[Ronhickman]

Finally, I’m back online I’m curios to know what Christadelphians believe in regards to original sin. Can you all define OS for me, from you churches perspective, and why it is you agree or disagree with this doctrine?

Regards

Ron

[freckle]

I'm a Christadelphian and I have no idea what "original sin" is. I probably don't believe in it.

[Richie]

It's basically the Catholic idea that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin. Yes, it's completely ridiculous, but gave birth to things like infant baptism. Unfortunately it's also in some non-Catholic atonement models, even within Christadelphia. I should add that's in fringe elements - thankfully we generally tend to preach against it.

This post has been edited by Richie: 20 January 2010 - 09:17 PM

[Evangelion]

No Ron, we don't believe in original sin. That idea began with Augustine, not with the apostles.

[R2D2]

Glad you were able to get back online Ronhickman!

Do you have any views of your own on original sin?

[daysha]

I'm still unclear where the line is between original sin, sin-in-the-flesh or sin, in the flesh, or a nature that's sin prone or whatever. Nothing I've read agrees with others I've read and isn't particularly concise enough for me to then explain stuff like this and the atonement to interested friends.

I do really appreciate all the help that people on BTDF have shown in trying to put forward the correct (which I'm still unsure of) view.

Therefore, I am looking forward to the replies to Ronhickman's questions.

This post has been edited by daysha: 20 January 2010 - 10:17 PM

[granny]

I'm very interested in this thread too. In case anyone is interested, here's something William Tyndale wrote in "The Obedience of a Christian Man", in relation to original sin:

Nevertheless there is none so perfect in this life, that findeth not let and resistance by the reason of original sin, or birth poison, that remaineth in him, as thou mayest see in the lives of all the saints throughout all the scripture, and in Paul, Romans 7. The will is present, saith he, but I find no means to perform that which is good. I do not that good thing which I would: but that evil do I, which I would not. I find by the law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. I delight in the law, as concerning the inner man; but I find another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and subduing me unto the law of sin. Which law of sin is nothing but a corrupt and a poisoned nature, which breaketh into evil lusts, and from evil lusts into wicked deeds, and must be purged with the true purgatory of the cross of Christ: that is, thou must hate it with all thine heart, and desire God to take it from thee. And then, whatsoever cross God putteth on thy back, bear it patiently, whether it be poverty, sickness, or persecution, or whatsoever it be, and take it for the right purgatory, and think that God hath nailed thee fast to it, to purge thee thereby. For he that loveth not the law and hateth his sin, and hath not professed in his heart to fight against it, and mourneth not to God to take it away and to purge him of it, the same hath no part with Christ.

[Richie]

daysha, on Jan 20 2010, 05:16 PM, said:

I'm still unclear where the line is between original sin, sin-in-the-flesh or sin, in the flesh, or a nature that's sin prone or whatever.

We have natural desires that lead us to sin if we obey them in contradicting the revealed will of God.

[granny]

It seems to me that original sin, if it means we are condemned because we inherit Adam's nature, is wrong, because Jesus inherited Adam's nature. Jesus wasn't condemned for his nature. He became a curse for us to redeem us, and this was because he was crucified. Gal 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

We are not condemned because we have bodies capable of sinning. We are condemned by sinning.

[IDF]

granny, on Jan 21 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

It seems to me that original sin, if it means we are condemned because we inherit Adam's nature, is wrong, because Jesus inherited Adam's nature. Jesus wasn't condemned for his nature. He became a curse for us to redeem us, and this was because he was crucified. Gal 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

We are not condemned because we have bodies capable of sinning. We are condemned by sinning.

Catholics came up with a bandaid fix to cover that flaw in their theory by stating that Mary was born miraculously too -Immaculate Conception

[daysha]

granny, on Jan 21 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

It seems to me that original sin, if it means we are condemned because we inherit Adam's nature, is wrong, because Jesus inherited Adam's nature. Jesus wasn't condemned for his nature. He became a curse for us to redeem us, and this was because he was crucified. Gal 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

We are not condemned because we have bodies capable of sinning. We are condemned by sinning.

Hi Granny,
It's this bit that I can't seem to get a clear understanding of what it means or to be able to get handle on:

Quote

He became a curse for us to redeem us, and this was because he was crucified. Gal 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

[granny]

daysha, on Jan 21 2010, 09:18 PM, said:

granny, on Jan 21 2010, 03:52 AM, said:

It seems to me that original sin, if it means we are condemned because we inherit Adam's nature, is wrong, because Jesus inherited Adam's nature. Jesus wasn't condemned for his nature. He became a curse for us to redeem us, and this was because he was crucified. Gal 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

We are not condemned because we have bodies capable of sinning. We are condemned by sinning.

Hi Granny,
It's this bit that I can't seem to get a clear understanding of what it means or to be able to get handle on:

Quote

He became a curse for us to redeem us, and this was because he was crucified. Gal 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"

Yeah, I know what you mean Daysha. It's simple, but it's also complex. I've actually never made an in-depth study of it, but it probably means something like:

Law can’t save, faith saves. The law didn’t save a sinless man, but faith did. We put on Christ and are accounted righteous. We have faith in Jesus to save us. By this means we become Abraham’s offspring and God’s promises will find their fulfillment in us too.

[marcusampe]

freckle, on Jan 20 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

I'm a Christadelphian and I have no idea what "original sin" is. I probably don't believe in it.

Naturally you could think of an 'original sin' being the 'first sin' and then take it that Adam and Eve were the first people who went wrong.

In case Satan would be a fallen angels, then he would have done the first sin. Because he then transgressed against his creator. then it would be very strange that God did not punished this angel.
Adam and Eve received their punishment rightly because it were they themselves who wanted to follow an other course. By making the wrong choice Eve was the first person to sin and she took Adam with her. He had also his own choice, and could have chosen not to follow her. This first reaction against the will of God can be called the original or the first sin.

[granny]

marcusampe, on Jan 22 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

freckle, on Jan 20 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

I'm a Christadelphian and I have no idea what "original sin" is. I probably don't believe in it.

Naturally you could think of an 'original sin' being the 'first sin' and then take it that Adam and Eve were the first people who went wrong.

In case Satan would be a fallen angels, then he would have done the first sin. Because he then transgressed against his creator. then it would be very strange that God did not punished this angel.
Adam and Eve received their punishment rightly because it were they themselves who wanted to follow an other course. By making the wrong choice Eve was the first person to sin and she took Adam with her. He had also his own choice, and could have chosen not to follow her. This first reaction against the will of God can be called the original or the first sin.

There is original sin as two words which could be applied as Marcus has, and there is the church doctrine of "Original sin". Wikipedia has this to say about "Original sin":

Quote

"Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits" .... "Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin." .... "Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also, within Roman Catholicism, in the Jansenist movement, but this movement was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic Church."

from http://en.wikipedia....ki/Original_sin
This cannot be a correct doctrine as we are condemned for sins we commit. See Eze 18:20

The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer for his father's iniquity, and a father will not suffer for his son's iniquity; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness, and the wicked person according to his wickedness.

This post has been edited by granny: 21 January 2010 - 10:40 PM

[IDF]

granny, on Jan 22 2010, 08:34 AM, said:

marcusampe, on Jan 22 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

freckle, on Jan 20 2010, 10:01 PM, said:

I'm a Christadelphian and I have no idea what "original sin" is. I probably don't believe in it.

Naturally you could think of an 'original sin' being the 'first sin' and then take it that Adam and Eve were the first people who went wrong.

In case Satan would be a fallen angels, then he would have done the first sin. Because he then transgressed against his creator. then it would be very strange that God did not punished this angel.
Adam and Eve received their punishment rightly because it were they themselves who wanted to follow an other course. By making the wrong choice Eve was the first person to sin and she took Adam with her. He had also his own choice, and could have chosen not to follow her. This first reaction against the will of God can be called the original or the first sin.

There is original sin as two words which could be applied as Marcus has, and there is the church doctrine of "Original sin". Wikipedia has this to say about "Original sin":

Quote

"Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits" .... "Augustine believed that the only definitive destinations of souls are heaven and hell. He concluded that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin." .... "Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and also, within Roman Catholicism, in the Jansenist movement, but this movement was declared heretical by the Roman Catholic Church."

from http://en.wikipedia....ki/Original_sin
This cannot be a correct doctrine as we are condemned for sins we commit. See Eze 18:20

The person who sins is the one who will die. A son will not suffer for his father's iniquity, and a father will not suffer for his son's iniquity; the righteous person will be judged according to his righteousness, and the wicked person according to his wickedness.

Except for

Exodus 20:5

.... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

[Mark Taunton]

IDF, on Jan 21 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

Except for

Exodus 20:5

.... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Actually that's not different! God is saying that if the third and fourth generation hate him as their fathers did, they too will justly receive the same punishment as their fathers.

[granny]

Thisisme, on Jan 22 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

I would think "Original sin" is the sin that originally alienated man from God. This is what (outside of Christ) makes all men sinners or aliens to the commonwealth of Israel. Thats my understanding anyway.

I think it is a matter of definition. "Original sin" can mean many things, some right and some wrong. The original "original sin" as taught by the medieval catholic church, is incorrect.

[Jeremy]

Yes, that's the problem with these unbiblical descriptions - they can mean different things to different people. In this case, however, I think "original sin" would have a definite theological meaning.

[Ronhickman]

R2D2, on Jan 20 2010, 03:55 PM, said:

Glad you were able to get back online Ronhickman!

Do you have any views of your own on original sin?

I don’t believe we are born sinners; it would make God out to be quite the monster if that were the case. In addition, I haven't found any scriptures to support the doctrine of original sin, that is to say, nothing that cannot be readily explained. I mistook your understanding of “sin in the flesh” to mean something similar to original sin, but I have had my curiosity satisfied on that score, thanks to the posters here.


It's good to be back :-)

Ron

[Ronhickman]

Mark Taunton, on Jan 21 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

IDF, on Jan 21 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

Except for

Exodus 20:5

.... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Actually that's not different! God is saying that if the third and fourth generation hate him as their fathers did, they too will justly receive the same punishment as their fathers.

