Comments on: Why Should I Believe in Original Sin?

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 06:52:35 +0000

I disagree with Original Sin. When discussing Romans 5, I like to see what Paul was speaking about, so I go back to Genesis and the “warning” about “eating forbidden fruit”.
The warning explicitly states that “In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die…”, however Adam lived to be over 900 years old. So no death occurred “in the day” he ate of the fruit. This has caused everyone to go to the Hebrew and re-translate and re-interpret the warning. The Hebrew wording for “you shall surely die” is “dying, you shall die”. Implying that Adam was already a dying soul, and eating the fruit would allow the process to just continue.
Either way you look at it, Adam did not die in the day that he ate of the fruit. Thus from the stance that Adam was created to live forever, the penalty was not physical death, because he did not die in the day he ate of the fruit.
And from the stance that the penalty did actually involve physical death, it wasn’t physical death that entered the world (Rom 5), because Adam was already a dying man, the process was merely allowed to continue to fruition.
The death that passes to all men, because all sin, is spiritual death, not physical death, for all the reasons stated earlier. Adam introduced spiritual death to this world, and in Adam, all suffer spiritual death. But in Christ all experience spiritual life.
Almost everyone hates this interpretation of Rom 5 because it indicates Universalism: every knee will someday bow and confess that Jesus is Lord,…and be saved as a consequence, thereby exonerating God, who has set up this failure to begin with.
But I really cannot see it any other way. Oherwise Zech 12:1 has God forming the spiritually dead spirit of man within him. I find it reprehensible that God creates man with a doomed spirit.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:52:55 +0000

Didn’t mean to post twice. Tried to make a correction and goofed.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:50:07 +0000

I see original sin as God’s responsibility, more than man’s. The biblical story of Adam’s sin and fall raises questions about the very character of God. It brings into question his omnipotence, his omniscience, his justice, and his love. Even the basic morality exhibited in the passage falls short of that of most human parents in a comparable situation. Holding all of humanity responsible for something that he could easily have prevented,but allowed to happen is unjust, and even the laws of supposedly fallen man are more reasonable than that.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:45:34 +0000

I see original sin as God’s responsibility, more than man’s. The biblical story of Adam’s sin and fall raises questions about the very haracter of God. It brings into question his omnipotence, his omniscience, his justice, and his love. Even the basic morality exhibited in the passage falls short of that of most human parents in a comparable situation. Holding all of humanity responsible for something that he could easily have prevented,but allowed to happen is unjust, and even the laws of supposedly fallen man are more reasonable than that.

By: DarrylWolf

DarrylWolf — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:32:01 +0000

And how does one believe in original sin without turning to Doceticism? Jesus came in the flesh (the flesh is in original sin theology, inherently evil) and had a physical body- Heb. 4:15- yet he did not sin. Neither was he accountable for the sins of Adam nor did he say any of his audience was either, not even his Pharisee opponents.

Either Jesus was an apparition wanting a physical body (Gnostics believe this), his mother Mary must have been virgin-born herself (Catholics believe this based on their “sacred” traditions), or original sin must be discredited. I think the third option makes sense. Original sin is a remnant of the dualistic (spirit=good, body=bad) heresies that plagued Christianity for its first few centuries.

By: Kestas

Kestas — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:27:51 +0000

I would say that the arguments to support the doctrine of original sin are much weaker then arguments to deny this doctrine.
Jesus says : ” Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect ”
We know that Jesus is the speaker of truth and if He speaks He means this.
If I myself believed in original sin and sin nature , I couldn’t understand how just God could command us to be perfect if He knew that this would be impposible for a human being because of his sin nature. It’s like asking paralysed man to walk along with you.
The Word of God clearly says :
” No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. ”
And much more..

The doctrine of original sin spreads false image of God .

By: James W

James W — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 05:11:37 +0000

mines jazz642@gmail.com by the way

By: James W

James W — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 02:08:45 +0000

george I was wondering if I could have your email address? I would like to correspond with you, if you don’t mind, on this issue.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 02:10:45 +0000

I would like to weigh in if I may,

Even a simple reading of Romans chapters 1-3 leave us quite assuredly aware of our total disregard for God. That my friends is the definition of sin. All of us have it and all of us were born this way. This is evidenced by the fact that we all will die.

(I believe more in the idea of original death than original sin.)

Whether you believe in the transmission of sin from Adam down through all generations (be it seminally or federally)you cannot deny that all have the propensity to death which Paul argues has a link to sin.

We all sin. Romans 3:9 and 10 make that clear. In Romans 5 Paul tells us that in Christ we gain life by justification. Just my two cents.

By: Patterson

Patterson — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:05:19 +0000

The problem is your presupposition – man is “good.” This leads to wrong conclusions based on proof-texting. That’s the way it works.

Here is a summary of man’s basic-nature:
We were created “in God’s image,” according to the Bible, whatever that means. Lesson 2 (see the website for sources of lessons.) points out that we are like God mentally, in loving others, deserving respect, and in our capability of knowing him. In this way we are like God, created with these qualities and capable of being like this. We were created to have the moral qualities like those of God.

Of course, you will see in Lesson 3, the Bible story continues and shows that man became cynical and sinful. After man’s creation, man sinned against God. When man sinned, his behavior was not like God’s behavior, but his nature did not change. Man’s created nature remained the same as “God’s image.”

What is that nature? Well, God is smart. Man has a thinking brain too. God has feelings. So, men are made with feelings. Feelings are the result of our thinking. Most people realize that this is true. Men and women can think. How does that relate to “created in his image”? There have been libraries written on the subject “What is Man?” Some say he was “created good” and some say “evil.” That is to say, if he is by nature “good,” man will always do something good when left alone without guidance. We can observe this is not necessarily true. Well, try “created evil.” If man is by nature “evil,” then when left alone without instructions, he will always do something evil. That doesn’t work either. It is not necessarily true.

There is another state of “nature” that can be considered: “Neither good, nor evil, but neutral — free to choose.” Consider this to be what is meant by man’s nature.

Now, this begins to make sense. God is intelligent. Man has a brain, he is smart, and he can choose. If we conclude that man is created “neutral — free to choose,” it fits the Bible message that man is “created in the image of God.” He has the ability to choose. He is free to choose. Adam and Eve were given the freedom to choose between God and Satan. Man’s nature, when created, is neither “good” nor “evil,” but, neutral — free to choose. This agrees with scripture. God expects us to choose between His Kingdom and Satan’s Kingdom

By the way, we do choose and no one can keep us from choosing. If fact, you cannot NOT choose, for not to choose is to have chosen!

We are created free-to-choose. It’s our basic human nature. Created in God’s image means we are created neutral, free-to-choose. This is one way a human is like God.

“Human nature” does not say anything about man’s behavior — what he says or does. Man can choose to behave without regard for others (show disregard in his behavior); he can be cynical, unscrupulous, perverse, unintelligent, sick and ill. These are behaviors and not his basic human nature.

Everything in life fits the neutral, free-to-choose model. We choose and we pay the consequences of our choices. When we choose to follow the creator and his goodness, we reap goodness. When we choose not to follow God’s goodness, we reap trouble for ourselves and for those around us.

Scriptures:
Genesis 1:26-27
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.