Christians--Every human was born a sinner.

precept · Mar 20, 2005

Psalm 51:5...The prophet king David under divine inspiration spoke the inspired words of God..." Behold I was shapen in iniquity[sin] and in sin did my mother conceive me". This is clear proof that king David was born a sinner.

About a thousand years after king David a Pharisee turned Christian by divine intervention said that the Ephesians Christians were sinners who had been "quickened by Christ"...He described them as being "dead in trespasses and sins" before they were quickened. Which must mean that if king David was born a sinner and turned to God, that unlike the Gentiles who did not turn to God, king David was unlike them, in his not being "dead in trespasses and sin".

Paul, however, referred to their being "dead in trespasses and sins" in the past tense; or that now, having undergone the quickening change they did not "walk according to the course of the world, according to the prince of the power of the air/ie according to Satan... Those who continued to walk according to Satan were then referred to as the "children of disobedience"...These, the "children of disobedience/the children of Sartan" were spoken of in terms of the utmost of sins and iniquity. They were described as "lustful in the flesh"; as "fulfilling the desires of the flesh and the mind"...they were described as having a "nature" that was described as the "nature belonging to the Children of wrath" Ephesians 2:1-3

The conclusion therefore of the natural state of birth of all humanity is without question, according to scripture and specifically according to Paul and king David, that of being in a state of Original sin.

Paul emphasized the universality of this sinful condition in his statement "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Romans 3:23. And Paul made this statement knowing fully well that his statement included Mary the earthly repository of Holy God.

The mystery is not that Mary has to be without "original sin" for God to choose her as His earthly entry to redeem mankind. The mystery is that Holy, Perfect and All powerful God would condescend to become huiman through Mary or through any other human means. Thus once Holy Perfect God decided to condescend to redeem sinful, imperfect humanity, His only choice would be to manifest Himself thorugh one of all of the sinful imperfect humanity. The one He chose was Jacob's fourth son, JUdah who was born to a decietful plot that saw Jacob's uncle giving his daughter in deceit to Jacob for a wife; which act incurred the hatred of Jacob towards His uncle's Laban unwanted daughter, Leah.
Judah too, himself a sinner, like king David and you and me....was a poor representative for A Holy Perfect God to choose to manifest Himself through to humanity. Judah had a sinful sexual relationship with a prostitute who later turned out to be his own daughter-in-law.
God, certainly, if He was All Knowing, would have known how poor a choice he would have made and choose better. And then to add insult to injury, another harlot, the converted heathen, Rahab also claim lineage to Holy God.

By now only the "dark of understanding" is still unable to see that Holy God had no interest in being manifested through humanity in any form of perfection; whether in that of a human who had never sinned or in that of any human who would never have any children after given birth to Holy God.

precept

Katzpur · Apr 30, 2005

I'd like to pick up on this month-old thread, because I think it's an important topic. I'm kind of surprised that more people didn't have something to say about it when it was first posted. I'm going to start out by stating that I reject the doctrine of original sin. I believe that Adam and Eve transgressed when they ate of the forbidden fruit. But I don't believe that any of us are to be held accountable for their transgression.

precept said:
Psalm 51:5...The prophet king David under divine inspiration spoke the inspired words of God..." Behold I was shapen in iniquity[sin] and in sin did my mother conceive me". This is clear proof that king David was born a sinner.

I don't see this as clear proof that David was "born a sinner." One cannot be "born a sinner," if he has never sinned. Sin is defined as "the voluntary transgression of a religious law or moral principle." Have you ever held a newborn baby in your arms? If you have, and have looked into its sweet little face, how can you conceive of it as being anything but pure and innocent? Being born in sin and being born with a predisposition to be sinful are two different things.

God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the forbidden fruit, the would "surely die." I believe He was talking about two kinds of death. The first kind was a spiritual death, or separation from God. Once they were cast out of the Garden, they no longer had the intimate relationship with their Creator they'd previously had. The second kind of death was physical death. We know that Adam and Eve both lived to a ripe old age, so it is obvious that God didn't mean that He would cause them to drop dead the moment they took the first bite of the fruit. He meant that they would, from that point forward, be subject to death -- that it would eventually come to them both, as would previously not have been the case.

As their descendents, we inherited from them a sinful nature. The natural man is, I believe, an enemy to God. But because Christ atoned for Adam's and Eve's transgression, the debt they incurred to God has been repaid. We aren't going to be punished for a mistake they made -- particularly when they didn't even understand the difference between good and evil until it was too late! All of us experience physical death because Adam and Eve became mortal. Jesus' sacrifice has guaranteed that each and every one of us will be resurrected some day. All of us will also experience spiritual death -- or estrangement from God -- but it will be through our own sins that this will happen. Through repentence, and a life devoted to Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and may be reconciled to God.