Yes, but it coud mean, those who hate Him now, He will destroy their families to the third and fourth generation regardless. I don't know how it reads in the original, but it something worth researching.

This post has been edited by Ronhickman: 22 January 2010 - 10:52 PM

[daysha]

Ronhickman, on Jan 22 2010, 11:47 PM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Jan 21 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

IDF, on Jan 21 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

Except for

Exodus 20:5

.... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Actually that's not different! God is saying that if the third and fourth generation hate him as their fathers did, they too will justly receive the same punishment as their fathers.

Yes, but it coud mean, those who hate Him now, He will destroy their families to the third and fourth generation regardless. I don't know how it reads in the original, but it something worth researching.

I think it's 'cause God knows our future and what our genetic makeup is and therefore how prone to evil we will become. It's like a sort of prophecy.

[granny]

Ronhickman, on Jan 23 2010, 09:47 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Jan 21 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

IDF, on Jan 21 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

Except for

Exodus 20:5

.... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Actually that's not different! God is saying that if the third and fourth generation hate him as their fathers did, they too will justly receive the same punishment as their fathers.

Yes, but it coud mean, those who hate Him now, He will destroy their families to the third and fourth generation regardless. I don't know how it reads in the original, but it something worth researching.

I don't believe God destroys families for their ancestors sin, unless they perpetrate the sin as well. The following verses seem convincing to me:

Eze 18:19-23 ESV "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. (20) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (21) "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. (22) None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. (23) Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

[Ronhickman]

granny, on Jan 22 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

Ronhickman, on Jan 23 2010, 09:47 AM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Jan 21 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

IDF, on Jan 21 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

Except for

Exodus 20:5

.... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Actually that's not different! God is saying that if the third and fourth generation hate him as their fathers did, they too will justly receive the same punishment as their fathers.

Yes, but it coud mean, those who hate Him now, He will destroy their families to the third and fourth generation regardless. I don't know how it reads in the original, but it something worth researching.

I don't believe God destroys families for their ancestors sin, unless they perpetrate the sin as well. The following verses seem convincing to me:

Eze 18:19-23 ESV "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. (20) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (21) "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. (22) None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. (23) Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

That makes sense to me.

[Matt Smith]

Ronhickman, on Jan 22 2010, 03:47 PM, said:

Mark Taunton, on Jan 21 2010, 05:30 PM, said:

IDF, on Jan 21 2010, 11:17 PM, said:

Except for

Exodus 20:5

.... I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Actually that's not different! God is saying that if the third and fourth generation hate him as their fathers did, they too will justly receive the same punishment as their fathers.

Yes, but it coud mean, those who hate Him now, He will destroy their families to the third and fourth generation regardless. I don't know how it reads in the original, but it something worth researching.

Not likely... Look at Ruth.

[orthotomeo]

The deaths of Davids sons were the result of their own unrighteousness. They did follow the bad example of their father, but that was their decision as Ezekiel 18 and 33 say.

[orthotomeo]

Right. I would not say he "paid for the sin" as if God held the child in anyway responsible for the sin of the parents (that is original sin). I would say that he died as a consequence of sin. Sometimes our actions result in the hurt of others. Clearly God does not hold that child or those we effect responsible for his/ our actions. The consequence may cause hurt or death. God may take away from us what we have as a lesson for us. We can read exodus 34 when it says "by no means clear the guilty" as not removing the consequences. God will forgive our sins, but that does not mean he will remove the consequences. David was forgive his sin with bathsheba, but the consequences were the death of their child and the loss of respect with his sons. This is far different from the idea of original sin, which states that God holds us responsible for Adam's sin and therefore we have to have that transactionally forgiven for us to have any home. The bible in no way talks about that.

[marcusampe]

granny, on Jan 22 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

I think it is a matter of definition. "Original sin" can mean many things, some right and some wrong. The original "original sin" as taught by the medieval catholic church, is incorrect.

Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which humans are born, does not confirm with the meaning of the word 'sin", being 'not able to make it', "to miss the mark" or "to miss the target".

A new born person has not yet had the opportunity to face the targets to be reached. A baby does not know what is right or what is wrong. How can it go against something. Only when consciences grows the person can become accounted for what she or he does.

The only problem humans have is because of that first sin, coming from those parents all the next generations do have defaults of which they have to live with and be careful for that they are not been trapped. It is not because our fathers were sinners and are dead; and the weight of their evil-doing is on us, that we are infested by sin (La 5:7)
This does not mean we have to be born sinners, but because of our defaults we can become weak and ill. For every thing we have to make our own choices, and only for those we can be accounted for. We can not be guilty for something what an other person did, when we had nothing to do with it. Every child is then also a clean person - free of sin- until it gets the possibility to get the knowledge. It can not and shall not be punished for the sins of its parents or previous ancestors. We only can make our selves unclean when we would do the same wrong things as 'our fathers did' (Eze 20:30)


“As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, robbed his brother, and did that which is not good among his people, behold, he shall die in his iniquity. Yet say ye, Wherefore doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? when the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.” (Eze 18:18-19 ASV)

“hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept mine ordinances, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord Jehovah.” (Eze 18:9 ASV)