Original Sin: Is It Biblical?

[USU78]

I've been schlogging through Ezekiel, trying to get as much Hebrew out of it as I can, and it struck me yesterday how clear that book's teachings are on personal responsiblity and the absurdity of collective guilt. Here are the passages that struck me:

Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his fatherâ??s sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbourâ??s wife, Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.

Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. 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. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

Note also the clear statement that G-d makes on repentence: this is not the thundering Jove throwing down thunderbolts of people's imaginations. This is the G-d that stretches forth His hand to everyone, requiring only that people change their ways so that they need not live in guilt.

Two issues here:

1. If a man need not bear his father's guilt, why should mankind be said to bear the guilt of Adam and Eva?

2. If the Judaism of the Old Testament is such a vile, lifeless thing, why does Ezekiel make so clear G-d's lovingkindness and mercy?

[johnny]

USU78,

1. If a man need not bear his father's guilt, why should mankind be said to bear the guilt of Adam and Eva?

The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man". By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice.

2. If the Judaism of the Old Testament is such a vile, lifeless thing, why does Ezekiel make so clear G-d's lovingkindness and mercy?

Maybe because Ezekiel is a prophet ... God is lovingkindness and mercy ...

[Log]

Brother Montoya -

Please stop throwing stones into the murky pond. We don't wish to further disturb the resident.

[Redeemed]

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adamâ??s atransgression, who is the bfigure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by aone man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one manâ??s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of agrace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the arighteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto bjustification of life.

19 For as by one manâ??s adisobedience many were made sinners, so by the bobedience of one shall many be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through arighteousness unto beternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans is pretty clear on the matter.

redeemed

[3DOP]

USU78

I've been schlogging through Ezekiel, trying to get as much Hebrew out of it as I can, and it struck me yesterday how clear that book's teachings are on personal responsiblity and the absurdity of collective guilt. Here are the passages that struck me:

Rory

Absurd is such a strong word. There are a lot of Christians like me who believe in this doctrine. Before consigning us to the realms of the absurd, maybe you could explain to us what we mean by "original sin".

USU78

Note also the clear statement that G-d makes on repentence: this is not the thundering Jove throwing down thunderbolts of people's imaginations. This is the G-d that stretches forth His hand to everyone, requiring only that people change their ways so that they need not live in guilt.

Two issues here:

1. If a man need not bear his father's guilt, why should mankind be said to bear the guilt of Adam and Eva?

Rory

Speaking as a Catholic, I deny that mankind bears the actual guilt of Adam and Eva. To inherit original sin is not to be guilty of disobeying G-d in the Garden. Apparently there was confusion about this in Ezekiel's day. His people must have thought that children inherited the actual sins of parents. If it is absurd to believe that the offspring of Adam and Eva inherit original sin, how much crazier were the Jews of Ezekiel's day who believed that actual sins were passed down from parent to child? What word beyond "absurd" applies to them?

USU78

2. If the Judaism of the Old Testament is such a vile, lifeless thing, why does Ezekiel make so clear G-d's lovingkindness and mercy?

Rory

I do not associate "The Judaism of the Old Testament as a vile and lifeless thing" with original sin. Rather, I associate it with failure to read the Old Testament.

[stargate]

Some other things to think about:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (in one of

her publications) teaches that Adam and Eve did not sin in

the Garden of Eden:

"I'm very, very grateful that in the Book of Mormon, and I

think elsewhere in our scriptures, the fall of Adam has not

been called a sin. It wasn't a sin ... What did Adam do? The

very thing God wanted him to do; and I hate to hear anybody

call it a sin, for it wasn't a sin" (Doctrines of the Gospel

Student Manual, page 20, point B 1).

Let's examine this with several questions from using the Bible,

Genesis chapter 3.

Verse 8 - "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in

the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid

themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the

trees of the garden".

Why did they feel the need to hide from Him?

Verse 10 - "And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and

I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself".

Why would Adam be afraid of being naked to God?

Verses 11-12 - "And he said, Who told thee that thou wast

naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded

thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The

woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of

the tree, and I did eat".

Would you regard this as a sin of Adam in that he attempted

to blame God (so it seems) for giving him the woman instead

of taking responsibility for his action?

Verse 13 - "And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is

this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent

beguiled me, and I did eat".

Would you regard this as a sin of Eve in that she attempted

to blame the serpent instead of taking responsibility for her

action?

Verse 14 - "And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because

thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and

above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou

go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life".

Why was the serpent cursed if he enabled Adam and Eve to

obey God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" and put

them on a course of progression, as some believe?

Turning to Preach My Gospel (an LDS Church guide for

missionaries), it seems to strongly insinuate that Adam and

Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden.

Page 50 says "Sin causes feelings of guilt and shame".

In the Pearl of Great Price, Moses (6:54) makes a reference

to original guilt. I believe Adam and Eve also displayed

shame/fear for they attempted to hide their nakedness and

hide from God.

"Because of our sins, we are unable to return to live with

Heavenly Father unless we are first forgiven and cleansed".

Moses (6:53) says, "And our father Adam spake unto the

Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be

baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I

have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden".

"God influences us to do good; Satan tempts us to commit

sin", while page 49 states, "Satan tempted Adam and Eve

to eat the forbidden fruit, and they choose to do so".

This is pretty self-explanatory.

If we look further, we have a teaching of Joseph F. Smith:

"He [mankind] dies in consequence of the sin of Adamâ?

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph F. Smith,

p. 89).

If we look into the Book of Mormon, Adam and Eve are

used as prime examples in the teaching of the punishment

of the sinner (Alma 42:1-2).

With all these teachings combined, why doesn't The Church

of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just plainly say that

Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden and that this

is known as original sin?

Jeff

[William the Conqueror]

Rory

Speaking as a Catholic, I deny that mankind bears the actual guilt of Adam and Eva. To inherit original sin is not to be guilty of disobeying G-d in the Garden. Apparently there was confusion about this in Ezekiel's day. His people must have thought that children inherited the actual sins of parents. If it is absurd to believe that the offspring of Adam and Eva inherit original sin, how much crazier were the Jews of Ezekiel's day who believed that actual sins were passed down from parent to child? What word beyond "absurd" applies to them?

Some HyperCalvinists believe that mankind not only receives the sin nature from Adam (Romans 5), but also is under the judgement of Adam's sin. The former I believe but not the latter. The Campbellites along with the Mormons deny original sin being inherited (biologically). As to the Jews of Ezekiel's day you must be right and this thinking continued unto Jesus' day. John 9: ' This man did not sin nor did his parents, but this has happened to demonstrate the glory of God...' Notice that Jesus did not concentrate on correcting their erroneous belief but on the healing and the reason for it. In another passage, ' ...But that you may know that the son of man has the power to forgive sins, I say to you, arise....' If Jesus had concentrated on correcting their erroneous belief that the embryo committed sin before birth it would have detracted from His message and purpose. '...I have many things to tell you but ye cannot bear them now...'. In NO way does the John 9 passage lend credence to premortal soul existance as the Mormons believe. To base that doctrine on the John 9 passage is totally unwarranted and is construing something from the passage that has no basis. This kind of reasoning would never stand up in court.

[USU78]

A just G-d does not condemn the innocent.

If Ezekiel, centuries before the Master's Advent, recognizing that the Torah did not impute guilt to the guiltless, could appreciate and teach individual responsibility for individual sin,

Can we really argue that Romans, which is but Saul/Paul's* take on the same issue, makes G-d less just than He previously was, based upon a hypercalvinist reading of the NT?

Moreover, a just G-d does not condemn the repentent.

If Ezekiel, centuries before the Master's Advent, recognizing that the Torah did not require a sweeping condemnation even of the repentent sinner, could appreciate and teach G-d's foregiveness and grace,

Can we really argue that the Sauline/Pauline* treatments of grace are something new in the world with the Master's Advent?

*To the extent Saul/Paul is really the father of all of that, and not some Romanizing Antisemite.

[johnny]

William the Conqueror,

The Campbellites along with the Mormons deny original sin being inherited (biologically).

Original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.

It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.

All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" [Rom 5:12, 19].

The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men" [Rom 5:18].

[3DOP]

USU78

A just G-d does not condemn the innocent.

Rory

Yes.

USU78

If Ezekiel, centuries before the Master's Advent, recognizing that the Torah did not impute guilt to the guiltless, could appreciate and teach individual responsibility for individual sin,

Can we really argue that Romans, which is but Saul/Paul's* take on the same issue, makes G-d less just than He previously was, based upon a hypercalvinist reading of the NT?

Rory

No.

USU78

Moreover, a just G-d does not condemn the repentent.

Rory

Correct.

USU78

If Ezekiel, centuries before the Master's Advent, recognizing that the Torah did not require a sweeping condemnation even of the repentent sinner, could appreciate and teach G-d's foregiveness and grace,

Can we really argue that the Sauline/Pauline* treatments of grace are something new in the world with the Master's Advent?

Rory

No.

USU78

*To the extent Saul/Paul is really the father of all of that, and not some Romanizing Antisemite.

Rory

I don't know of any reason to disagree with anything you have proposed, except that to believe in original sin is to absurdly oppose Ezekiel. That is why I asked you to tell us what we mean by the expression "original sin". It seems doubtful that you understand what we mean since you seem to think you have spoken against it.

[USU78]

I don't know of any reason to disagree with anything you have proposed, except that to believe in original sin is to absurdly oppose Ezekiel. That is why I asked you to tell us what we mean by the expression "original sin". It seems doubtful that you understand what we mean since you seem to think you have spoken against it.

See the Council of Trent http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html, where the long-standing RC teaching on the subject was, to a great extent, abrogated, but which does nothing to affect the views on the subject shared by so many of our evangelical and other calvinist, neocalvinist, quasicalvinist, and semicalvinist friends.

[johnny]

USU78,

the long-standing RC teaching on the subject was, to a great extent, abrogated,

See the RC teaching and link below:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

406 - The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)

[USU78]

See the RC teaching and link below:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

406 - The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)

But, johnny, how does one square the foregoing with Ezekiel? Or do you even try, relying, rather, upon non-ex cathedra pronouncements like the foregoing catechism and not argument?

[johnny]

USU78,

But, johnny, how does one square the foregoing with Ezekiel?

Ezekiel is talking about personal sin, original sin is not personal sin.

[USU78]

But, johnny, how does one square the foregoing with Ezekiel?

Ezekiel is talking about personal sin, original sin is not personal sin.

Ezekiel is talking about responsibility for sin acquired through commonality with (or inheritence from) a 3rd party sinner, usually a family member. That acquisition via commonality/inheritence is by definition not personal to the nonsinning individual.

Just like original sin.

Ezekiel abhors such talk.

How can we accept original sin as anything other than a nonbiblical interpolation?

Call it new revelation if it pleases you, but we have no biblical basis for accepting any such thing as authoritative, especially since it teaches corporate guilt, an idea likewise abhorrent to LDS Christians.

Do all believers in original sin throw the personal responsibility baby out with the fulfillment of the law bathwater?

[William the Conqueror]

[

406 - Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable.

Augustine and the Reformers were correct. The tendency to evil is insurmountable, hence Johnathan Edward's view of the natural versus the moral ability of man. All mankind has the natural ability to accept Christ on hearing the gospel, however the moral inability due to the Fall circumscribes the natural ability and thus prevents him from coming to the Master. Romans 5 indicates this tendency to evil, '...as in Adam all mankind dies...' -i.e.: spiritual and physical death. Mankind has the natural ability to recognize deity in creation from Romans 1, but without the enabling grace (efficiacious grace) of God mankind will never come to the Master. 'no one can come to me unless the Father draws him and I will raise him up at the last day...' John 6. The grace is irresistable - for He did not say 'until' nor I 'may' raise him up...' but I will raise him up. '...For many are called but few are chosen...' '...as many as were appointed to eternal life believed...' not as the JST states '...as many as believed were appointed to eternal life...' '...to this doom they were appointed...'

Ever wonder why no Mormon on this discussion board has converted to Christ?

[USU78]

Ever wonder why no Mormon on this discussion board has converted to Christ?

