Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

[Inspector Javert]

To equate "dealing" with "dismissing" is to seek refuge in personal incredulity.

When a person is conceived in iniquity, are they "in Adam" i.e. dead, or are they "in Christ" alive? If in Christ, where nothing can snatch us out of his hand, how were they made sinners?

You haven't proved that they are indeed "conceived in iniquity"...
I've addressed that passage in the O.P. and explained why that does not support "Original Sin"...

Until you deal with that using Scripture and either explain how my exegesis is wrong, or pose other verses and exegete them, than you haven't established an argument.

I created an argument in the O.P....
Please deal with it....

OH, and no one called you names either.
You've yet to apologize for your false accusation of the brethren...

Maybe God made you that way at birth...

 

[Aaron]

There are a number of verses misused to teach a doctrine of "Original Sin". By that we mean an inherited wickedness which renders us either already guilty prior to having personally sinned, or, a view that “sin” is an inherited genetic trait specifically passed down from our fathers. Now, it is not denied that mankind inherits flesh..which is inherently weak and subject to lust and subsequent sin. Also man inherits a world full of temptations, and a propensity to do that which is wrong. Similarly, we are given a will…which (by definition) means that we inherit a desire or drive to do that which pleases US, and not necessarily what pleases another (namely God). But that does not mean that sin itself is a genetically passed trait which renders all infants inherently guilty or in need of salvation.
Sin is the transgression of God's Law. The Scripture defines it this way precisely:
1Jo 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
It is not a gene. It is not a physical defect. It is a willful disobedience to revealed Law. It is something one DOES, not something one IS. "Original Sin" as believed to be an inherited defect has no foundation in Scripture. And some verses misused to teach that falsehood are exposed here.
Here are a few of them recently cited and an explanation of how they either
1.) Simply do no such thing
2.) Often teach exactly the opposite:
The one most commonly cited is probably Ps. 51:5

A.) Psa 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
However, does this teach that sin is an inherited genetic defect? Well, provided those who use this verse in this way are willing to teach that that same physical defect can be physically removed by scrubbing it away with a hyssop plant, then they will be being consistent in their hermeneutic. Here are some other statements which taken as definitive facts about how sin operates which MUST ALSO be believed if they want to use vs. 5 this way:
Psa 51:7
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Do adherents of Original Sin claim that I can be cleaned with a particular plant? If not, then you aren’t being consistent with your interpretation of this passage.
Psa 51:8
Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
Did God physically break David’s bones? If that is not your claim, then you are picking and choosing how you interpret this obviously poetic literature and making one clause to be a pseudo-scientific/ physical claim, and relegating the parts you don’t like to mere poetry….
That’s not how to interpret the work.

B.) 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.

Interestingly, this passage directly contradicts the notion of Original Sin. It tells us that our nature has been defined and is the way it is because of what we have DONE…not because of how we are Born. See the qualifying clause: “accustomed to do”
Obviously, a man’s skin is as it is because of genes, as is a leopard’s spots. But our propensity to do evil as a matter of our nature exists not because of genes…but because of what we are ACCUSTOMED TO DOING. This verse is telling us, that those who have become accustomed to sinning have so ordered and defiled themselves such that it has BECOME natural to do evil….just as it is natural at birth for a leopard to have spots.

C.) Eph 2:1-3
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins,
We are dead because of our sins…

Wherein in time past ye walked
Notice that sin and our death in sin is because of how we have WALKED….it is something we have done, not a treatise on how we are genetically born.

according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation

Our “Course” is a direction we have chosen to take. Our “conversation” is a description of how we have acted, neither is an inherited trait.

in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Why were we “by nature” the children of wrath?.....because of what we have DONE, because we Fulfilled the lust of the flesh (which we do inherit) how we have WALKED, our COURSE and because of our CONVERSATION, all action verbs describing things we do, not a state of being.

D.) John 3: 3-5
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This one is interesting….presumably, it is being brought up because it has been already assumed that we have sin in our genes and are therefore in need of being “born again”. While this is consistent with the notion of Original Sin (actually most verses used are)…it certainly doesn’t ESTABLISH it. If a view of Original Sin as commonly taught is ASSUMED then this verse appears to re-enforce it. However, it is a leap in logic to say it teaches it.
All flesh has corrupted it’s way upon the Earth, and Christ’s Kingdom is Spiritual. Therefore, the corrupted flesh is insufficient to be with God, and God who is Spirit insists that man be born “again” of the Spirit. However, does being born of the Spirit somehow UNDO the birth of water or flesh? If not, then Original Sin still remains, and man would still not be able to be with God. Is “Original Sin” completely REMOVED at the point of re-birth? If not, then whatever the purpose of re-birth is, it isn’t strictly to remove a physical trait. If being born again removes that Original Sin, than those who teach the second-blessing are correct…..there is no reason why men, now no longer tainted with it, need sin, and should be perfect. Why, after all, is the so-called “old nature” still with us?

Because it is a matter of habit, not genes.
Because it is a matter of possessing weak flesh (an inherited trait)
Because we still have a “Will” and a “will” is by definition something which seeks the desires of it’s possessor and not another.

It is at minimum a stretch to assume Original Sin simply from these verses.

E.) Jer 17:9,10 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
This one would be simply laughable, if not so tragic: Presumably, the strength of it is that it mentions one’s heart, which is something which (at least physically) exists at birth. But it BLATANTLY refuses to allow the preceding verses (7and8) to place it within it’s proper context:
Jer 17:7-8
Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Here, a man who has done that which is good, becomes a certain SORT of tree….namely, one which bears GOOD fruit. Notice the actions described. In verse 9 and 10:
according to his ways
according to the fruit of his doings.
Compare them to the presumptively GOOD trees which bear GOOD fruit in the preceding verses, which are ignored:
the man that trusteth in the LORD….
For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters…. neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Yes, a man is known by the fruit of his doings….and a man who trusts in the Lord bears GOOD fruit. How, then is this verse claiming that Adam’s Ribonucleic Acid imparts a sin defect at birth? The passage is straightforward, simple, and it not only DOESN’T teach Original Sin…..it specifically denies the doctrine.

F.) Isa 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
By now, it should be clear that sin is a description of people’s Goings, ways, doings, actions, choices etc… This verse, like some previous one’s reinforces that sin is not a genetic defect…but a description of actions. It speaks directly Against the notion of Original Sin as often believed here is what it says of sin:
we all do fade as a leaf
our iniquities…… have taken us away

Original Sin, as commonly taught is not Scriptural. It is a fact that because of Adam, like Adam, because we are mankind, we have inherited flesh, a propensity to sin, weakness against temptation etc…and like Adam, we all do fade as a leaf. Like Adam we all like sheep do “GO ASTRAY”. Adam’s sin brought physical death, corruption and sickness into the world. We all like our fathers have a will and bent to do that which is evil.
But, sin is not a genetic defect; children are not born guilty of having committed it.
It is a conscious choice all men make when they know the law, and choose of their own free will (which we also inherit) to do that which is right in our own eyes.

I don't use any of the verses you cite to teach original sin.

 

[Van]

You haven't proved that they are indeed "conceived in iniquity"...
I've addressed that passage in the O.P. and explained why that does not support "Original Sin"...
Until you deal with that using Scripture and either explain how my exegesis is wrong, or pose other verses and exegete them, than you haven't established an argument.
I created an argument in the O.P....
Please deal with it....
OH, and no one called you names either.
You've yet to apologize for your false accusation of the brethren...
Maybe God made you that way at birth...

You said it does not mean what it says because the passage uses figurative language. Good Golly Miss Molly.

I have provided evidence that the consequence of Adam's sin is applied to all mankind. God subjected us to futility.

I said God made us sinners, and you say we make ourselves sinners. So if a person died before the age of accountability, before they had done anything good or bad, then they would not be sinners. So how come no one had ascended to heaven if they were holy and blameless as conceived?

Verse after verse teaches that God subjected mankind, as a consequence of Adam's sin, to separation from God, and to a corrupt spirit. The corruption is spread spiritually just as Eve's corruption was spread spiritually for only after Adam sinned, were Eve's eyes opened.

When a person is conceived in iniquity, are they "in Adam" i.e. dead, or are they "in Christ" alive? If in Christ, where nothing can snatch us out of his hand, how were they made sinners?

Tick tock

 

[Winman]

You said it does not mean what it says because the passage uses figurative language. Good Golly Miss Molly.

I believe Psa 51:5 is speaking of David's mother, not David. Substitute other words and this becomes obvious. For example,

5 Behold, I was beaten in anger; and in wrath did my mother strike me.

Now, this might seem silly, but it clearly makes it obvious that this verse is describing David's mother, not David. And as I have pointed out in the past, David's mother is somewhat controversial, as David had two sisters whose father was Nahash the Ammonite (1 Chr 2:15-16, 2 Sam 17:25).

So, before David's mother bare David to Jesse, she was either married to or had relations with a non-Jew which was strictly forbidden. This MIGHT be what David is referring to in Psa 51:5. It might also be possible that David was conceived out of wedlock, but scholars are not sure.

Whatever the circumstance, David was definitely the "black sheep" of the family. When the prophet Samuel asked Jesse to present his sons, twice Jesse presented all of his sons EXCEPT David. While all of Jesse's sons were allowed to attend this feast, David had to keep the sheep. It was only when Samuel insisted that David was brought forth. And as we know, David was the person chosen by God to be king.

It is also notable that David did not look like his brothers who were tall and handsome, David was very short and ruddy.

I believe David had somewhat of an inferiority complex. He was treated as an outcast all his life by his own family. I think David was simply expressing his shame here, perhaps he was conceived in less than favorable conditions, but scholars are not exactly sure.

But one thing is sure, this verse is not saying that all men are born sinners. That is a fantastic stretch.

I have provided evidence that the consequence of Adam's sin is applied to all mankind. God subjected us to futility.

Yes, corruption passed on all creation, as God cursed "the ground". All things grow old and corrupt, even non-living things rust and fade away. Animals die just like people, yet animals are not capable of committing sin. So this does not prove babies are sinners whatsoever.

I said God made us sinners, and you say we make ourselves sinners. So if a person died before the age of accountability, before they had done anything good or bad, then they would not be sinners. So how come no one had ascended to heaven if they were holy and blameless as conceived?

This is actually the first intelligent objection to those who do not accept Original Sin I have seen. I am not sure I could answer, all that I can say is that scripture seems to show that saints like Abraham who was "imputed righteous" and had no sin had to wait in Abraham's bosom until Jesus ascended and gave gifts to men. I believe this is when the OT saints received the Holy Spirit. I believe that infants and little children who died before Christ ascended also waited in Abraham's bosom as Abraham did, but I cannot prove this from scripture.

Verse after verse teaches that God subjected mankind, as a consequence of Adam's sin, to separation from God, and to a corrupt spirit. The corruption is spread spiritually just as Eve's corruption was spread spiritually for only after Adam sinned, were Eve's eyes opened.

Great argument except you forgot to show this "verse after verse" evidence. Oops.

There is no scripture that says we are born with a corrupt spirit, while there is scripture that says we are made "upright".

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

The word "they" points back to the word "man" showing this verse is speaking of all men, not just Adam. In addition, this verse shows men became corrupt because of "many inventions", not Adam's single sin, which argues against all mankind spiritually dying because of Adam's sin, and argues all men spiritually die for their own personal sin.

David said he was wonderfully and fearfully made, hardly an argument that we are born with corrupt souls.

Psa 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

What would be wonderful about being born a wicked sinner? How marvelous would that be?

And verse 13 shows David did not believe he was born separated from God. 1 Peter 2:25 also shows we are not born separated from God.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

As Jesus taught in Luke 15 that a shepherd originally had 100 sheep, but one went astray, Peter also teaches that we all have gone astray. You cannot go astray from the flock unless you were originally in the flock. Peter also says we are now RETURNED to Jesus our Shepherd. Words have meaning, you cannot return someplace you have never been. So this scripture shows we are not born separated from God as Van says scripture shows, but fails to show evidence for his view.

When a person is conceived in iniquity, are they "in Adam" i.e. dead, or are they "in Christ" alive? If in Christ, where nothing can snatch us out of his hand, how were they made sinners?

