Is Original Sin Doctrine Found in Bible?

[Darrell C]

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.

I would be satisfied just to discuss the difference between death passing to all men and that which death is replaced by, Sin.

Its kind of like people thinking we are saved by faith through grace alone.


God bless.

 

[The Archangel]

I would be satisfied just to discuss the difference between death passing to all men and that which death is replaced by, Sin.

Its kind of like people thinking we are saved by faith through grace alone.

Paul makes the argument that sin and death are inextricably linked in Romans 5

[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:12–14 ESV)
​

His over-arching point here is that even though there was no Law between Adam and Moses--and, therefore, no sins being counted--death still occurred. His argument is, then, that Adam's sin is counted as our sin (or passed on to us) and the evidence is that all between Adam and Moses (except one) die. How can death happen when sin isn't counted and the wages of sin is death? Because Adam's descendants die because of Adam's sin.

That's Paul's argument here. Others have coined the term "Original sin," but whatever you call it, Paul generates the concept here. What is more, if we reject the argument about the "Federal Headship" of Adam and his sin (guilt and propensity) being passed on to us, then we must also abandon the concept of the Federal Headship of Christ and His righteousness being counted as ours, too. So, this doctrine of Paul's is abandoned with great consequences and at great peril.

The Archangel

PS. I didnt' read the entire thread.

 

[JonShaff]

Paul makes the argument that sin and death are inextricably linked in Romans 5

[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:12–14 ESV)
​

His over-arching point here is that even though there was no Law between Adam and Moses--and, therefore, no sins being counted--death still occurred. His argument is, then, that Adam's sin is counted as our sin (or passed on to us) and the evidence is that all between Adam and Moses (except one) die. How can death happen when sin isn't counted and the wages of sin is death? Because Adam's descendants die because of Adam's sin.

That's Paul's argument here. Others have coined the term "Original sin," but whatever you call it, Paul generates the concept here. What is more, if we reject the argument about the "Federal Headship" of Adam and his sin (guilt and propensity) being passed on to us, then we must also abandon the concept of the Federal Headship of Christ and His righteousness being counted as ours, too. So, this doctrine of Paul's is abandoned with great consequences and at great peril.

The Archangel

PS. I didnt' read the entire thread.

Hello brother,

I am following you, but Paul is repetitious with this principle, "All have sin; all do sin." With or without the Law, we sin--not because we have "sinned in Adam," but because we all actually sin.

 

[The Archangel]

Hello brother,

I am following you, but Paul is repetitious with this principle, "All have sin; all do sin." With or without the Law, we sin--not because we have "sinned in Adam," but because we all actually sin.

Actually, that is not the case. Paul's point is that people die and yet they haven't technically sinned (because of the absence of Law). The words "Sin isn't counted" thwart your point.

The Archangel

 

[JonShaff]

Actually, that is not the case. Paul's point is that people die and yet they haven't technically sinned (because of the absence of Law). The words "Sin isn't counted" thwart your point.

The Archangel

Except that Paul says, "Death through sin."

 

[HankD]

Quite true, if we die because we sin no babies could die.

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course not. It isn’t in the Bible, per se, but is a Catholic tradition founded on “the Fall”. We shouldn’t expect such things to be present in Scripture.Throughout Church history men have derived theories and ideas of how sin entered the world. Origen reinterpreted the Biblical account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory (he viewed sin as originating solely from free will). Tertullian, borrowing from Stoic philosophy, viewed the sin of Adam as introducing an irrational element into human nature.

Augustine, however, interpreted Scripture through a philosophical lens and was the first to use Scripture to justify the doctrine. From the traditions that had developed he understood the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis as a description of the fall of humanity from grace (with all of mankind biologically present within Adam, therefore participating in the sin).

What you have to understand is Augustine’s worldview. Augustine was influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy (IMHO, from reading his works, perhaps influenced by his own struggles) and he, in turn, introduced this into the Church. His view of sexual relations was skewed (it does not match the New Testament teachings) but more importantly Augustine developed the idea that sin was passed down by biological transmission. This is rejected in Pauline doctrine (1 Cor 2:6-14; 2 Cor 4; Eph 2; Eph 6). Where Paul saw a sin as a spiritual issue within a spiritual domain, Augustine saw it as a biological problem.

The Biblical account of original sin differs from “Doctrine of Original Sin”. In Scripture the original sin of man was when Adam disobeyed God and ate of the “forbidden fruit”. This resulted in his “eyes being opened” to good and evil and knowing such as God knows good and evil. This resulted in sin and death entering the world of man (the “curse” is in Genesis 3:17).

Paul does not deal with “original sin” in that it is passed down biologically, but rather speaks of sin entering the world. He points to Adam willingly submitting himself to Satan rather than hearing, believing and obeying the word of God. This ensured that his descendants would be under the rule and influence of Satan (slaves to sin) – not because their nature was altered but because he lacked the power to overcome the Adversary. This is why we read in Psalm 51 of the author being “conceived in sin”. It was not, as Augustine supposed, an evil based on a biological state (Neoplatonic philosophy, i.e., conception itself) but rather the result of a conception through which he would entered a world in slavery to sin.

Paul did though link Original Sin to His Justification Theology, for by Adam , ALL have received and inherited that same Fall of now being in sin, and born as sinners...
Adam very nature was sinless, but corrupted to then being sinful, and ALL save for Jesus have now received that very sin nature passed unto us as due to the fall!

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course not. It isn’t in the Bible, per se, but is a Catholic tradition founded on “the Fall”. We shouldn’t expect such things to be present in Scripture.Throughout Church history men have derived theories and ideas of how sin entered the world. Origen reinterpreted the Biblical account of Adam and Eve in terms of a Platonic allegory (he viewed sin as originating solely from free will). Tertullian, borrowing from Stoic philosophy, viewed the sin of Adam as introducing an irrational element into human nature.

Augustine, however, interpreted Scripture through a philosophical lens and was the first to use Scripture to justify the doctrine. From the traditions that had developed he understood the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis as a description of the fall of humanity from grace (with all of mankind biologically present within Adam, therefore participating in the sin).

What you have to understand is Augustine’s worldview. Augustine was influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy (IMHO, from reading his works, perhaps influenced by his own struggles) and he, in turn, introduced this into the Church. His view of sexual relations was skewed (it does not match the New Testament teachings) but more importantly Augustine developed the idea that sin was passed down by biological transmission. This is rejected in Pauline doctrine (1 Cor 2:6-14; 2 Cor 4; Eph 2; Eph 6). Where Paul saw a sin as a spiritual issue within a spiritual domain, Augustine saw it as a biological problem.

The Biblical account of original sin differs from “Doctrine of Original Sin”. In Scripture the original sin of man was when Adam disobeyed God and ate of the “forbidden fruit”. This resulted in his “eyes being opened” to good and evil and knowing such as God knows good and evil. This resulted in sin and death entering the world of man (the “curse” is in Genesis 3:17).

Paul does not deal with “original sin” in that it is passed down biologically, but rather speaks of sin entering the world. He points to Adam willingly submitting himself to Satan rather than hearing, believing and obeying the word of God. This ensured that his descendants would be under the rule and influence of Satan (slaves to sin) – not because their nature was altered but because he lacked the power to overcome the Adversary. This is why we read in Psalm 51 of the author being “conceived in sin”. It was not, as Augustine supposed, an evil based on a biological state (Neoplatonic philosophy, i.e., conception itself) but rather the result of a conception through which he would entered a world in slavery to sin.

Our very human natures were changed to being now sin natures due to the Fall, and ONLY Jesus bypassed having a sin Nature, due to the Virgin Birth!

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. When Paul tells us that sin entered the world, he’s speaking of Adam hearing the word of God but submitting to Satan, ensuring that all of mankind would be under Satan’s rulership and influence. According to Paul, the world is held captive to “the prince of the power of the air”. Adam’s failure was not one of altering human nature, but rather of yielding to Satan. But unlike Adam, while in the flesh and tempted by human desires Jesus heard the word of God and believed and obeyed.

Jesus very nature was though God and sinless humanity, NOT the sin natured state all of us have now been born into!

 

[Yeshua1]

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

Not, but that God has chosen to show mercy/grace upon them!
All babies are born in a state of being sinners, deserving hell, But God in his mercies can save them to Heaven!

 

[Yeshua1]

Paul makes the argument that sin and death are inextricably linked in Romans 5

[12] Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:12–14 ESV)
​

His over-arching point here is that even though there was no Law between Adam and Moses--and, therefore, no sins being counted--death still occurred. His argument is, then, that Adam's sin is counted as our sin (or passed on to us) and the evidence is that all between Adam and Moses (except one) die. How can death happen when sin isn't counted and the wages of sin is death? Because Adam's descendants die because of Adam's sin.

That's Paul's argument here. Others have coined the term "Original sin," but whatever you call it, Paul generates the concept here. What is more, if we reject the argument about the "Federal Headship" of Adam and his sin (guilt and propensity) being passed on to us, then we must also abandon the concept of the Federal Headship of Christ and His righteousness being counted as ours, too. So, this doctrine of Paul's is abandoned with great consequences and at great peril.

The Archangel

PS. I didnt' read the entire thread.

When one eliminates original Sin, and the connection of the headship of Adam and Jesus, as representing sinners and saints before God, than we end up with a Jesus who was basically same as any of Us, who overcame sinning by exercising His willpower and faith, and basically whatever Jesus was shown able to do, we could do likewise!

 

[Yeshua1]

Good stuff, brother.

And it is an interesting topic. Augustine interpreted Scripture in light of a presupposed philosophy (Neoplatonic philosophy influenced his understanding of the Bible and his development of doctrine…specifically his dualistic approach to the physical and spiritual). I don’t think we can fault Augustine for reading into Scripture his own philosophy as we often do the same - the reason most believe in the Doctrine of Original Sin is that it has been engrained in our traditions (consider how our forefathers were taught: the New England Primer taught children “in Adam’s Fall we sinned all”).

I agree that objectivity and hind sight strongly cautions against Augustine’s doctrine, but it remains the most common view in our churches.

When I brought up Psalm 51 it was also to disagree with the idea that the Psalmist alluded to original sin. Instead of pointing to a sinful conception he was pointing to a conception that would result in being born into a world enslaved to sin and death.

The Doctrine of Original Sin is a flawed theory based more on philosophy than Scripture as an attempt to answer how sin entered into a perfect world. It fails at the start (with Adam actually sinning), but it has become a common fixture in Western theology (both in Catholic and Reformed doctrine). The reason that things like this are never brought into agreement is mostly tradition. Just as Augustine brought into his doctrine the philosophies that formed his worldview, today’s Christians do so with their own traditions. We saw this when we discussed the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

Biblical literacy is simply not something common in today’s church. The discussion will never gravitate to Scripture or towards evaluating each theory on its merit because people today cannot even recognize what part of their belief is philosophical and which part is the biblical text. They read their understanding as implied and therefore inspired. I wish it were not so, but I’ve been on this forum since 2001 and have yet to see a sustained and legitimate discussion on such topics.

The reason we need to address philosophies is that without philosophy doctrines such as the Doctrine of Original Sin, Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, and the Impassibility of God would never have existed. These things arose as men tried to address questions about Scripture through philosophical reasoning imposed upon the biblical text and developed into theories. From there theories were built upon other theories until they encompassed and overshadowed Scripture itself.

The reason I say we will never get to Scripture on these topics is that too much has been invested. Evangelical Theology is based on the theologies of the Reformation which took for granted several Catholic theories either by acceptance or revision. So I agree that, in light of God's Word, these philosophies can be proven wrong. But they never will as without philosophy things like Calvinism, Arminianism, Penal Substitution Theory, many detailed eschatological schemes, Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, etc. simply would not exist. People are not going to give up their traditions without a fight.

Except that Augustine derived his theory from the letters of Paul, especially in the areas of theology where paul expounded upon the relationship between the First/Second Adam, and between us being with spiritually dead due to now be reckoned by God born into Adam, as contrasted to those now alive in Christ!
What is original sin?
Where would you find yourself on understanding it?

 

[JonC]

Jesus very nature was though God and sinless humanity, NOT the sin natured state all of us have now been born into!

We have the same nature that Adam had when he transgressed God's command. Read your Bible, Y1, not the internet.

Paul did though link Original Sin to His Justification Theology, for by Adam , ALL have received and inherited that same Fall of now being in sin, and born as sinners...
Adam very nature was sinless, but corrupted to then being sinful, and ALL save for Jesus have now received that very sin nature passed unto us as due to the fall!

No, Paul did not link the Doctrine of Original Sin to anything. He explained the universal ramifications of sin, the consequences brought into the world of man by Adam. But Paul never once taught that "sin nature" is passed down. Instead, human nature is inherited and we all sin and have fallen short of the glory of God. That's the part you need to pay attention to, brother - human nature beside divine nature (man fall short of the glory of God).

Except that Augustine derived his theory from the letters of Paul, especially in the areas of theology where paul expounded upon the relationship between the First/Second Adam, and between us being with spiritually dead due to now be reckoned by God born into Adam, as contrasted to those now alive in Christ!
What is original sin?
Where would you find yourself on understanding it?

You are wrong here as well. Augustine did not derive his theory from Scripture. He applied philosophy to Scripture. Read his works.

 

[Yeshua1]

We have the same nature that Adam had when he transgressed God's command. Read your Bible, Y1, not the internet.
No, Paul did not link the Doctrine of Original Sin to anything. He explained the universal ramifications of sin, the consequences brought into the world of man by Adam. But Paul never once taught that "sin nature" is passed down. Instead, human nature is inherited and we all sin and have fallen short of the glory of God. That's the part you need to pay attention to, brother - human nature beside divine nature (man fall short of the glory of God).

You are wrong here as well. Augustine did not derive his theory from Scripture. He applied philosophy to Scripture. Read his works.

I think that you are so scarred of him being a catholic that you see any view that he might have held as being all tainted and wrong!
And you really see Jesus having exact same human nature as we all have, so there was something within Him that would be able to have entertained and lusted and thus commited the sin act, as we all have that, being born with wicked and evil hearts!

 

[loDebar]

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.

... So a aborted babe can be saved without being a human?

What is he then when saved , in your opinion

 

[The Archangel]

Except that Paul says, "Death through sin."

Nope.

Paul uses the Aorist in his argument, pointing to a single event (ie. Adam's sin), not multiple events (ie. everyone sinning in and of themselves). Second, "through" is translating δια + the genitive, and is the proper translation. But, the idea of "through" is instrumental as in death happens because of sin.

Here is Leon Morris' take on it:

The aorist points to one act, the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect if the apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people. Paul says that all sinned in Adam, not in imitating him (cf. Bruce). And it ignores the context with its strong insistence on the sin of one man (not all of us) as the cause of the trouble.

Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 231–232.
​

What is more, Paul's argument in v. 18-19 leaves no doubt:

[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18–19 ESV)
​

Whether one calls it "Original Sin" or something else, the historic doctrine of Original Sin is exactly what Paul is detailing here.

The Archangel

 

[loDebar]

Nope.

Paul uses the Aorist in his argument, pointing to a single event (ie. Adam's sin), not multiple events (ie. everyone sinning in and of themselves). Second, "through" is translating δια + the genitive, and is the proper translation. But, the idea of "through" is instrumental as in death happens because of sin.

Here is Leon Morris' take on it:

The aorist points to one act, the act of Adam; we would expect the present or the imperfect if the apostle were thinking of the continuing sins of all people. Paul says that all sinned in Adam, not in imitating him (cf. Bruce). And it ignores the context with its strong insistence on the sin of one man (not all of us) as the cause of the trouble.

Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 231–232.
​

What is more, Paul's argument in v. 18-19 leaves no doubt:

[18] Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. [19] For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18–19 ESV)
​

Whether one calls it "Original Sin" or something else, the historic doctrine of Original Sin is exactly what Paul is detailing here.

The Archangel

The point is as the acts of one affecting many, Are all saved becaus of Christ or did He make a way whereby we cam participate? Adam did not make us participate but started a system of sin

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

or Adam, physical death , Jesus spiritually alive

 

[The Archangel]

The point is as the acts of one affecting many, Are all saved becaus of Christ or did He make a way whereby we cam participate?

I hold to Limited Atonement. I would argue, as scripture does, that Christ saves His elect.

Adam did not make us participate but started a system of sin

That's a quaint thought, but it isn't at all what Paul is arguing in Romans 5.

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

or Adam, physical death , Jesus spiritually alive

Paul, of course, won't contradict himself.

The Archangel

 

[loDebar]

I do not hold Limited Atoinement neither Predestination

Neither would Paul contradict scripture Eze.
Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

So where is the explantion needed. ?

 

[JonC]

I think that you are so scarred of him being a catholic that you see any view that he might have held as being all tainted and wrong!
And you really see Jesus having exact same human nature as we all have, so there was something within Him that would be able to have entertained and lusted and thus commited the sin act, as we all have that, being born with wicked and evil hearts!

Ahhh....the "logical fallacy monster" attacks

There is nothing in Christ that would have entertained sin. I'm not sure why you think anyone is saying otherwise, or how you came to this conclusion from my statements. Scripture tells us that Christ had the same nature as we have. The reason you reject Paul is not because you believe he was Catholic but because you have developed/adopted a philosophy that demands human nature being changed at some point in time (something foreign to Scripture, as evidenced by your inability rely upon Scripture).

Scripture teaches us that Christ became flesh and shared in OUR humanity - not some humanity foreign to human nature (to OUR human nature). This is why, according to the Bible, that Jesus is qualified to be OUR High Priest.

Our nature in and of itself is not sin. James teaches (plainly, I thought until now) that sin is birthed when we give in to temptation, that temptation focusing on the desires of our human nature. Scripture teaches that Jesus also had a human nature with human desires. He desired (in the flesh) not to suffer. He became hungry, thirsty. But He (not according to your philosophy but according to the Bible) remained obedient to God and did not do his will (the will of the flesh) but the will of God.