Wesley & Imputed Sin

Hope it's ok, but can I answer also?

Apparently Wesley did believe sin was imputed to all mankind. Here is another example of his doctrine(s) with some reference to us bearing the image of the devil.

Wesley's Theological Anthropology

The Human Problem

John Wesley's doctrine of salvation is controlled by his doctrine of sin. He traces the necessity for the new birth back to the fall. The controlling concept is that of the image of God and the effects that sin had upon it. Wesley analyzed the image of God as comprising three aspects. The natural image was "a picture of His own immortality; a spiritual being, endued with understanding, freedom of the will, and various affections." The political image was man as governor of this world. Most important was the moral image; in Paul's words "righteousness and true holiness" (Eph. 4:24; "The New Birth," I.l).

Thus was man created "able to stand, and yet liable to fall" ("The New Birth," II.2). Fully warned of the consequences of disobedience to the Creator, Adam nonetheless willfully rebelled against his Sovereign. Adam chose to be governed by his own will rather than the will of God. "In that moment he lost the moral image of God, and, in part, the natural...." ("On the Fall of Man," II.6). "The natural consequence of this is, that every one descended from him comes into the world spiritually dead, dead to God, wholly dead in sin; entirely void of the life of God; void of the image of God of all that righteousness and holiness wherein Adam was created. Instead of this, every man born into the world now bears the image of the devil, in pride and self-will; the image of the beast in sensual appetites and desires. This, then, is the foundation of the new birth-the entire corruption of our nature" ("The New Birth," I.4).1


http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/32-1-4.htm

eek: I thought we were created in God's image)

 

I don't know about sin, but the curse was sure imputed to all of us!

Since we are born with a sin nature, wouldn't that mean that Adam's sin was imputed to us?

 

Bob,

The highlighted needs more proof -- it is merely a premise as presented here. Got more?

skypair

 

HP: Oh the inconsistencies of men. I should have learned long ago that one will never get anywhere in a debate arguing from the writings of other men long since deceased. They so often are found to be inconsistent in what they say and cannot be held to the fire to clarify what they were trying to communicate.

Forget Wesley. Show from the plain account of Scripture that sins are imputed to us from Adam or anyone else.

 

HP: Wesley certainly missed it there, but what can we expect being part of the Church of England?


One thing that I do appreciate about Wesley. is that although he personally believed in original sin he did not require his followers to raise their right hand to any doctrine that I know of, but he did require them to live a consistent holy life and or have that as their honest goal.

 

What did he miss?

 

Doesn't the Bible say that no longer will the sins of the father be visited upon the children?

They had to have been imputed to them at some point in time.

 

Imputed sin

The sin of one man has never been imputed to another. God would not be just if he did. That the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us allows God to be just (the price has been paid) and justifier ( he gave the ransom).

In addition to not having Adam's sin imputed to me, I also did not get a sinful nature from him. My sin is not a result of some force within me that makes me sin with no choice on my part. If it were, God would not be just in holding me accountable for it.

We are sinners be cause we have sinned. Many teach that we sin because we are sinners.

 

HP: Scripture never once imputes the sin of one to another. Certainly the 'consequences' of sin are even today in some sense ‘visited’ upon future generations, but what does that have to do with the actual sin being imputed? The sins of one individual are not now and have never been imputed to another. I believe the following verse clears up the issue of who is held accountable and responsible for ones sin very clearly. Eze 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

The dogma of imputed sin is simply unsupported by Scripture.

 

HP: A hearty Amen! :thumbs: No one, no circumstance, and no influence from within or without is ‘the cause’ of our sin. We sin voluntarily as a choice of our own wills as the will forms its intents according to selfishness as opposed to benevolence. For that reason we are indeed the proper recipients of blame.

 

HP: The Word of God does say a lot about doctrine. Possibly I should have worded it this way. Wesley emphasized the practical side of doctrine, not so much the particular way one said it. He had no list of ‘doctrines’ that I am aware of that he required his followers to raise their right hand to, but he did require a life. By requiring a holy walk, he was laying stress on that which was important, the walk in which the believers walked. Anyone can recite doctrine or say that they hold to a particular doctrine, but what good is it if in fact their life is impure? Wesley desired to reach out and hold the hand of anyone that had accepted Christ as their personal Savior as testified to by a holy walk or an honest desire to walk a holy walk before God. Wesley was far more interested in how you conducted your life that raising your right hand to a set of denominational dogmas.

Today in our churches it is far to the contrary. We want to know if you will raise your right hand to our manual, and if so you are in. Refuse to raise your right hand and your out. Say Amen Pastor Bob.

 

HP: He missed the issue of original sin.

 

For the benefit of my understanding could you define what you mean by imputed sin and original sin, please?

 

HP: Original sin is the notion introduced into the church by Augustine, that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will. Original sin indicates that sin is a disease passed onto subsequent generations by natural generation. It proposes that one is a sinner by nature antecedent to any choice an or formed intent, and as such renders all men sinners from birth unable to do anything but sin and that continually.

To impute sin is simply the process that places the ‘sin’ of one upon another, as if though sin was a physical entity that attaches itself to the subsequent generation as would say a disease that is passed on from one generation to another.

I am certain others on the list may in fact have better developed definitions or explanations for you.

 

Grace and Peace,

This is not accurate...

All Inherit His Nature. Gennadius of Constantinople:
Everyone in the following of Adam has died, because they have all inherited their nature from him. But some have died because they themselves have sinned, while others have died only because of Adam’s condemnation—for example, children. Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church.

No One Is Sinless Born. Prudentius:
Such was the soul’s first state. Created pure
Through sordid union with the flesh it fell
Into iniquity; stained by Adam’s sin,
It tainted all the race from him derived,
And infant souls inherit at their birth
The first man’s sin; no one is sinless born.
~ The Divinity of Christ, Lines 909–15

Aurelius Prudentius Clemens lived and wrote Christian Poetry during the years 348-413 AD.

The correlation between the practice of infant baptism and the doctrine of original sin was first made visible in the works of Cyprian. It had apparently been a custom for some parts of the church to baptize infants on the eighth day after their birth, but Cyprian insisted that this was too long to wait:

"If, when they subsequently come to believe, forgiveness of sins is granted even to the worst transgressors and to those who have sinned much against God, and if no one is denied access to baptism and to grace; how much less right do we have to deny it to an infant, who, having been born recently, has not personally sinned, except in that , being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death by his first birth! [The infant] approaches that much more easily to the reception of the forgiveness of sins because the sins remitted to him are not his own, but those of another."

Cyprian did not in fact elaborate these sentiments into a full-scale theory about the origin and the propagation of "the contagion of the ancient death." But he did invoke a doctrine of original sin to account for a practice about whose apostolic credentials and sacramental validity he had no question whatsoever.

Augustine, who learned from Ambrose to draw the anthropological implications of the doctrine of the virgin birth, learned from Cyprian and specificaly from the epistle just quoted, which he called Cyprian's "book on the baptism of infants" to argue that infant baptism proved the presence in infants of a sin that was inevitable, but a sin for which they wre nevertheless held responsible. "The uniqueness of the remedy" in baptism, it could be argued, proved "the very depth of evil" into which mankind had sunk through Adam's fall, and the practice of exorcism associated with the rite of baptism was liturgical evidence for the doctrine that children were in the clutches of the devil. Cyprian's teaching showed that this view of sin was not an innovation, but "the ancient, implanted opinion of the church." On the basis of Cyprian's discussion of infant baptism and of Ambrose' interpretation of the virgin birth, Augustine could claim:

"what we hold is the true, the truly Christian, and the Catholic Faith, as it was handed down of old through the Sacred Scriptures, and so retained and preserved by our fathers and to this very time, in which these men have attempted to overthrow it."


So, it isn't proper to simply attach the Doctrine of Original Sin to Augustine.

 

HP: As a doctrinal position mandated as the ‘orthodox’ position and foisted upon the church as ‘the orthodox’ position, it is entirely proper to call Augustine what is clearly understood by scholars; Augustine is the father of the doctrine of original sin.

 

Recognizing that all my sources 'predate' Augustine, I fail to see how one can posit him as it's progenitor?