Original Sin, I was wrong.

[OzSpen]

Assyrian,

My, oh my! It's amazing the exegetical gymnastics you have gone to, in order to deny the doctrine of original sin inherited from Adam.

Is there original sin? Emphatically, yes!

Oz

 

[holyrokker]

Assyrian,

My, oh my! It's amazing the exegetical gymnastics you have gone to, in order to deny the doctrine of original sin inherited from Adam.

Is there original sin? Emphatically, yes!

Oz

Please explain the "exegetical gymnastics" used to "deny" the doctrine.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian,

My, oh my! It's amazing the exegetical gymnastics you have gone to, in order to deny the doctrine of original sin inherited from Adam.

Is there original sin? Emphatically, yes!

Oz

Your link just seems a short summary of the passages we have already discussed. The writer is certainly emphatic, but short on evidence. Do you have anything that actually says we inherited Original Sin from Adam?

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker,

Please explain the "exegetical gymnastics" used to "deny" the doctrine.

No matter what evidence I provide, it will be inadequate for you as you deny the doctrine of original sin.

Oz

 

[holyrokker]

Please explain the "exegetical gymnastics" used to "deny" the doctrine.

holyrokker,

No matter what evidence I provide, it will be inadequate for you as you deny the doctrine of original sin.

Oz

This statements seems that you've judged me as being unable to be objective in my opinion, and doesn't even address the request that I made.

I truly want to know what "exegetical gymnastics" you think were employed by Assyrian.

What do you consider faulty about his method? If you are going to bring a criticism against a person, or his method, please explain why. Otherwise, please stick to the issue at hand: the credibilty of the doctine which claims that all men are born with a "sinful nature".

The Bible doesn't make a clear statement to that effect, so how did you arrive at the conclusion?

 

[OzSpen]

Assyrian,

ok

But Paul doesn't say sin spread to the whole human race because of Adam, instead he finishes the verse death spread to all men because all sinned. The problem is our own sin. We share the death Adam brought into the world because we sin too.

I looked at that in post 24

The principles are very simple:
]
1. Romans 5:12 confirms that "sin came into the world through one man" [Adam] (ESV).
2. Ephesians 2:3. It affected the "nature" of the Ephesians, and thus all human beings, as we are "by nature children of wrath" (ESV).

The Greek phusis (transl. 'nature' in ESV, KJV, NIV) means "natural endowment or condition, inherited from one's ancestors" in Eph. 2:3 (Arndt & Gingrich). In Eph. 2:3 we are by nature children of wrath - wrathful [sinful] nature.

So sin entered the world, including the nature of all human beings, through one man Adam. This is the basic meaning of original/inherited sin and it is clearly taught in the Scriptures.

Oz

 

[Assyrian]

If Adam was created free from sin and he is our ancestor, why don't we inherit the same nature?

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker,

This statements seems that you've judged me as being unable to be objective in my opinion, and doesn't even address the request that I made.

I truly want to know what "exegetical gymnastics" you think were employed by Assyrian.

What do you consider faulty about his method? If you are going to bring a criticism against a person, or his method, please explain why. Otherwise, please stick to the issue at hand: the credibilty of the doctine which claims that all men are born with a "sinful nature".

The Bible doesn't make a clear statement to that effect, so how did you arrive at the conclusion?

I'm not talking about your objectivity, but your fixation.

I have provided evidence that sin entered the world one man, Adam (Rom. 5:12) and that sin infected human nature (Eph. 2:3). Therefore, sinful nature for all human beings came through the sin of one man.

I have shown that using Ezekiel 18 is an invalid refutation against the doctrine of original sin.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

If Adam was created free from sin and he is our ancestor, why don't we inherit the same nature?

Genesis 3.

See R. C. Sproul's explanation.

Oz

Original Sin

by R.C. Sproul


It is commonplace to hear the statement, "people are basically good." Though it is admitted that no one is
perfect, human wickedness is minimized. Yet if people are basically good, why is sin so universal?

It is often suggested that everybody sins because society has such a negative influence upon us. The problem
is seen with our environment, not with our nature. This explanation for the universality of sin begs the
question, how did society become corrupt in the first place? If people are born good or innocent, we would
expect at least a percentage of them to remain good and sinless. We should be able to find societies that are
not corrupt, where the environment has been conditioned by sinlessness rather than sinfulness. Yet the most
dedicated−to−righteousness communes we can find still have provisions for dealing with sin.

Since the fruit is universally corrupt we look for the root of the problem in the tree. Jesus indicated that a good
tree does not produce corrupt fruit. The Bible clearly teaches that our original parents, Adam and Eve, fell in
sin. Subsequently, every human being has been born with a sinful and corrupt nature. If the Bible didn't
explicitly teach this, we would have to deduce it rationally from the bare fact of the universality of sin.

Yet the fall is not simply a question of rational deduction. It is a point of divine revelation. It refers to what we
call "original sin." Original sin does not refer primarily to the first or original sin committed by Adam and
Eve. Original sin refers to the results of the first sin − the corruption of the human race. Original sin refers to
the fallen condition in which we are born.

That the Fall occurred is clear in Scripture. The Fall was devastating. How it came to pass is open to dispute
even among Reformed thinkers. The Westminster Confession explains the event simply, much in the manner
that Scripture explains it: "Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in
eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin, God was pleased to permit, having purposed to order it to His own
glory." 1

Thus, the Fall occurred. The results, however, reached far beyond Adam and Eve. They not only touched all
mankind, but decimated all mankind. We are sinners in Adam. We cannot ask, "When does the individual
become a sinner?" For the truth is that human beings come into existence in a state of sinfulness. They are
seen by God as sinful because of their solidarity with Adam.

The Westminster Confession again elegantly expresses the results of the Fall, particularly as it relates to
human beings: "By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so
became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. They being the root of
all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all
their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation. From this original corruption, whereby we are
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all
actual transgressions." 2

That last phrase is crucial. We are sinners not because we sin. Rather, we sin because we are sinners. Thus
David laments, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5,
NIV).

Summary:

1. The universality of sin cannot be accounted for by pointing to societal
or environmental factors.
2. The universality of sin is explained by the Fall of mankind.
3. "Original sin" does not refer to the first sin, but to the result of that
sin.
4. All people are born with a sinful nature or "original sin."
5. We all sin because we are sinners by nature.

Biblical passages for reflection:
Genesis 3:1−24
Jeremiah 17:9
Romans 3:10−26
Romans 5:12−19
Titus 1:15
Notes:
1. Westminster Confession, art. 6:1.
2. Westminster Confession, art. 6:1−4.
Excerpt from Essential Truths Of The Christian Faith by R. C. Sproul pages 145−146 (1992. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

 

[Christos Anesti]

If Adam was created free from sin and he is our ancestor, why don't we inherit the same nature?

We do inherit the nature of Adam. We also inherit the results of the fall though. Kind of like the AIDS virus for example. A person with AIDS still has a human nature. The physical aspect of it just doesn't function the way it should (especially the immune system). This disease can even be past down to ones children. It's kind like we inherited spiritual AIDS. The glory of our original nature is covered over and isn't functioning properly. Instead of naturally being governed by love and reason we are tempted by disordered passions that can lead us to sin. Almost like a second nature the hides our true nature. Thats why Christians find themselves at war with their carnal mind. The carnal mind is the result of the fall. It's further entrenched when we commit actual sin and add fuel to the fire. Because of the fall sin is easy and righteousness is a struggle.

 

[holyrokker]

holyrokker,

I'm not talking about your objectivity, but your fixation.

I have provided evidence that sin entered the world one man, Adam (Rom. 5:12) and that sin infected human nature (Eph. 2:3). Therefore, sinful nature for all human beings came through the sin of one man.

I don't deny that sin entered the world through one man.

As for Eph 2:3 - That passage isn't refering to sin infecting human nature. How do you draw that from the text?

The text (going back to the beginning of the chapter) addresses a former lifestyle devoted to sin. It doesn't mention being born sinful.

You claimed that

The Greek phusis (transl. 'nature' in ESV, KJV, NIV) means "natural endowment or condition, inherited from one's ancestors"

But that is not the only possible meaning of the word.

It can also refer to "the natural order of things" or "to bring forth" even "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature"



To find it's meaning, we need to examine the context. We can't have a prefered meaning assigned to it just so it fits a prefered doctrine.

The context of Eph 2, again, refers to a pattern of life, giving into the passions of the flesh. This would give phusis the meaning of "to bring forth".

To say we "were children of wrath" then would mean that the natural order of things was that we were subject to wrath. It would be right and just - natural - for wrath to be our due.

 

[holyrokker]

I have shown that using Ezekiel 18 is an invalid refutation against the doctrine of original sin.

Oz

I can't find where you brought this up. Can you point me to it?

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis 3.

See R. C. Sproul's explanation.

R. C. Sproul isn't here to discuss this with us, any chance you could discuss the scriptures with us yourself rather than cutting and pasting whole pages from commentaries?

Anyway, digging through the post there is one relevant passage

Original Sin by R.C. Sproul

...The Bible clearly teaches that our original parents, Adam and Eve, fell in sin. Subsequently, every human being has been born with a sinful and corrupt nature...

So apparently human nature wasn't immutable, but was capable of being changed by sin and the death. (Thanks for a much more succinct answer Christos Anesti )

Sproul thinks human nature is corrupted by sin and death, so do I. The difference is he thinks it happened when Adam sinned and the results were passed down through the human race, I think the bible describes this corruption and as something that happens to each one of us when we each rebel against God and sin. Being dead is something that changes our human nature rather drastically, and Paul is talking of people who were Eph 2:1 dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked.

To get back to you previous post to me, that is what Paul says in Rom 5:12.

Assyrian,

The principles are very simple:

1. Romans 5:12 confirms that "sin came into the world through one man" [Adam] (ESV).

Adam may have been the first to sin, but Paul doesn't say sin and death spread from Adam when we inherited his corrupted nature, instead he say we suffered the same fate as Adam, the same corruption and death, because we all sinned too... and so death spread to all men because all sinned Rom 5:12b.

2. Ephesians 2:3. It affected the "nature" of the Ephesians, and thus all human beings, as we are "by nature children of wrath" (ESV).

The Greek phusis (transl. 'nature' in ESV, KJV, NIV) means "natural endowment or condition, inherited from one's ancestors" in Eph. 2:3 (Arndt & Gingrich). In Eph. 2:3 we are by nature children of wrath - wrathful [sinful] nature.

So sin entered the world, including the nature of all human beings, through one man Adam. This is the basic meaning of original/inherited sin and it is clearly taught in the Scriptures.

Oz

Thing is, Paul isn't talking about our literal ancestry here, getting our human nature from mum and dad, who passed down Adam's corrupted nature. Paul says it twice in the passage, talking about 'the sons disobedience' v.2 and 'the children of wrath' v.3. This isn't about our inherited human nature, but who they were because of their own disobedience, the wrath of God they were under as a result.

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker,

I don't deny that sin entered the world through one man.

As for Eph 2:3 - That passage isn't refering to sin infecting human nature. How do you draw that from the text?

The text (going back to the beginning of the chapter) addresses a former lifestyle devoted to sin. It doesn't mention being born sinful.

You claimed that But that is not the only possible meaning of the word.

It can also refer to "the natural order of things" or "to bring forth" even "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature"

To find it's meaning, we need to examine the context. We can't have a prefered meaning assigned to it just so it fits a prefered doctrine.

The context of Eph 2, again, refers to a pattern of life, giving into the passions of the flesh. This would give phusis the meaning of "to bring forth".

To say we "were children of wrath" then would mean that the natural order of things was that we were subject to wrath. It would be right and just - natural - for wrath to be our due.

The meaning I gave for phusis, Eph 2:3 is from the most highly regarded Greek lexicon, Arndt and Gingrich, and that meaning disagrees with your conclusions.

The context of Eph. 2 includes "you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked". "Dead in the trespasses and sins" is linked to v. 3, "by nature children of wrath". But I don't expect to convince you! <s>

Ezekiel 18 (e.g. vv. 18-19) cannot be used to refute original sin because actual sins are involved. Why would this phrase be used if Ezek. 18 were talking about original sin? The phrase "this man fathers a son who sees" (v 14) clearly demonstrates the chapter is not dealing with original sin but actual sins committed.


Use of the examples from Ezek 18:5ff demonstrates that specific, actual sins committed were being addressed. Original sin is not the topic as the context clearly states.

Oz

 

[holyrokker]

holyrokker,

The meaning I gave for phusis, Eph 2:3 is from the most highly regarded Greek lexicon, Arndt and Gingrich, and that meaning disagrees with your conclusions.

But you cited only one of several possible meanings of the word.

The context of Eph. 2 includes "you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked". "Dead in the trespasses and sins" is linked to v. 3, "by nature children of wrath".

Here is the first part of that paragraph:

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world... All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts.
Notice "used to live when you followed" This is habitual action in the past. So are "gratifying" and "following".

The reference is to a lifestyle committed to sinful living.

This is what lends meaning to "were by nature children of wrath", thereby giving by nature the meaning of "a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature"

But I don't expect to convince you!

Is there anything wrong with discussion and learning?

Ezekiel 18 (e.g. vv. 18-19) cannot be used to refute original sin because actual sins are involved. Why would this phrase be used if Ezek. 18 were talking about original sin? The phrase "this man fathers a son who sees" (v 14) clearly demonstrates the chapter is not dealing with original sin but actual sins committed.


Use of the examples from Ezek 18:5ff demonstrates that specific, actual sins committed were being addressed. Original sin is not the topic as the context clearly states.

Oz

You are VERY right in your concluding statement. Original Sin is not the topic of Ezekiel 18. However, the text doesn't refer to "specific actual sins committed"

The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

 

[OzSpen]

holyrokker,

You are VERY right in your concluding statement. Original Sin is not the topic of Ezekiel 18. However, the text doesn't refer to "specific actual sins committed"

The text most definitely DOES refer to specific sins. All of the words underlined in Ezekiel 18: 10-13 (NIV) are specific, actual sins:

10 “Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things[a] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
“He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor’s wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at interest and takes a profit.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head.

Oz

 

[Christos Anesti]

I guess the word "sin nature" could be too ambiguous and might lead people into thinking there is an essence of sin though. As if sin has some sort of positive being as a nature. Probably not the best term used to describe it nor the most literal of a translation. I still don't think the NIV translators intended it to make people think of in that manner but then again I don't really know much about them so it's hard to tell. Usually when people actually describe what they mean by the term they don't take it in that philsophical kind of direction... just a blanket term for the flesh, the carnal mind, etc..

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, and I can see how they might want to find a more modern way of expressing 'carnal' - which means flesh or fleshy in the bad sense. I one way, if you are reading the NIV devotionally, to see how your should live your life, it gets the sense across that these are aspects of the flesh we need to deal with. But you need more literal translations to build up your understanding of the theology behind it.

 

[caprice09]

They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
(Joh 8:39-44)

The nature of flesh/sin is the heritage of Adam. All flesh is the physical lineage from him, the spiritual is the lineage/adoption of God through faith in the Word of God.

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
(Rom 6:6-23)

 

[OzSpen]

Christos,

I guess the word "sin nature" could be too ambiguous and might lead people into thinking there is an essence of sin though. As if sin has some sort of positive being as a nature. Probably not the best term used to describe it nor the most literal of a translation. I still don't think the NIV translators intended it to make people think of in that manner but then again I don't really know much about them so it's hard to tell. Usually when people actually describe what they mean by the term they don't take it in that philsophical kind of direction... just a blanket term for the flesh, the carnal mind, etc..

You can read about the people on the NIV translation committee HERE. They are substantive evangelical scholars.

Sincerely, Spencer