Did We get The Doctrine Of original Sin From Bible, or Catholic Church?

The following seemed an interesting comment on this topic.

 

This is why I have a hard time with anything he says, like Joel Osteen

 

Did you know that Augustine was a Gnostic before he became a Christian?

 

Yes, which is why he had no problem weaving right into the RCC.

 

This line of thinking is ludicrous. I'm not beholden to Augustine (though I think him to be right in many cases) any more than I'm beholden to a political party. Having said that, what you two gentlemen are doing is only slightly ridiculous.

Fact: Regardless of where Augustine started, after his conversion, he was a Christian. We should expect him to be transformed by the Gospel, just as each one of us were, just as the Apostle Paul was.

Fact: Many, though not all, of his doctrine is argued directly from Scripture, not a subjective system of thought. Most of his arguments are exegetically based. Some arguments are home-runs; some are foul balls; some are strike-outs. Many of Augustine's exegetical insights (the ones, obviously, faithful to the text) have been upheld by the most learned and skilled Greek exegetes of our day.

One may disagree with his conclusions, but to say all his arguments are from outside the biblical text is just silly.

Fact: The Apostle Paul, before his conversion, was a Jew. Now, of course, there is great Jewish influence in Christianity--and that by God's design. But, no one in their right mind would argue Paul should not be listened to because he began his "theological journey" as a Jew. And, this is the line of argument you are, in fact, making here with Augustine.

Fact: Webdog and I agree on our assessment of Joel Osteen (gasp!). Now I really think hell hath, indeed, frozen over--Webdog and I agree on something.

The issue, really is this: Augustine's exegetical work is, in most cases--with a few notable and really bad exceptions--quite good. Many, instead of examining what he says, because they don't like where agreement with him might lead (read: reformed theology) seek to discount him out of hand so that they don't have to wrestle with reforming their own theology.

Since Augustine does not carry the infallibility of an Apostle (like Paul) we are free (and, I would argue, welcome) to agree with him where he agrees with scripture and we are free (and, I would argue, required) to disagree with him and dismiss him where he doesn't agree.

But, here again, the issue is not Augustine's background. This issue is "What do the scriptures say?" In many cases, Augustine "rightly divides the word of truth." Many, though, can't stomach where that leads. At least, those who can't stomach such things should have the intellectual honesty to admit that, rather than to play these "he-wasn't-always-a-Christian" games.

There...I've written in an ill-advised, sleep deprived state for an hour now. Off to a quick 4-hour nap.

The Archangel

 

Young only confirms what I am saying, he says we are "turned back". You can not turn "back" to God unless you were originally with him and went astray. That is the very definition of the word "back".

Eze 34:16 I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and bind up that which was broken, and strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment.

To "bring again" means to recover that which was lost. The scriptures do not teach that men are born separated from God as you falsely teach.

 

Hi winman,

the epistles of Peter are to those Jews scattered abroad in the world known as the diaspora, the dispersion or strangers.

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,​

1 Peter 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.​

As such they have been returned to a place of blessing under the gospel to Jew and Gentile alike.​

While our father in heaven does not hold children accountable and blesses them with eternal life should they die they are yet in Adam.​

Or why then do some babes die an untimely death?​

The wages of sin is death.​

For whose sin do these die?​

HankD​

 

EWF wrote:
So tell me Van, what ultimately determines whether a person is saved or not?

This was to change the subject from the fall because the Calvinist view is unbiblical.

But to play along, the answer to the question is not what but who and the who is Yahweh, God Almighty. This is not rocket science, but it is beyond the baseless speculation of the dark ages.

The fall refers to being with God, i.e. in the garden, and then because of God's response to Adam's volitional disobedience, Adam and mankind were separated from God.

Thus everyone born is born "in Adam" which means separated from God, sharing the separated state with all sinners, hence "made sinners."

Another consequence of Adam's sin is that mankind was corrupted. When Adam sinned, both Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, teaching that the corruption is transmitted spiritually, not physically because Eve was not "conceived" after the fall of Adam. In our corrupted state we are predisposed to sin. This "old man" nature, i.e. the sinful nature of the first man Adam after his eyes were opened, is contrasted with Christ's new and uncorrupted nature.

Where the Calvinists adopt the "Popeish" doctrine of God punishing mankind for Adam's sin, as opposed to putting us in a sinful state as a consequence of Adam's sin, is where the Calvinist doctrine of the fall parts company with scriptural support.

 

Turn back means to turn away from the path you are traveling and go in the opposite direction. It does not mean to return to where you have been. Say I turn left, when I should have turned right. I realize my mistake, I repent, and turn back, now heading in the opposite way. But then I cross the street where I made the wrong turn, and am going in a new direction.

God created mankind for His glory so for Him to bring back means to restore to our original purpose. So even if we are born lost, and we are, condemned in our unbelief, He can bring us back together with His by spiritually putting us "in Christ."

 

Guess some believe we are born holy.

 

Hank, it is obvious all men suffer the consequences of Adam's sin which is physical death. This is due to the curse God placed on the ground. Even animals that cannot sin die, and unliving things corrupt and fade away.

We are not talking of physical death, but spiritual. When Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and he died, he could not possilbly be telling us he was physically dead!

It is amazing that people can read words like LOST and not understand what they mean. How can you lose something that does not belong to you, or something that was not in your possession?

In the three parables in Luke 15, Jesus is clearly speaking of salvation.

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

So, these folks that argue that Luke 15 is discussing Israel are in error, Jesus was clearly speaking of sinners repenting and being saved.

And in all three parables, we see that the sinner first belonged to God.

Luke 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

The shepherd originally had 100 sheep. One was LOST. He could not have been said to be lost if he did not belong to the shepherd, you cannot lose what you do not own or have possession of. The verse actually says "having" showing this lost sheep first belonged to the shepherd.

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

This parable was identical, the woman originally had 10 pieces of silver, one was LOST. She swept and searched until it was found. It was RECOVERED.

Then in both instances, in verses 7 and 10 the Lord explains that his parable is speaking of lost sinners.

The third parable is the same.

Luke 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

You know the story, the young man left his father and went to a far country. He was joined to a citizen of that country (Satan). He came to himself and returned home. When he arrived, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN.

Luke 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Luke 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

You can try to wiggle around this all you want, this chapter is concerning the salvation of sinners. In all three parables the sinner first belonged to the shepherd, the woman, and the father. All were LOST. All were RECOVERED.

And twice Jesus said the prodigal was ALIVE AGAIN. I think Jesus understands proper doctrine better than Augustine or Calvin, I will believe Jesus.

 

We don't get our doctrine from parables. We especially don't read into parables. That is really bad hermeneutics.

And no, I don't think parables are useless. It's just that they are a story. Taking the story too far(as some are doing here) will lead to faulty theology.


People are not born holy.

 

Winman,
In this parable, what does the broom or the instrument with which she swept the house with represent in the parable?

 

Parables contain much truth is properly understood.

Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Parables reveal mystery, something not known or understood. To those who believe, spiritual truths are revealed to the hearers. To those who do not believe, spiritual truth is hidden.

Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

You guys act like Jesus's parables were bedtime stories!

 

As I said, the parables serve a purpose. Reading into a parable and pulling doctrine out like that isn't wise. They are stories. You are reading into it way to much.


People are not born holy.

 

I believe the candle and the broom represent the the gospel and it's ability to reveal truth, and convict to repentance.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Jn 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

2 Pet 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Psa 119:105 NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

 

So, Jesus was just going around telling stories? Unbelieveable.

Yet more scripture showing we are not born dead in sin, separated from God.

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?

Here God is rebuking the Jews for sacrificing their children. We see in vs. 20 that God says children are born "unto me". God owns these persons, they are his.

This is further confirmed in vs. 21 where God calls these children who were sacrificed "my children".

Many here say we are born in sin separated from God. They say we are born children of the devil, children of wrath. But God calls these children "my children".

How can God call these children "my children" if they are born children of wrath, children of the devil?

 

No, the broom (or whatever it was) represents something to sweep the floor with and that is all. It has no symbolic value whatsoever. That is what is meant by reading to much into a parable. That aspect of the parable doesn't teach a thing. A parable is meant to illustrate one main truth, and that is all. It is illustration. It doesn't teach, it illustrates truth that has already been taught.

 

SOLID! Quite solid.

The Archangel

 

1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.