Is Original Sin Doctrine Found in Bible?

I would be satisfied just to discuss the difference between death passing to all men and that which death is replaced by, Sin.

Its kind of like people thinking we are saved by faith through grace alone.


God bless.

 

Paul makes the argument that sin and death are inextricably linked in Romans 5

[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:12–14 ESV)
​

His over-arching point here is that even though there was no Law between Adam and Moses--and, therefore, no sins being counted--death still occurred. His argument is, then, that Adam's sin is counted as our sin (or passed on to us) and the evidence is that all between Adam and Moses (except one) die. How can death happen when sin isn't counted and the wages of sin is death? Because Adam's descendants die because of Adam's sin.

That's Paul's argument here. Others have coined the term "Original sin," but whatever you call it, Paul generates the concept here. What is more, if we reject the argument about the "Federal Headship" of Adam and his sin (guilt and propensity) being passed on to us, then we must also abandon the concept of the Federal Headship of Christ and His righteousness being counted as ours, too. So, this doctrine of Paul's is abandoned with great consequences and at great peril.

The Archangel

PS. I didnt' read the entire thread.

 

Hello brother,

I am following you, but Paul is repetitious with this principle, "All have sin; all do sin." With or without the Law, we sin--not because we have "sinned in Adam," but because we all actually sin.

 

Actually, that is not the case. Paul's point is that people die and yet they haven't technically sinned (because of the absence of Law). The words "Sin isn't counted" thwart your point.

The Archangel

 

Except that Paul says, "Death through sin."

 

Quite true, if we die because we sin no babies could die.

 

... So a aborted babe can be saved without being a human?

What is he then when saved , in your opinion

 

Nope.

Paul uses the Aorist in his argument, pointing to a single event (ie. Adam's sin), not multiple events (ie. everyone sinning in and of themselves). Second, "through" is translating δια + the genitive, and is the proper translation. But, the idea of "through" is instrumental as in death happens because of sin.

Here is Leon Morris' take on it:

The aorist points to one act, the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect if the apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people. Paul says that all sinned in Adam, not in imitating him (cf. Bruce). And it ignores the context with its strong insistence on the sin of one man (not all of us) as the cause of the trouble.

Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 231–232.
​

What is more, Paul's argument in v. 18-19 leaves no doubt:

[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18–19 ESV)
​

Whether one calls it "Original Sin" or something else, the historic doctrine of Original Sin is exactly what Paul is detailing here.

The Archangel

 

The point is as the acts of one affecting many, Are all saved becaus of Christ or did He make a way whereby we cam participate? Adam did not make us participate but started a system of sin

1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

or Adam, physical death , Jesus spiritually alive

 

I hold to Limited Atonement. I would argue, as scripture does, that Christ saves His elect.

That's a quaint thought, but it isn't at all what Paul is arguing in Romans 5.

Paul, of course, won't contradict himself.

The Archangel

 

I do not hold Limited Atoinement neither Predestination

Neither would Paul contradict scripture Eze.
Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

So where is the explantion needed. ?