For Ezra had devoted himself to the study and observance of the Law of the LORD, and to teaching its decrees and laws in Israel. (Ezra 7:10.)

Relevant

A Joomla! Template for the Rest of Us

 

Search

Questions?

Please enter your questions, and we will get back to you as soon as possible. As an anti-spam measure, we ask that you re-type the code you see in the box below, prior to clicking "Send Message"






Recommendations

Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy)

What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics 

None above affiliated with me

JesusWordsOnS-cropsmall
JesusWordsSalv-crop2
DidCalvinMurderServetusM

If You Accept Paul as Inspired, Doesn't Paul's Doctrine of Original Sin Destroy Jesus' Ability to Atone?

Paul teaches in imputed sin through Adam to each human born from Adam's line. Romans 5:12, 17-19.   Thus, evangelical and catholic teachers say that babies are born sinners in need of a Savior due to the imputed guilt of Adam.

Apostle John teaches us that anyone who claims Jesus did not have true human flesh -- sarx in Greek -- is the Anti-Christ. 2 John 1:7

But if Paul is correct, Jesus took on flesh that was imputed with sin even if Jesus did not actually sin. The whole concept of atonement is the blood of the sacrificed life was from an innocent life, and this atones for sin. If Jesus had imputed sin, as Paul's principle would require, Jesus could not atone. 

Hence, if Paul is inspired, this proves Jesus could not atone. Thus, our entire faith is destroyed if we treat Paul as inspired.  I thus recommend we re-evaluate Paul's assumed inspiration at all times he writes anything.

To illustrate the problem, one Pauline thinker blunders into wrongly admitting Jesus had a fallen nature (which mean Jesus is imputed with sin in Paul's teachings) because they trust Paul in Romans 5. The Gospel Herald writes that John meant "it is a false spirit that denies that in His incarnation Christ took upon Himself the fallen nature of man." (See Link.) If true, as Gospel Herald contends, then Jesus had the fallen nature of man which is nearly universally regarded based upon Paul as meaning imputed sin. If so, then Jesus cannot atone. We must pack up all our hymnals, sell all the buildings, and move on, if this Pauline thinker is correct.

But John said the Anti-Christ denies Jesus had SARX - actual human flesh. John did not say Jesus had inherently sinful human flesh. The Gospel Herald put Paul's words in John's mouth, claiming John said instead that Jesus had a sinful human flesh-nature. 

But 1 Peter 2:22 says Jesus committed no sin. This is why Jesus can atone.

So isn't the Gospel Herald who trusts Paul and claims implicitly and contrarily that Jesus has Adam's imputed guilt destroying our faith? Do they not see the high price of keeping Paul as an inspired voice?

Paul's Solution to This Dilemma: Did Anti-Christ Teach Paul This?

How did Paul himself avoid the dilemma? By teaching Jesus did not have true human flesh -- sarx, but Jesus supposedly only "appeared" to be a man. Paul says in Phil. 2:7 Jesus only appeared in the "likeness of men."  Thus the reason Paul can teach Jesus knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21) is because Paul does not believe Jesus has true SARX -- human flesh - it just appears that way.


Now compare two things. First, that Paul solves the problem that the Original Sin doctrine would negate Jesus as a Savior by Paul saying Christ did not have true human flesh. Thereby, Jesus could be someone who appeared human, was not, and thus could be truly sinless. Then compare this with Apostle John's statement about such a solution: "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in human flesh [Greek, sarx, human flesh], have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7.)

So you see in the end, (a) Paul's original sin doctrine destroys our faith if you accept John's statement that Jesus had human flesh (2 John 1:7), because if Jesus had a sin nature, he could not atone as he would have Adam's imputed guilt; and (b) Paul makes the very statement about Jesus only appearing to have human flesh which Apostle John in 2 John 1:7 says is the message of the Anti-Christ. 

This appears to me to be one more insurmountable problem for Paul.  The truth is that Man has the capacity to sin or not sin, but a baby is not born a sinner imputed with Adam's Guilt. This doctrine only comes from Paul who contradicts Jesus who says to bring the little children to him, and to enter heaven we must become like little children. Children have no guilt until the age of accountability...something God taught in the Original Testament. 

END


NOTES:

 

The Eastern Orthodox have always rejected the original sin doctrine even though it is clearly taught by Paul. See "Original Sin," Wikipedia.


The Roman Catholic Church eventually dealt with this dilemma by inventing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This taught Mary not only was impregnated by God miraculously but she was in a state of grace from her own birth that exonerated her of all sin. In essence, the curse of Adam, and imputation of a sin nature was deflected specifically away from Mary when Mary herself was born. How convenient!

However, no support for the concept of the Immaculate Conception can be found in the whole of the Scriptures: "There is virtually no warrant for it in the Bible, and the passages sometimes cited in support (Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:28, 30--31) have to be stretched to carry the meaning," declares Rev. Charles Sheedy, a prominent Catholic theologian. (Charles Sheedy, E.C.S.C., Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. l4, 802.)