# Did Jesus teach Original Sin?



## nwink

I was recently dialoging with a skeptic who said Jesus didn't teach original sin anywhere, and that this is an invention of Paul. How would one best respond to this argument? Is there any statement of Christ's that directly teaches or implies original sin?


----------



## chuckd

I thought original sin was formulated by Augustine.


----------



## py3ak

"If ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children...."

Christ takes it as granted that the people to whom he is speaking are evil. Their evil is just a basic fact that can be assumed, and surrounding which there is no expectation of controversy. He doesn't have to teach original sin in any sort of lengthy way; it was taught in the Old Testament and could be presupposed in Christ's own teaching.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

We often forget that Jesus spoke to a mostly Jewish audience who possessed a great deal of knowledge about the OT and the law, and so Jesus did not need to explain everything to them. Paul, on the other hand, ministered to a mostly Gentile audience who had little knowledge of the OT or the law, and so he often explains things in much greater detail.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Whoopty Doo! I love the terminology.


----------



## ZackF

Speaking of the ol' KJV, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."


----------



## Marrow Man

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Whoopty Doo! I love the terminology.



I believe I have actually used that theological terminology from the pulpit on one or two occasions.


----------



## Claudiu

> And what if He didn't? Whoopty doo. Paul's inspired Word comes from that same fountain of Truth, which Christ IS. We're not *red letter "Christians*."



That's a good way to put it!


----------



## Peairtach

I see that Jesus chose and commissioned Saul, in Acts 9:4-9 and Acts 26:12-19. Clearly the Lord made a big blunder by choosing this nasty and prejudiced man, being His Apostle to the Gentiles, to write a large section of His New Testament Scriptures, and pit his teaching against the Lord's teaching. 

Clearly we have been mistaken in holding that wisdom is one of the Lord's attributes, and we should immediately throw our Bibles away and partay Pagan-style until we fall into our meaningless graves.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

nwink said:


> I was recently dialoging with a skeptic who said Jesus didn't teach original sin anywhere, and that this is an invention of Paul. How would one best respond to this argument? Is there any statement of Christ's that directly teaches or implies original sin?



Since it is acknowledged that Paul taught the doctrine, the direct route is to show the authority of the apostle Paul, as others have said. If the apostle's authority is rejected there could be no basis for believing anything about Jesus for the simple reason that everything that is known about Jesus comes to us through apostolic writings.

I suspect the objection is not to the universal existence of sin in humanity per se, but to what our Catechism calls "the corruption of the whole nature." If so, the teaching of Jesus in the Gospel of John is especially clear and comprehensive. Apart from Christ humanity lives in the sphere of "darkness," "the world," "death," etc. Man is "born of the flesh," and "is flesh." He loves darkness and will not come into the light because his deeds are evil. The wrath of God abides on him. He cannot come to Christ apart from the drawing of the Father. He is blind and in need of sight, and what he sees is only worthy of judgment. He possesses a thirst and hunger which only Christ can satisfy. He must be washed by Christ if he is to have any part in Him. He can do no good thing without Christ. He can only be converted, sanctified, kept from the evil of the world, and brought to glory, by the merits and intercession of the Mediator.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

How about the fact that we must be Born Again? Everyone who is born is dead in sin. And truly it was King David who said in sin did my mother conceive me and there is none that doeth good. It isn't just Paul. Paul is quoting King David.


----------



## earl40

> The use of _whoopty doo_ is probably not evidence of erudition, but it sure seems fitting sometimes.



This place is always good for a vocabulary lesson. From one extreme to the next.


----------



## JimmyH

When the eyes of our understanding are enlightened by the Holy Spirit we come to know that sin is sin, and that we have it, and need a Saviour. Perhaps an individual who would engage in such a debate has not had their true condition revealed to them yet.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Since it is acknowledged that Paul taught the doctrine, the direct route is to show the authority of the apostle Paul, as others have said. If the apostle's authority is rejected there could be no basis for believing anything about Jesus for the simple reason that everything that is known about Jesus comes to us through apostolic writings.



I couldn't agree with this more.

I would also add, however, that there is a tendency for some to only accept the most obvious evidence for things. His insistence is equivalent to believing that, unless a police investigator finds a piece of paper next to a victim with a signed and notarized letter from the perpetrator admitting to the crime, that no evidence exists.

Christ's entire ministry is a testimony to the hardness of the human heart. He came into His own and His own people did not receive Him. He came into a world where teachers of the Law did not understand the necessity of being born again. He was hounded by men and women to be a certain kind of Savior and berated by His closest friends when He explained that the Son of Man would have to die on a Cross. The same men that believed that they were zealous for the Law plotted to murder the Son of God because He healed a man on the Sabbath or because He overturned their tables where they had a profitable racket ongoing. The disciples inability to seem to understand their dear Teacher is nearly comical except that we recognize that we too would be unable to understand Christ except it be given us.

The skeptic who believes such a thing is blind to the spiritual realities. He walks according to the Kingdom of this Age saying he sees but is in darkness. Christ is the Light and that Light shined in the darkness but the darkness did not comprehend it. Let us never forget how Christ thanks His father concerning those who would believe in Him:

_At that time Jesus declared, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”_ (Matthew 11:25-30, ESV)


----------



## sevenzedek

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Whoopty Doo! I love the terminology.



Comes from the Greek word ωοοπτε δοο.

I couldn't help myself.


----------

