1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Original Sin Again

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by rsr, Feb 22, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    663
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Jon, I congratulate you upon your constant deflection. You want to take the extreme position and present it as if it were normative. You pretend that Augustine could only have arrived at his position based upon neoplatonism and dualism. I have presented arguments to the contrary. You insist upon a pseudo-philosophical interpretation of Augustine based on some websites.

    You consistently refuse to admit that Augustine's conclusions are based upon Scripture. No, they're just made up thin air and bogus philosophy. That is silly.

    I happen to think Augustine was wrong in the particulars but right in the generalities.

    And you have to account for the universal belief in what the Orthodox call ancestral sin. It seems clear from the earliest Christians that they believed that Adam's decision affected all of humanity. The difference (which you have cheerfully ignored, despite my post) is that the Orthodox accept that humankind was fallen in Adam but inherited his propensity but not his guilt. Augustine thought otherwise, and on this point he was wrong.

    It seems to me that you are being reductionist and essentially saying that Adam's sin had no repercussions beyond his and Eve's situation. Yet we know "that all creation groans" for redemption from the law of sin and death.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    11,933
    Likes Received:
    975
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Thank you for your kind reply. It is uplifting to find a brother who is able and willing to discuss areas of disagreement within a Christian context. It is something with which I sometimes struggle, but you are an example to us all.

    You are partially right. I am arguing an extreme but I am primarily doing so to bring out how Augustine relates to the OP (to the question of the doctrine being present in Scripture itself). Were this a thread detailing, exploring, and expounding on Augustine’s position then perhaps my conversation would have been more balanced. But to prove my point all I needed to do was show that without extra-biblical influences (whether philosophy, tradition, or the views of others) Augustine would not have arrived at his position.

    My argument is that the Doctrine of Original Sin as assumed by the OP (by Yeshua1) is in fact a denial of the humanity of Christ in the decent of Adam.

    In this thread I’ve mentioned Tertullian a couple of times. His understanding was that men are sinful not by virtue of their earthly nature but by a free exercise of the will. I believe that this is identical to Paul’s teaching. That said, he departs from Paul in his view of restoration of God’s image in man rather than a “new birth” (which is an obvious influence of Stoic philosophy).

    Augustine’s view, likewise, overlaps Scripture. But the overlap is not as large as you seem to believe. My argument is that had Augustine been influenced by Stoic philosophy his doctrine would have looked more like that of Tertullian. Instead, Augustine was influenced by Neo-Platonism. He believed that human nature was transmitted through the sexual act and concentrated on fallen man as being sinful by nature (he even expounds on this through his personal experience in Confessions). Other than this, I have not ventured into an interpretation of Augustine.
    I am not sure what websites you are referencing, but you are mistaking (innocently, I’m sure). I’ve gone back and looked at a few books during this thread, mostly because of a poor memory. I didn’t take material from them (which is why there is no reference) but I have not only been influenced by them but I’ve also referenced them, I’m sure, in some way. These include Original Sin by Wiley; On Christian Doctrine by Augustine, and Augustine’s Confessions. Insofar as Tertullian, my favorite is (and has been for a long time) Bray’s book Holiness and the Will of God (I actually bought this by accident years ago, but it is an excellent read)
    I agree that Augustine was partially right and partially wrong.
    That’s because Adam’s sin did affect all of humanity. Scripture teaches that through his act death entered the world, man’s eyes were opened to know good and evil as God knows good and evil, the ground was cursed, and God subjected Creation to futility.

    Again, the topic of the OP is whether or not the Doctrine of Original Sin is present in Scripture or if Augustine made it up. The answer is “no” to both – the doctrine as the OP implies is not present in Scripture and Augustine did not just invent it.
    Does the Bible teach that “all creation groans” because it has fallen due to Adam’s sin – OR does it teach that all creation groans because God has subjected it to futility by the will of the one who subjected it?

    I believe that Augustine was wrong in his view that man exists in three states (created man, fallen man, and man regenerated). This is simply not in Scripture. The Bible deals with two types of natures – the flesh and the spirit.

    So where we differ is that I believe man in his original state (Adam) was created short of God’s glory, and that when given the opportunity it was natural (original nature) for man to choose himself rather than God. I believe this was for God’s own glory, that the Fall was not something that took God off guard but was an intended part of creation.

    I see Adam as doing what any man would have done in his place. He is, in this sense, all of us. The fruit bears witness of the tree.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,721
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How far we have come

    Then:


    THE NEW ENGLAND PRIMER

    1777 edition


    A Lesson for Children.

    Pray to God. Call no ill names. Love God. Use no ill words. Fear God. Tell no lies. Serve God. Hate Lies. Take not God's Speak the Truth. Name in vain. Spend your Time well. Do not Swear. Love your School. Do not Steal. Mind your Book. Cheat not in your play. Strive to learn. Play not with bad boys. Be not a Dunce.
    A In ADAM'S Fall
    We sinned all.
    B Heaven to find;
    The Bible Mind.
    C Christ crucify'd
    For sinners dy'd.
    D The Deluge drown'd
    The Earth around.
    E ELIJAH hid
    By Ravens fed.
    F The judgment made
    FELIX afraid.
    ...
    The New England Primer, 1777 edition

    Now:

    choose if you are a girl or a boy and make sure you use the correct bathroom!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,721
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A Divine Song of Praise to GOD, for a Child (From the 1777 Reading Primer)

    by the Rev. Dr. Watts.

    HOW glorious is our heavenly King,
    Who reigns above tha Sky!
    How shall a Child presume to sing His dreadful Majesty!
    How great his Power is none can tell,
    Nor think how large his grace:
    Nor men below, nor Saints that dwell,
    On high before his Face.
    Nor Angels that stand round the Lord,
    Can search his secret will;
    But they perform his heav'nly Word,
    And sing his Praises still.
    Then let me join this holy Train;
    And my first Off'rings bring;
    The eternal GOD will not disdain
    To hear an Infant sing.
    My Heart resolves,
    my Tongue obeys,
    And Angels shall rejoice,
    To hear their mighty Maker's Praise,
    Sound from a feeble Voice.

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nep/1777/
     
  5. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,721
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Imagine what would happen today if your primary school child brought this reader home!

    A In ADAM'S Fall
    We sinned all.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,721
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From the 1777 Reading Primer

    Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression ?
    A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity,
    all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell will him in his first transgression.

    Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind ?
    A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

    Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate where into man fell ?
    A. The sinfulness of that estate where into man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, & the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin, together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

    Q. 19. What is the misery of that state whereinto man fell ?
    A. All mankind by the fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath & curse, and so made liable to the miseries in this life, to death itself, & to the pains of hell forever.

    Q. 20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the State of sin and misery ?
    A. God having out of his mere good pleasure from all eternity elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of a state

    of sin and misery, and to bring them into a state of salvation by a Redeemer.
    Q. 21. Who is the Redeemer of God's elect?
    A. The only Redeemer of God's elect, is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continues to be God and man, in two distinct natures, and one person forever.

    OHOH Time for a law suit!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    70
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From my heart.

    Was the first man, Adam, the living soul, in whose figure the Son of God came, created for the purpose of sin, which when finished would give birth to death?

    Was Adam created of the flesh, that is carnel and when given the law, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die; He was sold under sin? And the woman was taken from him and he told her the law?

    Please consider: That before the foundation of the world, it had been foreordained that Christ, the Son of God, born of woman, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, would shed his precious blood, die, for the purpose of redemption from death.

    Is redemption, the means of destroying the works of the devil, Satan?

    He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8
    Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb 2:14

    Was original sin necessary for what was foreordained before the foundation of the world?

    I could ask many, however one more question.

    Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Matt 1:23-25


    Was that in bold necessary for, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot and is not the scenario of Joseph, Mary and a law similar to that in the garden of Eden?

    Sin against whom?
     
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,721
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The dynamics of sin's inception into the world is Romans 5:12 of which there are mixed opinions but only one correct meaning.

    In many places God appears to act outside of time's dynamic, we must keep that in mind.
     
  9. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    70
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I do not consider my post outside of Rom 5:12. Adam was the first man and Adam's sin brought, the death, the power of the devil, to all men from Adam forward.

    And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? < At that very moment, there had been no sin and no death in the world, however did Satan the devil exist and need to be destroyed? Had God already foreordained the means for the destruction of the devil and his works?

    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. < What about at this very moment of the beginning of the sixth day? Did Satan the devil exist and need to be destroyed? Had God already foreordained the means for the destruction of the devil and his works?

    And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Same question?

    Did the plan include the creation of man in the image of God, taking the woman from the man, the man sinning and bringing the death to himself and his kind to follow including the very Son of the living God, born of a virgin woman?

    The resurrection of the dead, beginning with the first fruit? ?The last enemy?

    Why was the first man created? How was the Son of God going to be manifested?

    Acts 15:18 Yes or No?
    Romans 8:20 Yes or No?

    Does, hope there, have anything to the resurrection from the dead and or instant change? What was subjected to vanity? What had been created in six days and Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
     
  10. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,265
    Likes Received:
    663
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Some people can use satire effectively and some can't. I will leave it to the reader to determine which you are.

    That said, I apologize for my offensive remarks. Sometimes we get caught up in the heat of the moment. I am sure that has never happened to you.

    But you made this thread completely about Augustine's position, as if the idea of Original Sin, or Ancestral Sin, as the Orthodox describe it, is totally alien to early Christianity and that Augustine's position is the only one that needs rebutting.

    So you contradict yourself.

    I am not responsible for Yeshua1's replies.

    So Tertullian, whom you admit was influenced by Stoicism, is to be believed on this point, but Augustine, influenced by neoplatonism, is not.
     
    #10 rsr, Feb 24, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2018
  11. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    11,933
    Likes Received:
    975
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I didn't make the thread about Augustine (that was the original OP, and I wasn't its author). My answer was "no" to both of the questions in the title and OP- “Is original sin doctrine found in Bible?” and the OP – “Or was this just a man made up from Augustine then?”

    I don’t believe Tertullian is to be believed on this point any more than I believe Augustine is to be believed. Both were right in part and wrong in part. I disagree with Tertullian that the Fall was the image of God in us becoming damaged, necessitating a restoration. I disagree with Augustine that the root of sin is a biological issue, passed down through the genetics of the father.

    I am suggesting that we bow to neither men when it comes to doctrine and that we venture to open our Bibles and read. If Scripture states that Adam had a “perfect human nature” which became a “sin nature” that by its own existence constitutes sin against God which is passed to us as inherited guilt then we believe it because “thus says the Lord”. I have not found that in the Bible, so I question the validity of the doctrine.
     
  12. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,721
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Faith:
    Baptist
    percho, I really am not sure what you are asking. My thoughts about Romans 5:12 are very plain, simple and straightforward.
     
  13. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The doctrine is quite simple: Adam chose to sin. He knew God had said not to eat the fruit, and he ate the fruit. Now did this sin make us sinners? Nope. As a consequence of Adam's sin, were we made sinners by God? Yep
    Are we guilty of Adam's sin? Nope. As a consequence of Adam's sin he was separated from God, kicked out and banned from the garden. We we conceived in that same sinful separated from God state? Yep
    How is this corrupt condition (with our eyes being open) passed from Adam to mankind? Physically or spiritually? Spiritually. Note after Adam sinned, then both Adam and Eve's eyes were opened. Biology had nothing to do with it.
     
  14. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    11,933
    Likes Received:
    975
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It is interesting that Genesis equates this "corrupt" condition of knowing good and evil as an attribute of God.
     
  15. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    21,721
    Likes Received:
    1,520
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes God knows good and evil but not as a committer of evil but as a recipient.

    Suppose you go out to dinner with your family and when you get home you see that your home has been broken into your possession stolen and you house trashed.

    You have experienced evil as God does as a recipient of evil.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Van

    Van Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,102
    Likes Received:
    108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Interesting thought, thanks. God has knowledge of good and evil yet is not corrupt, but when our eyes were opened at least a little to the same knowledge, we became predisposed to sin. I will study it! :)

    My only thought on this issue runs like this: God is on one side of a river, call it the river of no return. He has complete knowledge of it, but never ever crosses it. Adam, and as a consequence mankind, crossed the river and has knowledge, but from the other side, separated from God. Hence the predisposition to sin, in the separated state.
     
    #16 Van, Feb 25, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And what is the correct meaning?


    God bless.
     
  18. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    How so? What sin does a babe in the womb commit?

    To say we are created "in the same separated state" is something I would agree with, but, not sinful until sin is committed.


    Which would mean we would have to attribute Adam's sin to ourselves, which Scripture does not do.

    Separation is the spiritual aspect, whereas personal sin is the physical aspect. Both are elements of our condition. All men will be judged according to their works, and that will determine the severity of eternal punishment.


    God bless.
     
  19. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,735
    Likes Received:
    242
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Consider Adam "knowing" his wife, that is, I believe, what is in view here.

    We can see they understood what good and evil was, but, until they sinned they did not experience good and evil as God has. Not long after they would "know" the sorrow of of one son murdering another.


    God bless.
     
  20. JonC

    JonC Lifelong Disciple
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    11,933
    Likes Received:
    975
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I lean that direction but I'm having trouble reconciling it with Genesis 3:22
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...