What kind of parent would punish one child for something another child had done? God is our Heavenly Father. He is the Father of our spirits, and we are His own offspring. Isn't He the most perfect parent that ever was?

The conclusion therefore of the natural state of birth of all humanity is without question, according to scripture and specifically according to Paul and king David, that of being in a state of Original sin.

I find it interesting that you would come to the conclusion you have, and especially curious that you have used the phrase "Original Sin" when this doctrine wasn't even taught until the time of Augustine (4th century). Jesus certainly didn't teach this doctrine nor did His Apostles. On the contrary, throughout the New Testament, we see Jesus stressing time and time again that we must become as little children to inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Why would we want to become as little children if they are no better than the rest of us?

Paul emphasized the universality of this sinful condition in his statement "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God".

Paul taught that all have sinned, but he was not directing his remarks to a congregation of three-year olds. He was speaking to adults, people who were old enough to understand what sin was. The bottom line is: It's impossible to sin without having knowing the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. We only become able to sin once as we mature. Once we understand what sin is, however, we seem to have no trouble whatsoever, committing it.

Kathryn

Montalban · Apr 30, 2005

Katzpur said:
I'd like to pick up on this month-old thread, because I think it's an important topic. I'm kind of surprised that more people didn't have something to say about it when it was first posted. I'm going to start out by stating that I reject the doctrine of original sin. I believe that Adam and Eve transgressed when they ate of the forbidden fruit. But I don't believe that any of us are to be held accountable for their transgression.
Kathryn

It is a western Christian concept that we are all held accountable for this sin.

However the Orthodox church talks of "Original Guilt". That is, Adam and Eve let sin into the world, and as a result, we do sin. However this is different from the western "Original Sin" concept that you are right to mention.

Scott1 · Apr 30, 2005

Montalban said:
However the Orthodox church talks of "Original Guilt". That is, Adam and Eve let sin into the world, and as a result, we do sin. However this is different from the western "Original Sin" concept that you are right to mention.

Quite right.... the Roman Catholic faith also teaches that although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence.

Montalban · May 1, 2005

SOGFPP said:
Quite right.... the Roman Catholic faith also teaches that although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence.

The Roman Catholic Church (and many Protestant Churches), and the Orthodox Church use different metaphors with regard salvation, and these can be quite interesting to show the differences in understanding and approaches to the matter.

Catholics tend to use legalistic/accounting metaphors. Orthodox use medical ones.

Catholics talk about sin and redemption like one makes a legal contract with God, and there's an accounting ledger to show a balance of 'salvation'. God has paid a 'great price' for our salvation and we need to earn it. For Catholics this is done through a penitent cycle (Protestants believe it is pre-paid for by Jesus, and one need only declare that they accept Jesus' effort as Saviour). I have heard it from a Catholic friend of mine that Saints are especially positive to us because they have accumulated so much 'good' that they can afford to pass off to us less fortunate people some of their stored up goodness - in a sense of owning too much and sharing the spiritual wealth around.

Orthodox talk of sin as being a disease, un-natural to God's plan for man. We become sick with sin that leads to death. We can help our situation through spirtual exercises; such as prayers and fasting.

Scott1 · May 1, 2005

Montalban said:
Catholics tend to use legalistic/accounting metaphors. Orthodox use medical ones.

Where in my above quote do you see a legalistic/accounting metaphor?

Montalban · May 2, 2005

SOGFPP said:
Where in my above quote do you see a legalistic/accounting metaphor?

An exception does not make a rule. Perhaps you missed the term 'in general' as opposed to "All Catholics do this or that".

At one point you told me you're not representative of all Catholics; when I cited a number that give misquotes of Eastern Fathers, now suddenly your posts are to be treated as representative????

My comment wasn't directed personally at you. You have decided to address it as if it were.

Montalban · May 2, 2005

This is posted as understood that it too is not representative of all of Catholic theology, but it is understood by its phrasing that Orthodox ideas of salvation differ from the legalism of others. And thus goes in a small way to support my statement above.

In Eastern Christianity, grace is an attribute of God, or a description of how God acts in forgiving and spiritually healing others. The sacraments are seen as a "means of grace" because God works through his Church, not just because specific legalistic rules are followed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace

glasgowchick · Jun 2, 2005

Katzpur said:
I'd like to pick up on this month-old thread, because I think it's an important topic. I'm kind of surprised that more people didn't have something to say about it when it was first posted. I'm going to start out by stating that I reject the doctrine of original sin. I believe that Adam and Eve transgressed when they ate of the forbidden fruit. But I don't believe that any of us are to be held accountable for their transgression.

