Original Sin - and the sin nature

[Carbon]

There is a lot of false teaching on this subject of Original sin. As scripture says, Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1.

When I see false teaching I like to bring it up for discussion and expose it for the false teaching it is.
I have seen some people use Greek to try and prove their theory when they know none or very little Greek. I also have seen people try to twist and manipulate scripture to fit into their teachings. Yes, the enemy is very deceptive and has many tactics. It is very important to put on the armor of God. Ephesians 6:10-18.

Floating around the web presently is this false teaching, "The incarnation disproves Total Depravity and sin nature."

I won't mention the website, nor the person responsible for this false teaching.


Here is their argument using scripture.

John 1:14- And the Word became flesh (sarx) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.

Hebrews 2- Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like them, k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Above we see the Son through the Incarnation became sarx( flesh). Hebrews 2 says He shared that same flesh we gave and was like us in every way.

So if Jesus came in the flesh ( John 1:1, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7) then His humanity disproves the sin nature minsnomer many teach and believe or one must admit Jesus was born with a fallen corrupt sinful nature and this born a sinner like all men are born sinners according to the doctrine of TD.

You see man in not born a sinner just like Jesus was not born a sinner. Jesus never sinned yet was born innocent like all men. We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty.

There are many issues here .
First, this is from a person who has very little understanding of who Jesus is.
Their understanding of the Trinity is flawed.
Their understanding of the Hypostatic union is flawed.

Many, if not most times we see heresy coming from well-meaning people. Many are not out to teach false gospels but are trying to help a situation, here it's trying to keep Jesus from original sin.

The Roman Catholics do this by teaching Mary is the mother of God, then carry this too far. They claim she was born sinless, therefore Jesus escapes original sin. I'd say, wait a minute! Who is Jesus?

Let's look at a few verses,

John 1:14- And the Word became flesh (sarx) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.

Why they would emphasize flesh (sarx)? We know he came in the flesh. Do, I sense some sort of Gnostic teaching coming?

Hebrews 2- Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like them, k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

I believe the person who created this has no real understanding of the passage. I think they get lost with Jesus again.

Above we see the Son through the Incarnation became sarx( flesh). Hebrews 2 says He shared that same flesh we gave and was like us in every way.

Yes, he was like us in every way. Every way but one actually. Can you guess what that is?

So if Jesus came in the flesh ( John 1:1, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7)

There is no "if," he did come in the flesh.

then His humanity disproves the sin nature minsnomer many teach and believe or one must admit Jesus was born with a fallen corrupt sinful nature and this born a sinner like all men are born sinners according to the doctrine of TD.

Nope. Wrong. Oops.

This is the proof they do not know who Jesus is, and they do not have a good understanding of scripture. At least I hope that is what it is. Because there are false teachers out there that know exactly what they are doing.

You see man in not born a sinner just like Jesus was not born a sinner.

Poor theology.

Jesus never sinned yet was born innocent like all men. We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty.

The breach of the covenant of works by Adam was imputed unto us. Adam wasn't placed in the COW he was created in the COW. This isn't merely because we are partakers of the same nature as Adam, but because we were created in the COW in Adam and have broken it in him. That's headship theology, which scripture teaches.

There are some who deny this, even many Arminians, and they claim Adam's sin only affected him.

However, scripture does teach the righteous imputation of the covenant breach to all men. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans 5:12.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[b] leads to justification and life for all men.

So to deny such is to deny God's word itself.
As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for the all have sinned.

We don't read that all men are sinful, but that all men have sinned.

You see man in not born a sinner

Man is born dead. Man is born a sinner. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— Romans 5:12.
I don't know about others but, scripture works for me.

just like Jesus was not born a sinner.

You got that right!

Jesus never sinned yet was born innocent like all men.

No, not like all men. Wrong! oops. Men are not born innocent, or does God's wrath burn toward the innocent? among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. Eph 2:3.

We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty.

Man, by nature is corrupt. Babies have a human nature, therefore, they are corrupt. Babies are born with the absence of God's image.

Considering all this. If all men were not guilty of Adams's breach of the covenant, if his sin wasn't imputed unto us, then each of us would enter the world as innocent and as perfect as Adam did.

Jesus did come in the flesh. Jesus was born sinless and holy. He was not born with original sin.

But how? Denying scripture does not help to prove anything. It's a bad practice.

The answer to why Adam's sin (original sin) was imputed unto all his posterity, but not unto Jesus is really quite simple. These false teachers miss it. Because they don't know him.

