Jon, I congratulate you upon your constant deflection. You want to take the extreme position and present it as if it were normative. You pretend that Augustine could only have arrived at his position based upon neoplatonism and dualism. I have presented arguments to the contrary. You insist upon a pseudo-philosophical interpretation of Augustine based on some websites.
You consistently refuse to admit that Augustine's conclusions are based upon Scripture. No, they're just made up thin air and bogus philosophy. That is silly.
Thank you for your kind reply. It is uplifting to find a brother who is able and willing to discuss areas of disagreement within a Christian context. It is something with which I sometimes struggle, but you are an example to us all.
You are partially right. I am arguing an extreme but I am primarily doing so to bring out how Augustine relates to the OP (to the question of the doctrine being present in Scripture itself). Were this a thread detailing, exploring, and expounding on Augustine’s position then perhaps my conversation would have been more balanced. But to prove my point all I needed to do was show that without extra-biblical influences (whether philosophy, tradition, or the views of others) Augustine would not have arrived at his position.
My argument is that the Doctrine of Original Sin as assumed by the OP (by Yeshua1) is in fact a denial of the humanity of Christ in the decent of Adam.
In this thread I’ve mentioned Tertullian a couple of times. His understanding was that men are sinful not by virtue of their earthly nature but by a free exercise of the will. I believe that this is identical to Paul’s teaching. That said, he departs from Paul in his view of restoration of God’s image in man rather than a “new birth” (which is an obvious influence of Stoic philosophy).
Augustine’s view, likewise, overlaps Scripture. But the overlap is not as large as you seem to believe. My argument is that had Augustine been influenced by Stoic philosophy his doctrine would have looked more like that of Tertullian. Instead, Augustine was influenced by Neo-Platonism. He believed that human nature was transmitted through the sexual act and concentrated on fallen man as being sinful by nature (he even expounds on this through his personal experience in Confessions). Other than this, I have not ventured into an interpretation of Augustine.
I am not sure what websites you are referencing, but you are mistaking (innocently, I’m sure). I’ve gone back and looked at a few books during this thread, mostly because of a poor memory. I didn’t take material from them (which is why there is no reference) but I have not only been influenced by them but I’ve also referenced them, I’m sure, in some way. These include
Original Sin by Wiley;
On Christian Doctrine by Augustine, and Augustine’s
Confessions. Insofar as Tertullian, my favorite is (and has been for a long time) Bray’s book
Holiness and the Will of God (I actually bought this by accident years ago, but it is an excellent read)
I happen to think Augustine was wrong in the particulars but right in the generalities.
I agree that Augustine was partially right and partially wrong.
And you have to account for the universal belief in what the Orthodox call ancestral sin. It seems clear from the earliest Christians that they believed that Adam's decision affected all of humanity.
That’s because Adam’s sin did affect all of humanity. Scripture teaches that through his act death entered the world, man’s eyes were opened to know good and evil as God knows good and evil, the ground was cursed, and God subjected Creation to futility.
Again, the topic of the OP is whether or not the Doctrine of Original Sin is present in Scripture or if Augustine made it up. The answer is “no” to both – the doctrine as the OP implies is not present in Scripture and Augustine did not just invent it.
It seems to me that you are being reductionist and essentially saying that Adam's sin had no repercussions beyond his and Eve's situation. Yet we know "that all creation groans" for redemption from the law of sin and death.
Does the Bible teach that “all creation groans” because it has fallen due to Adam’s sin – OR does it teach that all creation groans because God has subjected it to futility by the will of the one who subjected it?
I believe that Augustine was wrong in his view that man exists in three states (created man, fallen man, and man regenerated). This is simply not in Scripture. The Bible deals with two types of natures – the flesh and the spirit.
So where we differ is that I believe man in his original state (Adam) was created short of God’s glory, and that when given the opportunity it was natural (original nature) for man to choose himself rather than God. I believe this was for God’s own glory, that the Fall was not something that took God off guard but was an intended part of creation.
I see Adam as doing what any man would have done in his place. He is, in this sense, all of us. The fruit bears witness of the tree.
