Is Original Sin Doctrine Found in Bible?

I think perhaps philosophy intervenes in areas where it may be thought we do not have enough in Scripture to draw dogmatic conclusions. The problem I have with that is that on this issue (if my supposing were valid) we do have enough. As I said, this is kind of a new project (so to speak) for me, so while I have not yet come to the point where i feel comfortable being dogmatic about everything I would present in this discussion, for the most part there are some general truths, basic principles which deny a traditional view. When I was first saved I was taught along the lines of Augustine's doctrine, even to the point of describing sin as a disease of sorts. But, at this point, based on other areas of study, I can no longer express such doctrine.

I had a friend who was pretty solid in his doctrine, and he decided to go to Seminary and become an ordained minister (which he accomplished). Not long after that he was back to playing heavy metal and playing in bars (he was the guitar player in a metal band I played in, it was a four piece band, and three of us have been saved: him, the drummer, who is now an ordained minister in the CoC, and myself...always thought that was odd, what are the chances of three out of four hooligans getting saved, lol), and I am pretty sure drinking and smoking pot again. In a conversation we had he actually told me that Philosophy was more important than Theology.

Going to Seminary was the worst thing that has happened to him, in my view.

I agree, but...who do we fault for that? Lazy Christians? Or Lazy leadership?

Its just my view that the notable "Church Fathers" have in one sense wrought more harm to the Body of Christ than probably any others that could be named.

We are currently looking for a new Church Home and the fellowship we have been visiting seems promising. They seem to have a passion for the Word of God. They have home group studies (we have not yet gotten involved in one, we have only been twice so far), but we will see. Their "about us" states they are "Dispensational" and "Reformed (Salvation Only). " I keep telling the Pastor I am going to call him but I haven't, partly because I am often disappointed when I talk to Pastors, and they often look at me funny afterwards, lol.

True in part, but, with a direct focus on the issues and a mandatory adherence to a proper exegesis of Scripture, I think we can at least bring the minority into agreement on these issues. Basically a Doctrinal Discussion that does not have Scripture as its measure is not Doctrinal Discussion, its just chatting.

Well...let's change that, beginning with this thread, lol.

And that's a bad thing?



Continued...

 

Kind of like the Gap Restoration Theory. I view it as a response to Evolution by those who bought into the "scientific Facts" espoused by unbelievers. They said "The earth is millions of years old, and we can prove it!" And some men were intimidated. Well, we've seen those "facts" change dramatically over the last century, but, Genesis One still remains the same.

Not sure I can fully agree.

I often tell people I witness to that the understanding they have is due to their knowledge of the Media Spotlight Church, which is not to be confused with the Body of Christ, the Church. I am not a big fan of some of the "heros" men have from Church History. I find the Doctrine and actions of both Catholics and Protestants equally appalling, and to be honest, see the end result as, not a return to Scripture, but another venture in Religion.

Then that should be the goal, right?

As far as Eschatology and "Dispensational Theology," I would disagree. Eschatology is what it is, and when we look at the way several Eschatological systems are built we can see their departure from a Scriptural Basis. Dispensationalism is a little different, because there are differing degrees as to how "dispensational" one is, but, the bottom line is that I have found them closer to a Biblical understanding than any other System. I don't call myself a "Dispensationalist" because much of my Doctrine agrees with what is taught by them, just as I don't call myself Catholic because we both believe God is Triune, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

I don't see Philosophy as necessary to a Dispensational view. You might be able to give examples to better help me understand what you mean by that. The others, I understand.

This is true, but, that is the model Paul gave us:


Acts 17
King James Version (KJV)

1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:

2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.


Acts 18:4
King James Version (KJV)

4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.


Acts 18:19
King James Version (KJV)

19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.


Acts 19:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.


And my personal favorite:


Acts 19:9
King James Version (KJV)

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


As much as people are in the Word of God around here, and on other forums, we would think that there would be a settling of issues in their hearts, but, often we see the same topics batted around with no real settling. I think it should be in the best interests of every forum to declare their positions on numerous topics and explain why that conclusion has been drawn. Of course, we are asking for something equally difficult, which is that the leadership come to an agreement as well.

But I think you're right in part about traditional views being clung to, despite, perhaps, being presented with a Scriptural Basis that settles the issue. Its sad to present people with dogmatic statements from Scripture and see them disregarded. One example would be one member who insists that Moses and Elijah were in glorified form on the mount of Transfiguration, and ignoring the numerous statements in Scripture that state Christ is the First to rise from the dead, never to again die.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful reply Jon.


God bless.

 

Yes.


Romans 5:16
King James Version (KJV)

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.


The result of Adam's sin impacts all of his descendants. The question before us is, "How does it impacts his descendants?"

Think back to the Garden, where Adam, prior to his disobedience to the revealed will of God, was not under threat of death. He had access to the Tree of Life, and would still be there today if he had not sinned.

What was lost for Adam was everlasting life which was physical, and the physical communion he enjoyed with God in the Garden:


Genesis 3:22-24
King James Version (KJV)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


From then on, Adam and Eve would "know good and evil" in an experiential sense, rather than in an intellectual sense. We see that they "knew" what good and evil was prior, because Eve knew it was bad to eat of the fruit that she saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.

So it was not a matter that they could not sin, just a matter that they did not sin until Eve was deceived. Adam placed his wife before the will of God and also ate.

But the primary issue is not the nature of man (which already had the potential for sin), the issue is the loss of relationship with God and access to the Tree of Life.

Now I ask you, do you think that a close relationship with God would keep one from sin? It does. In the promise of the New Birth God declares how He will cause men not to sin:


Ezekiel 36:24-27
King James Version (KJV)

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


Christians are made holy and cleansed from sin through the ministry of God in their lives. And until one is born again they have no desire to do God's will, because they do not fully understand God's will. That is why the Pharisees wrested the teachings of the Law into man-made doctrines suited for their personal benefit, rather than the basic principles of God's Law (Will) which has always had Mankind's best interests at heart.

All men come into this world under condemnation, not because they are born sinners, but because they are separated from God they will inevitably sin. Even for the Old Testament Saint, entrance to God was not given because they obeyed His will, because when they died they did not go to be with God in Heaven. They went to Sheol/Hades, and there the Old Testament Saint awaited their redemption just as much as those who were alive in Christ's Day awaited theirs, just as every man born into this world is in need of. I mention that because we must be careful not to view the infant or young child, or babe in the womb as separate from this condemnation because they were not born, or did not grow up to sin. They stand in the same place the Old Testament Saint stood in, awaiting the grace of God in Redemption through Christ.


God bless.

 

Then you are prepared to say all infants do not go to Heaven but to hell?

 

This shows that God is righteous to judge men based on their personal actions.

However, this is a physical context, and the death in view is physical, not everlasting. While we would likely suppose many who were put to death due to disobedience will end up in Hell, we still cannot wrest this passage as so many do.

Consider:


Ezekiel 18:4-9
King James Version (KJV)

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

6 And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,

7 And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man,

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.


Now, if you impose an eternal context into this passage, then you must equally conclude that everlasting life can be obtained through keeping the Law. The problem with that is...we already know that isn't true:


Galatians 3:21-22
King James Version (KJV)

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


The reason people impose an eternal context to Ezekiel 18 is a faulty understanding of the term "soul" as used in the Word of God. The popular modern concept of man being a tri-part being, body, spirit, and soul, with the soul being viewed as the, or part of the immaterial aspect of man...causes many to misinterpret key passages like this one.

If you read the chapter and keep in mind that "soul" and "Souls" refers to the person or persons, rather than an immaterial aspect of man, you will see that it will make much more sense and correspond to the framework of the Law better.

Might make for a good sermon, but it doesn't make for sound Theology. God is not here promising eternal life for keeping the Law, He is simply stating that the penalty for sin will not be physically exacted on those who keep it.

But you are right in pointing out that God justly imposes sentence on those who are guilty for their own sin, not for the sin of their fathers.


God bless.

 

loDebar, what in the world are you driving at? You have been given solid answers to your inquiries but you don't seem to want true biblical answers. What is it that you are looking for, friend?

By the way; you have an interesting name. 'LoDebar literally means 'land of nothing'. Did you choose that name to reflect your mental attitude about life and the questions you are asking? Just curious.

 

That is actually the opposite of what I said, lol.

As I said, the babe in the womb, the infant, the young child, and we will add those mentally impaired as well...all stand/stood in the same place the Old Testament Saint did: dependent on the grace of God. It was God's forbearance that did not exact the penalty for death in the eternal sense prior to Christ dying in the stead of the Just.

God judges men based on the sin they commit, and the fact is...we cannot charge the infant in the womb who is murdered in abortion with sin. Nor the infant, not even the young child, though around two all bets are off...

God judges based on the will He has revealed to men. Adam was judged based on the revealed will he had received. God said "Don't eat of that fruit," he did it, and that was what he was judged on. So too, all men are judged according to that same just method. The men prior to the Law were not judged according to the Law. The men under Law were not judged according to New Covenant standards. Men in this Age, who reject Christ, His Sacrifice, His Covenant, and the ministry of the Spirit of Grace (The Comforter)...

...will be judged according to a more severe standard:


Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version (KJV)

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


God judges according to what men know, not based on what they don't know. And no man that has been born, and grown up...can plead ignorance. Because God has placed an internal witness of His will in all men:


Romans 2:11-15
King James Version (KJV)

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)


In v.11 we see God plays no favorites among men, because He is just and judges justly.

In v.12 we see that sin still holds penalty whether men had the Law or not (and I think it important that Paul maintains a context that distinguishes between Jew who have the Law and Gentiles who did not). Gentiles may not have had the Law but in v. 14-15 we see...

...them keeping the Law. They are doing the things contained in the Law, naturally, thus they will be justified for their obedience to the internal witness they are being obedient to.

Now, back to infants and Hell: not one infant will ever go into Hell.

That is an indisputable fact, because that would suggest that God was a respecter of persons. Why would we He forbear the sins of the Old Testament Saint (and even the Just of the Old Testament sinned, including Abraham, lol) and not show grace to those who had absolutely no mental capacity to understand any form of God's will and therefore be disobedient to it?

He wouldn't.

Listen, the only means for Reconciliation to God is through faith in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament Saint...did not do that. They were obedient to the Will that was revealed to them, thus were declared just, thus were not consigned to torment when they died. Their eternal destiny was based on the same thing ours is, the grace of God through faith. So the infant that is murdered in the womb, or dies in the womb, or dies at an early age in infancy...

...will have extended to them the same grace extended to the Old Testament Saint.

There is a lot that has to be understood to see this clearly, such as the Gospel of Christ being a Mystery that was not revealed until the Spirit of Truth came on the Day of Pentecost, but, I am confident that I can defend this position Scripturally.

Hope you better understand my views on infants going to Hell.


God bless.

 

Whoops, I thought that was an I, not an L.

Good catch, Calypsis4.


God bless.

 

Thanks, Darrell. I am wondering if this individual qualifies as one who is 'ever learning but never and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.' Not sure yet.

By the way my word 'by' should have been 'but' in 'but you don't seem'. My typo.

Best wishes.

 

Its just something we see in a lot of people who are becoming more interested in what Scripture actually says. Sometimes people grasp onto random doctrines and seek to defend them. This is usually seen in newer believers, but, most are new to study of God's Word.

Our best course of action is to seek to encourage this fellow in learning to look to Scripture for the answers necessary for a sound Theology. And yes, that means fielding the same questions over and over, lol. But its good for us too, because it drives us back to the Word of God, and oftentimes it is discussions like these that help us to further strengthen our own positions. Meaning, "Oh, those twenty verses were enough? Let me find you a few more..."




God bless.

 

It actually means no pasture, a hard way to make a living for a shepherd

The "biblical " answers are in conflict with scripture. They (some) are man's traditions. We have been fed a bias toward that the human condition is more important than the spiritual. Original sin is man's error from man's ego. Sin is not through the physical life, We share in the flesh and blood death of Jesus. Humanity is the method we are saved.

One has to deny original sin and accept that infants do not go to hell or vice versa .
Both cannot be true.

 

loDebar; It actually means no pasture, a hard way to make a living for a shepherd

Actually they are one and the same. Minor point. But you did not answer my question as it pertains to your purpose here.

The "biblical " answers are in conflict with scripture.

No, they aren't. Biblical answers are truthful answers. They only become human answers when personal opinion takes precedence over God's revealed Word.

They (some) are man's traditions. We have been fed a bias toward that the human condition is more important than the spiritual. Original sin is man's error from man's ego. Sin is not through the physical life, We share in the flesh and blood death of Jesus. Humanity is the method we are saved.

One has to deny original sin and accept that infants do not go to hell or vice versa .
Both cannot be true.

I am going to let Darrell discuss this with you. I am actually on another project right now. Goodnight.

 

Goodnight

 

Amen, I am OK with "predilection to sin" rather than "sin nature" though the later is my preference.

 

Where did we get a " predilection to sin"?

Psa 51:5
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

 

i quoted myself

Why am I condemned already if there is no sin nature?

 

I could take each of your objections and give a response but would just be a repeat of past clashes.
This has become too prolonged and convoluted for my sensibility.

So, you may very well be right. You make some compelling responses.

Let the readers mull over the scriptures.

 

And that is why I do not consider myself a Dispensationalist. As I said, you would find much that would agree, but I embrace no System of Theology, and seek only to work towards a Biblical view. Its sad to see people embrace systems and then be forced to conform Scripture to that taught by it. Sad, but there is some humor there too, lol.


God bless.