Call for references that no Mormon is a convert to the Master and His Gospel.

[johnny]

USU78,

Ezekiel is talking about responsibility for sin acquired through commonality with (or inheritence from) a 3rd party sinner, usually a family member. That acquisition via commonality/inheritence is by definition not personal to the nonsinning individual.

It is personal because the initial member committed it personally. Ezekiel is talking about a "act" that is transferred to other family members.

Just like original sin.

Not like, it is very different ... because original Sin is associated with Adam, the whole human race is in Adam.

Original sin is about a "state" which is transferred by human nature itself, it is not only transferred to particular family members but is transferred to all members in the human race because we are all in Adam.

How can we accept original sin as anything other than a nonbiblical interpolation?

What is your interpretation of Romans 5?

My interpretation of Romans 5 is:

All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" [Rom 5:12, 19].

The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men" [Rom 5:18].

Do all believers in original sin throw the personal responsibility baby out with the fulfillment of the law bathwater?

Their is personal sin and original sin. A person is reponsiable for personal sin. Original is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

[USU78]

Ezekiel is talking about responsibility for sin acquired through commonality with (or inheritence from) a 3rd party sinner, usually a family member. That acquisition via commonality/inheritence is by definition not personal to the nonsinning individual.

It is personal because the initial member committed it personally. Ezekiel is talking about a "act" that is transferred to other family members.

Gobbledygook. We are members of Adam's family. The sin is personal to him. And to Eva. There is nothing different between me not inheriting my immediate father's sin and me not inheriting my Ur-father's, Adam's, sin, except extremity of remoteness, making heritability of Adam's sin more implausible per Ezekiel.

Just like original sin.

Not like, it is very different ... because original Sin is associated with Adam, the whole human race is in Adam.

Gobbledygook. Being "in" Adam is a senseless construct. Ezekiel is clear: no vicarious liability for somebody else's sins, be it Adam's or Grandpa George or Daddy Warbucks.

Original sin is about a "state" which is transferred by human nature itself, it is not only transferred to particular family members but is transferred to all members in the human race because we are all in Adam.

We come into this world guiltless. Earthstains only stain us through our own acts, and if we are cut off from G-d, we are cut off by our own hand. There is no transferrence of one person's guilt to anybody else per Ezekiel. It is absolutely unambiguous. The believer in original sin would make the Master's gospel less moral than the Torah as interpreted by Ezekiel. Can you accept you, as a believer in original sin, are less moral in your beliefs than 2nd Temple Jews?

How can we accept original sin as anything other than a nonbiblical interpolation?

What is your interpretation of Romans 5? My interpretation of Romans 5 is:

All men are implicated in Adam's sin, as Paul affirms: "By one man's disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" [Rom 5:12, 19].

The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men" [Rom 5:18].

Sauls/Paul (or whoever was writing in his style) says no such thing. To state that all are sinful is quite a different thing than to say all inherit liability for another's sin. Ezekiel says such an assertion is nonsensical. And he's quite right. Nobody is justly judged who is made responsible for anybody else's sin. You can quote me a gajillion catechism statements, and it won't change a jot or a tittle of the Ezekiel teaching.

Do all believers in original sin throw the personal responsibility baby out with the fulfillment of the law bathwater?

Their is personal sin and original sin. A person is reponsiable for personal sin. Original is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

This is conclusory. It still does not address the issue.

johnny: is the 5th Century BCE Jew more moral in his teachings than the XXIst Century asserter of original sin?

[johnny]

USU78,

There is nothing different between me not inheriting my immediate father's sin

The difference is that your are not in the body of your father. Their are no scriptures to support the idea that your are in the body of your father. Their are scriptures that reveal that all men are in Adam.

Being "in" Adam is a senseless construct.

It is constructed in scripture (see below). What is your interpretation of Romans 5:18?

Rom.5

[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

We come into this world guiltless.

We come in the world condemned (Rom 5:12) ... again what is your interpretion?

Rom.5

[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

state that all are sinful is quite a different thing than to say all inherit liability for another's sin.

It says we are all condemned ...

This is conclusory. It still does not address the issue.

Please address the following scriptures ... what is your interpretation?

Rom.5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

[15] But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

[16] And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

[17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[3DOP]

USU78,

I am not interested in continuing the discussion with someone who seems hellbent on not merely disagreeing, but convincing himself that the opposing view has no merit whatsoever. I can see how you arrive at your position. I do not understand how you can say what you do about ours. G-d bless.

3DOP

[USU78]

There is nothing different between me not inheriting my immediate father's sin

The difference is that your are not in the body of your father. Their are no scriptures to support the idea that your are in the body of your father. Their are scriptures that reveal that all men are in Adam.

All men die because Adam fell. They bear no guilt for the sin that led to that fall, however. I don't find death to be a punishment. Indeed, only Adam and Eva should die for that sin per Ezekiel. We die because it is our natural condition -- the only thing heritable from our Ur-parents.

Being "in" Adam is a senseless construct.

It is constructed in scripture (see below). What is your interpretation of Romans 5:18?

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

The only condemnation is that which leads to physical death. And the one gift is the gift of eternal life.

We come into this world guiltless.

We come in the world condemned (Rom 5:12) ... again what is your interpretion?

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

I fixed your quote: you repeated verse 18. I quite agree with Saul/Paul (or whoever else wrote this) that death (Adam's and Eve's death through guilt -- our deaths by condition) came into the world. I also agree that we all sin. LDS Scripture states, "The natural man is an enemy to G-d." Vicarious responsibility for somebody else's sin is quite another thing, however, and alien to scripture.

To state that all are sinful is quite a different thing than to say all inherit liability for another's sin.

It says we are all condemned ...

Yes. Condemned to death. We'll all die. But that doesn't mean we are responsibility in any particular for Adam and Eva's sin. That sin they bear alone.

This is conclusory. It still does not address the issue.

Please address the following scriptures ... what is your interpretation?

Done and did. You aren't presenting an argument. You're presenting conclusions over and over again.

[USU78]

USU78, I am not interested in continuing the discussion with someone who seems hellbent on not merely disagreeing, but convincing himself that the opposing view has no merit whatsoever. I can see how you arrive at your position. I do not understand how you can say what you do about ours. G-d bless.

My apologies. I appear to have been so focused upon johnny's stuff that I missed something of yours. More, perhaps, later. I'm off soon to supervise a 12-year-olds' Halloween party. Yikes!

[johnny]

USU78,

I don't find death to be a punishment.

From the moment we are born we have all sinned, we all need to be justified by his grace.

Rom.3

[23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

[24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Suffering is punishment ... being kept away from the tree of life is punishment.

Gen.2

[16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

[17] And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

[18] Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

[19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

We die because it is our natural condition -- the only thing heritable from our Ur-parents.

Adam and Eve's natural condition was not to die. You and I die because of Adam sin's ... death passed upon all men because of the offence of Adam.

Rom.5

[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

[15] But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

I also agree that we all sin.

Sounds like you agree with the doctrine of Original sin ... The doctrine of original sin is the reverse side of the Good News that Jesus is the Saviour of all men.

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.

Done and did.

Thanks that helps me better understand your view ...

If Adam and Eve hadn't sin, you and 3DOP would be in a garden of Paradise where their is no death, no sorrow, no crying, no pain ... God himself would be with you both.

Rev.21

[3] And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

[4] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

[William the Conqueror]

Ever wonder why no Mormon on this discussion board has converted to Christ?

Call for references that no Mormon is a convert to the Master and His Gospel.

I'm sure that is very offensive to you and I hope that I am wrong. On the other hand I may be in your camp as to offspring not being liable for the offense of forbearers. The HyperCalvinist believes that all mankind is held liable for the sin of Adam, a view that I do not endorse. However in Adam we have all inherited the tendency toward evil or sin nature if you will. We are not liable for the nature per se but we are liable for the sin(s) that it produces. The Sin of Adam & Eve is not imputed to us, but the Sin nature is.

It is a catch 22 for the sin nature produces sin. '...the poison of asps is under their lips....they go astray from birth...' (Psalms)