Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
The Problem with Original Sin
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2021
- The framework for original sin that most of us are familiar with comes from a bad interpretation of a bad translation of one verse in one letter from Pual. Unfortunately, however, it has all kinds of implications for we think about ourselves and God. So let's talk about it.
Why would God create everything in their own likeness and beauty, except his children? Children are born pure and innocent. “Our flesh is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.”
You can break it all down to this- "sin" is what anything that is destructive to us and others. Period
Honestly i liked the idea that when Adam sinned everyone gained ability/nature to sin
👍That's essentially anscentral sin.
Pavlev -
And what is the biology of that??
How can you demonstrate??
Original sin crushes us at or core identity. It enforces self loathing that has been toxic to the church as a whole. Is there any wonder why pastor's kids tend to be messed up?
I have a huge problem with the ethical implications of it, too. We are led to believe that it is responsible for the evil in the world, like diseases and cancers. But who ordained that this should be the case? Why should it necessarily entail that sin causes these things? If God is sovereign and omnipotent, then could he not have limited these effects?
That's the point, though. Otherwise, why do we need a crucified Messiah? That's weakness, that's loathsome. It's offensive- how dare God tell me that he doesn't view my old human nature as valuable and worthy? Why did he make me like this anyway if he doesn't value it?
Doesn't the potter have a right to remake the clay if it doesn't fulfill his purposes?
The truth is that as far as humans go, God only has eyes for one person- and that person is the Son (and those that are grafted into Him).
Irrespective of Augustine I am happy to say with David "Surely I was sinful at birth" (Psalm 51)in the sure knowledge that Jesus has offered himself as the ultimate scapegoat and paid in full the penalty of all my transgressions.. David himself knew this, and said later in the psalm "a contrite heart, O God, you will not despise". From that point, he was freed from the guilt of murder and adultery and went on to be a great man of God.
For You formed my inward parts; You knitted me together in my mothers womb. I praise You, for I am FEARFULLY and WONDERFULLY made. Wonderful are Your works; my soul knows it very well. Ps 139:13,14.
@@SolaScriptura77 That's also from David. In Psalm 51, David says "in sin my mother conceived me," which simply means his mother was in sin when he was born. But even if "I was sinful at birth" is the correct translation, it still doesn't prove original sin because David is using hyperbole.
Pastor Jeremy,
If the doctrine of original sin is incorrect, would the term that believers are "sinners saved by grace" be inaccurate as well?
Also, do you think this conclusion affects the common interpretation of 1 John 1:8? Many say that John is speaking in present tense to an audience of believers that they all have sin. But to me, that would contradict verses 7 and 9 which says that God forgives us, and cleanses us from them if we turn and confess to Him. Like, if he has removed our sins as far as the east is from the west, how can we then say that we all currently have sin that is remaining?
As all have sinned and need to saved from their sin (not Adam’s).
When it comes to 1 John I think it’s possible to read this in too technical a sense. At the highest level, God has forgiven/covered/removed our sin, and does not see us through the lens of it. But, on the ground, we do still often make mistakes that we need to turn from and make amends for.
@@commonschurch Agreed! But those mistakes aren't rooted in our nature, correct?
@@Mr.Rogers143 I would say, no. Our nature is created by God in God's image. We are born into a broken/corrupt world that inevitably influences us, and we invariably sin and then need to be saved from ourselves, but our nature is still what God created us to be.
@@commonschurch Awesome!
It’s interesting how I can completely agree with scripture and still totally disagree with Calvinists.
Found this helpful. I've always thought that seeing yourself ass inherently sinful would cause many to acquiesce and give in to sin. I'd hoped you would have addressed the death part in conjunction with ancestral sin. If that is genetic how does that work?
There are a number of ways to think about death. Perhaps we are not inherently immortal and the generous gift of God is eternal life. That might be more plausible than God creating a finite world of reproducing immortal beings. Eventually we would have run out of space to procreate if not for physical death.
I gotta thank you,friend. You and folks like you are helping me deconstruct toxic religion.
I’m so glad. Grace and peace.
Reconstruction over Deconstruction.
If you think about it...this makes sense. Because adam was punished for listening to his wife eve. Eve blamed the serpent. All of them blamed the other for what they did. Just like we blame them for what we do. That is sin....blaming others.
Did not David the King of Israel say " he was born in sin and shaped in iniquity" the original sin "
He did. Ps 51:5. But that's not where the idea of original sin comes from. Most scholars understand this to be a reflection on human nature (and David's subsequent sin) not on any past sin originating in Adam that David bears guilt for.
"The passage is more commonly understood today as a confession of the essential human condition of the speaker. “One is a sinner simply as a result of one’s natural human descent” (W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 268). Closely related to this approach is what may be called the social view. “It is the tragedy of man that he is born into a world full of sin” (Weiser, 405; also A. A. Anderson, 395). No particular sinfulness of the mother or the process of conception is involved. The emphasis is on the sin of the speaker, who admits that sin has been “no freak event” (Kidner, 190), but goes back to the roots of personal existence (see Ps 58:3). Thus the psalm reflects acceptance of the understanding that human life always involves sin and guilt (see Gen 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; 25:4; Ps 143:2; John 3:6; Kraus, 544)."
Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, vol. 20 of Word Biblical Commentary. (Waco: Word Books, 1990), 19.
For you formed my inward parts, you knitted me in my mothers womb. I praise you, for I am Fearfully and Wonderfully made. Wonderfull are Your Works, my soul knows it very well. Ps 139:13,14.
Where chapter
How do people push back on this then and why does the error persist?
I’m not really sure why it has stuck around. Every modern translation corrects the wording for Romans 5.12.
It sticks around because no one is as great a theological giant as Augustine or Aquinas. And it's pretty firmly embedded in both Catholic and Calvinist theology. Maybe Lutheran, too.
Because the adversary uses it to condemn us and man uses it to justify sin. If we are born in sin, what can we do? God made us this way or allowed us to be born this way… anything that corrupts the Gospel, will be hard to root out 😢
Because what this guy is saying is BS. I would love to make up my own belief system and make it exactly what I would want it to be. But as a follower of Christ the truth compels me to believe the truth. That is ti say not believe lies and fantasies. I would be thrilled if I could believe I wasn't born in sin. But I would be lying to myself because I know me better than anyone (except God). If one is honest with themselves they have to see the error in this guy's "teaching"!
@@keithcannon3682 why is it the guys always out of their depth come in swinging like they did something? I swear Christians are the most incurious lot I’ve ever known.
There is no scriptural support for the Augustinian/Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine of Original Sin (i.e. imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to and the inheritance of Adam's 'sin nature'). Early church writers believed infants were born innocent. It was only after infant baptism was introduced that a doctrine of original sin was invented to support the practice.
For example, the _Apology of Aristeides_ (c.125, 15.11), the _Epistle of Barnabas_ (c.130, 6:11), and the _Shepherd of Hermas_ (c.100-c.160, 27:1; 101:1-3) all expressed the conviction that children are born innocent of sin.
The _Apology of Aristeides_ was written by Aristeides of Athens (?-c.134). The _Epistle of Barnabas_ was considered sufficiently authoritative to be cited by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Didymus the Blind and Jerome. Some early church fathers ascribed it to the Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Also according to church tradition, the _Shepherd of Hermas_ was written by Hermas, a Christian of Rome (Romans 16:14). It was also considered to be canonical scripture by some of the early church fathers such as Irenaeus.
There is also no evidence at this early stage of paedobaptism. Indeed, the _Didache_ (aka _The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations,_ c.90-150, 7:1-4) reserved baptism for persons old enough to have received instruction and to have fasted for at least the day before.
Justin Martyr (c.100-c.165) viewed baptism as rendering the Christian "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" ( _First Apology_ 34) and restricted it to those who "are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins" acquired when they were "brought up in bad habits and wicked training" ( _First Apology_ 61). Had Justin believed infants were born in a sinful state, he would hardly have thought that being "spiritually regenerated as new-born babes" (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) was a worthwhile outcome. Note, too, how Justin viewed one's sinful state as resulting from one's upbringing, not as something inherited.
Irenaeus (c.130-202) expressed the view that Christ sanctified infants and children: “becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age” ( _Against Heresies II,_ 22.4) and that faith in Christ was necessary for the remission of sins ( _Against Heresies III,_ 12.2, 7). Concerning the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’, Irenaeus wrote: _For this cause, too, He suddenly removed those children belonging to the house of David, whose happy lot it was to have been born at that time, that He might send them on before into His kingdom_ ( _Against Heresies III,_ 16.4)
It is difficult to argue these infants were regarded by Irenaeus as being in a sinful state.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) wrote _For so also we lie under Adam’s sin through similarity of sin_ ( _Fragments_ 2.4, c.195). Note that there is no hint of inherited sin in this allusion to Romans 5:12.
The first steps towards the development of a doctrine of original sin as it later came to be understood were recorded by Tertullian (c.160-220). Writing c.205-210, Tertullian objected to what appears to have been the newly-introduced practice of paedobaptism. His objection was, not only that were infants innocent but also that they were incapable of ‘coming’ of their own volition (cf. Matthew 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) to express faith or to confess or repent from any supposed sins ( _On Baptism,_ 18). Instead, baptism was to be preceded by prayer, fasting, night-long vigils, and the confession of all past sins ( _On Baptism,_ 20).
In _The Apostolic Tradition_ (c.215), Hippolytus of Rome (c.170-c.235) endorsed paedobaptism (21.16) but gave no theological justification for the practice.
Origen of Lyons (c.185-254) thought souls had a pre-incarnate existence ( _De Principiis_ 1.7.3-5) and people were born into a state reflecting the relative departure from good done by them during that existence ( _De Principiis_ 2.9.1-7). Hence, everyone was born in a state of sin ( _Homilies on Leviticus_ 8:3, Commentaries on Romans 5:9). Nevertheless, they shared with Adam only physical descent and the mortality with which he was punished ( _Against Celsus_ 4.40). Quoting Romans 5:12-21, Origen rejected the existence of a sinful state inherited from Adam ( _Commentaries on Romans_ 5:1).
Perhaps the first Christian theologian to formally posit the inheritance of the sins and guilt therefore from Adam was Cyprian of Carthage (c.200-258). Cyprian said infants were contaminated by descent from Adam and baptism provided forgiveness for any sins thus inherited ( _Epistle_ 58.5; 64.5). According to Cyprian, personal repentance (cf. Acts 2:38) was not a prerequisite for paedobaptism, which was considered efficacious for salvation in its own right ( _Epistle_ 73.7).
Gregory of Nazianzus (c.329-390) regarded infants as being born morally neutral but, because salvation required positive righteousness, were eligible to be baptized so as to acquire it; otherwise they would be left in a state of limbo. Conversely, Christians who desired baptism but died beforehand were lost ( _Oration_ 40.17, 22-23). Therefore, baptism was crucial to salvation.
Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-c.395) argued that, not only are infants born innocent, they’re born in a state of grace such that “in the case of infants prematurely dying … they pass to the blessed lot at once” ( _On Infants’ Early Deaths_ ), negating any presumed necessity for paedobaptism.
John Chrysostom (c.349-407) expressed the firm view that infants are born innocent, writing “the soul of a little child is pure from all the passions” ( _Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew_ 62.4). In this context, one might note the qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (cf. Matthew 18:3; 19:13-14; Mark 10:13-15; Luke 18:15-17) and for those already in the church (1 Corinthians 14:20).
The _Apostolic Constitutions_ (c.375-380) implied that infants are born innocent, saying: _ye have “been baptized into the Lord’s death,” and into His resurrection, as “new-born babes”._ (5.3.16). The only mention of paedobaptism was in the context of a criticism of those who would delay their own baptism till they were approaching death (so as to avoid compromising the perceived efficacy of their baptism) but would hypocritically baptize their infants, thus denying those infants the same opportunity (6.3.15). Paedobaptism was neither approved or disapproved in this passage. Elsewhere, however, baptism was restricted to those who had fasted and received instruction beforehand (7.2.22, 7.3.34).
