What is Sin?

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: They only have to realize why infant baptism was necessary in the early centuries that it was practiced.

HP: Simply not true. All did not baptize for the same reasons, even those that can be quoted as doing it in relationship to sin.

Why do you think we need threads on the nature of sin? It is because of the false notions regarding it and the different manners some think about sin. Original sin as taught by Augustine, implying guilt, was a clear departure from the truth of sin taught by the ECF prior to Augustine's arrival on the scene. Even Augustine himself, early on in his Christian studies, believed in the free will of man, even more so than his teacher Ambrose. I believe it is said he wrote three volumes on free will before rejecting it later due to his developed notions, looking retrospectively into what he saw as inabilities to escape fornication. Augustine felt his sin was caused by original sin and the imputed guilt and inability to do right he felt we inherited from Adam. Augustine felt such a nature had caused his own percieved inability to live holy. Those were clear departures from the teachings of Scripture as well as the ECF.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Linwood Urban writes, "There is really no explicit discussion of Original Sin among the very early Fathers" (Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought [New York: Oxford University Press,

Urban is wrong. Perhaps he didn't do his homework.

Well then enlighten us. Quote the very early church fathers where they explicitly discuss Original Sin.

 

[DHK]

Well then enlighten us. Quote the very early church fathers where they explicitly discuss Original Sin.

I will try and do that:

Chrysostom in the fourth century believed that infants were baptized “so that they may be given the further gifts of sanctification, justice, filial adoption, and inheritance, that they may be brothers and members of Christ, and become dwelling places of the Spirit” (Baptismal Instruction 3.6). A century and a half earlier, Cyprian understood infant baptism to be a washing of the guilt of Adam’s sin (Letters 64.5), as had Origen. Infant baptism was always the practice of the church, but the rite never had a uniform theological interpretation.

http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkmtTKQ1P3WUAxdvrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE2aGd2ZHViBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMjUEY29sbwNzazEEdnRpZANNU1lDQTAxXzc1/SIG=129a6ip97/EXP=1326291411/**http%3a//christianstudy.homestead.com/InfantBaptism.pdf

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I can also tell you something that did not have an Augustinian understanding, the notion of inherited depravity commonly referred to by a very few prior to Augustine in isolated texts, and without regard to other clarifying statements by the same men, as 'sin.' Not until Augustine was the depravity we are born with inclusive of guilt destroying any and all notions of the free will of man. No one you have mentioned so far held to Augustinian original sin. Such inherited guilt and the lack of a free will coupled with

Augustinian notions of grace bringing the necessary abilities to do good in any form, without which man was nothing but a seething mass of sin unable to do right, was not only 'not dogma' in the church, but was simply not taught by the early ECF. Of a truth Augustine is the father of the doctrine of original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, I missed Cyprian's statement you refer to . Can you post his actual remarks again along with his views of grace and free will for us? While you are at it, can you post Origen's view of the free will of man and his views on grace? Can you also explain why Origen stated no one is compelled to sin by their nature if he believed in Augustinian orginal sin? Thanks.

 

[glfredrick]

The Pelagians on the board are really upset when others deflect some of their ire against Augustine... :wavey:

Wonder why?

Also wonder just whom they are reading in ancient church history? Wish they would share their sources with the rest of the world!

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 5:12 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:

The "death" that came by sin is the "death" that was passed upon all men. The "sin" refers to introduction of sin into the world by one man. That introduction of sin into the world did not bring PHYSICAL death but SPIRITUAL DEATH in the day he ate thereof. The Physical death of Adam came hundreds of years later after thousands of humans already existed and died.

Hence, it is SPIRITUAL death that came by sin when sin "entered the world" and it is SPIRITUAL death that was passed upon all men and that is precisely the meaning when Paul goes on to say "by one man's offence many BE DEAD" speaking of their spiritual state - spiritual death.

Both "sinned" and "be dead" are Aorist tense showing a completed action, event whereas your erroneous interpretation would require the future tense not the Aorist tense.

Paul's words are much more effective in exposing your errors than Augustine's or any other non-inspired man.

Tell me if "in Adam all die" how can that be unless "all" are first "IN Adam"????? (I Cor. 15:22)?????

The whole human nature existed "in Adam" when Adam sinned and thus all humanity acted together simeltaneously when Adam sinned (Aorist tense). Sin could be IMPUTED to all men because all men have sinned when Adam sinned and that is precisely why infants die as they have no personal individual sin they can be held accountable (even though they do sin) for as they have no rational ability to comprehend moral accountability unto God.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Isa 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

In the womb the child is "formed" by God - meaning God grants conception between the selected seed and egg which accounts for all the specific character traits supplied by the DNA of the mother and Father but physical "life" was granted when God created Adam and told Adam and Eve to multiply after their own kind. The origin of the human soul was granted when God created Adam as Isaiah 44:24 brings together original creation and individual formation of the child in the womb. Human nature including the soul was created by God once and then man reproduces after his own kind. Individuality of the human soul is formed by God in the womb. Thus Isaiah 44:24 ties the two events together. Initial creation of human nature and individual formation in the womb and unique character traits of the soul. Hence, God could say that he both "created" man (Gen. 1:26-27) and then individually "formed" each man in the womb.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 5:12 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:

The "death" that came by sin is the "death" that was passed upon all men. The "sin" refers to introduction of sin into the world by one man. That introduction of sin into the world did not bring PHYSICAL death but SPIRITUAL DEATH in the day he ate thereof. The Physical death of Adam came hundreds of years later after thousands of humans already existed and died.

Hence, it is SPIRITUAL death that came by sin when sin "entered the world" and it is SPIRITUAL death that was passed upon all men and that is precisely the meaning when Paul goes on to say "by one man's offence many BE DEAD" speaking of their spiritual state - spiritual death.

Both "sinned" and "be dead" are Aorist tense showing a completed action, event whereas your erroneous interpretation would require the future tense not the Aorist tense.

Paul's words are much more effective in exposing your errors than Augustine's or any other non-inspired man.

Tell me if "in Adam all die" how can that be unless "all" are first "IN Adam"????? (I Cor. 15:22)?????

The whole human nature existed "in Adam" when Adam sinned and thus all humanity acted together simeltaneously when Adam sinned (Aorist tense). Sin could be IMPUTED to all men because all men have sinned when Adam sinned and that is precisely why infants die as they have no personal individual sin they can be held accountable (even though they do sin) for as they have no rational ability to comprehend moral accountability unto God.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Isa 44:2 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.

Isa 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

In the womb the child is "formed" by God - meaning God grants conception between the selected seed and egg which accounts for all the specific character traits supplied by the DNA of the mother and Father but physical "life" was granted when God created Adam and told Adam and Eve to multiply after their own kind. The origin of the human soul was granted when God created Adam as Isaiah 44:24 brings together original creation and individual formation of the child in the womb. Human nature including the soul was created by God once and then man reproduces after his own kind. Individuality of the human soul is formed by God in the womb. Thus Isaiah 44:24 ties the two events together. Initial creation of human nature and individual formation in the womb and unique character traits of the soul. Hence, God could say that he both "created" man (Gen. 1:26-27) and then individually "formed" each man in the womb.

The name of this thread is "What is sin"? It would seem that you fella's are restricting violation of the Law of God to merely willful transgression. The Bible is very clear that willful transgression IS NOT the only way the law can be broken by mankind.

1. Sins of ignorance - no willful act
2. Sins of ommission - not necessarily willful but may be in some instances
3. Actions not keeping with faith - "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"

The Great Commandment is proof that you are not sinless, never can be sinless in this life at any point in this life in regard to your own personal condition.

The Great Commandment requires you love God demonstratably with 100% of your whole being 100% of the time and anything less is sin.

1. Evil thoughts are sin according to Jesus:

Mt. 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,

2. The look of Lust is commission of adultury IN THE HEART according to Jesus:

Mt. 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

3. To covet something in the heart is sin - Rom. 7:7

4. Unjust anger in the heart is sin - Mt. 5

5. To violate the law in one point is to violate all the law and to violate it can be willful intent, ignorance, omission, acting without faith as all of these are Biblical ways to violate God's Law.

Tell us, do you actually believe you can continue for LONG PERIODS of time loving God with 100% of your whole being 100% of the time without a look of lust, covetous thinking, unjust anger or an evil thought???


None of the above require external actions to be sin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I will try and do that:

You need to try a little harder because those of the fourth cenutry are not included in the group called the very early church fathers.

The very early church fathers included such men as Clememt of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp.

I have already shown that Justin Martyr did not know anything about your imagined Original Sin in the Apostolic church.

That is nothing but a figment of your imagination!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Great Commandment is proof that you are not sinless, never can be sinless in this life at any point in this life in regard to your own personal condition.

The Great Commandment requires you love God demonstratably with 100% of your whole being 100% of the time and anything less is sin.

The great commandment cannot be separated from the Law and Paul makes it plain that when a Christian is walking after the Spirit then the Law is being fulfilled in him:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Ro.8:4).

David Brown says:

"--"the righteous demand," "the requirement" [ALFORD], Or "the precept" of the law; for it is not precisely the word so often used in this Epistle to denote "the righteousness which justifies" ( Rom 1:17 3:21 4:5, 6 5:17, 18, 21 ), but another form of the same word, intended to express the enactment of the law, meaning here, we believe, the practical obedience which the law calls for.

might be fulfilled in us--or, as we say, "realized in us."

who walk--the most ancient expression of the bent of one's life, whether in the direction of good or of evil ( Gen 48:15 Psa 1:1 Isa 2:5 Mic 4:5 Eph 4:17 1Jo 1:6, 7 ).

not after--that is, according to the dictates of

the flesh, but after the spirit--From Rom 8:9 it would seem that what is more immediately intended by "the spirit" here is our own mind as renewed and actuated by the Holy Ghost" (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary on Romans 8).

As long as the Christian is walking after the Spirit the righteous demand of the law are realized in him.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Both "sinned" and "be dead" are Aorist tense showing a completed action, event whereas your erroneous interpretation would require the future tense not the Aorist tense.

The "aorist" tense does not speak of either past, present or future actions:

"The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time" (Blue Letter Bible).

 

[Darrell C]

As an aside, who can show where the process of categorizing words themselves began?

And which of the prophets (Old and New Testament) felt it necessary to give understanding of God's word when preaching and teaching?

God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

The "aorist" tense does not speak of either past, present or future actions:

"The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time" (Blue Letter Bible).

That is all true, but so is what you are ignoring! A "punctillar action" is an action that is viewed as a COMPLETED ACTION!

Your interpretation would have called for a future "shall sin".

Another point you are ignoring about the Aorist tense. When it is used in the indicative mood it can apply to time - not future, not present but past time completed action.

Guess what? It is found in the "indicative mood" in Romans 5:12.

"In its temporal relations action may be defined as either past, present, or future. In Greek these distinctions are involved only in the indicative mood." - Dana & Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Another point you are ignoring about the Aorist tense. When it is used in the indicative mood it can apply to time - not future, not present but past time completed action.

Guess what? It is found in the "indicative mood" in Romans 5:12.

Daniel Wallace (GGBB p. 564) argues for a category he calls “proleptic aorist,” in which he claims, “the aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed.”

Let us look at the following verse:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Ro.3:23).

The Greek word translated "have sinned" is in the same exact tense and mood as the Greek word translated "have sinned" at Romans 5:12.

So are you saying that all sinned in Adam and it is that sin that comes short of the glory of God?​

 

[DHK]

You need to try a little harder because those of the fourth cenutry are not included in the group called the very early church fathers.

The very early church fathers included such men as Clememt of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Polycarp.

I have already shown that Justin Martyr did not know anything about your imagined Original Sin in the Apostolic church.

That is nothing but a figment of your imagination!

Cyprian died in 258, so part of his life must have been lived in the second century. This is what he believed:

Cyprian understood infant baptism to be a washing of the guilt of Adam’s sin (Letters 64.5), as had Origen. Infant baptism was always the practice of the church, but the rite never had a uniform theological interpretation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Daniel Wallace (GGBB p. 564) argues for a category he calls “proleptic aorist,” in which he claims, “the aorist indicative can be used to describe an event that is not yet past as though it were already completed.”

Let us look at the following verse:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Ro.3:23).

The Greek word translated "have sinned" is in the same exact tense and mood as the Greek word translated "have sinned" at Romans 5:12.

So are you saying that all sinned in Adam and it is that sin that comes short of the glory of God?​

You are ignorning a little thing called "context." Romans 5:12-19 is a context dealing with two men and their actions and the consequences of those actions upon others rather than their own individual actions and consequences. Romans 3:9-23 is dealing with all men by nature neither including or excluding their union with Adam.

You set up a false dichotomy. It is not either or but both.

You cannot take a RARE use of the Aorist and demand that is how it must be regarded in this context simply because you have no contextual basis to demand that use. Indeed, the entire argument of Paul revolves around the actions of two men.

Your interpretation of the Aorist as well as the context would make Romans 5:15,19 mean, "by MANY men's offences MANY men be dead.....were made sinners."

That is a complete reversal of the text. That is the extreme you have to go to in order to justify your interpretation. When anyone must go to the extreme of reversing what a text clearly states then you know your dealing with a view that is attempting to pervert the context.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are ignorning a little thing called "context." Romans 5:12-19 is a context dealing with two men and their actions and the consequences of those actions upon others rather than their own individual actions and consequences. Romans 3:9-23 is dealing with all men by nature neither including or excluding their union with Adam.

You set up a false dichotomy. It is not either or but both.

You cannot take a RARE use of the Aorist and demand that is how it must be regarded in this context simply because you have no contextual basis to demand that use. Indeed, the entire argument of Paul revolves around the actions of two men.

Your interpretation of the Aorist as well as the context would make Romans 5:15,19 mean, "by MANY men's offences MANY men be dead.....were made sinners."

That is a complete reversal of the text. That is the extreme you have to go to in order to justify your interpretation. When anyone must go to the extreme of reversing what a text clearly states then you know your dealing with a view that is attempting to pervert the context.

:thumbsup::applause::applause::thumbs:.......................correct again,bad habits are hard to break

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Cyprian understood infant baptism to be a washing of the guilt of Adam’s sin (Letters 64.5), as had Origen. Infant baptism was always the practice of the church, but the rite never had a uniform theological interpretation.

HP: DHK , you are assuming without the least proof what Cyprian understood. You are assuming without proof that infant baptism was always a practice in the Church. Says who? Certainly not the Word of God. You simply think you can just dream up convenient rhetoric and post it as truth. I say you are dreaming, not establishing any such doctrine in the Church from its inception.


Here is the rub. The whole list knows how vehemently DHK opposes Catholicism, yet here we find him digging as deep as he can to support the notion of original sin, right in the very heart of Catholicism and its many pagan rituals and errors. Go figure. There is not the slightest hint of any shadow in the OT for any such rite, and there is absolutely no admonition in Scripture for any such rite as infant baptism, so from whence did it hail? I say it came right out of heathen philosophical play book. You don't have to do an in depth study of heathen philosophy to find that they indeed taught clearly and openly that evil lied in the constitution of the flesh. Heathen culture has always had an affinity to carnal washings and baptisms and ritual. As Catholicism grew it swelled its ranks with large numbers of those coming straight from heathen cultures, and as a result the Church had an affinity of placating their desires such heathen culture had imbedding within their thoughts and practices.

Catholicism is replete with examples of heathen influence in their worship and practice. One thing is for certain. No such practice of infant baptism was derived from Scripture. Does anyone wonder why? The answer is plain. There was no need for any such practice not only because such carnal washings of infants could have no affect upon their spiritual life, neither was there any inherited sin to wash away. Those ideas did not have their roots in Jewish culture or Scripture, but they certainly did have their roots in heathen culture and philosophy.

Now why DHK, with his insight into the many unscriptural practices of Catholicism, is trying his dead level best to show that one practice, that of infant baptism, lying at the very heart and foundation, not of Scripture but of pagan philosophy and ritual, has always been a practice of the Church from its inception, when the facts are that it has not been. DHK's motivation and sudden affinity to Catholicism and its pagan practices is certainly beyond my wildest imagination. One thing I do know, he is certainly off in left field on this issue.

 

[DHK]

HP: DHK , you are assuming without the least proof what Cyprian understood. You are assuming without proof that infant baptism was always a practice in the Church. Says who? Certainly not the Word of God. You simply think you can just dream up convenient rhetoric and post it as truth. I say you are dreaming, not establishing any such doctrine in the Church from its inception.

You hold Augustine so near and dear to your heart that you can't let him go, can you? You have told the Augustinian lie for so long and so often that you can't bear to be proven wrong, and now you are upset. Someone has upset your applecart and you don't know what to do or where to go. Augustine didn't invent the "original sin" and the "depravity of man" doctrines after all. You feel like you should go hide in a corner and eat some worms you are so depressed. Your bubble has been burst. This must really be hard for you to take. I hope you don't have a heart attack.

Here is the rub. The whole list knows how vehemently DHK opposes Catholicism, yet here we find him digging as deep as he can to support the notion of original sin, right in the very heart of Catholicism and its many pagan rituals and errors. Go figure. There is not the slightest hint of any shadow in the OT for any such rite, and there is absolutely no admonition in Scripture for any such rite as infant baptism, so from whence did it hail? I say it came right out of heathen philosophical play book. You don't have to do an in depth study of heathen philosophy to find that they indeed taught clearly and openly that evil lied in the constitution of the flesh. Heathen culture has always had an affinity to carnal washings and baptisms and ritual. As Catholicism grew it swelled its ranks with large numbers of those coming straight from heathen cultures, and as a result the Church had an affinity of placating their desires such heathen culture had imbedding within their thoughts and practices.

Infant baptism was pagan, no doubt. It entered into Christianity as one of the first of many heretical practices. Baptism was by immersion for believers only. That is what was practiced and that is what the Bible teaches. False teachers crept in teaching that baptism takes away sin. After that teaching was accepted, they began to teach that if baptism takes away sin, then logically it should be administered as soon as possible, thus infant baptism. The fact that it was taught that it takes away sins, presumes a sin nature and an Adamic nature--that is something to forgive.

Catholicism is replete with examples of heathen influence in their worship and practice. One thing is for certain. No such practice of infant baptism was derived from Scripture.

It isn't derived from Scripture, but I showed you how false teachers logically deduce it from Scripture.

Now why DHK, with his insight into the many unscriptural practices of Catholicism, is trying his dead level best to show that one practice, that of infant baptism, lying at the very heart and foundation, not of Scripture but of pagan philosophy and ritual, has always been a practice of the Church from its inception,

That is not true. Infant baptism has not been in the church from its inception. It was an early error. The apostles never taught it. But the apostles did teach that man was a sinner; a sinner by birth.

DHK's motivation and sudden affinity to Catholicism and its pagan practices is certainly beyond my wildest imagination. One thing I do know, he is certainly off in left field on this issue.

I have no affinity with the RCC. I quoted from one of the ECF.
His quote proves you wrong. That is why you are all upset.
Look at the quote again:

Cyprian understood infant baptism to be a washing of the guilt of Adam’s sin (Letters 64.5), as had Origen. Infant baptism was always the practice of the church, but the rite never had a uniform theological interpretation.

Infant baptism was a washing of the guilt of Adam's sin.
This is from his "letters 64.5." You can look it up for yourself.
It is original source material, written long before Augustine ever came under the scene. Cyprian believed in the depravity of man, it is clear. This dethrones your Augustinian ideas which you have been promoting on this board for so long. Sorry to burst your bubble. But you have to accept the truth sooner or later. Better sooner.

 

[glfredrick]

Isn't it great how the argument gets deflected away from the topic at hand -- original sin, which IS scriptural, into a discussion about the Catholic Church, the Fathers (who were ONLY incorporated here to demonstrate a particular historical belief early in the history of the church), and attacks against the man.

I might be inclined to think that the enemy of God is at work to keep the issue of the sin that separates us from God -- FROM CONCEPTION -- out of the limelight. After all, that is his primary goal; to convince hapless and helpless human beings that they are fine without God. :wavey: