i was having a discussion with a friend who is a former christian and this question came up.
do all christians believe in the concept of Orginal Sin?
my thoughts were that they would have to because that is why they believe that the sacrifice was necessary. after all, if not for original sin, why the sacrifice?
could someone clear this up?
thanks.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Perhaps a better question would be:
If you don't believe in origenal sin, can you still be considered a christian? I think not believeing in it goes in against the whole 'savior' concept. Then again, I find that believing in original sin goes in against heaven and hell. But I guess that's off topic here.
i was having a discussion with a friend who is a former christian and this question came up.
do all christians believe in the concept of Orginal Sin?
Not all believe in it, for example baptists do not believe in it but they believe man is born with an inclination to sin. Mormoms, Christians Scientists, Quakers, Some Eastern Orthodox denominations, Unitarians, some adventists, some Presbytarians and Jehovah witnesses reject the concept of original sin completly. there may be others.
my thoughts were that they would have to because that is why they believe that the sacrifice was necessary. after all, if not for original sin, why the sacrifice?
true, but it is 2 edged and can be used to show that Christ(as) was not capable of forgiving all sins, as this now requires Baptism in addition to Christ(as) in order for sins to be forgiven.
could someone clear this up?
One of the reasons I could not stay as a Christian.
Not all believe in it, for example baptists do not believe in it but they believe man is born with an inclination to sin. Mormoms, Christians Scientists, Quakers, Some Eastern Orthodox denominations, Unitarians, some adventists, some Presbytarians and Jehovah witnesses reject the concept of original sin completly. there may be others.
true, but it is 2 edged and can be used to show that Christ(as) was not capable of forgiving all sins, as this now requires Baptism in addition to Christ(as) in order for sins to be forgiven.
One of the reasons I could not stay as a Christian.
Your Welcome
wow - it's even more confusing than i thought. if baptism is also required then why was the sacrifice necessary?
i figured this would be a good place to ask because we have quite an assortment of christians (as well as former christians) here.
so then, do all christians believe in either original sin or the concept that we are born inclined towards sin?
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Id imagine logically, a christian who accepts evolution cannot believe in original sin as Adam and Eve would simply be a myth and thus the whole ****ing of the offspring would be bunk.
Of course there are those who believe both but it really doesnt make sense.
it's not a matter of making sense. i am just trying to find out what they believe. until now, i thought original sin was the reason used to explain the necessity of the sacrifice.
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
it's not a matter of making sense. i am just trying to find out what they believe. until now, i thought original sin was the reason used to explain the necessity of the sacrifice.
It is, thou it still doesnt make alot of sense as later on God says sins of the father dont carry onto the children.
But I guess christianity really is the religion of faith as its the only way to see the Bible's contradictions on every other line and still say it makes sense
Not all denominations that call themselves Christian believe in Original Sin, but the majority of those believe man is predisposed to sin. However, there are a few denominations that do not believe that either.
It should cause a problem in Christian thought. The concept of original sin is needed to explain the sacrifice of Jesus(as), the sacrifice of Jesus is needed to justify the belief in a trinity. However, neither Original sin nor Baptism were a part of Judaism. John the Baptist was not Jewish he was a Sabien. Jesus(as) was Jewish. I never could understand why a Jew would need to be Baptised by a sabien.
Just my thoughts, but it seems some reverse engineering took place and the concept of Original sin was an innovation to fill in the gaps.
Original sin is not mentioned any place in the Bible.
the first mention of original sin is by Augestine of Hippo in the fourth century C.E.
The second principle, the affirmation of liberty even under the action of efficacious grace, has always been safeguarded, and there is not one of his anti-Pelagian works even of the latest, which does not positively proclaim a complete power of choice in man; "not but what it does not depend on the free choice of the will to embrace the faith or reject it, but in the elect this will is prepared by God" (De Prædest. SS., n. 10). The great Doctor did not reproach the Pelagians with requiring a power to choose between good and evil; in fact he proclaims with them that without that power there is no responsibility, no merit, no demerit; but he reproaches them with exaggerating this power. Julian of Eclanum, denying the sway of concupiscence, conceives free will as a balance in perfect equilibrium. Augustine protests: this absolute equilibrium existed in Adam; it was destroyed after original sin; the will has to struggle and react against an inclination to evil, but it remains mistress of its choice (Opus imperfectum contra Julianum, III, cxvii). Thus, when he says that we have lost freedom in consequence of the sin of Adam, he is careful to explain that this lost freedom is not the liberty of choosing between good and evil, because without it we could not help sinning, but the perfect liberty which was calm and without struggle, and which was enjoyed by Adam in virtue of his original integrity.
