Original Sin Disproven by Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter windlessuser
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

windlessuser

Guest
Hi, I am just coming from a Bible study with a non Denominational group. One of the Bible verses we spoke about was:

Ezekiel 18:20

“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”
(New International Version (©1984))

The context of Ezekiel 18 was speaking about individual responsibility. thus, the group leaders argument was that sin cannot be inherited. Contrary to this, if Sin could be inherited, then righteousness could also be inherited therefore baptism of infants would be unnecessary. Thus by extension Mary and Jesus would be born of sin.

I know the churches teaching is that original sin is not something we are born with but Something we are born without (The grace of God that Adam originally had). If his stance is true however, Why is original Sin relevant?

Much help needed.
 
The Catholic Church agrees with Ezekiel:CCC#405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.:o

It is relevant because we indeed cannot return to God, to the life in the garden, without Christ. You might want your group to address Psalm 51:7 True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.
 
Remember, you must read the entirty of the bible, the bible does not conflict with it’s self, and there for you have to spend a lot of time studying it. Regarding original sin:

Romans 5:
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=52&ch=5&l=12&f=s#x
11 And not only so; but also we glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received reconciliation. 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, who is a figure of him who was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks guys, Didn’t expect to get such a speedy response. I’ve forwarded to them the verses you’ve quoted
 
Any reason why you’re doing a bible study with some non-denominationalists?
 
windlessuser said:
I know the churches teaching is that original sin is not something we are born with but Something we are born without (The grace of God that Adam originally had). If his stance is true however, Why is original Sin relevant?

Much help needed.
Click to expand...
Please double check the confusion above between grace and original sin.

For information about Catholic teaching on this subject, read Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4

Link: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

If you are looking for Bible quotes, first check the topic in the Catechism and then look at the footnotes for Scripture references.
 
Funny story actually. I just met up with an old friend of mine who was a staunch SDA. However, it finally occurred to him that the SDA’s stance on keeping this Sabbath was foolish so he’s now a Sunday worshipper apart of a non-denominational group. (sigh one extreme to the next eh). So we haven’t seen each other in about a year so we were just catching up and he told me about but his conversion and a religious discussion ensued and we all know how those turn out. He’s also very anti-catholic and you have stupid me trying to be an apologetic. So i ended up following him to where he was boarding while we were catching up and his landlord brought himself into the discussion and it turned itself into a bible study. This all happened nearly an hr ago lol.
 
windlessuser said:
Funny story actually. I just met up with an old friend of mine who was a staunch SDA. However, it finally occurred to him that the SDA’s stance on keeping this Sabbath was foolish so he’s now a Sunday worshipper apart of a non-denominational group. (sigh one extreme to the next eh). So we haven’t seen each other in about a year so we were just catching up and he told me about but his conversion and a religious discussion ensued and we all know how those turn out. He’s also very anti-catholic and you have stupid me trying to be an apologetic. So i ended up following him to where he was boarding while we were catching up and his landlord brought himself into the discussion and it turned itself into a bible study. This all happened nearly an hr ago lol.
Click to expand...
Ok… I guess just be careful not to cross the line of apologetics into outright offensiveness… Might be a tight rope to walk being in one of their bible studies.
 
This is why private interpretation of scripture can be so problematic. We need the church to help us. As catholics we need to believe that there was an original couple (we call Adam & Eve), they were tested, and they failed that test (original sin). If sin had not entered the world why would we need a Redeemer (Jesus)?
 
While there’s nothing inherently wrong with occasionally discussing the bible with non-Catholic Christians, I would caution from participating in a formal non-Catholic (e.g. non-denominational) Bible study unless you have a sound background on Catholic exegesis. To do so could potentially lead to confusion on your part, or not being able to explain/defend the Catholic interpretation of certain biblical texts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top