QUESTION about ORIGINAL SIN and the HEALING of the BLIND MAN in JOHN 9

QUESTION about ORIGINAL SIN and the HEALING of the BLIND MAN in JOHN 9
Posted by Библията Тв in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

QUESTION about ORIGINAL SIN

And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

QUESTION about ORIGINAL SIN And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Charles Page [11/18/2015 9:07 AM]
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

This has nothing to do with original sin

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 9:08 AM]
Are you saying that the transfer from parents to children has nothing to do with original sin?

Charles Page [11/18/2015 9:09 AM]
The transfer of God’s curse to Adam’s descendants has to do with original sin.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 9:34 AM]
The text confirms the transfer of sin at birth Jn. 9:34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins…

Roger David [11/18/2015 10:50 AM]
I don’t think John 9:34 was talking about original sin or else the same accusation could be placed on the accusers themselves and render it a moot. point. I believe they simply wanted to render his testimony void and in so doing they accused him of something which was not true. He was not blind because of original sin. He was blind so that God might be glorified through His healing.

To extract the doctrine of original sin out of this I think would do a disservice to the text.

___________________________ 1Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2“What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3“As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. 4“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. -Exekiel 18:2-3 ____________________________ “In those days they will not say again, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ 30“But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. – Jeremiah 31:29-30 ____________________________

At the risk of being labled a heretic…again. I am not someone who holds to Original Sin doctrine as is taught in most churches. As such I am prepared to be stoned when you are all ready.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:20 AM]
So are you too saying that the transfer from parents to children has nothing to do with original sin?

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:31 AM]
I’m saying that there was no transfer from parents to children. The only transfer from parents to children in the form of sin is when the parents sin influences the child to sin. This is why David claimed his mother conceived him in sin..and therefore he himself was born into a sinful world which influenced him also to be a sinner.

I don’t believe sin is in the DNA and can be passed on.

I believe sin is a choice and we will all be held accountable for our own sin. Not our parents sin..or Adams sin.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:32 AM]
So how do you explain Jn. 9:34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins…” ?

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:36 AM]
I confess I have not delved into this verse much but right off the start I see issues with claiming this to be speaking of original sin.

I believe this to be an accusation against the man to discredit his testimony. It was not a claim of original sin. If it were then they were also born guilty and so it is a moot point for them to have even brought it up. Even if this was not a false accusation it still does not mean that he received his sin from his parents. They could have been simply using a hyperbole to speak of their view of him, that he was no good from the beginning and so why should they listen to him.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:38 AM]
it is a response from the jews, so it is definitely in their theology – the text does not specify if Jesus believes this or is even concerned with it

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:38 AM]
The Jews were already informed that this is not to be taught anymore in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:45 AM]
for some commentaries are saying, that the reason Jesus spit was to transfer the DNA of God (of the blood of the Lamb) and thus remove the original sin from the blindman’s human body 🙂 Rick Alan #preach

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:48 AM]
Ultimately I believe the Original Sin doctrine gives man an excuse for his sin. “God made me this way.” I see it as making God responsible for creating us with a sin nature. It sets God as an unjust God who would create us as sinners and then judge us for being such. I believe God has created us all in His image. I believe we were created upright. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:52 AM]
well I have do disagree – God did NOT make us this way. Adams free choice to sin, which even Calvin recognizes, brought sin into human flesh … hence the need for a physically incarnate Savior

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:56 AM]
I don’t mind people disagreeing with me 🙂 I know this is a deeply rooted doctrine and I don’t have any delusions of grandeur thinking I am capable of reforming the whole church into believing they are all responsible for their own sin.

One quick question…Adam sinned. Where did he get his sin nature from?

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:59 AM]
no grieved disagreement – just discussing the topic and a very good step up in the discussion by your last question! Some claim [DAKE Timothy Carter] that if sin did not enter the creation via Satan before Adam’s creation it could have really NOT be in the creation i.e. Adam’s flesh/nature, which you asked about

John Conger [11/18/2015 12:23 PM]
great commentary on original sin……its called rom. chapter 5

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 1:14 PM]
you’ve mentioned that already John but how do you interpret it?

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:19 PM]
I see the original sin of Adam mentioned in Romans 5. I don’t see the doctrine of Original Sin being supported there though.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 1:25 PM]
Does Adam have to be a historical figure for original sin to “work”? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2012/12/12/original-sin-part-one-romans-512-21/

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:28 PM]
A friend wrote a book on this topic which I found very interesting.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jesse-morrell/does-man-inherit-a-sinful-nature/paperback/product-20999731.html

Here is a little excerpt from it.

On Original Sin, Sinful Nature, and Romans Chapter Five – Jesse Morrell

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:31 PM]
I would like to have a word or two with Augustine on a few topics. This Original Sin/Sin Nature issue being the priority.

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:37 PM]
Here is one of my favorite parts…

“For as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall the many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19

If we are going to apply the first section of the passage unconditionally and universally, we must also apply the second section of the passage unconditionally and universally, since the language for both is the same. In a parallelism, Adam and Christ are compared and contrasted a. If the first section means mankind is universally and unconditionally condemned in Adam then the second section would mean that mankind is universally and unconditionally justified through Jesus. b. This verse cannot mean that all men have the imputed sinfulness of Adam because then it would be saying that all men have the imputed righteousness of Christ.

c. This verse cannot mean that all mankind existed and sinned in Adam or else it would be saying that all mankind existed and obeyed in Christ.

d. Nor can this verse be saying that all men inherit a sinful nature from Adam because then it would be saying that all men inherit a righteous nature from Christ.

e. If “many were made sinners” means that we are born sinful without any choice of our own, then “many were made righteous” would mean that we were born righteous without any choice of our own. The language is identical for both and the same group of people is referenced.

( I wish Facebook did not try and tag anyone who has “Christ” as part of their name)

David Lewayne Porter [11/18/2015 2:35 PM]
Original sin, we are born with a sin nature bent to and toward sin/sinning. It does not make us sin, it just draws is to it. That is why there is none good in themselves, all have sinned and come short, and why repentance is necessary for all and commanded of all. The sinful nature is there due to the original sinning, not the sin itself. Sin does not just happen (James 1:14&15). Paul fought the sin nature and it’s drawing (Romans 7:15-20) Even when we would not think that we have sinned, we can’t in our fleshly human selves live a pure enough life to be accepted by God without the application of the blood of His Son Jesus – the sacrifice hand chosen by God Himself.

That is the effect of the original sin as it applies to us.

Roger David [11/18/2015 2:43 PM]
Adam sinned without a sin nature. It was simply a stupid choice he made…as it is with us all.

The greek word sarx which means flesh was improperly translated as “Sinful Nature” in the NIV and hasn’t helped in correcting this error.

Romans 7 could be a whole new thread as we probably view it differently as well. I don’t believe Romans 7 is a typical christian life. I believe Romans 7 is poorly interpreted in most of the church in light or Romans 6 and 8.

Augustine and his gnostic influence is the one that started us with the thought process that “because we have humans bodies we are sinners”. This is a big problem as it has been seeping into doctrine for centuries.

6 Comments

  • Reply May 10, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    Wayne Scott I think it was Charles Page who asked this long long time ago It challenges your rejection of original sin Furthermore, John 9 is obvious that neither parents nor the man sinned – what else if not direct result of original sin?

    • Reply May 10, 2019

      Charles Page

      I’ve never denied the belief in original sin, God forbid!!

    • Reply May 10, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      that;s what I sad after reading Wayne Scott

    • Reply May 10, 2019

      Charles Page

      gotcha!!

    • Reply May 11, 2019

      Varnel Watson

      I see Wayne Scott is not answering Could this be due to original sin still living and un sanctified fully in?

  • Reply May 11, 2019

    Varnel Watson

    James L Alldredge Sin is imputed where there original sin

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

QUESTION about ORIGINAL SIN and the HEALING of the BLIND MAN in JOHN 9

Posted by in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

QUESTION about ORIGINAL SIN

And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

QUESTION about ORIGINAL SIN And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

Charles Page [11/18/2015 9:07 AM]
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

This has nothing to do with original sin

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 9:08 AM]
Are you saying that the transfer from parents to children has nothing to do with original sin?

Charles Page [11/18/2015 9:09 AM]
The transfer of God’s curse to Adam’s descendants has to do with original sin.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 9:34 AM]
The text confirms the transfer of sin at birth Jn. 9:34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins…

Roger David [11/18/2015 10:50 AM]
I don’t think John 9:34 was talking about original sin or else the same accusation could be placed on the accusers themselves and render it a moot. point. I believe they simply wanted to render his testimony void and in so doing they accused him of something which was not true. He was not blind because of original sin. He was blind so that God might be glorified through His healing.

To extract the doctrine of original sin out of this I think would do a disservice to the text.

___________________________ 1Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2“What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, ‘The fathers eat the sour grapes, But the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3“As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. 4“Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. -Exekiel 18:2-3 ____________________________ “In those days they will not say again, ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ 30“But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. – Jeremiah 31:29-30 ____________________________

At the risk of being labled a heretic…again. I am not someone who holds to Original Sin doctrine as is taught in most churches. As such I am prepared to be stoned when you are all ready.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:20 AM]
So are you too saying that the transfer from parents to children has nothing to do with original sin?

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:31 AM]
I’m saying that there was no transfer from parents to children. The only transfer from parents to children in the form of sin is when the parents sin influences the child to sin. This is why David claimed his mother conceived him in sin..and therefore he himself was born into a sinful world which influenced him also to be a sinner.

I don’t believe sin is in the DNA and can be passed on.

I believe sin is a choice and we will all be held accountable for our own sin. Not our parents sin..or Adams sin.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:32 AM]
So how do you explain Jn. 9:34 They answered and said to him, “You were completely born in sins…” ?

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:36 AM]
I confess I have not delved into this verse much but right off the start I see issues with claiming this to be speaking of original sin.

I believe this to be an accusation against the man to discredit his testimony. It was not a claim of original sin. If it were then they were also born guilty and so it is a moot point for them to have even brought it up. Even if this was not a false accusation it still does not mean that he received his sin from his parents. They could have been simply using a hyperbole to speak of their view of him, that he was no good from the beginning and so why should they listen to him.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:38 AM]
it is a response from the jews, so it is definitely in their theology – the text does not specify if Jesus believes this or is even concerned with it

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:38 AM]
The Jews were already informed that this is not to be taught anymore in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:45 AM]
for some commentaries are saying, that the reason Jesus spit was to transfer the DNA of God (of the blood of the Lamb) and thus remove the original sin from the blindman’s human body 🙂 Rick Alan #preach

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:48 AM]
Ultimately I believe the Original Sin doctrine gives man an excuse for his sin. “God made me this way.” I see it as making God responsible for creating us with a sin nature. It sets God as an unjust God who would create us as sinners and then judge us for being such. I believe God has created us all in His image. I believe we were created upright. “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Ecclesiastes 7:29).

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:52 AM]
well I have do disagree – God did NOT make us this way. Adams free choice to sin, which even Calvin recognizes, brought sin into human flesh … hence the need for a physically incarnate Savior

Roger David [11/18/2015 11:56 AM]
I don’t mind people disagreeing with me 🙂 I know this is a deeply rooted doctrine and I don’t have any delusions of grandeur thinking I am capable of reforming the whole church into believing they are all responsible for their own sin.

One quick question…Adam sinned. Where did he get his sin nature from?

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 11:59 AM]
no grieved disagreement – just discussing the topic and a very good step up in the discussion by your last question! Some claim [DAKE Timothy Carter] that if sin did not enter the creation via Satan before Adam’s creation it could have really NOT be in the creation i.e. Adam’s flesh/nature, which you asked about

John Conger [11/18/2015 12:23 PM]
great commentary on original sin……its called rom. chapter 5

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 1:14 PM]
you’ve mentioned that already John but how do you interpret it?

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:19 PM]
I see the original sin of Adam mentioned in Romans 5. I don’t see the doctrine of Original Sin being supported there though.

John Kissinger [11/18/2015 1:25 PM]
Does Adam have to be a historical figure for original sin to “work”? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2012/12/12/original-sin-part-one-romans-512-21/

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:28 PM]
A friend wrote a book on this topic which I found very interesting.

http://www.lulu.com/shop/jesse-morrell/does-man-inherit-a-sinful-nature/paperback/product-20999731.html

Here is a little excerpt from it.

On Original Sin, Sinful Nature, and Romans Chapter Five – Jesse Morrell

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:31 PM]
I would like to have a word or two with Augustine on a few topics. This Original Sin/Sin Nature issue being the priority.

Roger David [11/18/2015 1:37 PM]
Here is one of my favorite parts…

“For as by one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall the many be made righteous.” Romans 5:19

If we are going to apply the first section of the passage unconditionally and universally, we must also apply the second section of the passage unconditionally and universally, since the language for both is the same. In a parallelism, Adam and Christ are compared and contrasted a. If the first section means mankind is universally and unconditionally condemned in Adam then the second section would mean that mankind is universally and unconditionally justified through Jesus. b. This verse cannot mean that all men have the imputed sinfulness of Adam because then it would be saying that all men have the imputed righteousness of Christ.

c. This verse cannot mean that all mankind existed and sinned in Adam or else it would be saying that all mankind existed and obeyed in Christ.

d. Nor can this verse be saying that all men inherit a sinful nature from Adam because then it would be saying that all men inherit a righteous nature from Christ.

e. If “many were made sinners” means that we are born sinful without any choice of our own, then “many were made righteous” would mean that we were born righteous without any choice of our own. The language is identical for both and the same group of people is referenced.

( I wish Facebook did not try and tag anyone who has “Christ” as part of their name)

David Lewayne Porter [11/18/2015 2:35 PM]
Original sin, we are born with a sin nature bent to and toward sin/sinning. It does not make us sin, it just draws is to it. That is why there is none good in themselves, all have sinned and come short, and why repentance is necessary for all and commanded of all. The sinful nature is there due to the original sinning, not the sin itself. Sin does not just happen (James 1:14&15). Paul fought the sin nature and it’s drawing (Romans 7:15-20) Even when we would not think that we have sinned, we can’t in our fleshly human selves live a pure enough life to be accepted by God without the application of the blood of His Son Jesus – the sacrifice hand chosen by God Himself.

That is the effect of the original sin as it applies to us.

Roger David [11/18/2015 2:43 PM]
Adam sinned without a sin nature. It was simply a stupid choice he made…as it is with us all.

The greek word sarx which means flesh was improperly translated as “Sinful Nature” in the NIV and hasn’t helped in correcting this error.

Romans 7 could be a whole new thread as we probably view it differently as well. I don’t believe Romans 7 is a typical christian life. I believe Romans 7 is poorly interpreted in most of the church in light or Romans 6 and 8.

Augustine and his gnostic influence is the one that started us with the thought process that “because we have humans bodies we are sinners”. This is a big problem as it has been seeping into doctrine for centuries.

Be first to comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.