Original Sin Again

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

. Scripture does not tell us that all of Creation was affected by the Fall.

The aorist tense here is referred to as "timeless aorist" which gathers up the whole human race for all time into this condemnation (see also A T Robertson). There are no exceptions save Christ Jesus as Paul has made clear in the preceding indictment in (Ro 1:18-3:20) Godet agrees writing that the aorist tense

'transports us to the point of time when the result of human life appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment."

MacDonald writes that the aorist tense pictures the fact that…

Everybody sinned in Adam; when he sinned, he acted as the representative for all his descendants. But men are not only sinners by nature; they are also sinners by practice.

Leon Morris writes that…

The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short of the glory of God. Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (Ro 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. (Ibid)

Vincent writes that the aorist tense means "looking back to a thing definitely past — the historic occurrence of sin."

Remember that men and women sin because we are sinners by nature. A plum tree bears plums because it is a plum tree. The fruit is the result of its nature. Sin is the fruit of a sinful heart. “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer 17:9).

 

[rsr]

Scripture does not tell us that all of Creation was affected by the Fall.

You must be reading a different Bible.

Scripture tells us that man’s eyes were opened to know good and evil as God knows good and evil. But insofar as all of Creation being affected, it was not because of Adam but because of Him who subjected it in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (again, if we are going to go strictly by Scripture). Perhaps your view is a bit too much centered on Adam and a bit too less centered on God.

And perhaps your view is a bit too much centered on Jon and a bit too less centered up on what God has revealed in the Scriptures.

You have repeatedly ignored my arguments. You skip over the inconvenient bits and proclaim victory. Really, I thought you could do better. I was wrong, I guess.

 

[JonC]

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Pre-fall Life
Post fall Sin and death.

Your entire argument is before Adam sinned he hadn't sinned, but after he sinned he was a sinner, therefore his nature itself changed. It is not a good argument.

The context of your passage is that all men, whether Jew or Gentile, sin. All men fall short, whether by transgression or by nature. The free gift is not like the transgression.

 

[JonC]

If I've missed something, then point it out. I wasn't intentionally ignoring a passage or comment you've offered.

From what I understand you read that Adam couldn't be called a sinner until he sinned, therefore his nature must have changed. I disagree with your reasoning. Adam is man. Adam shows us what men, born of the flesh, born of Adam, will be. In this way he serves as a type of Christ.

 

[JonC]

"JonC,


The aorist tense here is referred to as "timeless aorist" which gathers up the whole human race for all time into this condemnation (see also A T Robertson). There are no exceptions save Christ Jesus as Paul has made clear in the preceding indictment in (Ro 1:18-3:20) Godet agrees writing that the aorist tense

'transports us to the point of time when the result of human life appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment."

MacDonald writes that the aorist tense pictures the fact that…

Everybody sinned in Adam; when he sinned, he acted as the representative for all his descendants. But men are not only sinners by nature; they are also sinners by practice.

Leon Morris writes that…

The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short of the glory of God. Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (Ro 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. (Ibid)

Vincent writes that the aorist tense means "looking back to a thing definitely past — the historic occurrence of sin."

Remember that men and women sin because we are sinners by nature. A plum tree bears plums because it is a plum tree. The fruit is the result of its nature. Sin is the fruit of a sinful heart. “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer 17:9).

Hey Iconoclast,

I think that you’ve adapted to my intentional stubbornness, or at least learned to ignore it . Even @rsr surprised me by quickly resulting to personal insults, but you have remained brotherly despite our disagreements. I regret our misunderstanding a few years ago as I think I'd have enjoyed knowing you better. Anyway, I appreciate your willingness to discuss the topic in a civil manner.

The aorist itself does not imply a timelessness as transporting “us to the point of time when the results of human life appears as a completed fact”. That is simply not implied by the grammar (although it is a philosophical conclusion some apparently make).

And, on a side note, are you referring to George MacDonald (universal salvation)?

I agree with Leon Morris in the quote you have provided. Paul is telling us not only that all men (in the passage, regardless of the Law – Greek and Jew) sin but also that all men will sin. It is a principle of our nature.

Here is where I believe we agree:

Adam sinned and as a result of that sin the eyes of man was opened to the knowledge of good and evil. Through Adam’s transgression sin and death entered the world and death spread to all men because all have sinned.

Here is where I believe we disagree:

I do not think that Adam had a pre-fall nature and a post-fall nature. Instead I believe that Adam was created by God but was not a "sinner" until he sinned. I believe that we sin when we are carried away by our own desires (the desires of the flesh). So sin is not our nature itself (the flesh) but our weakness to our natures (our will).

Here is what I am arguing:

I am not arguing against the idea we all inherit the same “sin nature” from Adam. I am essentially arguing two points:

1. Our nature in and of itself, apart from a sinful action, provides the desire but does not constitute sin. (i.e., I am arguing James 1:12-14 applies to mankind as a whole).

2. James 1:12-14 applied to Adam as a person.

 

[HankD]

Your entire argument is before Adam sinned he hadn't sinned, but after he sinned he was a sinner, therefore his nature itself changed. It is not a good argument.

The context of your passage is that all men, whether Jew or Gentile, sin. All men fall short, whether by transgression or by nature. The free gift is not like the transgression.

Jon the concept of Romans 5:12 is a very simple one, we all sinned in Adam. We are all already condemned when we enter the time continuum of this world.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

You are over complicating it Jon.

Adam - sin and death
Christ - eternal life.

 

[JonC]

Jon the concept of Romans 5:12 is a very simple one, we all sinned in Adam. We are all already condemned when we enter the time continuum of this world.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

You are over complicating it Jon.

Adam - sin and death
Christ - eternal life.

We both believe that the other is over complicating it. I believe that the concept of Romans 5 is very simple. Death reigned over all mankind - even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam (or, as we will read, as those who transgressed the Mosaic Law). Adam is the prototype of all men who set their minds on the flesh. Christ is the prototype of all men who set their minds on the Spirit.

No where does Romans 5:12 indicate that we all sinned in Adam. Instead, Paul is pointing to Christ - as through one man's transgression (Adam), through his disobedience, the many were condemned so also through one man's obedience (Christ) the many will be made righteous.

We are not talking about Adam's nature changing from righteous to unrighteous (Adam's sin proved Adam unrighteous and proves us unrighteous). Adam showed us what we are, what we will be. We are born flesh, with our minds set on the flesh, and we will do as our "parent" did until we are reborn and set our minds on the Spirit.

 

[HankD]

We both believe that the other is over complicating it. I believe that the concept of Romans 5 is very simple. Death reigned over all mankind - even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam (or, as we will read, as those who transgressed the Mosaic Law). Adam is the prototype of all men who set their minds on the flesh. Christ is the prototype of all men who set their minds on the Spirit.

No where does Romans 5:12 indicate that we all sinned in Adam. Instead, Paul is pointing to Christ - as through one man's transgression (Adam), through his disobedience, the many were condemned so also through one man's obedience (Christ) the many will be made righteous.

We are not talking about Adam's nature changing from righteous to unrighteous (Adam's sin proved Adam unrighteous and proves us unrighteous). Adam showed us what we are, what we will be. We are born flesh, with our minds set on the flesh, and we will do as our "parent" did until we are reborn and set our minds on the Spirit.

This is an irreconcilable disagreement, let the readers go over the posts and decide for themselves.

 

[JonC]

This is an irreconcilable disagreement, let the readers go over the posts and decide for themselves.

I agree. We both see man as sinful, and we agree that we have inherited Adam's nature. But I think we disagree as to whether or not this nature is in and of itself sin.

 

[HankD]

I agree. We both see man as sinful, and we agree that we have inherited Adam's nature. But I think we disagree as to whether or not this nature is in and of itself sin.

We have agreed to disagree brother

 

[Darrell C]

"Original sin " was taught to grade school children in 1777.

We could no more justify Original Sin because of that than we can Transubstantiation, which has been taught longer.


God bless.

 

[JonC]

We have agreed to disagree brother

What do you think may be the fruits of our disagreement (what repercussions might arise as we examine other doctrines)?

 

[Darrell C]

Once again, you do not address what I said. You seem to have ignored post #31.

I did address what you said directly, and apparently you are not able to comprehend how I addressed it, so okay.

Did I say or suggest babies in the womb committed sin?

I didn't say you did. It is a question meant to oppose your position in the statement it is asked of.

Nope, yet you have wasted my time repeating that falsehood.

Okay, Van.

Please stop addressing me unless you want to address my actual position rather than your straw-man assertions.

I will stop addressing you. Because you create impossible conditions for discussion/debate. Everyone "deflects and obfuscates," and you are alway the victim.

My sympathies.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

DarrelC

This is your posiion

God put two "innocents" in the same place and time as the arch criminal He had already banished from Heaven. Rather shortsighted? no

Actually that is your position.

The heavens and earth were created for man, not demons, not pre-existing spirits who would become humans as though Creation were some type of Purgatory.

Satan was a visitor to Creation, not part of it, not imprisoned there, as noted several times already. He has freedom to roam the earth seeking whom he may devour at this time, and indeed walks to and fro.

