Interesting Thoughts on Original Sin

Sorry, in fact I meant 1 Timothy 6:v.20-21; There is not chapter 6 in 2 Timothy. Thanks by the correction.​

The correction above you made in my post is a proof that I used the Bible. 1 Timothy 6 KJV - Let as many servants as are under the - Bible Gateway

What you said, it may be for you, not for me. Anyway, both words are applied in my post you are replying.

There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father-GOD the Father, the Word-the Word made flesh-JESUS, and the holy Spirit (who is a Person, the Man Child, not a ghost as is written in English language): and these three are One.
About the person of holy Spirit JESUS said: John 16 - he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

 

In my post #90 I transcribed two posts of you and one of Tiffy, in whish there were a lot of false science or knowledge in the way the main enemy (enemy of the true believers in the Word of GOD) likes.

 

Excelent reply.

 

In this current time is much more the called false science and knowledge than in the time of Paul Apostle.

 

Friend, every books of the New Testament had already been written until year 100AD, the Old Testament started to be written around 1500 years B.C., therefore, at 100AD the Bible was complete, and its content being announced mainly the New Testament, course.

Actually even the Roman Empire was shaken by the preaching of Gospel of GOD's Kingdom, time after it was destroyed politically and militarily, so Satan by his satanic strategy turned it into a religious Empire, and the Devil created a false Christianism and persecuted and killed the true Christians, having developed his religious Empire by election of a Beast, the Beast of the sea - the Papacy and the Catholic Church, later called Roman Catholic Church, which rides upon the Beast until this current time, - and then was born the great Whore, and the Beast was constituted the main head of the new satanic system for reigning among the peoples, and nations, and multitudes of all tongues in whole Earth, including Israel, from which will rise 10 kings in this time of Apocalypse(former 10 Princes, one of each tribe), by allegory they are 10 toes of the feet of the Nebuchadnezzar's statue-Daniel 2:v.41-42. Check it.

NOW, IF IT IS DOCUMENTATION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THEN MY FRIEND STEVE AVERY CAN HELP YOU, SO TAKE A LOOK AT HIS SITE - https://purebibleforum.com/index.php

https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?watched/threads

 

It is a BIG DEAL though to Biblical Literal Fundamentalists because they are terrified that anything written in the Bible may not be literally TRUE. The very thought that anyone would think that thought let alone suggest it might be so causes them to go into paroxysms of despair in case it may be true. This is BECAUSE if it ever actually is proven true their faith will collapse like a house built upon a sandy beach, in a storm.

They forget that all of those letters that Paul dictated and others wrote at the time were ACTUAL communications to actual people about actual concerns during the dawn era of an actual faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. HE was their focus, not what they were writing or dictating. They did not sit down and think to themselves, "I know, I shall write an infallibly perfect letter with infallibly perfect information in it about the way I infallibly believe Christianity should be perfectly done and Christians will read it for at least 2000 years". They were actually doing exactly the same as WE are doing in this forum, i.e. discussing the faith of Jesus Christ and how important HE is to our salvation and every aspect of the way our lives are conducted and our behaviour affected by faith in HIS PERSON.

It was irrelevant to the authors of the New Testament writers that their written work would be later on bound together in a Sacred Book and Revered as being Perfect, Infallible, Authoritative, Unquestionable and so sacrosanct as to be declared inviolable to the degree that it's actual origins cannot ever be ALLOWED even to be questioned on some internet forum.

THAT is the way the Koran is treated by Muslims, and most Christians regard that as bizarre and unwarranted, yet cannot see they may be making exactly the same mistake, of denying the plain truth of the matter because they have invested so much of their FAITH in a BOOK that they cannot allow that BOOK's origins or authorship, to even be questioned.

Me, - I trust in Jesus Christ. Some of the information I have received concerning his claim to be my saviour has come from The Bible, but I am by no means reliant upon it to bolster my faith in Jesus Christ, because I have personally encountered his spirit and as his servant HE will make me to stand before him at the last day, just like the authors who wrote those books in the bible, even if I've never read the Bible in years. It is how I live my life in the light of HIS teaching that will decide the important issues at the judgment, not whether I believed the inspired Bible to be Infallibly Perfect or not. It is never a sin to try to discover the truth.
.

 

Perfect. Who really wrote the two Epistles to Timothy was Paul, the Apostle, handwritten, as you quoted above. He is the author of the two Epistles to Timothy, really. This is what matters. Who says the contrary and denies doesn't prove anything.

 

The Word is GOD. GOD is Light, in Him is no darkness at all. In the beginning - in JESUS - God created the heaven and the earth, without JESUS was not any thing made that was made. And the earth**(not the earth globe, course, that had a / its geometric form)** was without form, and void (here is a mystery, a biblical enigma); and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of GOD -GOD is Spirit- moved upon the face of the waters-(this has nothing to do with H2O).

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Well, GOD is Light, in Him is no darkness at all.

 

And?

 

And GOD saw the light, that it was good: and GOD divided the light from the darkness.

GOD bless

 

You quote that scripture as if you somehow are expecting me to contradict it. What is the truth you are intending to establish?
.

 

Oh no, I only answered your question according the content of my post you replied making a question.

The Truth is already established since the beginning. JESUS said to the Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.
Its it. The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord, said JESUS.

 

You do realise though the Christ's word was not as the people had previously been taught the scriptures, (Bible as was OT style before Jesus taught differently). Luke 4:25, 9:27, 12:51, 13:3, 13:5, 13:27 and Matt.5:22-39.
.

 

The law was given by Moses, but grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ. Take a look in John 5:v. 43-47.

The times of this ignorance GOD overlooked or winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because He appointed a Day (the current seventh and last Day or seventh and last millennium, the Lord's Day), in the which will Judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him from the dead.

Acts 3v.19-24

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things (these times arrived), which GOD hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your GOD raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

24 Yea, all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. (these days of the times of the END) Jewish Calendar - How to explain the difference of exactly 240 years in the Jewish calendar? | Pure Bible Forum (and see www.sinaiticus.net )

Therefore, be careful and get ready

 

Re-reading Article 9, a question came to mind.

Original sin stands not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserves God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek phronema sarkos (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh), is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the Apostle confesses that concupiscence and lust has itself the nature of sin.​

I notice that the emphasis of the Article is on the sin nature, the predisposition to engage in sin, that is in the body of every human. "The flesh lusts always contrary to the spirit." We know, of course, that this mortal flesh still affects us (drags us toward sin) even after spiritual rebirth: "this infection of nature doth remain...in them that are regenerated."

I believe that RC theology essentially posits that original sin is comprised of two elements: the sin nature and the sin guilt. They teach their adherents that baptism positively effectuates new birth and removes the guilt-stain of original sin. They teach that failure to be baptized renders the person unable to reach heaven because that person is guilty of (at the very least) the guilt-stain of original sin.

Since Anglican teaching simply says that baptism does not abate original sin (as Anglicanism defines the same), does this mean that the Anglican definition encompasses an inherited sin nature, but not an inherited sin guilt?

 

There is no such thing as a “sin nature” (which is a dualist/Manichean error), nor is there a real distinction between “original sin” and “original guilt.” In the baptized, the fact of original sin exists side-by-side with the fact of regeneration (which consists of the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of righteousness). The former ends with death; the latter is the pledge of resurrection.

 

To clarify my earlier post, the Article speaks very definitely about man's nature. This nature, inherited from Adam, is said to be "inclined to evil." Evil and sin being rather synonymous, I loosely termed this nature of the human being a "sin nature." This nature is embedded in the human body, "the flesh." The Article also says that this body, this flesh, "deserves God's wrath and damnation." We know that our bodies are therefore doomed to death and decay.

But the Article does not really say anything, as far as I can discern, about the spirit of a man being subject to wrath due to this inheritance, which makes me question if there is believed to be (not just evil tendency but also actual) guilt received by a descendant of Adam as a consequence of Adam's sin. If a newborn bears this guilt, then if the child were to die shortly after birth it would seem like the guilt would be unremitted. On the other hand, if Adam's guilt was his own to bear, then I can see how the child could be considered holy per 1 Cor. 7:14. Which is it: guilty or innocent?

 

Pelagius' response
The theologian Pelagius reacted thoroughly negatively to Augustine's theory of original sin. Pelagius considered it an insult to God that humans could be born inherently sinful or biased towards sin, and Pelagius believed that the soul was created by God at conception, and therefore could not be imbued with sin as it was solely the product of God's creative agency. Adam did not bring about inherent sin, but he introduced death to the world. Furthermore, Pelagius argued, sin was spread through example rather than hereditary transmission. Pelagius advanced a further argument against the idea of the transmission of sin: since adults are baptized and cleansed of their sin, their children are not capable of inheriting a sin that the parents do not have to begin with.​

II. Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man.
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.
Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
​

I quote the bit about Pelagius because it is clear that is one area that the Articles sought to steer clear of, and they have trodden carefully as they did in many areas. We cannot save ourselves. We cannot be good enough. It is only grace and the atoning sacrifice of Christ that really make the difference.

To some extent, this depends on how you see Adam. There is an un-nuanced view that sees Adam as the biological father of the human race, and for those folk, sin is in the DNA. For others who see Adam as the archetypal "man", we might understand that there is something rebellious in human nature that needs to be tamed by the new 'adam' namely Jesus. Eastern theology does not feel the need to embrace a doctrine of original sin. It is clear that Parker and others who were ultimately involved in the publishing of the 39 Articles were reasonable and close to the reformed position on this matter, avoiding the excesses as were part of the movement elsewhere.

In a sense, original sin belongs to all of humankind, whereas personal sin - the stuff I do - belongs to me. So if I was perfect - let me hasten to assure you I am not - then I would still have to deal with original sin. We are all ij this together. We were all thrown out of the garden.

 

My one and only quibble here is that Eastern Christianity never officially rejected the doctrine of original sin. That is a modern revisionist take on the Schism that simply has no basis in dogmatic history. Much of it stems from the work of Romanides, whose writing - as David Hart once put it - is “almost miraculously devoid of a single accurate statement,” a statement which I found to be true in my own study of his work.

https://journal.orthodoxwestblogs.com/2019/01/24/original-and-ancestral-sin-a-church-dividing-issue/