1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured What about the doctrine of Original Sin?

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by robustheologian, Jan 14, 2021.

  1. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is cut and dry. Not a "fallen nature" but a realization of good and evil (God does not have a "fallen nature").
     
  2. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    1,364
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm not sure why.
    Anyone who reads and believes Romans 1, for example,
    shouldn't have any trouble with the fact that what was experienced in the Garden was passed on to all men.

    The knowledge of good and evil, the choice to do evil and reject doing good ( unless it suits us to not reject it ), and many other details are all in the Bible.
    "Gloomy" it may be, but believers have been rescued from it.
    They can pin their hopes on the fact that God saved a people from themselves, to Himself.

    Many today try to downplay Romans 1, Romans 3, Psalms 10, Psalms 14, John 3:19-20 and many others...
    All in favor of a God that loves everyone and doesn't want anyone to perish.

    As I see it, that will sell a lot of airplay and get rave reviews...
    But the fact of the matter is, the bad news is very bad...

    Which makes the Good News really good.:)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. atpollard

    atpollard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2018
    Messages:
    4,714
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Nyet. (Russian for no. ;) )
    Mankind has THREE Federal Heads. All created by God. God created Adam (with His bare hands). God created Eve (from Adam). God created Jesus (from a daughter of Eve and ... well God himself).

    Through the Federal Headship of the first Adam, everyone born of the seed of Adam is born with the curse of Adam's Federal Headship. Eve and the daughters of eve were all created from Adam or the seed of Adam and subject to that Headship.

    Jesus was not born of the seed of Adam, so the curse of Adams Federal headship did not pass to Jesus. However, we are told that Jesus was the "second Adam" and Eve was promised that the curse would be lifted by HER SEED. Jesus is the second Federal Head of mankind that undoes the curse of the first Federal Head of mankind through the promise og God made to Eve when the curse was originally given.

    Federal Headship is not denied; the Federal Headship of BOTH the First Adam and the Second Adam (Christ) are affirmed along with God honoring the conditions made to Eve at the time of the curse.

    [Please remember, this is only a "thought experiment" to meet a specific set of requested given conditions. These are not my actual beliefs of what scripture teaches.]
     
  4. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    1,364
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I see that a lot...more now than when I was younger, in fact.
    I've noticed that.
    I'm not "Reformed", so I confess to not having that reference point.
    I simply read the Bible for myself and find that I end up on that side of the river, at least with regard to how salvation works.
    I don't self-identify as "Calvinist", but I do hold to sin being passed down to all men...
    It's "flaw" or corruption in us that leads to us being willfully disobedient to God in all manner of ways.
    "Calvinism" meaning "TULIP"?
    I have seen it, and I do know of many cases, personally, where "Arminians" and "Traditionalists" do seem to believe and teach "Original Sin" in the Biblical sense.

    For example, I was raised in IB and IFB churches...
    and remembering back, I recall that my former pastors all mostly seemed to ascribe to it.

    Where they differed from what I now believe, was in the remedy for "Original Sin " and how that Remedy is obtained.
     
  5. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For clarification, when you say "what was experienced" in the Garden was passed on to other men are you referring to death or something else?
     
  6. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you into Universalism?
     
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Humans now do though!
     
  8. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,828
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The knowledge of good and evil was and is God's. God being infinitely good cannot be affected by any evil.

    Now God made man good. But man was not made infinitely good to be equal with man's Creator.
    So like cyanide added to sugar, so that divine knowledge of good and evil was like poison to an otherwise good mankind's nature to become mankind'a sinful nature.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    298
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We all indeed inherit a sinful carnal nature, and in our flesh (Ro.7:18), as Paul is careful to specify (as opposed to in our soul or spirit) dwelleth no good thing. That nature cannot please God (Ro.8:7) in so far as it cannot perfectly fulfill the works of the law (Ro.8:3), which is the context of Romans 8:7's assertion about the inability to please God.
    Where I cannot follow Calvinism is that that fallen nature is so depraved that the human will, which is a function of the human spirit (Ex.35:21) of a lost man is utterly incapable of freely yielding to the gospel truth.
    Believing the gospel is not a work, much less a work of the law, and the lost man can believe of his own volition, which is precisely why God holds him responsible for rejecting the gospel. The error that the Calvinists make is holding that a man in bondage cannot recognize that bondage and plead for freedom in light of the gospel being preached to him. He can't break free, but he can nod his head to the deliverer.

    It sounds like you would disagree, but I'm just answering your question #1 there, as someone who is not an Arminian nor yet a Calvinist.
     
    #29 George Antonios, Jan 15, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
  10. George Antonios

    George Antonios Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    298
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Interesting illustration. Tell me more.
     
  11. robustheologian

    robustheologian Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm glad you used the word 'simply' because I feel like your definition of original sin is an oversimplification. It's a much more involved term.

    Romans 1 and Romans 5.

    Maybe I read it too fast (grading discussion boards so mind might be friend) but where's the third federal head?

    But it's more than the sinful nature we inherit; we inherit the actual sin...with its nature AND guilt.

    I would disagree.
     
  12. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It seems that you are making some assumptions that I am unwilling to make. But at the same time, I also may be making assumptions you are unwilling to make. I appreciate your willingness to work through this with me.

    I agree that God made man "upright" and that Creation was good. This does not, IMHO, mean that God made man His moral equal. Adam was created outside of the Garden, outside of that intimate contact with God, and without the command that he would ultimately transgress. The statement that Adam was created "upright" and that God called Creation "good" does not necessitate (or even point to) a nature superior to what Scripture would refer to as "flesh".

    God will, indeed, not "condone" evil. So there is an issue of defining what it means that Adam's transgression resulted in Adam's eye's being opened to the extent he became like God knowing good and evil. I believe that this means Adam, like God, participated in moral righteousness (in "good and evil" as a whole). This is an intimate knowledge (not just cognitive facts like reading about good and evil in a book). Adam participated in "good and evil" by doing evil. God participates in "good and evil" by doing good. Adam became a moral entity (knowing good and evil) through his immorality while God knows good and evil through His righteousness (through morality).

    This does not change the nature of man (which is probably why there are no passages that teach man's nature ever changed). But it does distinguish man in terms of morality. Just as the Law showed Israel her sinfulness (by making sin a transgression) God's command to Adam showed Adam his state in relation to God's righteousness (Adam misses the mark). Adam was not created "immoral", but became immoral when Adam did what came natural (the flesh) rather than obeying God. Adam could not operate outside of his nature (the "flesh").

    I think I've given you enough to see my own assumptions, and enough to let you why I will not agree with you (your assumptions).
     
  13. Dave G

    Dave G Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    1,364
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Disobedience towards God, which resulted in spiritual death being passed to all men.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. AustinC

    AustinC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2020
    Messages:
    10,911
    Likes Received:
    1,458
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Those who hold to a Pelagian view of sin may not accept original sin. Instead, they would argue for the origin of sin as an evolution of man into morality and value judgment. In that view, Adam and Eve are symbolic of the evolutionary process in recognizing evil from good. Each person born would then be perfect until the origin of sin was introduced to them by humans who will teach them the difference between good and evil.
    Jesus then represents the one who was best in touch with his divine evolution where good thrived and evil was rebuked. God, then, is a human concept developed to establish moral laws and right living in humanity. There, in this view, are many moral roads that train humans to be good and not evil. The process is fluid and there is no absolute way.

    Here then is the choice, there is either original sin or there is the origin of sin.

    I believe the Bible teaches original sin.
     
  15. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, I agree. Thank you for the clarification (the older I get the more of it I seem to need).
     
  16. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    35,198
    Likes Received:
    3,791
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is an interesting explanation, but I am not sure that it has anything to do with a Pelagian view. The reason is that many deny predestination and depravity, yet affirm "original sin". At the same time, I affirm both (predestination in salvation and total depravity) while rejecting the doctrine of original sin that simplifies things to a "fallen nature" from an "unfallen nature". This, IMHO, misses the entire point of "the Fall", of "the flesh", and "the spirit".

    There is original sin (the sin through which death entered the world) and there is the original sin (the first example of man's nature in relation to God's righteousness "missing the mark") - through one man sin entered the world and spread to all men for all have sinned.
     
  17. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,828
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Faith:
    Baptist
    God is infinite good. No amount of evil can change Infinite good.

    God made man good. Man is finite good. Any evil does harm to finite good.
     
  18. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,828
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Genesis 3:11-22 is what the disobedience caused to happen.
     
  19. 37818

    37818 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2018
    Messages:
    17,828
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My two basic presuppositions.
    God is infinite good.
    Man was not made to be infinitely good.

    The knowledge of good and evil is God's. And man did not have that knowledge until they disobyed. Genesis 3:1-22.

    "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." -- Deuteronomy 24:16.
     
    #39 37818, Jan 15, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2021
  20. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Name some...
     
Loading...