Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Just another error in reading the biblical text.
-
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 the Doctrine of Original Sin Biblical?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
Just another error in reading the biblical text.
Let me join those two again. I apologize for splitting up that post.
What I was trying to say is that all under sin would just mean as you say a great multitude out of all tongues and tribes and peoples but not all are sinners. Just some.
Because you don’t get to change the definition of all based on what you want to believe.
The underlying question is do we have responsibility for original sin or not.
Scripture concludes all under sin. But we are all under our own sin not the sins of our ancestors.
Jer. 31
In those days they shall say no more,
The fathers have eaten a sour grape,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.
But every one shall die for his own iniquity:
every man that eateth the sour grape,
his teeth shall be set on edge.
The elect were elect before the foundations of the world.
Unless The Father draws him, he can not believe. Acts 13:48
V 45 reaffirms v 44. The non elect will not be taught by God.
- John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me."
- John 6:44-45: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
- Romans 8:30: "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."
- Acts 13:48: "So then, as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."
- John 6:44-45: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You are consistent in miss reading the biblical text.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Why do you insist on getting the meaning of the text wrong?
Hey Ben, I guess no one noticed that I pointed out a third sinner in the story of the fall of man. He doesn't get much attention from those on the forum but he was the instigator of the fall with a lie and denial of the word of God.
I suppose we should sort out definitions first.
When I hear someone say “doctrine of original sin,” I assume they mean what most writers on the subject are talking about.
What that means to me is that there are writers, John Calvin for example, who believe that all people have “original sin” that needs to be atoned for. Calvin looked to baptism for his regeneration, (see his institutes on Baptism where he says “We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins.”
There is an idea that the original sin is atoned for when people are made ready to receive salvation and their own sins atoned for when they are themselves saved and believe.
I acknowledge your correction and I do think that, as it is clearly stated in Jesus teachings, the devil is the original sinner.
I don’t add that thought in to say that that is anything that we must address. Clearly the devil bears the responsibility of his own sin.
But in addressing the issue of what I recognize as being the common use of term “original sin,”
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
We were in Adam when Adam sinned. Not merely spiritually but also physically. ( This principle is applied also in Hebrews 7 on another subject). As such, we inherit from Adam sinfulness. But nowhere do we inherit his sin, only the results of his sin.
Romans 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Here it clearly says that sin enters and death enters by the sin of Adam. Here is discussed the sin that is called “original sin.” This disobedience of Adam brought sinfulness and death. People who believe in atonement necessary for each individual’s portion of original sin read as if it says, “Wherefore, as by one man original sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have original sin:
But it doesn’t say that. It does say that sin and death enter because of one man’s sin. But it says that death comes to all men because all men sin, not because of Adam’s sin but because of their own.
So is there an original sin in relation to mankind? Yes. Does the punishment for original sin pass to us?
It might say all that on theopedia and people might affirm it, that doesn’t make it true.
What Scripture does teach is that God has been reaching out to every individual sinner as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. As such, there are no people in existence that are powerless to rehabilitate. God has given all His power through salvation He offers. If you have to have a group of individuals who cannot be saved, content yourself with the angels that fell.
The problem with the definition given is what is left out. This is a terrible definition and leads people to affirm something they may not believe in because of their lack of familiarity with the subject.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
That view makes the whole biblical account of no use.
For the absolutely elect must have been saved without him; and the non-elect cannot be saved by him.
But since the bible does not support your view we can know that your view is spurious.
I did a google search and found this from Charles Hodge: Systematic Theology volume 2
§ 13. Original Sin.
The effects of Adam’s sin upon his posterity are declared in our standards to be,
(1.) The guilt of his first sin.
(2.) The loss of original righteousness.
(3.) The corruption of our whole nature, which (i.e., which corruption), is commonly called original sin. Commonly, but not always. Not unfrequently by original sin is meant all the subjective evil consequences of the apostasy of our first parent, and it therefore includes all three of the particulars just mentioned. The National Synod of France, therefore, condemned the doctrine of Placæus, because he made original sin to consist of inherent, hereditary depravity, to the exclusion of the guilt of Adam’s first sin.
This inherent corruption in which all men since the fall are born, is properly called original sin,
(1.) Because it is truly of the nature of sin.
(2.) Because it flows from our first parents as the origin of our race.
(3.) Because it is the origin of all other sins; and
(4.) Because it is in its nature distinguished from actual sins.
Then a quote from the forum of Concord;
(1.) That this corruption of nature affects the whole soul.
(2.) That it consists in the loss or absence of original righteousness, and consequent entire moral depravity of our nature, including or manifesting itself in an aversion from all spiritual good, or from God, and an inclination to all evil.
(3.) That it is truly and properly of the nature of sin, involving both guilt and pollution.
(4.) That it retains its character as sin even in the regenerated.
(5.) That it renders the soul spiritually dead, so that the natural, or unrenewed man, is entirely unable of himself to do anything good in the sight of God.
This doctrine therefore stands opposed, —
1. To that which teaches that the race of man is uninjured by the fall of Adam.
2. To that which teaches that the evils consequent on the fall are merely physical.
3. To the doctrine which makes original sin entirely negative, consisting in the want of original righteousness.
4. To the doctrine which admits a hereditary depravity of nature, and makes it consist in an inclination to sin, but denies that it is itself sinful.
5. The fifth form of doctrine to which the Protestant faith stands opposed, is that which admits a moral deterioration of our nature, which deserves the displeasure of God, and which is therefore truly sin, and yet denies that the evil is so great as to amount to spiritual death, and to involve the entire inability of the natural man to what is spiritually good.
6. And the doctrine of the Protestant churches is opposed to the teachings of those who deny that original sin affects the whole man, and assert that it has its seat exclusively in the affections or the heart, while the understanding and reason are uninjured or uninfluenced.
§ 13. Original Sin.
The effects of Adam’s sin upon his posterity are declared in our standards to be,
(1.) The guilt of his first sin.
(2.) The loss of original righteousness.
(3.) The corruption of our whole nature, which (i.e., which corruption), is commonly called original sin. Commonly, but not always. Not unfrequently by original sin is meant all the subjective evil consequences of the apostasy of our first parent, and it therefore includes all three of the particulars just mentioned. The National Synod of France, therefore, condemned the doctrine of Placæus, because he made original sin to consist of inherent, hereditary depravity, to the exclusion of the guilt of Adam’s first sin.
This inherent corruption in which all men since the fall are born, is properly called original sin,
(1.) Because it is truly of the nature of sin.
(2.) Because it flows from our first parents as the origin of our race.
(3.) Because it is the origin of all other sins; and
(4.) Because it is in its nature distinguished from actual sins.
Then a quote from the forum of Concord;
(1.) That this corruption of nature affects the whole soul.
(2.) That it consists in the loss or absence of original righteousness, and consequent entire moral depravity of our nature, including or manifesting itself in an aversion from all spiritual good, or from God, and an inclination to all evil.
(3.) That it is truly and properly of the nature of sin, involving both guilt and pollution.
(4.) That it retains its character as sin even in the regenerated.
(5.) That it renders the soul spiritually dead, so that the natural, or unrenewed man, is entirely unable of himself to do anything good in the sight of God.
This doctrine therefore stands opposed, —
1. To that which teaches that the race of man is uninjured by the fall of Adam.
2. To that which teaches that the evils consequent on the fall are merely physical.
3. To the doctrine which makes original sin entirely negative, consisting in the want of original righteousness.
4. To the doctrine which admits a hereditary depravity of nature, and makes it consist in an inclination to sin, but denies that it is itself sinful.
5. The fifth form of doctrine to which the Protestant faith stands opposed, is that which admits a moral deterioration of our nature, which deserves the displeasure of God, and which is therefore truly sin, and yet denies that the evil is so great as to amount to spiritual death, and to involve the entire inability of the natural man to what is spiritually good.
6. And the doctrine of the Protestant churches is opposed to the teachings of those who deny that original sin affects the whole man, and assert that it has its seat exclusively in the affections or the heart, while the understanding and reason are uninjured or uninfluenced.
Last edited:
It looks like Reynolds quote is very solidly biblical, what do you understand about what he quoted to be mistaken?
37818
Well-Known Member
Deuteronomy 24:16, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Gee, Sir, my copy of the verse does not have the phrase "only the elect have the ability to "effectively seek entrance."
And note also the redefinition (rewrite) that if you seek but do not find, then you did not seek, the opposite of what the inspired verse proclaims.
Final point, one falsehood being used to support another falsehood. Here the claim is made a person is elect before they believe in the truth, the opposite of 2 Thessalonians 2:13.
On and on folks, on and on.
That’s interesting. Show me Scripture instead of Google. I don’t want man made creeds. I want Scripture.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Which quote were you referring to as he made more than one.
I note that you quote a number of man-made texts. But what you fail to realize is that those are written from a certain theological view. They read into the text what they want to see.
He uses much scripture
More from Hodge vol.2-
Proof of the Doctrine of Original Sin.
First Argument from the Universality of Sin.
The first argument in proof of this doctrine is drawn from the universal sinfulness of men. All men are sinners. This is undeniably the doctrine of the Scriptures. It is asserted, assumed, and proved. The assertions of this fact are too numerous to be quoted. In 1 Kings viii. 46, it is said, “There is no man that sinneth not.” Eccl. vii. 20, “There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” Is. liii. 6, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.” lxiv. 6, “We are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” Ps. cxxx. 3, “If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” Ps. cxliii. 2, “In thy sight shall no man living 232be justified.” Rom. iii. 19, “The whole world (πᾶς ὁ κόσμος) is guilty before God.” Verses 22, 23, “There is no difference: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Gal. iii. 22, “The Scripture hath concluded all under sin;” i.e., hath declared all men to be under the power and condemnation of sin. James iii. 2, “In many things we offend all.” 1 John i. 8, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” Verse 10, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John v. 19, “The whole world lieth in wickedness.” Such are only a few of the assertions of the universal sinfulness of men with which the Scriptures abound.
6. It need scarcely be added, that what the Scriptures so manifestly teach indirectly of the depth of the corruption of our fallen nature, they teach also by direct assertion. The human heart is pronounced deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Even in the beginning (Gen. vi. 5, 6), it was said, “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Job xv. 14-16, “What is man, that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water.” Eccl. ix. 3, “The heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.” With such passages the Word of God is filled. It in the most explicit terms pronounces the degradation and moral corruption of man consequent on the fall, to be a total apostasy from God; a state of spiritual death, as implying the entire absence of any true holiness.
A third great fact of Scripture and experience on this subject is the early manifestation of sin. As soon as a child is capable of moral action, it gives evidence of a perverted moral character. We not only see the manifestations of anger, malice, selfishness, envy, pride, and other evil dispositions, but the whole development of the soul is toward the world. The soul of a child turns by an inward law from God to the creature, from the things that are unseen and eternal to the things that are seen and temporal. It is in its earliest manifestations, worldly, of the earth, earthy. As this is the testimony of universal experience, so also it is the doctrine of the Bible. Job xi. 12, “Man” is “born like a wild ass’s colt.” Ps. lviii. 3, “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.” Prov. xxii. 15, “Foolishness (moral evil) is bound in the heart of a child.”