Did We get The Doctrine Of original Sin From Bible, or Catholic Church?

Baloney. When the Lord explained the parable of the sower to the disciples, everything had a spiritual meaning.

Luke 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.
14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.
15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

The seed was the word of God. The fowls that took away the seed that fell by the wayside represent the devil, the rock represents tribulation, the thorns represent the cares, riches, and pleasures of this life. The good ground represents those with an honest and good heart.

You guys are saying total nonsense.

 

What the Lord reveals, the Lord reveals.
Otherwise don't read into the parable that which is not there.

 

Give me a break, all of the Lord's parables express spiritual truths. I am surprised to hear such a thing from you.

 

doesn't say they are born Holy.

Nobody but God is holy.

 

I didn't say that and in fact said that wasn't true. Please don't lie about me and others. That's really low of you.

 

Pardon? The 3 go together? Invented by Augustine? Ever hear of Cyprian or Tertullian? Augustine spoke of the rest of humanity sharing in the first Adam's sin, but he certainly didn't "invent" it.

This statement is clearly not accurate with even the slightest glance at the earlier patristic authors.

 

Augustine was a hugely influential early Christian. He was also a product of his time. There are theologians we hold in very high esteem today that will probably be viewed unfavorably by later Christians.

And to explain his positions as being Roman Catholic, well, they were all catholics. In fact, the Eastern Church was only forging its new identity during his lifetime.

Just strange.

"Sin is to a nature what blindness is to an eye." - Augustine of Hippo

 

Why lob an oblique ad hominem winman, you know I believe Jesus.

We have a different interpretation of a this parable and the word "lost",
"dead", etc.

Actually the son was not dead but was very much alive in a "strange" land, cut off from the promise, heritage and blessing of his father.

As far as the father was concerned he was "dead" just as Jacob believed
Joseph was "dead" devoured by a wild beast

Again you don't know what these two sons represent. It just isn't there in the text.

I would contend that this parable is about what preceded it in chapter 14.
The Gentile nations and the priviledged position of Israel which they lost which one day will be restored.

The theological significance ot "lost" and "dead" depends on their context and that which was "lost" and the manner in which "dead" is spoken of.

Such as Paul's statement. He thought all was well until the law convicted him. After his enlightenment he no doubt realized he was actually dead all along.


HankD

 

No, the context is salvation, you have the parable of the lost sheep, then the lost coin, immediately followed by the story of the lost son. Jesus told these three parables in direct succession.

 

The father had a son. When did the son cease being a son. I thought you believed in eternal security? Are you saying that this parable teaches one can lose his salvation?

 

I do believe in eternal security. I believe when one trusts Christ they are sealed by the Holy Spirit.

But that is not how we come into the world, we are born of the flesh. I do not believe we are born dead in sins, but when a person is old enough to understand good and evil before God and knowingly and willfully sins, they spiritually die. This person needs to be born "again".

So, a person born of the flesh can spiritually die, but a person born of the Spirit cannot.

 

So the "son" was not "lost" but only "prodigal" as in backslidden, and the concept of original sin doesn't even enter into the equation. It is the situation of a believer getting right with the Lord.

 

No, he was lost. He forsook his father, asking for his inheritance, in effect saying his father was dead to him, as you only receive your inheritance when your father is dead. He went and joined himself to a citizen of that far country (Satan). He was as lost and dead in sin as you can be. But he repented and returned to his father, who was patiently looking for him. His father ran to meet him, if we run to God, he will run to us. His father covered his filthy rags with a clean robe representing the righteousness of Christ imputed to those who believe. He received a ring representing sonship and being sealed by the Holy Spirit. He received shoes representing our new walk and sanctification.

And twice his father said he was alive AGAIN. You cannot be alive again if you were born dead in sins.

 

There are exceptions to almost everything, especially when it comes to inheritances. This is an obvious exception as you can see. He received his inheritance, according to his father's will, whereas his elder brother did not receive his inheritance. His father never died. Your point is not valid.

He was separated from his father, reveling in sin. His father never stopped praying for him. Christ does not intercede for the unsaved, but for the saved.

Exactly true for a Christian who has sinned or been in sin.

This verse is written to those that believe:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. (1 John 1:7)
--The blood washes the sin of the believer as well as the unbeliever. His fellowship was restored to his father. His father never stopped being his father.

You are now reading too much into the parable. The ring he would have received anyway had he waited until he was older.

This is where your hermeneutics are wrong. You are trying to make this parable fit your pre-conceived ideas by using a "one-definition" only of a very common word. It doesn't work that way.

Look at the logic. (It is inherent in our language but you are taking it too literally.)

Many commonly say: "Jesus rose again."
"Jesus rose again from the dead."

You don't know how many times I have heard that.
What do you mean "again." He arose! The again infers a second resurrection. But people say it anyway. Don't put too much emphasis on the word "again." He was never dead, except perhaps in the mind of the father, who like Joseph's father thought that he may have been dead.

 

When people say Jesus "rose again" they mean he was alive again.

 

And DHK, aren't you one that always argues context, context, context?

What was the context? The scribes and Pharisees murmured against Christ, saying he received sinners and ate with them. Then the scriptures say this;

Lk 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them saying.

Even I have said this is three parables, but that is incorrect. Jesus told three stories, but they are all ONE parable. He told three stories that all expressed the same truth. And that he was speaking of lost sinners repenting and being saved is evident in verses 7 and 10 where he says there is joy in heaven (vs. 7) and in the presence of the angels of God (vs. 10) over one sinner that repenteth.

So, all three stories are about a sinner repenting and being saved. The prodigal son is not about a Christian being backslidden, a true believer is never said to be "dead".

You just don't like that this parable refutes your long held belief that people are born separated from God. All three stories in this ONE parable show that the sheep, coin, and son were not originally lost, but became lost and were recovered.

 

Again, what is the meaning of "lost" and in what context?

I would agree that people are "lost" in the context of salvation when it is put in the meaning of being "lost" or "dead" in Adam.

Romans 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:​

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

These parables are not necessarily a call to salvation but repentance (or return) of those who had been once been or are presently priviledged by God either actually (Israel) or in their own eyes (Pharisees).​

Jeremiah 4:1 If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the LORD, return unto me: and if thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then shalt thou not remove.​

The prodigal son was neither "lost" or "dead" in the theological terms we use but estranged from his father, he did not cease to be his father's son but returned to him when he came to his senses.​

HankD​

 

This is a response to Jaigner in post #106. Augustine was not the first to argue OS, but he was the first to argue it from scripture and is credited as making OS the "official doctrine" of the RCC.

Augustine argued OS almost exclusively from one single verse, Romans 5:12, which many scholars admit Augustine used a flawed Latin text.

I am on a cell phone, so I can't paste the link, but this article can be found by googling "The Major Issues in the Augustinian- Pelagian Controversy"

Many scholars have written that Augustine erred using a flawed Latin text of Romans 5:12. This article will give much detail.

 

Hank, the three stories in Luke 15 are all ONE parable as shown in vs. 3. All three stories express the same truth, and clearly show the sheep, coin, and son as originally being in possession of the shepherd, woman, and father respectively, and becoming lost. Verses 7 and 10 show that these stories concern salvation.

And 1 Cor 15:22 is misinterpreted by many. This verse is speaking of physical death, not spiritual, the theme of this chapter is the resurrection of our physical bodies, not spiritual death. Read and see for yourself. This verse is the one and only time in scripture that the term "in Adam" is used. So, it has been misapplied by many.

 

And Hank, notice that 1 Cor 15:22 says that in Adam all "die". It does not say in Adam all are "dead". That is a very important distinction, you must first be alive to die.

But... this verse is speaking of physical death, not spiritual death to begin with.

So, those who argue that 1 Cor 15:22 says men are born spiritually dead in Adam's sin err.