is The Doctrine Of Original Sin taught In Bible?

Most of that I agree with. The parts I wouldn't include Adam's guilt being passed on and being a sinner prior to sinning, when the bulk of Scripture supports the latter. Also, death is the ending of life. To be conceived dead is impossible.

 

Odd, you never believed as he posted before.
"So that we as humans sin because we are sinners due to our very natures, not that we are sinners because wh choose to sin!"

We are born sinners. We sin due to our natures. We choose to sin because our natures are depraved, depraved because we inherited such natures from Adam--Adam, who committed that "original sin."

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: (Romans 5:12)

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)

Other Scriptures that tell us that man has a sin nature, a depraved nature are: Psalms 51:5; Jer.13:23;

One passage that has not been considered too much is this one:
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; (Genesis 5:1)
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)

Note that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God.
But Seth was born in Adam's likeness, after Adam's image.
No longer would man be made in the image and likeness of God. That image was now marred by sin. From henceforth all men would inherit the image and likeness of Adam--the Adamic nature, that which we call the sin nature; a nature that is depraved and infected with sin. It is partially restored when one is saved, but it won't be fully restored until the resurrection. "We wait for the redemption of our bodies."

There is no stronger argument for the depravity of man resulting from original sin than this passage.

 

Not sure what is "odd", but I have akways maintained a sinner is one who sins, not one who has asin nature. I'll addree the rest of your post when I'm not typing on this tiny "smart" phone.

 

From way back when............

LeBuick
06-30-2008, 12:20 AM
I think we we are both in Adam's image and God's image. God's image may be marred by the fall, but it's still there, since it's well after the fall that God gives as the reasoning behind his command for capital punishment that "God made man in his own image." And James 3:9 confirms it.

We are also in Adam's image, although I'm not sure I'd say we are created in Adam's image. What likeness we have to Adam comes because we descend from him.

I agree, if Adam was made in God's image then God's image and Adam's image are one in the same image.
webdog
06-30-2008, 02:43 PM
I agree, if Adam was made in God's image then God's image and Adam's image are one in the same image.
Excellent way of putting it :thumbs:

I agree with the "both" answer, fwiw.
Amy.G
06-30-2008, 03:50 PM
I agree, if Adam was made in God's image then God's image and Adam's image are one in the same image.
I agree. What some were saying in SS class was that after the fall, we are not in God's image anymore, but in Adam's image.
webdog
06-30-2008, 04:04 PM
I agree. What some were saying in SS class was that after the fall, we are not in God's image anymore, but in Adam's image.
This is a common calvinistic view of anthropology that tries to argue that augustinian original sin is correct.

 

I was wondering what was up with the typos. Smart phones are the rage here in South Korea.

Original sin -- I believe it is biblical.

 

Scripture sees both sides. It is unmistakable which is why everyone except you in this post is in agreement that original sin is a fact.

 

As well as Crocs I hear. :laugh:

 

The church of Rome had one heck of an impact. I'm not drinking the Kool-aid. Many hold to my view as well.

 

So, you're saying that the church of Rome caused those verses to be written into the Scriptures?

I'm not sure who got to you concerning the church of Rome, but perhaps it is time to step back from that sort of rhetoric and look at the reality that the RCC has progressively transformed their doctrine from a Scriptural basis to where it was during the time of the Protestant Reformation, then again after reformational corrections at the Council of Trent, drifted again, with some of their most un-biblical doctrines coming late, 1800s AD and beyond (Mary, papal infallibility, etc.).

The very plain fact of history is that we would not be here having this discussion today if not for the "church of Rome" as you call it. You have a sore spot that way from somewhere -- likely someone's preaching or teaching, who were, themselves, ignorant of the true history of the church.

And, don't come back with your standard fare quip that I am a Roman Catholic in disguise as a Baptist. [edit]-- or at least you should know it, save for your own ignorance of this topic that comes up repeatedly with you.

I would be interested in knowing who the "many" are who hold the same theology. I'd lay odds they are not in your church, but some web site you've found out there somewhere...

 

Remove the first sentence and we are in full agreement. The mistake you and the rest make is to equate a sin nature with a spiritually dead sinner. I'm surprised you hold to this given your current debate with Freeatlast about a believer still having a sin nature. The notion you and I have sin natures and are not deemed as spiritually dead sinners should be enough to convince you Augustine had it wrong.

What qualifies the all? Have sinned, past tense. That states anyone that can violate God's law has and will. Death passed to all men, not guilt. This was his audience, not embryo's and infants. Paul also stated a couple chapters later he was alive once apart from the law, but when the commandment came sin sprang to life and he died

The "so by" connect these "many" and could also be "so as" or "just as". If you insist the first group is everyone ever conceived, the second group must follow.

Agreed. I never argued otherwise.
One passage that has not been considered too much is this one:

A great leap in logic that Cypress already addressed from posts 3 years ago.

 

I see we are back to this approach of debate. What was it exactly that you told me when I facetiously did this to you a couple weeks back to make a point? Oh yeah...here it is..
Originally Posted by glfredrick
No where did I even remotely suggest this...

Up to your old divisive tricks again, huh? :BangHead:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1663796&postcount=14


I'm glad you hold Augustine to such high esteem. I hope you had your children baptized as infants that they would be regenerated from this guilt.

Do you always use vulgar slang? On Christian message boards? As a pastor? You are fitting in quite well with those you share soteriology with.

 

A while back when you took this track, I accused you of holding Pelagian doctrine. When it comes to original sin/Augustine, Pelagian is the other side of the coin. As you are now arguing FOR the Pelagian position once again, will you identify with that doctrine, or will you get all bent out of shape (again) for my mentioning it?

Note that I am not CALLING you a Pelagian. I am suggesting that your theology on one point of doctrine is messed up, and that you are holding a Pelagian position.

This was argued out by Augustine and confirmed by the Church, and called heresy ever since, yes, even by Baptists.

Edit:

That is CLEARLY your expressed doctrine, especially in light of the fact that you disavow Augustine on the issue of original sin.

 

Either you just like to make baseless accusations, you just like to insult, or you are truly ignorant on what pelagianism is.

When you learn what pelagianism is...come back and we can talk. That is after you clean up your mouth.

I see you edited your post to add the above. You sir, are a liar. I have told you what I believe before, and it CLEARLY is not the doctrine you copied and pasted. Tell me where I have ever maintained man is born innocent of sin affecting them or the fact man does not have a sin nature. Retract such trip, retract it and apologize for your "old divisive tricks".

 

[edit]

Your interpretation may be different from my own.

 

Give me a break, if you had to abbreviate it you know what it means. Do you also use WTF and OMG in your day to day online interactions?

 

From the decree of the Council

 

You seem to be so well versed in those abbreviations :thumbs:

Again, perhaps your own interpretation is different from my own!

 

Canon 1 is spot on. Canon 2 comes close to Scripture. Neither explain what pelagianism is (what you so loosely throw around). Last I recall neither were Scripture, though, and should not be received as absolute truth. They are man's understanding of Scripture.

The fact I agree with Canon 1 is proof enough I am not a pelagian...but you already know this as I have stated this repeatedly...you just like to accuse falsely.