Is Original Sin Doctrine Found in Bible?

[Yeshua1]

Good to hear you are well. Are you running the same route?

Reading your response I think that it would be impossible to engage our differences in a practical manner. The reason is we agree that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Where we disagree is in terms of imputed sin, but the end result is the same (except perhaps in regards to the death of a child).

Here is an illustration (flaws and all) about how I view the headship of Adam: Suppose I find an excellent tomato. I like it so much that I save a few of its seeds and plant them the next year. Now I have a bunch of tomato's that have exactly the same characteristic as the first.

We know that Adam's nature did not change in order for him to sin ("the fall" is a result of his sin or at least it is his sin, but his nature did not change into a "sin nature" in order for him to sin). He is our representative (our natural representative). Paul teaches us that death spread to all man not because of Adam's sin (although this is when death entered the world) but because all men sin. This sinfulness (as @JonShaff pointed out) is not past tense but a sense of continuance and establishes the principle of the flesh. More importantly, however, is the fact that Scripture itself only deals two natures - "flesh" and "spirit".

After the fall of Adam, all save for jesus after that event are born as having a sin nature that is from birth against the Lord and His ways , so that is why Jesus cannot have the same exact nature in his humanity as his, as he never had a sin debt/nature within Him from birth, but we all have !

 

[JonC]

And that is why Jesus HAD to come via the Virgin Birth, in order to avoid having our fallen nature!

^^^ This is what I was speaking against, @rsr , when I complained of neoplatonic philosophy influencing interpretation. The idea is that sin is passed down biologically through the male, therefore if a child is born without male genetic material then the child avoids original sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

But you are basing this only on your theories. There exist no Scripture saying Adam's nature changed or that Adam and Christ shared one nature which was different from our own. In fact, when Paul speaks of Jesus as sharing in our humanity he doesn't point to Adam. The author of Hebrews even goes so far as to equate Jesus' humanity with the type common among men.

Adam sinned in his original nature. Jesus did not. Yet somehow you claim that Jesus and Adam had a human nature that was different from what we have as a human nature. This is nothing but the resurrection of an old heresy. You are using acceptable phrases ("Jesus was human") while denying His humanity ("He wasn't human like us, just like Adam except where Adam sinned in his original nature Jesus didn't").

Adam was created without any sin within Him, when he chose to sin, he fell, and His humanity became spiritual dead in sin, and now against God and His ways. His natural state went bent towards to now away from God, and ALL save Jesus were and are born with natural bent away from God, sinners by birth and by choice!
My understanding is rooted in reformed/Calvinistic view, from the Bible, not philosophy!

 

[Yeshua1]

^^^ This is what I was speaking against, @rsr , when I complained of neoplatonic philosophy influencing interpretation. The idea is that sin is passed down biologically through the male, therefore if a child is born without male genetic material then the child avoids original sin.

Whatever causes us to have been born as sinners, the Virgin Birth allowed jesus to bypass it!

 

[JonC]

After the fall of Adam, all save for jesus after that event are born as having a sin nature that is from birth against the Lord and His ways , so that is why Jesus cannot have the same exact nature in his humanity as his, as he never had a sin debt/nature within Him from birth, but we all have !

But this is not in the Bible. That's my point. The OP was not about how we think sin is imputed (or even if it is). The whole idea of a "perfect human nature" vs a "sin nature" is foreign to Scripture. The Bible, instead, speaks of nature two ways - "flesh" and "spirit".

Do you think that Adam was "in Christ" (i.e., "spiritually alive") and then somehow found himself outside of Christ (alive spiritually and then died spiritually only to be made alive spiritually again via faith)? If so, can you at least try to back up that idea with Scripture?

 

[JonC]

My understanding is rooted in reformed/Calvinistic view, from the Bible, not philosophy!

Tomato, Tomahto

Seriously, though, systematic theology (to include Calvinism) incorporates - by necessity- philosophy. You should know this. My complaint, however, is that you do not take your understanding from Scripture (otherwise you would never have stood as you have on this thread).

So I don't care if it's philosophy vs Scripture or theology vs Scripture. The bottom line is it's your understanding vs Scripture.

Adam was created without any sin within Him, when he chose to sin, he fell, and His humanity became spiritual dead in sin, and now against God and His ways. His natural state went bent towards to now away from God, and ALL save Jesus were and are born with natural bent away from God, sinners by birth and by choice!
My understanding is rooted in reformed/Calvinistic view, from the Bible, not philosophy!

No one is created with "sin in him". Read James.

Whatever causes us to have been born as sinners, the Virgin Birth allowed jesus to bypass it!

Scripture please.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

The basic truth of the fall affecting our very natures is found throughout the scriptures!

 

[JonC]

The basic truth of the fall affecting our very natures is found throughout the scriptures!

Then why the difficulty in providing even one verse that describes Adam as having a "perfect human nature" which was altered to be a "sin nature" and this passed down to everyone except Jesus (who had a "perfect nature" but did not sin with it as Adam did)?

You do know that everything Jesus spoke about regarding the nature of man ("flesh" and "spirit" and the tree being judged by its fruit) denounces your theory, don't you?

Anyway, I'm waiting. If this idea of two kinds of humanity is biblical then give us a verse stating such and we can examine it. Go ahead.

 

[Yeshua1]

But this is not in the Bible. That's my point. The OP was not about how we think sin is imputed (or even if it is). The whole idea of a "perfect human nature" vs a "sin nature" is foreign to Scripture. The Bible, instead, speaks of nature two ways - "flesh" and "spirit".

Do you think that Adam was "in Christ" (i.e., "spiritually alive") and then somehow found himself outside of Christ (alive spiritually and then died spiritually only to be made alive spiritually again via faith)? If so, can you at least try to back up that idea with Scripture?

I think, I know, that the Bible teaches that before he fell, Adam was in a spiritually connected state with God, after the fall, He no longer was, and was now a sinner by nature!

 

[Yeshua1]

Tomato, Tomahto

Seriously, though, systematic theology (to include Calvinism) incorporates - by necessity- philosophy. You should know this. My complaint, however, is that you do not take your understanding from Scripture (otherwise you would never have stood as you have on this thread).

So I don't care if it's philosophy vs Scripture or theology vs Scripture. The bottom line is it's your understanding vs Scripture.


No one is created with "sin in him". Read James.

Scripture please.

ALL are with a nature bent away from God, at war against God, cannot be tamed nor obey God..... ALL of that from the Bible!

 

[Yeshua1]

Then why the difficulty in providing even one verse that describes Adam as having a "perfect human nature" which was altered to be a "sin nature" and this passed down to everyone except Jesus (who had a "perfect nature" but did not sin with it as Adam did)?

You do know that everything Jesus spoke about regarding the nature of man ("flesh" and "spirit" and the tree being judged by its fruit) denounces your theory, don't you?

Anyway, I'm waiting. If this idea of two kinds of humanity is biblical then give us a verse stating such and we can examine it. Go ahead.

ALL who are in the flesh nature are enemies of God, bent away from obeying Him, correct?
ALL natural persons have no spiritual capacity within them to know and understand God, being dead in sins and transgressions!

 

[JonC]

ALL are with a nature bent away from God, at war against God, cannot be tamed nor obey God..... ALL of that from the Bible!

Put a verse by the statement:

:All are with a nature bent away from God - ___________ (verse)
All are at war against God - ___________ (verse)
All cannot be tamed nor obey God - _________ (verse)

Fill in the blank and we can discuss the passages.

ALL who are in the flesh nature are enemies of God, bent away from obeying Him, correct?
ALL natural persons have no spiritual capacity within them to know and understand God, being dead in sins and transgressions!

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

 

[Yeshua1]

Put a verse by the statement:

:All are with a nature bent away from God - ___________ (verse)
All are at war against God - ___________ (verse)
All cannot be tamed nor obey God - _________ (verse)

Fill in the blank and we can discuss the passages.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

Jesus did not have the corruption within Him we all do after the Fall!

 

[JonC]

Jesus did not have the corruption within Him we all do after the Fall!

Just gave up all together on the Scripture part....huh.

 

[Yeshua1]

Just gave up all together on the Scripture part....huh.

Did Adam change at all after he fell or not?

 

[Yeshua1]

Put a verse by the statement:

:All are with a nature bent away from God - ___________ (verse)
All are at war against God - ___________ (verse)
All cannot be tamed nor obey God - _________ (verse)

Fill in the blank and we can discuss the passages.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/enemies.htm
Dr Edwards explains this very well!

 

[JonC]

Did Adam change at all after he fell or not?

What does the Bible say?

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

 

[JonC]

www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/enemies.htm
Dr Edwards explains this very well!

In other words, you can't provide Scripture but will instead rely on the words and theories of other men.

 

[Yeshua1]

What does the Bible say?

Genesis 3:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

His very nature changed from trusting and obeying God at His word, to now being in a state of rebellion and self will!

 

[Yeshua1]

In other words, you can't provide Scripture but will instead rely on the words and theories of other men.

No, rather that Edwards answered this better than I can, and he using the scriptures!