-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Is Original Sin Doctrine Found in Bible?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
I agree that there was an “original sin” that affected mankind. This is evident not only in Romans 5, Psalm 51, but also in Genesis 3.
Perhaps the first thing that we need to do is to identify exactly what we are speaking of when we refer to the “Doctrine of Original Sin”.
When I speak of the Doctrine of Original Sin I am referencing the teaching that through Adam’s sin mankind’s nature itself was altered (it took a form other than man’s original nature). From post-Fall Adam mankind has inherited a “sin nature”.
Theopedia offers this definition: “Original sin is the doctrine which holds that human nature has been morally and ethically corrupted due to the disobedience of mankind’s first parents to the revealed will of God.”
Enns gives a more detailed definition:
Original sin may be defined as the sinful state and condition in which men are born. It is so designated because: (1) it is derived from the original root of the human race (Adam), (2) it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and (3) it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man. Simply stated, it refers to the corruption of our whole nature. (Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology, 322).
The OP asks if “original Sin Doctrine” is found in the Bible. If @Yeshua1 is referring to the Doctrine of Original Sin as defined in either of the two statements in this post, then the answer is that it is not found in Scripture. If, on the other hand, the OP is asking if the first sin through which sin and death entered the world is found in the Bible then the answer is “yes”.
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.
No not all men are saved but His atonement has the power to save all not just the elect.
Right. You are conceived and born as a spirit in flesh. You are a spirit, but you are not the Spirit of God, and when you are conceived and born you do not have the Spirit of God...
...that is man's critical condition.
And the reason why he sins when he grows up and can for himself make decisions.
He will not decide to seek after God, he will decide to seek after his own pleasure.
So let's not confuse having a spirit with having the Spirit of God through the process of Reconciliation, which became necessary as a result of the Fall.
Not because sin is a disease passed from father to son.
God bless.
I agree. Things like this are never brought into agreement. Scripture speaks of a human nature that sins and of sin and death entering the world, but never a "sin nature" that has fallen from its original state. This doesn't mean the theory isn't correct, just that ultimately it is not Scripture but philosophy that we must address. That's the thing with many theologies. So often each side can affirm the same Scripture yet retain philosophical differences.
And nowhere do we see that sin passed upon all men, but death, for all sin.
Or in other words, "The reason everybody dies is because everybody sins."
Now what you need is a verse that states sin is inherited.
But Hank, that is Paul's entire point: God gave Gentiles, who did not have the Law...the same advantage those who had the Law had.
His will was written on their hearts.
I think this...
Romans 2:13-15
King James Version (KJV)
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)
Illustrates his point very well. "The doers of the Law shall be justified; Gentiles do the Law written on their hearts."
Its just my opinion that we cannot divorce understanding of the Word of God (which represents the will of God for man) from the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men. If we said that they, of their own ability, performed the works of the Law, we violate some fairly basic principles of the Word of God. Meaning, we contradict the teaching that the spiritual truths of God are only revealed by the Spirit and understanding is only given by the Spirit.
I think this statement is dealing with the fact of man's condition. It does not mean that David was shaped by sin, just that he was brought into a world of sin.
We would have a conflict with those passages which teach the marvel of man's creation and procreation, and of God's presence and foreknowledge of men before birth:
Psalm 22:9-10
King James Version (KJV)
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
God was not using sin to shape David, nor Christ (in its Messianic application).
This...
Psalm 58:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
...would seem to fit better with a view of being "shaped by sin" but it is a condition all men are born into. David speaks of God's perspective (in reference to his own person), whereas this is an indictment on the enemies of David (and Christ, in the broader context).
These...
Psalm 71:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be continually of thee.
Psalm 127:3
King James Version (KJV)
3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
Psalm 139:13-17
King James Version (KJV)
13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
...do not speak of procreation as something hideous, but the continuing miracle of God in the creation of man.
So going back to your text...
Psalm 51
King James Version (KJV)
1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
...I think we see David appeal to the condition of man, but that doesn't mean that his formation in the womb has to be considered "sinful," or that somehow there is a transference from mother to son like we might say of a physical disease.
The condition of man goes back to his mother, but because she was also in the condition for which David appeals to God for mercy for. He recognizes that men are dependent on God.
Correct, but, we have to think why that is, and the condition that Christ remedies is...man's lack of relationship to God on an eternal basis.
And going back to the point I made, we see Gentiles do by nature...the works of the Law.
So in the case of sin, it is due to a lack of relationship to the One Who teaches men not to sin, and in the case of the Gentiles...it is God who taught them to do His will.
Even men not indwelt by God, born again, and in eternal union with God can obey God.
That is Paul's point.
And we see this exampled in men like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Job, and even...David.
None of these men are said to be just until God first called them.
And both are right.
And that's the problem, they are overzealous in their doctrine, to point of excluding an equally valid understanding which is seen not only explicitly, but implicitly across the pages of Scripture.
God bless.
Thanks, for that, Jon. The point was that the OP would have done well to present, as you have, that which the discussion centers on. At least it seems that way to me.
If this is an accurate account of Augustine's teachings, then it is absurd. And it has influenced quite a lot of people, because that is the general impression most have in regards to sin, is that it is "passed down from father to son."
The one issue I think deserves a little more attention is this:
Hebrews uses the same concept in regards to Levi paying tithes:
Hebrews 7:9-10
King James Version (KJV)
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
But it is not a reality, simply figurative. One of the sons of Levi could not, for example, say "Well, I don't need to tithe anymore, Abraham took care of that for me..."
And equally important is not to have a view that the sin of Adam is held to our account, because that would nullify many passages teaching that men are held accountable for the sin they commit, not the sin others commit, and, that judgment will vary in degree of punishment based on the sin committed by the individual.
Another interesting aspect to this discussion is the babe in the womb that dies, or is murdered. Would we say God would hold Adam's sin to their account and thus judge them? Or would we say that their condemnation stems from their separation from God?
I see three primary basic principles in regards to God throughout Scripture:
1. God reveals His will to men;
2. God judges men based on that revealed will (for example, men in Abraham's day were not judged according to the Law, just as men under Law were not judged according to the revealed Gospel of Christ, those who have had the Gospel revealed to them will be judged more severely, Hebrews 10:28-29);
3. God judges based on man's understanding of His will.
So I would pose this question: can the babe in the womb be said to sin, and if so, what sin could one who has no understanding commit?
Correct, but it does not say that sin was passed down. It states that death is passed down.
I don't see it like that. We see Adam submitting to his wife, not Satan. Adam blames his wife, and Eve blames Satan.
Abel obeyed God. Noah obeyed God. Abraham obeyed God.
While it is true the curse impacts all men, that does not mean that men are completely left helpless. They are dependent on God's intervention, that is a constant, but, the fact remains that men can come under obedience to the revealed will of God, even when revelation is limited as it was in Abel, Noah, and Abraham's day.
And this does not suggest men do so according to "free will," it is simply a matter of revelation and intervention preceding man's response to God's will.
And this I fully agree with. And how do we, as Christians, have power over Satan? Again, it is nothing within us...except God. THat is the key, God in us.
I don't see it that way.
There are more statements of David stating his formation in the womb was overseen and guarded by God than there are statements that give a "sinful" connotation to that process. I posted several passages in a previous post, if you wanted to take a look and maybe debate that issue.
Agreed.
Explain John the Baptist:
Luke 1:15
King James Version (KJV)
15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
One might say, "Aha, you see! He was filled with the Holy Ghost from birth!"
That is true, but it still goes back to God's intervention in the lives of men. If sin were an inherited issue, then we would have to conclude God settled that issue through the filling of the Spirit, which means John did not "inherit sin," which I think you would agree takes us into the wilderness of absurd, lol. The point being that God used a man in the same condition you and I were conceived and born into to accomplish His purpose. John would still need to be redeemed by Christ's Blood (death), but, we do not see an "inherited sin" interfering with his ministry.
And just so you know, Jon, this is an issue I am trying to refine in my own understanding, and I've found that the best way to do that is to bounce it off the brethren and field the objections, lol.
God bless.
But the preceding verse indicts all men:
Romans 5:18-19
King James Version (KJV)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
All men are not saved by Christ, but, the Gift is offered to all men.
God bless.
The question is...why not?
Scripture does not teach multiple Theologies, so why do we not see the Body of Christ coming into agreement on what Scripture does teach?
Very true. We know Adam wasn't sinless because...he sinned.
So why could we not come to an agreement on this issue if we look at every relevant passage and work through this Issue? We should be able to do that, right?
Why would we need to address philosophies? We don't do that with the Death of Christ, right? Why would we do that on the issue that brought about the need for His death?
Even philosophy can be shown to be in error when held in light of Scripture.
God bless.
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.
I am not familiar with Augustine's teachings. According to my word-search, the word "original" is not found in the KJV. The word does appear various times in eight other translations. However, never related to "sin". Most often it refers to an original place, such as a foundation of a temple, etc. My conclusion: The term "original sin" is not Biblical, similar to the trinity and perhaps others. It is man-made in an effort to simplify communicating more complex thoughts.
Now to stir the pot:
Was Adam aware that Eve was deceived by the serpent? If that is so, and Adam not knowing the source of the fruit - from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - he was submitting to the will of Eve, to eat the fruit. He was not knowingly/willingly defying God's command.
Gen 3:6¶
And when the woman 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, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Just food for thought
and discussion.
Ahhh….a pot stirrerI am not familiar with Augustine's teachings. According to my word-search, the word "original" is not found in the KJV. The word does appear various times in eight other translations. However, never related to "sin". Most often it refers to an original place, such as a foundation of a temple, etc. My conclusion: The term "original sin" is not Biblical, similar to the trinity and perhaps others. It is man-made in an effort to simplify communicating more complex thoughts.
Now to stir the pot:
Was Adam aware that Eve was deceived by the serpent? If that is so, and Adam not knowing the source of the fruit - from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - he was submitting to the will of Eve, to eat the fruit. He was not knowingly/willingly defying God's command.
Gen 3:6¶
And when the woman 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, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Just food for thought
.I think either way we have Adam knowingly defying God’s command The text indicates that Adam was with Eve (I picture the guy at the jewelry counter saying to my wife “just look at this ring” just before I listen to her and pull out my wallet
). Apart from the text, I think it reasonable to conclude that Adam recognized the fruit itself.I believe the point being made is that when faced with the decision of satisfying their own desires or obeying God both Adam and Eve placed the desires of the flesh over that of doing God’s will. Through this act sin and death entered the world – NOT because we have an inherited sin nature but because we choose our desires over obedience. Adam’s sin was a transgression just as Israel’s sin was transgressions. God’s command to Adam shows us Adam’s nature in relation to God just as the Law shows us our nature in relation to God.
Think of "original sin" as we think of our citizenship as natural born (jus sanguinis) citizens.
Why are we American citizens? Because our parents were American citizens. We were born in the same state as our parents.
Why are we sinners. Because our parents were sinners, all the way back to Adam. We were born in the same state as our parents. This is the federal/seminal headship of Adam. A spiritually damaged man produced spiritually damaged children.
As to Adam's sin. Yes. He knew the origin of the fruit. He made a decision to eat even though he knew it violated God's law. Adam chose his wife over his God. He knew the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit. Had he refrained from eating Eve would have been expelled, alone, from the garden. Adam had no idea what the rest of the earth outside the garden was like, so he decided he would go with her to protect her and thus he chose his wife over his God. And the rest his history.
Why are we American citizens? Because our parents were American citizens. We were born in the same state as our parents.
Why are we sinners. Because our parents were sinners, all the way back to Adam. We were born in the same state as our parents. This is the federal/seminal headship of Adam. A spiritually damaged man produced spiritually damaged children.
As to Adam's sin. Yes. He knew the origin of the fruit. He made a decision to eat even though he knew it violated God's law. Adam chose his wife over his God. He knew the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit. Had he refrained from eating Eve would have been expelled, alone, from the garden. Adam had no idea what the rest of the earth outside the garden was like, so he decided he would go with her to protect her and thus he chose his wife over his God. And the rest his history.
SheepWhisperer
Active Member
Everything essentially true except the next to last sentence of the last paragraph. Merely speculation.
reconcile your statenment with this verse:
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.
Nope. But to use the provided analogy (citizenship), we are human because we come from humans all the way back to Adam. While "sin nature" is an invention of the Catholic church, we do have natures that sin. "Original sin" is just the first time a human sinned and evidenced human nature in relation to God. We fall short.
I agree , we did not get our sin nature from Adam but we have it
If the aborted and infant deaths are not condemned and go yo heaven , they cannot be cobdemned by original sin
2Sa 12:22¶
And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
If we accept original sin debt, then we have to include infants and others go to hell
If the aborted and infant deaths are not condemned and go yo heaven , they cannot be cobdemned by original sin
2Sa 12:22¶
And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
If we accept original sin debt, then we have to include infants and others go to hell
- Status