Original Sin

[Rebel]

What is your view of original sin? Mine is probably closest to the EOC and Anabaptists, yet it doesn't seem to quite fit completely. It certainly isn't the views of the Magisterial Reformers, though.

Here are two views, one by John Smyth and the other by Thomas Helwys, from their statements of faith I posted elsewhere:

First, Smyth: "That there is no original sin (lit;, no sin of origin or descent), but all sin is actual and voluntary, viz., a word, a deed, or a design against the law of God; and therefore, infants are without sin."

Next, Helwys: "That this GOD in the beginning created all things of nothing, (Genesis 1:1) and made man of the dust of the earth, (Genesis 2:7), in his own image, (Genesis 1:27), in righteousness and true Holiness. (Ephesians 4:24); yet being tempted, fell by disobedience. (Ephesians 3:1-7). Through whose disobedience, all men sinned. (Romans 5:12-19). His sin being imputed unto all; and so death went over all men.

That by the promised seed of the woman, JESUS CHRIST, [and by] his obedience, al are made righteous. (Romans 5:19). All are made alive, (1 Corinthians 15:22). His righteousness being imputed unto all.

That notwithstanding this, men are by nature the Children of wrath, (Ephesians 2:3) born in iniquity and in sin conceived. (Psalm 51:5) Wise to all evil, but to good they have no knowledge. (Jeremiah 4:22). The natural man perceives not the things of the Spirit of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14). And therefore man is not restored unto his former estate, but that as man, in his estate of innocence, having in himself all disposition unto good, & no disposition unto evil, yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition unto evil, and no disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or may reject grace, according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19) I call Heaven and Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: Therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live."

My view is somewhere between these views, each of which seems not quite right to me. The sin of our ancestor Adam has obviously affected his posterity, so I would not quite agree with Smyth. However, I don't agree with Helwys that infants are born sinners and have no disposition to good.

I'd like to get others' thoughts.

 

[robustheologian]

Original sin is corrupt nature inherited and guilt imputed (immediately) to all men because of Adam.

However, I don't agree with Helwys that infants are born sinners and have no disposition to good.

I halfway agree. While I wouldn't say that infants have no disposition to good, they are most definitely born sinners and born guilty. Psalm 58:3 is the scriptural support. And in a way, Romans 6:23 is the logical support. “The wages of sin is death”. Infant mortality proves that all are born sinners. If an infant can die it's because they have sin. If they have sin it would have to follow that they have the guilt that goes with it. Sin equals death. No sin means no death. If Adam never sinned, he never would have died. He would actually still be alive today.

 

[Darrell C]

The sin of our ancestor Adam has obviously affected his posterity, so I would not quite agree with Smyth. However, I don't agree with Helwys that infants are born sinners and have no disposition to good.

The separation that exists between man and God does not begin at birth, but before birth.

The writer of Hebrews examples how a future generation is counted as having been participant in a past event:


Hebrews 7:4-10

King James Version (KJV)

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.


Adam had a unique relationship with God which was lost through sin. Sin should not be viewed as a substance which is passed on through physical means, but is the result of something that is missing, which is that relationship with God. It is the absence of something, not the presence of something.

The superiority of Melchisadec over Levi is seen here to precede Levi's (and his offspring's) existence and Levi is said to have paid tithes to Melchisadec. So too with our condition, being "in the loins of Adam," if I may so say (lol), it traces back to Adam and what occurred through his actions. This should not be confused as a charge of guilt levied for those particular actions in regards to our own actions after birth, but neither should it be ignored. Ezekiel 18 makes it clear, temporally speaking, every man will be judged according to the individual acts he himself commits. From the eternal perspective, though, we swing back to the relationship that is necessary in order for one to be in relationship with God above the temporal perspective.


Romans 5:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


Until Christ died in man's stead, there was no justification unto life. The reason being that no man could live in such a manner in which that which was lost, which was the life that came through relationship with God, could reasonably be ascribed to man. While men, from a temporal perspective, can live reasonably moral lives, and in the eyes of other men be considered "good," from the eternal perspective man had nothing within him that could justify a right standing before God.

Christ made it clear that apart from Himself man has no life in him. Obtaining that life was possible only through eating His flesh and drinking His blood, or, in other words, placing faith in the Work of Christ, acknowledging that which Paul writes above. While we were yet in the loins of Adam, Adam's sin brought about condemnation. We are born unto condemnation, a point the Lord makes here:


John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


The only means of escape from the condemnation we are born under, from the condition of lifelessness (though we have physical life which remains a temporal issue and is separate from the eternal perspective), is stated quite clearly here. To believe on Christ is in fact to acknowledge the Gospel of Jesus Christ, acknowledging He was Who He said He was, and did what He said He came to do. We have confirmation in the Resurrection of Christ that His death was acceptable to the Father and as Paul states above, the righteousness of Christ provides what can only be viewed as a, no, the Gift.

From a temporal perspective we look down at the newborn babe and cannot imagine that sin could be ascribed to such an innocent being. What we must maintain in our view that is while from a temporal perspective that is very true, this babe has committed no act by which we might ourselves condemn the child, however, while sin may be lacking on the part of the child, so too...is a relationship with God.

And that is what we seek to persuade men of, isn't it? That they themselves can have a personal relationship with God that transcends the temporal into the eternal. This relationship is made possible through the initiative of God, first sending His Son to die in our place, then ascending and sending the Comforter for the purpose of conviction of the very things we are blind to recognize in our natural condition.

And when we are brought into eternal relationship with God, obtaining eternal life which is not a substance poured into us, but a Person indwelling us (because He is Eternal Life itself), we then move from the lifeless condition Christ spoke of to one of life, and that eternal.

So again, Original Sin resulted in the loss of something, not the acquiring of something, such as sin being a "disease" of sorts passed down from one generation to another. The leopard cannot change his spots, however, God can quicken he dead, and that is precisely what He does in salvation.


God bless.

 

[Rebel]

Original sin is corrupt nature inherited and guilt imputed (immediately) to all men because of Adam.


I halfway agree. While I wouldn't say that infants have no disposition to good, they are most definitely born sinners and born guilty. Psalm 58:3 is the scriptural support. And in a way, Romans 6:23 is the logical support. “The wages of sin is death”. Infant mortality proves that all are born sinners. If an infant can die it's because they have sin. If they have sin it would have to follow that they have the guilt that goes with it. Sin equals death. No sin means no death. If Adam never sinned, he never would have died. He would actually still be alive today.

With the Orthodox, I do not believe that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, or that such guilt is imputed to us.

 

[Darrell C]

With the Orthodox, I do not believe that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, or that such guilt is imputed to us.

Do you feel there is, among the human population, those that are not condemned?

And if they are condemned already, does that not imply guilt?


John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


What is the condemnation the Lord speaks of here?



Romans 5:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


Does Paul mean to say that the judgment of condemnation upon all is credited to Adam's sin?


Romans 5:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Does Paul say that one man, and one man alone...brought death upon all?


God bless.

 

[Rebel]

Do you feel there is, among the human population, those that are not condemned?

And if they are condemned already, does that not imply guilt?


John 3:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


What is the condemnation the Lord speaks of here?



Romans 5:18

King James Version (KJV)

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


Does Paul mean to say that the judgment of condemnation upon all is credited to Adam's sin?


Romans 5:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:


Does Paul say that one man, and one man alone...brought death upon all?


God bless.

I believe that we, as does all creation, suffer the consequences of Adam's sin. That does not mean we are guilty of Adam's sin or that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, or that such guilt is imputed to us.

Animals die -- they suffer the consequences of Adam's sin; however, they are not guilty of it.

I believe no one is guilty of sin until that person actually sins. I believe the Bible teaches this.

 

[Darrell C]

I believe that we, as does all creation, suffer the consequences of Adam's sin. That does not mean we are guilty of Adam's sin or that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, or that such guilt is imputed to us.

Animals die -- they suffer the consequences of Adam's sin; however, they are not guilty of it.

I believe no one is guilty of sin until that person actually sins. I believe the Bible teaches this.

But that is not really an answer to the questions posed. It is true all animals die, yet man is not an animal, nor is there a Biblical account of animals not dying prior to the Fall.

In view is the condition of condemnation, which I believe the quotes presented make clear that all men are under, and it is Adam's sin by which we have come under that condemnation, death being but one aspect of the total issue.

According to what you say here, would we not conclude that because a baby has not sinned...that baby meets the righteous requirement of God in regards to sin? And does that constitute relationship with God?

That would reasonably mean that all babies should be considered as righteous as Christ, right? Yet Christ stands alone as being the only One to ever live that meets that standard.

Would this not negate the statement, "There is none righteous, no not one"?

The truth that would emerge from that view is "All are righteous...until they actually sin." That is not what is presented in Scripture. If that were the case, then it may have been that circumstances might have occurred in which another suitable sacrifice for sin may have been found, such as a child born deaf, dumb, and blind, having no outlet of expression nor influence that might "corrupt" them. For that matter, if we ascribe a righteous condition to children, rather than that which Scripture ascribes, one might reason that the only thing necessary in regards to remission of sins would be the sacrifice of a newborn.

Kind of like, "Why didn't Gandalf just have one of the Eagles fly Frodo to the Cracks of Doom?"



But among men there stood no suitable candidate to die for the sins of men, because babies, just as all men...stand under condemnation already, and this due to Adam's transgression.

Okay, been here too long today, hope you guys have a great rest of your day.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I believe no one is guilty of sin until that person actually sins. I believe the Bible teaches this.

Forgot to ask: could you present the Biblical Basis for man being born righteous.


God bless.

 

[convicted1]

With the Orthodox, I do not believe that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, or that such guilt is imputed to us.

How do babies still in the womb die?

 

[Yeshua1]

With the Orthodox, I do not believe that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, or that such guilt is imputed to us.

So you would hold that all persons have been reconciled back to God in a saving fashion, but its when we reject Jesus, then we get guilty and are judged?

And Pauline theology in regards to the first and second Adam, in order to make sense, has to have all of us found dead in Adam but made alive in Christ, correct?

 

[Rebel]

The problem I see with the responses from some of you is that your interpretations come from an Augustinian, a Western, Latin view of sin, and maybe you don't realize that, and maybe you don't realize that there's another view, a much earlier view that is quite different.

Babies die for the same reason that other innnocents die: they are affected by the results of Adam's sin which brought death, suffering, sickness, loss, sorrow, etc., into the creation.

I would remind you that Jesus said that adults must be converted and become as little children in order to enter the kingdom, not the other way around. I'm not saying that children are born righteous; I'm saying they are born not guilty of Adam's sin. They are not guilty of any sin until they actually sin themselves. They suffer the effects of Adam's sin, as does all of creation.

I would also say, as with the General Baptists, that children are in the covenant of God's grace. They are not held accountable until they can be accountable.

 

[JonC]

I agree with robustheologian. Original sin speaks to our sinfulness rather than our sins (which are manifestations of our sinfulness/our fallen nature). Smyth seems to deal with individual sins (sinful acts) but I place the “human problem” a bit deeper.

As far as being born sinners with no disposition to good...I can see how this can be defended biblically, but I cannot see how it can be objected to using Scripture (although perhaps it could be reasoned away). When it comes to infants it is difficult to understand how they can be sinful….but it is just as difficult to understand how they can truly do “good.” I believe there is an state of accountability, but can offer very sparse defense for that position (examples of childlike faith, theirs being the Kingdom of God, perhaps Jewish tradition regarding an age of accountability). That said, I don’t think holding to a state of accountability negates the idea of original sin being an inherited sinful nature. I lean towards Helwys position.

 

[Reformed]

Charles Spurgeon had no difficulty affirming original guilt/sin. He believed it was imputed to each person born a natural birth (save Christ).

Some ground the idea of the eternal blessedness of the infant upon its innocence. We do no such thing; we believe that the infant fell in the first Adam, "for in Adam all died." All Adam's posterity, whether infant or adult, were represented by him—he stood for them all, and when he fell, he fell for them all. There was no exception made at all in the covenant of works made with Adam as to infants dying; and inasmuch as they were included in Adam, though they have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, they have original guilt. They are "born in sin and steepen in iniquity; in sin do their mothers conceive them;" so saith David of himself, and (by inference) of the whole human race. If they be saved, we believe it is not because of any natural innocence.

 

[Zenas]

Of course there is original sin. We are born rotten to the core. If you don't think so ask yourself this. Why do we have to teach our children to refrain from doing bad things? No one teaches them to lie, steal, hurt others. It just comes naturally. That is the result of original sin.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Of course there is original sin. We are born rotten to the core. If you don't think so ask yourself this. Why do we have to teach our children to refrain from doing bad things? No one teaches them to lie, steal, hurt others. It just comes naturally. That is the result of original sin.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::applause:

 

[convicted1]

Of course there is original sin. We are born rotten to the core. If you don't think so ask yourself this. Why do we have to teach our children to refrain from doing bad things? No one teaches them to lie, steal, hurt others. It just comes naturally. That is the result of original sin.

 

[convicted1]

The problem I see with the responses from some of you is that your interpretations come from an Augustinian, a Western, Latin view of sin, and maybe you don't realize that, and maybe you don't realize that there's another view, a much earlier view that is quite different.

Babies die for the same reason that other innnocents die: they are affected by the results of Adam's sin which brought death, suffering, sickness, loss, sorrow, etc., into the creation.

I would remind you that Jesus said that adults must be converted and become as little children in order to enter the kingdom, not the other way around. I'm not saying that children are born righteous; I'm saying they are born not guilty of Adam's sin. They are not guilty of any sin until they actually sin themselves. They suffer the effects of Adam's sin, as does all of creation.

I would also say, as with the General Baptists, that children are in the covenant of God's grace. They are not held accountable until they can be accountable.

Babies die as a result of the fall, sin. That's true. It's imputed unto at conception. To say otherwise is akin to saying someone had flu without infestation of the flu virus...

 

[Rebel]

Charles Spurgeon had no difficulty affirming original guilt/sin. He believed it was imputed to each person born a natural birth (save Christ).

And that's why I'm not Protestant or Roman Catholic in this area.

 

[Rippon]

And that's why I'm not Protestant or Roman Catholic in this area.

You can't just strike Romans 5:12-19 from the biblical canon. You have to deal fairly with the Word of God.

 

[JFish123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk