What about the doctrine of Original Sin?

[JonC]

In regards to Genesis 3:11, we do not agree. The change is stated in Genesis 3:22, ". . . the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: . . ." This seems cut and dry to me.

It is cut and dry. Not a "fallen nature" but a realization of good and evil (God does not have a "fallen nature").

 

[Dave G]

Another touchy subject in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is Original Sin.

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.

It seems to some Christians a very 'gloomy' term.

"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.

 

[atpollard]

But this denies federal headship.

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.]

 

[Dave G]

Some even go as far as to reject the classical definition of original sin citing that it isn't found in Scripture (I've always thought that to be a poor argument since a lot of beliefs central to Christianity aren't found in scripture).

I see that a lot...more now than when I was younger, in fact.

While a lot of Christians do accept a doctrine of original sin, it appears historic Calvinism has the strongest and most biblical belief of it.

I've noticed that.

So much so that the concept is bedrock to Reformed theology for those who have followed it to its logical conclusion.

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.

What I often wonder is:
(1) What doctrine of original sin do Christians who don't identify with Calvinism hold?

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.

And, (2) in the case of Calvinism and original sin, is it even possible (meaning logically consistent) to hold to the historic definition of original sin without ascribing to the theology referred to as Calvinism?

"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.

 

[JonC]

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.

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

But this denies federal headship.


But that looks like confusion within the Godhead if you're saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't regenerate everyone to salvation, or that God only pre-chose those who would be saved, but yet Jesus died for all.
God elected SOME...the Holy Spirit regenerates SOME...but Christ died for ALL?!?

Are you into Universalism?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is cut and dry. Not a "fallen nature" but a realization of good and evil (God does not have a "fallen nature").

Humans now do though!

 

[37818]

It is cut and dry. Not a "fallen nature" but a realization of good and evil (God does not have a "fallen nature").

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.

 

[George Antonios]

Another touchy subject in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism is Original Sin. It seems to some Christians a very 'gloomy' term. Some even go as far as to reject the classical definition of original sin citing that it isn't found in Scripture (I've always thought that to be a poor argument since a lot of beliefs central to Christianity aren't found in scripture).

While a lot of Christians do accept a doctrine of original sin, it appears historic Calvinism has the strongest and most biblical belief of it. So much so that the concept is bedrock to Reformed theology for those who have followed it to its logical conclusion.

What I often wonder is:
(1) What doctrine of original sin do Christians who don't identify with Calvinism hold?
And, (2) in the case of Calvinism and original sin, is it even possible (meaning logically consistent) to hold to the historic definition of original sin without ascribing to the theology referred to as Calvinism?

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.

 

[George Antonios]

So like cyanide added to sugar,

Interesting illustration. Tell me more.

 

[robustheologian]

"Oringinal Sin" is simply that one event which gave all mankind a sinful nature.

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.

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.

Romans 1 and Romans 5.

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.]

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

We all indeed inherit a sinful carnal nature

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

The error that the Calvinists make is one of a logical-yet-non-scriptural extreme whereby they hold that a man in bondage cannot recognize that bondage and plead for freedom in light of the gospel being preached to him.

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.

I would disagree.

 

[JonC]

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.

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).

 

[Dave G]

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?

Disobedience towards God, which resulted in spiritual death being passed to all men.

 

[AustinC]

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.

 

[JonC]

Disobedience towards God, which resulted in spiritual death being passed to all men.

Yes, I agree. Thank you for the clarification (the older I get the more of it I seem to need).

 

[JonC]

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.

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.

 

[37818]

Interesting illustration. Tell me more.

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.

 

[37818]

towards God, which resulted in spiritual death being passed to all men.

Genesis 3:11-22 is what the disobedience caused to happen.

 

[37818]

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).

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.

 

[Aaron]

a lot of beliefs central to Christianity aren't found in scripture

Name some...