Jerome (c.347-420) held the view that all sins are forgiven at baptism ( _Letter_ 64.2, 4, 7; _Letter_ 123.11), which even children require ( _Letter_ 85.6) for inherited guilt - for which he cited Cyprian and Origen as authorities ( _Against the Pelagians III_ 18-19) - and in spite of noting scriptures opposing that stance (e.g. Ezekiel 18:4, 20) ( _Letter_ 39.4).
Augustine of Hippo (354-430) argued that the sin of Adam - including the guilt for it - is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture and it was his job to identify the relevant Scriptures. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentaries on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7). Coupling this with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4-5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1). Augustine had no knowledge of Hebrew and only a superficial knowledge of Greek, a limitation undoubtedly hindered his ability to extract the original meanings of the texts he worked with.
So, until Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent.
When we come to the Reformation, we find Luther (an Augustinian monk) uncritically adopting Augustine’s teaching and Calvin endorsing Luther. Calvin openly admitted his theology was entirely Augustinian, writing, _"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings"._
What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of Adam's sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from Adam as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life.
The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes.
Those who argue that the doctrine of Original Sin is scriptural need to explain explain how the following passages are compatible with imputation of Adam's guilt:
*Psalm 22:10*
_On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God_
*Psalm 71:6*
_Upon you I have leaned from before my birth_
*Jeremiah 1:5*
_Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you_
*Luke 1:15*
_he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb._
And, when they're done with that, perhaps they'd care to explain why Jesus enjoined his followers to become like infants/little children and how the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as them (Matthew 18:3; 19:14) if they're riddled with Adam’s guilt.
Supporters of the doctrine of Original Sin sometimes point to Romans 5:19, which typically reads along the lines of:
_For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous_
However, the verb καθίστημι (kathistémi), twice translated 'made' here, here basically means 'to put in the place of'. It has nothing to do with something being 'made' in the sense of 'to make' as with ποιέω (poieó), 'to become', as with γίνομαι (ginomai), 'to compel', as with ἀναγκάζω (anagkazó), 'to be guilty of' or 'to be liable for', as with ἐνέχω (enechó), or 'to account as', as with λογίζομαι (logizomai).
Just read the scripture
Gen 3:7: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves."
The fruit did change Adam and Eve . They now have guilt, shame and all sort of negative feeling . Also even they dont die immediately, God kick them out of the garden so they wont become immortal.
Thats how SIN enter the world. Well if you do have those feelings and are mortal, I would say i am not surprised you are sinful person. After all if you are Chirstian i dont know why you don't think human are all sinner since we all fall short of God glory. Just my two cents...😂
@@Herbertl_Lee None of which has anything to do with the doctrine of Original Sin.
Take your own advice - just read the Scriptures - _without_ reading into them what they don't say.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh The fact that you are living in the World already explained everything lol
Rom 5:21: "That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." If you are Christian then we are all sinner I don't know why you want to argue about the original SIN. What different does it make. We all fall short of the GOD glory 😆
@@Herbertl_Lee One has to wonder whether you even bothered reading the Scriptures I cited opposing your views. You certainly haven't engaged with them, let alone cite any that actually say anything remotely like what you're trying to force Scripture to say.
As I said, you should take your own advice on reading Scripture.
What about pslams 51:5
Tthat's not where the idea of original sin comes from. Most scholars understand this to be a reflection on human nature (and David's subsequent sin), nota comment on any past sin originating in Adam that David bears guilt for.
"The passage is more commonly understood today as a confession of the essential human condition of the speaker. “One is a sinner simply as a result of one’s natural human descent” (W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 268). Closely related to this approach is what may be called the social view. “It is the tragedy of man that he is born into a world full of sin” (Weiser, 405; also A. A. Anderson, 395). No particular sinfulness of the mother or the process of conception is involved. The emphasis is on the sin of the speaker, who admits that sin has been “no freak event” (Kidner, 190), but goes back to the roots of personal existence (see Ps 58:3). Thus the psalm reflects acceptance of the understanding that human life always involves sin and guilt (see Gen 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; 25:4; Ps 143:2; John 3:6; Kraus, 544)."
Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, vol. 20 of Word Biblical Commentary. (Waco: Word Books, 1990), 19.
Thanks for making this! You're on-point as-always oh-yeah. So, you don't view the 'curse' in Genesis 2:22-23 to be the ramifications of 'original sin,' which is inherited to all humans? I don't, but I can see why the church often thinks this. I feel like the real culprit is more the idea of total depravity and Augustine's 'massa peccati,' which takes original sin (OS) to a ridiculous degree. But the concept of good ol' OG OS seems salvageable. I like Peter Rollins idea of OS as the inherent sense of 'lack' and incompleteness which is found in every person, a trademark of the human condition. There could be a lot of fun ways we can discuss OS in relation to the human condition (either as death, mimesis, incompleteness, the Sisyphean tragedy of this awful life, the proclivity toward suffering, hedonic adaptation, whatever) without stripping humanity of all dignity and reducing each of us to a grotesque meat-sack 'mass of sin.' Anywho, just some more bad interpretations for ya ;) Appreciate you!
For me it depends on how we articulate things. Original sin as the malforming of human societies that impacts and affects all of us, drawing us into the continuation of such sins, and placing a burden on us to right the wrongs of the past, on the surface seems obviously true to me. Original sin as the guilt of a Adam now passed on to me feels “not quite right.”
@commons church
Your explanation about original sin is something new for me, but it indeed make sense and wiser.
Christianity main doctrine is Jesus was crucified to atone for people's sin (original sin).
Does your new perspective of original sin mean the same as common doctrine, that Jesus was crucified to atone for people's sins?
@Common church
I agree with your different view of original sin.
So, It seems that Jesus was sent not to atone for people's sin / original sin, but to uphold / enforce Torah law.
All the prophets (God's messengers) in Abrahamic religions faced rejection in upholding the teachings of God
(monotheism, do good deed, don't commit murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, etc).
1. Abraham spread monotheism mission but he was rejected by his people who worshipped stars and idols.
2. Moses told Pharaoh to worship God Creator, but he was rejected and would be killed. Moses was also furious with the behavior of his deviant people, worshiping golden calf, an idol, got drunk, steal, etc. They broke the Torah.
3. Elijah also upheld the Torah Law who was broken by Israelites. Because of his mission, he left Israel because he would be killed. Elijah revealed, the Israelites had killed Jewish prophets.
4. Muhammad was rejected by his people & would be killed because he would change Arab tradition & introduce new law, for example burry baby girls alive, polygamy without limits, alcohol, fair business, justice for all, etc.
*In comparison, the mission of the previous prophets is the same:* (teach monotheism, do good deed, don't commit murder, don't commit adultery, don't steal, etc). If asked in 2 questions, the answers are consistent.
*1. Why was Abraham, Moses, Elijah and Muhammad rejected & will be killed by their people?* Because they wanted to uphold God's law. In other words, they were sent to uphold the law of God (monotheism, do not commot murder, adultery, steal, etc.).
*2. If their people accepted their mission, would the prophets be killed?* No. Their people really should accept the prophets' mission for their own sake.
Now, these 2 questions are asked for Jesus. Will the answer be consistent too?
*Why was Jesus rejected and be killed / crucified? There were 2 possible answers:*
a. Because he wanted to uphold God's law/Torah. In other words, Jesus was sent to enforce God's law (the same the mission as the prophets mentioned above).
* And, If Jesus' people accepted him & his mission, would he be killed? No. His people really should accept Jesus' mission for their own sake.
*b. Because he claimed to be God & savior.* In other words, Jesus was sent to atone for human sin.
*If the Israelites accepted Jesus' mission (that he was the Savior / sin redeemer), would he be killed? No.
* It means, if Israelites accepted Jesus, Jesus would not be crucified. Jesus would not be crucified means nobody would atone for original sin.
So, Jesus was actually sent to uphold / enforce the Torah, not to atone for people's sin. All the God's prophets were sent to uphold the law of God (monotheism, do good, do not commit murder, steal, adultery, etc.).
Christ's death is what atones, or makes us at-one, reconciled to Christ. I just think Christ's death saves us, or frees us from our sin not from Adam's.
@@commonschurch
Thanks for your response
The majority christian view says Jesus was sent to atone for people from original sin. But this is only a way to heaven, not 100% guarantee, because there are requirements to live eternally in heaven, or end up in hell. Mark 10:17-21, mark 9:43-48, matthew 18:3, etc.
What about your view?
If Jesus, like you said, was sent to free people from their own sins, not Adam's, does this mean Jesus make the believers automatically enter heaven to live an eternal life?
While Jesus also demanded requirements in order to live eternally in heaven (mark 10:17-21). Jesus also warned the believers to repent (Mathew 18:3), and not to commit sins, or end up in hell (Mark 9:43-48).
He also prophecied that he will drive away his followers who commited sins / crimes (Matthew 7:21-23).
That woman in Gen 3;13b not guilty. Because Apostle Paul said in 2 Cor 11;3 .... as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty...
That woman is the victim, not the perpetrator of the crime. The verdict ( guilty or not guilty ) not for the victim ( that woman ), but for the perpetrator of the crime ( the serpent ).
I believed in original sin until someone conveniently pointed out Deuteronomy 24.16 & Ezekiel 18.20, both of which state that each person will die because of their own sin, not the inherited sin of their fathers. That alone should be necessary for dispelling the idea of original sin and inherited guilt. Unfortunately, many believers hold tighter to their creeds and and confessions than to scripture.
Too many people confuse the effects of Adam‘s sin on all of us, and the actual doctrine of original sin that says we are guilty for Adam’s transgression.
@@commonschurch yep. Which isn't a big deal, really, bc we learn and unlearn all the time. What gets me is when people hold to dogmas tighter than scripture, either out of preference or just unwillingness to engage the theology. It's a constant struggle, and I'm glad I found your channel.
When does your “culpability” begin then.
For arguments sake, I’ll concede in this instance that original sin is not inherited. At what age do we begin to hold individuals accountable for their actions as “sin”.
being selfish is a sin, young children can absolutely act selfish, they can absolutely steal from one another, they absolutely lie, they absolutely allow anger to flow through them and be directed toward their neighbor.
Is this not sin? And if it isn’t, I would need an explanation of what it is, and where in the Bible the scriptures expressly grant grace to actions like these simply because an individual is young,
If your argument then becomes “we’re talking about infants not children” then again, what age do we start to hold individuals accountable.
The main issue that people may bring up is the idea that infants who pass away and are not baptized, are saved automatically due to God’s grace, and I choose to believe similarly, that God may save who he chooses to save, sometimes through extraordinary means (the thief on the cross).
I’m not even really convinced one way or another, I’m just saying this is my main hang up for NOT believing original sin.
When exactly capability kicks in is something we may never be able to fully discern. Perhaps it's different for each individual depending on their development. But those who want to hold to Augustinian original sin want it both ways; you inherit Adam's sin unless God doesn't think that's fair, and then you don't. I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense. At least the old timers were consistent and believed that even babies were condemned unless they were baptized. Gross. But consistent.
@@commonschurch I get that, however, I’d argue the thief on the cross might be an example that in extraordinary circumstances God has the ability to save outside of ordinary means.
The thief didn’t have time to uphold the the laws of Moses, he likely wasn’t baptized (although arguments can be made I suppose that he may have been) all he had in that moment was his ability to repent, and in that moment of extraordinary circumstance, God showed mercy.
An infant born originally sinful, who unfortunately passes away could be an extraordinary circumstance, as would be the mentally disabled who cannot proclaim a credible profession of faith.
Or they may not ALL be saved extraordinarily and in that, we know that God is perfectly just and his will be done.
I see decent arguments from both sides, but have a hard time not leaning toward original sin being the likely answer I guess, seeing as “all have sinned”.
I do get where you’re coming from though. Wish it was clearer to me, maybe it will be someday.
God bless you on this Good Friday.
I can get with all of that. But the underlying premise here (which I wholehearted agree with) is that God is not bound by rules. God can and does forgive freely and generous because God is good.
In a related doctrine, total depravity is held up by “proof” texts such as Hab 1:13
Habakkuk 1:13 (LEB): 13 Your eyes are too pure to see evil,
and you are not able to look at wrongdoing.
The sarcasm of the prophet is completely missed by pulling that verse out of context. If you read it in context, he is saying that God has clearly seen the wickedness of the people all the while they act like He can’t
Exactly. The prophet says “God can’t look at evil” and then immediately goes on a rant about how God keeps looking at evil lol
Original sin casts full doubt on the god of the bible being an infallible and perfect deity. "A poor workman blames his tools". If god created us (and the bible says 'he' did) and original sin is a fact (which it is claimed to be, and as the reason we need to 'repent' 'our' sin and confess Jesus as saviour), then god created us faulty, and set us up in the first place. Not very nice, is it? And, when you read the Old Testament, god is actually 'not very nice' at all. Certainly not any kind of father I'd want for my children, and certainly not my idea of a 'Heavenly Father'. Makes me think there's a good reason why he's almost completely left out of the New Testament. There is, however, the 'get out of jail free card' in Isaiah that god can use anytime. -
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version 7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
I agree with you on Orginal sin - but my vote for the worst theology is Substitutional Atonement vs the victory of Christ over sin and death. Secondly is dualistic “I-thou” conceptualization of God and us vs our unitive nature with God “I-I” - “kingdom of heaven is within you” / branch of the vine/ “may they be one just as you and I are one” Yahweh translates in Aramaic as “I am that” Be still In peace.
Substitution has some elements I find helpful but penal substitution is a menace.
Hi there, I’d like to leave this here for your consideration about penal substitution: czcams.com/video/LLsWFKZo5Nw/video.html
@commons church
I get a new perspective from common church about original sin. It indeed makes sense and show God's justice.
But as far as I know, the majority say that Jesus was crucified to atone for people's sins (Adam's sin).
With your new perspective, do you still use the same doctrine that Jesus was crucified to atone for people's sins? ..or do you have different opinion about why Jesus was sent?
Thanks for your response
@@cattleyaaida1809 I think that’s a great question and a very valid one because what would be the point of Jesus coming then? I hope he respond because I would like to know as well.
@@ohwow4377
He already responded to my question in another comment section.
I'll tell you later
Thank you for your explanation. I believe that god had given us all agency and we because of our agency choose weather or not we will follow Jesus Christ and accept him as our savior. Original sin never made sense to me because I felt like it took away our agency. Jesus had agency whether he was going to fulfill all righteousness and to fulfill his atonement on the cross for us. If we don’t chose to follow Christ than we have chosen to follow Satan.
Thank you for watching. I have no problem stating, along with Paul, that all have sinned. But that's not the same as saying we are all guilty before we have sinned.
Augustine found one little word and created a major foundational doctrine…. So then if something is built on a weak foundation it should be rejected before it collapses.
Yep
No one is born guilty or sinful because we have to reach an age of understanding before we become guilty or sinful.
But that's not what the doctrine of original sin teaches.
@@commonschurch says: *But that's not what the doctrine of original sin teaches.*
Do children below the age of understanding go to hell if or when they die?
No...they don't, so they must NOT be guilty or sinful at birth because if they were then they would end up in hell, right?
Perhaps you should view the doctrine of original sin from the correct and proper perspective instead of from your own perspective.
The doctrine of original sin makes us guilty or sinful after we reach the age of understanding NOT before it.
Unfortunately, that is not the doctrine of original sin. At all. "Original Sin is the Christian teaching of mankind’s sinfulness because of Adam’s fall. It [refers] to mankind’s moral and spiritual condition because of that sin." www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/original-sin/
In fact, to suggest that humans are only influenced by Adam's sin and therefore fall into sin later in life is what Pelagian taught. That was ruled a heresy in the 4th century.
Many have posited the idea that there is an age of accountability after which a baby will be help accountable for sin (including the affects of original sin) and that is sometimes framed as the question of original guilt, but that has never had a consistent answer and many church traditions still disagree about it.
@@commonschurch Children below the age of understanding do NOT end up in hell if they die.
If they did then that would make God to be an evil monster and he is NOT an evil monster.
I agree. Completely.
But that is what Original Sin teaches 🤷♂️
“Original sin is the state of alienation from God into which all humans are born.” Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, s.v. “original sin, original righteousness (justice),” 87.
In fact it was “Augustine’s doctrine of original sin [that created] the necessity of baptism immediately subsequent upon birth.” C. O. Buchanan, New Dictionary of Theology, s.v. “Confirmation.,” 157.
“The insistence that, because all sinned ‘in Adam’ (on which Augustine appealed to a mistaken reading of Rom. 5:12), all are bound by the penalties for that sin-spiritual death, guilt and the diseased disordering of human nature; ‘concupiscence’, from which no sexual acts of fallen humanity are free (even within Christian marriage), as the locus of transmission of original sin from parents to children; the impossibility of even ‘the beginning of faith’ without the gift of prevenient grace by whose power ‘the will is prepared’ to turn to God; the restriction of this grace to the baptized, so that infants dying unbaptized are condemned to hell.” D. F. Wright, New Dictionary of Theology, s.v. “Augustine,” 59.
some of what you said gave me some insight thanks
🙏 thanks for watching
FWIW the Orthodox Christian perspective is that we do not share guilt for original sin, and death is not punishment, rather, that sin caused the fall of the Cosmos resulting in human's being handicapped in their spiritual senses (though not depraved) and bound to mortality with no path out of death.
Jesus didn't die in our place as guilty people, but he entered our place in death and drilled a hole, a passover back to life, and restored fallen human nature with Baptism.
Great summary. Thx
Augustine WAS wrong. He was working from a decade of gnosticism and a bad translation of Romans 5:12. Τhe Vulgate departs substantially in it's translation of the preposition επι as it reads: "in quo omnes peccaverunt" in WHOM all have sinned vs εφ ω παντεσ ημαρτον" upon all who have sinned"..
Yep
What we have learned from this video is that a lot of people think the doctrine of original sin is that idea that “all human beings sin.”
That is not original sin. Original sin is the idea that we are held guilty for Adam’s sin.
It’s more like we are born corrupted because of Adam’s sin.
@@BachBeethovenBerg yep. That’s what the Eastern Orthodox concept of ancestral sin is all about.
Sorry I’m new here, are you Orthodox? I find that I disagree far less with Orthodox than I do with Catholicism or Protestantism.
I am not a Catholic and I don’t call myself a Protestant because I don’t build my identity on what I protest regarding the Catholic Church. I also do not belong to any denomination.
I like that posture. I also don’t love the identifier Protestant because I don’t feel like I am protesting either of the more ancient traditions. That said, since I don’t have an apostolic tradition tracing back through either lineage, I am (like it or not) a Protestant :)
That said, I do read a lot of Orthodox (and Catholic) writers and we influenced greatly by Orthodox thought at Commons, particularly on topics like Original Sin or Theosis.
Romans 5:18-19
New King James Version
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Those are definitely verses. Are you suggesting they agree are disagree with the thesis of the video?
I enjoy the enthusiasm however because your speed of talking had it hard to keep up. 😕 great topic !
I do talk fast 💨 😅
You can always change the playback speed to whatever is comfortable for you.
I really really love this channel, blessings!
Thanks 🙏
Adams sin caused the 1st. death as explained in Hebrew, along with the law. Also, we are told to be perfect as Christ is perfect and be holy as your father is holy if we absolutely could never be as that sets us up for failure. I do not give into sin becauae of Adam as I am respinsible for my sin, not Adam.
What about hypocrisy because people keep saying that if you don’t believe in the stuff they believe then it’s a sin to twist words and we make thim the hypocrite
Original sin contadic with bible verse that everyone responsible their own sin, it's going to another problem to fix the problem leads to : it's contradictory to jesus died means: its (Human sacrifice) or its becoming error if jesus are god then its become god sacrifice (god are immortal : all living/never die) . Another confusion: why jesus doing babtism if jesus are sinless? Why if jesus already sacrificed himself (ultimate sin payment)for humanity then why in bible book act James told : paul and others people still doing animals sacrifice to redeem their mistake?
So is man born good? And if so why do babies die? When they are not culpable of sin yet? Why does Paul say the evil within me? Or the sting of sin will be overcomed at the resurrection?
Are you saying babies got to hell? Because if not, then, they’re not culpable for sin. They are, however, impacted by the effects of sin, which, in theological terms, is why we die, and why we ALL sin throughout the course of our lives. but that’s not original sin.
@commonschurch no that's not what I'm saying, but we must make a distinction between the effects of sin and sinful nature and the age of accountability. But are you saying man is born good? There I'd a difference.
You're not describing original sin, you're describing ancestral sin.
Original sin says you are culpable for Adam's, and the very fact that you are talking about an age of accountablity means you do not believe in culpability for Adam's sin. That's precisely why the Catholic church believes in infant baptism because babies need to be saved from Adam's sin but you don't believe that or you wouldn't bring up an age of accountability.
You are talking about the impact of Adam's sin. Which means humans die. Which means all humans fall into sin. That is what the Orthodox church teaches, and it's called Ancestral sin.
@commonschurch
I believe you are mistaken, Reformers had this disagreement and that's the danger that I point too, if you don't want to call it original sin its fine because I understand what Augustin believed in but it is not what the Orthodox church believes in,the Orthodox church believes that a person is born good.
So you believe people are born bad but it doesn’t matter until they are some particular age?
The Orthodox Church teaches that people are born into a sinful world and corrupted. The Orthodox rejects Augustine’s formulation. So do you, it seems. So no one here holds to original sin.
No one, including the Jews, believed in Original sin until Augustine.
Awesome video!
Thanks!
So what you're saying that if Adam and Eve did not sin his children would somehow still sin? Is that your theology now. Proove it then from scriptures that without the fallen world KOSMOS God's creation would still sin, how is that without the knowledge of Good and Evil tree???
What you’re describing is not original sin. You’re describing ancestral sin 🤷♂️
Okay, you correctly identify that Jerome's translation of the Greek to Latin is flawed in Romans 5:12 but look at Romans 5:19.
Rom. 5:19 - For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
This is even stronger support for a notion of "Original Sin" in that it comes out and says that Adam's disobedience is the reason that we are all sinners. But, I believe, the theology is put forward in order to emphasize how Christ's singular obedience is what makes the sinner righteous (i.e. just or justified).
That said, however, you can't ignore the fact that it does say, "Adam's disobedience makes us sinners". The doctrine violates the established theology of, "The soul that sinneth it shall die", put forth by Ezekiel, to wit:
Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Romans 5:19 is in conflict with that theology on its face and must be massaged in order for it not to break canon. This is where we go to work to make the bible say what we need it to say. It's deceptive but in some cases, it needs to be done because we can't have both of these things be true. We need to make it work.
So, we justify the nullification of the first part of that verse to focus on the latter half - that Jesus' obedience makes us righteous. We can all get behind the last part. So how do we reconcile the first part?
We are all of the family of Adam. Adam's last name is "Sinner Boy" and so we're all from that same family. Although you'll never find those exact words in the bible, the concept is there and it also exists within the context of Romans 5. Adam sinned and so, guess what, we're all part of that same family. But we are not guilty of HIS sin - God knows, we have enough of our own to worry about.
So, we're CALLED sinners because of Adam's family heritage but the sin that we're held accountable for is whatever sin we happen to be personally addicted to. Enter Jesus...
Jesus scrubs all that and we are now of the family of Jesus, the Son of God. Our last name changes from "Sinner Boy" to "The Righteousness of God". And this theology is detailed in the previous chapter, Romans 4.
So, while Catholicism can use a verse like Romans 5:19 to put forward this unbiblical notion of "Original Sin", the whole theology of that doctrine does violence to the rest of the canon. It does not take into account Ezekiel's doctrine of "The soul that sinneth..."
I think this is what Peter was talking about when he said that some of Paul's teachings were sometimes hard to be understood. I took a year one year to read Romans and when I was through, I read it again and again. Romans is a great book and most people have never done the leg work. This is why you get screwball preachers teaching the kind of bunk we hear from most pulpits.
Both original sin and ancestral hold that “many” (actually all) were made sinners by Adam. Original sin holds that all are condemned before they were sinners though. Ancestral sin, says that they are held responsible for their sins which they commit because the sin of Adam has corrupted the world.
People are over thinking this topic.
Humans are not born sinful, but they will commit sin as it is human nature.
“for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”
The verse does not read we where all born short of the glory of God.
It’s not until we sin we fall short. If it was the case we are born short of glory, would Christ not have been born in sin?
It is not till we are 4, 5, 6 year old or whatever age it may be; younger or older and we know it is wrong to steal or lie. That is when we fall short. That is when we lose our innocence.
If sin is human nature and no one can not act against theor own nature then everyone is born a sinner. That is just plain logic!
Maybe this is the understanding of various non Catholic churches on the doctrine of original sin, but the way this video describes this doctrine is definitely not Catholic. Imma attempt to give the RCC understanding. Come Holy Spirit.
The term "original sin" refers to the betrayal, the actual sin that Adam and Eve committed in the garden by rejecting God. This one is pretty clear.
The term "original sin", the doctrine, is not referring to the actual sin that Adam committed. This doctrine refers to the "lost grace of original holiness" that all humans, descendants of Adam, experience as a result of the "actual sin" that Adam committed. So here, the doctrine, the term "original sin" is only use in a referral, analogical sense.
This "grace of original holiness" was immerse. Adam and Eve talked to God, walked with God, high intellect, eternal life, virtuous, high resistance against temptations.... that very intimate union with God.
So when Adam lost this, imma call it "original grace" due to his actual sin, he cannot pass it on to this descendants. You can't give what you don't have. So when the RCC teaches that all humans are born with "original sin", the Church really meant to say that all humans are born without this "original grace", this "intimate union with God" that Adam and Eve had before the Fall.
An example would be something like, if a dad gambles away a very special family heirloom. This heirloom is now lost from the family forever, none of his children or descendants will get to possess this heirloom anymore. The lost is the "doctrine of original sin", not the actual sin of excessive gambling and/or lack of selfcontrol. And yes, this lost of grace is transmitted by generations, because humanity is a family with a common father and mother. The parents lost the heirloom permanently, this the children don't have it. (The video refers to St Augustine misreading some Greek text and his lack of biological understandings, yah, I don't think so.)
So babies are born with "original sin", the Catholic Church doesn't say that babies are sinful or dirty, nor have they committed any actual sin. What the Church says though is that they don't have the "grace of original holiness", that link, that connection to God.
Once we have this understanding of the doctrine of "original sin", we can see why baby baptism makes sense. The Sacrament of Baptism restores this link, this union, this lost grace to that baby. In baptism, back to the example, God gives the baby the precious family heirloom that his/her daddy lost. This is why we want to do this ASAP. Baby baptism in the Catholic sense, has nothing about washing away actual sins, or conversion of the intellect. It is God, giving/restoring His children precious precious lost gifts.
Once this link/grace is restored, with age, reason, teachings, learnings, by the grace of God, hopefully this baby remains faithful and follows God all through his/her life. Baptism is very very strong start.
Reading materials: CCC 396-412 can be found online.
Totus tuus.
Adult baptism, restores the grace/union with God and also washes away all actual sins that the adult person has committed throughout his/her life so far. We only need to restore this grace/link once, thus baptism is a one time deal. Any actual sins the adult person commits post baptism will need to be addressed with the sacrament of confession.
Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it. I realize I did mention the eastern church, but that was not intended as a counterpoint to the Roman Catholic Church as much as it was to protestant theologies. I must confess that my theological training (both undergraduate and graduate degrees) come from protestant institutions. That said I have spent a lot of time working with the writing of Girard, who was of course a Catholic theologian. Also, it is true that Augustine was working from a Latin translation and was not thoroughly fluent in Greek. I don’t mean that to be a slight on him.
A related but probably poorly understood topic is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The RCC teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM), by the grace of God, was preserved from "original sin", at the moment of her conception, she had that intimate union with God. In a sense, God made her "pre-fall". God restored the "heirloom" to the BVM from her conception in the womb of St Ann, whereas, the rest of us are restored at baptism.
This is why the BVM is such a spiritual powerhouse. She is highly virtuous, high intellect, high resistance against sins (RCC teaches that she remains sinless all her life), above all, she had a deep union with God, .....thus making her a fitting and suitable vessel to contain God Himself.
If this reminds us of the Ark in the OT, it should, that's one of her many titles. Just as the Ark was immaculately made, pure and special, fitting and suitable for God's law, bread, priesthood. How much more so is the new Ark.
CCC 490-494 can be found online
BVM could be a hang up for some, for a deeper look at her, see CCC 484-511.
Totus tuus
Thanks SO much 4 posting this explanation! It is something I had "felt" before but could never put into words. Although I do not believe in baby baptism, I LOVE ur explanation about the difference in a "loss of original grace" vs. being born with "original sin." Bravo 4 explaining that!
Farked up doctrine aside, I think it's actually a brilliant rhetorical move by Paul (at 2:40) to argue that just as sin and death entered the world through one man, so could through one man sin could be overcome. Makes me wish I had a classical education so I could be as persuasive.
He certainly had his moments 😎
Leviticus 12. It's a bit older than Augustine, and St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary (the *virgin* Mary) observed the 'time of her purification' even though Lev 12 literally didn't apply to them. However, "original sin" (human birth) has nothing to do with the heretical notion of "total depravity" - cf Noah, Daniel, and Job, as the Holy Spirit speaks through Ezekiel the prophet, or the 7000 who didn't bow the knee to Baal, as the Almighty told Elijah. God clearly is a fair and just God, understanding our pre-Baptism natures. #TestTheSpirits
The categories of clean/unclean and the purification rituals from Leviticus are not about sin. There is nothing sinful about giving birth.
Do you believe a baby needs Jesus? Or do you believe that every human being regardless of age needs Christ?
I believe everyone needs Jesus. Although, probably not in the way, you’re hoping. Because I believe that, reducing Jesus down to get out of jail free card for our sin, diminishes everything that Jesus offered us. We all need Jesus, regardless of age, because Jesus leads us into the life we were intended for, away from sin and toward God.
@@commonschurch Gotcha. I think for many it’s not really a “Get out of Jail” free card but rather, the Bible is clear that only through Christ can one be reunited with the father. Based on that, I am not sure how to reconcile what you are saying in regards to innocence of babies vs their need for Christ. Whether they live past 3 days or 3 million days, it’s clear that the need for Christ is still there, ther for innocence isn’t a luxury or inherent characteristic of anyone, according to scripture.
Original sin simply means we inherited the sinful nature, which is to say that flesh lusts after things of the flesh. We are definitely not being punished for Adams transgressions, although the mistakes of our parents do follow us in the sense that children sometimes have to endure the consequences of the sins of their parents. Parents who have not raised their children firmly in the ways of the Lord will produce (as a norm not a rule) children who are unable to discern what God requires of them. The Gospels focus is not on this sin, but on the salvation that comes from belief in the work of The Lord Jesus Christ on the cross. Despite our sin, whether intentional or unintentional, we have an intercessor in heaven - King Jesus. Lets pray to the Lord to exchange our hardened hearts for hearts of flesh and in doing so, quicken our sanctification
That is not original sin. What you are describing is much closer to the Eastern Orthodox concept of ancestral sin.
@@commonschurch do you perhaps have some reference material for me to read over or maybe the Bible verses that you used to develop your understanding. I am actually looking to understand whether Jesus inherited the proclivity for sin but avoided it through obedience. Not sure if this topic is relevant to what you are discussing though
In Catholic doctrine (and most Protestant denominations that follow original sin), original sin says that all humans inherit not only the proclivity to sin but also the penalty of sin from Adam. That's why the doctrine of the immaculate conception was later developed. It claims that Mary was born free from sin so that Jesus could then be born unaffected by sin. Presumably this relates to both the proclivity as well as the penalty. Though Jesus is still tempted in Cathoilic thought.
In Eastern Orthodox doctrine, ancestral sin, also stemming from Adam, is the influence of sin on all of humanity, leading all humans to sin. The differnce is that the penalty comes from thier own sin, not from Adam's.
"maybe you always wondered 🤔why this makes sense..." Well, YES!!! ALWAYS have, yet NEVER made time to LOOK INTO OS😢 Until now. And I am scouring the YTs😊 Thanks for confirming some things I have suspected (doesn't add up...)AND others I have just learned (Augustine 😡)
I don’t think send means what you think it means
“Send” me a definition 🤷♂️
@@commonschurch 🤣
Okay, there are a few issues/problems with the position you are advocating.
Where is your analysis of the Greek to demonstrate that Augustine got this totally wrong? I have read a few different versions of interlinear Greek New Testaments and the interpretation that all sinned in Adam is consistent with the Greek. It says through one man sin entered the world, and through sin death also (passed to all men), for that all sinned (past tense).
The conclusion that it is the first sin of Adam that has condemned us all to death, and not the sins we commit in our lifetimes is confirmed in the following verses.
Verse 15 states that "by the ONE trespass, the many died." It does not say everyone will die due to their own sins, but that we DIED (again, past tense) because of that ONE sin.
Why does/would God allow us to suffer the consequences of Adam's sin if we were/are not judged to have been in Adam?
See now verse 19:
" For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
We were MADE sinners (our nature was corrupted) through the disobedience of Adam. That's what it says, like it or not.
If God does not view and treat humanity as being fallen in Adam and imputed with his sinfulness and guilt, how can the redeemed be viewed and treated as being redeemed in Christ are being imputed with his righteousness?
Why accept the concept and the benefits of collective redemption and imputation of Christ's righteousness if you reject that humanity was judged to be in Adam and suffering the consequences of his rebellion?
Paul is comparing and contrasting the collective ruin we suffered in Adam with the collective redemption that is in Christ.
Why didn't the majority of church leaders reject Augustine's interpretation and vigorously challenge him on it if he was introducing a radical new perspective not taught before?
I'm aware of the current Orthodox position but they exalt tradition over scripture, and change their traditions over time and claim many teachings to be apostolic that are anything but.
The Western church embraced Augustine's teachings and rejected Pelagius teachings, which you are much closer to, because of the teachings of scripture.
Here is a quote from Justin Martyr to show what he believed regarding where sin comes from, and how much it corrupts and weakens us.
"“Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; that ‘we are born sinners;’ and that we are entirely flesh, and no good thing dwells in us; he asserts the weakness and disability of men either to understand or perform spiritual things, and denies that man, by the natural sharpness of his wit, can attain to the knowledge of divine things, or by any innate power in him save himself, and procure eternal life,” (Epist. ad Zenam, p. 506.).
Next up Tertullian.
"Satan is “the angel of wickedness, the artificer of every error, the interpolator of every age; by whom man from the beginning being circumvented, so as to transgress the commands of God, was therefore delivered unto death, hence he has also made the whole kind, or all mankind, which springs from his seed, infected, partaker of his damnation,” (Tertullian. de Testimon. Animae, c. 3, p. 82.).
The seed of sin/rebellion sown in man infected the whole plant of humanity which grew up out of Adam.
The concept of being born sinful is found in another well known text which most of us are familiar with.
Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was brought forth in iniquity; I was sinful when my mother conceived me."
The next verse says that God requires truth "in the inmost being." We need to be redeemed from the inside out. Our whole nature needs changing. We must be born again.
There are mysteries about the transmission of sin but rejecting the doctrine that we inherit a sinful nature is not biblical, although it is becoming increasingly popular to do so.
That all sinned “in adam” is not at all what the Greek implies. It says sin entered the world through Adam and therefore all have sinned. That’s why formulations of the impact of Adam’s sin like the ancestral sin articulated by the Eastern Orthodox Church that claims apostolic succession as tightly as the Roman Church existed before and after Augustine. Ps 51 is not talking a genetic passing of guilt (like original sin) but a sinful nature that results in sin. Which is why you get passages Ezekiel 18 clearly stating that we are not guilty for anyone’s sin but our own. We bear consequence for generational sin ie. Adam, racism, slavery etc. and sometimes have reparation to make to repair the damage caused by another, but not guilt the way Augustine thought.
It seems like a lot of people have confused the idea of a “sinful nature” or the fact that everybody will sin with Augustine’s original sin which is that we are judged guilty for Adam’s sin.
@@commonschurch Why should we even inherit a sinful nature or be "made sinners" ?
Why should we suffer ANY consequence of Adams sin if we do not share in the guilt of it?
Because sometimes choices have consequences for people beyond ourselves. In fact, almost all of my sin has consequences for others. That doesn’t mean the people affected by my mistakes are somehow guilty for them 🤷♂️
You don't have to teach a child to lie, cheat or steal. We have a hardwired sin nature that exists in every man, woman and child. We sin because that's all we know (before being regenerated and coming to faith and repentance) We have a natural inclination to sin. Romans 3:10-11 "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; none seeks for God." God requires us to be perfect, Holy and blameless to enter in the Kingdom of God. Psalm 51 is not talking about guilt it's talking about sin, transgressions against a Holy God. And Ezekiel 18 is God talking to the nation of Israel, Yes we are not guilty for our father's sins however it all derives from Adam. Adam was the first man created by God and He had a choice to obey God or sin and he sinned in eating the fruit by which he disobeyed God therefore sin entered the World and therefore all sin. Which is why we need Jesus. Total inability and depravity makes our need for Jesus so much greater. I am sorry but you are misinterpreting the passages and your hermeneutical process is flawed. Go back and really read those passages and seek wise counsel from other teachers who know the Bible more than you do. @@commonschurch
@@frankspeaks8731@frankspeaks8731, you are confusing the doctrine of original sin with the (equally appalling) doctrine of total depravity. They are related but not the same things.
Regardless if its inherited through Adam or not God still changed the world to allow sin which forces us to be born into sin. God could have ***NOT*** Changed the perfect world he created and only gave adam and eve an individual punishment instead of finding a way to punish the entire rest of mankind. Let's also remember that God could have created 2 more new humans as well while giving adam and eve their punishment. Let's also remember that god is all knowing and he knew adam and eve would eat the fruit so it's almost as if he wants us to sin then on the other hand punish us for it at the same time. How does this make sense? Also ask yourself what is the point of the test if you already know the outcome. Everything falls apart ironically from Genesis.
If you actually believe in two people eating apples in an ancient garden, I’d have to agree with you.
“The prophets” prophesied of the new covenant where God would take out that old stony sinful heart and give us a new heart and a new spirit. This is the new birth where believing in Christ takes out the old man of sin through the circumcision of the heart and make us new creations in Christ with his divine nature.
That is related to but not part of the doctrine of original sin. Original sin is the idea that you are held guilty because of Adam's sin. You are talking about your sin that needs to be healed.
*Beareded Guy:*
_"Hi Adam and Eve. Still don't know how to know right from wrong? Good. Just wanted to let you guys know that I, the omnipresent, omnipotent creator of the universe, am going to leave the two of you alone for a bit. Don't eat from that tree over there though. You know, the one that stands right in the middle of Eden. The one with the easily reachable, delicious fruit. You'll die otherwise. That's something bad. Oh right, you don't know the difference between good and bad either because I made you just that way. Eh, whatever. Goodbye for now. See ya."_
Good illustration for why this is obviously a mythical attempt to explain the entrance of sin into history and not a literal account.
You just totally blew it talking about social justice. Discredits everything you said prior, a lot of which was right on.
What type of justice is there that isn’t intertwined with society?
Perhaps the trouble with the phrase 'social justice' is it means different things to different people, hence we have politics and so called 'social justice' warriors whose ideologies can sometimes be quite scary. I enjoyed this clip btw.
That’s very true. Thanks for watching.
Ezekiel 18:20
The Hebrew Scruptures defintely do not carry a concept of original sin. That was introudced with (misinterpretations) of Paul.
0:34 It’s based on a bad translation of Latin from Greek
Yep. Augustine couldn’t read Greek.
4:43...Biff with his sheep Coffee cup. Love it
To God be the glory.
Is, what we are, and how we are, have anything to do with some guy's sin in the Garden? Are we really devalued by the idea? Is it really Augustine idea? Is it one single verse in Romans 5:12? Let's look at Ps 51;1 "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceive me." ie We are all born sinners. Ps 53:3/Romans 3:12 All have turned aside...no one does good, NOT EVEN one. So much for us being good. There is none good except God. (Mk 10) Our estimation and opinion of ourselves might not be God's. The first Adam introduced Death and SIN to all his offsprings. The Last Adam gave life and righteousness to ALL HIS. It's not genetic. Both are by IMPUTATIONS AS PAUL ARGUE IN ROMANS.
We are sinners not because we sin, we sin because we ARE sinners. (The fruit determines the tree). Born and shaped in it (sin). Not through genetics. You should look to see if the idea of original sin was taught before Augustine. Blessings
Thanks for watching.
Original sin does come from Augustine. It was never articulated or taught before him. That said, Origianl sin is NOT the idea that all people sin, that is explicit in Paul's writings and in Jesus' teachings. Original sin is the idea that we are held guilty BEFORE we sin.
Ps 51:1 is not talking about original sin and it is a not a passage Augustine apealled to in his construction.
"The passage is more commonly understood as a confession of the essential human condition of the speaker. 'One is a sinner simply as a result of one’s natural human descent' (W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 268). Closely related to this approach is what may be called the social view. “It is the tragedy of man that he is born into a world full of sin” (Weiser, 405; also A. A. Anderson, 395). No particular sinfulness of the mother or the process of conception is involved. The emphasis is on the sin of the speaker, who admits that sin has been “no freak event” (Kidner, 190), but goes back to the roots of personal existence (see Ps 58:3). Thus the psalm reflects acceptance of the understanding that human life always involves sin and guilt (see Gen 8:21; Job 14:4; 15:14-16; 25:4; Ps 143:2; John 3:6; Kraus, 544)."
Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, vol. 20 of Word Biblical Commentary. (Waco: Word Books, 1990), 19.
An intelligent designer would try to make sure nothing goes wrong.
God put a snake in the garden to make sure it did go wrong !
Even a 4 year old child could see that was a mistake.
A baby doesn't learn sin through imitation. He isn't aware or mindful enough to be able to do that. All the baby cares about is himself. So when push comes to shove the baby will commit sins of greed and selfishness that are inevitably not micmked by what it perceives, but come from within. And as a result, all of us have to be taught at some point that our naturally sinful nature is bad when told, "The World doesn't revolve around you, Bruno!" (or whatever your name might be).
Interestingly enough, Paul also introduces the fact that God imposed the sin curse (Original Sin) on all humanity in these verses:
"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God."
Romans 8:20-21
Babies learn everything through imitation. And your baby isn't selfish, it does't have the mental capacity to understand anything beyond immediate physical needs. That's not sinful, that's human development. For any parents that may be reading, please don't project bad theology onto helpless children.
@@commonschurch Well, I'm not here to argue just sharing some of my deep reflections on the matter. As such, I would only like to understand your position a little better and for myself to be understood as well.
What is your response to the verses I gave you from Romans 8? And what about the seed of the serpent that is continuously at war with the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15-16?
Thanks for the response. Those verses sound like they are describing the effects of sin on the world. Sin has corrupted creation, and that has consequences for all of us. That’s not the same thing a saying a baby is sinful because of what Adam did. That’s essentially the eastern doctrine of ancestral central sin.
@@commonschurch
Thank you for engaging in a polite discourse with me.
How do you think the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15) manifests into the world if not at conception and birth? Wouldn't that be a more reasonable conclusion since the text is already introducing the concept of biological reproduction for the first time ever?
Jesus was born by the seed of the woman and not by the seed of the serpent. Consequently, the seed of sin must be passed down by a corrupted seed. And if we compare a woman's womb to that of a plant incubator we know that the incubator has no effect on the plant other than providing the seed warmth for it to germinate. Therefore, if a bad seed is planted in the incubator it will bring forth a bad tree, but if you plant a good seed the incubator will help bring forth a tree free of any corruption.
So, you’re describing Agustine’s theory. The idea that sin is a biological reality that can be passed down. However, I don’t know of any modern theologians that frame original sin this way anymore.
It seems easier to me to just understand that sin has affected the world, and the environment we are born into, and, therefore us.
10:59 amen!
All original sin means is that we are born sinners/fallen. This does not mean we take the sins of adam or our father, but only we are naturally evil. When a baby dies they will go to heaven because they have not sinned. But those who have sinned and did not place their faith in Jesus Christ will die in their sins and go to hell.
Unfortunately, that is not the doctrine of original sin.
3:36
What is wrong with viewing the original sin event in the Garden of Eden as an orientation session; much like how the original drunk drivers oriented society to the lack of driving safely through the weakness of alcohol? The original drunk drivers caused prejudice and judgement against future drunk drivers, but the original drunk drivers did nit CAUSE the future problems of drunk driving. People mistakenly blame Adam for their sins, but this is like blaming the safety endangerment of today's drunk drivers on the original drunk drivers. Eve (Adam's flesh) was enticed by the lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh, and the pride of life BEFORE she and Adam transgressed God's commandment. The forbidden fruit corresponded to the law, and St. Paul imitated Adam's sin, as documented in Romans 7. There is no such thing as inheriting original sin, just as there is no such thing as inheriting original drunk driving.
Bad example. Here is a better one. Now the teacher tell the student don't get close to the uranium element in the Lab, or you will die😅. But his girlfriend listen to a rumor by selling it to another country they will become rich and famous. So they both end up expelled from the school for stealing. And they both end up with cancer. And even worst now their offspring have cancer gene. Question 😅
Fyi. GOD only commanded
ADAM not to eat the fruit.
The lesson here is Human have the free will but yet sin make them make the bad choice.
Prov 1:7: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
I was a protestant believer b4. Original sin bothered me a lot. When u study Catholicism, & Orthodox Christians teach on Original sin. Its completely diff from the protestants theology. the Apostolic churches have more of a biblical & a historical teachings.
The way protestants teach on original sin is found nowhere in church history. As in did the church has a whole have this dogma. None will find it nowhere in church history as a dogma...
Protestant theology on this is generally (because Protestants are all over the place) in line with Catholic teaching. But Orthodox have a very different and, I would argue, much healthier concept.
@@commonschurch yeah ur right a lot of protestants are all over the place when it comes to a lot of teaching about salvation. Baptism born again, OSAS, speaking in tongues etc etc..
But Ik Catholics & Orthodoxs have a few diff teachings, especially with the filioque. But they are very close to each other...
But what did u mean that they have a diff teachings on Original sin. And I'm asking honestly not trying to be a troll here and debate. I know I will always learn more every single day...
But u are saying that they have a diff teachings on original sin from the Catholics?
The Eastern Orthodox Church has a different concept called Ancestral sin.
@@commonschurch ok thanks for giving me the name of it to.
I'll have to go do more research on this subject. I always love to learn more N more.
Even thou im going to start my RCIA/OCIA classes to join Catholicism. I still would love to kno the difference in EO teaching on this. So I appreciate it...
Thank u God bless
@@onlylove556 Orthodox church beielevs that when Adam sinned his decendece gained ability to sin
11:05 Fully cried at the end of this video. Context: I grew up in a quasi-legalistic Pentecostal church that dangled hell in everyone’s face as means of keeping church discipline (and I can sort of understand that for adults), and bcuz of that I lived in fear everyday for my mistakes and bad habits as a child. Hearing that I am NOT condemned from birth, and that Yahweh wants to address my mistakes and bad habits I gathered from living in a broken world-heals apart of me. Thank you so much ❤
Thank you so much for sharing that. Grace and peace 🙏
Of course it was passed down adam felt shame in being naked as soon as he sinned. and all of humanity feels that shame now.
That’s not what original sin is about.
@@commonschurch Its about the fall of Adam and Eve from Eden. So if there was no original sin wouldnt we all be living in paradise?
@@The_D_Man that's not what it's about. That would be the consequence of Adam's sin. Original sin is about the guilt of Adam being passed down to all humans who are therefore guilty at birth.
@@commonschurch Ephesians 2:1-3 states that we are all the children of wrath
Yep. And the question is whether that comes from Adam's mistake
"Paul adds that we are children of wrath “by nature.” This noun does not in itself suggest wickedness, and there is no reason to assume Paul hints at Adam’s sin. He uses it to speak of gentile idolatry and ignorance (Rom 1:18-32), as well as the natural order (Rom 1:26; 1 Cor 11:14) or birth (Gal 2:15). Perhaps Paul implies a comparison with the metaphor of adoption in Eph 1:5, differentiating the unregenerate who by birth are part of the human race from those adopted children of God."
Lynn H. Cohick, The Letter to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2020), 148.
There is no doubt the idea of original sin is a nonsense! But the idea we make mistakes is also false! It goes against the scriptures. Sin is the breaking of the law! This makes the sinner a rebel against the authority! This is another contradiction!
The fall of man.
The constellation, or group of Stars, represented as the imaginary outline of a Serpent rising in the east, and followed by the woman, whom he may therefore, in the most literal sense, be said to seduce, to lead on, as the woman with extended hand, holding a branch of fruit in her hand, is said to seduce, or lead on her husband, the celestial herdsman, Bootes: till, at the moment when the Virgin and the Herdsman, having run after the Devil through the whole garden, are seen to set on the western horizon, which is literally the fall of man; and at the moment of their setting on the western side, the constellation Perseus, the cherubim with the flaming sword, will be seen to rise on the opposite side (the east of the garden of Eden), and so to drive them out, with his flaming sword, which turned every- way to keep the way of the tree of life (mid-summer where we find the two asses in Cancer aka Jerusalem as the summer solstice).
Muslims do not believe in the concept of original sin as it is understood in Christianity. In Islam, Adam and Eve are considered to be the first human beings and are believed to have been forgiven by God after they repented for their mistake in eating the forbidden fruit. Muslims do not inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, as each person is responsible for their own actions and is born free of sin.
Regarding the belief that Jesus is God in flesh, Muslims do not accept this concept because it contradicts the fundamental Islamic belief in the oneness of God (Tawhid). In Islam, God is considered to be unique, indivisible, and transcendent, and the idea of God taking on human form is seen as incompatible with the concept of God's absolute transcendence. Muslims believe that Jesus (known as Isa in Arabic) was a human prophet and messenger of God, born of the Virgin Mary, but not divine himself.
The Islamic perspective on Jesus is outlined in the Quran, which presents him as a highly revered prophet and a servant of God, but not as divine. This understanding is a central tenet of Islamic faith and is rooted in the belief in the absolute oneness of God.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secret text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim [ line of ismail ]
Considering Jesus fed fish to thousands of people I think it's safe to say Jesus was not vegetarian lol
@@jncon8013 Okay i may be wrong about him being vegetarian but i'm 100% right about the trinity, atonement, original sin & hell
@@theguyver4934 false
tbh the idea of some first human's guilt being passed on always sounded ridiculous. why would someone ancestor's sin make me a sinner or guilt make me guilty? if i break my leg and then make a baby, will my baby get born with a broken leg?
the word adam just means human being. i see the story of adam as a picture of every human being. our natural tendency is to act in self-interest, just like adam acted on the opportunity to become like God. the reason in adam all are sinners, die, etc. is because adam is every one of us. his story describes human nature, ignoring God, seizing the opportunity to get what we can for ourselves, believing any lie if it makes us feel good.
Great points! Makes a lot of sense. I think there are things we pass on, though, which can be just as congenital and hereditary as certain diseases. I think of racism, abuse, neuroses, etc. Those "sins" we inherit from generations before us. The child who is sexually abused and grows up to sexually abuse others-- that child didn't do anything wrong, but was caught up in the awfulness of generations. So maybe original sin, in this sense, consists of victims creating victims ad infinitum, until grace somehow breaks the cycle or we are somehow set free.
@@mattmahler9756 while that happens, the story of adam indicates that the source of the problem is adam himself. he didn't have an earlier generation to imitate.
when faced with an opportunity, he did what he figured was in his best personal interest and seized it without thinking about it rationally. That's pretty typical of human nature.
@@MusicalRaichu Oh okay, so the point you're making is that our intrinsic "human nature" is selfish personal interest and irrationality, that this isn't inherited but is instead inherent, and that even if there was no one to inherit it from (i.e. even if one was the first human) it would still be built into our operating system? Thanks!
God by divine omniscience knew that we will act like Adam if we were in the shoes of Adam...So all of us are condemned together with Adam....Another possible explanation is, God may have created Many Worlds and Multiverses, where Each one of us played the Role of Adam, and all of Us failed....So All of us are condemned together with Adam...
@@reacttime425 Rather than fanciful ideas about multiverses, it's simpler to understand the story as being about intrinsic human behaviour. Adam just means human being and thus represents everyone.
Jesus said to become like him. But instead, we put him on a pedestal with the thought that we could never come close to being that divine. So because of this view point our guilt becomes our virtue.
You might be on to something there :)
Jesus is the God of the universe and the ultimate source of good. He deserves our worship; He belongs on a pedestal.
Even in the coming kingdom, the saved who are made holy bow down and worship Christ. He is more divine than we can hope to be.
If someone burdens themselves with guilt over this, then they have missed the purpose of Jesus' instruction. We are not meant to become like Jesus in the sense that we stand with Him on His pedestal as equals. We are to strive to be like Him because we love Him, and He is good, so we should strive to be good. We can never be as good as Christ, for He is the ultimate source of good, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to be more good than we are.
Jesus said to treat others the way you'd want to be treated, and then a bunch of drunks added a bunch of extra stuff to the book.
If no one is born guilty then why do we suffer or why does God punish us with suffering and death? If an infant dies then when did the infant sin? If the infant is not guilty then why did the infant die? Why is he punished if he is not guilty? Also how can our sin be imputed on Jesus and thus he paid the price for our sin but we do not have sin through Adam? What about a sin nature or that we have a desire for sin? If we are not guilty then why do we have that? Or do not believe that all mankind has a sin nature (except Jesus)? Oh and either reading one fair interpretation is that all have a sin nature and our born guilty.
So when Romans 3 says all are sinful and no one seeks after God or even has a fear of God in their eyes. What does that mean? Also I think you mischaracterize Augustinians when you spoke about Habakuk. Augustinians like Martin Luther was believe in a gracious and merciful God. They just do not think we can become good on our own. We need the grace from God. I also think you have a misunderstanding of what they would say about creating good in the world (Isaiah passage). They would say we cannot do it alone. Alone we can do nothing and any goodness is like filthy rags. It is only God and his grace that helps us do good. But we can do some good with God's grace. It is not much in comparison to God but he uses us as instruments of his peace and goodness to others.
Everyone is guilty… of their own sin, not Adam’s. Everyone suffers because of the effects of sin on the world starting with Adam.
@@commonschurch but if a person has not sinned, like an infant, then why do they suffer?
The most straightforward answer would be because other people sin and sin impacts everyone, certainly more straightforward than they suffer because they being held guilty for some guys sin a long long time ago. Think of it this way, if I poison the water in town, it will hurt a lot of people but it’s not because they are held guilty for my sin. Sin is destructive.
@@commonschurch then what about our own sin nature? That would not work for that. But it still does not help much. Why would God allow other people’s sin to affect a person who is not guilty. Jesus took on our sins willingly. The infant would not have that choice. Thus, in the end you are saying God punishes someone who is not guilty just because others are guilty?
@@commonschurch please answer my question. Whether PSA is correct or not is a side matter.
My goodness what a complete destruction of the gospel. We aren't by nature children of wrath, you'd posit, not dead in trespasses and sins and among those of whom it is said there are none righteous, no not one; indeed we are by contrast mostly good, just merely confused by the structure and social constructions around us; themselves merely the product of one single Augustinian mistranslation.
You might read Ambrose in 'Jacob and the Happy Life'; that Ambrose who came before Augustine and whom the latter regarded as mentor; that same Ambrose who spoke on the Apostolic inheritance of, and at length on, not only justification of all men by Christ through faith, but the new freedom in that faith from the slavery in which we were born, enabling us to live to God for the very transformative good you would advocate we do. He speaks at length and repeatedly on the concupiscence inherited from Adam, which remains sin and is not merely the product of "mistakes", but their cause; itself sin made manifest by the word of Law.
Gonna be honest, it’s odd to me that you think the gospel is original sin and not salvation in Christ 🤷♂️
@@commonschurch I didn't say that the gospel is original sin. Yet I can understand why you might draw that inference from the rest of the first paragraph.
One must understand the nature of depravity to understand the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins in Christ. The entire Reformation, once it got past the relative trifles of indulgences and the like, centered on the free and unmerited forgiveness of sins, given through faith in Christ and alone for His sake, which is itself a gift of grace; but it finds its beginning in the NEED for Christ. Rome claimed not to be Pelagian, yet formulated a doctrine where faith was merely a start, with which the will with various infused graces cooperated (sound familiar?) and then MAYBE obtained salvation by a life of love and good works.
We are reconciled to God by the shed blood of Christ, and nothing other. This is received through faith and reckoned as righteous by nothing other. If we do not understand the deadness of our nature inherited from Adam, we bury Christ and merely append him to those portions of our lives that are "mistakes". Almost worse, is those portions of our lives where we do NOT make a mistake in your terminology, they DO NOT require Christ at all, since they're not, well, mistakes. You are free to disagree it goes without saying, but this gospel of the free and complete forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake alone ENABLES one to live the life you'd advocate, freed from the Law and its just desserts for transgression. Peace be with you.
"One must understand the nature of depravity to understand the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins in Christ."
I'm not convinced that's true at all. I think you can absolutely trust yourself completely to God without any intellectual ascent to weird theological ideas like total depravity. Also, even though I am a protestant, I remain unconvinced that the reformation was when Christianity finally got it right.
@@commonschurch ok?
We know that's not true, just look at the book of Kings.
Huh
Yes we are made to do social good deeds but empowered in the Holy Spirit and not in the zeitgeist which many church denominations imo fail to clearly discern. You often hear protestant Christians say God spoke to me & told me to do.... Rarely if ever do you hear that said by other Christians except for canonised saints or false mystics. If I went in my Catholic Church & said to the priest God spoke to me... I know I'm in for one long disconcerting struggle to be taken seriously.
Encourage biblical devotion to the Holy Spirit. Let Him do the work of the workers in us. Our biggest problem is our biblical diversity. What does Christ say will happen when we are one? That the world will believe ! The Holy Spirit is the answer to all our gaping wounds. Let Him sift us. Otherwise we are the impotent trying to heal the barren in the name of the sanitised.
ooof, I'm not an original sin guy, but I'm not a critical theory guy either.
Original sin is heresy
I only listened to a couple of minutes of this false teacher. If you don't believe in original sin, sir, you don't know God at all. You will stand before Him one day and give an account of all the people you have led astray.
Wait, do you think original sin is a salvation issue? Also, did you like your own comment?
My dear friends if there is no JESUS CHRIST we stand no where no hope, no forgiveness, no salvation, no eternity. Jesus is the fulfilment of GOD. 🙏Amen
Where are you getting the idea that there is no Jesus Christ from this video?
@commonschurch Honestly, I like your interpretation of Isaiah as well as original sin. For this reason I think your message will offend many Christians. You are preaching responsibility for your own actions and striving to be better and make a better world. You are practically a Noahide. These are Jewish ideals that destroy the need for vicarious atonement, because you can do it.
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
Once again, somebody blames the doctrine of original sin on Augustine's mistake. Original sin is actually taught in scripture clearly. I've created a video on this: czcams.com/video/t2GWFm9WIFA/video.html
If it was taught in scripture, no one; for thousands of years noticed it before Augustine.
@@commonschurch That's not true. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose and Hillary of Poitiers taught various parts of Original Sin but Augustine brought them all together.
If we look at other doctrines such as the Canon of Scripture or the Trinity, those took a while to come together. It is not surprising that this did as well.
Finally, we are to follow scripture as the final authority, not the teaching of men.
You make a good point about the Canon and Trinity taking time to come together. At the same time acknowledging that seems to suggest that the concept of Scripture itself is something that we had to developed over time. Perhaps the line between that final authority and the teachings of men is slipperier than we like to admit. After all you suggest it took Clement, Tertullian, Cypriot, Ambrose and Hillary teaching various parts of an idea that Augustine assembled to get to the extra doctrine of Original sin.
@@commonschurch We avoid complete relativity by acknowledging that the Holy Spirit superintends the process so that what is true comes out
Unfortunately that doesn’t actually avoid the problem, it just slaps a label over the whole process and says we can ignore it.
Muslims reject Original Sin. All people are born sinless and are inately believing in one god. Please read the Quran it answers all the questions/doubts one may have in Christianity. In Islam Jesus is the Prophet of Allah, not divine (in Aramaic, Jesus (Isho)used the word Allah).
Quran-
O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit created by a command from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!-for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs. [Surah An-Nisa; 4:171]
Thanks. God bless.
Always thought I believed in “total depravity” until I realized what was actually being taught. Yes this one misinterpreted verse from Rom. 5 has misguided generations thanks to Augustine.
This does make more sense to me
It’s exactly what the Bible teaches.
The Doctrine of original sin is true and has great biblical basis.
Through adam's sin, death has become the ultimate reality.
All of us will die.
Therefore original sin ( death ) is still with us today.
Original sin IS death. There is no escaping original sin today.
Adam is guilty of disobeying God.
Adam and Eve blamed one another because of their guilt.
Today we see people blaming one another when they get caught doing the wrong thing.
This is still original sin. All mankind are guilty before God.
All mankind are sinners.
People judge each other's sin and excuse themselves of any wrong.
To say that original sin is no longer relevant for today, when every human being practises it,
is a grave mistake.
Your theology is based upon Pelagianism.
Big Big mistake.
You’re not describing original sin 🤷♂️
Isn't it an absolutely amazing coincidence that someone asked him the exact question he wanted to talk about?! i.e. no one asked him that complicated question at all. But he didn't want to present this topic as a monologue of his own thoughts. He wanted to present it as though another person sees him as an authority on theological issues and seeks his knowledge.
You’d be surprised at how many comments/questions we get with more than 5000 subscribers ;)
@@commonschurch well, I've made a comment on the fact that you are trying to create authority for yourself. But here are a couple of questions too. Is Jesus Christ divine? Why was it necessary for Him to be sacrificed and then be raised again from the dead by God the Father?
Despite what a lot of people think, or what a lot of social media gurus will tell you, you can’t create authority for yourself. Meaningful authority is only earned in relationship.
As for your questions, the divinity of Christ is a core Christian concept. And the at one ment of humanity and God through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is likewise, although there are many ways Christians have historically talked about this. Funny enough we have been asked those questions before and we have videos here czcams.com/video/NT3s0IVItXA/video.html and here czcams.com/video/fq6A2k6W8Kk/video.html you can check out. Grace and peace.
@@commonschurchyour ideas have a very hippy 'at one with the universe' feel about them. But that is Buddhism. May be in fact you are just stretching the idea of universalism. Which is the only place left to go if you drop the doctrine of original sin.
It’s possible you’re confusing the specific doctrine of “original sin” with the Christian idea that all have sinned and fallen short of God.
A bad translation of one verse of Scripture? No, doctrines are not built on just one verse. The whole Bible supports the doctrine of Original Sin.
Can you explain the doctrine of original sin?
@@commonschurch
Yes, I can explain it using Scripture only, are you interested?
Apologies. I didn’t intend for that to come across as a test. I’m just wondering if we’re talking about the same thing when we say “original sin.”
Paul is pretty clear that all people without exception have sinned. And that sin originally entered the world through Adam causing all following people to fall into sin. You could even say that we are born sinful. That’s the basis for the orthodox doctrine of ancestral sin.
The Roman doctrine of original sin comes from Augustine’s reading of a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 that said all sinned “in him” which Augustine took to mean Adam. It holds that all people since Adam are guilty not because they happen to sin but because Adam sinned. It’s why many churches require that babies be baptized as quickly as possible because they are held guilty for Adam’s sin.
Many Protestant’s hold to Paul’s idea that all sin. And that the Adam narrative introduces sin and its consequence/effect into the world. They will agree that humans are born sinful. But they don’t actually believe that humans are held guilty for the sin of Adam because they don’t believe babies go to hell if they have not been “saved.”
@@commonschurch
Whether one calls it original sin or ancestral sin makes no difference to me, since both definitions are virtually the same. Original Sin, by that name, may be attributed to Augustine, but it certainly wasn't him who first spoke about the inheritance of the sin of Adam, since it had always been the teaching of the Church.
The reason we have physical death is due to Adam's rebellion and sin (the original sin against God by man), and since babies die also, this confirms that they too are born in sin, original sin. Human beings do not die because of a "sin nature", but sin itself. Many people believe infants are perfectly innocent, but this isn't the case. Truthfully, we are born into this world defective in terms of our relationship with God, and this is due to Adam's sin. Baptism removes original sin, (for infants) and original and personal sin for adults, infuses sanctifying grace in the soul, welcomes them into the community of Christ, and restores the fellowship with God that Adam lost.
If you believe that babies are born guilty and condemned for Adam's sin then that is indeed original sin.
"Original sin" and "ancestral sin" are two different doctrines from two different church traditions though.
And for reference the church hadn't been around all that long before Augustine :)
Dude...ur way 2 young to be this damn wisr. Love your teaching!!! Keep spanking MacArthur n the like
And with one stroke, we have no more need of the cross.
1:30 "We are born sinful, already guilty, already rejected by God, and till we somehow make amends..."
The cross is not God changing his mind about us or our sin. And it's definitely not us making amends for sin- it's pure grace of God through Jesus. God has chosen his man, and whoever believes that they have died with Him will rise with Him in new creation.
I looked at your channel, and the assumptions you're making about the Bible not being the Word of God are not going to end the way that you want it to.
Jesus (John 10:35)- "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken- "
I hope I'm not coming across as a bitter clinger :) But seriously, consider- there really are other spiritual beings (non-human) that are NOT submitting to Christ willingly and can influence us with other ideas to our harm.
There is an entire world of atonement theory and thought outside evangelicalism. In fact, centuries of Christians found their hope and salvation in the cross before Augustine came along with "origin sin." The entire Eastern Orthodox church has an understanding that is different from "Original sin." our salvation is found in the life death and resurrection of Jesus, regardless of whether we hold on to a mistranslation of Romans 5:12.
The Bible is the words of God. Jesus is the Word of God. That was a core Christian conviction from before the canon was cemented.
Kids don’t need examples to sin, they do it naturally. Psalm 51:5 also very clearly supports the original sin view of Romans 5. It’s not an easy doctrine to accept, but I think it’s true because of what scripture says. And it enriches our understanding of Jesus as the second Adam. If sin can’t be passed down from Adam, independent of my choice, how can grace be passed to me from Christ if the Bible says I was born again not of the will of man, but of God?
If sin is passed down from Adam, independent of your choice, is grace passed to you from Christ independent of your choice?
@@commonschurch yes, I believe so because of verses like John 1:13 and others
If you are guilty for sin you didn’t commit but God universally saves everyone from that sin regardless I guess I can get with that 👍
@@commonschurch While I don't believe in universal salvation I do believe that the transfer of Adam's sin to me and the transfer of Jesus's righteousness to me are the same type of thing going on in the spiritual world. It's not consistent to be ok with reaping the benefits of Christ's atonement but somehow it's impossible that I would be identified with Adam's sin since he represented humanity? That being said, I do believe that the Lord provides a way for the unborn who are killed and for young children and those with disabilities to be saved, a la David saying he would see his infant son who died again. God is good and merciful. He is love.
That's cool. But that's not original sin. Original sin says you are born guilty and culpable for Adam's sin.
I keep finding a lot of people in the comments that have a modified original sin that sort of kicks in at a certain age, implying they do not actually believe we are born culpable for Adam's sin at all. But instead that we are born into a world impacted by Adam's sin and therefore we will ALL inevitably sin and be held culpable for that sin. That's the orthodox idea of Ancestral sin.
Everything you said doesn't make any sense
Hmm, well, I can try to explain again if there’s something specific you were confused by.
God’s Word: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
Romans 3: 23
Human beings: nope not me
🤦🏻♂️😂 when you know the holiness of God you hit your knees and realize you are guilty… period.
All have sinned. That has nothing to do with original sin 🤷♂️ at least watch the video.
@@commonschurch this was a general statement my friend. But if you want to dig into theology, Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic we can. And guess what, it still has the same message.
But that still doesn’t have anything to do with original sin. The fact that all have sinned and need salvation is a separate theological issue. And for the record the language at issue is Latin. As in the Latin mistranslation of Rom 5:12 that Augustine was reading from.
So, I agree… you tend to be ready to debate at any little comment, huh?
I used to be the same, and I love you and your passion for Truth brother… but the reason we all sin is because of the fall. Were you born into a fallen world?
Have you been shaped by it?
And the original sin wasn’t the eating of the fruit my brother, it was the desire to rebel against God’s Word. This started before the action.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Behold, You desire truth in the innermost being, And in the hidden part You will make me know wisdom. Purify me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness, Let the bones which You have broken rejoice. Hide Your face from my sins And blot out all my iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me. Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of Your salvation And sustain me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, And sinners will be converted to You.
Psalms 51: 5-13
"The reason we all sin is because of the fall. Were you born into a fallen world?" You're not describing original sin. You're describing ancestral sin. Original sin is the idea you are born guilty because of Adam;'s sin. Ancestral sin (the teaching of the eastern orthodox church) is that you are born into a sinful world and corrupted by it, just like you articulated.
If you don't believe in the Orignal sin as Satan would like you to believe then you will not believe in the Salvation that Jesus did at the Cross. So who is fooling who now. These so called theologists who make the way crooked there is a special place for you in hell.
I believe that Jesus died on the cross to save me from my sin (not Adam’s). That’s what you think Satan is down for 🤷♂️
@@commonschurch
But Paul said death reigned in the world from Adam to Moses, even over those who didn't sin like Adam. How did Adam sin? He sinned by disobeying God's commandment. So why did those from Adam to Moses die if they didn't disobey a commandment of God's?
Well, death is a biological function. You are going to die no matter what you do. That said, everyone has sinned. The scriptures are pretty clear about that. This video is about whether you need salvation from your sin or from Adam's sin.
Sin is a Mesopotamian Babylon Sky God it's not even a proper word. More like trespasses iniquities disobedience Rebellion. Avoidance of true love.
Etymology is fun and can shed light on certain nuances but that's not how language works. Sin (hamartia in Greek) absolutely is a word with a semantic range.
Original sin creates a FALSE NARRATIVE that has plagued Xianity for 2K years.
I agree
@@Suaveat69 Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secret text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim [ line of ismail ]
You assert that Augustin inserted the idea that all sinned “in Adam” based on a bad translation, yet you also assert that Paul is saying that all people are sinning because he introduced sin. This isn’t what it says. It says that death spread to all men because all sinned. Sin “entered” the world through one man. Death entered through sin. Death “passed” to all men for all “sinned”. Follow the verbs. What’s being said is that all men sinned when Adam sinned. “As in Adam all died, so in Christ all are made alive.” Romans 5 clearly teaches federal headship and the guilt of all men in Adam.
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. NIV11
We know that Augustine’s Latin translation changed “because all sinned” to “in him all sinned.”
Those are not the same ideas.
By the way, I do agree that sin entered through Adam and therefore all sinned. Salvation comes through Christ and therefore all are saved.
@@commonschurch precisely. All people die because all people “sinned”. The rest of the chapter makes this point explicitly. “Death reigned from Adam to Moses even upon those who did not sin in the same way as Adam”. The only law breaker was Adam (where is no law there can be no imputation for sin) yet all people died (suffered the condemnation of sin). When Adam fell all people fell in him and all people suffer the consequences of that sin (namely death). Christ, the second Adam, provides life and justification to all of those who are recipients of the gracious gift. Verse 12 is a key verse but it’s an introductory thought that is fleshed out over the next paragraph.
