Jump to content


Photo

Original Sin


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Ken Gilmore

Ken Gilmore

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,808 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 10 July 2013 - 02:48 AM

Even before the original apostolic generation had died, the original Christian message had been compromised. Paul, writing in Galatians 1:6-7 writes:

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.


while Luke, writing in Acts 20:29-30 records Paul telling the Ephesians in his farewell speech that:

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

The areas in which mainstream Christianity has deviated from the apostolic message are needless to say well-known to us, and range from the unity of God to the innate mortality of humanity. One major theological aberration about which we tend not to think is original sin, which is defined as the loss of the freedom and ability to do what God wants, which has been inherited by humans from Adam after his transgression.

Not all of the major Christian faith traditions accept original sin, with the Greek Orthodox Church rejecting this doctrine. However, the Roman Catholic and Reformed traditions accept Original Sin. The Roman Catholic Catechism asserts:

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? 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. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. 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. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed”—a state and not an act.

There are two things which leap out at you. The first is the ready use of the term ‘mystery’ which often is used to paper over gaping chasms in logic, The second is the patently unbiblical nature of the concept that people are punished for what others are done:

Ezek 18:1-3 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge? As I live, declares the Lord God, you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore.

Deut 25:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.

The Westminster Confession of Faith goes even further, by arguing that humans inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin:

By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

Ignoring the contradiction between the Biblical evidence that people do not die for the sins of their parents and the central theme of Original Sin which asserts otherwise, it is the blatant immorality of such a doctrine which has offended many Christians over the years. It has also been responsible for the loss of faith of many. In an exhortation some time ago, I referred to a study of deconversion anecdotes which found that doctrines which these ex-believers found to be illogical or immoral were responsible for a significant number of deconversions.

Annalise Fonza, an ex-pastor who has abandoned her Christian faith observes that Original Sin was one of the reasons behind her loss of faith. Writing on the atheist blog Black Skeptics, she observes:

The first thing is that many Christians have a VERY negative view of the human condition. They typically think that as human beings we are deeply flawed or incapable of making reasonable and rational decisions. The doctrine of original sin, proposed in the fourth century of the Common Era by Saint Augustine is partly to blame. Augustine (who was African) had many personal struggles with his humanity, including a tremendous guilt for his sexual practices, and, consequently, he concluded that the human condition was “depraved” or corrupt from birth. As the Church continued to institutionalize, first as the Catholic Church, it also continued to incorporate Augustine’s theory of original sin into the systematic development of Christian theology. All over the world this theory dominates Christian thinking and practices to the extent that many contemporary Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, demonstrate that they believe like Augustine: that it is impossible for us as humans to be good or moral without supernatural help.


The doctrine of the Trinity arguably is the most serious of all the deviations from original Christianity as it completely distorts our understanding of the nature of God, and his son Jesus Christ, as well as the doctrines which directly impact on them. Original Sin, I would argue, runs a close second as it not only contradicts the concept of justice as revealed in the Bible, but has prepared the ground for mainstream Christian views on the atonement such as the penal and satisfaction theories of the atonement.

The 11th century theologian Anselm was the founding father of the satisfaction theory of the atonement, which asserted that God’s honour demanded satisfaction for man’s sin. In his work Cur Deus Homo, Anselm wrote, in the form of a dialogue between himself and a monk named Boso:

Anselm. Let us return and consider whether it were proper for God to put away sins by compassion alone, without any payment of the honor taken from him.
Boso. I do not see why it is not proper.
Anselm. To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish; and since it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment; if it be not punished, then is it passed by undischarged.
Boso. What you say is reasonable.
Anselm. It is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom undischarged.
Boso. If I wish to oppose this, I fear to sin.
Anselm. It is, therefore, not proper for God thus to pass over sin unpunished.
Boso. Thus it follows.
Anselm. There is also another thing which follows if sin be passed by unpunished, viz., that with God there will be no difference between the guilty and the not guilty; and this is unbecoming to God.


The Reformed theologian Paul Wells, writing in the journal Themelios summarises the penal satisfaction theory, which is widely held in the Evangelical world:

The model of one who takes the place of another is qualified, indicating that the replacement is penal. The notion of penal substitution means that Christ acted on behalf of others in the sense of liability to punishment, judgement and retribution. It involves the character of God who demands reparation, the need of a substitute, the anger of God against sin undergone by the sacrificial substitute and condemnation. Penal substitution effects expiation and the propitiation of God. The result is reconciliation, which must imply not only our reconciliation to God but primarily God’s reconciliation to us.

Unsurprisingly, Wells continues by noting that these “theological notions, both individually and collectively are extremely offensive to the modern mind. Our contemporaries do not like crime and punishment!” It should go without saying that we’d argue such theological notions are extremely offensive to the Divine mind, particularly as Paul has written in Romans 3:21-26

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Paul notes that the righteousness of God is shown by his mercy in passing over sins previously forgiven. The contrast with the God depicted in the atonement theology of Anselm could not be sharper. The God of Anselm also is hard to reconcile with the God who revealed himself before Moses, as Exodus 34: 6-7 notes:

Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

The God Moses worshipped is compassionate, forgives iniquity and is slow to anger. He is also a just God, who does not leave the guilty unpunished, but as we do not inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, the idea that we are punished for that guilt is alien to the nature of God.

As Original Sin and the atonement theories that are contingent on it find no substantive Biblical support, this raises the question of how this deviation from apostolic Christianity emerged. Although many early Christians contributed to it, by far the leading figure was Augustine of Hippo, without doubt the most influential early Christian theologian.

Augustine, who lived from the mid 4th to the early 5th century AD was born into a Christian family of some status. He undertook an academic career, lecturing in Carthage and Rome. Early in his life, he abandoned Christianity for the Gnostic cult of the Manichaeans, which viewed the world in a starkly dualistic fashion, and – significantly – viewed humanity as the product of light and darkness, with humanity as the site of a grand battle between good and evil. Later in life, Augustine was strongly influenced by Neoplatonism. Augustine was converted back to Christianity in his early 30s, largely due to the influence of Ambrose of Milan.

Three other factors were responsible for Augustine’s theory of Original Sin. One was his morally dubious past – he took a mistress at an early age, and was famous for his quote “Lord make me chaste, but not just yet.” His sense of guilt and shame at his debauched earlier life strongly influenced his thinking on a connection between sexual sin and the original transgression in Eden. The second was his reading of Romans 5v12, which was influenced by the flawed Old Latin Bible.

This, significantly is recognised by non-Christadelphians. For example, the respected Jesuit professor of theology Jack Mahoney is willing to point out exactly where Augustine went wrong in his theory of Original Sin:

In her study of modern sociobiology, Patricia A. Williams identifies three strata in the formulation of the Christian belief in the Fall: the original text in Genesis 2:4 to 3:24, the theological reflections produced on this by Paul in chapter 5 of his epistle to the Romans, and the further theological interpretation of Paul that was elaborated by Augustine of Hippo. To this last stratum the Catholic tradition would add the subsequent official formulation of the doctrine of original sin as drawn up by the Council of Trent (DS 1510–16), which has been summarized most recently in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 379–421).

The formal teaching of the Council of Trent, then, is that Adam’s original sin is inherited by everyone through procreation and that its guilt is forgiven by the conferring of baptism, yet something of its results remains even in the baptized, experienced as concupiscence or sinful desires, fomenting or fueling sin in each of us. On this several comments can be offered, the first crucially relating to where it all starts, namely, to what Paul meant in Romans 5:12 when he used the Greek phrase eph’ hō relating to Adam’s action. Augustine and others, including the council fathers at Trent, relying on the Old Latin translation, took this to mean in Latin in quo, or “in whom,” with the clear implication that everyone had sinned in Adam. Most exegetes today understand this phrase as using the common Greek preposition epi to imply succession rather than inclusion, thus giving the meaning “since when” all have sinned rather than “in whom” all have sinned. We must conclude that if this is the original Pauline meaning, it removes from divine revelation any reference to Adam’s descendants being incorporated in solidarity “in him” (in quo), and as a result it dispenses with the conclusion that the whole of succeeding humanity has been condemned en masse as a sort of “condemned mass in Adam,” as Augustine and others explained. J. N. D. Kelly delivers his considered verdict in explaining how the Old Latin version of the New Testament (which had influence only in the West) gave “an exegesis of Rom 5:12 which, though mistaken and based on a false reading, was to become the pivot of the doctrine of original sin.”

