The totally "unoriginal" beginning of "Original sin."


(Theophilus Book) #1

The entire subject of “Original Sin” was an invention of the same people who gave us “A Bishop more equal than all other Bishops” and named him a “Pope.” It was an object lesson in how to control the minds of lesser beings called “Laity.”

But to suppose the doctrine of “Original Sin” (otherwise referenced as
"OS") actually originated in scripture, shows the enormity of the power of ignorance as pertains to scripture and its application to truth.

To suggest that Man somehow has a “Sin Nature” presupposes the existence of that same nature. But look for a moment at the “Nature” supplied to Men who simply delight in being good Men;

God established for all time that “The soul that sins, dies.”
“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”[Deu 24:16]

The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying, -Ezekiel 18:1 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge? Eze 18:2

As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Eze 18:3

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Eze 18:4

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. -Ezekiel 18:20

But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. -Ezekiel 18:21

All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. -Ezekiel 18:22

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? -Ezekiel 18:23

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. -Ezekiel 18:24

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. -Ezekiel 18:27

How then do we explain the doctrine of “The sin-nature of MEN” -
Rom 2:14 For [color=blue]when the Gentiles, which have not the law, [color=red]do by nature[/color] the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.[/color]

And what then of scriptures that tell of men who “save their own selves by their righteousness?”

Ezek 14:13-20
"Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it: 14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD. 15 If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it, so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the beasts: 16 Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be delivered, but the land shall be desolate. 17 Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the land; so that I cut off man and beast from it: 18 Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be delivered themselves. 19 Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out my fury upon it in blood, to cut off from it man and beast: 20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness."

All men sin. But there is a sin not unto death. THIS is the category of sin these three men, + Enoch, + Jesus who is Messiah, plus several other individuals proclaimed by scripture to have been “Righteous” - show to us the lie that is the doctrine of “OS.”


(Randy) #2

Curious if you’ve read Enns and George Macdonald, and what you think of them on this topic; also Eastern Orthodox and Jewish interpretation
thanks.


(Theophilus Book) #3

Nope! Just scripture. I do not resort to Commentaries unless I am checking what someone has said about what some commentator has postulated.

Otherwise, the scriptures pretty well tell it.


(Randy) #4

Thanks. I do think that this is the case. To be a devils’ advocate, what do you think of the Psalm 51:5 “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me;” and the literalist Roman interpretations of original sin? Peter Enns would agree with you, by the way https://peteenns.com/romans-for-normal-people-with-pete-enns/

He couches that as a lesson to the Jews and Gentiles of Rome that the Gentiles no longer have to get circumcised, etc, as we are all under Christ; it’s not an argument that we all sinned by being conceived (in contrast to Augustine, who did not influence the Eastern Orthodox Church but felt that as we were conceived in sin, babies should be baptized right away to ensure salvation–at least, that’s as I understand it).


#5

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could discuss the doctrine of original sin without dissing the Roman Catholic Church? (no, I am not RC). And many non-RC Christians believe in a global Fall/original sin.


(George Brooks) #6

So here we have Ezekiel, surrounded by the Persian metaphysics of resurrection. Doesn’t it strike the reader that chapter 18 is not speaking simply about a legal code?

Ezekiel is using the veiled language of the prophet! The righteous man will not perish - - for eternity … he will be immortal. He will live forever, either commencing with the End of Days, or immediately (as implied by Essene writings).

But to accept these views of Ezekiel, one must reject Augustine’s views that the sons die for the sins of their father!

@Theo_Book, thank you for finding this excellent section of Ezekiel!


(David Heddle) #7

This is not my view of Original Sin. This seems to misinterpret the doctrine this way:

Original sin: I am charged with Adam’s Sin.

As if I could live a sinless life, and I would still be denied heaven because of a sin in my debit column that I didn’t commit, Adam did.

That would make God unjust. May it never be.

No, the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is much worse. It is that Adam’s sin has, through inheritance, rendered Adam’s descendants, to use a double negative, incapable of not sinning.

Adam’s sin is not in our debit column. Rather the effect of Adam’s sin has left the human race morally incapable of doing anything that isn’t sinful. In our fallen state even our most righteous deeds are filthy rags. (Isa. 64:6). There is none righteous, no not one. (Rom 3:10). Or as C. S Lewis put it: “I have never had a selfless thought since I was born.”


Edit: typo


(Theophilus Book) #8

[quote=“beaglelady, post:5, topic:38429, full:true”]

[quote=“Theo_Book, post:1, topic:38429”]
The entire subject of “Original Sin” was an invention of the same people who gave us “A Bishop more equal than all other Bishops” and named him a “Pope.” It was an object lesson in how to control the minds of lesser beings called “Laity.”

But to suppose the doctrine of “Original Sin” (otherwise referenced as “OS”) actually originated in scripture, shows the enormity of the power of ignorance as pertains to scripture and its application to truth.[/quote]

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could discuss the doctrine of original sin without dissing the Roman Catholic Church? (no, I am not RC). And many non-RC Christians believe in a global Fall/original sin.[/quote]

And why do you suppose I did not mention Catholicism by name? I was raised Catholic, and studied my way out of it. I became a member of a denomination, and studied my way out of it also.

Now “Where two or more are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst” seems to suit the needs of my wife and I.

As for how much of the world accepts the doctrine of “Original Sin,” they are the same people who once believed the Earth to be flat. They were over-powered by those whom they considered to be “authority.”

How can ANYBODY remain in a church that divides from other churches? Did you never read what Paul said when addressing the church at Corinth?

"1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."[I Cor 1:1-24]

I did not complete Paul’s lesson to the Corinthian church because I want to make a point therefrom; Specifically, that there are many who believe the rantings of preachers who claim Paul, in verse 24 proves Jesus was with God prior to creation, for it was Paul who said “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” thereby establishing for all time, that Christ was wisdom in the beginning of creation.

The problem I have with that is simple; Paul did not say Christ was wisdom in the beginning of creation. In fact, just a little further down the same page, within the same chapter (at verse 30) Paul tells us "Christ was “MADE WISDOM” which tells us he was not wisdom in the beginning, and further, He was made wisdom “TO US” - because he was never “Wisdom” to unbelievers, nor to the world. But WISDOM was ALWAYS WISDOM, nothing changing by the doubts of Men.

I am not persuaded by the numbers of Men who hold to a belief. Facts are not altered by the size of the crowd. “Claims” are, but “Claims” are not automatically "FACTS.

There are some teachers who insist upon new converts “Memorizing Scripture” as a teaching aid. I do not teach that because it was Paul who said concerning doctrine, “The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.” It is good to learn the letter of the testament, but seek out the spirit of what the letter is saying, and you will find truth.

Upon an occasion Paul said "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."[I Cor 1:10-24]

Mat 9:10-13 “And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

 [ Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, 
 [and not sacrifice; 
 [and the knowledge of God 
 [more than burnt offerings.

Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 and told them to “GO, learn” the meaning of a particular part of the law.

Just three chapters later, He quoted this same reference of the law and told them “If ye had known what this meaneth, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.”

He actually told them God desired “Mercy” and NOT SACRIFICE."
But SACRIFICE was REQUIRED by the law. But obedience to the law SHOULD HAVE TAUGHT THEM of the SPIRITUAL application of the law. But they had a commandment that required them to learn the letter of the law, and they failed to comprehend its significance. It was an enhancement as they taught the law to their children. It was never designed to be treated like doctrines and creeds.

Doctrines and creeds are only good as a learning tool, and were never designed as a standard by which Men put other Men to death for not understanding them. Yet this was the practice for two thousand years, and is still the standard in many parts of the world. But look at what God says about killing men for Heresy - “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.”[John 16:2-3]

I weep for the teachers who insist upon forcing their ignorance upon the children, in the name of truth.


(Albert Leo) #9

100% in agreement. Perhaps not realizing it, many think that discussing religious beliefs is a ZERO-SUM game: “I can reinforce MY beliefs by dissing yours.” As a Catholic, I did not expect many RCs to contribute to this forum, but I have been mentally enriched by the evangelicals who do contribute. Same is true for some of the agnostics.

Some on this forum may confuse your acerbic wit for “dissing”. I, for one, do not. And I find it enjoyable.
Al Leo


(Albert Leo) #10

This is a fair statement of why I think it is time to replace Original Sin with Original Blessing: i.e. human ‘brokenness’ results from the ‘selfish genes’ component of evolution rather than disobedience spoiling our original sinless condition. How could you recruit prospects to Doctors Without Borders or to Smiles Train if their accomplishments are merely “filthy rags”?

Al Leo


(David Heddle) #11

They are not filthy rags in human terms, and nobody that I know who affirms the Augustinian view of Original Sin would tell people such as those contributing to Doctors Without Borders or to Smiles Train that their efforts are filthy rags. Rather it implies (as the C S Lewis quote suggests) that even our best motives are tainted with sinful selfishness, and that is sufficient to render them meritless in the eyes of God.

Given that many Reformed Christians (all of whom would resolutely affirm Original Sin) contribute mightily to charitable causes should allay your concern that a doctrinal acknowledgement that our good deeds are “filthy rags” would deter people from performing and being recruited into charitable activities.

Original Sin is, to me, the most comforting of doctrines because it implies that there is nothing I can do to save myself–I have to rely completely on a savior. I contribute nothing to my salvation except my sin. It is a huge burden removed. If salvation was based on a balance sheet of credits and debits-- that would be very bad news in my opinion.


(George Brooks) #12

hooooeeey, @heddle… take it easy my good sir.

The problem with religious and political beliefs is they are extremely immune to frivolous changes… and Original Sin is one of those metal spikes that connects the brain right to the heart with its arachnoid grip!!!

They think they glorify God by smothering human ego…

The desire comes from a good place… but it smells bad and looks terrible on most humans I’ve seen wearing it!


(Albert Leo) #13

David, first let me reaffirm that my critique of your response on Original Sin (which follows) is made with respect. After all, that is the doctrine I was brought up in, and is still the orthodox doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

Taking your last quote first, this is where I have a problem. Putting myself in the “shoes” of so many “heathens” who never heard the name of Jesus, and who have nothing to offer but my sinfulness, who is going to save me? It cannot be the incarnate Jesus, because I never heard from him. Am I destined to be one of the 90+% of the humans who are, therefore, destined for eternal damnation? This argument is forcefully brought out in the recent movie, “Come Sunday”. (Its on Netflix; so see it if you haven’t already.). I personally believe that Jesus is the mystic Christ, part of the Godhead that existed before the Big Bang and is the Savior that God promises to any conscious life form that He creates through evolution. But that is not the Pentacostal doctrine that the bishop in “Come Sunday” was allowed to preach. Nor is it the doctrine that most Roman Catholics understand from the officially taught “Baptism of Desire.”

Referring to your other quotes, I believe that the evolutionary method that God used to produce early Homo sapiens was a “mixed bag” of (1) selfish genes (witness killing of any young of a tribe you take over that do not carry your genes), and of (2) empathy and compassion (animals parenting young that are NOT their own). With all due respect for C. S. Lewis, is it not possible that ‘God’s eyes’ looked favorably on the loving aspects of the ‘mixed bag’ and planned all along to enhance those attributes by ‘programming’ the Homo sapiens brain to act as Mind and Conscience so they could choose the potential to become Image Bearers?

You don’t believe that calling the best of human accomplishment “merely filthy rags” can be a deterrent to youths contemplating a career in science or medicine? From my career in medicinal chemical research (and a tiny bit teaching college classes), I beg to differ. I think one of JFK’s best moves was to realize that at the high school or early college age, youths are at the optimal time of life to be asked to join the Peace Corps. and sacrifice both time and comforts to do something unselfish for humanity’s sake. How many recruits would you attract if you told them: “you will contribute nothing to your salvation except your sin.” Be honest. It would be zero, nada, nichts.
Al Leo


#14

I see that you are here to preach at us.


(David Heddle) #15

Well personally I think heaven will be crowded (After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes. Rev.7:9) As a Calvinist, I believe that God will have Mercy upon whom He will have mercy. (Rom 9:15) So while we are to behave as if everyone must hear the gospel, I’m not presuming anything about who God will and will not save, including people who haven’t heard the gospel.

I would never make such a statement (nor would any Reformed Christian I know) except in a theological discussion in which someone had a commensurate degree of maturity. In the same sense that I wouldn’t evangelize by talking of God’s unconditional election and predestination. So no, it would not be a deterrent.

Again, you seem to suggest that a theological discourse on Original Sin is how I would routinely approach (and discourage) unbelievers, while I’ve now said several times that I view such a tactic as unthinkable. And again you are missing that many young Reformed Christians, who would wholeheartedly agree that the only thing they bring to the table is their sin and not their works, not matter how laudable, are nevertheless successfully recruited into any manner of charitable works.


(Theophilus Book) #16

So let me see if I understand your position. You post a statement.
That is communication.

I post a response.
That is preaching.

Got it!

I call it “justifying my position.!”


#17

Sorry @Theo_Book I have sat through sermons that were shorter than that post.


(Albert Leo) #18

Sorry, David, but to me this sounds like you view “unbelievers” as completely naive, and it would be “unthinkable” to approach them with your core doctrine of Original Sin that states “you will contribute nothing to your salvation except your sin”. Does that not imply that you believe that you must soften them (i.e. deceive them) with the idea that God is Love before you spring on them the Truth that God sees humans as despicable creatures because our ancient ancestor disobeyed him?

Perhaps I have been unduly discouraged by my contact with so many European intellectuals who have discarded the Christian Faith because they see it depends heavily on the ‘fear factor’. Thankfully, they do seem to retain a good deal of ‘Spirituality’.

Al Leo


(David Heddle) #19

(God is Love, by the way.)

It doesn’t mean I have to soften then or deceive them. It means (to use Paul’s metaphor) that it is not advisable to shove solid food down the throats of newborns. They need milk. They need to hear is the gospel, not an advanced discourse on doctrines that, while true in my opinion (I could be wrong) are unnecessary for their salvation. I’m not sure why you equate withholding the discussion of certain doctrines with deception. Do you likewise equate teaching Newton’s Laws with deception, knowing that down the road we’ll upgrade to QM and relativity and declare Newton’s laws as mere approximations?


#20

ZZZzzz…