Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 2:40 pm Post subject: Original Sin
Since the Old Testatment was handed down to us by the Jewish people, who do not believe in the doctrine of original sin and point out that none of the Old Testatment writers allude to it, then how did it come about and can it be logically defended?
Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2002 3:44 pm Post subject: original sin
I for one don’t know how the doctrine originated, or its history, nor am I inclined to defend an ancient teaching just because it’s been around for a long time. If you’d like an Old Testament verse that speaks of the sinfulness of man at birth, how about Psalm 51:5?
Quote:
“Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5.
My Jewish friends maintain that man has knowledge of both good and evil, and the capacity to rise above evil (through Torah study, observance and prayer) and choose good. They believe the “yetzer haRa” (the evil inclination) is both dominant and necessary, but can be overcome. They then point to Gen 4:6-7 " And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him ".
In response to the Ps 51:5, they say," Of course! That is exactly what we believe, that all men (even Adam) were born with "yetzer haRa". It is explicitly what we believe, whereas to develop a doctrine of original sin from it, at best is remotely implicit, and then very generous."
I think it would be difficult to justify the belief that Adam was created with evil inclinations. “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). Not even Lucifer was created with evil inclinations (Ezekiel 28:14-15).
I’m not defending the doctrine of original sin as it was defined in the early centuries but a real problem did develop with the fall of Adam and Eve. You know the story. Adam and Eve, our first parents, disobeyed God. Consequently, they were barred from the tree of life and, presumably, their descendants were barred also. Theoretically, if a descendant of Adam and Eve wouldn’t sin, he or she would still die eventually because he or she wouldn’t have access to the tree of life, which gives immortality (Gen 3:22). (You wouldn’t happen to know where the tree of life is, would you?) Obviously there is some principle at work that justifies everyone’s death. Or is it wrong for God to deprive sinless beings of immortality?
Genesis 4:6-7 is an interesting verse. I believe its meaning makes more sense in a modern translation:
Quote:
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” Genesis 4:6-7. NIV.
You’ll find the same principle taught in the New Testament:
Quote:
The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Galatians 6:8.
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2002 11:52 am Post subject: Re: Original Sin
denn wrote:
Since the Old Testatment was handed down to us by the Jewish people ,who do not believe in the doctrine of original sin and point out that none of the Old Testatment writers allude to it, then how did it come about and can it be logically defended?
denn
Hi denn,
I will try to outline an answer to your question. I will not repeat Gene's allusion to David's confession of his sinfullness, but will try to give a background to the matter.
When Adam (both male and female) were made (Gen 1:27), they were made in a condition in which they had not yet sinned. They had the capacity to sin, but had not done so yet. They were, in God's words, "very good". The prophet Isaiah says all His works are perfect. So, we can infer, without too many intellectual gymnastics, that Adam and Eve were created perfect, but having the capacity to sin.
We know from both the suffering servant passage in Isaiah and the New Testament that the Messiah was to make a payback for sin. So we can infer that God made provision for Sin, BEFORE He created Adam and Eve.
Do you want to define Original Sin as the propensity to sin (as the Rabbis do), or do you want to define it as the Original (first) Sin of Adam in disobeying God's explicit instruction not to eat of that tree (as the Scriptures say)?
The act of sin, we learn from Romans, flawed the creation. That would include the procreation of the (future) Human species. From the moment of Adam's (not Eve's) sin, His ability to create a flawless Human Being was destroyed. That Sin is passed by the Father, and not the Mother, is demonstrated by the fact that when God was the Father and Mary, the Mother, her child (Yahshua) was born in a sinless condition.
Either way, that and all future sins were anticipated. God KNEW that sin had to accounted for, payed for, and taken out of the way. That was the Messiah's mission, which, thankfully, He performed flawlessly!
I would say, that since God made provision for Sin, it IS a matter of doctrine. Sometimes the Scripture does not say "THIS IS A DOCTRINE". Sometimes we are to rightly divide the word of truth for ourselves. I feel this is the case for understanding Sin.
Please feel free to continue this discussion, as you want or don't want.
Eugene
Perfect as defined in the Bible dictionary is: complete, whole, entire, sound, without blemish, upright , without spot
a) “Although God’s creation was very good”, my friends point out “that it could not be perfect. For to be perfect would be to be independent, self-sufficient, complete, without need. Creation is dependent upon God every second, therefore regardless of how very good it is, it can not be perfect. Hence the correctness of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.”
b) They also point out that the word perfect is the same found many places such as:
Eze 28:15 Thou [wast] perfect [08549] in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
Gen: 17 1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine the LORD appeared to Abram and said unto him, I [am] the Almighty God ; walk before me, and be thou perfect [08549].
It would therefore be inconsistent to equate Abram, a sinful being by nature (either because of original sin or yetzer haRa), with the premise of Lucifer, an assumed sinless being when the same word is applied in both instances.
c) It is not even theoretical that a descendant of Adam and Eve would still die if they didn’t sin, because Adam obviously was created with mortality, and all were in Adam even prior to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
d) The tree of life is found at Golgotha.
e) It is wrong to deprive sinless beings of immortality. God alone is sinless. God cannot deprive Himself of immortality. God cannot contradict Himself. Therefore, there are not, or ever was, any other sinless beings. Therefore all beings were created not sinless and not immortal. Thus the Jewish thought of yetzer haRa remains intact and the doctrine of original sin collapses because of it’s failure to correctly identify the created condition of Adam.
f) And even so “Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power”. Adam was created not in Christ, Adam could not have been complete, perfect.
Steve
Thank you for your comments.
a) Please refer to my comments to Eugene concerning the word perfect.
b) Christ said Jn 8:29 “And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”. It is obvious that Adam could not be Christ, therefore not always pleasing God even before partaking of the tree. Therefore in Adam’s created condition he could not be pleasing to God. So, as far as to say that was the first sin would be a moot point, since his nature beforehand could not be pleasing
c) You say the act of sin flawed creation, yet that contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics which must be true. How do we resolve this?
d) You say “His ability to create a flawless Human Being was destroyed”. Can man thwart the design of God?
If Adam were perfect could he do anything other than that which is perfect? The doctrine of original sin says otherwise, which contradicts logic.
It is not even theoretical that a descendant of Adam and Eve would still die if they didn’t sin, because Adam obviously was created with mortality, and all were in Adam even prior to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
denn,
You need to read the genesis account carefully because you missed the point about the tree of life.
Quote:
And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24.
For Adam and Eve to live forever was just a matter of eating the right fruit. You should especially notice that access to the tree of life was denied after Adam and Eve fell, not before.
Thank you for your response. I have not missed the fact that the tree of life was accessible to Adam prior to partaking of the other tree.
Let us consider a few points that you, my Jewish friends, and I agree upon:
1) Adam was created mortal. Obviously, because if he were immortal he would have no need of the tree of life, Also, If God alone is God, and one of God’s attributes is immortality, God alone is immortal.
2) The tree of life was accessible to Adam prior to partaking of the other tree.
3) All of mankind were in Adam’s loins since he was created.
Now let’s consider a couple of points:
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil:
1) Was it a literal or figurative tree? My friends believe it was figurative, used to make a point. Others believe it was literal and say God can make a tree bear any type of fruit He wants. Regardless of either view, by partaking of it Adam would die. Now what then was the fruit that was so deadly? By partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then one was held accountable for one’s actions since he knew right from wrong. Now there is nothing wrong with knowing right from wrong, the problem arises when one knows right and does wrong. Now to know good from evil one should always choose to do good. But to always choose to do good and do it, is to be always good, or to be all good. God alone is all good, because that is His nature. Man is not God, man could never do all good even if he wanted to, because being not God, that is his nature.
Thus the fruit of this tree is eventually always not good, or unrighteousness. Thus the wages of unrighteousness is death. So far my Jewish friends and I agree.
Now, could Adam have partaken of the tree of life prior to the other tree? We know that God’s will is perfect and that He created Adam without God’s will. For to have God’s will is to make perfect choices and carry them out. Adam was then created with free will which is contrary to God’s will. God said “of any tree thou may eat freely”, God made available the tree of life but knew Adam would not partake of it. Why? Because it is God’s will that man live. Adam by not partaking of the tree of life was just doing what was his nature and by partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was also just doing what was his nature, That being his will contrary to God’s will. So far my Jewish friends and I agree.
Now the tree of life:
1) If the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is unrighteousness that obviously leads to death, then the fruit of the tree of life must be righteousness which leads to life. So far my Jewish friends and I agree.
Here is where my friends and I disagree. They believe that the Torah provides them the means to attain the required righteousness that is acceptable by God. It is now my turn to ask them questions. Since the wages of sin is death by knowing the Torah could they do everything all the time that is demanded by it? Obviously not. To be all good is to be perfect. Man can never be all good. That which is imperfect cannot in and of himself make himself perfect. That is only logical. Therefore the only way man can attain the righteousness demanded by God is for God to provide it. That fruit of righteousness given by the tree of life which leads to life can only be found at the tree Christ hung on. Man needs to partake of this tree.
And so, up to a point the Jewish view is consistent with the Bible, their solution is faulty as anyone’s who believe an evil tree can produce good fruit.
Thus to say that Adam fell is a misnomer, rather through the light of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he (as well as all mankind) become aware of their evil inclination (sinful nature) and that there is nothing they can do about it.
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:26 am Post subject: The subject is original sin
denn wrote:
Let us consider a few points that you, my Jewish friends, and I agree upon:
1) Adam was created mortal.
I don’t agree that Adam was created mortal. Your either-or logic is invalid at this point. I believe that God alone possesses immortality (1 Tim 6:16). I also believe that Adam was created with “conditional immortality.” That means that Adam would have lived forever if he had continued to be obedient. This is seen in the principle of free choice, which is evident in Gen. 2:17. “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
Let’s go back to my argument proving that all of humanity had something transferred to them because of the original sin of Adam and Eve.
The outline of my argument is as follows:
The sinless angels don’t have to worry about God ever coming to them saying, “It was nice knowing you. Your lives will come to an end today. Thanks for being obedient.” —Such a notice would be against God’s character. However, your Jewish friends will die no matter what, even if they would never sin, because they are condemned for what they are. It can only be because they have a sinful nature. Our natures, therefore, are obviously different than what Adam and Eve were created with.
Eternal life is no longer based on eating fruit from the tree of life. It comes from the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Eugene
Thanks for your response
Please consider.
God alone is immortal.
Adam is not God.
Adam is not immortal.
This is a valid argument.
I agree with you that God alone is immortal and also with free choice. However as far as conditional immortality I have a couple of questions. Do you actually think it would have been possible for Adam to continue to not sin? And, if Adam was created with a different nature than ours, what describes that nature?
For it has been shown that Adam could not have been perfect as the doctrine of original sin would state. If he could not have been perfect but had a different nature than ours, what could have that nature been?
If Adam could have been obedient and lived forever than that would have been a work of his efforts. Yet we know that it is not of works lest any man should boast. This is where my Jewish friends want to go.
Is conditional immortality supported throughout scriputre? Can it be supported logicallly?
denn
I’m beginning to think of you as a prankster. You can’t possibly be serious.
You may have noticed that I assign ranks around here. What rank do you believe you merit on this very serious forum?
denn wrote:
Do you actually think it would have been possible for Adam to continue to not sin?
Yes. Otherwise, God would be guilty of Adam’s sin and Adam wouldn’t have free choice. I suggest that we should believe the Bible and regard man as the sinner and not God.
denn wrote:
If Adam was created with a different nature than ours, what describes that nature?
A sinless nature doesn’t have the “yetzer haRa.”
denn wrote:
For it has been shown that Adam could not have been perfect as the doctrine of original sin would state.
Your argument contains a profoundly transparent contradiction. You defined perfect to mean “independent, self-sufficient, complete, without need” and then said that Lucifer was perfect, citing Eze 28:15.
denn wrote:
If Adam could have been obedient and lived forever than that would have been a work of his efforts.
Correct. But not only is this work easy to do for beings without the “yetzer haRa,” it’s required.
denn wrote:
Yet we know that it is not of works lest any man should boast.
You’re confusing the obedience required of sinless beings with the faith necessary to appropriate the grace of God and the atonement for sin.
denn wrote:
This is where my Jewish friends want to go.
By all means go there and tell them about Jesus.
denn wrote:
Is conditional immortality supported throughout scripture?
I’ve shown you where it’s taught in Genesis. Where does the Bible contradict it?
denn wrote:
Can it be supported logically?
What happens to evil angels when they sin? (2 Peter 2:4). Will God terminate the lives of righteous angels when they obey?
Eugene
Hello. I am sorry you think of me as a prankster. I am not. These are actual questions and discussions I have had with my friends.
a) As for rankings I care not how you rank me. I logged on here to see if I could get answers to valid questions. Some of these were posed to me by my friends and some are questions of my own.
b) You have not addressed the valid argument showing that Adam was created mortal. Do you have any thoughts on that?
c) Consider the valid argument:
God alone is sinless
All other beings are not God
All other beings are not sinless
This argument is valid and is in conflict with Adam being sinless, however is still consistent with the Jewish "yetzer haRa".
d) Please reread my comments concerning the word perfect. I said it was inconsistent to take the word perfect and attribute it to Lucifer in a sinless sense and at the same time take the same word and attribute it to Abrahm, a human being, sinful by nature. One reading of Job 9:20-22 quickly understands the Jewish thought of the word perfect.
e) For Adam to continue not to sin is inconsistent with the logic above since it is shown that he was a being that had to be created not sinless. To continue to not sin would be to equate him to Christ whom Adam could never be because Adam was created of the dust of the earth whereas Christ was born of the Spirit of God.
f) It does not suggest that God would be responsible for Adam's sin, for as we agreed , God created Adam with free choice. However it does say that God is responsible for Adam's created nature, which as we see logically had to be not sinless (or sinful).
g) Again nowhere in the Bible does it explicitly or implicity state that Adam was created with a sinless nature.
h) You state that I confuse the obedience of sinless beings with faith ...etc. Yet as we see there can be no other sinless beings other than God. Therefore one must show that the logic is invalid before one can speak of ,other than God, sinless beings.
i) Jesus said Jn 19:17 "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: ....etc" Here, Christ states no one other than God is good that included everyone even Adam.
Also in Matt 7:18-20 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ...... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them "(every man). To say that any one at any time was good would equate them with God. To say that Adam was a good tree and then produced evil fruit is inconsistent with what Christ said and is illogical.
j) I ,for one, cannot comment on how God deals with beings in another realm. For God created them in a higher order than man and therefore subject to a different set of circumstances. The Bible does not elaborate on these therefore to do otherwise would be conjecture.
k) And I do tell my friends of there need for Jesus as their Savior.
Thanks for your last post. I believe you’ve added a lot of clarity to what you’ve said previously. And I will try to restrain myself from believing that you’re intentionally being silly in the things you’re saying.
denn wrote:
d) Please reread my comments concerning the word perfect. I said it was inconsistent to take the word perfect and attribute it to Lucifer in a sinless sense and at the same time take the same word and attribute it to Abrahm, a human being, sinful by nature. One reading of Job 9:20-22 quickly understands the Jewish thought of the word perfect.
OK. I’ll restate my argument with greater care. But it’s false for you to argue that a single word in Hebrew or Greek, like English, doesn’t have multiple meanings.
denn wrote:
i) Jesus said Jn 19:17 "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: ....etc" Here, Christ states no one other than God is good that included everyone even Adam.
Sure, in the most absolute sense, only God is good. But in its range of possible meanings —and without controversy— the word good applies to men also.
2 Samuel 18:27 The watchman said, "It seems to me that the first one runs like Ahimaaz son of Zadok." "He's a good man," the king said. "He comes with good news."
Proverbs 12:2 A good man obtains favor from the Lord, but the Lord condemns a crafty man.
Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance for his children's children, but a sinner's wealth is stored up for the righteous.
Proverbs 14:14 The faithless will be fully repaid for their ways, and the good man rewarded for his.
Ecclesiastes 9:2 All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not. As it is with the good man, so with the sinner; as it is with those who take oaths, so with those who are afraid to take them.
John 7:12-13 Among the crowds there was widespread whispering about him. Some said, "He is a good man." Others replied, "No, he deceives the people." But no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews.
Acts 11:24 He [Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.
Romans 5:7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
denn wrote:
Also in Matt 7:18-20 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. ...... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them "(every man). To say that any one at any time was good would equate them with God. To say that Adam was a good tree and then produced evil fruit is inconsistent with what Christ said and is illogical.
Jesus revealed a sure test for false prophets (Matt 7:15-20). With your meaning of the words in their complete context, all the Bible prophets were false prophets.
Where does the Bible explicitly or implicitly state that Adam and Eve, or angels, were created with an inborn propensity or inclination to sin?
Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2002 12:39 pm Post subject: Where’s the danger?
Paul wrote:
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another. Galatians 5:16-26.
Where’s the danger in believing that our sinful nature will be completely eradicated when we receive the same kind of resurrection body that Jesus has?
Paul wrote:
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself. Philippians 3:20-21.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