As a consequence of this reflection, it follows that there is now no need for theology to find a method by which to explain how all Adam’s offspring inherit his original sin. Trent’s insistence that Adam’s original sin was transmitted among all subsequent human beings by propagation, or by generation, rather than simply by imitation (which Pelagius was considered to have maintained) was clearly due more to the theological polemic of Saint Augustine against Pelagius and his supporters than to Paul’s writing centuries earlier. The Council of Trent’s teaching on original sin (DS 1512) appealed to the sixth-century Second Council of Orange, which itself drew explicitly on Augustine’s views on original sin, including his quotation and his understanding of what he considered Paul’s in quo and what he considered its implications (DS 371–72; Catechism no. 406).

The conflict between Augustine and the British monk Pelagius is the final factor responsible for the formulation of Original sin. It is difficult to get an objective picture of this conflict as much of what we know of Pelagius is filtered through his opponents such as Jerome and Augustine. In the Encyclopedia of Christianity, we read that:

Pelagius took issue with the dualism of Manichaeanism, which treated evil as an independent principle and thus regarded sin as a natural necessity. In opposition to this physical determinism he set his own doctrine of freedom on the basis of God’s gracious action. In line with the early Augustine, Ambrosiaster, and Origen, Pelagius first stressed the grace of creation. By this grace God has given us the ability, if we will, to avoid sin and to decide for the good. Nevertheless, by the fall of Adam reason has been darkened and the law of nature forgotten.

Pelagius did not deny the fundamental freedom of the will that is the basis of responsibility for our actions. But the power of sin manifests itself in the fact that committing sin has become a habit. Since we cannot overcome this habit in our own strength, God has shown us the grace of revelation. By the law of Moses he reminded the people of Israel of the gift of reason that he gave at creation.

Israel, however, refused to render obedience and turned aside from God. Hence God revealed to all of us the better righteousness of Christ, whose commands supplement those of Moses and the observing of which is urged upon us by the seriousness of coming judgment. By his life and teaching, Christ is an example of perfect obedience. All Christians can fulfill Christ’s commands in their own lives and in this way bring to fulfillment God’s will at creation. Sin, though, will not be completely overcome in this life, and thus God gives the grace of forgiveness, which is grounded in the death of Christ. We appropriate this grace in baptism and receive it as justification by faith.

Mahoney notes how Augustine’s theology was sharply defined by his opposition to Pelagius’ views, which many argue reflect the original Christian position on the subject:

Augustine himself, under severe pressure from Pelagian sympathizers, found himself denying vehemently that he had “invented original sin.”

Perhaps he was protesting too much. As Edward Yarnold observes of Augustine in his book The Theology of Original Sin, the “traditional Catholic expression . . . [of original sin] is to a large extent that saint’s thought.” John Muddiman puts the point more sharply: “It is well known that the New Testament basis for the Augustinian doctrine is meagre, namely Romans 5:12 in the Vulgate translation, and a great deal even then has to be assumed.”

Augustine’s insistence on original sin was, in fact, influenced by his implacable opposition to Pelagian claims for moral self-sufficiency, as well as by Augustine’s own humiliating struggle for chastity and his pessimistic theology of human sexuality. As I have commented elsewhere, it is not surprising that the troubled Augustine saw in human disruptive sexual experience “not only the terrible effects of original sin, but also the very channel through which that sin was transmitted from generation to generation.”

Augustine’s version of Christianity, as even some mainstream Christian theologians admit, owes more to his Manichean and neoplatonist past, as well as his own moral struggles and intellectual battle with Pelagius than the Bible itself. Not only does his concept of Original Sin run counter to the Biblical concept of justice, in which humans are not punished or held accountable for the crimes of other people, it has riddled Christianity with a totally negative view of creation, and indirectly contributed to a medieval view of God as one whose honour has been wounded, and will not forgive unless he is appeased. In contrast, as Paul notes in Romans, God’s righteousness is seen in his willingness to forgive, a characteristic reinforced by the parable of the Prodigal Son, where the father not only is willing to forgive his son, but has been waiting anxiously for any sign of repentance.

In light of the above, Romans 5v12 simply does not provide the support for Augustine’s view. Since everyone sins, everyone will die and remain dead, unless they stop following the malign example Adam set, and follow the example set by Christ. Romans 6v23 puts eternal death and eternal life into opposition: the wages of sin is eternal death, while the gift of God is eternal life through the example of Jesus Christ, which we need to follow. From this we can clearly see the participatory concept of the atonement, where we follow the example set by Jesus. We are baptised into his death, burial and resurrection, and by participating in his life, crucifying the flesh constantly, we have hope of eternal life. John 15:4-11 is as good a passage as any to emphasise the point that we cannot blame Adam – or anyone else – for our failure, for only if we abide in Christ and follow the right example will we live:

Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.

Edited by Ken Gilmore, 10 July 2013 - 02:56 AM.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei

#2 TrevorL

TrevorL

    Theta

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • LocationLake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

Posted 29 July 2013 - 11:57 PM

Greetings Ken,

I was interested in your article on Original Sin. I am not sure if you feel that some of this has in the past or is at present having some influence on our community. I suspect that there is a range of opinion on the effect of Adam’s transgression on himself and on his descendents.

One comment only on your article, Paul does not use the term “eternal death” in Romans 6:23.

Romans 6v23 puts eternal death and eternal life into opposition: the wages of sin is eternal death, while the gift of God is eternal life through the example of Jesus Christ, which we need to follow.


Romans 6:23 (KJV): For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Kind regards
Trevor

#3 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 30 July 2013 - 12:04 AM

Trevor, are you saying that the wages of sin is temporary death? If not, what kind of death are you thinking of?

It is difficult to see how the death of Romans 6:23 can be the wages of sin unless it is eternal.
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#4 TrevorL

TrevorL

    Theta

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • LocationLake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

Posted 30 July 2013 - 11:49 PM

Greetings Evangelion,

Trevor, are you saying that the wages of sin is temporary death? If not, what kind of death are you thinking of?

It is difficult to see how the death of Romans 6:23 can be the wages of sin unless it is eternal.


To be quite honest Ev, now that you have asked for a proper response, I need to carefully examine my present view on this particular verse. But simply stated, to use “eternal death” instead of the Romans 6:23 “death” excludes my present view. I believe to use “eternal death” here is only one possible explanation, and this indicates the possible range of opinion both here and on other important related Scriptures. I have discussed some aspects of our differences elsewhere and I do not want to repeat this.

Kind regards
Trevor

Edited by TrevorL, 31 July 2013 - 12:08 AM.


#5 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:36 AM

Thanks Trevor, I appreciate your candour.
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#6 Ken Gilmore

Ken Gilmore

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,808 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:59 AM

Greetings Ken,

I was interested in your article on Original Sin. I am not sure if you feel that some of this has in the past or is at present having some influence on our community. I suspect that there is a range of opinion on the effect of Adam’s transgression on himself and on his descendents.

One comment only on your article, Paul does not use the term “eternal death” in Romans 6:23.

Romans 6v23 puts eternal death and eternal life into opposition: the wages of sin is eternal death, while the gift of God is eternal life through the example of Jesus Christ, which we need to follow.


Romans 6:23 (KJV): For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


Kind regards
Trevor


Paul does not use the term 'eternal death' but neither does he use the term 'mortality' either. Human beings do not die after three score years and ten because they sin. They remain dead because they sin. That is the critical distinction. The parallelism in Rom 6v23 breaks down completely if eternal life is not paired with eternal death.

I must emphasise that I held this view before I became an evolutionary creationist, a point I stress because it shows that my view of the atonement and the nature of man is independent of evolution. Traditional Christadelphian teachings on this subject are not affected at all. The same cannot be said for Reformed and Catholic teachings on the subject of Original Sin and the atonement theories based on it.

Edited by Ken Gilmore, 31 July 2013 - 05:02 AM.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei

#7 TrevorL

TrevorL

    Theta

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • LocationLake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:04 AM

Greetings Ken,

Paul does not use the term 'eternal death' but neither does he use the term 'mortality' either. Human beings do not die after three score years and ten because they sin. They remain dead because they sin. That is the critical distinction. The parallelism in Rom 6v23 breaks down completely if eternal life is not paired with eternal death.

After responding to Evangelion I asked my wife, and then at our Wednesday night Bible Class I asked our two most senior Brethren: “How would you explain Romans 6:23, especially the first phrase ‘the wages of sin is death’?” I did not mention this thread, or the possibility of the concept of eternal death. All three referred back to Adam’s transgression and stated that death came as a result.

I cannot accept that “The parallelism in Rom 6v23 breaks down completely if eternal life is not paired with eternal death.”

Kind regards
Trevor

#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:30 AM

Trevor, if the verse refers to Adam then why is it in the present tense not the first? And what then is the wages of sin?

#9 Ken Gilmore

Ken Gilmore

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 3,808 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:34 AM

After responding to Evangelion I asked my wife, and then at our Wednesday night Bible Class I asked our two most senior Brethren: “How would you explain Romans 6:23, especially the first phrase ‘the wages of sin is death’?” I did not mention this thread, or the possibility of the concept of eternal death. All three referred back to Adam’s transgression and stated that death came as a result.

Assertions from 'senior' brethren without solid scriptural evidence and reasoning don't count as a substantive rebuttal, Trevor. :)

I cannot accept that “The parallelism in Rom 6v23 breaks down completely if eternal life is not paired with eternal death.”

Likewise, that's not a rebuttal, but a statement of disbelief, which in the absence of supportive evidence is hardly persuasive. It's a trivial exercise to show that Adam's sin did not introduce physical death into the human race by referring to the considerable archaeological evidence for humanity dating back 200,000 years as well as the genetic evidence conclusively linking us to humans who lived at least 40,000 years ago.

Far more satisfying in my eyes is the scriptural data which is not consistent with the argument that Adam's sin introduced corruptibility into the human race:

* The wages of sin is corruptibility
* The gift of God is eternal life.

The parallel is meaningless when framed that way as the death I die at the end of my life has nothing to do with my own personal sin. That is simply an inevitable consequence of being made 'from the dust of the ground'. The death which Paul is talking about is eternal death as a punishment for sin, a point which is well made by Jesus as recorded in John 5:24

Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Unsurprisingly, it is made by John again in 1 John 3:14

We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.

The death here has nothing to do with corruptibility, but death as a punishment for sin. The judicial element to this death is shoutingly clear in the first quotation, and given that one can be seen as having passed from death to life while still alive, it makes no sense at all to posit that the 'wages of sin' death is the death common to all men by virtue of being organic creatures.

Edited by Ken Gilmore, 01 August 2013 - 05:36 AM.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo Galilei

#10 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:46 AM

I cannot accept that “The parallelism in Rom 6v23 breaks down completely if eternal life is not paired with eternal death.”


Regardless of whether or not you can accept it, why do you change the text into something it doesn't say? You claim it says 'the wages of sin WAS MORTALITY'. It doesn't say that at all.

#11 TrevorL

TrevorL

    Theta

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • LocationLake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

Posted 02 August 2013 - 12:04 AM

Greetings Fortigurn and Greetings again Ken,

Trevor, if the verse refers to Adam then why is it in the present tense not the first? And what then is the wages of sin?

Assertions from 'senior' brethren without solid scriptural evidence and reasoning don't count as a substantive rebuttal, Trevor. :)/>/>


Not sure of your first question when you say “present tense not the first”, but hopefully I can respond. I hesitated when responding to Ev because I was undecided between two opinions, but when I raised it with my brethren and even Joyce I was content to go with one opinion. Also before responding to Ken I read through the thread “Was Adam created mortal”. I feel that we have discussed most of this in that thread. Ken I do not accept evolution.

Regardless of whether or not you can accept it, why do you change the text into something it doesn't say? You claim it says 'the wages of sin WAS MORTALITY'. It doesn't say that at all.

I claim that the wages of sin is death. To me Romans 6:23 firstly refers to Adam because that was the result of his sin. Because he sinned he was going to die. This relates to his natural death, not eternal death, as we do not know the final outcome with Adam. All of mankind follows after Adam and they die their natural death because of sin. This is the environment all of mankind is under. I believe that when I die it will be because I have inherited Adam’s condemned nature, and God is shown to be just because I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

God has introduced Jesus whereby this process or end result may be reversed and it is a gift by faith in and through Jesus Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

#12 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 02 August 2013 - 12:21 AM

All of mankind follows after Adam and they die their natural death because of sin. This is the environment all of mankind is under.

I believe that when I die it will be because I have inherited Adam’s condemned nature, and God is shown to be just because I have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.


Do plants and animals die their natural death because of sin? What about people who don't sin? Why do they die?
'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#13 TrevorL

TrevorL

    Theta

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • LocationLake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

Posted 02 August 2013 - 12:27 AM

Greetings again Evangelion,

What about people who don't sin? Why do they die?

Because they inherit a body that is dying because of sin.

Kind regards
Trevor

#14 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 01:49 AM

Not sure of your first question when you say “present tense not the first”, but hopefully I can respond.


Paul says the wages of sin IS DEATH. You take that out, and insert 'the wages of ADAM'S SIN WAS MORTALITY'. You do not accept what he wrote.

I claim that the wages of sin is death.


No, you say it's mortality.

To me Romans 6:23 firstly refers to Adam because that was the result of his sin. Because he sinned he was going to die. This relates to his natural death, not eternal death, as we do not know the final outcome with Adam.


Again, you say 'death' but you refer to mortality. So you think it says 'the wages of sin was mortality for Adam, and the wages of our sins is also mortality'.

All of mankind follows after Adam and they die their natural death because of sin.


So you don't believe we have mortal bodies? You believe that we are born with bodies which, if we do not sin, will continue to live forever? You are not reading what Paul wrote.

Because they inherit a body that is dying because of sin.



What does that mean, and where does Scripture say this?

#15 Evangelion

Evangelion

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 24,344 posts
  • LocationAdelaide, South Australia

Posted 02 August 2013 - 02:22 AM

Greetings again Evangelion,

What about people who don't sin? Why do they die?

Because they inherit a body that is dying because of sin.

Kind regards
Trevor


Because of what sin? Scripture please?

May I also have an answer to this question please?

Do plants and animals die their natural death because of sin?


'Abba Antony said, "A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us.'"'

Ward, Benedicta. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (2006), Antony 25, p. 5.

Credo.

#16 TrevorL

TrevorL

    Theta

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts
  • LocationLake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

Posted 03 August 2013 - 11:19 PM

Greetings again Fortigurn and Evangelion,

I decided not to answer each portion of your response Fort. I may be obscure in what I have stated. The view of Romans 6:23 that I decide upon is that it covers all of mankind and the so-called natural death that I believe man has inherited after the sin of Adam. This may not be the absolutely correct understanding of Romans 6:23, especially in its context. It could be speaking only to the believers in Christ who are conscious of the way in Christ, and yet have chosen or succumbed to the influences of sin. These then will receive eternal death at the judgement, and this will be the second death. Actually late last night after reading each of your Posts I attempted to listen to the Romans 6:23 portion of John Carter’s talk on Romans that he gave at Swanwick Bible Weekend in 1956. The extract in response to Evangelion is what I stumbled on when trying to locate his comments on Romans 6:23. I only found a brief mention so far on Romans 6:23 and there could be more. But his comment was more in line with what you both and Ken are claiming. Nevertheless I am still holding onto my preferred position as yet. Hopefully you will be tolerant of a range of opinion.

May I also have an answer to this question please?

Do plants and animals die their natural death because of sin?

I found the following by John Carter interesting. (talk 2 approx 56:00 mins on talk):

There was no law from Adam to Moses which was penal, and yet men died. Why did they die? And Paul is saying this happened to prove his point that death has come through to all, as extensions of Adam, as descendants of Adam. They are propagations of his being as he was after he had transgressed, and the sentence had been passed and they all share in the evil that has come in the wake of sin. … Paul looks on death, not as the biologist might say, well death is there, there’s the plants grow and die. Death isn’t natural in the creature that God has made after his own image. Because he made this man for some other and higher purpose than the grass of the field or the trees or the animals. Made in the image of God there was the potentiality of an everlasting association with the Father. And death comes in, in his experience and his life as something that is (if I may use the word without being misunderstood) unnatural, it is something that is imposed, and imposed because of sin and all share it.


Kind regards
Trevor




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users