Featured Does Denying Original Sin mean Denying the Cross?

Herald, has your family member renounced their faith in Christ, or more generally in theism?

 

Not that I know of. One does not need to renounce their faith in order to embrace error. I am pretty sure Peter Enns has not renounced his faith. Joel Osteen claims to be a Christian along with Rob Bell, but their professions are not very convincing. Unfortunately my family member has embraced some serious errors. He used to teach at a well-respected and prestigious Christian university. He is no longer there and teaches at another well known liberal university and seminary that is the breeding ground for all sorts of dangerous doctrines. His personal friendship with Peter Enns has not helped his situation. It is sad to watch as he spirals more and more from sound gospel teaching.

 

I definitely think you (and Dr. Enns) have points worth hashing out and considering. I do respect your YE position, I have many friends and colleagues that are of that persuasion. I am sure recall, that I am of the OE persuasion. But I will digress no more.

 

I don't like getting involved with this debate (as well as many others) because it is evident that no one is going to change their mind about this teaching and these kind of debates never seem to end well but every once in a while I'll jump in as long as folks stay civil. Even the question here is somewhat combative (Does Denying Original Sin mean Denying the Cross?) because many here on the BB do not believe in what is commonly called "Original Sin".

I don’t like the term “original sin” because it’s really a misnomer.
The origin of sin is with the devil.

But when it comes to Adam I believe he is the progenitor of the spiritual gnome of the soul of humanity and that we inherit the legacy of the propensity to sin from him.

Romans 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:

While some claim Augustine misunderstood the Latin version of this passage IMO there is question that we have received a death penalty because “all have sinned”.

For those who know the language of the inspired text, this is an aorist active indicative construction meaning “all sinned” not future “all will sin”.

RSV Romans 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --

As a race this passge pictures as all having been there when Adam sinned and therefore we all have received this legacy of both sin and death. Sin as the propensity of the will bent toward the inevitable actual sin.

This is supported by the fact that sin is untaught (native to us) and universal (no exceptions).

Then an appeal to the Greek Church is made who baptize infants - who while they might deny that it removes sin do it nonetheless which has its origin from ancient times.

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/baptevid.html

The Church of England and other churches of the reformation do so as well while they might deny baptismal regeneration and does not wash from sin they (CoE) say that infant baptism makes the babies members of the Christian community.

Only the rebirth makes a person a citizen of heaven.

So these churches might say one thing but it appears that they do another.

I use this analogy: When we see the apples first appear on the tree we know it was an apple tree from germination (going back to the original apple tree), though there is no fruit for several seasons, the fruit is the undeniable proof of the internal apple tree DNA.

Again, this is supported by the fact that sin is untaught (native to us) and universal (no exceptions).

But to answer the question Does Denying Original Sin mean Denying the Cross?

No, as long as we don’t deny our own personal sin(s) under His conviction.

Do we believe little children can be saved?

Do we/they need to carry a seven volume Systematic Theology set around with us and get a perfect score on what’s written in the volume for God to regenerate us?


HankD

 

While it is definitely past tense, it also doesn't mean its not future, given the following verse stating where there is no law sin is not charged to ones account. It means all who can sin, will sin. It doesn't mean all sinned in Adam as that verse and verse 18 would equally mean all of this same group (the many) are made righteous.

 

What "law" are you referring to, or do you think that scripture refers to?
There has always been law whether or not man has been conscious of it.
Law is innate. Rom.2:14,15 tells us that man is always aware of law.
Adam and Eve had law from almost the time they were created, or from the time they were put in the garden--not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Cain and Abel had laws concerning what kind of sacrifices to bring before the Lord.
Apparently such laws continued. We have had laws since the days of creation. When have there not been laws? The "law" does not refer to the Ten Commandments.

 

This law...

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law.

...which is this law....

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.

 

Thanks for the civil response webdog.

Ray Summers, pg. 66, Essentials of New Testament Greek, Broadman Press, 1950.

While there are several categories af the aorist tense (editorial, etc. and yes even an aorist of a futuristic sense), personally this one seems pretty simplistic and straight forward to me : "all sinned" - finished action in past time when Adam sinned.

Hebrews 7:9 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.​

Here is the idea that Levi (not yet born) paid tithes to Melchisedec in Abraham.

Admitedly, the perfect tense is used here (payed tithes) which makes this an even stronger case.

HankD

 

Romans 3;23 says all sinned.....at one point in time...you have been told and shown this.

Hank wrote:
Quote:

Hank...you are correct in offering this once again!

No..vs 18 does not mean that at all.That is why you and Winman do not understand the passage.

Hank...you are correct in offering this once again!
__________________[/QUOTE]

 

:thumbsup::thumbs::thumbsup:

 

Context is everything.
You really ought to give the exact reference when you are quoting Scripture. You are quoting from Romans chapter seven, which begins by Paul giving an example of a married woman. She is bound by the law to her marriage, by the law, until death. Only when her husband dies is she able to marry again. This is the example that Paul gives.

Note one thing about this application:
Romans 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
--First, it is applicable to believers only and has no application to infants.
--Second, he is speaking of living the Christian life and bring forth fruit in the believer's life. In order to do that you need to be dead to the law.
--Third, he will soon launch into his own testimony, and his struggle with sin as a believer.

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
--The law is not sin. We know, as believers, what sin is by the law. It shows us our sinfulness. Remember he is talking to believers.

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
Without the law sin was dead. Why? Because he was dead. A dead person does not answer to a living law. The rich young ruler thought he had been keeping all the law; Jesus proved him wrong. He was deceived. One who is alive in Christ sees the law for what it is, and realizes how sinful he really is. The law is truly alive to him, for he is alive in Christ.

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
--When he was saved he saw sin for what it was, and it was Paul that died. He died to the law; he died to sin. He says in 1Cor.15:31 "I die daily." In Gal.2:20, "I am crucified with Christ..."
--Now Paul goes on and describes his struggle with the old nature that dwells within him, that has been there from birth. He realizes now that he has been saved that it is a greater struggle than before. By the end of the chapter he tells us where the victory comes from.

 

No, he is speaking to Jews, not fellow Christians;

Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

He is speaking to Jews who know the law. Gentiles did not know the law. But you are correct, it is not speaking of babies and little children who do not yet know the law, a very important point.

No, he is speaking to fellow Jews who know the law. But you are correct, Paul is saying he did not know what sin was until the law informed him. He had not known lust, except the law had said "Thou shalt not covet". He learned this law as a young man as all Jews do.

Baloney, it has nothing to do with Paul being dead. Sin is dead without the law because it has no power, it has no authority behind it.

It is like LSD in the early 60's. Kids were taking this drug and it was doing tremendous harm, some kids were having serious mental problems, a few committed suicide while using this drug. But there was no law against it and the authorities could do nothing to prevent it's use, it was perfectly legal. So laws had to quickly be passed to make it illegal so the authorities could arrest those who were making and using this harmful drug.

It is the same for sin, it cannot have dominion over you without a law. It has no power or authority to kill.

It is not saying Paul was spiritually dead whatsoever, in fact, in the very next verse he tells us he was spiritually alive until the commandment came.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

The law is ordained unto life, if you keep the law you will live. Paul thought he could keep the law and live, but sin, taking opportunity by the law convicted him of sin and spiritually slew him. This is when he spiritually died.

But until he knew the law he was spiritually alive, because sin is not imputed when there is no law.

If Original Sin was true (it isn't) then Paul could never say he was alive. If Original Sin is true, it is not necessary to know the law, you are conceived dead in sin before you are ever able to learn the law. If Original Sin is true, then all children who die before or soon after birth would all be condemned to hell.

Original Sin is horrible and utterly false doctrine.

 

What is more, in Romans 7:14-25 Paul is speaking from the perspective of an unsaved person. This is easily shown to be true.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Paul said he was "sold under sin" in chapter 7. This is never true of a believer, we have been redeemed by Jesus. We are NOW free from sin.

Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Paul said he was "captive" to sin in chapter 7. Again, believers have been made free from sin.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Paul said he "served" sin in chapter 7;

Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Paul had already told us in chapter 6 that he was no longer a servant of sin, but a servant of righteousness.

Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

Believers are no longer servants to sin, they are now servants to God.

And lastly, Paul NEVER mentions the Holy Spirit in chapter 7, NOT ONCE. But immediately in chapter 8 he speaks of the believer being indwelled by the Holy Spirit and having victory over sin.

So, in chapter 7 Paul is clearly speaking from the perspective BEFORE he trusted Christ and received the Holy Spirit.

Why is this important? Because it refutes Total Inability. Chapter 7 shows that with the mind Paul approved of the things of God and willed to perform them, but was brought under bondage by sin.

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

 

I don't need to answer your post. It is based on this false premise.
There is not a book in the NT that is written to Jews. Every book is written to Christians, whether or not they have a Jewish or a Greek background is totally irrelevant. We are all one in Christ. In the first few verses of Romans 7 he takes an example from the law. But he is not speaking to Jews. He addresses his letter to "brethren," not to Jews. There is not a book in the NT that is written to the Jews.

 

Not sure I agree with you DHK, all of the earliest Christians were Jews. And yes, Matthews gospel was in fact written particularly for a Jewish audience.

 

They were Christians first. They may have had a Jewish background, like Paul, Peter, and John. But they were Christians first and foremost. Paul said about his Jewish background and privileges: "All these things I count but dung for the excellency of the Lord Jesus Christ...."
We are one in Christ, no matter what are background is.

 

Really? What about Hebrews? It dissects the OT facts about the coming Messiah and proves He is Jesus. Why would Greeks need to know that?

Secondly, the Jews in Jerusalem considered The Way to be a sect of Judaism, and many Jews identified in that same manner. I don't think you're reasoning this out correctly.

 

The Book of Hebrews was written to Christians, believers of a Hebrew background. There is no book in the Bible written to unbelievers. All books are written to Christians, whether they be of Hebrew background or Gentile background. We are all one in Christ. Paul wrote 13 epistles of the NT. He was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee of the Pharisees." But he counted those things but loss for Christ. We are all one in Christ.