Original Sin and its imputation on the human race

Romans 5, as I have shown in the above, is so clear that we individually sin in Adam, that it really is difficult to deny.

You come across as holding Pelagianism. That has been more condemned in Christian history than any other error, more than even the Trinity. This is not merely just a Reformed condemnation, but a non-reformed condemnation. As noted, you must believe in the chiasmus: sin, death, death, sin. If we died in Adam, we are dead and thus sin. If you believe we sin and therefore we are dead, that goes entirely against the chiasmus.

 

Ruiz,

I don't think Winman has ever proposed to be pelagian, I NEVER remember him ever suggesting that man was "good or righteous" enough to work out his salvation without divine assistance. Do you honestly think that this is what he proposes simply because his position on original sin is different?

Pelagianism
the heretical doctrines of Pelagius, 4th-century British monk, especially a denial of original sin and man’s fallen spiritual nature, and an assertion that man’s goodness was sufficiënt for him to work out his salva-tion without the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

 

double post

 

Greektim, vs. 19 does not help you, if by Adam's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

You still have the same problem, if this verse is saying that Adam's sin is unconditionally imputed to many, then because of Christ righteousness shall be unconditionally be imputed to many. And if the first "many" means 100% of men, then the second "many" also means 100% of men. You cannot change the definition of the same exact word used in the same exact verse and context. This is where Universalists find their support in scripture, if vs. 12 is teaching that Adam's sin is unconditionally imputed to all men, then the following verses necessarily teach that righteousness is unconditionally imputed to all men.

I think the term "made sinners" is misunderstood. If I said that by Karl Marx many were made communists you would understand. Did Marx's personal beliefs impute to those who read him? NO. But through his influence and by believeing his teachings many became communists. It would the same if I said many were made evolutionists by Charles Darwin. I believe this is how Paul is speaking, in fact it must be, because we know righteousness is not unconditionally imputed, a man must believe on Jesus to be imputed righteous.

 

The last part in this definition is even debatable. When Augustine attacked his views, he attacked the views of the denial of original sin and our inherent goodness. Pelagian said we were sick in sin thus may need help, but we were not dead in our sins. The assistance thing, I will see if I can find the section Augustine addresses Pelagian on this issue. However, I think the definition is an over simplification.

 

Thanks, but I was focusing more on the idea of PEL being that man is inherently good enough to obtain salvation without divine assistance, which I do not think WINMAN has ever proposed.

 

Winman, I agree that this is a "sticky" point. "Many" (all) were made sinners by Adam, then "many" (but not all?) were made righteous by the obedience of one? By "sticky" I mean if all were made sinners, is in entirely out of the question then to think that not all were made righteous by the "ONE"?

Before anyone "flames" I am not attempting to propose universalism, simply trying to indicate that this is a reasonable question.

 

Pelagian didn't say that you could obtain salvation in reality, but that all man will sin and thus you could not obtain it through the righteousness you have. I think the argument Augustine made against Pelagius said that it is legitimate to conclude that Pelagianism would lead one to believe that one can go without sinning and thus be saved. I do not think that was the argument of Pelagian. Yet, I could be wrong. Something to look up.

In this discussion, though, the issue is the nature of sin. In theological circles, to argue on the sin issue it usually is related to the understanding of original sin (that is what I was taught in every theology class I ever took). Thus, I think it is right for a theologian to call a denial of original sin, Pelagianism.

 

Perhaps you are correct, I was not a theology major. I don't have the richness of a theological education. I have always thought Pel to be a "go it on your own" theological idea. Man is able to seek/reach/find God without any notion of any type of God's grace.

 

I am not a Pelagian, I have said dozens of times that it would be impossible for any man to believe on Christ without the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the revelation of Jesus Christ through God's word.

And while I do not accept Total Inability, I certainly believe all men are sinners and cannot possibly earn salvation through their own merit.

I do believe all men have the ability to believe, but no man can believe what he has not heard and does not know. This is why Paul asked how can a man believe in whom he has not heard? (Rom 10:14) Why didn't Paul ask how can a man believe if he has not been regenerated? Paul did not ask this, because it is not necessary to be regenerated to have the ability to believe.

No, Paul said faith comes by HEARING, something we can all do, and hearing by the word of God. If God did not provide his word, it would be impossible for any man to believe in Jesus.

