"Original Sin"--Fact or Fiction?

[popsthebuilder]

We inherit the propensity to sin.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Jerry Shugart]

What is it about the above treatment of imputation that you would disagree? Explain in detail why the author of this entry is wrong according to your views.

Let us take a look what the author said:

Paul’s statement of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity is stark: “By [through] one man sin entered into the world, and death by [through] sin; so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). In the AV the clause “for all have sinned” may give the impression that Paul’s argument is that all die like Adam because all, like him, have sinned. But this is not the case. His statement is, “Death passed upon all humanity inasmuch as all sinned.” He teaches that all participated in Adam’s sin and that both the guilt and the penalty of that sin were transmitted to them.

If the author of this study on imputation is correct then we must trick our mind into believing that the words "for all have sinned" does not really mean what it says. Of course the penalty of sin in this instance is "spiritual" death and the author wants us to believe that when Adam sinned then that penalty (spiritual death) was transmitted to all of his descendants.

But that is not the meaning of the words "death passed upon all men, for all have sinned." Those words mean just what they say--that death passed on all men for all have sinned.

Besides that, there are other instances found in the Bible that teach that men die spiritually as a result of their own sin and not as a result of Adam's sin:

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away" (2 Cor.3:6-7).​

"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" (Jas.1:14-15).​

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).​

You have proven over and over that you have no interest in trying to defend your beliefs in regard to these things concerning "spiritual" death and I can understand why. Instead, you cling to your ideas even though you are not even willing to try to defend them.

All I see from you is the fact that you put more faith in what some men say about the Scriptures than you do in what the Scriptures actually say.

 

[TulipBee]

Fact

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But scripture says that we do die because of the sin of Adam and Eve. It is our own sin yes, but also because we inherit the sin from our ancestors sin and disobedience against God.
David lamented “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” - Psalm 51.
We all inherit sin from Adam and Eve.

First of all, at Psalm 51 David does not state that the guilt of Adam's sin was imputed to him. Instead, when we examine what is said we can understand that David was deeply troubled for his sins and wicked behavior and convicted of his guilt:

"For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps.51:3-5).​

Here we see that David was acknowledging total responsibly for his actions and he was not placing the blame upon Adam or anyone else. He expressed his repentance in an extreme manner, using figurative language to express the idea that he had been sinful ever since he could remember.

After all, not everything that is said in Pasams 51 can be understood literally. Let us look at what else is said in the same Psalm:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice" (Ps.51:5-8).​

If all of these verses are to be taken literally then verse seven can be evidence that men are cleansed from their sins "with hyssop." Verse eight can also be taken in a literal sense to teach that broken bones rejoice!

On the other hand, there is nothing said here that even hints that what is said should not be taken literally:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).​

Paul tells us he was in his “sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” - Romans 7:25.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23

Yes, we inherit a sinful nature when we sin.

The Bible says that each of us will die because of the sin we inherit, which is our own sin because we are sinful by nature. sinful is our flesh.
1 Corinthians 15:22 - "Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life."

We belong to Adam when we sin and we belong to Christ when we believe.

So we do die because of the sin of someone else - Adam.

Yes, we all die "physically" because of Adam's sin. That sin denied to the human race the very thing which allowed men to live forever--the Tree of Life" (Gen.3:22-24).

First of all, well done, your arguments and explanations are always very well put together and flow logically and make sense (which we can all attest doesn't always happen on here lol). I will just say that I can see your point.

Would you then address it? Can you defend the idea that the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants and as a result all are dead spiritually when they emerge from the womb DESPITE the fact that the Scriptures reveal that all men die spiritually as a result of their own sin?

Thanks!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Adam sinned. Adam died. The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

Yes, the wages of sin is spiritual death and that happens as a result of men's own sin and not as a result of Adam's sin:

"What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death...For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Ro.6:21,23).​

IMO, anyone who does not defend this biblical truth and argue against this silly and sorry lie you attempt to sell, is not worth their salt in the eyes of God Almighty!

Please defend your idea that all men emerge from the womb spiritually dead as a result of Adam's sin since the Scriptures reveal that all men die spiritually as a result of their own sins.

 

[Shasta]

See:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...cs-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4559007#post4559007

Evidently Paul assumed as much, too:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...mputed-Death&p=4928249&viewfull=1#post4928249

When Adam and Eve sinned, physical death did not occur immediately. Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5). Spiritual death, however, happened instantly. Spiritual death is the state of spiritual alienation from God. As a result of Adam’s sin, all living people are born spiritually dead (with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ). Paul refers to spiritual death in Ephesians 2:1: “And you were dead in [your] trespasses and sins.” In Ephesians 2:5, Paul says that unsaved people are “dead in [their] trespasses.” For Adam and Eve, sin brought separation from God, banishment from his presence, and forfeiture of spiritual life (Gen. 2:23–24). All their descendants have likewise been born in a state of spiritual death. This deadness also renders a person unresponsive to spiritual truth (Rom. 8:7–8; 1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4: 4; Eph. 4: 17–18). Only by the divine miracle of regeneration does God end spiritual death and re-create sinners, making them alive to himself (2 Cor. 4:6).

Denial of original sin leads to three important dangers:
1. Those who do so often rely on their emotions or what they think is true when coming to doctrinal conclusions.

2. When you deny the first imputation (i.e., the imputation of Adam’s guilt and sin nature to man) many Pelagians end up denying the two other critical imputations: the imputation of the believers’ sin to Christ on the cross and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. [FONT=&]Because Adam was the federal representative of all humanity, his disobedience is counted—legally imputed or judicially reckoned—by God to be the disobedience of all who were in Adam. Those who would charge that such imputation is wrong or inappropriate because not everyone actually participated in Adam’s sin show their inconsistency when they do not make the same charge against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. For if the justification and righteousness of the Lord Jesus is imputed to those in Him, so too the guilt of Adam’s sin has been imputed to those he represented.

Imputation, from the Dictionary of Theological Terms:
[/FONT]

Spoiler

IMPUTATION

A forensic term that denotes the reckoning or placing to a person’s account the merit or guilt that belongs to him on the basis of his personal performance or of that of his federal head. While impute is used in Scripture to express the idea of receiving the just reward of our deeds (Lev. 7:18; 17:4; 2 Sam. 19:19), imputation as a theological term normally carries one of two meanings:

Imputation of Adam’s Sin

First, it describes the transmission of the guilt of Adam’s first sin to his descendants. It is imputed, or reckoned, to them; i.e., it is laid to their account. Paul’s statement is unambiguous: “By one man’s disobedience many were made [constituted] sinners” (Rom. 5:19). Some Reformed theologians ground the imputation of Adam’s sin in the real involvement of all his posterity in his sin, because of the specific unity of the race in him. Shedd strongly advocates this view in his Dogmatic Theology. Others—e.g., Charles and A. A. Hodge, and Louis Berkhof—refer all to the federal headship of Adam. The Westminster Standards emphasize that Adam is both the federal head and the root of all his posterity. Both parties accept that this is so. Thus, the dispute is not whether Adam’s federal headship is the ground of the imputation of his first sin to us, but whether that federal headship rests solely on a divine constitution—i.e., because God appointed it—or on the fact that God made him the actual root of the race and gave the race a real specific unity in him.

The theory of mediate imputation has never gained acceptance in orthodox expressions of the Reformed Faith. It is subversive to the entire concept of the imputation of Adam’s sin upon which Paul grounds his exposition of justification by virtue of union with Christ our righteousness (Rom. 5:12–19; 1 Cor. 15:22).

Paul’s statement of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity is stark: “By [through] one man sin entered into the world, and death by [through] sin; so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned” (Rom. 5:12). In the AV the clause “for all have sinned” may give the impression that Paul’s argument is that all die like Adam because all, like him, have sinned. But this is not the case. His statement is, “Death passed upon all humanity inasmuch as all sinned.” He teaches that all participated in Adam’s sin and that both the guilt and the penalty of that sin were transmitted to them. However we explain the mode of that participation—whether on purely federal or on traducianist-federal grounds—the fact of it stands as a fundamental of the Christian revelation. As the Shorter Catechism says, “The covenant [of works] 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 with him, in his first transgression” (Question 16, emphasis added.)

Imputation of our Sin to Christ and of His Righteousness to Us

Second, imputation has a second major use in Scripture. It describes the act of God in visiting the guilt of believers on Christ and of conferring the righteousness of Christ upon believers. In this sense

“imputation is an act of God as sovereign judge, at once judicial and sovereign, whereby He—(1). Makes the guilt, legal responsibility of our sins, really Christ’s, and punishes them in Him, Isa. 53:6; John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; and (2). Makes the merit, legal rights of Christ’s righteousness, ours, and then treats us as persons legally invested with all those rights, Rom. 4:6; 10:4; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9. As Christ is not made a sinner by the imputation to Him of our sins, so we are not made holy by the imputation to us of His righteousness. The transfer is only of guilt from us to Him, and of merit from Him to us. He justly suffered the punishment due to our sins, and we justly receive the rewards due to His righteousness, 1 John 1:8, 9”
(A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, chap. 30, Q. 15).

The fact of this imputation is inescapable: “By the obedience of one [Christ] shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). The ground of it is the real, vital, personal, spiritual and federal union of Christ with His people. It is indispensable to the biblical doctrine of justification. Without it, we fail to do justice to Paul’s teaching, and we cannot lead believers into the comfort that the gospel holds out to them. That comfort is of a perfect legal release from guilt and of a perfect legal righteousness that establishes a secure standing before God and His law on the basis of a perfect obedience outside of their own subjective experience.

The double imputation of our sin to Christ and of His righteousness to us is clearly laid down in 2 Cor. 5:21: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Hugh Martin’s paraphrase catches the meaning precisely: “God made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, who knew no righteousness, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” That Paul means us to understand a judicial act of imputation is clear. God did not make Christ personally a sinner. The reference is not to Christ’s subjective experience. He was as personally sinless and impeccable when He was bearing our sins on the cross as He had ever been. What Paul is describing is God’s act of reckoning our sin to Christ so as to make Him legally liable for it and all its consequences. Similarly, while believers are not by any means righteous in their subjective experience, God reckons to them the full merit of Christ’s obedience in life and death (Rom. 5:18, 19). That righteousness, not any attained virtue, is the ground of a believer’s acceptance with God.

Source: Cairns, A. (2002). Dictionary of Theological Terms (pp. 225–226). Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International.

3. If you deny man is born a sinner with a sinful nature then you deny the absolute need for God’s grace and Christ’s death on the cross for men.

To deny original sin is to fall into a camp outside the bounds:

https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2009/09/29/why-should-i-believe-in-original-sin/
https://carm.org/pelagianism
http://www.equip.org/article/original-sin-its-importance-and-fairness/

Then again, given your open theist leanings, Jerry, you are already beyond the bounds. :AMR:

AMR

You are introducing two different views.

1. The first is a sort of "natural consequences" model of the Fall. In this view Adam, through sin, lost "spiritual life" (that is, he became spiritually dead) and was therefore unable to pass that kind of life on to his descendants. That spiritual disconnection leads to active personal sin.

2. The second view you present is the legal imputation model. This view holds that the personal guilt of Adam's transgression has been imputed or legally attributed to the entire human race. God makes this "imputation" supposedly because Adam was not only our biological father but our "federal head" with respect to humanity's "covenant" with God. This is the classic "doctrine of original sin" that Calvin and the other Reformers taught.

Either one of these models is sufficient in itself (as a logical proposition) to account for the universality of sin which makes me wonder why you bother with view #1 except that it is a more reasonable proposition to defend than view #2. Also, the problem with "federal head" or "federal representative" is that the terms are not actually used in the text. Rather those terms were invented to explain a certain interpretation of the text.

If Adam was indeed the "federal head" of the human race then God would have to be the One to appoint him to that legal position and, if He did, why would He do it? Is the head of every race of men automatically a "federal head" whose personal sins will be imputed to all his descendants forever? Furthermore, would a just God purposely set the situation up so as to hold every member of any people personally and legally culpable for the sins of a common ancestor? Also what is this about a covenant? There is no evidence that Adam had a covenant with when he sinned. Covenants are formed to unite two separate parties. Adam was God's son by nature and creation. A son does not need to form a covenant with his father to have such a relationship with him

You claim or at least imply that the imputation model is the only way to explain the universality of sin and suggest that those who do not accept that (along with the associated penal substitutionary model of the atonement) are like Pelagians but there is more than one way to explain the state of things. The ECF before Pelagius did not accept the legal imputation model yet they believed in the universality of sin. They just explained it in a different way

I see from your post that you intend to play the role of a religious umpire who can give us the final word about what is in and out of bounds using a criteria other than those that were formed to make such bounds explicit, such as the Nicene and Apostle's Creed. Perhaps we should replace those ancient creeds with the Westminster Confession

 

[jamie]

I can see that those who believe in the idea of "Original Sin" have little intention of defending that idea.

I wonder why that is?

It's simple, they have no defense. It's simply the teaching of their mother church.

 

[jamie]

Humans were designed to sin, it's perfectly natural, otherwise we wouldn't need God's Spirit in addition to our own human spirit.

Anyone can die physically, but spiritual death is the result of sin. Righteousness can be imputed, but sin can't. Had Jesus sinned he would have died for his sin, not ours. The Jewish leaders imputed sin to Jesus, but it was a false accusation, sin cannot be imputed.

When Jesus died he died spiritually, not for his sin but as Creator God he assumed the sin of his creation, his life was of more value than the lives of all his creation combined. The Word became human to do just that and he did it well, nary a complaint.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Humans were designed to sin, it's perfectly natural, otherwise we wouldn't need God's Spirit in addition to our own human spirit.

Anyone can die physically, but spiritual death is the result of sin. Righteousness can be imputed, but sin can't. Had Jesus sinned he would have died for his sin, not ours. The Jewish leaders imputed sin to Jesus, but it was a false accusation, sin cannot be imputed.

When Jesus died he died spiritually, not for his sin but as Creator God he assumed the sin of his creation, his life was of more value than the lives of all his creation combined. The Word became human to do just that and he did it well, nary a complaint.

I'm sorry but I'm confused; why would GOD need to manifest itself in human form in order to be a payment and sacrifice to itself?

Seems to me that the Christ is the way to GOD and, in human form the Christ wasn't the utter fullness of GOD, but the fullness there of as per can be attained by the will of GOD, to man.

Please excuse my ignorance, but it has been my findings that the word of GOD is generally easily understood and rather straight forward, not making confusion, and for such reason I do have trouble understanding what you and I both stated.

Thank you, peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[jamie]

I'm sorry but I'm confused; why would GOD need to manifest itself in human form in order to be a payment and sacrifice to itself?

The Word was sent by the Father to atone for sin. The Spirit had pronounced spiritual death for sin at the very beginning of human history. For all humans to die for spiritual sin would defeat the purpose of human creation.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The Word was sent by the Father to atone for sin. The Spirit had pronounced spiritual death for sin at the very beginning of human history. For all humans to die for spiritual sin would defeat the purpose of human creation.

I agree; but you didn't exactly address my question, or I was incapable of making the connection. Could you reword please?

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[jamie]

I agree; but you didn't exactly address my question, or I was incapable of making the connection. Could you reword please?

Your question was : "Why would GOD need to manifest itself in human form in order to be a payment and sacrifice to itself?"

God is innately immortal and cannot die. The Word relinquished immortality for awhile to become human to atone for sin.

The Spirit gives life and desires love in response. Sin is not love, it is a violation of love. To love is to live, to sin is to die.

Had Jesus not paid the penalty for spiritual death there would be no resurrection and no Spirit family. As it is, there is.

 

[Shasta]

I'm sorry but I'm confused; why would GOD need to manifest itself in human form in order to be a payment and sacrifice to itself?

Seems to me that the Christ is the way to GOD and, in human form the Christ wasn't the utter fullness of GOD, but the fullness there of as per can be attained by the will of GOD, to man.

Please excuse my ignorance, but it has been my findings that the word of GOD is generally easily understood and rather straight forward, not making confusion, and for such reason I do have trouble understanding what you and I both stated.

Thank you, peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Here you touch on various models of the atonement. To avoid hijacking the thread into a discussion of this I will just mention that the people here who believe in "reformed doctrine" hold the "Penal Substitution Model" of the atonement. The Penal Substitution Model conceptualizes the issue between God and Man in legal terms as one of debt and payment. In this model, man's sin constitutes the debt and Christ's sacrifice, the payment for the "debt" owed. In the classic Reformed Doctrine Calvin taught, God (rather parsimoniously it seems to me) has decided to refuse payment on the "debt" of anyone whom He has predetermined to damn.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Your question was : "Why would GOD need to manifest itself in human form in order to be a payment and sacrifice to itself?"

God is innately immortal and cannot die. The Word relinquished immortality for awhile to become human to atone for sin.

The Spirit gives life and desires love in response. Sin is not love, it is a violation of love. To love is to live, to sin is to die.

Had Jesus not paid the penalty for spiritual death there would be no resurrection and no Spirit family. As it is, there is.

But listen to what you actually wrote please.... does it make sense to you, honestly?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[jamie]

But listen to what you actually wrote please.... does it make sense to you, honestly?

What?

 

[popsthebuilder]

What?

Relinquishing immortality for a while is an oxymoron and nonsensical.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Found this earlier.

Could Adam and Eve's glory been like that of Moses'.

When they sinned their glory light faded away.

http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answers/sin/afraid.html

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Relinquishing immortality for a while is an oxymoron and nonsensical.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Maybe the glory Christ had with the Father was eternal, immortal.

Not like that of Moses, or Adam and Eve.

 

[jamie]

Relinquishing immortality for a while is an oxymoron and nonsensical.

Was the Word God? Is God immortal?

Did the Word become human? Are humans immortal?

Please explain why it is nonsensical.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9)​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I wonder what happened to Mr. Religion?