Original sin and free will doctrine?

[TDLefty]

Where in the bible are the doctrines of original sin and free will spoken of?
It seems to me that "original sin" is disputed in Ezek. 18 and "free will" is disputed in Romans 9.
Thanks,
TDLefty

[Shadow Phoenix]

Where in the bible are the doctrines of original sin and free will spoken of?
It seems to me that "original sin" is disputed in Ezek. 18 and "free will" is disputed in Romans 9.
Thanks,
TDLefty

Hi TD! Let's look at your question.

Ezekiel 18 says that each person will die for his own sins.

I do not see how this goes against original sin though. Original sin states that each of us is born with the taint of sin. Psalm 51 would apply as we are conceived in sin. I would base this on the doctrine of Traducianism in which our souls are created by the union of mother and father. Since our souls have been "contaminated" as it were with sin, it passes on.

As for free-will, there can be no doubt that Romans 9 is one of the most debated passages in the debate. I would definitely recommend checking several commentaries and other writers on this issue. There are however, few Calvinists who will take the hard line that there is absolutely no free-will. (Am I choosing what to say to you right now or is it just being typed out? Do I have a free-will choice on when to take a shower in the morning?)

Where do I come down on this issue? I really don't know at this point. I would simply say that Jesus is the way of salvation, and that is enough for me.

Hope this helps!

[themuzicman]

Where in the bible are the doctrines of original sin and free will spoken of?
It seems to me that "original sin" is disputed in Ezek. 18 and "free will" is disputed in Romans 9.
Thanks,
TDLefty

Original sin is found most clearly in Romans 5, where by the one sin of Adam, all died in Adam. Now the nature of original sin, whether passed on through birth, or taken on when one sins, is certainly a big debate, but I don't think the concept of original sin is that hotly debated.

Free will is found in a host of places. God places life and death, blessing and cursing (based upon obeying or not obeying the law) before Israel, and tells them to choose.

Jesus, in John 6, makes it clear that those who believe (work for the bread that leads to eternal life v27,29), will receive eternal life (v40,47).

Free will isn't just a doctrine, but is a part of the backdrop of the metanarrative of scripture. IMHO, the overarching theme of the bible (and of human history) is God saying "Trust in me." That requires that man be able to choose.

Romans 9, when properly exegeted, is speaking of covenants, not individuals. Thus, when it says, "who can resist His will", it is speaking of God's will that those in the Old Covenant would be destroyed, and those in the New Covenant prepared for glory. It's not talking about individuals.

Hope that makes things clearer.

Michael

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Original sin is found most clearly in Romans 5, where by the one sin of Adam, all died in Adam. Now the nature of original sin, whether passed on through birth, or taken on when one sins, is certainly a big debate, but I don't think the concept of original sin is that hotly debated.I never like to offer clarification on another mod's post, however.

The two competing views of original sin are 1) That it is passed on in the reproductive cycle, or 2) That it is imputed judicially, with Adam as the representative of the human race.

The view that we only take on the consequences when we ourselves commit sin is the view that original sin is false. This view is usually called pelagianism.

[TDLefty]

Hi TD! Let's look at your question.

Ezekiel 18 says that each person will die for his own sins.

I do not see how this goes against original sin though. Original sin states that each of us is born with the taint of sin. Psalm 51 would apply as we are conceived in sin. I would base this on the doctrine of Traducianism in which our souls are created by the union of mother and father. Since our souls have been "contaminated" as it were with sin, it passes on.

As for free-will, there can be no doubt that Romans 9 is one of the most debated passages in the debate. I would definitely recommend checking several commentaries and other writers on this issue. There are however, few Calvinists who will take the hard line that there is absolutely no free-will. (Am I choosing what to say to you right now or is it just being typed out? Do I have a free-will choice on when to take a shower in the morning?)

Where do I come down on this issue? I really don't know at this point. I would simply say that Jesus is the way of salvation, and that is enough for me.

Hope this helps!

Hi Nick,
If each person dies for their own sins, that pretty much rules out being a sinner because of someone else's sin. And, that's not all Ezek. 18 says relative to the topic. It also says "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father". Does that not dispute the doctrine of inherited sin? The whole point of the passage is to put to lie the original sin doctrine, to keep Israel from using the saying/excuse-for-sin "the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge". And if we consider the words of Messiah in Matthew 18:3 where Jesus tells us "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven". If children were "born sinners", why would Jesus tell us we must become as they are to enter into the kingdom? In order to believe in original sin, it seems a person must believe that you're born with inherited sin but that it's not imputed until later and that God was incorrect when he pronounced that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father. I know of no place in scripture that says the sins of another are imputed on us upon maturity.
There's also another problem. The original sin doctrine forces a person to find a way to eliminate Jesus from itself. Since Jesus was born of a woman, He'd be victim to inherited sin too! That's the reason, I believe, that the Catholic sect had to try to circumvent by naming the mother of Jesus as free of original sin. That solution causes even more problems!
Better in my mind to just not give spiritual veracity to the original sin doctrine and just stick with the witness of God.... That the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

I don't think the free will doctrine dictates that you don't choose to type words on a page. The bible says "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy". I believe the free will doctrine ignores the idea of perspective. Romans 9 is pretty blunt that it is God that formed us, some to honour and some to dishonour. Rather than deny that by claiming that we are in total control of our destiny would it not agree better to agree with scripture and say that God formed us and knew us from before we were born and thus has placed in us the traits that He saw fit for His purpose? Sure, from our perspective we have decided to follow Jesus. But who put that will to serve within us? Are not many called but few chosen?

I appreciate the answers given here. I want to be advised if there's an aspect to these (and other) doctrines that I've not seen.

You said: Where do I come down on this issue? I really don't know at this point. I would simply say that Jesus is the way of salvation, and that is enough for me.

I say: Agreed. Yet at the same time I want to know all I have capacity for of the things of God. I think you do too.
TDLefty

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It also says "the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father". Does that not dispute the doctrine of inherited sin? The whole point of the passage is to put to lie the original sin doctrine, to keep Israel from using the saying/excuse-for-sin "the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge". That has nothing to do witht he doctrine of original sin. The saying about grapes was used to blame former generations for the judgement that God was currently dishing out to Israel. Doctrinal issues like original sin were not even in the picture. Different topic altogether.

[themuzicman]

I never like to offer clarification on another mod's post, however.

The two competing views of original sin are 1) That it is passed on in the reproductive cycle, or 2) That it is imputed judicially, with Adam as the representative of the human race.

The view that we only take on the consequences when we ourselves commit sin is the view that original sin is false. This view is usually called pelagianism.
Actually, what you've stated is a part of #2.

The Pelagians said that we could live perfect lives without sin.

Michael

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No, what I meant is that the view that we do not take on sin until we ourselves sin is unique to Pelagianism.

That is the reason they thought we could live perfect lives, since we had no sin nature until we ourselves sin. Those who have believed in original sin have everywhere and always denied this heretical position. It is not one of the views within the camp that accepts original sin. It is the view of those Pelagians who rejected original sin in its entirity.