 

[Carbon]

When people make statements like this, it's easy to see a few things.

Yes His human nature is the same as ours as Hebrews 2 teaches us. There is no sin nature otherwise Jesus had a sin nature. Meaning He was corrupt and guilty as TD and original sin teaches about humanity post fall. They created an unbiblical doctrine sin is passed through mans sperm. Absurd.\

They deny scripture.
They don't get the meaning of scripture
They either forgot or do not know Jesus.

 

[Carbon]

Another one of this person's posts on the same subject. For the record, I believe people (Christians) need to see these things. This is what is happening in the church today.

If children are born sinners as TD and original sin teaches then Jesus teaches that to be His disciples we must be corrupt like the little children which is an oxymoron.

It's obvious this has nothing to do with what Jesus was teaching. This is something a false teacher throws out there hoping that people just won't think, so he can think for them. Let's look at what Jesus was teaching.

2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, Matt 18:2-5.

They were wondering who would be the greatest in the kingdom. So Jesus sets them straight, unless they come to be like children they will not enter the kingdom. Nothing like the false teaching above. They must be truthful and dependent on Christ. Adults like to assert themselves and rely on their own strengths and wisdom, and that is not the attitude to enter the kingdom with.

 

[Carbon]

We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty.

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. Romans 5:12, 15-18

We do not read in this passage that all men are sinful, but instead, we read that all men have sinned. The reference is not to propensity but to the commission of an act. I see this passage as teaching about an act of sin (breach of the covenant), not about the corruption of human nature, nor that man by means of his corruption would be subjected to the same punishment. Because the reference here is to a deed. So, it's clear that sin is the cause of death, also of corporal death, and is therefore not true that death is the result of man's sinful nature, even if no sinful act has been committed.

Infants (prior to birth) must be guilty of sin as well because they die. According to verse 14, they are not guilty of actual sin. But they are guilty of a sin that has been imputed to them, and the only sin imputed to them is Adam's breach of the covenant.

 

[JIM]

It is amazing that you can read Romans 5:12 and think that supports your view on original sin.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--

So according to that verse, why did death spread to all men? Because Adam sinned? That is not what it says. It says that death spread to all men because all men sinned -- What then was Adam's contribution? No direct contribution at all. Adam was the door into the world through which sin entered. That was it. He was the first to sin. And as a result, Adam was the first to die spiritually due to that sin. But nothing in that verse even hints at god's imputing Adam's sin to the rest of humanity.

 

[Carbon]

It is amazing that you can read Romans 5:12 and think that supports your view on original sin.

Well, thank you, Jim. You are a nice guy.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--

So according to that verse, why did death spread to all men? Because Adam sinned? That is not what it says. It says that death spread to all men because all men sinned -- What then was Adam's contribution? No direct contribution at all. Adam was the door into the world through which sin entered. That was it. He was the first to sin. And as a result, Adam was the first to die spiritually due to that sin. But nothing in that verse even hints at god's imputing Adam's sin to the rest of humanity.

You really should read my post again. You missed so much. Oh and take off those colored glasses.

 

[JIM]

You really should read my post again. You missed so much. Oh and take off those colored glasses.

 

[JIM]

Well, thank you, Jim. You are a nice guy.

You really should read my post again. You missed so much. Oh and take off those colored glasses.

I really don't need to read your post again and again. I read it and so many others just like it. And I am not the one with the colored glasses. That would be you and the color of your glasses is pure Calvin Grey.

You can post Romans 5:12 a dozen times and claim that there is a teaching of original sin presented there. That is simply not true. It says explicitly why death spread to all men. It is not because God imputed Adam's sin to anyone else. It is because all have sinned: "so death spread to all men because all sinned-- ".
There is not even a hint of original sin posited there. Read the commentary of any Calvinist/Reformed Theologian for Romans 5 and you will get some construct garbage about Adam being the federal head and we, being "in him", sinned when Adam sinned and thus fell when Adam fell. Talk about looking through colored glasses; that moves the color of the Calvin Grey to Calvin Black, so black that no light gets through at all.

Your treatment of verses 15-19 is almost laughable. It would be laughable except for denigration you impose upon the effects of Jesus Christ's obedience in comparison to the effects of Adam's disobedience. While verse 15 actually says that whatever are the effects of Adam's trespass upon humanity, the effects of the grace of Jesus Christ was MUCH MORE. But you reject that. You claim the effect of Adam's trespass is universal upon all humanity at birth, but yet you claim the effect of the grace of Jesus Christ is limited to only a few. What a terrible misreading of God's word.

That same superiority of life over death for all humanity as they come into this world is emphasized several times again in the next four verses.

You purposely mishandle verses 16-19 by separating into two distinct groups those who are affected by Adam's trespass and Jesus' righteousness. That is wrong. The text does not require that. There is only one group being considered. It is the whole of humanity at birth.

The message there is that were it not for Christ's death on the cross, all men would effectively come into this world eternally condemned, but since Jesus did live, die and rise again, all men do come into this world righteous and spiritually alive. The condition of each after that is strictly due to them, thus "death spread to all men because all sinned-- "

 

[Carbon]

I really don't need to read your post again and again. I read it and so many others just like it. And I am not the one with the colored glasses. That would be you and the color of your glasses is pure Calvin Grey.

You can post Romans 5:12 a dozen times and claim that there is a teaching of original sin presented there. That is simply not true. It says explicitly why death spread to all men. It is not because God imputed Adam's sin to anyone else. It is because all have sinned: "so death spread to all men because all sinned-- ".
There is not even a hint of original sin posited there. Read the commentary of any Calvinist/Reformed Theologian for Romans 5 and you will get some construct garbage about Adam being the federal head and we, being "in him", sinned when Adam sinned and thus fell when Adam fell. Talk about looking through colored glasses; that moves the color of the Calvin Grey to Calvin Black, so black that no light gets through at all.

Your treatment of verses 15-19 is almost laughable. It would be laughable except for denigration you impose upon the effects of Jesus Christ's obedience in comparison to the effects of Adam's disobedience. While verse 15 actually says that whatever are the effects of Adam's trespass upon humanity, the effects of the grace of Jesus Christ was MUCH MORE. But you reject that. You claim the effect of Adam's trespass is universal upon all humanity at birth, but yet you claim the effect of the grace of Jesus Christ is limited to only a few. What a terrible misreading of God's word.

That same superiority of life over death for all humanity as they come into this world is emphasized several times again in the next four verses.

You purposely mishandle verses 16-19 by separating into two distinct groups those who are affected by Adam's trespass and Jesus' righteousness. That is wrong. The text does not require that. There is only one group being considered. It is the whole of humanity at birth.

The message there is that were it not for Christ's death on the cross, all men would effectively come into this world eternally condemned, but since Jesus did live, die and rise again, all men do come into this world righteous and spiritually alive. The condition of each after that is strictly due to them, thus "death spread to all men because all sinned-- "

Thanks for your opinion.

And if you like we can go through these?
Yea maybe I will for you.

Maybe you will see your pelagianism is very unbiblical. Pelagianism is heresy

 

[JIM]

Maybe you will see your pelagianism is very unbiblical. Pelagianism is heresy

No more so than is Original Sin and the even worse Total Depravity. As near as I can tell, Pelagianism is not a doctrine currently being taught. I am not sure that it ever was. It is largely a nebulous concept which was identified or defined by Augustine in his attempt to spread his own brand of heresy.

 

[Red Baker]

Another one of this person's posts on the same subject. For the record, I believe people (Christians) need to see these things. This is what is happening in the church today.


It's obvious this has nothing to do with what Jesus was teaching. This is something a false teacher throws out there hoping that people just won't think, so he can think for them. Let's look at what Jesus was teaching.

2 And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them 3 and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5 “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, Matt 18:2-5.

They were wondering who would be the greatest in the kingdom. So Jesus sets them straight, unless they come to be like children they will not enter the kingdom. Nothing like the false teaching above. They must be truthful and dependent on Christ. Adults like to assert themselves and rely on their own strengths and wisdom, and that is not the attitude to enter the kingdom with.

Amen

 

[3 Resurrections]

The pattern established all the way back at Creation week is that what God creates will reproduce "after his kind". The traits of any offspring are reflective as being of the same kind as the original progenitor.

That rule which applied to the animal kingdom also applied to humankind. A sinless Adam, had he remained sinless, would have reproduced sinless offspring. A fallen Adam produced fallen offspring in his same likeness and "after his kind". The doctrine of "total depravity" simply means that the entire creature was affected totally by the inherited traits of the original fallen Adam. As progeny descending from a fallen Adam, we too are born "after his kind" in a like fallen state from conception.

 

[JIM]

The pattern established all the way back at Creation week is that what God creates will reproduce "after his kind". The traits of any offspring are reflective as being of the same kind as the original progenitor.

That rule which applied to the animal kingdom also applied to humankind. A sinless Adam, had he remained sinless, would have reproduced sinless offspring. A fallen Adam produced fallen offspring in his same likeness and "after his kind". The doctrine of "total depravity" simply means that the entire creature was affected totally by the inherited traits of the original fallen Adam. As progeny descending from a fallen Adam, we too are born "after his kind" in a like fallen state from conception.

You and others often refer to fallen Adam or to fallen humanity or here fallen offspring. This is just a question. What exactly do you mean by the words fall or fallen. Neither of those words, used in the sense they are typically used are found in scripture? So could you describe for me in some detail the specific differences in Adam before and after the fall? What fell? What was fallen in fallen Adam? And perhaps you could do the same for fallen offspring.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You and others often refer to fallen Adam or to fallen humanity or here fallen offspring. This is just a question. What exactly do you mean by the words fall or fallen. Neither of those words, used in the sense they are typically used are found in scripture? So could you describe for me in some detail the specific differences in Adam before and after the fall? What fell? What was fallen in fallen Adam? And perhaps you could do the same for fallen offspring.

In one word, "separated" from God. In God, there is "no darkness at all". He cannot have intimate fellowship with creatures who have any taint of darkness in them. Anything less than complete perfection cannot survive in God's presence of utter holiness. That complete perfection must be vicariously given to those separated individuals by a spotless human / divine representative if those individuals don't have it themselves.

Adam before his choice to knowingly disobey God's command had that state of perfection as originally created. Intimate fellowship with God in the Garden of Eden was then the norm, and they were not separated from God or the Tree of Life. When Adam performed that first rebellious act, separation from God the Source of all life was the necessary result. "Light hath no fellowship with darkness". After that choice to rebel, Adam could produce nothing but rebellious children who were made "after his likeness" (Genesis 5:3) in the very same separated condition as himself.

 

[JIM]

In one word, "separated" from God. In God, there is "no darkness at all". He cannot have intimate fellowship with creatures who have any taint of darkness in them. Anything less than complete perfection cannot survive in God's presence of utter holiness. That complete perfection must be vicariously given to those separated individuals by a spotless human / divine representative if those individuals don't have it themselves.

Adam before his choice to knowingly disobey God's command had that state of perfection as originally created. Intimate fellowship with God in the Garden of Eden was then the norm, and they were not separated from God or the Tree of Life. When Adam performed that first rebellious act, separation from God the Source of all life was the necessary result. "Light hath no fellowship with darkness". After that choice to rebel, Adam could produce nothing but rebellious children who were made "after his likeness" (Genesis 5:3) in the very same separated condition as himself.

I take from that you think your spirit came from your parents. Yes?

 

[3 Resurrections]

I take from that you think your spirit came from your parents. Yes?

The spirit of a person comes not from the parents, but from God who gives it (Ecclesiastes 12:7). At death, it returns to God, to either dwell in His presence if it is one of the elect majority (2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23) or if not, the spirits of the wicked are reserved for the final judgment (2 Peter 2:9) after which they are destroyed so that they exist no more.

 

[JIM]

The spirit of a person comes not from the parents, but from God who gives it (Ecclesiastes 12:7). At death, it returns to God, to either dwell in His presence if it is one of the elect majority (2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23) or if not, the spirits of the wicked are reserved for the final judgment (2 Peter 2:9) after which they are destroyed so that they exist no more.

Then do you think that spirit given you by God is dead on arrival?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Then do you think that spirit given you by God is dead on arrival?

No, because that would mean the spirits of men were dead even before they were given. The spirits of men as a gift from God originate as perfect gifts, sent from above (James 1:17). It is only when they become united with something unclean (the human flesh elements which are "in Adam") that this perfect gift becomes corrupted and in need of redemption. And that is after the moment of conception.

 

[JIM]

No, because that would mean the spirits of men were dead even before they were given. The spirits of men as a gift from God originate as perfect gifts, sent from above (James 1:17). It is only when they become united with something unclean (the human flesh elements which are "in Adam") that this perfect gift becomes corrupted and in need of redemption.

No, I disagree with that. Nowhere that I am aware of are we told about spirits dying because they become united with something unclean. Rather we are told about spirits dying in trespasses and sins.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, I disagree with that. Nowhere that I am aware of are we told about spirits dying because they become united with something unclean. Rather we are told about spirits dying in trespasses and sins.

A dead spirit produces trespasses and sins. Nothing contradictory about that. I believe the actual phrase is "dead in trespasses and sins".