Original Sin and its imputation on the human race

[seekingthetruth]

Winman,

So, would you hold to a pelagian, semi-pelagian, or semi-augstinian viewpoint?

You shouold have asked me that question.

I hold to my viewpoint, based on what the scriptures tell me.

Everyone doesn't fit neatly into the labels you hold to.

John

 

[Rippon]

You shouold have asked me that question.

I hold to my viewpoint, based on what the scriptures tell me.

Everyone doesn't fit neatly into the labels you hold to.

John

Yeah,those not of the Calvinistic stripe do generally fall into the categories that Ruiz itemized.

 

[Winman]

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

Yeah, it's amazing how some must write a novel to explain a simple clause "for that all have sinned".

A simple analogy might show what Paul is saying. Imagine a bus called Sin whose destination is Death. Imagine another bus called Faith whose destination is Life.

Adam started the bus called Sin. He jumped in and started it up, he started driving toward the destination Death. All of us who have personally sinned like Adam have jumped on this bus called Sin and are headed to the same destination, which is Death.

Those of us who have believed have asked the bus to stop and have jumped on the bus driven by Jesus. Jesus is the one who started the bus called Faith and is driving it toward Life. By believeing we have now boarded Jesus's bus called Faith and are headed toward Life.

Simple analogy that I am sure will fail at some point, but this is sort of how I understand Rom 5:12-21.

 

[Ruiz]

You shouold have asked me that question.

I hold to my viewpoint, based on what the scriptures tell me.

Everyone doesn't fit neatly into the labels you hold to.

John

If you think you have created a new theology that has never been espoused you are probably wrong on two counts. You are probably making up a theology that is not Biblical and/or you probably do not realize that you really do hold to a theology previously espoused.

 

[seekingthetruth]

If you think you have created a new theology that has never been espoused you are probably wrong on two counts. You are probably making up a theology that is not Biblical and/or you probably do not realize that you really do hold to a theology previously espoused.

You missed the point entirely.

I have no new theology, and that is why I don't fit into any of your labeled theologies.

I have never seen the words pelagian, semi-pelagian, or semi-augstinian in the Bible, so surely they are man-made theologies, just like Calvinism.

Do you spend more time studying the Bible or studying theologies?

John

 

[Winman]

You missed the point entirely.

I have no new theology, and that is why I don't fit into any of your labeled theologies.

I have never seen the words pelagian, semi-pelagian, or semi-augstinian in the Bible, so surely they are man-made theologies, just like Calvinism.

Do you spend more time studying the Bible or studying theologies?

John

Yeah, these guys all follow theologians and fight and argue with each other. Those who follow Calvin will say those who follow Wesley are in error and vice versa. So following "theologians" does not keep one from error.

Then they have the nerve to say those who rely on the scriptures will fall into error! This is the kettle calling the pot black.

I will read the writings of theologians on occasion, but I compare what they teach with scripture. If what they write disagrees with scripture I reject them. Scripture alone is my authority.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Source please. Considering original sin was rejected by the gnostics as defined by Augustine, I find this difficult to believe. If you read his attack on pelagianism (several books) he takes exception to gnosticism as well.

Before Augustine became a Christian he was a Gnostic follower.

So where did Original Sin theology come from? The simple answer is gnosticism - Greek-Roman Pagan Philosophy. It stems primarily from Platonism. The false concepts of Predestination and Original Sin first appeared on the canvas of Christianity around the 2nd century with Augustine (AD 354-430). Augustine was a former Platonist and pagan high priest, of a gnostic sect known as the Manichean's. It is historically noted that Augustine was heavily influenced by Plato and therefore much of his philosophy and theology was also. Many Christian historians believe with the influence and heresies Constantine brought into Christianity, the stage was set for former pagan priest such as Augustine to offload much of their pagan philosophies onto Christianity. Clearly the amount of Platonic thought that Augustine brought to Christianity is proof that this theory is very plausible. Again, we must remember it is Judaism that is the foundation of Christianity, and not Greek philosophy!

http://godthepossible.blogspot.com/2008/06/original-sin-judaism-and-augustine.html

Saint Augustine (354-430) was the first theologian to teach that man is born into this world in a state of sin. The basis of his belief is from the Bible (Genesis 3:17-19) where Adam is described as having disobeyed G-d by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. This, the first sin of man, became known as original sin.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/original_sin2.htm

Pelagius and his Christianity are more in line with the teachings of Jesus while those of Augustine are derived from a Gnostic cult known as Manacheism, a form of Mesopotamian Gnosticism. Augustine would define the Original Sin for the Latin Church but Pelagius saw through this appalling nonsense. (Gnosticism claims all creation and flesh are corrupt and even sex within marriage was evil.) Like Arius who tried to bring the Christian church in line with Bible, Pelagius too would try to bring the church back to the moral teachings of Jesus. Both lost.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/pelagius_brit.htm

 

[mandym]

Some here have made it clear that they have a different view from the standard view of original sin. I want to express my view (w/ some a short exegesis of Rom 5) and hear the opposing views. Hopefully, we can have good dialogue on the issue.

