Is Original Sin Doctrine Found in Bible?

[percho]

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

Is the above the result of the sin of Adam?

Is the above not true of everyone beginning with Cain and Able up unto the most recent person born of woman with the only exception being Jesus of Nazareth?

What was the difference of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth and everyone else?

Is the original sin transmitted, because it is not naturally possible for virgin birth, because of the having to be known for conception to take place.


See Gal 4:4 Matt 1:18 and
'Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.' And Joseph, having risen from the sleep, did as the messenger of the Lord directed him, and received his wife, and did not know her till she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. Matt 1:23-25

Because of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is communing with Satan, by Eve and Adam, was God trespassed against, through the original virgin, because of the lust of Adam see James 1:14,15 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Bringing forth the condition of Psalms 51:5? And being dead in trespass and sin for all.

Also interesting to me is all that was said to Joseph in Matt 1 esp.relative to the name of the holy one to be conceived of the virgin and to be given birth by the virgin, compared to say what Barnes has to say concerning the name of Cain in his commentary of Genesis 4:1

Was it important for Joseph to not have known Mary before she gave birth to, Jesus?

 

[JonC]

Disagree.

I know. But that doesn't change what the verse itself says ("just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" not "sin spread to all men because Adam sinned"). And ultimately the only thing in question is whether or not Jesus was human (the result of man is the same, whether through Adam or through man's action).

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Jesus nature was that of a human being, but was NOT a sin nature as we all do have due to the fall of Adam!

 

[Yeshua1]

I think the difficulty may be that the "Doctrine of Original Sin" is being used to mean different things on this thread. Although Paul does explain that this one act of Adam is indicative of the race he represents, that in Adam we have all sinned - that through this one act mankind were made sinners, this is not the common definition of Original Sin (at least not the definition the OP has engaged with a true human nature and a fallen one).

The scriptures teach that before the fall, Adam had spiritual communion/life with God, had no impurities within Him , but after the Fall, sin changed His very nature, and had spiritual death...

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly. It's a matter of the will, not one's nature. Adam represents one headship (the flesh) and Christ another (the spirit). We are born into Adam (as our representative) and reborn into Christ (again, as our representative). Adam reflects the kind of people who are born into him, and Christ the kind who are born into Him.

The only two natures Scripture offers is "flesh" and "spirit". The "Fall" ensured a physical death which spread to all men - not a spiritual one as we are not born "spiritually alive". Christ saves men out of the bondage of physical death and into spiritual life (which is why Paul bases Christianity on the Resurrection).

The flesh/spirit of us was all warped and affected by the Fall, as we were born in the state of being sinners by birth. confirmed later by choice!

 

[JonC]

The scriptures teach that before the fall, Adam had spiritual communion/life with God, had no impurities within Him , but after the Fall, sin changed His very nature, and had spiritual death...

Which verse are you speaking of???? Have you not read that after "the fall" God made them clothes. Not only that, but He involved Himself in their affirms (accepted Able's sacrifice, marked Cain, blessed them with children, saved Noah, chose Abrahm).

The problem, again, is that you seem to prefer philosophy over Scripture. Do you think, perhaps, that this is why God warns against such philosophies?

 

[JonC]

Jesus nature was that of a human being, but was NOT a sin nature as we all do have due to the fall of Adam!

So you are again back to claiming Jesus had a "human nature" but not the same kind of "human nature" we have. Your suggestion Jesus was human without sharing in our humanity is an old heresy in disguise.

 

[HankD]

I know. But that doesn't change what the verse itself says ("just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" not "sin spread to all men because Adam sinned"). And ultimately the only thing in question is whether or not Jesus was human (the result of man is the same, whether through Adam or through man's action).

I believe you have missed the fact that I am pointing out.

According to the Greek grammar we (all) were there with Adam when he sinned and therefore we come into the world sinners and condemned already.

 

[JonC]

I believe you have missed the fact that I am pointing out.

According to the Greek grammar we (all) were there with Adam when he sinned and therefore we come into the world sinners and condemned already.

I understand the point, but disagree that the grammar itself implies that we were there with Adam.

 

[loDebar]

We sinned before Adam physically sinned, That is why we are here

 

[HankD]

I understand the point, but disagree that the grammar itself implies that we were there with Adam.

OK just making sure.

HankD

 

[JonC]

OK just making sure.

HankD

Yea, it gets a bit tricky since there is so much that can be involved in these discussions. I should have been more clear earlier on. What drives the interpretation is the context, and I think that the context leans more towards focusing on death and explaining how all die without transgressing a command or the Law.

We do all sin, but the idea that we were corporately with or "in" Adam is not demanded by the Greek grammar (I suppose it isn't denied, either).

 

[rsr]

I would like to go back to the OP: Is the doctrine or original sin found in the Bible or was this man-made doctrine of Augustine?

Perhaps we can clarify our terms. The doctrine of Original Sin is not the creation of Augustine, though he was the first to explicate it in the terms that it has come down to us in the West. The Bible is full of references to the Fall and its continuing malevolent effects.

Jon wants us to believe that it's a baleful influence of neoplatonism, an attempt to impose a philosophical structure upon scripture. No one familiar with Augustine would deny the influence of neoplatonism on his thought, but it's also easy to overstate it. His formulation of Original Sin could well be posited without any reference to neoplatonism. (Thus also on his writings on the Incarnation and Redemption, which he admits is at odds with neoplatonism; indeed, according to Aristotle it is the chief weakness of neoplatonism to require emanations and demiurges and daemons when the concept of a Mediator can solve all those supposed philosophical problems).

If you read Aristotle, he is trying to reconcile the mass of Scripture on this point into a coherent account of why we are so lost. If he is hamstrung in his conclusions, it is not because he is attempting to reconcile human brokenness with neoplatonism but that he is trying to reconcile the Fall with the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

The early churchmen all agreed that the Fall resulted in cataclysmic results. They agreed on the concept of ancestral sin: Somehow, Adam's sin was passed on to all of humankind. Augustine's version differed from the Orthodox conception in that he believed that not only are all humans born in a fallen state, subject to win, but they also share in the guilt of Adam for the first sin.

Augustine's understanding has waned and ebbed through the centuries. A strict adherence to his doctrine means, of course, that stillborn babies and infants who die without baptism are consigned to hell because they share the guilt of Adam. In this context, the medieval concept of Limbo was not cruelty by the Scholastics but rather a softening of Augustine's doctrine. The return to Augustine's doctrine in the Reformation era was an attempt by the Catholic Church to assert that it alone, and its sacraments, could rescue even babies from hell. Today Augustine's doctrine on this point is pretty much ignored; many in the Latin Rite church today would even subscribe to granting the beatific vision to all infants, baptized or not.

Again, it was not neoplatonism that urged him toward his concept of Original Sin, but his desire to uphold the authority of the Catholic Church and its sacraments.

 

[HankD]

It's true I follow closely after the Augustine version of "original sin".

However I can honestly say before the LORD that I did not know of the A view before my discovery of the Greek grammar of Romans 5:12.

Further I do not believe God consigns unregenerate infants to hell who have not come to accountability (which only God can know).
I believe He regenerates them at their death should they die.
In fact accountability may even be later than the usually accepted 7 years old (or so).

 

[JonC]

I would like to go back to the OP: Is the doctrine or original sin found in the Bible or was this man-made doctrine of Augustine?

Perhaps we can clarify our terms. The doctrine of Original Sin is not the creation of Augustine, though he was the first to explicate it in the terms that it has come down to us in the West. The Bible is full of references to the Fall and its continuing malevolent effects.

Jon wants us to believe that it's a baleful influence of neoplatonism, an attempt to impose a philosophical structure upon scripture. No one familiar with Augustine would deny the influence of neoplatonism on his thought, but it's also easy to overstate it. His formulation of Original Sin could well be posited without any reference to neoplatonism. (Thus also on his writings on the Incarnation and Redemption, which he admits is at odds with neoplatonism; indeed, according to Aristotle it is the chief weakness of neoplatonism to require emanations and demiurges and daemons when the concept of a Mediator can solve all those supposed philosophical problems).

If you read Aristotle, he is trying to reconcile the mass of Scripture on this point into a coherent account of why we are so lost. If he is hamstrung in his conclusions, it is not because he is attempting to reconcile human brokenness with neoplatonism but that he is trying to reconcile the Fall with the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

The early churchmen all agreed that the Fall resulted in cataclysmic results. They agreed on the concept of ancestral sin: Somehow, Adam's sin was passed on to all of humankind. Augustine's version differed from the Orthodox conception in that he believed that not only are all humans born in a fallen state, subject to win, but they also share in the guilt of Adam for the first sin.

Augustine's understanding has waned and ebbed through the centuries. A strict adherence to his doctrine means, of course, that stillborn babies and infants who die without baptism are consigned to hell because they share the guilt of Adam. In this context, the medieval concept of Limbo was not cruelty by the Scholastics but rather a softening of Augustine's doctrine. The return to Augustine's doctrine in the Reformation era was an attempt by the Catholic Church to assert that it alone, and its sacraments, could rescue even babies from hell. Today Augustine's doctrine on this point is pretty much ignored; many in the Latin Rite church today would even subscribe to granting the beatific vision to all infants, baptized or not.

Again, it was not neoplatonism that urged him toward his concept of Original Sin, but his desire to uphold the authority of the Catholic Church and its sacraments.

A point of clarification, Bro.

I had noted somewhere that the idea of original sin was present in some form with both Origen and Tertullian. My comment is that Augustine was the first I know of who tried to derive the idea from the New Testament, and he did this by applying to Scripture a philosophy most scholars now reject.

You are absolutely correct that there were consequences of Adam's sin. But, strictly from Scripture, the creation of a new human nature wasn't among them.

 

[rsr]

A point of clarification, Bro.

I had noted somewhere that the idea of original sin was present in some form with both Origen and Tertullian. My comment is that Augustine was the first I know of who tried to derive the idea from the New Testament, and he did this by applying to Scripture a philosophy most scholars now reject.

Well, this is a fine kettle of fish. Now you reject Augustine on the basis that he is "applying to Scripture a philosophy most scholars now reject." For someone who rejects neoplatonism as a rogue philosophy, despite its usefulness, what philosophy would "most scholars" "accept"? Probably not a Christian one, I suppose.

 

[Iconoclast]

I understand the point, but disagree that the grammar itself implies that we were there with Adam.

The grammar of 3:23 teaches it...

 

[JonC]

The grammar of 3:23 teaches it...

Hey Iconoclast. I hope all is well (I haven't conversed with you in awhile).

I am going to make a statement that applies to many here, and I hope you don't take it as a attack against you or as applying only to this post. I also hope that it is helpful, as is my intent.

The short answer is "no, the grammar of 3:23 does not teach the Doctrine of Original Sin".

The longer answer is that churches, teachers, and preachers have failed their congregations by not teaching biblical literacy. Study tools are more available than ever before, to include language tools. But for the most part it seems people are left to fin for themselves, and they come up short. Too often single verses are extracted and interpreted philosophically to support a doctrine, as in your post here.

Grammar does not teach doctrine. Context itself does not teach doctrine. But context, not grammar, drives interpretation.

The context of Romans 3:23 is not inherited sin but a justification by faith rather than through the Law. Paul is explaining the "law of faith" and that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is not that all mankind (past, present and future) have sinned (past, referring to the Fall) and fall (present) short of the glory of God but that all men (referring to those contemporary to Paul, Greek and Jew) have sinned and this principle applies to mankind (all sin and fall short of the glory of God). Paul is not speaking of a "sin nature" or of "original sin". His argument is that men are justified through the law of faith.

 

[JonC]

Well, this is a fine kettle of fish. Now you reject Augustine on the basis that he is "applying to Scripture a philosophy most scholars now reject." For someone who rejects neoplatonism as a rogue philosophy, despite its usefulness, what philosophy would "most scholars" "accept"? Probably not a Christian one, I suppose.

I do not believe Neo-platonism should drive interpretation (I also believe Tertullian was wrong to apply Stoic philosophy). My argument is that our philosophies and ideologies should not drive interpretation, but rather that we should hold our philosophies as lightly as we are able and seek to allow Scripture to dictate doctrine.

With Augustine, he determined that original sin was a biological issue. The "flesh" is evil and the "spirit" is good. This argument is present today (@Yeshua1 recently argued sin as a genetic issue necessitating the Virgin Birth), but it is rejected my most scholars today.

In terms of what I accept and what I reject, you are mistaken. My understanding is influenced by philosophy (I suspect this is common to all of us). But we need to realize what is our own understanding and what is actually written and taught in Scripture.

Again, my argument is not that philosophy in itself is bad. My argument is that we should bend our philosophy to Scripture and not Scripture to our philosophy.

 

[HankD]

Hey Iconoclast. I hope all is well (I haven't conversed with you in awhile).

I am going to make a statement that applies to many here, and I hope you don't take it as a attack against you or as applying only to this post. I also hope that it is helpful, as is my intent.

The short answer is "no, the grammar of 3:23 does not teach the Doctrine of Original Sin".

The longer answer is that churches, teachers, and preachers have failed their congregations by not teaching biblical literacy. Study tools are more available than ever before, to include language tools. But for the most part it seems people are left to fin for themselves, and they come up short. Too often single verses are extracted and interpreted philosophically to support a doctrine, as in your post here.

Grammar does not teach doctrine. Context itself does not teach doctrine. But context, not grammar, drives interpretation.

The context of Romans 3:23 is not inherited sin but a justification by faith rather than through the Law. Paul is explaining the "law of faith" and that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It is not that all mankind (past, present and future) have sinned (past, referring to the Fall) and fall (present) short of the glory of God but that all men (referring to those contemporary to Paul, Greek and Jew) have sinned and this principle applies to mankind (all sin and fall short of the glory of God). Paul is not speaking of a "sin nature" or of "original sin". His argument is that men are justified through the law of faith.

There is a balance of grammar, syntax and context of Koine Greek for a proper hermeneutic.
There is also the very important element of word nuance.

Admittedly I come short of the ability of many.
But Romans 5:12 - Yes, I am convinced of my view because of the grammar primarily.