J
J1Priest
Guest
Debating Original Sin someone brought up Ez 18:19-21.
Seemingly this clearly refutes Original Sin.
Here was my response, but I’d like to get better responses that I can give:
In your next claim you bring an interesting point in quoting Ez 18:20-21 (v. 19 as well).
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
God bless
Seemingly this clearly refutes Original Sin.
Here was my response, but I’d like to get better responses that I can give:
In your next claim you bring an interesting point in quoting Ez 18:20-21 (v. 19 as well).
It may seem contradictory to my proposition of Original Sin, but I will show that it is not. When we read the whole chapter in context, we see that Ezekiel is giving a proverb “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge” (v. 2) and the Lord disagrees with this proverb as well as with this one, “Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?” (v. 19a). Then we see God contradicting Ezekiel’s message and saying that the son will not pay for the sins committed by the father.
Here is where your interpretation falls, in the earlier passages we see various example of a father doing different sins. Ezekiel proposes that the son will suffer because of those sins. Now notice that both God and Ezekiel are talking about the iniquities/sins of the immediate father, Adam is never alluded to. We see that these sins are the ones that the parent (not ancestor) committed, and that the child will not suffer unless the child, too, commits those sins.
www.myspace.com/imapologetics
www.myspace.com/imapologetics
Thank you for your thoughts on this.
God bless