SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Original Sin

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
PosterThread
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Original Sin

An earlier posting mentioned that Paris Reidhead opposed the generally accepted view on Original Sin. I spent some time listening to the sermon (The Hidden Things of God Part 1)and sure enough he blames Augustine for this 'error'. In the course of his preaching there are a fair few opinions that Reidhead states as though they were absolute facts, but this may just be 'preaching style' rather than anything else.

His views on 'original sin', of course, put him in opposition not only to Augustine, but to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Spurgeon, and most speakers on sermonindex.org It also puts him in opposition to most, if not all, evangelical statements of faith. There are a few leaders in the UK of Reidhead's persuasion but it is a very small group in comparison to the more orthodox view. I don't know how folks view things across the water.

Is anyone willing to take to the lists on Reidhead's behalf?


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/18 11:21Profile
todd
Member



Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California

 Re: Original Sin

Yeah, that was me who posted the earlier posting concerning this. Although I take it into account, those that REidhead is opposed to theologically, they could easily be off on this tradition.

As I stated before, Finney also denied this doctrine. And people being in opposition on points of doctrine is so common. Yes, Reidhead would be opposed to these men concerning original sin, but those men would be totally opposed to each other in other doctrinal areas. It seems that Christiansin general are more offended by this doctrine being challenged for some reason. Perhaps because they have built (at least in part) on this doctrine as a foundation which of course is a problem.

I don't know of any living and well-known preachers who share Reidhead's understanding. I think part of the reason is because it has so much precedence in Church history that it's often not even questioned and is quickly accepted and thrown into students' theological grid. ANd if it is ever challenged, few want to take the time to discuss it because (as I agree) there can be much more important things to be doing, especially if you are a pastor.
It also seems to me that most of today's pastors aren't versed and studied in Philosophy and Logic (especially the history of). From what I have heard, Reidhead seems to be. ANd I know that Finney had quite a grasp on these things.
I think those might be some of the reasons why this doctrine goes largely unchallenged today. I would love to go deeper into this. I never have dove into this debate before.

 2003/8/18 11:57Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: Original Sin

I'm going to wait a while to see if any others come into the discussion. oh well perhaps just a little provocation.. One of the reasons that people have taken such a strong stand on this issue is that it removes the need for regeneration. Hold on, let me explain. If I arrived in this world without sin and acquired it, it ought to be possible to remove it. If sin is only transgression it ought to be possible to forgive it. But if I inherited a congenital spiritual condition the only possible solution is a new start e.g. I need to be born again (from above). Let's see what others have to say..


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/18 13:23Profile









 Re:

I don't have time to go deeply into this at the moment but I think the revealing truths concerning this can be found in Paul's letter to the Romans. In chapter 5 especially Paul says that by " Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned". A study of Romans reveals that there are two things in Pauls mind. The first is sin(singular) as a principle which all come under because of Adam's transgression. The second is sins(plural)which we commit as fallen creatures. It would be worth you while to follow Paul's thoughts in relation to Sin and sins in the book of Romans 3 thru 8 especially and how the power of Sin is broken so that we no longer need to commit sins. Of course we still do but judicially this is the case and as Christians we do not need to sin.

Kevin

 2003/8/18 15:14
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: a little more fuel

"I object to the doctrine of constitutional sinfulness, that it makes all sin, original and actual, a mere calamity, and not a crime. For those who hold that sin is an essential part of our nature, to call it a crime, is to talk nonsense." Charles Finney Lecture on Moral Depravity.

"All men were in that one man, Adam. All men were in him, as a river is in its source, and as a tree is in its root. We are all by nature in the First Adam, as we are all by grace in the Second Adam, Christ. We all fell and died in the first Adam; but, by God's free favour and love, we all rise and live in the Second Adam, Who is the antitype of the first." Augustine


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/18 16:05Profile
todd
Member



Joined: 2003/5/12
Posts: 573
California

 Re:

I just wanted to quickly clarify something. I don't know if I said "original sin" in that other post but isn't this actually the doctrine of "sin nature" that we are talking about? I don't think anyone (Finney, Reidhead, etc.) is arguing about "original sin" so much. But perhaps that is the regular title in referrence to this doctrine because it's obviously related.

 2003/8/18 20:30Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

There are definately two opposing views on this subject. I have not been able to see this doctrine dealt with any earlier than Augustine myself. The question is: Do we inherit the sinfull nature of Adam? or Do we inherit the sin of Adam and therefore his guilt?

The former say that while we are born with a bent toward sin, we are not born guilty of it; the latter states that we are born guilty of Adam's sin.

I believe this is one of the origins of baby baptism. I believe that many of the mainline evangelical denominations in America believe in the former, but I have not investigated this statement yet.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2003/8/18 20:44Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: original sin and/or original guilt

your quote "Do we inherit the sinfull nature of Adam? or Do we inherit the sin of Adam and therefore his guilt?"

This is the key question but I would like to sharpen it a little. A 'sin' is a transgression of the will of God. It is identifiable and, theoretically, quantifiable. Romans 5:12 tells us that it was as a result of one man's 'sin' ( a transgression of the known will of God) that SIN (the dynamic) entered the world. This is a unique revelation. It occurs nowhere else in the Bible or in the history of man's search for truth. The revelation is that SIN entered the world (kosmos) at a point in time as a result of Adam's action. The important implication is to see that this shows that SIN is older than the human race! This is a staggering revelation but the only thing that makes sense of our world. SIN existed in another person, Satan, as a result of Adam's opened door, SIN entered the world (and in particular, our race) and DEATH followed. This SIN has passed through to the entire race, according to Romans 5:12)

The key thing is to realise that 'a sin' opened the door to SIN. Adam was the federal head of our race and this action changed our race forever. It is not just hereditary, passing to his children, it passed sideways too to Eve. Have you noticed how the Bible never holds Eve accountable for this. Eve committed 'a sin' before Adam but as she was not the federal head of the race her 'sin' only affected herself. Adam, on the other hand, committed a 'sin' which opened a door to an alien spirit that has radically changed the nature of our race. Reidhead accuses Augustine of contradicting God in that God said the human race was 'very good' whereas Augustine describes it as 'very bad'. Augustine, of course, was not contradicting God's description in Genesis 1, but was moving on to the events of Genesis 3. Genesis 6 shows that Adam 'begat'children 'in his own likeness, after his own image'. The problem is that Adam was no longer in the perfect image and likeness of God, and it is that distored and spoiled likeness that has become our inheritance.

Back to your question.. It is not necessary to conclude that having inherited Adam's SIN we therefore inherit his guilt. Guilt is blameworthiness (never a feeling in scripture). Does God hold me accountable for what Adam did? I don't read that in the scripture. I see that the consequences of Adam's action have a continuing effect on the human race, but I don't describe that as 'guilt'. Personally, I distinguish between 'original sin' and 'original guilt'. I believe I inherited the former but not the latter. (SIN here being the nature not the act). It is not the nature (SIN) that is judged 'guilty' but sin. (James 4:17 gives a useful definition of 'sin' as an act)

SIN cannot be forgiven, it needs a far more radical solution... you must be born again!

We need to distinguish between 'sins' and SIn if we are to be true to the biblical revelation.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/19 3:07Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: pre Augustine refs to Original Sin

your quote: "There are definately two opposing views on this subject. I have not been able to see this doctrine dealt with any earlier than Augustine myself."

Tertullian 197-220 AD (Augustine of Hippo was later 354-430 AD) was one of the ante-Nicene fathers. He wrote…
"NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEPRAVITY OF
MAN’S SOUL BY ORIGINAL SIN, THERE IS YET LEFT
A BASIS WHEREON DIVINE GRACE CAN WORK FOR
ITS RECOVERY BY SPIRITUAL REGENERATION
There is, then, besides the evil which supervenes on the soul from the
intervention of the evil spirit, an antecedent, and in a certain sense natural,
evil which arises from its corrupt origin. For, as we have said before, the
corruption of our nature is another nature having a God and father of its
own, namely the author of (that) corruption."

And there are others, but as Tertullian is the best I will leave it at that. Augustine defined the issues much more precisely as a result of his writings against Pelagius, and prescribed 'infant baptism' as its solution! BUt the concept is much older than Augustine.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2003/8/19 3:33Profile
rickfriedrich
Member



Joined: 2003/8/16
Posts: 4


 Augustin wrong again

Confussion of causes:
"All men were in that one man, Adam. All men were in him, as a river is in its source, and as a tree is in its root. We are all by nature in the First Adam, as we are all by grace in the Second Adam, Christ. We all fell and died in the first Adam; but, by God's free favour and love, we all rise and live in the Second Adam, Who is the antitype of the first." Augustine

History showed this was wrong even though the bible did long before. 1 Cor. 15 and Romans 5 share the verses that relate to this. Historically Augustine's teaching lead and leads properly to universalism. Notice if ALL died in Adam, then ALL must be saved in Christ. This is so obvious that it is a wonder of wonders that such brilliant minds didn't see that :-o
The "SO AS" or "SO THEREFORE" is an equal sign. What you attribute to the one you do to the other. You cannot say ALL died in Adam, but some are saved. The same words are used and thus the same meaning is intended. Here we see that it was not talking about the elect only being lost, and thus only the elect being saved. Rather, the true doctrine is this:
Adam's sin did indeed bring much sorrow and woe to this world. His sin those was not an efficient cause of everyone's sin in the sense of absolute cause, but rather an occational cause. Adam's sin made it possible for everyone to sin just as Christ's work made it possible for people to be saved. A possibility not an actuality. The universalists rightly saw that if ALL died in Adam, then ALL must be saved in Christ. The only way out of that is the truth of the matter and a proper reading of the bible. Thus either we have original sin that is inherited and universalism or we have the fact that children choose to sin when they do not have to. (Remember just because all choose to sin does not mean all had to sin, either).
Also consider that Jesus was of the "SEED" of Abraham, etc. He had his blood. I have seen the strangest reasonings to get out of that mess. "IN ALL POINTS HE WAS MADE AS WE WERE." He was tempted as we were. But if He was not born with a supposed original sin sinful nature (whatever one wishes to call it), then this was not true.
Hope this helps as it did the 18th century overcome universalism and other isms I dare not say :-)
Rick

 2003/8/19 17:21Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy