Church of Christ and Original Sin?

[Redbandito]

I am curious to hear a defense against Original Sin from some of brothers and sisters from the Church of Christ. My best friend is looking to become Catholic, and grew up Church of Christ. When I challenged him on this, he could give no real explanation. Nor could he could a good explanation from any of his books or his pastor. His best guess was that because COC believes in the necessity of baptism, OS would make infant baptism necessary. Any insight? I saw a poster named AllisonP that identified herself as COC. Do you have any insight Allison? Scripture seems to speak fairly loudly on the issue.

 

[Redbandito]

Please help me on this people. I really am looking for an answer here. Any ex-Church of Christ folks or current ones?

 

[tradcatmel]

My brother is an ex-Church of Christ follower. He left them a few years ago, but what he did tell me was that they preached against the Catholic faith.

He is a lapsed Catholic now, but maybe this preaching against the catholic faith made him realise that that church was wrong.

Hey, I really hope that someone will be able to answer this for you.

God bless you

 

[Redbandito]

tradcatmel:

My brother is an ex-Church of Christ follower. He left them a few years ago, but what he did tell me was that they preached against the Catholic faith.

He is a lapsed Catholic now, but maybe this preaching against the catholic faith made him realise that that church was wrong.

Hey, I really hope that someone will be able to answer this for you.

God bless you

Thanks. Yeah, in talking to my friend, I get that feeling as well. There whole purpose is to discredit the Church, because otherwise they can’t establish that they are the original church. It is similar within the LDS church and some other fundamentalist groups.

 

[amontoya]

I am a member of the Church of Christ, and I disagree with you. I don’t think scripture speaks very loudly on this issue at all. I have been learning about the Catholic faith, and even briefly joined a RCIA class. One of the questions I had was about the doctrine of original sin. No book I have read, no website I have visited, nor any person I have asked has explained it to me. I asked the director of the RCIA class, the first night of class, and he said he didn’t know why it was taught or where it came from, but that he would get back to me about it. I spent almost three months in the class and he still was unable to answer me.

What is original sin? I read in the Catechism that it is a privation of grace. Why? Where did this idea come from? In Scripture, what I see is in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12. These verses state clearly that all have sinned, and that death came to all men because all sinned. Yes, sin and death entered the world because of Adam, but death came to all because all sinned, not because of Adam.

 

[TNT]

amontoya:

I am a member of the Church of Christ, and I disagree with you. I don’t think scripture speaks very loudly on this issue at all. I have been learning about the Catholic faith, and even briefly joined a RCIA class. One of the questions I had was about the doctrine of original sin. No book I have read, no website I have visited, nor any person I have asked has explained it to me. I asked the director of the RCIA class, the first night of class, and he said he didn’t know why it was taught or where it came from, but that he would get back to me about it. I spent almost three months in the class and he still was unable to answer me.

What is original sin? I read in the Catechism that it is a privation of grace. Why? Where did this idea come from? In Scripture, what I see is in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12. These verses state clearly that all have sinned, and that death came to all men because all sinned. Yes, sin and death entered the world because of Adam, but death came to all because all sinned, not because of Adam.

I see you don’t post much. We’d love to have a more frequent (name removed by moderator)ut.
Now, regarding the COC and Original Sin denial to humanity:
Their primary quote will be:
Old Testament:
Ezechiel 18 :20 The soul that sinneth, the same shall die:** the son shall not bear the iniquity of** the father , and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
That’s their entire argument.
But then:
Ezechiel 36 :25 And I will pour upon you clean water , and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols.
This is discarded because it uses pour/sprinkle as cleansing in a prophecy. They will call it a metaphore of no consequence.
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
Notice there is NO exception…in all.
In another place he gives Jesus as human EXCEPT for sin. Ok.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, (the same type sin as Adam) who is a figure of him who was to come.
Douay Bible Commentary:
12 “By one man”… Adam, from whom we all contracted original sin.

13 “Not imputed”… That is, men knew not, or made no account of sin, neither was it imputed to them, in the manner it was afterwards, when they transgressed the known written law of God.

Next is:
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as** by the offence of one**, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life. 19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.
Bible Commentary:
All were made sinners by one man. And many will be made just by the passion of Christ. As many that accept the Faith in Christ.
That is:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned to death; so also grace might reign by justice unto life everlasting, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
And Again:
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: 3 In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature** children of wrath** , even as the rest: 4 But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,)​

Cont’d

 

[TNT]

In Romans 5:12 we read that all humans are considered to have sinned when Adam sinned: “Therefore just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” The context indicates that when Paul says “death spread to all men because all sinned” he is not referring to the actual sins we commit, but to the sin of Adam. For example, in verse 15 he says “by the transgression of the one the many died” (see also verses 16-19). Further, the verb Paul uses (aorist indicative) indicates that he is speaking of a “completed past action. Here Paul is saying that something happened and was completed in the past, namely, that `all men sinned.’ But it is not true that all men had actually committed sinful actions at the time that Paul was writing, because some had not even been born yet, and many others had died in infancy before committing any conscious acts of sin. So Paul must be meaning that when Adam sinned, God considered it true that all men sinned in Adam.” Thus, in verse 12 the “all sinned” is considered to be the same as the sin of Adam. In other words, when Adam sinned, we sinned. Since we did not yet exist when Adam sinned, this must mean that we are imputed with the sin of Adam.
Grace of the first parents no longer abounded to mankind, until Christ returned the bounty of Grace through His Passion wherein He was accounted as Sin for us sinners.
If an infant is not a sinner in the Original Sin sense then they are sinless, and if they die in that infancy, then they had no need of a Redeemer and the Passion was of no account for them. Indeed, if an infant today has all the Grace needed for Salvation, then so did the OT infant pagan. They neither know or embrace the Faith of Christ.

 

[TNT]

The **Pelagian Heresy (410AD) held by the COC:
**It seems clear that verse 12 is teaching imputed sin. But this will become even more apparent to us when we consider the failure of what is called the “Palegian” interpretation. This view claims that the “all sinned” in this verse doesn’t refer to us being imputed with Adam’s sin, but refers to our own actual sins in daily life. On this view, Adam is just the symbol of what all humans do on their own. Thus, we are not (on this view) imputed with the sin of Adam.

   There are at least **four **decisive reasons against this view.

First, this view is disproved by history. It is not true that all people die because they themselves actually and willingly sin. Infants die, and they have never sinned voluntarily. So they must be regarded as guilty for what someone else has done–namely, Adam. Otherwise, why do they die when Paul says in this verse that death is the result of sin? Paul also says in Romans 6:23 that “the wages of sin is death.” Death is the result of sin. If you were not guilty of sin, you would not die (the example of Christ does not disprove this because he willingly laid down his life for our salvation, whereas the rest of us ultimately have no choice about the fact that we will die; Christ died in order to conquer death, which we were under). Therefore, the fact that infants die before they have personally and knowingly sinned proves that they come into the world already guilty of sin–that is, they are born imputed with Adam’s sin.

** Second**, in verses 13 and 14 Paul states the direct opposite of the Pelagian view. Paul is clear that Adam is not merely a figure of speech used to mean “each individual for himself” because he speaks of those who did not sin in the way that Adam did: “Sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.” The fact that this verse says that death reigned over those who “did not sin after the likeness of Adam” indicates that Adam’s sin was unique. Thus, Paul is not using Adam symbolically to mean the sins that we personally commit. Paul is pointing out that from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, people did not have God’s written laws. Though their sins were `not counted’ (as infractions of the law), they still died. The fact that they died is very good proof that God counted people guilty on the basis of Adam’s sin.​

Contd

 

[TNT]

** Third**, at least five times in the following verses Paul says that death comes upon all humans because of the one sin of Adam (vv. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). Paul’s use of the terms “one sin” and “transgression of the one” indicates very clearly that it is not our own individual sins that he is talking about, but the sin Adam committed.

** Fourth**, the Pelagian view destroys Paul’s constant analogy, in verses 15-19, between Adam and Christ. As Paul’s doctrine of justification teaches, we attain to life by what another has done (Christ), and thus, through the contrast between Adam and Christ, Paul is saying that we are guilty of sin by what another has done. Just as we are not justified on the basis of our own action, so also we are not declared sinners on the basis of our own action. “So then as through one transgression [Adam’s] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [Christ’s] there resulted justification of life to all men” (v. 18). As If Pelagianism (COC’s) was Paul’s teaching here the parallel that would be necessary on the other side would be justification by our own works, that each individual would be justified by his own actions and attain to life on that basis. But we know that this is the reverse of Paul’s teaching. It is by the FREE gift of Grace…we need only accept it to be in Christ. That acceptance is through Baptism, even an infant, by not rejecting the free gift.

 

[Eireann]

amontoya:

What is original sin?

CCC 404 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.

All I can say is who were the original sinners ? Adam and Eve, a baby doesn’t comit sin, yet it inherits sin.
There is actual sin wilfully comitted, and the Adamic curse of their sin, original sin.

Baptism washes away this sin.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

---

 

[TNT]

I forgot one more nail in the Pelagian Heresy:
1 CORINTHIANS 15:21-22 (NIV) – For since death came through A MAN [Adam], the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man [Christ]. For as IN ADAM ALL DIE, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Nicene Fathers:
ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)

…having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race…Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. …But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man…WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. …Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3)

 

[Redbandito]

Thank you TNT! Great explanation of why we believe in original sin! Again, I believe the Scriptural evidence for it is explicit and irrefutable, which is why 99.9% of Christendom believes this without question. When you look at the early Church’s take on the topic, I just wonder where COC comes up with the argument to deny it. From the COC people I have known, they typically say, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent”. The Bible certainly isn’t silent on this, so I again wonder how they justify the doctrine. I appreciate the feedback from our one COC brother. Thanks! And thanks again TNT!

 

[Redbandito]

amontoya:

I am a member of the Church of Christ, and I disagree with you. I don’t think scripture speaks very loudly on this issue at all. I have been learning about the Catholic faith, and even briefly joined a RCIA class. One of the questions I had was about the doctrine of original sin. No book I have read, no website I have visited, nor any person I have asked has explained it to me. I asked the director of the RCIA class, the first night of class, and he said he didn’t know why it was taught or where it came from, but that he would get back to me about it. I spent almost three months in the class and he still was unable to answer me.

What is original sin? I read in the Catechism that it is a privation of grace. Why? Where did this idea come from? In Scripture, what I see is in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12. These verses state clearly that all have sinned, and that death came to all men because all sinned. Yes, sin and death entered the world because of Adam, but death came to all because all sinned, not because of Adam.

I think that we really need look no further than Genesis 3 to see where the idea “came from”. It is fairly clear that man was created in a state of grace, and that after Adam’s sin that there was a change in the nature of the relationship between God and man. Now, this change is not as clearly defined in the OT as when it is fully revealed in the NT, but the seed is there from the very beginning. With all sincerity and charity in mind, I want to repeat my question. How does the COC reject 2,000 years of Church history, nearly unanimous agreement amongst the Church and all other Christian denominations, and the fairly explicit words of Scripture on this subject? There are certainly some more ambiguous doctrines that could create confusion, but this does not seem to be one of them. Thanks in advance for your response.

 

[allisonP]

Well, I just found this post and after reading the respones, especially TNT’s all I can say is WOW!

I am not sure if my eyes were opened or if I am for the first time hearing the other side and am understanding for the first time why some believe in original sin.
As for me, I am a very slow and stubborn person when it comes to changeing my beliefs. This is my salvation we are dealing with, and maybe my little 3 year old un-baptized daughter. So I am still going to read,study, and ask questions until I I know that I am hearing the truth.

Haveing said that, I will tell you what I know, as per my upbringing in the CofC.
As far as Catholic bashing goes, I can remember a small handful of “preachers” who participated in that, and I don’t recall ever trusting them.
I do know that reference has been made periodicly about what"catholic’s believe" and what the “truth” is. Not in a mean way, just sort of a self rightous way.Simular to what some catholics on these forums sound like. Sorry but that is the truth.

So far, I have found that what I had been told about what ya’all believe and what you actually do believe is very different. The Marion doctrines still make me stumble though I have to admit.

OK, Here is what I have always thought of when it comes to sin.
Sinning is a choice. Just as Adam and Eve chose to sin so does the rest of humanity. The same kind of sin. Disobediance to God.
If they hadn’t sinned then sin would not have came into this world.
There wouldn’t have been a choice. All would have been living in paradise.
Salvation came through one man. Jesus. We must choose to follow him. If we do, we will one day be in pardadise, as God planned. If we dont. Then we will be forever separated.
That is how I always read those verses quoted above.
Feel free to poke holes in my beliefs. I am on here because I know that the CoC, although a wonderful bunch of people as a whole, do not completely have the truth my soul is crying out for.

 

[Redbandito]

allisonP:

Well, I just found this post and after reading the respones, especially TNT’s all I can say is WOW!

I am not sure if my eyes were opened or if I am for the first time hearing the other side and am understanding for the first time why some believe in original sin.
As for me, I am a very slow and stubborn person when it comes to changeing my beliefs. This is my salvation we are dealing with, and maybe my little 3 year old un-baptized daughter. So I am still going to read,study, and ask questions until I I know that I am hearing the truth.

Haveing said that, I will tell you what I know, as per my upbringing in the CofC.
As far as Catholic bashing goes, I can remember a small handful of “preachers” who participated in that, and I don’t recall ever trusting them.
I do know that reference has been made periodicly about what"catholic’s believe" and what the “truth” is. Not in a mean way, just sort of a self rightous way.Simular to what some catholics on these forums sound like. Sorry but that is the truth.

So far, I have found that what I had been told about what ya’all believe and what you actually do believe is very different. The Marion doctrines still make me stumble though I have to admit.

OK, Here is what I have always thought of when it comes to sin.
Sinning is a choice. Just as Adam and Eve chose to sin so does the rest of humanity. The same kind of sin. Disobediance to God.
If they hadn’t sinned then sin would not have came into this world.
There wouldn’t have been a choice. All would have been living in paradise.
Salvation came through one man. Jesus. We must choose to follow him. If we do, we will one day be in pardadise, as God planned. If we dont. Then we will be forever separated.
That is how I always read those verses quoted above.
Feel free to poke holes in my beliefs. I am on here because I know that the CoC, although a wonderful bunch of people as a whole, do not completely have the truth my soul is crying out for.

Thank you so much for your response AllisonP. You seem like a person of humility, honesty and good will. I look forward to more information on this topic. So, tell me if I understand your position. You believe that death comes through all of our sins and that Adam’s sin had no specific consequences that we all share in? Thanks again for your help.

 

[amontoya]

Okay, I can concede that death comes to all men through Adam’s sin, but if baptism forgives that “original sin” how can a baptized infant still die? Death came into the world as punishment for Adam’s sin, but we are not all stained as a result of it. We have nothing to be forgiven of until we sin ourselves.

 

[NotWorthy]

Amontoya, I think you are misinterpreting Original Sin. It does not mean we have a sin on our souls that needs to be forgiven. It means we lack the Sanctifying Grace, which Adam and Eve were created with, due to their Original Sin.

Baptism opens up our souls to receive that Sanctifying Grace from the Holy Spirit, thus erasing the stain of Original Sin, as well as washes away any sins we have commited up to the point of our Baptism.

This is why, legend has it, our good friend Emperor Constantine is said to have waited to be Baptized til he was on his death bed. He knew it would wash away his past sins, but not any future sins he knew he would commit.

Notworthy

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

let CoC speak for themselves,

Rom. 5:12 But this passage does not teach the doctrine of original sin. It does not teach that men are born sinners. It does not teach that sin is transmitted physically or any other way from Adam to his descendants. It does not teach that the sin of Adam was imputed to his descendants. It does not teach that men have sinned “in Adam.” On the contrary, Romans 5:14 teaches that Adam’s sin was not the sin of his descendants: “Them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” (Those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression were certainly sinners. But their sin was different from the sin of Adam. They had sinned before Moses gave the law, and had only sinned against the law of their conscience, and not against a positive precept, as had Adam. Rom. 5:13-14. And the fact that Paul says they “had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression” shows that Paul did not consider the sin of Adam to be their sin.)

Rom. 5:12-19 does not in any way teach the doctrine of original sin. Sheldon tells us what it does teach:

The Apostle here draws a comparison between the evil potency in the sinning Adam and the beneficent or saving potency in the righteous Christ…Both are pictured rather according to their tendency than according to literal fact. Surely the potency of grace in Christ does not actually come upon all men unto justification of life, but it tends to that end, and hence is so described. In like manner the evil potency in the sinning Adam is characterized according to its tendency.

To interpret the phrase “made sinners” to mean that men are born sinners and become sinners involuntarily and necessarily by receiving a sinful nature from Adam, is a forced and inconsistent interpretation of this passage; for this passage not only says that all men are “made sinners” because of Adam’s transgression, it also says that all men are “made righteous” by the obedience of Christ, and that the free gift of life “came upon all men” by Christ Jesus. So, for the advocates of the doctrine of original sin to arbitrarily give to the phrases “made sinners” and “came upon all men” the meaning of physical force and physical necessity when these phrases refer to Adam’s sin, without giving the same meaning to them when they refer to Christ’s righteousness, is once again an example of a forced and inconsistent interpretation dictated by a prepossessed belief in the doctrine of original sin.

Paul does not affirm an involuntary, necessary, or irresistible connection between either the sin of Adam and mankind, or the righteousness of Christ and mankind. Otherwise, verse 18 would teach the universal salvation of mankind: “The free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” We know that universal salvation is not taught in the Bible. Men are not saved involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the obedience of Christ. Nor are they “made sinners” involuntarily, automatically, and necessarily because of the transgression of Adam. But the context shows that men are “made sinners” in the same way that they are “made righteous,” that is, voluntarily or willingly. Rom. 5:18, 19, 21. In verse 18, Paul compares the judgment that came upon all men because of Adam with the free gift of life that came upon all men because of Christ, and says “as” the one, “even so” the other. In verse 19, he compares the way the many were “made sinners” with the way the many were “made righteous,” and says “as” the one, “so” the other. And in verse 21, he compares the reign of sin through Adam’s transgression with the reign of grace through Christ’s righteousness, and says “as” the one, “even so” the other. The context and language of this passage require that we understand the connection between Adam’s sin and the sins of the rest of mankind to be moral and voluntary instead of physical and involuntary.

Paul did not teach that men are “made righteous” involuntarily through Christ, nor did he teach that men are “made sinners” involuntarily through Adam. He did not teach that sin is a substance that dwells in the flesh. He did not teach that sin is inherited from Adam through “natural generation.” He did not teach that we receive a sinful nature from Adam that is the “fountain and cause” of all our “actual” sins. He did not teach that men are born sinners or that sin is transmitted physically from Adam to his descendants. All of this has been the fabrication of man’s imagination. Paul’s whole message, and only message, in this passage is the message that the power of Adam’s transgression to bring sin, death, and condemnation upon all men has been transcended by a much greater power the glorious, liberating power of God’s grace in Christ Jesus, which breaks the power of sin and brings justification, righteousness, and life upon all men. Rom. 5:15-21.

gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs02.htm

 

[amontoya]

If “original sin” is not a sin on our souls to be forgiven, then why did St. Ireneaus write, “…we offended God by not observing His command,” and “…whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning?” An offense or transgression to God is sin. If not, how could we be guilty? If it is not sin, then why are we deprived of grace? Why does a baby need baptism for forgiveness of sins, if it has no sin of it’s own and “original sin” isn’t really sin at all?

 

[NotWorthy]

Adam and Eve were created with souls and were in a state of Grace. They lost the grace in the Fall.

Now we can inherit the ability to attain Grace (IOW a soul), but we can’t inherit something that Adam and Eve did not have, and that was Grace.

Why did Ireneaus write that? I don’t know, but I hope someday to be able to ask him!!!

Notworthy