It should cause a problem in Christian thought. The concept of original sin is needed to explain the sacrifice of Jesus(as), the sacrifice of Jesus is needed to justify the belief in a trinity.
this is exactly why i raised the question.
it's really confusing. and now you have raised another question - why wasn't the sacrifice enough - why was baptism needed as well?
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
this is exactly why i raised the question.
it's really confusing. and now you have raised another question - why wasn't the sacrifice enough - why was baptism needed as well?
Baptism isnt required, at least not in my denomination. We see it as a public expression of faith.
Yes, but not as catholics and most other protestants believe. we believe that we inherited the sins of adam. christianity also teaches that baptism forgives sins, but only through jesus' work on the cross. jesus died once and for all for all the sins of the world.
What happens to babies that die at an early age? Will they have that original sin?
Our preperation continued, with our efforts and the efforts of our brothers, for years and years. Through out that time we gathered, observed and waited until the moment to move arrived.
Yes, but not as catholics and most other protestants believe. we believe that we inherited the sins of adam. christianity also teaches that baptism forgives sins, but only through jesus' work on the cross. jesus died once and for all for all the sins of the world.
how does your sect's concept of original sin differ from the catholics' and most other protestants'.
the sacrifice is due to this inherited sin of adam. (isn't that the same as original sin?)
for which sins is baptism to forgive that the sacrifice did not?
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Now I am curious again. If the purpose of baptism is not to remove sin, what is it for and how did it originate? If it is for the forgiveness of original sin, what was the purpose in Jesus(as) being sacrificed?
If it is to be simply a sign of faith, what faith is it a sign of as it existed before Christianity?
Now I am curious again. If the purpose of baptism is not to remove sin, what is it for and how did it originate? If it is for the forgiveness of original sin, what was the purpose in Jesus(as) being sacrificed?
If it is to be simply a sign of faith, what faith is it a sign of as it existed before Christianity?
Woodrow, the answer you get might actually vary depending on who you speak to. Catholic believe that they way they do baptism and the meaning they have is what has been in existence in Christianity from the beginning. However, Baptists think that Catholic have lost their way with respect to baptism and have a completely different view of both how it is to be done and (therefore ultimately) its purpose. Then you get Methodist like me whose practice is remarkably similar to the Catholic ritual, but there are subtle (yet I think important) differences in our understanding.
You've asked this question in the middle of a thread about original sin, and it simply cannot be fully discussed here without changing the content of this thread. Suffice it to say, the one thing the disparate views of baptism have in common is an understanding that Jesus commanded us to baptize, though we have different understandings as to who it is for and what is accomplished in it, in the final analysis we do it in obedience to Christ's instructions and to signify that one belongs not to the world, the devil, nor even one's self, but that one belongs to God.
Some understand that there is a washing away of original sin. Some understand that there is a washing away of all sin. Some don't understand it as a washing at all, but as an act of dedication. Some see it as a regenerative act in and of itself, in which God acts (or some even without the person's knowledge of God actings). Others see it as a human decision and declaration which God then acknowledges. Some see it as only a symbolic act and others as filled with sacramental power.
As I said, the answer you get is going to depend on who you are talking to.
graceseeker,
i started this thread. i just want to say that it is fine with me to discuss baptism on this thread because it is sort of related and i too have become intrigued.
the sacrifice was to atone for original sin and yet baptism is also necessary?
each man thinks of his own fleas as gazelles
question authority
Perhaps a better question would be:
If you don't believe in origenal sin, can you still be considered a christian? I think not believeing in it goes in against the whole 'savior' concept. Then again, I find that believing in original sin goes in against heaven and hell. But I guess that's off topic here.
Well, this question is simple. Yes, it is possible to not believe in original sin and still be a Christian. It is possible that even those Christians who do believe in original sin would still consider a peson who does not believe in original sin a Christian. That may not always be true, but in general while the belief in original sin would be fundamental to most Christians, it would not generally be a litmus test of Christianity.
I notice that other than abu_hurriya, who (in another thread) is considering becoming a Muslim, that I am the only Christian who has responded here. I would ask then that you might grant me a little leeway in being selective in my responses. I have not the time to respond to everything, there are some concepts that I might not be as conversant on as others, and there are some that I simply may not think as essential as others as well. So, if I miss something that is truly important to you, please bring it to my attention a second time, but also know that I simply am not going to write an entire systematic theology in this space, which, whether you realize it or not, is what is being called for to adequately deal with the depth of the questions here.
Lastly, others speaking from what I suppose is their knowledge of what they believe Christians believe, but have expressed things foreign to my actual belefs. I don't know that it is worth going back to correct such statements, but I do caution those who read responses from those who are not Christians that they may or may not have understood and properly shared the beliefs of actual Christians.
Before I answer much about baptism, as I have expressed above, there are some differing understandings with regard to baptism among Christian groups. Thus, for those who pay attention to such things, it is worth noting that I am a United Methodist pastor. The United Methodist Church is generally classified as a mainline protestant denomination. Its roots go back to the Anglican Church (i.e. Church of England) from which it separated, not over theology but as a consequence of the American Revolution. Until recently the United Methodist Church was the largest protestant denomination in the United States with about 8 million members, plus another 4 million scattered around the world; the largest protestant denomination is now the Southern Baptist Convention.
OK. That's enough of an introduction. Now to baptism:
To be honest, through the history of my own denomination, baptism has been viewed in diverse and even contradictory ways.
For instnace: John Wesley -- an Anglican priest who was the spiritual forefather of Methodism -- retained the sacramental theology which he received from his Anglican heritage. He taught that in baptism a child was cleansed of the guilt of original sin, initiated into the covenant with God, admitted into the Church, made an heir of the divine kingdom, and spiritually born anew. While baptism was neither essential to nor sufficient for salvation, it was nonetheles the "ordinary means" that God had designated for applying the benefits of the work of Christ in human lives.
On the other hand, although Wesley affirmed the regenerating grace of infant baptism (I hope that is not to technical a term; it basically means that God gives new spiritual life in baptism because original sin has spiritually killed everyone), he also insisted on the necessity of adult converstion for those who had fallen from grace. It should be obvious that this means Wesley is trying to have his cake and eat it too. How he handled that was to say that a person who matures into moral accountablity must respond to God's grace in repentance and faith. Without personal decision and commitment to Christ, the baptismal gift is rendered ineffective.
Now, as to Woodrow's question, what role then does the cross have to play? It is Christ's work on the cross that baptism initiates one into. The whole concept of baptism is that by it we are spiritually joined with Christ being baptized into his death and subsequently raised with him into new life.
Romans 6
3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.
True baptism is not something practiced only by Christians; there are other non-Christians groups that baptized for their various reasons. For that matter, circumcision is not something practiced only by Jews. But we do understand that it is a symbol to the Jews of the covenant relationship that they understand they have with God. So, too, baptism serves a similiar function for Christians:
Colossians 2
11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead. 13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
You will note in that passage the connection between baptism and Jesus' death and resurrection that I spoke of above. It is as if by the sacrament of baptism, God gives us new life in the same way that Jesus' dead body was given new life by the power of God. And the concept of circumcision is also attached to baptism, that it is an initiation into a new covenant community, a new family, that in being joined with Christ in baptism we all become children of God, and can look forward to our own resurrection:
Romans 8
16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
I'm sure that's enough to answer maybe one question, and raise 20 more. So, I'll stop here for the moment, and see if I'm tracking well with those who are interested in this thread, or if I need to be addressing other issues entirely.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 10-22-2007 at 09:57 PM.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Not all believe in it, for example baptists do not believe in it but they believe man is born with an inclination to sin. Mormoms, Christians Scientists, Quakers, Some Eastern Orthodox denominations, Unitarians, some adventists, some Presbytarians and Jehovah witnesses reject the concept of original sin completly. there may be others.do all christians believe in the concept of Orginal Sin?
original sin is releted to food
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks