Original Sin and its imputation on the human race

[Winman]

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.

I wasn't speaking of you specifically, but others like Iconoclast who constantly copies and pastes Reformed creeds/writers, or folks like Luke who practically calls anyone who does not conform to ancient Reformed theologians an infidel.

For every theologian that supports Calvinism you can find those who don't. Where does that get you? The only thing a person can do is read the scriptures and ask God to give him understanding.

The problem IS theologians, these are the folks responsible for error and getting everyone else confused. I am not saying they are all bad, but many are. I have read a little Hodge (a very little), but I believe he is in error. Of course, I believe anyone who supports Calvinism is error, but that is because there are hundreds of scriptures that refute it.

 

[JesusFan]

I don't label myself like that, I simply believe what I think the scriptures say. I believe we are born flesh with lusts and desires that tempt us to sin, but no one is a sinner until they knowingly and willfully sin against God. We are not judged sinners because of our nature, as Jesus came in the flesh, had the same nature as the seed of Abraham, was made like his brethren in all things, was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. So, it is not being born flesh with a nature that tempts us that makes us sinners, but when we actually commit sin.

ONLY Adam and Jesus were ever without a sinners nature, due to Adam creation with sinless state, while jesus was born via Virgin Birth, and thus w/o a sin nature!

IF we take what you quote, than ALL are born in original state of grace, and until actully choosing to sin !

What makes someone a sinner before God? what gets them going to hell?

is it rejecting jesus, or the fact there are sinners regardless if knowing about jesus or not?

I honestly have never studied the theologians of the past until I came to BB. Since then I have spent FAR more time reading Reformed theologians than others, but honestly, the more I study Reformed theology, the more I believe it is gross error. I believe Augustine introduced more error than any other, Calvin simply followed in his footsteps. I think Augustine's error interpreting Rom 5:12 the most serious error ever introduced in the church and has led to many other serious errors such as the Immaculate Conception and especially Baptismal Regeneration which many thousands lost their lives over. I believe Luther's and Calvin's false doctrines came straight from Augustine and the RCC.

again, are you born w/o sin nature, if yes, were you created as Adam, or born of the HS conceive you, as jesus was?

Those 2 had "special" cases, NEVER to be duplicated again, so we would be either born as sinners, or as jesus was, think Bible supports born with sinful natures, ala "flesh"[/quote]

 

[JesusFan]

I wasn't speaking of you specifically, but others like Iconoclast who constantly copies and pastes Reformed creeds/writers, or folks like Luke who practically calls anyone who does not conform to ancient Reformed theologians an infidel.

For every theologian that supports Calvinism you can find those who don't. Where does that get you? The only thing a person can do is read the scriptures and ask God to give him understanding.

The problem IS theologians, these are the folks responsible for error and getting everyone else confused. I am not saying they are all bad, but many are. I have read a little Hodge (a very little), but I believe he is in error. Of course, I believe anyone who supports Calvinism is error, but that is because there are hundreds of scriptures that refute it.

Think that the ONLY reason that they would 'refute" it is due to you having a faulty interpretation of the scriptures that you would be citing!

 

[Winman]

Those 2 had "special" cases, NEVER to be duplicated again, so we would be either born as sinners, or as jesus was, think Bible supports born with sinful natures, ala "flesh"

[/QUOTE]

Learn the quote feature. I don't even attempt to read your posts anymore when you can't tell who said what.

 

[Winman]

Think that the ONLY reason that they would 'refute" it is due to you having a faulty interpretation of the scriptures that you would be citing!

You can think whatever you like, doesn't make you correct.

 

[preachinjesus]

Before Augustine became a Christian he was a Gnostic follower.

well since you aren't going to respond to my objection, I'll restate it.

One, this commits the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, just because Augustine came out of a neo-Platonic background in his Manichaeism doesn't mean it was improperly imputed into his theology. This accusation isn't a good one and we can see other aspect of Aristolean thought as well as some Greek philosophy in other, just as influential, theologians.

Second, the Manichaes weren't hyper-gnostics but get lumped into the gnostic sect because of their dualism. Thus they have an odd association with materialism and spiritualism that seems to conflate aspects of ontology which should be separated.

Third, Augustine is frank about his development out of Manichaeism in several of his works. Do we really think that people stop thinking or are unable to disassociate themselves with a former way of life? That it overrides their entire mental faculties for future theological work? Certainly not. Paul didn't remain a Pharisee.

Fourth, you've got zero cerdibility by posting webistes. How about getting into some good theological works. Notice in my original response I pointed out there are a plethora of other, just as significant theologians, contemporary and previous to Augustine who ALL held to original sin.

My position is the historical position on this within the early church, specifically the patristic period, is that, though it was uniquely nuanced, most orthodox theologians, of this period, who wrote on this matter held to a position of original sin in humanity.

I challenge anyone to show me wrong. (Blogs aren't credible sources here)

 

[JesusFan]

Here the distinction between all is made. Notice again that to help bear out the contrast, the same verbiage is used. But that is not even the point here.


You keep relying on this as your only argument, but the fact is that Paul is using completely acceptable language to communicate a glaring contrast by making the things contrasted match in their words. So you are missing the point. The emphasis is not so much on "if 'many' or 'all' means all in the first case then it must mean it in the second." The point is to contrast the sin of Adam and the act of righteousness of Jesus. The best way to do this is to make the first proposition match the second proposition.

BTW... you still avoided the point I made above. What is the purpose of a repeated mention of Adam's sin if not to point out that it is the root cause to all of humanity's sin and death? The focus is on one act of sin and the resultant death that mankind experience as its effect.


At least you are starting to address my points. I emphasize "starting" b/c you still have not mentioned the lexical argument I made. The translation "made sinners" is likely misleading. The semantic domain of καθιστημι is wide. Yet Paul only used the word 1 other time (Titus 1:5). Clearly, he opted for the "appoint" use which in the context of Rom. 5 implies imputation (along w/ what is said in v. 13). So Paul could not have been clearer. Through ADam's sin, humanity was appointed a sinner. And to continue this concept, we are no more "made" righteous through Jesus in the sense of perfect practical righteousness than we are "made" sinners through Adam's sin. In other words, we are appointed righteous through Jesus just as we were appointed as sinners. Or to put it better than I can, Hodge said of this word in v. 19:

Think that what God is doing is declaring the truth that we are already sinners, due to the natures that we now have due to the fall of Adam, and that those who are saved are declared by him rightous state due to the obedience of Christ!

 

[webdog]

The idea of original sin was brought into Christianity from the Gnostics by St. Augustine.

Bingo...which makes the "standard" mentioned in the op a fallacy.

 

[webdog]

Well that's not true.

Just look at the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian (both), Athanasius, Ambrose of Milan, and others to see how the doctrine of original sin was with Christianity from its inception.

This wasn't a "gnostic" importation. (Which is not a good accusation at all...Augustine wasn't influenced by the Gnostics, the Manichees maybe and probably the neo-Platonists but not Gnostics.)

I can list appropriate works (hyperlinked and all) to bolster my reply to you. Just let me know.

None of their works mentioned guilt due to Adam, but the focus being on the curse and death spreading to all men.

 

[webdog]

I don't know how a reasonable exegete can get around Romans 5:12. They just can't do it and remain faithful to the text or their method.

That said, I'll look forward to anyone here who denies original sin to handle the texts presented. The OP is an excellent work through them.

What is there to get around Death spread to all men through Adam. That is what the text says, not the presupposition gleaned from it saying we all are guilty in Adam.

 

[Romans7man]

We are told we sin because, When Adam sinned his nature changed, so therefore everyone born from Adam's line has a new and unimproved sinful nature. What actually did change and when?
When we go all the way back to Genesis and see how it played out we can get to the root of the problem.
Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, she gave to Adam to eat as well, then their eyes were opened and they saw they were naked. Getting to the point here. God said, they have become like us, knowing good and evil. There you have it, a new nature. The only problem is, To say we have a sinful nature because we now know good and evil is to say the unthinkable, God has a sinful nature to. That doesn't even settle good with me to think it much less type it out.
So why do we sin? God created man to be in complete fellowship with Him from day one. Being estranged from God at birth and outside of that fellowship we are left to live by our own natural senses and abilities. Our flesh becomes our main focus. Our focus is feeding, clothing, making the flesh comfortable, etc... Our spirits are out of proportion to this world without God being in the driver seat.
The cure for sin.
The gospel gets preached, we hear the message and hopefully get saved. Fellowship is restored, the Holy Spirit moves in and helps us overcome temptation. It's all about fellowship with God.
Now we are told we have a new and improved divine nature. Not so fast there either. It is true we are new creatures in Christ, but we do not get a divine nature at being born again. The Holy Spirit moves in and fellowships with us, comforts us, and helps us overcome. Because of that truth it changes our perspective on everything and may feel as we have a new nature.
2 Peter 1:4 tells us we are now partakers of the divine nature and this is where we are told we now have a divine nature. When this is examined we see we are only partakes of the divine nature not that we get a new nature. The Greek word used here for partakers is also translated as fellowship and communion. So we see we are in fellowship with, in communion with, partakers with the divine nature.
If one were to give a description of God how would you go about it? What words would one used to define Him? Holy is one, but another is divine. So we see we do not get a new nature versus a sinful nature, but that now we are in fellowship with God, just as He planned all along.

Paul actually uses all three words, fellowship, partakers, communion, in 2 Corinthians 10:16-30. See also 2 Corinthians 6:14.
2 Corinthians 13:14; The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (communion here is the same Greek word used as partakers)
Hebrews 12:10; For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

Ephesians 3:9; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:16; That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his might by his Spirit in the inner man;
See also Ezekiel 36:26 and 27. It is the spirit of God that causes us to walk in holiness.

Revelation 3:20, 21; Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

See 1 John 2:27, 28 we abide in him.

It's not that we have a sinful nature or that we are broken when we are born that causes us to sin, but rather we are not complete in the sense that something is missing, the fellowship of God.

To have a visual of what is being said here just think of Moses coming down from Mt. Siani. They had to put a vail on his face because of the glory that was on it. Moses was in fellowship with God, now that is fellowship! Was Moses' nature changed? of course not, he even disobeyed God after that encounter with God on the Mt.

 

[webdog]

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.

No, the error is thinking the only 3 options you presented are it.

 

[preachinjesus]

None of their works mentioned guilt due to Adam, but the focus being on the curse and death spreading to all men.

Are you sure about that?

I'm pretty sure Athanasius gets very specific about this in De Incarnatio where he links the first Adam's sin with the second Adam's (Christ's) propitiation.

I can, of course, supply links for my proof and not negative conjecture.

 

[webdog]

Are you sure about that?

I'm pretty sure Athanasius gets very specific about this in De Incarnatio where he links the first Adam's sin with the second Adam's (Christ's) propitiation.

I can, of course, supply links for my proof and not negative conjecture.

Are you referring to him addressing the nature of man? (eis pantas, tous anthropous e apate diebe)?

If you can supply Adam's guilt being passed on to us from this work, be my guess.

 

[Greektim]

Bingo...which makes the "standard" mentioned in the op a fallacy.

A) that supposition was never proven

B) I didn't rely on Augstine but Scripture.

C) You bingo'ed pontification. Argue the points of exegesis.

 

[Greektim]

What is there to get around Death spread to all men through Adam. That is what the text says, not the presupposition gleaned from it saying we all are guilty in Adam.

To have death is to be guilty. So if our death comes from Adam, the logical conclusion is that the guilt is also from Adam.

Plus, v. 19 makes it clear that we are appointed sinners by Adam's sin. It is not about inheritance. It is about imputation. The context of v. 13 makes that clear. Otherwise a concept like inheritance would have been used other than "impute." The fact that the original sin is the source of all this problem also has to be accounted for. Why else would it be mentioned in nearly every verse of this periscope if it is not the root cause of our death and guilt?

 

[Winman]

Very interesting post Romans7man. I am going to call you R7m from now on if you don't mind, we all shorten names for brevity here.

I too have written in the past that the only moral change in Adam (all men) is that he now had the knowledge of good and evil. And I also agree this cannot be evil, as God said we have become as he is, and there is no evil in God.

Is this conscience? Conscience by definition means to know right from wrong with an inclination to do right. So, was this describing man now having a conscience? I would like to see your thoughts on this.

If so, conscience is the law written on the heart, we become a law unto ourselves (Rom 2:14-15). This explains how man died from Adam to Moses without the written law. Even without a written law, men naturally understand that lying, stealing, murder... are wrong, and a man is convicted of sin when he does that which he naturally perceives as wrong.

Or do you believe this knowledge of good and evil is something different?

 

[preacher4truth]

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?

Good job Greektim.

Original sin is 100% Biblical. Sin and death have passed onto us through Adam, and we too are therefore guilty.

Not only are we cursed to be sinful by him, but any person can take a look at this curse also upon nature.

Any person denying this passing upon all men has a convoluted, unscriptural philosophy not based upon the Word of God.

Again, any person can see this curse upon not only man, but upon creation as well. Neither have escaped the curse of Adam.

 

[Romans7man]

Very interesting post Romans7man. I am going to call you R7m from now on if you don't mind, we all shorten names for brevity here.

I too have written in the past that the only moral change in Adam (all men) is that he now had the knowledge of good and evil. And I also agree this cannot be evil, as God said we have become as he is, and there is no evil in God.

Is this conscience? Conscience by definition means to know right from wrong with an inclination to do right. So, was this describing man now having a conscience? I would like to see your thoughts on this.

If so, conscience is the law written on the heart, we become a law unto ourselves (Rom 2:14-15). This explains how man died from Adam to Moses without the written law. Even without a written law, men naturally understand that lying, stealing, murder... are wrong, and a man is convicted of sin when he does that which he naturally perceives as wrong.

Or do you believe this knowledge of good and evil is something different?

Hello Winman,
R7m is fine by me, as long as I understand it's me being addressed I'm good with that.
As for the term conscience, I think Adam and Eve were already conscience of right and wrong, as Eve did tell the serpent of the warning of not to eat of the tree. I think they were more naive to the full consequences to the actions, but that would just be speculation.
I think what Paul writes in Romans 7:9 is a good verse to look at.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Paul tried to keep the law and failed. It wasn't that he did not will to keep it, but it was because of the weakness of the flesh that he failed, (Romans 8:3)
From what I understand here we all go through some sort of eye opening experience. The problem is when our eyes are opened we are disqualified from eternal life. That may be a problem for some, but I don't make the rules, God does.

Another few verses to consider is John 15:22 and 24;
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Winman]

Hello Winman,
R7m is fine by me, as long as I understand it's me being addressed I'm good with that.
As for the term conscience, I think Adam and Eve were already conscience of right and wrong, as Eve did tell the serpent of the warning of not to eat of the tree. I think they were more naive to the full consequences to the actions, but that would just be speculation.
I think what Paul writes in Romans 7:9 is a good verse to look at.
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Paul tried to keep the law and failed. It wasn't that he did not will to keep it, but it was because of the weakness of the flesh that he failed, (Romans 8:3)
From what I understand here we all go through some sort of eye opening experience. The problem is when our eyes are opened we are disqualified from eternal life. That may be a problem for some, but I don't make the rules, God does.

Another few verses to consider is John 15:22 and 24;
If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.
If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Just some thoughts.

You and I are very close on what we believe. I also believe we all go through an eye opening experience, I would call this the age of accountability.

Where we might differ slightly is that I do not believe we are born separated from God, but become separated when we knowingly and willfully sin. For instance, the 3 parables in Luke 15 all show a person originating with God, then being lost, then being recovered. The shepherd has 100 sheep but lost one, he searched and recovered it. continued...