Original Sin, I was wrong.

[golgotha61]

Jesus was born in the normal way. No matter if you choose to reject the fact that He is the 'seed' of David and the 'nature' of Abraham. He has the DNA of Mary, did Mary have original sin?

Perhaps Assyrian will read this also: There is also another aspect of imputed sin called the "Federal" view. In this sense, the entire human race became corrupted because Adam, as our progenitor, acted as our representative. His decision spoke for all of us. I should not be dogmatic concerning the seminal presence of man since it is true that a definitive method of imputed sin is not given in the Bible. But I do remain convinced that that imputed sin is what Romans 5 describes. Also this would help in the situation Assyrian brought up concerning the possibility of lesbians having a baby without the sperm of the man.

 

[golgotha61]

I agree the bible tells us truth, I suppose what I dislike most about inerrancy is it tries to look at facts instead of Truth and concentrates on proving the bible is factually accurate. Except it can't and your exceptions show this.

This then is purpose of defending the terms and facts of inerrancy and infallibility in the original autographs.

Look at the language of appearance. The bible says something happened, but it didn't actually happen it only appeared that way. If you want to look at factual accuracy, that is simply wrong. The bible says the sun stopped when Joshua commanded it to. Problem is the sun doesn't move. It is the earth rotating that determines the length of the day. Saying the sun stopped when it didn't, or that it hurried along to the place it sets after the miracle, when the sun still didn't move is not an accurate description. There is no point in saying the bible is inerrant and infallible except for a list of exceptions where the bible is allowed be inaccurate. You don't even know you have the complete list of exceptions, which make inerrancy as useless as the supposed original autographs.

The Bible was never intended to be a science book and when I debate evolution and creation I keep this in mind. This then is where allowing for the cultures understanding of what was going on around them. They did not lie nor is the statements you exhibited from the scripture contradicted elsewhere in the Bible. Some of your example are just figures of speech use to make a point and were not meant as a statement of physical science. Again we must use hermeneutics to interpret.

I much prefer the way the church handled the geocentric passages like Joshua when Copernicus showing us it is the earth that moves not the sun. That God spoke his truth to people in terms they understood, As Calvin and Augustine said before them, God speaks to us as a nursemaid lisping to an infant. When Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, which in the cosmology of the day made perfect sense, God didn't say ''wait Joshua I need to explain some astronomy to you first''. God doesn't seem that interested in teaching us science, he wants to teach us how to behave towards each other and to him. So when we read the bible we see God speaking to people in terms of the cosmology they knew and understood, accommodating his message to them. Which is isn't a problem, because the Truth he is communicating isn't about cosmology.

I agree, and I think I covered that.

Not sure the bible needs defending, it is the living and active word of God isn't it? It seem even stranger to stand your ground on a made up idea of original autographs to defend an unbiblical description of scripture. It you want to defend the bible defend it on its own terms. Not ones people made up, and cannot stand. Personally I have always loved the contradictions in the bible. It have always thought they they can bring lead us to a better way of understanding the passages where the seeming contradiction fall way, though not the simplistic solutions that twist the meaning one or both passages out of all recognition. Or better still, the contradiction can totally undercut our misinterpretation of scripture and lead us into a much better understanding of how God speaks to us.

Since the enlightenment of the 1700's, the Bible has needed defended. I have spent a lot of time discussing the Bible with atheists, agnostics, liberals, neo-liberals, and the neo-orthodox crowd and the Bible is constantly attacked. The terms I defend with are not made up, they are in line with God's character and attributes. There are certainly doctrines we live by that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible but are non the less Biblical.

But if you go and say the contradictions weren't there in the original autographs, that can't have been because the original autographs were inerrant, then you are left with your misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

There are misunderstandings and misinterpretations no matter what. Considering the original autographs error free in no way creates more problems, in my opinion it adds to the authority and reliability of scripture.

Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." Nothing about illegal there, let alone inerrancy or infallibility, but it does say God's word is true, which I totally agree with.

ok.

Sorry, wrong address. It should have been 2 Timothy 3:16. There is nothing illegal mentioned here but the point is if God's word is true, then by necessity it is without error and will not fail.

 

[golgotha61]

Assyrian, I should have asked this before and I apologize for not asking but how would you classify your view of sin in man? Do you believe that we are a "blank slate" and innocent before God until we make a conscious choice to sin?

 

[Assyrian]

Innocent yes, blank slate no. We are human beings with our common human nature as well as our own distinct personalities. Remember I pointed out that Eve sinned because she followed her natural desires, desires God called 'very good'? She was innocent before she sinned, but not a blank slate.

 

[Zeena]

Perhaps Assyrian will read this also: There is also another aspect of imputed sin called the "Federal" view. In this sense, the entire human race became corrupted because Adam, as our progenitor, acted as our representative. His decision spoke for all of us. I should not be dogmatic concerning the seminal presence of man since it is true that a definitive method of imputed sin is not given in the Bible. But I do remain convinced that that imputed sin is what Romans 5 describes. Also this would help in the situation Assyrian brought up concerning the possibility of lesbians having a baby without the sperm of the man.

If by 'federal headship' you mean that as in Adam all die, just as in Christ all shall be made alive, I disagree with a theory of 'federal headship'. For notice the italic 'as' above. It is 'as' we sin that we die (as Adam), just as it is 'as' we walk, by the Spirit of God (just as Christ), that we are made alive.

1 John 2:6
He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Where did you get the idea that Adam was our representative? It most certainly is not Scriptural. Jesus alone should be considered the 'head', for He is God. Adam is not, nor ever was 'God', the creation was/is not found in him. But God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.

 

[Assyrian]

Perhaps Assyrian will read this also: There is also another aspect of imputed sin called the "Federal" view. In this sense, the entire human race became corrupted because Adam, as our progenitor, acted as our representative. His decision spoke for all of us. I should not be dogmatic concerning the seminal presence of man since it is true that a definitive method of imputed sin is not given in the Bible. But I do remain convinced that that imputed sin is what Romans 5 describes. Also this would help in the situation Assyrian brought up concerning the possibility of lesbians having a baby without the sperm of the man.

I know the federal head view, it is much better approach theologically. And because it doesn't tie inherited sin to biology its avoid the pitfalls of advances in medical science. I would definitely go with some form of the federal head model, if I believed in original sin and an inherited sin nature, but my problem is I just don't see them in scripture

 

[Assyrian]

The Bible was never intended to be a science book and when I debate evolution and creation I keep this in mind. This then is where allowing for the cultures understanding of what was going on around them. They did not lie nor is the statements you exhibited from the scripture contradicted elsewhere in the Bible. Some of your example are just figures of speech use to make a point and were not meant as a statement of physical science. Again we must use hermeneutics to interpret.

It is really good you can see how God can speak to people in terms of their cultural understanding and cosmology. It isn't actually something inerrancy contradicts as such, the problem is more that people tend to think they are incompatible, and I think the inerrancy approach lends itself to that that sort of mistake. Once you realise the bible isn't about teaching science it is easier to see how God was speaking to people in terms fo the cosmology they understood.

Since the enlightenment of the 1700's, the Bible has needed defended. I have spent a lot of time discussing the Bible with atheists, agnostics, liberals, neo-liberals, and the neo-orthodox crowd and the Bible is constantly attacked. The terms I defend with are not made up, they are in line with God's character and attributes. There are certainly doctrines we live by that are not specifically mentioned in the Bible but are non the less Biblical.

I think the big problem is evangelicals raising their banners and fighting to defend the the wrong ground. You mentioned the documentary hypothesis earlier which was the big battle fought in the past, yet what they were defending was a tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not something we are told in the bible, it certainly says he wrote parts of it, not not the full five books (apart from his epitaph) in the form we have them today. The irony is, many fundamentalist today hold the toledoth or tablet theory which says Genesis is composed of different document that were later edited together (by Moses) But the document they identify in Genesis, from what the text says itself, are the same documents identified by the documentary hypothesis from writing style and vocabulary. There were real issues to defend like the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus, but I do wonder if the fight against the biblical scholarship and the documentary hypothesis took away from that.

There are misunderstandings and misinterpretations no matter what.

Indeed

Considering the original autographs error free in no way creates more problems, in my opinion it adds to the authority and reliability of scripture.

I have already mentioned the problem that it provides too easy an escape route to defend out misinterpretations and misunderstandings. You just ascribe the problem with what scripture says to not having the original autograph and you don't really get to grips with what scripture actually says. The second comes in giving a view of how scripture was written and composed that is unsupported by scripture itself and leads to the problems we have see with the documentary hypothesis. If you believe in inerrant original autographs you automatically look for a single author and single point of composition, which as we have seen isn't always the way God gave us the bible.

