Job 15:14

Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said, (Job 15:1)
What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? (Job 15:14)
Verse 14 is simply Eliphaz's view on depravity, and nothing more. His views and allegations against Job are thoroughly rebuked by the Lord later on in the book. This verse gives no credence to your position at all. Context is everything. You are missing context.

I am not denying that Jesus is God at all. I fully believe Jesus IS God.

At the same time, he came in the flesh and had our nature. He was made like unto his brethren IN ALL THINGS. He could be tempted IN ALL POINTS as we are, yet he never sinned. (Heb 2:16-18, Heb 4:15).

An affirmation that his nature was exactly like our nature--a sin nature is an attack on the deity of Christ. Christ is God. God is not a sinner. You are accusing God of being a sinner; thus making him one who could not die for our sin.

It is those that deny Jesus had the nature of a man that deny scripture. I have posted scripture to support my position, show me where I am wrong.

Man has a sin nature.
Jesus has no sin nature.
You say that Christ has man's sin nature. You are wrong. If Christ had man's nature he could not have died for our sins--the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh.

Do I understand how Jesus could be fully God and fully man? No, but that is what the scriptures teach.

The Scriptures teach that Christ was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. It teaches that the sin nature, the Adamic nature comes from man. We inherit it. To avoid having a sin nature Christ was born of virgin. Thus was the necessity of the virgin birth. Prophecy is not just for prophecy sake. There is normally a reason for the prophecy.

 

[freeatlast]

I can't agree with this. There are many folks who believe in God, yet have not heard or understand the gospel who try to obey God's commands. The young rich ruler kept many of the commandments.

Cornelius is a better example, the scriptures say he was devout and feared God, he gave much alms and prayed always. And the scriptures say God heard his prayer and sent Peter to tell him the gospel, at which point he was saved.

Paul said the Gentiles follow the law by their nature, showing the law written on their hearts, and their conscience either accusing or excusing themselves.

This doctrine of Total Inability is utterly false and refuted by much scripture.

I am not sure what you mean by Total Inability but i can tell you thta unless what we do is done for the Lord it will not stand and the only way to do that is to belong to Him.
I agree that some lost people do good things, but they get no credit for it as their righteous deeds are like a filthy rag.Until a person is saved they have no account with God except one of debt that they have to pay for with eternity in suffering.
The lost will recieve no rewards in hell no matter how much they pray or did good deeds. Matt 7:21-23

 

[Winman]

The "Adamic" nature came through Adam, and thus is called "Adamic" for a reason.

Study your Bible young man; study your Bible!
Who is speaking in Job 15:14

Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said, (Job 15:1)
What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? (Job 15:14)
Verse 14 is simply Eliphaz's view on depravity, and nothing more. His views and allegations against Job are thoroughly rebuked by the Lord later on in the book. This verse gives no credence to your position at all. Context is everything. You are missing context.

An affirmation that his nature was exactly like our nature--a sin nature is an attack on the deity of Christ. Christ is God. God is not a sinner. You are accusing God of being a sinner; thus making him one who could not die for our sin.

Man has a sin nature.
Jesus has no sin nature.
You say that Christ has man's sin nature. You are wrong. If Christ had man's nature he could not have died for our sins--the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh.

The Scriptures teach that Christ was born of a virgin, conceived of the Holy Spirit. It teaches that the sin nature, the Adamic nature comes from man. We inherit it. To avoid having a sin nature Christ was born of virgin. Thus was the necessity of the virgin birth. Prophecy is not just for prophecy sake. There is normally a reason for the prophecy.

I agree with you about Job 15:14, this is false. But so is the teaching that a sin nature is inherited from your father. Sin is moral, not physical.

And God clearly said that THE SON SHALL NOT BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER in Eze 18:20. To teach we inherit sin from Adam is utterly unscriptural.

 

[Winman]

And Jesus being born of a virgin was not to avoid a sin nature. Virgins are sinners just like everyone else. The Catholics understood this, this is why they invented the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that says Mary by a special grace of God was herself conceived without sin. Even the Catholics realized if the sin nature was inherited, Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from Mary.

The reason Jesus was born of a virgin was to prove he was born of God. If Jesus had been born of a woman who had known man, nobody would believe he was the Son of God.

Folks just don't think things out.

And you should quit saying I am denying Jesus's divinity, I am doing no such thing and you know it.

 

[freeatlast]

And Jesus being born of a virgin was not to avoid a sin nature. Virgins are sinners just like everyone else. The Catholics understood this, this is why they invented the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that says Mary by a special grace of God was herself conceived without sin. Even the Catholics realized if the sin nature was inherited, Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from Mary.

The reason Jesus was born of a virgin was to prove he was born of God. If Jesus had been born of a woman who had known man, nobody would believe he was the Son of God.

Folks just don't think things out.

And you should quit saying I am denying Jesus's divinity, I am doing no such thing and you know it.

I have to agree with DHK, but will put it differently. Because the Lord was born of women he was not under the curse. The woman is not given credit for the fall. The man is. Read Romans 5:12. I also agree that the virgin birth has nothing to do with the Lord not being under the curse. It is simply because the woman does not pass on the curse.

 

[DHK]

And Jesus being born of a virgin was not to avoid a sin nature.

Since the sin nature (Adamic nature) is passed down through the man, then yes, he had to be born of a virgin to avoid that consequence. That was the primary reason for the virgin birth.

Virgins are sinners just like everyone else.

That point is moot. The ADAMIC nature is passed down from ADAM through man, not Eve and Mary.

The Catholics understood this, this is why they invented the false doctrine of the Immaculate Conception that says Mary by a special grace of God was herself conceived without sin. Even the Catholics realized if the sin nature was inherited, Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from Mary.

Now this is off-topic. Would you like to delve into Islamic doctrine as well. They also believe that Mary was a virgin.

The reason Jesus was born of a virgin was to prove he was born of God. If Jesus had been born of a woman who had known man, nobody would believe he was the Son of God.

No, in fact the opposite was true. The fact that he was born of a virgin cast doubt upon his birth. They called him "one born of fornication." They didn't know who his father was. It threw a greater cloud of mystery over him. It did not prove his deity at that time. What proved his deity was his miracles. He performed his miracles to demonstrate that He was God. In John 10, they were going to stone him, and Jesus replied: For what good work are you going to stone me for? But they replied, Not for a good work, but for blasphemy. Because you, being a man make yourself God. He claimed to be God and then backed it up by his works (miracles). His birth had nothing to do with it; but everything to do with Christ avoiding inheriting the Adamic sin nature.

Folks just don't think things out.

You got that straight.

And you should quit saying I am denying Jesus's divinity, I am doing no such thing and you know it.

By saying that Christ has the same nature as man is an "attack" on the deity of Christ. He does not have the same nature of man.

 

[Winman]

I have to agree with DHK, but will put it differently. Because the Lord was born of women he was not under the curse. The woman is not given credit for the fall. The man is. Read Romans 5:12. I also agree that the virgin birth has nothing to do with the Lord not being under the curse. It is simply because the woman does not pass on the curse.

I have read Rom 5:12 and it does not say that Adam's sin passed on us, it says death passed on us FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED.

We die for our own sin. I have already posted twice that God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father (Eze 18:20). Folks read into a verse what it does not say, and ignore scripture that is plain as day and a child could understand.

I have read that Augustine derived his doctrine from the Vulgate that erroneously translated Rom 5:12 to say "for that all have sinned IN HIM". The words IN HIM are not in the Greek, and this is where this false doctrine originated.