And the first point of attack is on Sound Doctrine. If he can get people caught up in nonsense, they will not spend their time seeking truth.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I have been reading the responses from everyone and I am surprises that these verses were not quoted from David in the Psalms and I especially like the comments by John Gill on Psalms 51:5... What is of interest to me is that the Christian's hem and haw over original sin but the heathen according Gill affirm it!... Go Figure?... Brother Glen

I think they were quoted in the other thread, so if they have not been brought up in this one I would be glad to discuss why this passage does not teach a "hereditary sin."

But if I repeat what I have already said it may be that someone might think I am hemming and hawing.



Okay, since you asked so nicely, I will make a few points on this proof text.

Psalms 51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

51:2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

51:4 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.

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

1. We don't cancel the numerous statements that teach the wondrous nature of the babe in the womb being formed;
2. We don't overlook the fact that God is said to be the One who created David in the womb, and that his (David's) days were numbered before he was even born;
3. We don't attribute sin to David's formation because we must equally state that God is the one that shaped David in sin: a basic principle of Scripture is that God is not the One that creates sin, it is a result of mankind's actions...always;
4. We don't overlook the fact that David takes personal responsibility for his own sin, and does not blame it on Adam;
5. David denies any involvement of God in regards to his sin (v.4);


Verse 5, when held in light of the wondrous nature attributed to the babe being formed in the womb, fits the broader context of Scripture when viewed as an acknowledgment of Man's condition. All men, after the Fall, come into a world that is cursed and suffering the consequences of sin.

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity
This cannot be understood of any personal iniquity of his immediate parents; since this respects his wonderful formation in the womb, in which both he and they were wholly passive, as the word here used is of that form; and is the amazing work of God himself, so much admired by the psalmist, ( Psalms 139:13-16 ) ; and cannot design any sinfulness then infused into him by his Maker, seeing God cannot be the author of sin; but of original sin and corruption, derived to him by natural generation: and the sense is, that as soon as ever the mass of human nature was shaped and quickened, or as soon as soul and body were united together, sin was in him, and he was in sin, or became a sinful creature;

If it does not relate the condition of his parents, then it must be God in view, because only the parents (and here in particular the mother) and God are relevant to a child coming into being.

Being formed in iniquity is the only option Adam's descendants have, because that is the condition of all involved in procreation.

We see the difference between Adam's creation and procreation here:


Genesis 5
King James Version (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Because sin and iniquity were the new conditions men are born into, all men are "formed in iniquity." That does not mean a babe in the womb is sinning, and thus bringing upon him/herself the penalty of sin. If that is the case, then David's baby went into torment, as did David, if we believe he was correct that he would see his child again (that he would go to him).

and in sin did my mother conceive me;
by whom cannot be meant Eve; for though she is the mother of all living, and so of David, yet could not, with any propriety, be said to conceive him: this only could be said of his immediate parent, not even of his next grandmother, much less of Eve, at the distance of almost three thousand years. Nor does the sin in which he was conceived intend any sin of his parents, in begetting and conceiving him, being in lawful wedlock; which acts cannot be sinful, since the propagation of the human species by natural generation is a principle of nature implanted by God himself; and is agreeably to the first law of nature, given to man in a state of innocence, "increase and multiply", ( Genesis 1:28 ) . Marriage is the institution of God in paradise; and in all ages has been accounted "honourable in all, [when] the bed is undefiled", ( Hebrews 13:4 ) . Nor does it design his being conceived when his mother was in "profluviis", of which there is no proof, and is a mere imagination, and can answer no purpose; much less that he was conceived in adultery, as the contenders for the purity of human nature broadly intimate; which shows how much they are convicted by this text, to give into such an interpretation of it, at the expense of the character of an innocent person, of whom there is not the least suggestion of this kind in the Holy Scriptures; but on the contrary, she is represented as a religious woman, and David valued himself upon his relation to her as such, ( Psalms 86:16 ) ( 116:16 ) . Besides, had this been the case, as David would have been a bastard, he would not have been suffered to enter into the congregation of the Lord, according to the law in ( Deuteronomy 23:2 ) ; whereas he often did with great delight, ( Psalms 42:4 ) ( 55:14 ) . Moreover, it is beside his scope and design to expose the sins of others, much less his own parents, while he is confessing and lamenting his own iniquities: and to what purpose should he mention theirs, especially if he himself was not affected by them, and did not derive a corrupt nature from them? Nor is the sin he speaks of any actual sin of his own, and therefore he does not call it, as before, "my" iniquity and "my" sin; though it was so, he having sinned in Adam, and this being in his nature; but "iniquity" and "sin", it being common to him with all mankind. Hence we learn the earliness of the corruption of nature; it is as soon as man is conceived and shapen; and that it is propagated from one to another by natural generation; and that it is the case of all men: for if this was the case of David, who was born of religious parents, was famous for his early piety, and from whose seed the Messiah sprung, it may well be concluded to be the case of all. And this corruption of nature is the fountain, source, and spring of all sin, secret and open, private and public; and is mentioned here not as an extenuation of David's actual transgressions, but as an aggravation of them; he having been, from his conception and formation, nothing else but a mass of sin, a lump of iniquity; and, in his evangelical repentance for them, he is led to take notice of and mourn over the corruption of his nature, from whence they arose. The Heathens themselves affirm, that no man is born without sin F3.

First, I wonder how it is that "heathens" could be privy to the knowledge of sin. This is knowledge revealed by God.

Secondly, and more importantly, the author is not being honest in his exposition: David states several times that the sin in view is his own. This...

Nor is the sin he speaks of any actual sin of his own, and therefore he does not call it, as before, "my" iniquity and "my" sin;

...can be said of the focal statement (proof text) but throughout the Psalm it is David's sin in view. The author does well to point out...

Nor is the sin he speaks of any actual sin of his own, and therefore he does not call it, as before, "my" iniquity and "my" sin; though it was so...


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

What you mean by "nowhere is this is Scripture" is that there is no verse that specifically says that there was a transformation from a "perfect nature" to a "fallen nature."

No man was "perfect" prior to the Cross:


Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


"Perfection" here is in a context which regards remission of sins. We know Adam was not forgiven in completion.

The view being proposed is that Adam's nature was identical to our nature

In large part, yes. Discounting the physical effects the curse has had on man and creation.

and his sin did not carry over to future generations except, perhaps, by sociological means, i.e, Adam and Eve set a bad example that influenced their offspring to similarly make bad choices.

This is generally how I view it. Mankind was destroyed because they rebelled against God. The knowledge of God would have had to have been passed down from Adam and Eve.

Scripture does not seem to say that is the case.

"To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”
17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

According to Genesis, the Fall was apocalyptic.

I see nothing in this that suggests sin is an inherited disease passed down from father and mother to children.

There is a primarily physical context to the Curse.

The relationship with God was torn.

Agreed.

Man's relation to the earth was altered;

Agreed.

what had been a pleasant garden became an enemy.

The Garden didn't become an enemy, man became the enemy.

That does not, of course, justify a completely Augustinian conception of original sin

It didn't justify the Augustinian concept at all.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

(especially that all humans inherited the guilt of Adam's sin).

Agreed.

What they inherited was separation from God and being born into a cursed world.

But it seems to indicated that the Fall created an entirely different relationship between men and God and the rest of creation.

And that is the condition that stands to be remedied in the Cross.

If that is true

It is.

it is not stretch to believe that man's nature also suffered from the Fall.

Agreed. His lifespan has shrank, for example.

His brain capacity is shrinking.

He is not born in conditions that would preclude sin. He will inevitably commit sins already introduced to the world, often (if not always) those of his own parents.

There is a physical aspect to the consequences of the Fall, but they are...physical. Adam would have fared no better having lost communion with God than we do, and would have fared no better than we do having communion with God.

Which would explain the many, many verses in the Bible which say that man, in his natural state, is at enmity with God. Otherwise Pelagians would be correct.

Man is at enmity because he is not in relationship with God. Adam had direct communion with God but still became at enmity.

And no man has ever known the will of God, or performed it, until God first intervened and revealed His will to them.

Well, I guess that "there is nothing that you can say" pretty much ends the discussion. But that was true from the beginning.

Be glad to discuss this with you.

So you say that we are all under the sin and bondage Adam introduced. Why? If we are all created as Adam, that would not be the case. Adam is nowhere, pre-Fall, said to be under bondage.

Its simply not possible for him to be under bondage...until sin entered the world.

Consider:


Romans 8:21
King James Version (KJV)

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


The impact of the curse is on everything in existence. While I hold to a spiritual union of sorts between Adam and God, much of what happens can be seen in physical terms. I do not view Adam as equivalent to those who are immersed into God and born again, but view that as the eventual Plan of God for mankind.

So all of creation was affected by "the Fall" (which the quotation marks seem to indicate it wasn't really a "Fall") but human nature wasn't. OK. I understand now.

The one thing we see Adam capable of doing, which is no different than ourselves...is sinning. We might liken that to our condition as born again believers, where we have communion with God, yet still sin. But we cannot liken Adam to the glorified saint, because if he had been glorified, he would not have died.


God bless.

 

[HankD]

What do you think may be the fruits of our disagreement (what repercussions might arise as we examine other doctrines)?

The sky will fall,

 

[Yeshua1]

It is interesting that Genesis equates this "corrupt" condition of knowing good and evil as an attribute of God.

Think Satan did that though!

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm not creating the straw man . I'm saying Adam had a human nature and sinned.

And His fall has given the sin nature now to all save Jesus Christ!