Tick tock

The term "in Adam" is found only once in scripture;

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Does this verse say that in Adam we are all born dead? NO, it says that in Adam all "die" FUTURE TENSE. This refutes Original Sin, you must be alive to die.

To be fair, this verse is speaking only of physical death, not spiritual. But if it were speaking of spiritual death it would refute Original Sin, not prove it.

Van has not proved Original Sin whatsoever.

 

[Van]

Lets see, even though scripture says the many were made sinners, that does not mean we were conceived in iniquity. God subjected mankind to futility, but that does not mean we were made sinners. If we were not in Adam when conceived, we would be in Christ. But how were we removed from Christ, for nothing can snatch us out of His hand.

The case has been made, the evidence from scripture provided, and those denying that Adam's sin has the consequence of us being created in a sinful, separated from God state simply say the verses do not mean what the say. Enough.

 

[Winman]

Lets see, even though scripture says the many were made sinners, that does not mean we were conceived in iniquity.

It is POSSIBLE it means that, but other explanations are not only possible, but far more likely.

The problem with your interpretation of Romans 5:19 is that it violates the form of argument Paul is using in this passage. In this passage each verse is divided in two, and both halves are treated equally. Here is the verse in question;

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.

You interpret this verse to teach that all men are unconditionally imputed or made sinners because of Adam's sin, but only some men are conditionally imputed righteous when they believe. That is inconsistent.

Now, Inspector Javert said if you were consistent, you would be a Universalist. That is not exactly true, but if you impute Adam's sin unconditionally to all men, and you impute Christ's righteousness unconditionally to all men, you would be consistent and true to Paul's form of argument, but this would teach Universalism. And in fact, this is the very argument Universalists use with this verse, being their favorite proof text.

But there is one more "consistent" argument. If all men are imputed sinners when they conditionally sin as Adam did, and all men are imputed righteous when they conditionally believe as Jesus did, then you are consistent and do not violate Paul's form of argument, and this view agrees with scripture PERFECTLY.

But your view is inconsistent and cannot be the correct interpretation.

The word "made" does not necessarily mean Adam's sin transformed all men into sinners. The same term is used repeatedly to show one man's example led to others sinning.

1 Kin 15:34 And he did evil in the sight of the LORD, and walked in the way of Jeroboam, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin.

This was evil king Baasha who reigned in Israel 24 years. Did he literally transform men into sinners? NO, but by example he encouraged other men to sin. This is shown over and over again in scripture.

1 Kin 16:26 For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in his sin wherewith he made Israel to sin, to provoke the LORD God of Israel to anger with their vanities.

Here is Omri, who also "made" Israel to sin.

So the word "made" can mean to lead by example, and this fits Romans 5:19 perfectly. For those who sinned as Adam did, they were judged to be "sinners" and sentenced to death as Adam was. Adam was the first, the legal precedent. Those who believe on Jesus, who believed on his Father to raise him from the dead are judged or imputed as "righteous" and given eternal life. Jesus is the second Adam, or the second legal precedent, except his obedience leads to life, not death.

This view is far more consistent with scripture and Paul's form of argument than your view.

God subjected mankind to futility, but that does not mean we were made sinners. If we were not in Adam when conceived, we would be in Christ. But how were we removed from Christ, for nothing can snatch us out of His hand.

God cursed the ground. We are told thorns and thistles sprang up, and man would have to raise his crops by the sweat of his face. All things grow old and wear out, animals and sea life dies. Animals do not sin, neither do fish, but they all die because of the curse.

But nowhere do the scriptures teach that God cursed man's moral nature. You cannot show it.

The case has been made, the evidence from scripture provided, and those denying that Adam's sin has the consequence of us being created in a sinful, separated from God state simply say the verses do not mean what the say. Enough.

No, you quote the same tired proof-texts that have been presented for centuries. Sure, if you pull these verses out of context and isolate them, some do seem to suggest Original Sin. But if a person carefully studies scripture they will find MUCH scripture that refutes this false doctrine.

 

[DHK]

But one thing is sure, this verse is not saying that all men are born sinners. That is a fantastic stretch.

What is "a fantastic stretch" and ultimately such a disgrace to the Biblical science of hermeutics, to force "Freudian philosophy" into this Psalm, making David blame his own parents (or mother) for his sin, whereas the Psalm itself says the exact opposite:

"Against thee and thee alone have I sinned," David said to the Lord.
He didn't sin against his mother, nor is the psalm about his mother sinning.
It is a psalm of repentance, remorse and sorrow for David's sin of adultery and murder. He sinned against God and God alone. Never did he blame his sin on his mother as you and Freud would suggest.

Your fairly tale imagination in this interpretative tale has no foundation anywhere but in your imagination and goes against the facts presented in the Psalm itself.
You should be ashamed of this post.

 

[Winman]

What is "a fantastic stretch" and ultimately such a disgrace to the Biblical science of hermeutics, to force "Freudian philosophy" into this Psalm, making David blame his own parents (or mother) for his sin, whereas the Psalm itself says the exact opposite:

"Against thee and thee alone have I sinned," David said to the Lord.
He didn't sin against his mother, nor is the psalm about his mother sinning.
It is a psalm of repentance, remorse and sorrow for David's sin of adultery and murder. He sinned against God and God alone. Never did he blame his sin on his mother as you and Freud would suggest.

Your fairly tale imagination in this interpretative tale has no foundation anywhere but in your imagination and goes against the facts presented in the Psalm itself.
You should be ashamed of this post.

What a laugh, you are blaming God!

You believe David is saying he had to sin because he was born a sinner. You quote Jeremiah where he speaks of the leopard's spots, and the Ethiopian's skin.

Who gave the leopard his spots? Who gave the Ethiopian his dark skin?

You don't get it, Jeremiah's remark was a form of sarcasm. He was saying that these Jews were so "accustomed" to sinning that it had almost become their nature, as if they were born that way.

It is really saying the exact opposite of your interpretation which blames God.

The fact is, there is some controversy concerning David's mother. He was treated as an outcast by his own family, and it is probable this relates somehow to his birth and his mother. I think David was simply confessing his shame, perhaps he truly believed he was less than his brothers in this circumstance, something he had probably heard all his life from his very own family.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Verse after verse teaches that God subjected mankind, as a consequence of Adam's sin, to separation from God, and to a corrupt spirit.

Which ones?
If "verse after verse" teaches it...then surely you can show us, say.....4 of them, yes?

 

[Inspector Javert]

What is "a fantastic stretch" and ultimately such a disgrace to the Biblical science of hermeutics, to force "Freudian philosophy" into this Psalm, making David blame his own parents (or mother) for his sin, whereas the Psalm itself says the exact opposite:

"Against thee and thee alone have I sinned," David said to the Lord.
He didn't sin against his mother, nor is the psalm about his mother sinning.
It is a psalm of repentance, remorse and sorrow for David's sin of adultery and murder. He sinned against God and God alone. Never did he blame his sin on his mother as you and Freud would suggest.

Your fairly tale imagination in this interpretative tale has no foundation anywhere but in your imagination and goes against the facts presented in the Psalm itself.
You should be ashamed of this post.

Blah, Blah......

Now, do you have any SCRIPTURE to teach your doctrine of inherited guilt? Or are you merely repeating what you've been taught.

If you have Scripture, then post it.
The O.P. deals with every single one I've seen you pose.

 

[Inspector Javert]

No, you quote the same tired proof-texts that have been presented for centuries. Sure, if you pull these verses out of context and isolate them, some do seem to suggest Original Sin. But if a person carefully studies scripture they will find MUCH scripture that refutes this false doctrine.

:thumbs::thumbs:
I am seeing no Scripture posed either....just assertion after assertion. That won't cut it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

I don't use any of the verses you cite to teach original sin.

Please tell us which ones you DO USE, then.

 

[SolaSaint]

You know I read the OP and was considering replying but when Van replied and got called stupid numerous times, I'll just say...THIS IS A CHRISTIAN FORUM. If you want to pick a fight, go on the street corner and call someone stupid. Unbelievable.

Mods, I feel this needs to be closed.

 

[DHK]

Blah, Blah......

Now, do you have any SCRIPTURE to teach your doctrine of inherited guilt? Or are you merely repeating what you've been taught.

If you have Scripture, then post it.
The O.P. deals with every single one I've seen you pose.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

I did. I commented on this verse and another in the same psalm, as well as the context of the psalm. Without commenting on the topic of the thread I am commenting on the ridiculous assertion that the verse in question here is an attack on the integrity of the mother of David rather than part of David's repentance and sorrow.
Where does one insert the Freudian philosophy of "blame your mother for your sin" into this psalm? What kind of nonsense do you get that from.
It is a psalm of repentance; of sorrow, of remorse that David has for his own sin. The context alone tells us that his repentance is for his sin and his sin alone. This has nothing to do with his mother as some have wrongly supposed. Their interpretation has been affected by evil humanistic philosophy. And that is where I stand.

 

[DHK]

The fact is, there is some controversy concerning David's mother. He was treated as an outcast by his own family, and it is probable this relates somehow to his birth and his mother. I think David was simply confessing his shame, perhaps he truly believed he was less than his brothers in this circumstance, something he had probably heard all his life from his very own family.

These are not facts!
This is your imagination running wild.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say David was an outcast (concerning from his own family). Your eisigesis of this passage is shameful. You need to get away from Freud and start reading your Bible more carefully. Freud and Humanism should not be read into the Bible.

 

[JamesL]

Thanks James for your insights.... I hold no illusions that everything in the O.P. is perfect and without flaw, as far as your last statement:

You may be right, I believe my arguments and exegesis are sound, but I may have missed something...if I've erred somewhere, please lemme know. :thumbsup:

The original post seems to understand Original Sin being taught as a genetic defect, as if one could isolate a "sin gene", but that is not the case. Original Sin teaches that Adam's first sin transferred spiritual death to all of his descendants along with physical death.

The original post mentioned "Medieval Superstition" as if this near-heretical doctrine originated sometime between the 5th and 15th centuries. Sometimes, it is thought that Augustine first taught the doctrine.

But as far as I can ascertain, Tertullian was the first to teach it - late 2nd/early 3rd centuries. He most certainly taught it, but what I have not found concretely is that he invented it. It seems so, as most every church historian states emphatically that it cannot be found anywhere prior.

However, some dismiss this earlier silence as merely a focus on more important matters in the church - primarily several Gnostic heresies.

But concerning earlier silence, and the church's focus on heresies, Tertullian wrote many treatises against heretics. So he apparently didn't have a problem teaching Original Sin while refuting Gnostics.

So I simply say that the doctrine seems to have originated with Tertullian.

Many think that Origen taught Original Sin, but I do not agree. He taught Original Stain, and taught that stain and sin are not the same thing. He also taught that Christ had Original Stain, regarding His flesh.

What I have found interesting concerning the silence of earlier Fathers on Original Sin, is that there seems to be a reason this doctrine came about.

The greatest threat to the early church was Gnosticism, which held a strict dichotomy of spirit and matter, or the spirit realm and the physical realm. This gave rise to many heresies concerning Christ:

1) He could not be God because a good God could not dwell in sinful flesh
2) He, being God, could not have had a real physical body
3) He could not have risen physically, because he escaped the physical realm at death

Even though John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh and *dwelt* among us. Literally, he tented among us, or that He pitched His tent in our midst.

Paul said that while the outer man is decaying, the inner man is being strengthened day by day (2Cor 4:16). He also made the distinction between inner man and outer man in Rom 7:15-25. Paul and Peter both equated our physical body with a tent (2Cor 5:1-5, 2Pet 1:13-14)

In attempting to fight Gnosticism, many in the early church seem to have almost forgotten about a distinction between spirit and body. I will admit that I am not a scholar regarding this matter, but I have read early testimonies. Ignatius wrote emphatically about Christ being the Word made flesh, and spoke boldly about it to the Smyrnaeans (ch 3) and the Ephesians (ch 7).

The epistles attributed to Polycarp and Barnabas, as far as I know, contain no reference to any distinction between the spirit and flesh, ontologically speaking.

Irenaeus taught that Adam's descendants were in bondage because of Adam, but (as far as I know) did not teach that we share his guilt. At any rate, he does not seem to stress much of a distinction between spirit and body.

Why is this distinction (or lack thereof) so important to this discussion on Original Sin?

Without this distinction, the early church seems to have begun viewing man as a whole. They continued to acknowledge the distinction at birth (or conception) and at death, but lost sight of Paul's teaching that the two are distinct all through life.

Though our outer man is decaying, our inner man is being strengthened day by day.

Connected with this lack of distinction of spirit and body, Tertullian purported the notion of Traducianism, that not only is the body procreated from our parents, but also our spirit. This was his explanation for Romans 5:12


In short, the entire notion of Original Sin, as taught by most today, came about because the early church was so intent on defeating Gnosticism that the most glaring similarity was relegated to obscurity

Gnostics taught a sharp distinction between spirit and body. This distinction was diminished in the Patristic writings, possibly as a way of distancing from the heretics. How could the heresy be defeated if the most basic building blocks were so similar to the orthodox faith?

It's possible that the Fathers did not intend to diminish the distinction, but simply stressed other aspects of the heresies instead of clarifying the apparent similarities.

But by diminishing the distinction between spirit and body, the whole man began to be viewed as being "in Adam"

Tertullian taught that the spirit and body are so joined that both come from procreation. And if so, then any association of fleshly corruption also brought with it a corruption of spirit (or spiritual death)

And Tertullian is said to have had a great amount of impact on all the Latin Fathers, including Augustine

 

[Inspector Javert]

You know I read the OP and was considering replying but when Van replied and got called stupid numerous times, I'll just say...THIS IS A CHRISTIAN FORUM. If you want to pick a fight, go on the street corner and call someone stupid. Unbelievable.

Mods, I feel this needs to be closed.

Erm....nobody called Van stupid.
Nobody called him any names.
What are you TALKING ABOUT?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

I did. I commented on this verse and another in the same psalm, as well as the context of the psalm. Without commenting on the topic of the thread I am commenting on the ridiculous assertion that the verse in question here is an attack on the integrity of the mother of David rather than part of David's repentance and sorrow.

O.K....
I don't know if Winman's view of what David is implying there is true or not, but it doesn't have to be. He didn't pull that out of thin air. It's a view commonly espoused by Jewish scholars, be they right or wrong, that verse is insufficient to teach "Original Sin". If it is to be taken a LITERALLY true in all of it's details, then the rest of the Psalm should be taken the same way.

Where does one insert the Freudian philosophy of "blame your mother for your sin" into this psalm?

It has nothing to do with "Freudian Philosophy". I don't even know why you would say that. However, your understanding would accomplish precisely the thing you fear the most....
Blaming his BIRTH instead of his willful choices.

What kind of nonsense do you get that from.

Jewish scholars mostly.
They may be correct, or they may not be.....
But it doesn't come from Freud??

It is a psalm of repentance; of sorrow, of remorse that David has for his own sin

Yes, everyone agrees:
But that doesn't mean it teaches "Original Sin".

The context alone tells us that his repentance is for his sin and his sin alone.

Agreed. So what?

This has nothing to do with his mother as some have wrongly supposed. Their interpretation has been affected by evil humanistic philosophy

Is it "Evil humanistic Philosophy"? or Freudian psycho-analysis? It's an historical assertion, and it doesn't shift the blame FROM David to anyone other than himself.
You don't like it, and that's fine but, I can't imagine what either humanism or Freudianism has to do with it.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The original post seems to understand Original Sin being taught as a genetic defect, as if one could isolate a "sin gene", but that is not the case. Original Sin teaches that Adam's first sin transferred spiritual death to all of his descendants along with physical death.

The original post mentioned "Medieval Superstition" as if this near-heretical doctrine originated sometime between the 5th and 15th centuries. Sometimes, it is thought that Augustine first taught the doctrine.

But as far as I can ascertain, Tertullian was the first to teach it - late 2nd/early 3rd centuries. He most certainly taught it, but what I have not found concretely is that he invented it. It seems so, as most every church historian states emphatically that it cannot be found anywhere prior.

However, some dismiss this earlier silence as merely a focus on more important matters in the church - primarily several Gnostic heresies.

But concerning earlier silence, and the church's focus on heresies, Tertullian wrote many treatises against heretics. So he apparently didn't have a problem teaching Original Sin while refuting Gnostics.

So I simply say that the doctrine seems to have originated with Tertullian.

Many think that Origen taught Original Sin, but I do not agree. He taught Original Stain, and taught that stain and sin are not the same thing. He also taught that Christ had Original Stain, regarding His flesh.

What I have found interesting concerning the silence of earlier Fathers on Original Sin, is that there seems to be a reason this doctrine came about.

The greatest threat to the early church was Gnosticism, which held a strict dichotomy of spirit and matter, or the spirit realm and the physical realm. This gave rise to many heresies concerning Christ:

1) He could not be God because a good God could not dwell in sinful flesh
2) He, being God, could not have had a real physical body
3) He could not have risen physically, because he escaped the physical realm at death

Even though John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh and *dwelt* among us. Literally, he tented among us, or that He pitched His tent in our midst.

Paul said that while the outer man is decaying, the inner man is being strengthened day by day (2Cor 4:16). He also made the distinction between inner man and outer man in Rom 7:15-25. Paul and Peter both equated our physical body with a tent (2Cor 5:1-5, 2Pet 1:13-14)

In attempting to fight Gnosticism, many in the early church seem to have almost forgotten about a distinction between spirit and body. I will admit that I am not a scholar regarding this matter, but I have read early testimonies. Ignatius wrote emphatically about Christ being the Word made flesh, and spoke boldly about it to the Smyrnaeans (ch 3) and the Ephesians (ch 7).

The epistles attributed to Polycarp and Barnabas, as far as I know, contain no reference to any distinction between the spirit and flesh, ontologically speaking.

Irenaeus taught that Adam's descendants were in bondage because of Adam, but (as far as I know) did not teach that we share his guilt. At any rate, he does not seem to stress much of a distinction between spirit and body.

Why is this distinction (or lack thereof) so important to this discussion on Original Sin?

Without this distinction, the early church seems to have begun viewing man as a whole. They continued to acknowledge the distinction at birth (or conception) and at death, but lost sight of Paul's teaching that the two are distinct all through life.

Though our outer man is decaying, our inner man is being strengthened day by day.

Connected with this lack of distinction of spirit and body, Tertullian purported the notion of Traducianism, that not only is the body procreated from our parents, but also our spirit. This was his explanation for Romans 5:12


In short, the entire notion of Original Sin, as taught by most today, came about because the early church was so intent on defeating Gnosticism that the most glaring similarity was relegated to obscurity

Gnostics taught a sharp distinction between spirit and body. This distinction was diminished in the Patristic writings, possibly as a way of distancing from the heretics. How could the heresy be defeated if the most basic building blocks were so similar to the orthodox faith?

It's possible that the Fathers did not intend to diminish the distinction, but simply stressed other aspects of the heresies instead of clarifying the apparent similarities.

But by diminishing the distinction between spirit and body, the whole man began to be viewed as being "in Adam"

Tertullian taught that the spirit and body are so joined that both come from procreation. And if so, then any association of fleshly corruption also brought with it a corruption of spirit (or spiritual death)

And Tertullian is said to have had a great amount of impact on all the Latin Fathers, including Augustine

Good READ!
And interesting. Thanks :thumbsup:

 

[Winman]

These are not facts!
This is your imagination running wild.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say David was an outcast (concerning from his own family). Your eisigesis of this passage is shameful. You need to get away from Freud and start reading your Bible more carefully. Freud and Humanism should not be read into the Bible.

Oh no? Well, here is a Jewish site all about David's mother. I am not saying I agree with this site, I am just showing that there was and IS controversy surrounding David's mother.

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm

And as for David being an outcast in his own family;

Yet, when David was born, this prominent family greeted his birth with utter derision and contempt. As David describes quite literally in the psalm, “I was a stranger to my brothers, a foreigner to my mother’s sons . . . they put gall in my meal, and gave me vinegar to quench my thirst.”

David was not permitted to eat with the rest of his family, but was assigned to a separate table in the corner. He was given the task of shepherd because “they hoped that a wild beast would come and kill him while he was performing his duties,”2 and for this reason was sent to pasture in dangerous areas full of lions and bears.3

So, I am just making this stuff up? :laugh: