Original Sin

[Michael Wrenn]

Your sources are not good enough.

Augustine may have been one of the first to have written extensively on the subject, but the early church preached it. The Bible teaches it. Those that denied it were labeled as heretics--Pelagians. It was labeled as heresy at virtually every council held. Your unorthodox belief, the denial of the depravity of man, has been outside of the realm of orthodox Christianity since the time of the Apostles. That is what history shows.

Hmm...History shows that it was not taught in the early church, the fathers, or the Eastern church. It was, as has been shown, an Augustinian innovation based on his past pagan (Manachaen) influence.

 

[DHK]

And notice it says FROM the womb. This would mean AFTER a person was born. Just as Israel did not sin until AFTER they came out of Egypt. That "from the womb" means AFTER birth is shown in Job.

Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?

This verse proves precious little.
It simply gives the information that infants have souls when they are born. Is anyone going to argue that fact?

We also know from Paul himself that children have committed no sin in their mother's womb.

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; )

The question here is not so much sin, as a sin nature.
The verse, however, is in the context of God's sovereign purposes.

You are pulling a verse completely out of context to teach that which it is not teaching. This verse is not teaching Original Sin whatsoever.

We have scripture that shows man belonging to God in the womb and afterward.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

You are missing the real point. The point of this verse is that you are taking it completely out of context. It is a Messianic Psalm, referring back to the physical birth of Christ. Look further on:
Psalms 22:13-14 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
--It is a Messianic Psalm. All these verses vividly and poetically describe Christ.

Eze 16:20

Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,

21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Of course, you will completely ignore and dismiss these scriptures to hold to your man-made doctrine.

What do these verses have to do with the depravity of man?
Nothing! Stay on course here!

 

[convicted1]

........and the beat goes rumbling on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on................................

 

[Michael Wrenn]

........and the beat goes rumbling on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on................................

Yes indeed, but we're going to solve it before the night is over.

 

[Winman]

Hmm...History shows that it was not taught in the early church, the fathers, or the Eastern church. It was, as has been shown, an Augustinian innovation based on his past pagan (Manachaen) influence.

Very true. The Eastern Orthodox Church disagreed with Augustine's interpretation from a Latin text and have NEVER held to Augustine's concept of Original Sin. This is historical fact. There have been hundreds of millions of Christians who did not believe in Original Sin (and still are).

Augustine used a Latin text that incorrectly said "in whom all have sinned" which Augustine interpreted to mean Adam. The EOC which always had Greek texts said this verse should be rightly interpreted to say "for that" or "because" all have sinned as our English translations correctly say. The EOC insisted this meant each man dies for his own personal sin and not that of Adam's

Romans 5:12 does not say sin passed on all men, it says DEATH passed on all men. But those who believe in OS interpret it falsely to believe it says sin passed on all men. Total error.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Your sources are not good enough.

Quote:
Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
After his conversion to Christianity and baptism in AD 387, Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

HP: BUT, the one you gave is a credible source. Sure DHK. :laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

HP: BUT, the one you gave is a credible source. Sure DHK. :laugh:

I believe I hear Chubby Checker warming up in the background.... :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Hmm...History shows that it was not taught in the early church, the fathers, or the Eastern church. It was, as has been shown, an Augustinian innovation based on his past pagan (Manachaen) influence.

Not true. Augustine wrote much, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before him. Here is the original statement of HP that I was replying to:

One of the most important issues noted, was the truth of Augustine as the father of the doctrine of original sin, i.e., guilt being imputed to all on the account of Adam's sin. No such notion was held by the early church prior to Augustine, and no such notion is taught in Scripture.

The last statement is a logical fallacy. It is a universal negative and cannot be proven. For the statement to be proven true, HP would have to have the means, not only to have access to all written literature ever written before the time of Augustine, but be able to interview all Christians that lived before the time of Augustine as to what they believed. What did the early Christians believe? How can HP know for sure since he has no way of interviewing those that lived before Augustine.

No such notion was held by the early church prior to Augustine.
Really! Prove it!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Not true. Augustine wrote much, but that doesn't mean there was nothing before him. Here is the original statement of HP that I was replying to:
[/b]
The last statement is a logical fallacy. It is a universal negative and cannot be proven. For the statement to be proven true, HP would have to have the means, not only to have access to all written literature ever written before the time of Augustine, but be able to interview all Christians that lived before the time of Augustine as to what they believed. What did the early Christians believe? How can HP know for sure since he has no way of interviewing those that lived before Augustine.

No such notion was held by the early church prior to Augustine.
Really! Prove it!

[/SIZE]

Then if you're going to set up that criteria for him, you have to meet the same criteria.

But that's foolish anyway, because the truth has been stated, and it's provable, as has been done over and over.

 

[DHK]

Then if you're going to set up that criteria for him, you have to meet the same criteria.

But that's foolish anyway, because the truth has been stated, and it's provable, as has been done over and over.

Has it? Prove that Augustine is the one who "invented" the doctrine of "Original sin" or the depravity of man. That assertion is false and should not even be posted. That is why I keep saying this. It cannot be documented as such, and just a little bit of research will prove otherwise:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

Barnabas (A.D. 70): "Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak."

Ignatius (A.D. 110): "They that are carnal cannot do the things that are spiritual...Nor can the unbelievers do the things of belief."

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): "Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners...No good thing dwells in us...For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit...Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God...He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life...Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold...Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly."

Clement Of Alexandria (A.D. 190): "The soul cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace."

http://warrantedfaith.org/theology/calvinism/485-calvinism-declared-by-the-church-fathers

You can do the same thing. A search engine is a wonderful thing nowadays.

 

[convicted1]

Yes indeed, but we're going to solve it before the night is over.

this night could last until 2055, and you won't be any closer than you are now.

 

[convicted1]

If you hold to O.S., you'd better hold some rosary beads as well. :smilewinkgrin: :laugh:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Has it? Prove that Augustine is the one who "invented" the doctrine of "Original sin" or the depravity of man. That assertion is false and should not even be posted. That is why I keep saying this. It cannot be documented as such, and just a little bit of research will prove otherwise:

http://warrantedfaith.org/theology/calvinism/485-calvinism-declared-by-the-church-fathers

You can do the same thing. A search engine is a wonderful thing nowadays.

Indeed it is.

But let's be clear; we are not talking just about original sin nor the depravity of man, but about Augustine's version of original sin, and his doctrine of total depravity. What he believed was his innovation, based on his Manchaeist past.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Guess it's time to re-post my original article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

 

[DHK]

Indeed it is.

But let's be clear; we are not talking just about original sin nor the depravity of man, but about Augustine's version of original sin, and his doctrine of total depravity. What he believed was his innovation, based on his Manchaeist past.

First, I don't agree with Wikipedia's assessment of the topic.
Second, the topic of the thread says "original sin," so I take it for what it is worth. And that being the topic, it would include the depravity of man.
Third, I don't agree with the typical Calvinist view of the depravity of man, which is total inability. I myself, am not a Calvinist.

Thus this discussion cannot center around just one person's definition of the depravity of man, or his definition of original sin, especially since there were a number of early church fathers that believed in the depravity of man that lived long before Augustine.

To say that you are only dealing with the definition of Augustine stunts all debate. It halts it in its tracts right here and now. Of course there was no one that used Augustine's definition before Augustine. Duh!!

Depravity is taught in the Bible, and unlike Wikipedia would like to claim, in the OT as well. David referred to his own sinfulness in Psalm 51:5, his Psalm of repentance. So Wikipedia is just plain wrong. It is not the greatest source for information--as to its reliability, though we all have a tendency to use it.

Your above quote concerning Augustine is only based upon a presupposition that the depravity of man was a doctrine that Augustine invented, a false premise which demands a false conclusion. You can see from what I have provided you that others that lived before him believed in the depravity of man.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

First, I don't agree with Wikipedia's assessment of the topic.
Second, the topic of the thread says "original sin," so I take it for what it is worth. And that being the topic, it would include the depravity of man.
Third, I don't agree with the typical Calvinist view of the depravity of man, which is total inability. I myself, am not a Calvinist.

Thus this discussion cannot center around just one person's definition of the depravity of man, or his definition of original sin, especially since there were a number of early church fathers that believed in the depravity of man that lived long before Augustine.

To say that you are only dealing with the definition of Augustine stunts all debate. It halts it in its tracts right here and now. Of course there was no one that used Augustine's definition before Augustine. Duh!!

Depravity is taught in the Bible, and unlike Wikipedia would like to claim, in the OT as well. David referred to his own sinfulness in Psalm 51:5, his Psalm of repentance. So Wikipedia is just plain wrong. It is not the greatest source for information--as to its reliability, though we all have a tendency to use it.

Your above quote concerning Augustine is only based upon a presupposition that the depravity of man was a doctrine that Augustine invented, a false premise which demands a false conclusion. You can see from what I have provided you that others that lived before him believed in the depravity of man.

There is a difference between depravity and total depravity, and what we are discussing now is how Augustine's doctrine differed markedly from that taught and believed before him. The EOC believes in original sin, but their definition differs markedly from the RCC definiton of it and even more markedly from the Magisterial Reformers' definition of it. The latter two were strongly influenced by Augustine, but Eastern Orthodoxy certainly wasn't.

Original sin and depravity meant something quite different in the early church and Eastern Christianity from what it came to mean in the Latin West -- Roman Catholic or Magisterial Protestant.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: I don't agree with the typical Calvinist view of the depravity of man, which is total inability. I myself, am not a Calvinist.

HP: Show us how in your own mind you differ from the standard Calvinistic notion of total depravity. If salvation is all of God and none of man, apart from man exercising some special abilities granted to God to some by grace, I for one would find it very hard to associate your beliefs apart from the run of the mill Calvinist, regardless what one desires to be called.

Why you are at it, I cannot remember you documenting the least bit of evidence from the ECF or other sources that whatever it is that you say you beleive, was taught in the early Church. Let's see you do some research and leg work needed to support whatever it is that you believe.

Explain to us the freedom of the will you hold to. Freedom of the will lies at the very heart of the debate over the depravity of man. It was Augustine that mainstreamed the denial of freedom of the will in his view of total depravity, AFTER he had written book(s)s in support of it early on.

So again, if you desire to distance yourself from the necesssity of Calvinism, establish the free will of man for us in plain terms that a wayfaring man though a fool can understand you. Be sure to document your views with the ECF etc.. or the sources of your choice, so your ideas will not be labeled justly as a novel doctrine of your own without merit. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

You have been refuted on this verse before,

Wrong! You better go back and read the record again. No one refuted what I said on this verse before. There is a difference in attempting to refute and refuting. I exposed the eisgetical attempts before to be unsound responses and no one was able to overthrow my position on this as well as all the texts I used in Job.

it is not speaking of physical birth, but of Israel coming out of Egypt and sinning in the wilderness. I even quoted Calvinist theologians who gave this interpretation.

The best that you could do before was to claim it was metaphorical language applied to Israel in the manner you suggest above and my response now is the same then! Metaphors are based in reality not fiction! However, you didn't understand the proper use of metaphors then and I don't expect you have learned anything since or else you would not be repeating the same false eisgetical opinion.

And notice it says FROM the womb. This would mean AFTER a person was born. Just as Israel did not sin until AFTER they came out of Egypt. That "from the womb" means AFTER birth is shown in Job.

Funny! You actually think that human nature miraculously changes after they are manifested into this world "from the womb"??????? Realy funny!

We also know from Paul himself that children have committed no sin in their mother's womb.

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; )

Another real funny eisgetical false assumption! Paul is not dealing with the character of the human nature in the womb. Paul is simply stating that the determining factor was God's purpose of election of grace rather than anything "DONE" after their birth that could be regarded manifestly as good or evil "works" for his choice of Jacob over Esau. If post-birth works had been considered then Esau would have been the most likely choice rather than Jacob the deceiver. Is this the best you can do?

You are pulling a verse completely out of context to teach that which it is not teaching. This verse is not teaching Original Sin whatsoever.

That verse along with many others in the Old Testament clearly teach OS and all you have done is shown your own inability to objectively and fairly deal with the context and content of these scriptures.

We have scripture that shows man belonging to God in the womb and afterward.

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.

Have you ever heard of anything called "context"??? Apparently not. Peter says that David was a prophet and in writing Psalm 16 he was not speaking of himself but of the Messiah.

Psalm 22 is one of the most famous Messanic Pslams in the entire Bible and is prophetic of Jesus Christ who was without OS due to the incarnation. In this same Psalm David speaks of being peirced in his hands and feet! Do you really think he was speaking about himself or speaking prophetically as the Messiah and about the Messiah??? The answer is so obvious but this is the extent you are forced to go to defend your false doctrine.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

Of course, you will completely ignore and dismiss these scriptures to hold to your man-made doctrine.

Not at all! But are you really serious using Ezekiel 16:20-21 as a defense of your position???? Are you that hard pressed???

You are suggesting that natural born Jews are literally God's spiritual children and therefore they are His children by nature from the womb!!!! Are you serious??????

God speaks of them as His "children" metaphorially as they are REPRESENTATIVE of true children of God.

Paul denies that Israelites are birthed as LITERAL children of God (Rom. 9:6-8) but are only children according to the flesh not according to the Spirit! Jesus told Nicodemus a natural born Jew that he must be born again, born of the Spirit.

The very fact that Paul denies PHYSICAL Israelites are the SPIRITUAL children of God proves that God is speaking about the PHYSICAL Israelites in a metaphorical sense of what they REPRESENT as types.

Surely you can do better than this?

 

[The Biblicist]

There is a difference between depravity and total depravity, and what we are discussing now is how Augustine's doctrine differed markedly from that taught and believed before him. The EOC believes in original sin, but their definition differs markedly from the RCC definiton of it and even more markedly from the Magisterial Reformers' definition of it. The latter two were strongly influenced by Augustine, but Eastern Orthodoxy certainly wasn't.

Original sin and depravity meant something quite different in the early church and Eastern Christianity from what it came to mean in the Latin West -- Roman Catholic or Magisterial Protestant.

What UNINSPIRED men from different times in history meant is an endless useless debate that determines nothing.

This is where you must flee to escape the clear teaching of scriptures. Job 14:1-5; 15:14; 25:3 clearly teach OS the total depravity type. Paul clearly teaches OS and the total depravity type. David clearly teaches OS and the total depravity type. Isaiah clearly teaches OS adn the total depravity type.

Your attempts to prove otherwise have been exposed as eisgetical speculations and so you are now forced to flee to uninspired speculations of men.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What UNINSPIRED men from different times in history meant is an endless useless debate that determines nothing.

This is where you must flee to escape the clear teaching of scriptures. Job 14:1-5; 15:14; 25:3 clearly teach OS the total depravity type. Paul clearly teaches OS and the total depravity type. David clearly teaches OS and the total depravity type. Isaiah clearly teaches OS adn the total depravity type.

Your attempts to prove otherwise have been exposed as eisgetical speculations and so you are now forced to flee to uninspired speculations of men.

Quite untrue. Neither the Bible nor early church taught total depravity.

But I must continually remind myself that you consider that true Christianity stopped after 100 A.D. and ceased to exist until rediscovered by Calvin and Luther. Oh, and maybe Augustine with his Manichaen past had a hint of the true Gospel.

Tell me, which speculations do those of Augustine, Calvin, and Luther fit into -- inspired or uninspired? I guess you and many here would elevate Calvin to the status of an apostle since you give so much authority to his writings. Maybe Jesus appeared to Calvin as He did to Paul and commissioned him an apostle in the same way.