How did you believe? Were you walking down the street completely ignorant of the scriptures and was suddenly zapped with this knowledge? Or did you hear the word of God and believe? I know how I believed, when I heard the word of God.

 

It is only sticky if it refutes your doctrine. You can not redefine the same exact words used in the same verse and context. If "many" were "made" sinners by Adam, then "many" shall be "made" righteous by Christ.

If Rom 5:12-21 is teaching that Adam's sin is unconditionally imputed to us, then these same verses would also teach that righteousness is unconditionally imputed to us. To argue otherwise is inconsistent.

However, if we understand vs. 12 to teach we are sinners conditionally because all have sinned personally, then we can see that righteousness is also conditionally imputed to us when we personally believe on Christ. There is no inconsistency here.

 

born sinners?

We are born separated from God. If I am understanding you correctly, you are assuming that separation automatically makes us sinners. It is that being born separated from God and not being born filled with the Holy Spirit that makes it imposable for us to overcome temptation(s) on a continual basis. In other words we are born in a body of flesh without the fellowship of God and our spirits are out of proportion to the flesh, world, and Satan. God created man to be in fellowship with Him and His Spirit to help our spirit overcome. It is because of the weakness of the flesh that we fail. Jesus told His disciples, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Paul said the law is weak through the flesh.
Paul gives us an account of a lost man in Romans 7. He tells us he willed to do the right thing, but something was stronger than his will, sin in the flesh.

Adam was created sinless, I don't know of anyone that would argue with that, but nevertheless he sinned. Now stop and think about that. If Adam sinned without a sinful nature and only had one thing he had to not do, how much more are we likely to sin being born outside of the fellowship of God, in a world already filled with sin, and many "don'ts"? Also, if we are born with a nature to sin, nothing would be temptation, it would be our nature to sin.
We are guilty of sin because we are doing things we know we are not to do, but with a sinful nature we would not know to not do those things we should not do.
We are born in sin, but not born sinners. In other words being born in sin is not being born a sinner, being born in sin is the environment. There is nowhere in scripture that tells us we are born sinners. Now I understand there are many verses taken out of context to show we are born sinners, but it is just that, out of context. We are guilty of sin because we have sinned. We are dead in sin because of our sinfulness.
There is no mention of any sinful nature in scripture, that is something made up. In fact I would say it is heresy and may even verge on blasphemy. The term sinful nature comes from the same terms used for flesh. That would be the same flesh Christ came in. Would we say Christ came in sinful nature or that He had a sinful nature? of course not. But Christ came in the flesh to overcome the flesh, the same flesh that is tempted, He was tempted in all points as we are. It was His flesh that was crucified, buried, and raised.
Now we know He was tempted in all points as we are, but do we say His flesh was some kind of sinful nature? Christ's sinful nature was crucified? When you put just a little logic to it it starts sounding ridiculous to say the least.

 

Excellent post Romans7man, I especially like your argument that if we have a sin nature there would be no such thing as temptation, as it would be our nature to sin. That makes perfect sense.

 

And a hearty second from this corner:love2::thumbs:

 

I "kinda" like it too.

 

1 Corinthians 10:13; There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man..............
This tells me all are tempted, saved and lost, but it is for the believer that God has made a way for escape. The unbeliever is pretty much on his own. Not that God wants it that way, but as long as the unbeliever thinks he has it all under control and does not need God's help, God will grant him his wish and leave him be. Hopefully when the unbeliever hears the gospel they to will get saved and yield to God's way of escape from sin.

 

Hello quantumfaith and cypress,
I'm the new kid on the block, so I'm still trying to figure everyone out here. I have read many post and see I have like minded kindred spirits here. I read more than post, but I do have a hard time passing up something on Romans. Romans is what I have studied most and hope someone starts a thread on Romans 7, as I may have something to offer. If I ever get around to it I would like to write a book on chapter 7 and it's interpretation or misinterpretation, however you want to see it. Much has been overlooked on the subject.
Anyhow, I know we are all going to disagree on some of the finer points, but that is almost a given. It's those canyons of disagreements that tend to jump out most, Calvinism/Arminianism. Hopefully those gaps will not be to far that we still can fellowship one with another, even when we agree to disagree.
I don't consider myself Calvinist or Arminian, but I know some will try and put me in one group or another.

 

Adam was just a man. Christ is God.

John

 

Winman, I couod have told you that this would become a debate about intellect, not the Bible.

Oh well, some people are just too smart

John