• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Doctrine of Original Sin

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Briefly, the discrepancy happens because many (not all) Christians ignore the Jewish scriptures' statement that sin is NOT inherited, in particular in Ezekiel 18:14-20!

Hence the fallacious "original sin" doctrine.

Peace,

Bruce
 

kejos

Active Member
How can there be such a large discrepancy between what the Jews believe about the biblical foundations for original sin (it doesn't exist) and what the Christians believe about it (its integral to their need for a savior and their entire faith)?
That there is original sin is not Christian teaching. That all sin (except Christ) is Christian teaching. The doctrine of original sin was invented to give those who devised infant baptism a rationale for their practice, though it has a serious effect on Christology, too.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Like I said, I'm not sure the original sin doctrine was always un-Jewish. You can look back in history to where Jews used to accept beliefs they now reject. I'll use an example. How many Jews do you see now who acknowledge the existence of demons, yet Jewish tradition speaks of demons? It also speaks of Samael being the same as Satan.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
So just because Judaism doesn't now accept original sin, doesn't necessarily mean it never did. You can see many ideas in Judaism that evolved with time, such as the concept of Tikkun Olam.
 

kejos

Active Member
So just because Judaism doesn't now accept original sin, doesn't necessarily mean it never did. You can see many ideas in Judaism that evolved with time, such as the concept of Tikkun Olam.
Four Jews, five Judaisms. :)
 

Zadok

Zadok
Wasn't the original, or first sin, committed by Satan at Gen 3v4 that Eve would surely not die? Isn't that why Satan [John 8v44] is called the father of the lie.
Father meaning life giver would mean Satan, so to speak, gave birth to the lie.

At sinning, Adam lost his healthy human perfection of mind and body.
Adam, as family head, could now only pass on to us what he himself had which by that time was only human imperfection of mind and body.

Even parent knows at birth that a child's leanings will be toward imperfection.
God did not make that choice for Adam. Adam made that choice and passed down his choice to us.

At death we can not resurrect oneself or another so we need someone to do that for us. Perfect Jesus balanced the scales of justice for us by being the ransom for our sins due to the imperfection we inherited from Adam.

God did not have to send Jesus to earth for us. Jesus was not forced to do what he did for us. Because perfect Jesus died faithful, Jesus makes it possible for us to gain either life in heaven, or everlasting life on earth in healthy human perfection of mind and body that Adam originally had.
In God's due time, Jesus will make all things new according to Revelation 21v5.

Most of what you have posted makes no sense to me. I do not believe children are born in sin. I believe such a doctrine to be pure herasy. I believe children are innocent and sinless and that once a person becomes accountable they can only obtain heaven by becoming like a child – meaning blameless and innocent of sin.

Zadok
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Here's a good article talking about the Jewish position.

Of course, having been raised Jewish I'm biased, but it does seem to be that the Jewish position is closer to reality. That is, the idea that my ancestor's actions cause me to be born with a certain nature violates my understanding of reality.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Here's a good article talking about the Jewish position.

Of course, having been raised Jewish I'm biased, but it does seem to be that the Jewish position is closer to reality. That is, the idea that my ancestor's actions cause me to be born with a certain nature violates my understanding of reality.

From your article:

Bear in mind, there is good reason for the church's uncompromising stand on this cherished doctrine. The founders of Christianity understood that if man can save himself from eternal damnation through his own initiative and obedience to God, the church would have very little to offer the human race. Moreover, if righteousness can be achieved through submission to the commandments outlined in the
Torah, what possible benefit could Jesus' death provide for mankind? Such self-probing thoughts, however, were unimaginable to those who shaped primitive Christianity.


Sounds a lot like what I said. A marketing ploy.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Bruce said:
Briefly, the discrepancy happens because many (not all) Christians ignore the Jewish scriptures' statement that sin is NOT inherited
Zadok said:
I do not believe children are born in sin. I believe such a doctrine to be pure herasy.
The doctrine of original sin says that we inherit a state, not accountability/guilt for the act(s) of someone else.

404 "...It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act."

405 "Although it is proper to each individual,295 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"."
 

kejos

Active Member
The doctrine of original sin says that we inherit a state, not accountability/guilt for the act(s) of someone else.

404 "...It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act."

405 "Although it is proper to each individual,295 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"."
These quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism belong to the organisation that destroyed Christianity for a millennium by making everyone 'Christian' simply by their being born within its influence, without having to make the choice essential to become a Christian. So one may expect duplicitous nonsense in this book. And nonsense is what we find here, wrapped up in language that may take in the unwary. Sin is said to be a state, not an act. But sin is not sin unless and until it becomes act, even a mental act, an intention to act against one's conscience. So a neonate is sinless- that does not mean that it is deprived of holiness, because it is ineligible for holiness until it has the choice to do evil.
 
Last edited:

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree. It is unfortunate.
I think your view is perhaps colored too much by fundamentalists...

Christianity, in my view is not about "avoiding being sent to hell", rather the joy of returning to communion with God.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
These quotes from the Roman Catholic Catechism belong to the organisation that destroyed Christianity for a millennium by making everyone 'Christian' simply by their being born within its influence, without having to make the choice essential to become a Christian.
You can still to this day call yourself Christian without actually making the choice to be Christian, many people do.

Sin is said to be a state, not an act.
No, it is not. Original Sin is said to be a state and not an act.

But sin is not sin unless and until it becomes act, even a mental act, an intention to act against one's conscience.
We agree.

So a neonate is sinless-
We agree...

that does not mean that it is deprived of holiness, because it is ineligible for holiness until it has the choice to do evil.
It is deprived of the goodness of human nature that humanity was originally created with. When God made man 'it was good', compared with now where 'there is none good but God'. Our nature was damaged, we are inevitably led to sin by the corruption brought about by the fall.
 

kejos

Active Member
You can still to this day call yourself Christian without actually making the choice to be Christian, many people do.
Indeed, they do. Some call themselves Christians in ignorance, while others knowingly make the claim in order to misrepresent Christianity- as prophesied.

No, it is not. Original Sin is said to be a state and not an act.
It is still reckoned to be sin.

It is deprived of the goodness of human nature that humanity was originally created with. When God made man 'it was good',
Yes, it was good. Man was not good. What was good was the situation that God had created, that was capable of testing mankind morally. Of course God knew that the majority of people were not good by nature, because if the saints are elect to life from before the beginning of the world, the rest must be elect to death from before the beginning of the world.

Our nature was damaged
Our nature is undamaged. God does not damage anyone. Nobody damages us unless it is ourselves. We damage ourselves, our eternal consciences, on the first occasion that we sin. That cannot be inevitable, or sin would not be culpable.
 

Evandr

Stripling Warrior
EXCEPT, of course, that this is man-made doctrine and not scripture at all!

And scripture, as I pointed out, REJECTS inheritance of sin!

Peace,

Bruce

What you say is true, inheriting a sin is contrary to concept of justice. Christ paid the penalty of our sins but He did so as a mediator, voluntarily and without guilt or guile. To inherit a sin is to say that you inherit the guilt and thusly are subject to the lawful consequences of that sin. Some like to hide behind the smoke and mirrors of religious confusion and claim that there is a logical answer, that we just can't comprehend it and in time God will reveal it. I believe this to be a load of malarky, God has given some very plain and precious truths to us in a manner that we can and must understand. The relationship between law, justice, and the consequences of sin is plain to be understood because it is important for us to understand. Why someone would believe that our loving Heavenly Father would want to obscure such an important issue in a cloud of doubt and confusion is a question that is beyond me.

That is not to say that someone cannot suffer because another has sinned but only because of the temporal consequences of sin. It becomes a trial to overcome and not a condition needing repentance of any kind. A child may be challenged all their life long because of the infedelity of the father who sired that child out of wedlock or who refused to take the responsibility of caring for that child during its young life but there is no sin attached to the child because of it. The child is held accountable for only those sins committed by the child once they become of an age that makes them accountable for their own sins.

Secondly, sin requires an understanding of the difference between right and wrong, something that Adam and Eve did not posses until AFTER they partook of the fruit so, even if by some strange concept, we could inherit sin, there was no sin to inherit from Adam and Eve as a consequence of their partaking of the forbidden fruit. What we did inherit from them is mortality and that is not a sin but a state of being.
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
Kejos said:
It is still reckoned to be sin.
No, it is only sin in an analogical understanding... original sin is the state we are born in to, it is the phrase we use to describe our fallen nature.

Yes, it was good. Man was not good.
we're just going to have to disagree, I believe God made man good, and our decisions led to us being not so.

Of course God knew that the majority of people were not good by nature
No one is good by nature except God.

Our nature is undamaged. God does not damage anyone. Nobody damages us unless it is ourselves.
Who said it was God that damaged our natures? We did it. It was through Adam that death came.

That cannot be inevitable, or sin would not be culpable.
"All have sinned."

No one is without sin. Thus sin is inevitable. Our nature pulls us towards it, because our nature, created good, has been corrupted by the fall.

Bruce said:
And scripture, as I pointed out, REJECTS inheritance of sin!
Did you read what I provided?

You do not inherit sin, you inherit the consequences. Just as family that is alcoholic increases dramatically the odds that a child will be so too, just as a mother who abuses her body will affect the child in her womb. We inherit a damaged nature.
 
Top