I don't see this as clear proof that David was "born a sinner." One cannot be "born a sinner," if he has never sinned. Sin is defined as "the voluntary transgression of a religious law or moral principle." Have you ever held a newborn baby in your arms? If you have, and have looked into its sweet little face, how can you conceive of it as being anything but pure and innocent? Being born in sin and being born with a predisposition to be sinful are two different things.

God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the forbidden fruit, the would "surely die." I believe He was talking about two kinds of death. The first kind was a spiritual death, or separation from God. Once they were cast out of the Garden, they no longer had the intimate relationship with their Creator they'd previously had. The second kind of death was physical death. We know that Adam and Eve both lived to a ripe old age, so it is obvious that God didn't mean that He would cause them to drop dead the moment they took the first bite of the fruit. He meant that they would, from that point forward, be subject to death -- that it would eventually come to them both, as would previously not have been the case.

As their descendents, we inherited from them a sinful nature. The natural man is, I believe, an enemy to God. But because Christ atoned for Adam's and Eve's transgression, the debt they incurred to God has been repaid. We aren't going to be punished for a mistake they made -- particularly when they didn't even understand the difference between good and evil until it was too late! All of us experience physical death because Adam and Eve became mortal. Jesus' sacrifice has guaranteed that each and every one of us will be resurrected some day. All of us will also experience spiritual death -- or estrangement from God -- but it will be through our own sins that this will happen. Through repentence, and a life devoted to Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and may be reconciled to God.

What kind of parent would punish one child for something another child had done? God is our Heavenly Father. He is the Father of our spirits, and we are His own offspring. Isn't He the most perfect parent that ever was?

I find it interesting that you would come to the conclusion you have, and especially curious that you have used the phrase "Original Sin" when this doctrine wasn't even taught until the time of Augustine (4th century). Jesus certainly didn't teach this doctrine nor did His Apostles. On the contrary, throughout the New Testament, we see Jesus stressing time and time again that we must become as little children to inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Why would we want to become as little children if they are no better than the rest of us?

Paul taught that all have sinned, but he was not directing his remarks to a congregation of three-year olds. He was speaking to adults, people who were old enough to understand what sin was. The bottom line is: It's impossible to sin without having knowing the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. We only become able to sin once as we mature. Once we understand what sin is, however, we seem to have no trouble whatsoever, committing it.

Kathryn

Hi Kathryn, well said...

michel · Jun 2, 2005

Katzpur,

Isn't this the whole point of Baptism - the washing away of our sins ?

Katzpur · Jun 7, 2005

michel said:
Katzpur,

Isn't this the whole point of Baptism - the washing away of our sins ?

Yes, which is why I don't believe in infant baptism. One has no need of the remission of sins until one is capable of understanding what sin is. Once we have reached an age where we are accountable for our behavior, we will undoubtedly sin. It is at this point that the choice to be baptized comes into play.

true blood · Jun 22, 2005

Every human is born (spiritually) in sin, meaning a type of alienation from God. Sin is not some kind of beast others make it out to be. It is a deviation from a law. Biblically, Adam and Eve broke a law and as a result they were separated from God. Therefore the entire legacy of mankind would be conceived in such a separated state.

Quiddity · Jun 22, 2005

Katzpur said:
Yes, which is why I don't believe in infant baptism. One has no need of the remission of sins until one is capable of understanding what sin is. Once we have reached an age where we are accountable for our behavior, we will undoubtedly sin. It is at this point that the choice to be baptized comes into play.

Katzpur, do you think you would of eaten from the tree? I think all of us would. Knowing me I probably would of gotten more then one apple and perhaps even made an apple pie.

The point is that you nor I would of done any better and being a baby doesn't take that away. We have become innately weak in our own desires and therefore we would of alienated ourselves from God without the help of Adam of Eve. Unless you claim to be sinless and perfect.

~Victor

blueman · Jun 22, 2005

The concept of being born in sin recognizes that as a descendant of Adam and Eve, sin became part of our human nature from day one. It was natural to us and part of our inner flesh. The occurance of this nature did not necessarily materialize as infants, but as we matured emotionally, mentally and physically, our true nature did evolve and come to light. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been a need for a redeemer to come into the equation, rebuilding the bridge to a relationship with God. In Genesis 3:15, God said to the serpent (Satan): And I will put emnity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.

This was the first prophecy of Jesus Christ coming to redeem man and how God's plan for salvation would separate nations, families and people as a result.

blueman · Jun 22, 2005

Katzpur said:
Yes, which is why I don't believe in infant baptism. One has no need of the remission of sins until one is capable of understanding what sin is. Once we have reached an age where we are accountable for our behavior, we will undoubtedly sin. It is at this point that the choice to be baptized comes into play.

I don't want to rehash the whole baptism thread, because you know I put my stock in "baptism of the Spirit" as the process which washes away and redeems our sin, as opposed the physical ceremony which symbolizes our new life in the Spirit. I do agree with the premise that although we are born in sin (according to my beliefs), God's grace is extended to those who otherwise do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the gift of salvation (infants, people who are mentally incapacitated from birth, etc.). For those who have all of there mental capacity, there does reach a "point of accountability" for our sinful nature and being able to comprehend and commit to gift of salvation and I believe God makes that known to us and it then comes down to the free will that He's given us which will determine ultimately a decision one makes to accept or reject His gift of salvation.

blueman · Jun 22, 2005

Montalban said:
It is a western Christian concept that we are all held accountable for this sin.

However the Orthodox church talks of "Original Guilt". That is, Adam and Eve let sin into the world, and as a result, we do sin. However this is different from the western "Original Sin" concept that you are right to mention.

But in response to that, how would you sin if it wasn't already part of your nature? Would you imply that it is a "learned behavior"?

Quiddity · Jun 22, 2005

blueman said:
The concept of being born in sin recognizes that as a descendant of Adam and Eve, sin became part of our human nature from day one. It was natural to us and part of our inner flesh. The occurance of this nature did not necessarily materialize as infants, but as we matured emotionally, mentally and physically, our true nature did evolve and come to light. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been a need for a redeemer to come into the equation, rebuilding the bridge to a relationship with God. In Genesis 3:15, God said to the serpent (Satan): And I will put emnity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.

This was the first prophecy of Jesus Christ coming to redeem man and how God's plan for salvation would separate nations, families and people as a result.

Well said blueman.

~Victor

Katzpur · Jun 28, 2005

Victor said:
Katzpur, do you think you would of eaten from the tree? I think all of us would. Knowing me I probably would of gotten more then one apple and perhaps even made an apple pie.
The point is that you nor I would of done any better and being a baby doesn't take that away. We have become innately weak in our own desires and therefore we would of alienated ourselves from God without the help of Adam of Eve. Unless you claim to be sinless and perfect.

~Victor

Yes, I'm afraid I probably would have eaten from the tree and I, too, have a weakness for apple pie.

I also agree that we are "innately weak in our own desires," as you said. But, I don't believe we are sinners until we sin. I believe we are born pure and clean, but with an inherited propensity to sin. I certainly have never claimed to be sinless and perfect as an adult, but I believe you and I both were sinless and perfect at birth. Since you believe otherwise, what sin do you believe you were born having committed?

Katzpur · Jun 28, 2005

blueman said:
The concept of being born in sin recognizes that as a descendant of Adam and Eve, sin became part of our human nature from day one. It was natural to us and part of our inner flesh. The occurance of this nature did not necessarily materialize as infants, but as we matured emotionally, mentally and physically, our true nature did evolve and come to light. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't have been a need for a redeemer to come into the equation, rebuilding the bridge to a relationship with God. In Genesis 3:15, God said to the serpent (Satan): And I will put emnity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head and you will strike his heel.

This was the first prophecy of Jesus Christ coming to redeem man and how God's plan for salvation would separate nations, families and people as a result.

I essentially agree with everything you have said. The one question I have for you is this: Do you believe we are held accountable for what Adam did? In other words, if a day-old infant dies, do you believe he dies a sinner and will be punished as being a sinner?

Quiddity · Jun 29, 2005

Katzpur said:
Yes, I'm afraid I probably would have eaten from the tree and I, too, have a weakness for apple pie.

I also agree that we are "innately weak in our own desires," as you said. But, I don't believe we are sinners until we sin. I believe we are born pure and clean, but with an inherited propensity to sin. I certainly have never claimed to be sinless and perfect as an adult, but I believe you and I both were sinless and perfect at birth. Since you believe otherwise, what sin do you believe you were born having committed?

In a timeless dimension that means nothing more then "I'm a sinner, but not until I actually do it". It's almost as if you're saying "I know I'm weak and will eventually sin but please don't call me a sinner until I do it." In the the big scope of things it makes no difference. That is exactly why you need God's Grace as early as possible.

~Victor

Christians--Every human was born a sinner.

Member

Not your average Mormon

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Gives Glory to God !!!

Administrator Emeritus

Not your average Mormon

Active Member

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

God's Warrior

God's Warrior

God's Warrior

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

Not your average Mormon

Not your average Mormon

UndertheInfluenceofGiants