is The Doctrine Of Original Sin taught In Bible?

[JesusFan]

Or is it just teachings gleaned from Augustine and others?

 

[DHK]

Or is it just teachings gleaned from Augustine and others?

Define "original sin."

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The answer is yes, the doctrine of original sin is a biblical doctrine.

 

[webdog]

If by OS you mean one sin that resulted in the curse on all creation, yes. If you refer to Augustine's doctrine that most seem to hold to today, unless you also believe in baptismal regeneration, the answer is no.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

If by OS you mean one sin that resulted in the curse on all creation, yes. If you refer to Augustine's doctrine that most seem to hold to today, unless you also believe in baptismal regeneration, the answer is no.

Have you started your own private school of theology called "Webdogism" :laugh:

 

[webdog]

Have you started your own private school of theology called "Webdogism" :laugh:

No need to, I don't invent things based on presuppositions (baptismal regeneration) or create doctrine based on figurative, poetic language

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No need to, I don't invent things based on presuppositions (baptismal regeneration) or create doctrine based on figurative, poetic language

No one knows what you believe. You have only given the BB the disorganized scribbles of your ideas in these threads to figure out what you believe, although you present yourself these these men and women to be a teacher of them.

How about maning up and writing down what you believe.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[webdog]

No one knows what you believe. You have only given the BB the disorganized scribbles of your ideas in these threads to figure out what you believe, although you present yourself these these men and women to be a teacher of them.

How about maning up and writing down what you believe.

I won't hold my breath.

How about engaging the OP for once in a mature fashion and leave the ad hominem out. I won't be holding my breath.

As to the OP...what I believe is "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" and "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—"

 

[ReformedBaptist]

How about engaging the OP for once in a mature fashion and leave the ad hominem out. I won't be holding my breath.

As to the OP...what I believe is "As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" and "even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—"

I already answered the OP. I was specifically challenging your back-handed attack on the doctrine of orginal sin as taught by Scripture.

 

[webdog]

I already answered the OP. I was specifically challenging your back-handed attack on the doctrine of orginal sin as taught by Scripture.

I presented the Scripture word for word on the "doctrine of original sin as taught by Scripture". Maybe at some point you will leave the Augustinian camp and follow along. Strange, you follow only Augustine's teachings that are convenient and fit into your soteriological box...yet reject his logical conclusions on what this means to infants as you cannot stuff that into the same box.

Yeah...who's doctrine is made up here...

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I presented the Scripture word for word on the "doctrine of original sin as taught by Scripture". Maybe at some point you will leave the Augustinian camp and follow along. Strange, you follow only Augustine's teachings that are convenient and fit into your soteriological box...yet reject his logical conclusions on what this means to infants as you cannot stuff that into the same box.

Yeah...who's doctrine is made up here...

So you biblical grounds for your doctine is based on a single verse?

Show me where I have grounded my belief on the teaching of Augustine, or else give up the point.

 

[webdog]

So you biblical grounds for your doctine is based on a single verse?

Show me where I have grounded my belief on the teaching of Augustine, or else give up the point.

Well, not to split hairs but I gave two. Of course there are many more, but in all honesty will you accept them if you cannot accept two straight forward, matter-of-fact passages? I'm guessing not. It's easier to build doctrine on poetic, figurative language. I'm sure you also literally believe a child leaves the womb speaking...and lies at that!

To the above bolded: What did the op ask to which you responded " The answer is yes, the doctrine of original sin is a biblical doctrine. "

I rest my case.

 

[Skandelon]

RC Sproul defines Original Sin as, "Original sin," meaning sin derived from our origin, is not a biblical phrase (it comes from Augustine), but it does bring into focus the reality of sin in our spiritual system. Original sin does not mean that sin belongs to human nature as such; "God made man upright" (Eccl. 7:29). Nor does it mean that the processes of reproduction and birth are sinful...Rather, "original sin" means that sinfulness marks everyone from birth, in the form of a heart inclined toward sin, prior to any actual sins; this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins; it is transmitted to us from Adam, our first representative before God. The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin."

This should be distinguished from the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity which Sproul defines as: "Total depravity includes total inability, that is, being without power to believe in God or His word (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7, 8). Paul calls this universal unresponsiveness a form of death; the fallen heart is "dead" (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13). As the Westminster Confession (IX. 3) explains, "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." To this darkness the word of God alone brings light (Luke 18:27; 2 Cor. 4:6)."

I believe the concept of Original Sin finds its support in scripture, but the concept of Total Depravity only finds support in the man-made dogma of Calvinism. Not one of the proof texts referred to by Sproul even mention man's ability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled. We agree that man by their own strength cannot save themselves and that God brings the light, but we are debating as to whether man CAN or CANNOT receive the light or respond to the appeal of reconciliation. There is no reason to presume that man cannot considering that all men are held to account for their response to that appeal.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, not to split hairs but I gave two. Of course there are many more, but in all honesty will you accept them if you cannot accept two straight forward, matter-of-fact passages? I'm guessing not. It's easier to build doctrine on poetic, figurative language. I'm sure you also literally believe a child leaves the womb speaking...and lies at that!

What did the op ask to which you responded " The answer is yes, the doctrine of original sin is a biblical doctrine. "

I rest my case.

The OP asked a simple question, and I gave a simple answer. The wiser reply was from DHK asking for the OP to define original sin. But since that was asked already, I chose to give the simple answer of "yes"

But I have given you a better to such questions right there in my signature. Go and read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as it represents what i believe on most subject, and certainly on the Bible's teaching of original sin.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RC Sproul defines Original Sin as, "Original sin," meaning sin derived from our origin, is not a biblical phrase (it comes from Augustine), but it does bring into focus the reality of sin in our spiritual system. Original sin does not mean that sin belongs to human nature as such; "God made man upright" (Eccl. 7:29). Nor does it mean that the processes of reproduction and birth are sinful...Rather, "original sin" means that sinfulness marks everyone from birth, in the form of a heart inclined toward sin, prior to any actual sins; this inner sinfulness is the root and source of all actual sins; it is transmitted to us from Adam, our first representative before God. The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin."

This should be distinguished from the Calvinistic view of Total Depravity which Sproul defines as: "Total depravity includes total inability, that is, being without power to believe in God or His word (John 6:44; Rom. 8:7, 8). Paul calls this universal unresponsiveness a form of death; the fallen heart is "dead" (Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13). As the Westminster Confession (IX. 3) explains, "Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto." To this darkness the word of God alone brings light (Luke 18:27; 2 Cor. 4:6)."

I believe the concept of Original Sin finds its support in scripture, but the concept of Total Depravity only finds support in the man-made dogma of Calvinism. Not one of the proof texts referred to by Sproul even mention man's ability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled. We agree that man by their own strength cannot save themselves and that God brings the light, but we are debating as to whether man CAN or CANNOT receive the light or respond to the appeal of reconciliation. There is no reason to presume that man cannot considering that all men are held to account for their response to that appeal.

Is your source a book your looking at or on the net. I'd like to read the whole thing before I reply.

 

[webdog]

The OP asked a simple question, and I gave a simple answer. The wiser reply was from DHK asking for the OP to define original sin. But since that was asked already, I chose to give the simple answer of "yes"

But I have given you a better to such questions right there in my signature. Go and read the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith as it represents what i believe on most subject, and certainly on the Bible's teaching of original sin.

You say you agree with Augustine, and the 1689 COF. They are not the same, as evidenced by infant baptism and "all becoming" dead in sin. Maybe you should be more clear on what you believe (what you accuse me of, ironically) instead of attacking others on what they believe.

 

[webdog]

I was with Sproul until "The doctrine of original sin makes the point that we are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners, born with a nature enslaved to sin."

That is putting the cart before the horse, IMO, and re-defines the very term sinner.

 

[glfredrick]

I believe the concept of Original Sin finds its support in scripture, but the concept of Total Depravity only finds support in the man-made dogma of Calvinism. Not one of the proof texts referred to by Sproul even mention man's ability to respond to God's appeal to be reconciled. We agree that man by their own strength cannot save themselves and that God brings the light, but we are debating as to whether man CAN or CANNOT receive the light or respond to the appeal of reconciliation. There is no reason to presume that man cannot considering that all men are held to account for their response to that appeal.

First, why bring up utter depravity when it is not in the OP?

Second, can we not assume that if God is bringing the light of reconciliation that with His bringing comes His means for making one alive to recieve it? Both Arminian and Calvinist says that is so, but they differ as to the means or who instigates it. I'm not so sure that you've nailed shut the door to Calvinism.

 

[Skandelon]

First, why bring up utter depravity when it is not in the OP?

Because some don't distinguish between the two. It is important to understand that the affirmation of one is NOT necessarily an affirmation of the other.

Second, can we not assume that if God is bringing the light of reconciliation that with His bringing comes His means for making one alive to recieve it?

That is the very heart of what I believe. Very well stated!

Both Arminian and Calvinist says that is so, but they differ as to the means or who instigates it.

We both affirm that God is the instigator, but yes we do differ on the effectuality of the chosen means.

I'm not so sure that you've nailed shut the door to Calvinism.

Well, then I've got more work to do. :wavey:

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You say you agree with Augustine, and the 1689 COF. They are not the same, as evidenced by infant baptism and "all becoming" dead in sin. Maybe you should be more clear on what you believe (what you accuse me of, ironically) instead of attacking others on what they believe.

I am not sure I said I agreed with Augustine. Honestly, I haven't read what he wrote on the subject. I pointed to LBCF for an expression of what I believe on the subject. Maybe you just assumed I agreed with Augustine?

I will do some research on what he taught on the matter. What have you read of Augustine...might help me find the source faster.