Simply put, I believe that Adam (as my representative, though the debate is not meant to be federal vs. seminal) sinned and his sin and guilt have been credited to my account as well.

Rom. 5:12 is the most explicit and yet the most ambiguous until the context makes it clear that it is referring to imputed sin.

Vv. 13-14 make it clear that the issue is imputed sin and not something else. Since sin cannot be imputed without a law, the fact that death reigned from Adam to Moses, implies that there was a law and thus sin could be imputed. THis of course Paul assumes that his readers would recall 2:14-15 previously.

VV. 15-18 focus on a contrast between the one act of righteousness and the one act of sin. V. 15 makes it clear that many died through the one man's sin (Adam's original sin). This is contrasted to the one act of righteousness that secures redemption. V. 17 says that death reigned from the one man's sin. This has to refer to more than Adam's death or it would not be much of a reign. Again, his one sin is said to account for the death of the world. Thus. v. 18 speaks of one trespass lead to the condemnation of all men, so the contrast is that Jesus' righteous cross-work leads to life.

V. 19 is the clearest of all in my opinion. One man's act of disobedience appointed many to sinners. "Made" is a poor translation. The only other time Paul uses this word was to appoint elders. It is a synonym for imputation. Thus often "made" is used b/c in a practical sense, imputed sin makes one a sinner (not by nature but by virtue of the fact that sin is now on one's account. So one lie and a person becomes a liar. Thus one sin and a person is a sinner). Again the contrast is that Jesus' act of righteousness leads to justification, a judicial declaration where the condemned is declared righteous. It is important to note that v. 19 both focuses on imputation. Sin is imputed from Adam to humanity. Jesus' righteousness is imputed to the saved and thus they are declared righteous.

Thus v. 12 is the most explicit since the context restricts its meaning to imputed original sin. Sin entered the world through one man, Adam. The result was that death entered as well. Sin all have Adam's sin, then all have death spread to them. Why? Because they all sinned in/through Adam. The context restricts the last phrase of v. 12 to the implication that Adam's sin was our sin.

Ok... what say you?

There are a couple problems, this imputed sin makes one guilty of sin prior to the first sin act. Second scripture often points directly to Christ with a clear accusation of imputation of Righteousness. It never does that with sin and Adam. What is more clear here is that because of Adams sin, the corruption of sin had its effect on the world but that is far different from imputation.

Having said that Agnostics are not to blame for every doctrine under the sun we do not like. :BangHead:

 

[Greektim]

There are a couple problems, this imputed sin makes one guilty of sin prior to the first sin act. Second scripture often points directly to Christ with a clear accusation of imputation of Righteousness. It never does that with sin and Adam. What is more clear here is that because of Adams sin, the corruption of sin had its effect on the world but that is far different from imputation.

Having said that Agnostics are not to blame for every doctrine under the sun we do not like. :BangHead:

1) The imputed win would be the first sin, "because all sinned."

2) It does that very clearly in 5:19 w/ the use of the phrase "many were appointed sinners."

3) What is more is that the subject here is ADam's imputed sin otherwise v. 13 would not say anything about imputed sin. The fact that the contrast between the act of Adam and the act of Jesus is so prevelant makes those acts similar yet different. If Jesus' act of righteousness has the ability to save all, then Adam's act of rebellion has the ability to damn all.

4) Someone previously referred to Gnosticism not agnosticism. Big difference.

 

[Greektim]

Yeah, these guys all follow theologians and fight and argue with each other. Those who follow Calvin will say those who follow Wesley are in error and vice versa. So following "theologians" does not keep one from error.

Then they have the nerve to say those who rely on the scriptures will fall into error! This is the kettle calling the pot black.

I will read the writings of theologians on occasion, but I compare what they teach with scripture. If what they write disagrees with scripture I reject them. Scripture alone is my authority.

Please! Point out one post where I have relied on a theologian as my basis of beliefs!!! I have argued everything from Scripture and used 1 guy (Charles Hodge) to back up my statements. Is this really your best tactic to refute me? You have left many of my points unanswered. I would suggest you start there.

 

[Winman]

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This verse proves sin is not imputed to us through Adam. Sin is a work, it is something you do, and death is the just WAGE for sin. Salvation on the other hand is a gift, something you do not work for or earn.

Rom 9:11 shows that babies have DONE neither good or evil. They have performed no work, therefore there is no WAGE due them.

Infants physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but they have performed no sin, and therefore are due no wage.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This verse proves sin is not imputed to us through Adam. Sin is a work, it is something you do, and death is the just WAGE for sin. Salvation on the other hand is a gift, something you do not work for or earn.

Rom 9:11 shows that babies have DONE neither good or evil. They have performed no work, therefore there is no WAGE due them.

Infants physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but they have performed no sin, and therefore are due no wage.

There are hundreds of scripture that pertain to this. It is my belief that because of Adam we are all born with a sin nature. The infant you mentioned, Noone teaches an infant to throw fits, or to lie when they get caught doing something, it just comes natural. An infant learns that lieing is wrong, but he still doesn't understand the eternal consequences of sin until he much older. So, I agree with you that infants are not accountable, but I disagree because they do indeed sin from birth on, without even being taught to.

The wicked heart we are born with is the root of all of our sins. Focusing on the actual sin and not recognising the sin nature is like having an illness and treating the symtoms while letting the actual cause of the illness run amock.

So, yes, sin is imputed to us by Adam.

I am interested in what you think about Adam. Was he created with a pure heart (in God's own image), and did he choose to sin on his own?

Or was he created with a wicked heart as we are, and his sinning was just a matter of when, not if?

John

 

[mandym]

1) The imputed win[sic] would be the first sin, "because all sinned."

I do not know what this means. Did you mean sin and not win?

2) It does that very clearly in 5:19 w/ the use of the phrase "many were appointed sinners."

It is not very clear. That is an exaggeration. Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.(ESV) Which is far different than imputation.

3) What is more is that the subject here is ADam's imputed sin otherwise v. 13 would not say anything about imputed sin.

Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.(ESV)

The fact that the contrast between the act of Adam and the act of Jesus is so prevelant[sic] makes those acts similar yet different. If Jesus' act of righteousness has the ability to save all, then Adam's act of rebellion has the ability to damn all.

It is not a perfect analogy. Adam's act brought sin into the world. Christ's obedience brought righteousness. That imperfect analogy does not speak to imputed sin.

4) Someone previously referred to Gnosticism not agnosticism. Big difference.

typo

 

[HankD]

Infants physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but they have performed no sin, and therefore are due no wage.

And yet many "innocents" can and do die.

That part of Adam's "payment" we all (well almost all) will pay.

Call the cause what you will.

I don't like the term "original sin" either but it serves the shorthand purpose of identifying what we received because of Adam's sin as it harkens back to Adam's sin, the original (first) human sin.

HankD

 

[Greektim]

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This verse proves sin is not imputed to us through Adam. Sin is a work, it is something you do, and death is the just WAGE for sin. Salvation on the other hand is a gift, something you do not work for or earn.

Rom 9:11 shows that babies have DONE neither good or evil. They have performed no work, therefore there is no WAGE due them.

Infants physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but they have performed no sin, and therefore are due no wage.

Didn't you just prove and admit the point that death is spread to those that have not sinned, thus Adam's sin is imputed?

Why else would babies die?

 

[Greektim]

I do not know what this means. Did you mean sin and not win?

Laughing at myself:laugh:. Yes I meant "sin". Adam's sin was our first sin. The end of v. 12 makes that clear.

It is not very clear. That is an exaggeration. Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.(ESV) Which is far different than imputation.

Actually, if you had been following my points and posts all along, you would see that not only is this not an exageration, it is the Pauline way he used the Greek word the ESV translated "made." Titus 1:5 is the only other time he used it, and there it meant appointed very clearly. Even Hodge pointed out that the word never really even means "made" in the sense that you would like. The verse very clearly has to do w/ implication. Thus justification is mentioned on the positive side of the contrast.

Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.(ESV)




It is not a perfect analogy. Adam's act brought sin into the world. Christ's obedience brought righteousness. That imperfect analogy does not speak to imputed sin.



typo

It has to b/c the context (especially v. 13) restricts the argument to imputed sin. This was a topic brought up in the OT in Psalm 32:2 used later by Paul. Plus, you missed the full analogy. Adam's sin brought death into the world, therefore all die. Jesus act of righteousness brought life into the world, therefore all believers live.

 

[mandym]

Laughing at myself:laugh:. Yes I meant "sin". Adam's sin was our first sin. The end of v. 12 makes that clear.

and so death spread to all men because all sinned (ESV)

What it actually makes clear is man's sin is because the individual man sinned. Works against imputation of sin.

Actually, if you had been following my points and posts all along, you would see that not only is this not an exageration,[sic] it is the Pauline way he used the Greek word the ESV translated "made." Titus 1:5 is the only other time he used it, and there it meant appointed very clearly. Even Hodge pointed out that the word never really even means "made" in the sense that you would like. The verse very clearly has to do w/ implication. Thus justification is mentioned on the positive side of the contrast.

There is nothing here that has been said that works to convince me that it is a perfect analogy. And in verse 13 the imputation is because of the law not because of Adam's sin.

 

[Winman]

There are hundreds of scripture that pertain to this. It is my belief that because of Adam we are all born with a sin nature. The infant you mentioned, Noone teaches an infant to throw fits, or to lie when they get caught doing something, it just comes natural. An infant learns that lieing is wrong, but he still doesn't understand the eternal consequences of sin until he much older. So, I agree with you that infants are not accountable, but I disagree because they do indeed sin from birth on, without even being taught to.

The wicked heart we are born with is the root of all of our sins. Focusing on the actual sin and not recognising the sin nature is like having an illness and treating the symtoms while letting the actual cause of the illness run amock.

So, yes, sin is imputed to us by Adam.

I am interested in what you think about Adam. Was he created with a pure heart (in God's own image), and did he choose to sin on his own?

Or was he created with a wicked heart as we are, and his sinning was just a matter of when, not if?

John

You have fallen for the fallacy that a sin nature is necessary to sin. Adam and Eve were very good, yet they both sinned. More than this we see Eve had the lust of the flesh- tree looked good for food, lust of the eyes- was pleasant to the eyes, and the pride of life- desired to make one wise (Gen 3:6). Adam and Eve were flesh and had the same lusts and desires as us, but they did not become sinners until they actually sinned.

Free will is the source of sin, we all have the ability to obey or disobey God.

Babies are flesh, they have natural lusts and desires, but it is not evil for a baby to cry when it needs food or changing, or to fuss when teething, this is their God-given way to communicate to us.

 

[Winman]

And yet many "innocents" can and do die.

That part of Adam's "payment" we all (well almost all) will pay.

Call the cause what you will.

I don't like the term "original sin" either but it serves the shorthand purpose of identifying what we received because of Adam's sin as it harkens back to Adam's sin, the original (first) human sin.

HankD

When Adam sinned, God cursed the ground. He also said the woman would suffer in child-bearing and be subject to her husband, that man's labor would be increased and he would return to the dust. This curse passed on all the universe, animals who do not sin die, unliving things wax old and corrupt.

But there is not one single word regarding man's moral nature. Nowhere does it say man will have a sin nature and be unable to obey or believe God. This is an utterly false man-made doctrine found nowhere in all of scripture.

 

[seekingthetruth]

You have fallen for the fallacy that a sin nature is necessary to sin. Adam and Eve were very good, yet they both sinned. More than this we see Eve had the lust of the flesh- tree looked good for food, lust of the eyes- was pleasant to the eyes, and the pride of life- desired to make one wise (Gen 3:6). Adam and Eve were flesh and had the same lusts and desires as us, but they did not become sinners until they actually sinned.

Free will is the source of sin, we all have the ability to obey or disobey God.

Babies are flesh, they have natural lusts and desires, but it is not evil for a baby to cry when it needs food or changing, or to fuss when teething, this is their God-given way to communicate to us.

Yes, Adam and Eve were created in God's image. They CHOSED to sin and because of their choice we are born with a sin nature.

" Eve had the lust of the flesh- tree looked good for food, lust of the eyes- was pleasant to the eyes, and the pride of life- desired to make one wise "

Well, if God created man in "His own image" then how can Eve have the lust of the flesh without choosing to have it?

"Free will is the source of sin, we all have the ability to obey or disobey God."

Are you saying that man is born perfect, and that he chooses to disobey God? Do you know of anybody that has lived their entire lives sinless besides Jesus?

Nobody has the ability to choose to sin or not. We do have the choice in any particular situation to sin or not sin, but overall, we ALL sin.

And, as far as babies, I am not talking about crying when it needs food or changing. I am saying that by the time babies can talk, they have already learned how to throw fits for a piece of candy, and how to say "NO, I didn't do it, when in fact they did. People sin from birth, because we are born with a wicked heart, or if you will a "sinful nature" Nobody has to teach that baby how to lie, he knows it by nature.

John