On the Original Sin

[Mitbulls]

I have a question that applies to both Arminians and Calvinists on the Original sin: specifically, on what biblical passage is this belief based? I have always believed that we inherited the sin nature from Adam, but when asked a couple of days ago, I could not really defend why (or at least not (effectively)

Of course, the first verse that comes to mind is Romans 5:12. Unfortunately, the person with whom I was discussing the subject also happened to be a Greek shark. He was quick to point out (so far as I can tell, correctly) that the end of verse 12, which is often translated "in whom all have sinned" is correctly translated "because all have sinned." This rules out this verse as a defense for the inheritance of either sin or the sin nature.

The next obvious defense was the verses in the O.T. about God punishing a person's descendent's until several generations later. However, when read in context with Ezekiel 18, this also dies out.

It seems that my convictions about the inheritance of sin (or the sin nature) were based mainly on extra-biblical convictions and beliefs, traced back to Augustine. Does anybody happen to have any other biblical support for the doctrine of the original sin?

[Kenny]

Today @ 06:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=218410#post218410)
Mitbulls:

I have a question that applies to both Arminians and Calvinists on the Original sin: specifically, on what biblical passage is this belief based? I have always believed that we inherited the sin nature from Adam, but when asked a couple of days ago, I could not really defend why (or at least not (effectively)

I consider the doctrine of original sin more of a theological inference based on other Biblical convictions than I do something which has strong direct Biblical support. But, I don’t think that direct Biblical support is entirely lacking either. I think the question needs to be directed away for the question as to whether we inherit a sinful disposition from Adam to the question as to whether or not the Bible teaches the doctrine of original depravity – that is are we born with a sinful disposition. If the Bible teaches the doctrine of original depravity, then I think that this, combined with passages such as Romans 5 as well as the Genesis story itself, leads us by way of inference to the doctrine of original sin. In evidence of the doctrine of original depravity, I would put forward Paul’s argument to the effect that all are under the power of sin in Romans 1-3 (note that Paul speaks of sin here not just in terms of act but in terms of disposition), Paul’s discussion of our inability to keep the law because of sin in Romans 7, statements to the effect that we are dead in our sins and “by nature children of wrath” (e.g. Ephesians 2:1-3). One could also go with statements on the part of Jesus such as, “For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander” (Matthew 15:19). There are statements in the Old Testament, such as that in Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse - who can understand it?” One could also follow the cycle of human rebellion in Genesis as strongly pointing to a continuous cycle of human rebellion tracing back to the fall of Adam and Eve. There are many other verses along these lines. The case here, for the most part, is cumulative and inferential, not direct.


Of course, the first verse that comes to mind is Romans 5:12. Unfortunately, the person with whom I was discussing the subject also happened to be a Greek shark. He was quick to point out (so far as I can tell, correctly) that the end of verse 12, which is often translated "in whom all have sinned" is correctly translated "because all have sinned." This rules out this verse as a defense for the inheritance of either sin or the sin nature.

But look at the whole context of Romans, including Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3 and his statements concerning our inability to keep the law in Romans 7. Yes, all die because all have sinned, but why have all sinned, because all are under the power of sin. Why are all under the power of sin, “because sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin.” Also, this passage links death directly to sin and says that the reason all die is because all sin. But if one denies that this passage teaches the doctrine of original sin, how does one account for infant mortality? Unless infants are somehow subject to sin from birth, infant mortality would tend to sever the connection between death and sin.


It seems that my convictions about the inheritance of sin (or the sin nature) were based mainly on extra-biblical convictions and beliefs, traced back to Augustine. Does anybody happen to have any other biblical support for the doctrine of the original sin?

Augustine certainly wasn’t the first to come up with the doctrine of original sin. The patristic Fathers also believed that we are in some sense originally depraved on account of Adam’s sin and therefore unable to return to God in the absence of God’s redemptive grace.

God Bless,
Kenny

[Mitbulls]

But look at the whole context of Romans, including Paul’s argument in Romans 1-3 and his statements concerning our inability to keep the law in Romans 7. Yes, all die because all have sinned, but why have all sinned, because all are under the power of sin. Why are all under the power of sin, “because sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin.” Also, this passage links death directly to sin and says that the reason all die is because all sin. But if one denies that this passage teaches the doctrine of original sin, how does one account for infant mortality? Unless infants are somehow subject to sin from birth, infant mortality would tend to sever the connection between death and sin.

Actually, I tend to think that the context of Romans shows that man is involved in his own sin. You can see where it's outlined in the "What's going on in Romans 9" thread.

Also, the idea of children being born (and dying) in sin is a bit of a stumbling block to me. I have trouble believing that a loving God would create children, only that they could die and spend eternity in hell before they have a chance to repent of a sin they didn't commit. I've heard of the Age of Accountability, and have always accepted it as I believed in the inheritance of the sin nature, but it really has no doctrinal basis and seems to stand in contrast to the concept of the Original Sin. Any more thoughts here?

[themuzicman]

Maybe what you need to wrestle with is whether a sin nature is sufficient for condemnation, or whether a sinning act is the condemning factor.

Michael

[Kenny]

Today @ 01:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=219150#post219150) Mitbulls:
Actually, I tend to think that the context of Romans shows that man is involved in his own sin. You can see where it's outlined in the "What's going on in Romans 9" thread.

I didn’t see a post from you there. Did you have someone else’s post in mind? In any case, I do not think that the doctrine of original sin denies that human beings are involved in their own sin. But, each human being sins because each human being is under the power of sin. Romans 1-3 makes it clear that being under the power of sin is the universal condition of the human race. How did that get started? Romans 5 explains it.


Also, the idea of children being born (and dying) in sin is a bit of a stumbling block to me. I have trouble believing that a loving God would create children, only that they could die and spend eternity in hell before they have a chance to repent of a sin they didn't commit.

Well, there may be a sense in which they did commit the sin. See my post here (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=213076#post213076) as well as my follow ups on the same thread. Now, I personally do not believe that all human beings who die in infancy are damned. I hold out the charitable hope that all of them are saved (though I do not deny it would be just for God to do otherwise). As a Calvinist, I think it is certainly possible that God has ordained that only those who are elect will die in infancy. If one is of a Molinist persuasion, one could hold that God only permits those who would have responded to the Gospel under some possible circumstance to die in infancy and elects them on that basis.

But, these infants, like all the rest of the elect, are saved through the blood of Christ, without which they would have been eternally lost. The problem with denying that infants are involved in sin is that it means that there is a certain class of human beings who are not in need of redemption through Christ, and I don’t think that this is a Biblically sustainable assertion. Furthermore, if infants who die do not die as a result of sin, the link between sin and death in Romans 5 is severed. Surely Paul was aware of infant mortality when he was writing this.


I've heard of the Age of Accountability, and have always accepted it as I believed in the inheritance of the sin nature, but it really has no doctrinal basis and seems to stand in contrast to the concept of the Original Sin. Any more thoughts here?

I agree. I reject the doctrine of the Age of Accountability, but there’s more than one way to theologically accommodate infant salvation.

God Bless,
Kenny