There are literally dozens of articles that can be found online concerning the development of the doctrine of Original Sin, and I have probably read most of them. I am quite aware there were ECFs before Augustine who suggested OS, but there were also many ECFs who did not hold to it. But it was Augustine that first sought to establish OS from scripture, and the scripture he primarily argued from was Romans 5:12.
So, you admit that the concept of original sin was one present in the very early church, and that the doctrine was under some development well before Augustine.
That is the main point I have been trying to make.
I am NOT arguing in this thread about other points of doctrine from the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers and have readily admitted that they made errors in their doctrine.
My point was HISTORICAL only.
Thanks for your help.
The problem was, Augustine used a Latin text that said, "in whom" all have sinned, which the Eastern church disagreed with. The Eastern church with Greek texts said the end of this verse should be rightly translated "for that" or "because that" all have sinned. This was one of the many reasons for the split between the Eastern and Western church. The Eastern church has never held to OS as Augustine defined it.
It is Augustine that is credited as making OS the official doctrine of the RCC.
All well and good. I disagree with what you said about Augustine's misunderstanding of the text, but we can discuss that later. If he misunderstood it, so did virtually everyone else, except of course, Origien and Pelagius, and you have earlier disavowed yourself of Pelagius' thought on this matter, so I'm not sure where you stand (or with whom) after that. There must be some mystical Baptist in the history of the church that argues from silence in order to arrive at some other conclusion... :smilewinkgrin:
This is part of just one article I have read, I have gone to Catholic sites that support OS and read on the subject. So, I am quite aware Augustine did not invent the idea of OS, but he was primarily responsible for making it the official doctrine of the RCC.
Again, thanks... That WAS my point.
It really doesn't matter to me who thought of it first, Ezekiel 18:20 says the son shall not bear THE INIQUITY of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son. That is a very simple and straightforward verse of scripture that directly addresses the subject. Augustine and others argue from a verse that does not say Adam's sin was passed on to us. It says DEATH passed on us, not sin.
And, you have not exegeted this Scripture IN CONTEXT as was suggested by DHK above.
WE KNOW and readily admit that the son does not pay the penalty for a father who was a murder.
What that passage DOES NOT SAY is that the son was not born in a state of separation from God because of his inherited sin nature. That SO MANY Anti-Nicene Church Fathers found original sin IN THE TEXT speaks loudly to the fact that you are misinterpreting this particular passage because of an a priori presupposition on your part that there is no original sin that a person is born carrying.
So, next you are faced with a larger problem... How to decide just when sin enters into the life/soul/spirit (whatever) of the youngster. At what point does the Cross become NECESSARY for them? The very earliest church decided from birth. The church ever since the writing of Scripture has said the same, EXCEPT persons declared heretical in their thought on this issue.
So (again) you are faced with the problem, do you side with those declared heretical or do you see original sin in the Text. There is no alternative choice, for that die has been cast. You either admit to Pelagianism or you do not, but if not, then original sin exists.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Show me where Romans 5:12 says sin passed on all men. If you can show me that, perhaps I will change my mind and believe OS. But you can't possibly do that, because that is not what this verse says. You read it, but instead of comprehending it for what it truly says, your mind reads into this verse what you have been taught, and what the verse does not say. It does not say sin passed on us whatsoever.
For the life of me, I cannot understand what is so difficult about Romans 5:12. Since it was written it has always been understood to read that because of Adam sin entered into all men.
Let's break it down in English:
-- Wherefore -- Because of the argument presented to this point by PaulAAAs
-- As by -- because of -- a comparison to
-- One -- singular
-- Man -- a human being (modified by the singluar above)
-- Sin -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God
-- Entered -- came into (existence or being)
-- The world -- "Kosmos" -- the universe inhabited by human beings, in context, people
Stopping so far to see what has been written:
Because of the argument presented so far, i.e., that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that "all are without excuse, for God has been revealed to all," because of one, singular, human being -- a man -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God came into (existence) in the world, or in context, the people of the world.
Your argument is already defeated, for that IS what this passage says.
So far, we find that sin has entered the world by one man. So, sin is present in the "world" and because we (rightly) understand that "the world" does not actively "sin" -- it having no capacity to do so -- we also (rightly) understand that in context Paul is writing about sin inhabiting PEOPLE who live in the world, that being his context for the first 5 chapters of this book.
Let's look at the next clause:
-- And -- a continuation of the former clause, speaking (in context) of the sin that entered the world
-- Death -- complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul
-- By -- with, because of, on account of, through
-- Sin -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God
So, in continuation of the former clause, i.e., that by one man sin entered the world, a complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul occur because of, on account of, through,
an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God.
Sin entered the world (people) by a man, and death came as a result of that sin (not the death of the one man, but in reference to all the ones in the world to whom sin entered).
Your case is further weakened, for now not only sin but death is in all the world.
Next clause:
-- And -- a continuation of the former clause
-- So -- because of, on account of
-- Death -- complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul
-- Passed -- to travel the road that leads to, to go the way of, to walk or journey, to travel
-- On -- preposition, into, onto, towards
-- All -- literally, every
-- Men -- "anthropos" -- human beings
So, because of what came before, i.e., "that by one man sin entered the world, a complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul occur because of, on account of, through, an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God sin entered the world (people) by a man, and death came as a result of that sin (not the death of the one man, but in reference to all the ones in the world to whom sin entered)," complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul traveled or went the way of, passed into or towards every human being.
Still haven't helped your cause...
And finally, the conclusion of the matter:
-- For -- on, becasue, to, by
-- That -- pronoun -- whom, who, which, that
-- All -- literally, every
-- Have -- action -- past, accomplished
-- Sinned -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God
Because of (everything that came before), whom is all, every one, in an accomplished past action, have sinned, plural, indivual acts of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God.
Your case is closed.
One cannot grasp the later clause and use it as a lever to make the first clause inconsequential. The ordering of the Greek does not allow that and in this case the ordering of the English is identical.
:12 διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον
