Original sin (pre-Augustine)

[Herald]

But Augustine's teachings influenced the Magisterial Reformers, too, and even many Baptists.

My goal is to get as far away from Augustine's influence as possible, so that might suggest the Eastern Orthodox Church, but I am too Baptist, and they are too steeped in error, not as deeply steeped as the RCC but steeped nonetheless.

It is refreshing and surprising to find a Baptist who believes as you do. Would you mind telling me which Baptist denomination you're a member of? If you'd rather, you can PM me.

I am not fearful of Augustine, just as I am not fearful of the rest of the church fathers. It is not their doctrine that we are following after all. As I have said a few different times on this thread; they got some things right and they got some things wrong. I believe in the Trinity, original sin, penal substitution, supralapsarianism, the deity of Christ, Amillennialism et. al. not because a church father believed it. In fact, I believe these things in spite of some of their teachings. This tread was not started to defend the Apostolic and early church fathers, but to expose their porous theology and put the attention back where it should be focused - on the Word alone (Sola Scriptura).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am not fearful of Augustine, just as I am not fearful of the rest of the church fathers. It is not their doctrine that we are following after all. As I have said a few different times on this thread; they got some things right and they got some things wrong. I believe in the Trinity, original sin, penal substitution, supralapsarianism, the deity of Christ, Amillennialism et. al. not because a church father believed it. In fact, I believe these things in spite of some of their teachings. This tread was not started to defend the Apostolic and early church fathers, but to expose their porous theology and put the attention back where it should be focused - on the Word alone (Sola Scriptura).

I like that answer :thumbsup::thumbs: :godisgood:

 

[Iconoclast]

Winman

I love the way you set yourself up as judge and jury as to what is correct, and what is error. :laugh:

I am glad you like it...now if you had listened weeks ago you would not repost the error over and over.

Has it ever crossed your mind for even one second that it is POSSIBLE that it is YOU that is in error?

Not in this case at all as the texts are clear on this,and not in dispute.The fact of the Covenant death of jesus and the imputation of his righteousness to All IN HIM is quite clear.

I have posted the truth on this several times.....ALL SINNED...at one point in
time....all sinned In Adam......not even a question.

 

[Winman]

I am not fearful of Augustine, just as I am not fearful of the rest of the church fathers. It is not their doctrine that we are following after all. As I have said a few different times on this thread; they got some things right and they got some things wrong. I believe in the Trinity, original sin, penal substitution, supralapsarianism, the deity of Christ, Amillennialism et. al. not because a church father believed it. In fact, I believe these things in spite of some of their teachings. This tread was not started to defend the Apostolic and early church fathers, but to expose their porous theology and put the attention back where it should be focused - on the Word alone (Sola Scriptura).

Translation- this thread completely backfired on me, and so I am abandoning my original premise that the early church fathers supported that we are born with a sinful nature enslaved by sin that agrees with Calvinism.

 

[Herald]

Translation- this thread completely backfired on me, and so I am abandoning my original premise that the early church fathers supported that we are born with a sinful nature enslaved by sin that agrees with Calvinism.

LOL I started this thread with a truthful statement that I knew would garner a response from those who oppose original sin. I never once argued for the efficacy of Irenaeus' or Tertullian's view, just that it pre-dated Augustine. I reckoned the thread would morph exactly as it did.

Actually what I am saying should receive a positive response from most posters. Who hear does not claim to base their doctrine on the Bible alone? My argument for the doctrines I listed in my penultimate post were decided based on my study of scripture. Yes. I read human authors to see how they shape their arguments. But in the end it comes down to scripture alone.

Winman, you should be agreeing with my approach. Maybe not my conclusions, but certainly my approach.

 

[Winman]

LOL I started this thread with a truthful statement that I knew would garner a response from those who oppose original sin. I never once argued for the efficacy of Irenaeus' or Tertullian's view, just that it pre-dated Augustine. I reckoned the thread would morph exactly as it did.

Actually what I am saying should receive a positive response from most posters. Who hear does not claim to base their doctrine on the Bible alone? My argument for the doctrines I listed in my penultimate post were decided based on my study of scripture. Yes. I read human authors to see how they shape their arguments. But in the end it comes down to scripture alone.

Winman, you should be agreeing with my approach. Maybe not my conclusions, but certainly my approach.

Oh, I agree that doctrine should be formed on scripture alone, that is why I do not believe in original sin.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Solomon wrote that God has made man upright or sinless, and the word "they" is plural and points back to "man" showing this is speaking of ALL men.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Romans 9:11 shows that children have not sinned and therefore are not sinners, just as the early church fathers believed.

I believe I could show you hundreds of scriptures that prove man is not born a sinner, but you would not accept them.

You cannot show a single verse of scripture that says man is born a sinner. I challenge you to show it.

 

[Herald]

You cannot show a single verse of scripture that says man is born a sinner. I challenge you to show it.

We are not two school kids calling each other out for a fight. It is rather silly of a grown man (with a name like "Winman" I assuming you are, indeed, a man) to be throwing down challenges as though his manhood is at stake.

You know for a fact that I can argue from scripture. I am not known for ad hominem statements or straw man arguments. I do not place my faith in Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Gill, Bunyan, Edwards, Spurgeon et. al. I believe what I believe because I have studied it in scripture, and that includes the doctrine of original sin. That, I know beyond a doubt.

There is something else I know beyond a doubt. You will disagree with whatever scriptural proof I offer. You are so steeped in your full blown Pelagianism that you cannot help it. So, to argue with you point for point is a fools errand.

But the greater design for this thread will have been accomplished if readers understand that the orthodox doctrines that the Church holds to today may have been written about 2000 years ago, but it is mostly in the past 500 years that the majority of those doctrines have been eloquently stated. So, when someone says that "X" doctrine was a novel invention of a Reformation-era theologian, we can see whether that doctrine measures up against the standard of the Bible.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am not fearful of Augustine, just as I am not fearful of the rest of the church fathers. It is not their doctrine that we are following after all. As I have said a few different times on this thread; they got some things right and they got some things wrong. I believe in the Trinity, original sin, penal substitution, supralapsarianism, the deity of Christ, Amillennialism et. al. not because a church father believed it. In fact, I believe these things in spite of some of their teachings. This tread was not started to defend the Apostolic and early church fathers, but to expose their porous theology and put the attention back where it should be focused - on the Word alone (Sola Scriptura).

I do not fear Augustine, either. I simply wish to avoid his teachings.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

We are not two school kids calling each other out for a fight. It is rather silly of a grown man (with a name like "Winman" I assuming you are, indeed, a man) to be throwing down challenges as though his manhood is at stake.

You know for a fact that I can argue from scripture. I am not known for ad hominem statements or straw man arguments. I do not place my faith in Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Gill, Bunyan, Edwards, Spurgeon et. al. I believe what I believe because I have studied it in scripture, and that includes the doctrine of original sin. That, I know beyond a doubt.

There is something else I know beyond a doubt. You will disagree with whatever scriptural proof I offer. You are so steeped in your full blown Pelagianism that you cannot help it. So, to argue with you point for point is a fools errand.

But the greater design for this thread will have been accomplished if readers understand that the orthodox doctrines that the Church holds to today may have been written about 2000 years ago, but it is mostly in the past 500 years that the majority of those doctrines have been eloquently stated. So, when someone says that "X" doctrine was a novel invention of a Reformation-era theologian, we can see whether that doctrine measures up against the standard of the Bible.

And at the end of your post, you should have added: "rightly translated and interpreted".

 

[Winman]

We are not two school kids calling each other out for a fight. It is rather silly of a grown man (with a name like "Winman" I assuming you are, indeed, a man) to be throwing down challenges as though his manhood is at stake.

You know for a fact that I can argue from scripture. I am not known for ad hominem statements or straw man arguments. I do not place my faith in Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Gill, Bunyan, Edwards, Spurgeon et. al. I believe what I believe because I have studied it in scripture, and that includes the doctrine of original sin. That, I know beyond a doubt.

There is something else I know beyond a doubt. You will disagree with whatever scriptural proof I offer. You are so steeped in your full blown Pelagianism that you cannot help it. So, to argue with you point for point is a fools errand.

But the greater design for this thread will have been accomplished if readers understand that the orthodox doctrines that the Church holds to today may have been written about 2000 years ago, but it is mostly in the past 500 years that the majority of those doctrines have been eloquently stated. So, when someone says that "X" doctrine was a novel invention of a Reformation-era theologian, we can see whether that doctrine measures up against the standard of the Bible.

You CANNOT argue from scripture. Augustine argued Original Sin almost exclusively from Romans 5:12 from a flawed Latin text that said "in whom all have sinned" which he assumed referred to Adam. Even scholars who support Original Sin say the text he used was flawed and should read "because all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned" showing death passes on each man for his own personal sin, not Adam's. This is a FACT.

The early church fathers before Augustine were very Pelagian as you would call it, this is an historical fact. They did not believe men were born sinners, in fact, they believed all babies were born pure, innocent of sin. They believed all men had the power and ability of free will.

History does not support you, the early church fathers were about as far from being Calvinists as a person could possibly be. Again, these are the FACTS.

 

[Herald]

....in retrospect what I have to say really does not matter in this venue.

 

[Herald]

And at the end of your post, you should have added: "rightly translated and interpreted".

That is assumed.

 

[percho]

Unsaved people are not enslaved to sin, even an unsaved person will often return a lost wallet when they could have kept it.

If man were truly enslaved to sin, he would always be compelled to do the very worst thing possible. It is clear to all (even Calvinists) that men do not always do the worst thing possible.

Jesus himself said "sinners" can do good.

Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

Jesus said sinners can do good, and this is exactly what the early church fathers before Augustine believed.

I am not arguing that sinners can not do good. I'm arguing sinners are sinners.
And in reality begin to sin soon after birth relative to the holiness of God.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

You CANNOT argue from scripture. Augustine argued Original Sin almost exclusively from Romans 5:12 from a flawed Latin text that said "in whom all have sinned" which he assumed referred to Adam. Even scholars who support Original Sin say the text he used was flawed and should read "because all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned" showing death passes on each man for his own personal sin, not Adam's. This is a FACT.

The early church fathers before Augustine were very Pelagian as you would call it, this is an historical fact. They did not believe men were born sinners, in fact, they believed all babies were born pure, innocent of sin. They believed all men had the power and ability of free will.

History does not support you, the early church fathers were about as far from being Calvinists as a person could possibly be. Again, these are the FACTS.

Isn't it interesting that no one before Augustine, or Calvin, saw what they saw in scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Isn't it interesting that no one before Augustine, or Calvin, saw what they saw in scripture.

You do not know that at all.How many people even had scriptures in their hands before the printing press?

 

[Winman]

I am not arguing that sinners can not do good. I'm arguing sinners are sinners.
And in reality begin to sin soon after birth relative to the holiness of God.

I would agree 100% that all men begin to sin soon AFTER BIRTH. This is what the scriptures actually teach.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

You don't see this verse from those who teach men are born sinners, God says men's imagination is evil "from his youth". This actually means about the time a person becomes a teenager. It is a fact that this is about the time persons who become criminals first turn to crime, the time of life when persons choose the path they will follow in life. It is also true that most Christians receive Christ as their Saviour from about 8-13 years old.

This is when the scriptures teach a person becomes a sinner.

When the scriptures say we are a servant to sin, it does not mean we are compelled to sin and MUST sin. It means we are bound by sin to DEATH.

The moment you sin you are SOLD to sin like a servant and belong to it, and the wages of sin is death. There is no escape from this bondage, this is how we are enslaved.

When we trust Christ we are baptized into his body and die with him to sin. Just as a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives, we are bound to sin as long as we live. When we die with Jesus to sin we are no longer bound or enslaved to sin but free to be married to another, which is Christ. We are now under grace.

It does not mean you are compelled to sin, even a slave can disobey his master, he can run away from his master. Even though we are under the bondage of sin and sentenced and condemned to death, we have the ability to obey God.

Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

This passage explains what I just told you. We are now DEAD to sin, we no longer belong to sin as a servant.

But notice also that Paul does not say a person is compelled to sin, but all men YIELD themselves to sin, and that Paul teaches that a man can also YIELD himself to obey God. In fact, Paul thanks God that these persons had OBEYED from the heart the gospel that was delivered unto them.

This is the problem, folks misunderstand what it means to be a servant of sin. Likewise, we are not compelled to do right when we get saved, otherwise Paul would not have to tell us to put on the new man and to put away sin in our lives.

 

[percho]

I would agree 100% that all men begin to sin soon AFTER BIRTH. This is what the scriptures actually teach.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

You don't see this verse from those who teach men are born sinners, God says men's imagination is evil "from his youth". This actually means about the time a person becomes a teenager. It is a fact that this is about the time persons who become criminals first turn to crime, the time of life when persons choose the path they will follow in life. It is also true that most Christians receive Christ as their Saviour from about 8-13 years old.

This is when the scriptures teach a person becomes a sinner.

When the scriptures say we are a servant to sin, it does not mean we are compelled to sin and MUST sin. It means we are bound by sin to DEATH.

The moment you sin you are SOLD to sin like a servant and belong to it, and the wages of sin is death. There is no escape from this bondage, this is how we are enslaved.

When we trust Christ we are baptized into his body and die with him to sin. Just as a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives, we are bound to sin as long as we live. When we die with Jesus to sin we are no longer bound or enslaved to sin but free to be married to another, which is Christ. We are now under grace.

It does not mean you are compelled to sin, even a slave can disobey his master, he can run away from his master. Even though we are under the bondage of sin and sentenced and condemned to death, we have the ability to obey God.

Rom 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

This passage explains what I just told you. We are now DEAD to sin, we no longer belong to sin as a servant.

But notice also that Paul does not say a person is compelled to sin, but all men YIELD themselves to sin, and that Paul teaches that a man can also YIELD himself to obey God. In fact, Paul thanks God that these persons had OBEYED from the heart the gospel that was delivered unto them.

This is the problem, folks misunderstand what it means to be a servant of sin. Likewise, we are not compelled to do right when we get saved, otherwise Paul would not have to tell us to put on the new man and to put away sin in our lives.

I agree with you. Because Christ died for us we should strive to live our life as slaves unto our new master, the Lord Jesus.

Does that mean we will not sin any more. No, it means sin no longer has dominion over us, that is, sin can't kill us and keep us dead.

As Jesus said, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against us."

What is your thoughts about the line from the song, "There is A Fountain," that says, "Til all the ransomed church of God be saved to sin no more," is that scriptural? Is it present or future or a misstatement?