Original sin?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Luke

Original sin is the result of Adam and Eve's fall in the garden of eden and is passed down to each of us in that we are born with a propensity/bend to sin (sin/fallen nature) and are sinners at birth. Paul spoke of this in Ephesians 2 when he speaks of us being children of wrath by nature. Paul refers to it in Romans 7 as the law of sin and death, he refers to itin Ephesians 4 calling it old man, in Romans 6 it is called the old man and the body of sin. In romans 8 paul speaks of it as the carnal mind. In Galatians 5 (as in many places) it is called the flesh. David says that he was shapen in iniquity and in sin did his mother conceive him. In a nother place he says that the wicked go astray immediately from their mothers womb. Jesus says that all sin proceeds from the heart therefore the heart must be defiled and sinful before we ever commit sin otherwise how could our first sin preceed from our heart if we had to commit it before it could be in our heart.

To say that we are not born sinners but rather innocent and righteous begs the question are we then born christian? If so then apperently baptism, tongues, repentace and faith are not needful for salvation. If on the other hand babies are simply born innocent and righteous and remain thus until they sin this would open the possibility of someone living a sin free life and never needing a savior and therefore entering heaven on their on merits.

Luke,

It's one thing to say that we are born into sin and another to say we are "born sinners." Do babies sin? The nature is passed down; not the actual sins. Yes, babies are born innocent (free from sin), but not free from the curse (free from judgment). The judgment resulting from Adam's sin that everyone shares is death; not hell.

Don't we read in scripture that Enoch lived a sin free life? (He was perfect) Obviously, then, there IS the possibility, as remote and difficult as it might be.

The curse of sin is also passed down, and as Romans says, even upon those who never sinned (disobeyed any commandments). The curse of sin is death. Why would scripture mention the possibility of the curse being passed upon those who never sinned if it isn't a possibility?

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Not under the curse of the Law, maybe? Sounds right. They're cursed.
Nice. i'm convinced that you're having a hard time detangling those because the adoption of the doctrine that split the Church apart has been obscured from us, causing the first council of Trent to explode, and Augustine to roll in his grave--and all while agreeing with virtually everything Luke just said, except the 'born a sinner' part, probably; that is where the doctrine and the Law separate, i believe, depending upon how you define the phrase.

"We are freed from the law of sin and death."

Also, wouldn't born a sinner make your birth a curse, when we are told it's a blessing?
How can your birth be a blessing and a curse?

So it seems like a matter of timing, of when the curse is imputed, and (to me) the taking advantage of the subtle shift of perspective created in enabling you to see yourself as 'bad.'
http://www.wikihow.com/Recognize-the...ristian-Models

I don't know which "doctrine" you mean. The doctrine of original sin?

[Aquila]

Sin is more than an action. It is also a state of being. Here's a brief explanation of what I understand man's sinful nature to be...

When Adam and Eve lived in the garden there was a spiritual union and fellowship with God. Adam and Eve were one spirit with the Lord as believers are today through the Holy Ghost. However, when Adam and Eve sinned, that union was severed. Now the divine life of God no longer flowed through Adam and Eve. In addition, it wasn't going to be flowing through their children. Now that God's nature wasn't flowing through them... a strictly carnal nature was all they and their children had. This left mankind void of the divine life and subjected us all to a life governed by the flesh and the carnal mind. Having a nature less than the divine is short of man's design and God's intention. Therefore, it is inherently sinful. It is existing in a state of sin. So man's nature by birth is now sinful. The human being is only capable of sin. Every thought and deed, even good ones, now serve self. There is no divine life in un-regenerated man. Man is essentially... "spiritually dead" in God's sight. And the carnal mind will not receive or understand the things of God. This is why the Father must first draw His elect through the Holy Spirit (an act of divine grace), they cannot just come to Him at will. The Father must begin drawing before any elect child of God can surrender their will to Him. Once one surrenders their will to God, and God fills them with the Holy Spirit, the union between man and God is re-established and man is once more one spirit with God through the Holy Spirit. The divine life now flows through the regenerated elect saint of God.

[MissBrattified]

Aquila: thoughts on Enoch?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Aquila: thoughts on Enoch?

Enoch walked with God. Enoch wasn't spiritually one with God. The promise of God's indwelling Spirit is strictly a NT reality only hinted at in the OT.

God's grace was clearly extended to those whom God desired to save in the OT. However, the actual reparation of the spiritual breach between man and God wasn't restored until the NT.

[shazeep]

Boy, Aquila; all that kind of reads as if several hairs have just been split...

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I don't know which "doctrine" you mean. The doctrine of original sin?

yes; as opposed to the definition of it, even--which, in my understanding, couldn't even be done to the satisfaction of everyone present. I'm also curious what anyone (outside the Council of Trent) supposes that the doctrine of OS even accomplishes, if not to diminish the freedom we have over the Law.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Enoch walked with God. Enoch wasn't spiritually one with God. The promise of God's indwelling Spirit is strictly a NT reality only hinted at in the OT.

God's grace was clearly extended to those whom God desired to save in the OT. However, the actual reparation of the spiritual breach between man and God wasn't restored until the NT.

Aquila, even though Enoch wasn't filled with the Spirit, he still found such favor with God that He apparently didn't even allow him to suffer the judgment of physical death. That was the context of my question. How do you reconcile that with the assertion that we are all born sinners and share in the death sentence?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Aquila, even though Enoch wasn't filled with the Spirit, he still found such favor with God that He apparently didn't even allow him to suffer the judgment of physical death. That was the context of my question. How do you reconcile that with the assertion that we are all born sinners and share in the death sentence?

Enoch was a sinner like all men. However, God evidently called Enoch to Himself and they walked together. Every act of grace exhibited by God in the OT was predicated on the future cross of Calvary. Just as God justifies the elect sinner today by looking back at the cross... in the OT God looked forward to the cross. This is seen repeatedly in the sacrificial system.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Enoch was a sinner like all men. However, God evidently called Enoch to Himself and they walked together. Every act of grace exhibited by God in the OT was predicated on the future cross of Calvary. Just as God justifies the elect sinner today by looking back at the cross... in the OT God looked forward to the cross. This is seen repeatedly in the sacrificial system.

What about the statement in Romans that the judgment of death reigns [even] over those who hadn't sinned? Doesn't that reference the possibility of being sinless? IMO, lacking sin and lacking a sin nature aren't the same thing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

What about the statement in Romans that the judgment of death reigns [even] over those who hadn't sinned? Doesn't that reference the possibility of being sinless? IMO, lacking sin and lacking a sin nature aren't the same thing.

I'm not being petty, but can you provide the text?