There is no "in him" in the verse. That's the mistranslation Augustine was reading. That said, the idea that sin entered the world through Adam, and we are born into that world, and therefore we sin and bear the consequence for our sins, is great. I think that's what Paul intended. That's essentially the orthodox idea of anscentral sin. "Original sin" is the idea that we are born already alienated from God because of Adam (not because of our sin). That, I think, is a mistake.
“Original sin is the state of alienation from God into which all humans are born.” Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, s.v. “original sin, original righteousness (justice),” 87.
In fact, it was “Augustine’s doctrine of original sin [that created] the necessity of baptism immediately subsequent upon birth.” C. O. Buchanan, New Dictionary of Theology, s.v. “Confirmation.,” 157.
“The insistence that, because all sinned ‘in Adam’ (on which Augustine appealed to a mistaken reading of Rom. 5:12), all are bound by the penalties for that sin-spiritual death, guilt and the diseased disordering of human nature; ‘concupiscence’, from which no sexual acts of fallen humanity are free (even within Christian marriage), as the locus of transmission of original sin from parents to children; the impossibility of even ‘the beginning of faith’ without the gift of prevenient grace by whose power ‘the will is prepared’ to turn to God; the restriction of this grace to the baptized, so that infants dying unbaptized are condemned to hell.” D. F. Wright, New Dictionary of Theology, s.v. “Augustine,” 59.
“Children imitate us”?Who is a child imitating when they scream when you take their nonnie away or when they steal a toy or someone takes their toy and they cry and say “it’s mine.” ?Every man is born with that selfish nature. We are all born dead in sin and Jesus came make us alive in Christ and to give us his very divine nature.
Children cry when you take a soother away because it calms them and you took it away. They absolutely imitate us when they claim a toy is "mine," in fact the entire idea of ownership is learned from those around us.
@@commonschurch Even if it were possible for a child to be raised where he never commits a sin, he would still be a sinner, still be part of the old creation and would still need to be born again and made alive in Christ in order to be saved and see the kingdom of God. Why is that so hard to understand? It is the simple gospel. I have never heard this argument of man not having a sin nature until recently. Just because Calvinism takes it too far with their total depravity does not mean that man is not a sinner passed down from the one man’s sin, just as Romans 5 says over and over.
Romans 3 shows that all have sinned, both Jew and Gentile and all are guilty before God and all the who come to Christ are justified freely by his grace.
So according to this new way of thinking that is trying to counteract Calvinism but goes too far in the other direction, man only becomes a sinner when he reaches the age of reasoning and magically turns into a sinner?
Sin entered the world through Adam. All people since are born in that world and corrupted by sin. Therefore, all sin and need salvation. But that's not original sin.
Original sin is the idea that you are held guilty for Adam's sin. That is not what Paul was saying. You are guilty for your sin. If you lived a sinless life, you would not be sinful c.f Jesus.
None of this has anything to do with Calvinism. Calvinism is mainly focused on the sovereignty of God but then goes off into a bunch of weird ideas about predestination.
@@commonschurch It has everything do with Calvinism in the videos I’ve seen. In their hatred and zeal against Calvinism’s total depravity, they are going in the total opposite direction and saying that man is not even born with a corrupt nature.
Jesus corrected this by saying that even though you may not commit an outward act of sin, lusting and coveting in the heart comes from a corrupt heart, the corrupt heart passed down from Adam that every man was born with except for Christ.
That is not what original sin is about though. Original sin is about the idea that you are held guilty for Adam’s sin even before you do anything wrong.
The doctrine of original sin is false and has no biblical basis.
And it's funny that it's messed up major doctrines for both Calvinists and Catholics. Without it you don't have inappropriate Mary worship/veneration or TULIP
@@rlee1185 This false doctrine leads to many other problems. I agree.
Really? Please share your perspective.
@@rahimshakur7358 The doctrine of original sin is not biblical. It is a man made doctrine.
Every time I talk to people that believe this I ask a few questions, and they refuse to answer them.
Maybe you can.
Can you name 1 sin that any baby commits in the womb?
@@rahimshakur7358 the Bible uses metaphors to make larger points. Dead is used as an illustration, not a literal direct comparison. Our total inability and our death comes from separation from God. We crossed a bridge then burned the bridge at the fall. We can't build the bridge back, but Jesus could. Salvation is all of his work. He builds the bridge, he crosses it and finds us and encourages us to come. We can respond positively to him or reject him. Our death is in that we're separated from the life giver, and this is everyone's common condition. We're all able to respond to light that Jesus brings, and we never lost that ability.
What do you mean by "we?" Is "we" you and the mouse in your pocket? "Everyone?" How many people do you really know that you can talk about "we" and "everyone" as if you know "everyone" in the church? Talk about the worst theological mistakes. It only took a few minute into this video to hear a boat load of them.
The cure for error is not more error. Remember, the book of Genesis is the book of beginnings. The simple reading goes like this, _Through one man sin ENTERED the world._ Do you get that? _SIN ENTERED the world, through one man, the first man._ Let me say it again, sin ENTERED the world. _AND death through sin. and so death spread to all mankind,_ WHY? _because ALL have sinned._ That is, because all have sinned. How do we get there? It is not Augustine. It is Isaiah 53:6
_6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all._
However, the KJV does not have any "latin" mistranslation. My NASB doesn't have any "latin" mistranslation. Neither does the NIV you read from. I get it. You are trying to show your credentials as a "scholar" by going back to Augustine.
Back to Isaiah. From our birth we want want we want. No new born wants his parents to be ok. Every new born is either hungry, cold, hot, uncomfortable, needing attention etc etc. That is, going his own way. Isaiah or more specifically God calls that iniquity. Hence, the need to be "born again."
Youngster, you pontificated so much going your own way and your imposing your way onto God. You don't need Adam's sin to stumble you, you have a plethora of your own.
“You don't need Adam's sin to stumble you, you have a plethora of your own.”
That’s literally the point of the video 🤷♂️
@@commonschurch Isn't that the point? When you are speaking about the "church missing the story of Jesus and going down a wrong course" as if you are the expert on what "everyone" thinks. When you talk about "we" and "everyone" in relation to "original sin" why is it that I do not have any problem, or any misreading or as you say; _"That the sin of Adam was passed down to all of humanity. And from the moment we are born we are already guilty and sinful because._ "NO! death was passed down and not sin. Adam's sin is common to man. Have you never read David Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in guilt,
And in sin my mother conceived me.
BTAIM, what really gets me is when you say; _it affects the way that we think about God and the way we think about ourselves. We Think about a God who is very legalistic._ (He is, except for the righteousness of faith). _There are rules and God has to follow those rules no matter what._ (that is also true). _"It makes us think about ourselves that downplays the significance of our lives and our CONTRIBUTION to God's story._ ( our significance? our contribution? now your way off). _'God has put us here in the world to steward creation to heal it to repair it, to help build it into something creative and beautiful along side God._ Did you not understand that because of Adam sin entered the world and death entered because of that sin and we all die because of our sin and death remains in the earth? We are not "healing" or "repairing" or "helping to rebuild creation." What Jesus and what salvation are you talking about? Have you never read? There is none that does good, NO NOT ONE! I perceive you are a young progressive.
Would it help to hear that there are different historical perspectives on this idea? That the Jewish people don’t read original sin in the passages you are citing or that the Eastern Orthodox Church has a different perspective on the impact of Adam’s sin called Ancestral Sin? The Christian tradition is wide and deep and centred on the Way of Jesus not original sin.
@@commonschurch Yes different historical perspectives. However, we are speaking of Christianity and not Jewish Judaism. If you continue to
Roman 5:19, we read, _19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous._
*THE MANY WERE MADE SINNERS.*
How does this verse fit into your theology?
BTAIM, my real concern is your attempt to somehow make us contributor with significance to God's "story." We are NOT "healing" or "repairing" or "helping to rebuild creation." We are being saved. You are attempting to use the doctrine of original sin and attacking it because you can somehow point to a progressive view of salvation. One in which we are ok and helping God in some way. It is not biblical. You are making too much of the doctrine of original sin. and it appears to have a definite motive.
Everyone is a sinner. That's not original sin, though. Original sin, as composed by Augustine, is the idea that you are held guilty because of Adam's sin. Paul does not think you need salvation from Adam's sin, you need salvation because of your sin.
God makes no mistakes
Agreed. Augustine did though 😅
Your description of original sin belies your sincerity in actually addressing it. "Something some guy did a long time ago"? That is dishonest if not a pure and deliberate lie. At least have some integrity in your description. It isn't based on "something some guy did" it is based on the first act of disobedience and its consequences which were clearly stated in Gen which was that if he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, on that day he would surely die or as the Hebrew idiom intends, "In dying, you shall die" which meant a double death. And that double death was the initiation of his physical death and his immediate spiritual death in being separated from God in sin. And as a result of Adam's condemnation, which comes through being in a state of separation from God, all of humanity inherits that condition at birth. We are born, separated from God. We are not reconciled to God at birth, we are not born again at birth, we are not in Christ (Rom 8:1 THERE is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus). You would have to be born "in Christ" to be justified an infant an no one is biologically born "in Christ" which means they are born condemned. Your problem is that you cannot figure out how babies and those incapable of volitional exercise, may be saved by Jesus if they die in that condition so you go backwards and try to deny the condition of human condemnation. And please, don't appeal to "what sin has a baby committed?" because babies are born in a state of separation from God which is sin already. The sentence of Adam's sin as the Federal head of all humanity was that his offspring would inherit this condition of spiritual death no different than they inherit everything else from Adam. You truly sound like a sophomore.
Any God that condemns babies to eternal torment is a weirdo
@@commonschurchObviously, any discussion on the matter is relegated to your juvenile labels and avoiding addressing what I pointed out in your dishonest representation of the doctrine. Fine. Your audience needs to understand your methodology and frame reference.
For the sake of viewers and readers of comments, why would a human baby be unwarranted as deserving of condemnation? What divine righteousness do they possess that would force God to adjudicate them as possessing the righteousness of Christ?
I know, you can't answer that because you don't have the answer, you haven't considered such implications which is why you avoided the substance of my comment.
But for the record, I do not believe infants or babies or the mentally handicapped "go to hell" however, they still must possess the righteousness of Christ to be declared justified and you, my not so friendly brother, have no clue how that is justifiably accomplished by God hence, the going backwards and trying to cancel humanity's condemnation in Adam.
If original sin (the way Augustine articulates it) is true, and babies don’t go to hell, then you agree there is a mechanism by which God can arbitrarily ignore its effects. I propose that mechanism is: it doesn’t exist.
@@commonschurch No, I do not agree that there is a mechanism by which God arbitrarily ignores its effects because that would be a compromise of the integrity of God. God, instead, is so perspicacious, that he has provided a means of the justification for all of those in the category I will call "volitionally incapable".
Every human being has to be justified and it is only by having Christ as one's redeemer. Human babies, at their best and taking your view of innocence, only have human righteousness to offer and we know what the Bible says about human righteousness. One must possess divine righteousness through Christ to be saved.
Rom 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.: - Babies certainly are not born "in Christ", unless of course, you want to introduce a new doctrine. They are the heirs of the old man, the first Adam. They have yet to be justified.
The question is how does God accomplish their justification without compromise to his integrity. The Bible is quite clear, "Unless a man (human being), he cannot enter the Kingdom of God". And we know, also, that the Bible says that in order to be saved one must believe the gospel, How, then, can a baby be justified and born again since a baby cannot exercise faith? Is there any other way. No, there is no other way except Jesus but...
God has provided a way which exists as a construct embedded in a well known text whereby we may know with confidence, Jesus is automatically the Savior of all who die volitionally incapable. There is no need to go backwards and try to change condemnation to all because you can't figure out how this class of people are saved. Even if they are not culpable, they still must have the righteousness of Christ imputed to them and human righteousness is not enough to warrant this.
About now you are wondering, "Well, what is the text?" I'll revisit you at some point but I am not so sure you would be genuinely interested. Your dogmatic approach tells me that you are a bit overly rooted in your position and would not be helpful right now.
I'm gonna be honest, "I know the verse that explains everything but I won't tell you" is not as compelling an argument as you imagine it to be.