Sorry, wrong address. It should have been 2 Timothy 3:16. There is nothing illegal mentioned here but the point is if God's word is true, then by necessity it is without error and will not fail.

That's the text I always think of when I say scripture is inspired, and the if Paul was inspired to describe scripture as inspired, not inerrant or infallible, then we might do we to stick with it. Now the bible does say God's word does not fail, Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. But that is looking at God's purpose when he spoke the word not failing. I am all for that. But infallibility and inerrancy divorce the scripture from God's purpose behind it and treat the letter of the text as inerrant and infallible. Like I said it is handling the word of God the wrong way 2Cor 3:6 the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

 

[golgotha61]

It is really good you can see how God can speak to people in terms of their cultural understanding and cosmology. It isn't actually something inerrancy contradicts as such, the problem is more that people tend to think they are incompatible, and I think the inerrancy approach lends itself to that that sort of mistake. Once you realise the bible isn't about teaching science it is easier to see how God was speaking to people in terms fo the cosmology they understood.

I think the big problem is evangelicals raising their banners and fighting to defend the the wrong ground. You mentioned the documentary hypothesis earlier which was the big battle fought in the past, yet what they were defending was a tradition that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not something we are told in the bible, it certainly says he wrote parts of it, not not the full five books (apart from his epitaph) in the form we have them today. The irony is, many fundamentalist today hold the toledoth or tablet theory which says Genesis is composed of different document that were later edited together (by Moses) But the document they identify in Genesis, from what the text says itself, are the same documents identified by the documentary hypothesis from writing style and vocabulary. There were real issues to defend like the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus, but I do wonder if the fight against the biblical scholarship and the documentary hypothesis took away from that.

I am familiar with the tablet theory but the “toledoth phrases” translated “these are the generations of……………” toledoth is the Hebrew word for “history, especially family history” are not considered a part of the classical Documentary Hypothessi. At first these phrases were put at lead of the text that was thought it followed but it was soon discovered that when the toledoth was at the beginning of the text, it did not work. However because of archeological investigation partially spurred on in order to validate the inerrancy of the Bible, it was discovered that the toledoth worked when put at the end of the text. I give this example to show the value of defending the Bible, even the text. As we have already agreed, it doesn’t matter how the editor or redactor since God can and did inspire His Word.

Indeed

I have already mentioned the problem that it provides too easy an escape route to defend out misinterpretations and misunderstandings. You just ascribe the problem with what scripture says to not having the original autograph and you don't really get to grips with what scripture actually says. The second comes in giving a view of how scripture was written and composed that is unsupported by scripture itself and leads to the problems we have see with the documentary hypothesis. If you believe in inerrant original autographs you automatically look for a single author and single point of composition, which as we have seen isn't always the way God gave us the bible.

I think perhaps I have not been clear here in that I don’t spend my time looking for or investigating the text. I use the term infallible and inerrant as descriptive terms as a foundation for the authenticity and trustworthiness of God’s word. All of us have a ministry and gifts that God has provided and I believe that those who investigate the texts and try and determine their origination in order to validate the Bible are given that work by God. Good hermeneutics must be used in interpreting God’s word and that is separate from defining the Bible in any terms. You and I differ on the interpretation of Romans 5:12 and it has nothing to do with my considering the original autographs as infallible or inerrant. I don’t go any further back than the Greek or Hebrew in my interpretation; I must also include the illumination and help of the Holy Spirit.

That's the text I always think of when I say scripture is inspired, and the if Paul was inspired to describe scripture as inspired, not inerrant or infallible, then we might do we to stick with it. Now the bible does say God's word does not fail, Isaiah 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. But that is looking at God's purpose when he spoke the word not failing. I am all for that. But infallibility and inerrancy divorce the scripture from God's purpose behind it and treat the letter of the text as inerrant and infallible. Like I said it is handling the word of God the wrong way 2Cor 3:6 the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

[FONT=&quot]The Bible is the true and inspired Word of God lies in this work of the Holy Spirit of God, not the personal knowledge of the human writers. The Bible is not just an ancient piece of human literature. I appreciate you objections and I respect them, I believe we have reached another agree to disagree situation. [/FONT]

 

[Assyrian]

I am familiar with the tablet theory but the “toledoth phrases” translated “these are the generations of……………” toledoth is the Hebrew word for “history, especially family history” are not considered a part of the classical Documentary Hypothessi. At first these phrases were put at lead of the text that was thought it followed but it was soon discovered that when the toledoth was at the beginning of the text, it did not work. However because of archeological investigation partially spurred on in order to validate the inerrancy of the Bible, it was discovered that the toledoth worked when put at the end of the text. I give this example to show the value of defending the Bible, even the text. As we have already agreed, it doesn’t matter how the editor or redactor since God can and did inspire His Word.

My point is the the toledoth interpretation of Genesis is becoming accepted among fundamentalists who would throw their hands up in horror at the Documentary hypothesis, in fact it was originally proposed by Wiseman as an counter to the documentary hypothesis. Yet it comes to the same conclusion as the documentary hypothesis about Genesis being composed of different documents by different authors that were later edited together into the book of Genesis. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Does the evangelical reaction to the documentary hypothesis show the value of the way they defended the bible, or do you agree their rejection of an editor was misplaced?

I think perhaps I have not been clear here in that I don’t spend my time looking for or investigating the text. I use the term infallible and inerrant as descriptive terms as a foundation for the authenticity and trustworthiness of God’s word. All of us have a ministry and gifts that God has provided and I believe that those who investigate the texts and try and determine their origination in order to validate the Bible are given that work by God. Good hermeneutics must be used in interpreting God’s word and that is separate from defining the Bible in any terms. You and I differ on the interpretation of Romans 5:12 and it has nothing to do with my considering the original autographs as infallible or inerrant. I don’t go any further back than the Greek or Hebrew in my interpretation; I must also include the illumination and help of the Holy Spirit.

I agree with most of that

The Bible is the true and inspired Word of God lies in this work of the Holy Spirit of God, not the personal knowledge of the human writers. The Bible is not just an ancient piece of human literature. I appreciate you objections and I respect them, I believe we have reached another agree to disagree situation.

And yet I agree with what you say here

 

[mrmccormo]

When we are born, we are born with an irresistable destiny to sin. We will one day in our lives sin. We might only sin once (not likely), or we might sin thousands of times (very likely), but we have a destiny to sin. We don't commit sin simply by being born, nor does our "sinful nature" separate us from God. Without an understanding of the Law, without being able to hear our conscience, we have no sin. So, a baby that dies does not go to Hell, even though that baby possesses the "sinful nature".

 

[Zeena]

When we are born, we are born with an irresistable destiny to sin.

This can't be true, or else Jesus did not come as one of us.. A man, made like unto His brethren in EVERY respect.

Rather, man sins because he turns away from the Image of God in Christ.


Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

 

[mrmccormo]

This can't be true, or else Jesus did not come as one of us.. A man, made like unto His brethren in EVERY respect.

Rather, man sins because he turns away from the Image of God in Christ.


Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

John 1:9
That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

Let's examine a few things:

First of all, Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin, but also of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus certainly had the capability to sin (unlike God) because Satan tried to tempt Jesus in the desert.

So (and I'm putting this as carefully as possible as to not imply certain things), Jesus Christ was indeed born with a "sinful nature", as in, He was born with the ability to sin. Is this not true?

It is the same way for all of us. We are not born as sinners. We are born with a sinful nature. However, unlike Jesus who was the fullness of God, we cannot resist our sinful nature, so we succumb to it. That's what I meant by "an irresistable destiny to sin".

 

[Zeena]

Let's examine a few things:

First of all, Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin, but also of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus certainly had the capability to sin (unlike God) because Satan tried to tempt Jesus in the desert.

So (and I'm putting this as carefully as possible as to not imply certain things), Jesus Christ was indeed born with a "sinful nature", as in, He was born with the ability to sin. Is this not true?

It is the same way for all of us. We are not born as sinners. We are born with a sinful nature. However, unlike Jesus who was the fullness of God, we cannot resist our sinful nature, so we succumb to it. That's what I meant by "an irresistable destiny to sin".

Yet, as a man, relying on the Father, Jesus overcame, in that He never sinned.

John 1:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

John 10:37-38
If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

1 John 4:4
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

John 14:12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

He came to show us that we need not submit to sin any longer. But rather;

James 4:7-10
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

Men are not made for sin, they are made for God.

 

[Zeena]

James 4:1-3
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

James 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1:14-16&version=KJV

 

[golgotha61]

Let's examine a few things:

First of all, Jesus was born of Mary, a virgin, but also of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was fully man and fully God. Jesus certainly had the capability to sin (unlike God) because Satan tried to tempt Jesus in the desert.

So (and I'm putting this as carefully as possible as to not imply certain things), Jesus Christ was indeed born with a "sinful nature", as in, He was born with the ability to sin. Is this not true?

It is the same way for all of us. We are not born as sinners. We are born with a sinful nature. However, unlike Jesus who was the fullness of God, we cannot resist our sinful nature, so we succumb to it. That's what I meant by "an irresistable destiny to sin".

Christ was impeccable (not able to sin). His temptation was a testing for demonstration of His purity and sinlessness (Heb. 4:15) without any possibility of enticement to evil (James 1:13). The purpose of the temptation was not to see if Christ could sin, but to show that He could not sin. If Christ could have sinned, then the Holy Spirit solicited Him to sin, but that is something God does not do (James 1:13).

 

[Zeena]

Christ was impeccable (not able to sin). His temptation was a testing for demonstration of His purity and sinlessness (Heb. 4:15) without any possibility of enticement to evil (James 1:13). The purpose of the temptation was not to see if Christ could sin, but to show that He could not sin. If Christ could have sinned, then the Holy Spirit solicited Him to sin, but that is something God does not do (James 1:13).

Heb 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

 

[golgotha61]

Heb 2:18
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Suffering in the temptation does not mean Christ was able to sin since He had no inclination to sin (James 1:14-15). Christ’s suffering is not hard to understand since as far as the scripture says, it was first time someone had presented Him with an option of disobedience to His own character. The presentation alone would have caused Him discomfort. As far as I can see the scriptures still present a stronger case for impeccability.

 

[Zeena]

Suffering in the temptation does not mean Christ was able to sin since He had no inclination to sin (James 1:14-15). Christ’s suffering is not hard to understand since as far as the scripture says, it was first time someone had presented Him with an option of disobedience to His own character. The presentation alone would have caused Him discomfort. As far as I can see the scriptures still present a stronger case for impeccability.

Jesus had/has human desires, just like the rest of us;

Luke 22:15
And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:

New Testament Greek - StudyLight.org

Epithumia



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Strong's Number: 1939[/FONT]eÍpiqumiða[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Original Word[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Word Origin[/FONT]eÍpiqumiða[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]from (1937)[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Transliterated Word[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Phonetic Spelling[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Epithumia[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]ep-ee-thoo-mee'-ah[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Parts of Speech[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]TDNT[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Noun Feminine[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]3:168,339[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Definition[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]

1. desire, craving, longing, desire for what is forbidden, lust

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Translated Words[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]KJV (38) - concupiscence, 3; desire, 3; lust, 31; lust after, 1; NAS (38) - coveting, 2; desire, 4; desires, 8; earnestly, 1; impulses, 1; long, 1; lust, 5; lustful, 1; lusts, 15; [/FONT]

-------------


James 1:14-15
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

-------------

Jesus had 'lust' (the same greek word used for desire in Lk 22:15), just as us all. Only thing is, He did not succumb to it.

John 14:30
Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

Gal 5:16
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It's always puzzling to me that this topic is always a conceptual theology battle. I have never seen anyone address this topic from a constitutional standpoint of man's spirit-soul-body.

I always refer to "sin onset" rather that "Original Sin" or "The Fall". And I contend that a deep constitutional look at man reveals that Original Sin and The Fall are fallacious relics of Augustinianism.

Something STRUCTURAL happened to man's constitution in the Eden scenario with Adam & Eve, the serpent, and the tree of the knowledge of G&E. Instead of addressing THAT, the discussion is always about the leftovers of Augustine's inferences regarding his life-long struggles with sexual lust that he packaged up as the doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[OzSpen]

It's always puzzling to me that this topic is always a conceptual theology battle. I have never seen anyone address this topic from a constitutional standpoint of man's spirit-soul-body.

I always refer to "sin onset" rather that "Original Sin" or "The Fall". And I contend that a deep constitutional look at man reveals that Original Sin and The Fall are fallacious relics of Augustinianism.

Something STRUCTURAL happened to man's constitution in the Eden scenario with Adam & Eve, the serpent, and the tree of the knowledge of G&E. Instead of addressing THAT, the discussion is always about the leftovers of Augustine's inferences regarding his life-long struggles with sexual lust that he packaged up as the doctrine of Original Sin.

Your statement seems to be controlled by your presuppositions. What are your presuppositions about original sin and the fall into sin that influence your statement? Do you or do you not believe this statement from CARM?

Original Sin is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-21). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).

Sincerely, Oz