Excellent Discussion on OSAS
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
civic
Active Member
That is a truly gross statement about God.
Go back up to my reply #3316.; this time with a little understanding.
Yes. You are right, they better not sin. But all have sinned (Rom 3:23). That is why we need to believe in God. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16).
Dizerner
Active Member
civic
Active Member
civic
Active Member
Original sin heresy exposed in church history
The early church never taught this doctrine it came through Augustine.
Augustine taught that babies inherit Adam’s guilt even before they sin—but this was based on a faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12. So does that mean we aren’t born sinful?
He didn’t just say that we were born with a sinful urge (which everyone agrees with), but that we are already sinners when we are born before we have had a chance to sin by ourselves because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.
It is easy to confuse the doctrine of original sin with that of original sinfulness—that is, the teaching that all humans are born with the inclination and natural propensity to sin, so that all humans are sinners because of they all sin.
Therefore, in order to save confusion, I’m going to refer to Augustine’s doctrine as the doctrine of “original guilt.”
ADAM’S SIN
Part of Augustine’s reasoning depended on the rather idea that Adam’s sin is transferred during sexual intercourse! This was the only way he could explain why Jesus didn’t inherit Adam’s guilt.
Augustine regarded sex as inherently sinful, perhaps because of his rather misspent youth—a time during which he uttered his famous prayer, “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”
However, the five million babies conceived by in vitro fertilization during the last three decades have proved him wrong in that detail. They sin just like those conceived in the traditional way! So was Augustine also wrong about the rest of the doctrine of original guilt?
He developed this doctrine in order to combat heresy.
- Pelagius, a theologian whom Augustine was combatting, believed that humans could be sinless because Jesus referred to Abel as “righteous” (Matt 23:35), which implied he’d been killed before committing any sin.
- Augustine countered that Abel might not have sinned personally, but he was still guilty because even newborn babies have guilt. To prove this he quoted Romans 5:12 from his Latin translation of the New Testament:
Augustine interpreted the rather odd phrase “in whom all sinned” to mean “in Adam all sinned,” so that literally when Adam sinned, every human born from him shared that guilt.
FOR THAT ALL HAVE SINNED – IN AS MUCH ALL MEN HAVE SINNED
But is Augustine’s proof based on a faulty translation from the original Greek into Latin? The Greek verse has eph hō (“because,” Latin quia or ‘for that all sinned’), but if this was changed just a little to en hō it could be understood as “in whom” (Latin in quo).
No Greek manuscripts say en hō, so it looks as if the Latin translator read it wrongly. The meaning of this verse (as found in all translations made from the Greek) is actually“death came to all people, because all sinned.” That is, humans don’t inherit guilt from Adam, but all humans personally sin, and thereby become guilty.
Before we glibly discard Augustine’s doctrine of original guilt, though, we’d better consider what we would be losing. We may need some concept of original guilt in order to explain Jesus’ uniqueness and why he had to die for all.
After all, if we are born without any inherited guilt, it might be remotely possible for some people to get through life without sinning—which would mean Jesus didn’t need to die for them.
However, I can’t see that this is possible. We know how soon the propensity to sin reveals itself, and I can’t believe that anyone would get even to toddler stage without having done something wrong.
On the other hand, the advantage of rejecting the doctrine is that we don’t have to worry that innocent babies go to hell.
If people aren’t born guilty, God will judge us for our actual sins and not merely for being born human. We must not underestimate the seriousness of sin. Sin is refusing to do what God wants.
The actions themselves may have huge consequences for other people, but perhaps the greatest consequence comes from the fact that we have disobeyed God.
Augustine taught that babies inherit Adam’s guilt even before they sin—but this was based on a faulty Latin translation of Romans 5:12. So does that mean we aren’t born sinful?
He didn’t just say that we were born with a sinful urge (which everyone agrees with), but that we are already sinners when we are born before we have had a chance to sin by ourselves because we inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin.
It is easy to confuse the doctrine of original sin with that of original sinfulness—that is, the teaching that all humans are born with the inclination and natural propensity to sin, so that all humans are sinners because of they all sin.
Therefore, in order to save confusion, I’m going to refer to Augustine’s doctrine as the doctrine of “original guilt.”
No Greek manuscripts say en hō, so it looks as if the Latin translator read it wrongly. The meaning of this verse (as found in all translations made from the Greek) is actually“death came to all people, because all sinned.” That is, humans don’t inherit guilt from Adam, but all humans personally sin, and thereby become guilty.
Before we glibly discard Augustine’s doctrine of original guilt, though, we’d better consider what we would be losing. We may need some concept of original guilt in order to explain Jesus’ uniqueness and why he had to die for all.
After all, if we are born without any inherited guilt, it might be remotely possible for some people to get through life without sinning—which would mean Jesus didn’t need to die for them.
However, I can’t see that this is possible. We know how soon the propensity to sin reveals itself, and I can’t believe that anyone would get even to toddler stage without having done something wrong.
On the other hand, the advantage of rejecting the doctrine is that we don’t have to worry that innocent babies go to hell.
If people aren’t born guilty, God will judge us for our actual sins and not merely for being born human. We must not underestimate the seriousness of sin. Sin is refusing to do what God wants.
The actions themselves may have huge consequences for other people, but perhaps the greatest consequence comes from the fact that we have disobeyed God.
Sadly, one study of motherhood among dolphins came to an abrupt halt when an aunt stole a baby dolphin and thwarted all attempts to reunite it with its true mother. But the fact that these behaviours are similar to human sins does not mean that they are sins.
These acts by animals aren’t sins because they have no knowledge of what they should or shouldn’t do. Our animal instincts became sins when God called Adam to a higher lifestyle.
God gave us a conscience, which increasingly guides us as we mature so that even without God’s written law humans have a knowledge of right and wrong. This law tells us to live differently from animals: we should not mate with whoever happens to be available; we should not snatch food or other things that belong to others and we should not kill those who challenge us.
So when we do sin, it is a personal effrontery to God, who has asked us not to follow these animal instincts. Psalm 51 shows that David realized he had offended God when he slept with Bathsheba and had her husband killed (2 Sam 11:2–14).
These crimes had victims, from whom David needed to ask forgiveness, but David knew he also needed to ask God to forgive him. God had treated David as special—he had given him the Holy Spirit to help him resist temptation (Ps 51:11). David knew that without the Holy Spirit he would follow the evil inclinations he’d felt from birth (v. 5), so he asked God to cleanse him again and create a new heart in him (vv. 7–10).
In the New Testament, David’s special treatment became normal for all Christians. The Holy Spirit creates a new heart in everyone who repents, and Paul said that the Spirit gives Christians the ability to conquer sin (Rom 8:3–6). Yet most of us are gross underachievers in this regard.
Perhaps the doctrine of original guilt removes some of our motivation to conquer sin because being born with guilt makes us feel it isn’t worth trying to overcome it. We regard ourselves as hopeless sinners, so there’s little point in trying to be different. We feel that God is displeased with us anyway, and because his judgment is dealt with by his Son, we don’t worry too much.
Perhaps we would respond differently if, instead of concentrating on God’s judgment, we concentrate instead on his love for us. This may make us more aware of his disappointment when we fail to live up to the wonderful new human nature he has given us in Jesus. Perhaps we would be heartbroken (as God is) when we fall back into our old nature and be motivated to try harder. Personally, I’m coming to the conclusion that the doctrine of original guilt has perverted our view of God, and removing it may make a huge difference to the way we live! Instone-Brewer, D. (2020). Church Doctrine & the Bible: Theology in Ancient Context (pp. 99–103). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press
hope this helps !!!
Dizerner
Active Member
Bible says ALL.
Civic says "NO, not REALLY all."
You can see on display in real life the sin nature's hatred and resistance to God's Word.
Dizerner
Active Member
Replacing the Bible with Church Fathers, huh.
Are you Roman Catholic?
Are you Eastern Orthodox?
Some of us actually recognize the BIBLE is the authority and not fallible, sinful men in the church.
And the pitiful thing is, this isn't even true, lol. It's been debunked multiple times on this forum, and you've turned a blind eye again and again. As Tertullian said 200 years before Augustine was born:
“Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.”
civic
Active Member
All doesn’t mean all , all the time.
You should know that as you are reading your doctrine into scripture
civic
Active Member
Exposing your false teaching on infants
It’s good to read books you might not agree with. Sometimes they help strengthen your current view. Other times they change your view altogether. In either case, they give you something to think about—they put a stone in your shoe.
I recently read through The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal by Adam Harwood. And it’s got me thinking.
The thesis of Harwood’s book directly relates to an important question: What happens to infants when they die? Describing his project, he says, “For those readers who have been reading through this book waiting for a declarative statement on the spiritual condition of infants, here it is: Infants are sin-stained, not guilty. Infants are not sinless because they inherit a sinful nature. But infants are not guilty because God judges our thoughts, attitudes, and actions, not our nature.”
So, Harwood’s book challenges the notion that infants are guilty before God.
Harwood makes a distinction between inheriting a sinful nature from Adam and inheriting guilt from Adam. He believes only the former is taught in Scripture.
Harwood agrees that everyone has a sinful nature—including infants (Ps. 51:5). This is different from Pelagianism, which holds that people are born without sin. Pelagius argued that people were not born with an inherited sin nature, and, therefore, could avoid committing sin. Harwood contends that inherited sin makes it impossible not to sin.
Those who believe in inherited guilt usually cite Romans 5 as a key text. Harwood devotes a chapter to how he understands Romans 5:12–21.
For the purpose of this synopsis, let’s look briefly at Romans 5:18–19. Paul writes, “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18–19).
Many take this passage to mean that Adam’s guilt is immediately inherited to all men—including infants. However, others disagree. For instance, in How Shall They Be Saved? systematic theologian Millard Erickson says, “Until the first conscious or responsible moral action or decision by a person, there is no imputation of the Adamic sin, just as there is no imputation of Christ’s righteousness until there is a conscious acceptance of that work.”
In both cases, Erickson argues, human ratification is necessary. Indeed, this is part of the parallel between the work of Adam and the work of Christ. Harwood states, “Just as it is necessary for humans to ratify the work of Christ by appropriating the salvation offered by Christ, it is likewise necessary to ratify the sin of Adam in order to fall under condemnation and guilt.”
If Harwood is correct, and there is no inherited guilt, then why do infants die? It’s a great question. For Harwood, infant death is not a judgment for an infant’s guilt; rather, it’s a consequence of Adam’s sin.
There seems to be a biblical principle that people are not held guilty for the sin of another person—even though they may suffer certain consequences from another person’s actions.
Speaking through the prophet Ezekiel, God says, “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezek. 18:20). God is communicating how justice is supposed to work.
Working from this justice principle, Harwood says,
Furthermore, Harwood makes a distinction between those who are able to make moral judgments and those who cannot. He cites Deuteronomy 1:39–40, which states,
Harwood says,
According to Harwood, one of those negative consequences—or wages—of Adam’s sin is death.
What makes an infant guilty before God? The Bible describes our guilt before God in terms of sinful actions, attitudes, and thoughts. Paul says, “He will render to each one according to his works” (Rom. 2:6) and that “each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). Therefore, people are accountable to God for their deeds. The book of Revelation says that each will be judged “according to what they had done” (Rev. 20:13).
Salvation is based on God’s grace. Judgment is based on our works. But what works does an infant commit that render him guilty before God?
This seems like a silly question. After all, an infant hasn’t done any sinful actions. As a result, some believe infants are judged according to their sinful nature.
According to Harwood, the Bible never says human beings are judged according to their sinful nature. A sinful nature is not the same as a sinful thought, or sinful actions, or a sinful attitude. The nature leads to actions, thoughts, and attitudes, but it is not identical to them.
Harwood contends that only sinful actions, thoughts, and attitudes make someone guilty. For example, the propensity to murder is not the same as the desire to murder or the act of murder.
Most pastors and theologians believe that some infants—possibly all infants—go to Heaven. As justification for this view, some have cited 2 Samuel 12:23, which seems to indicate that David would go to be with his son (presumably in Heaven).
The question is, how do these infants get to Heaven given that they are not capable of putting their faith in Christ?
There seems to be two options. Either faith in Christ is not necessary for infants because they can be saved without explicit faith in Christ, or faith is not necessary for infants because they are not guilty.
The first option entails some variation of inclusivism. Inclusivism is the belief that Christ’s death is necessary for salvation, but explicit faith in Christ is not necessary. However, the Bible clearly teaches faith in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. The apostle Paul states, “f you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). John says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16)
So, salvation requires faith. But biblical faith istrust in Christ for the forgiveness of sins, which requires certain cognitive and moral faculties. Since one-week-old babies lack all the faculties necessary to put their trust in Christ, one must adopt inclusivism (or accept the view that all guilty infants go to Hell).
If you reject inclusivism (as unbiblical), Harwood’s thesis provides another option. He writes,
If you’re interested in the question of infant salvation, you will want to read Harwood’s book. You may not agree with it, but it is guaranteed to put a stone in your shoe. https://www.str.org/w/adam-harwood-s-argument-against-original-guilt
hope this helps !!!
Doug Brents
Active Member
Isa 7:16 - "For before the boy knows enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be abandoned."
This verse clearly identifies that there is a time in a child's life at which that child has learned enough to know the difference between good and evil, and to choose good. All children will choose evil in some way, which means that all sin. So both you and Civic are right.
civic
Active Member
Scripture rebukes you below with your false teaching
Its appalling to condemn innocent children- Even the calvinst Gill agree's from Jer 2:34- they are INNOCENT not guilty of sin,
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents,.... Either of the innocent infants of poor persons, who were sacrificed to Moloch; or of the poor prophets of the Lord, whom they slew,
and here from Jeremiah
Jeremiah 19:2 and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you…4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS…6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.
God judged them by having the Babylonians doing to them what they did to their children. The Jews Slaughtering their innocent children and God had them slaughtered by the Babylonians.
Psalm 106:34 They (the Israelites) did not destroy the peoples (the Canaanites), as the Lord commanded them, 35 but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. 36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They SACRIFICED THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO THE DEMONS; 38 they poured out INNOCENT BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.
conclusion: how many time does God/Jesus have to say children are INNOCENT not guilty before you will believe ?
Jesus affirms the above in the N.T. Woe to those who cause any little ones to stumble.
And more scripture from Jesus
Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven
Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.
Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
Matthew 19:13-14
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
Mark 9:36-37
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”
Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.
Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”
Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
conclusion :There is no transmission of a fallen nature, a sin nature that originated with augustine. Lets see what God declares about sin.
Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die
Ezekiel 18:20
“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."
Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.
And we have the wisdom of Job below who knew had he died as a child he would be at peace with the Lord as an innocent and not condemned in hell as guilty as some falsely teach/believe. Job knew there was no torment and suffering if he had died as a child.
Job 3:11 “Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire?…13 For then I would have lain DOWN AND BEEN QUIET; I WOULD HAVE SLEPT; THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN AT REST.
The Bible is in one accord on the innocence of children and that there is no guilt of sin.
civic
Active Member
And no one is held guilt for sin until they sin.
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
Rom 5:13 ........, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Sin is lawlessness. The very young cannot know and understand law. For them there is no law. That is the same for those to mentally limited to know and understand law. For them as well, there is no law.
Jesus essentially acknowledged that in Matthew 19:14. Where was no sin in those little children.
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
Eternally-Grateful
Active Member
The need to be born again has nothing to do with Adam. It is about the one who has sinned.
civic
Active Member
Agreed but an infant who dies is saved, not condemned
Similar threads
