Should all people be blamed for Adam's sin?

[polonius]

At the beginning of the Bible, we are told that Adam and Eve sinned. ("Original Sin")

And all future generations inherited their guilt.

Is that true?

And wasn't that rather unjust of God?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 62 by JehovahsWitness]
Paul believed that all creation was compromised.

Romans 8:18-25New International Version (NIV)

Present Suffering and Future Glory

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

It appears that he believed that all creation was contaminated through the Adams sin? That this will be reversed at some time and restored to its original condition.

There is nothing in these verses to suggest that he attributed our bondage to decay to Adam or our inheritance from Adam when it might as well be attributed to our own free will decision to sin before our human experience, which I think Paul hints at believing.

If we were created in sin (Adam's imperfection) then how can we be returned to an original condition of perfection? This interpretations suggests we have never been perfect so if we become perfect it is a step forward, not a return.

I too think it is a return: the sheep joined His flock, they went astray into sin city and they are returned through the process of repentance and sanctification, their resurrection assured, as per 1 Peter 2:25 For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. If they were created evil in Adam, out of touch with Christ and totally separated for Him, they cannot be said to be returning to Him unless they were already converted and had gone apostate but the context shows this homily was written to new converts.

[polonius]

The dogma of original sin was clearly defined by the Ecumenical Council of Trent thus:

“2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.�

http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/ ... tml#Romans

“More germane to our question is Romans 5:12-21, where Paul traces sin and death to Adam's original transgression. This is also the primary passage on which the doctrine of "original sin" was built. Augustine and his contemporaries relied on the Latin version of Romans 5:12, which states that "By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; so death passed upon all men, for in him all men sinned." However, as we will see below, "in him" is far from an accurate translation of the Greek.�

The problem is that Augustine (4th century) never learned to read Greek, so he was working from an Old Latin translation which was in error in its translation of Paul’s Romans. It contained the infamous “in quo� error (..in whom..). So Augustine went on to develop his stain theory of original sin in which everyone was born with and actually guilty of Adam’s sin. Thus “in whom� all actually sinned. (This translational error has since been removed from modern bibles.).

So naturally, The Orthodox don't have an Immaculate Conception dogma either

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Good question polonius!

As a former evangelical Christian and member of a Southern Baptist Church, I was taught and I also taught others, that Adam's sin nature was passed on to all future generations. The basis for this belief is found in Romans 5:12...

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."

I contend that:
Death spread to all men speaks to what we inherited. Period. That sin entered the world by Adam and that we inherited death because we all sinned is taken to mean that the sin Adam brought into the world is that same sin we all sinned and not our own sin we brought here. This implication is deemed to be meaningful because it was a theologically driven necessity to show how we can be born sinners when our pre-existence with a free will to sin was denied.

But besides supporting the blasphemy that the GOD who is lovingly righteous can create us as sinners, it denies scripture. If we are to believe Adam and Eve were created as innocent then the serpent was the first sinner in the garden as he arrived with an evil intent and seduced Eve. She in fact sinned next in the garden by eating first and then Adam ate yet only then did sin enter the world! All the tomes of sophistry have never given us an answer as how he can be the third to sin in the world but he brought sin into the world! This foolishness is completely eliminated when we suppose Adam was a sinner pre-earth and his sinful spirit was breathed into his body of dust to animate it which made him the first sinner in the world bringing sin into the world.

His creation on earth also denies the scripture of Matt 13:37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. This explanation of the parable without any symbolic hidden meanings tells us the people of the kingdom, including Adam, were sown here by the Son of Man. This word sown cannot mean created because the devil sows his people of the evil one too. Therefore it must be being used in its ordinary sense of being taken out of storage (Sheol) and being scattered into a place of growth (humanity). So a verse that actually does support the contention Adam did indeed bring sin into the world is denigrated to mean foolishness so it can be ignored because it offends orthodoxy. Imagine: the devil being able to cause his demons to be conceived as human...

This doctrine is claimed to be supported by other scriptures and for that, you might want to go to https://www.gotquestions.org/I-did-not- ... fruit.html

Not one of these scriptural quotes necessarily refers to our inheriting our sin but since they support our being sinners at birth, could also support the contention we came here as sinners after having chosen sin by our free will pre-earth in Sheol.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 65 by amortalman] This type of thing facinates me. Do you mean to say that there now may exist persons proclaiming your former belief as the Spiritualy interpreted truth? If they are wrong and you where wrong, what confidence do you have that you now posses the truth? You may yet find yourself another truth, given time and insight.

Are you suggesting that though you have found your truth, the door to belief is not yet locked?

[onewithhim]

At the beginning of the Bible, we are told that Adam and Eve sinned. ("Original Sin")

And all future generations inherited their guilt.

Is that true?

And wasn't that rather unjust of God?

It is true, and no, God wasn't unjust.

He had reserved one tree for Himself. "Just don't touch it," he made clear to Adam and Eve. Why was that such a big deal? Didn't it show the level of respect that they had for Him? They might have thought, "OK, that's His tree and we won't touch it. After all, we have all the other trees in the garden." They knew full well, in addition to that, that there was a penalty for disobeying. So WHY would they take fruit off that tree?

How about the idea that they deliberately went against what Jehovah had said, so that they could assert their own independence and run their own lives as they saw fit, without having to follow any rules or laws set out by God? I believe that is exactly what they did.

They hadn't had children yet, so many people think that God should have started over. But He didn't want to "start over." His original plan was to have the earth filled with ADAM'S children, and He kept to that plan. If He hadn't, Cain, Abel, Seth, and Adam's other children never would have been born, and neither would WE.

I think Jehovah was very loving in allowing Adam's offspring to live.

Two questions: If Adam was programmed to die after he rebelled, he must've had some kind of genetic adjustment. How could his children have been born without this same genetic defect? How could a now- imperfect man sire perfect children? Then, wouldn't they hereditarily be forced to carry on the tendency to be sinful and ultimately die? (Thus they would inherit Adam's sin, but they would not be to blame.)

.

[ttruscott]

Blastcat posted:

Lets see how much I understood:

1. You say that "sin" means "imperfection".
2. Everything in the universe is imperfect, except, maybe God.
3. We can inherit "imperfection".
4. If Adam would have REMAINED perfect ( I'm guessing here ) we would all be perfect.
5. Since Adam messed up, he became IMPERFECT, and somehow, the rest of humanity "inherited" that imperfection.

RESPONSE: This argument overlooks an obvious fact.

1. God alone is the only cause of the entire universe.
2. The universe is imperfect.
3. Therefore God is an imperfect creator.

Your syllogism again overlooks the fact that:
1.A. Part of HIS universe included people with a free will able to chose to become either good and evil though HIS hopes were that all would choose good. This was necessary to reap the rewards and benefits of knowing a people who had free will and who could enjoy true love and true marriage not possible if our free will was not part of our created make-up.

2 and 3 are therefore discounted as false conclusions due to being based on an incomplete premise.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to ttruscott]




[center]
a mystery is a blasphemy [/center]

Kudos. The word 'somehow' highlights the fact that this inheritance of imperfection should not have ever happened (in life or even in theological acceptance) because this is considered to be our creation ! not just our introduction into humanity forcing the doctrine GOD created us evil which we are supposed to gloss over with double-think.

I'm trying to figure that one out, ttruscott. It seems to hinge on a use of the word "somehow" that I am not familiar with.

I have to be honest.
I tried, and then failed to arrive at an understanding of that first paragraph. I read it about 5 times now.

So, maybe you would care to re-write it in other words.

I hope you expand on this point

I would be happy to if I get to understand the point.

When I use the word "somehow" I mean to say "in some way" or, by "some method or mechanism". If something is said to have happened, I would usually say that it happened "somehow". If I knew how, I could say how. Right now, I have no mechanism by which "perfection" or any other human concept can be transmitted by genes.

So, instead of saying "an as yet undetermined mechanism" I just used the short cut "somehow".

And I am NOT sure at all that this is what you wanted me to elaborate on.

because as a mystery it actually admits it is a blasphemy against GOD but it is the method the church fathers chose to describe our being sinful at birth because they rejected our pre-earth choice to be sinners by our free will.

Again, the above has very little meaning to me... a mystery admits a blasphemy?... No idea what that means, my friend.

I like that phrase, I think I'll repeat it: a mystery is a blasphemy that MUST be accepted.

You might like the phrase but it seems to be based on the usage of the words "mystery" and "blasphemy" that I have never encountered before. Who must accept the mysterious blasphemy?

I need a translation.

That's why I pleaded with you to define your key terms.
I have LITERALLY no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry.

I think I will send you a small donation for bringing this point into our thoughts.

I have no idea what that point was, but your gesture is very kind.
Thanks.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 69 by polonius.advice]

RESPONSE: This argument overlooks an obvious fact.

1. God alone is the only cause of the entire universe.
2. The universe is imperfect.
3. Therefore God is an imperfect creator.

Ttruscott then corrected me that he meant the universe WAS perfect.
Perfect creator, perfect creation I think is the way his thinking went.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 74 by onewithhim]





[center]Belief ≠ Truth[/center]

At the beginning of the Bible, we are told that Adam and Eve sinned. ("Original Sin")

And all future generations inherited their guilt.

Is that true?

And wasn't that rather unjust of God?

It is true, and no, God wasn't unjust.

And there we have it folks.
It's true.

____________

Question:

• 
  
  Some Christians believe one thing, and some Christians don't believe it. How are outsiders to decide which one of you HAVE the "truth"? In other words, other than your say so, how does anyone KNOW that a religious belief is true?
  
  

____________

[postroad]

[Replying to post 73 by ttruscott]
What would I believe if I believed the Bible? The point I made was that the prieviously held position had been abandoned even though it must have been believed to be spiritualy discerned. What confidence would the poster have in the new belief having been deceived and having participated in the deception. Unless of course it is not important what is believed.