If we step away from Christ's righteousness being imputed to us, then I think we begin to stray from the doctrine of justification. In sanctification I am imparted with Christ's righteousness, but in justification I am "acredited" with Christ's righteousness. In the Gospel a righteousness from God is revealed. My righteousness is from God.

I see the "old man" as the flesh, which is the whole of our fallen nature.

Hi openairboy
This is my whole point. How does God deal with the 'congenital sin' (my own label for the doctrine)? By Justification or sanctification. Justification deals with what I have done, my own account, and God declares me 'just' on the basis of what He has done in Christ and my total dependence upon that. Sanctification deals with what I am.
My understanding is that it is Regeneration/Sanctification that deals with my nature.
WKIP

_________________
Ron Bailey

I don't think I would disagree with any of that. I'm not necessarily into an ordo salutis, because I think it is rather anachronistic, but we are rebirthed in "regeneration", which is followed by faith and justification, then follows our sanctification, and ultimately glorification. Just like Lazarus coming out of the tomb. If Jesus didn't call him, he would have remained dead. So it is with us, who are dead in our sins and trespasses. BUT GOD...

Hi OAB
your quote: "I see the "old man" as the flesh, which is the whole of our fallen nature."

Did you notice that we have a plural possessive pronoun but a singular noun? 'Our' plural, 'man' singular. Apparently there is just 'one' old man for all of us. We are touching the corporate personality of the human race here. This is a difficult concept for people who have grown up in the fierce individuality of western culture. Here is a useful little test; “(Levi) was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him Heb 7:10”. The writer to the Hebrews, under the inspiration of the Spirit, proves his point on the superiority of Christ’s priesthood to that of Aaron with this fascinatiing argument. Melchizedek is greater that Aaron because Aaron’s ancestor Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and the greater must always bless the lesser and Aaron was in Abraham when Abraham was blessed by Mechizedek! Here is the test; how does that appeal to your sense of reason? In ordinary logic that reasoning would be laughed out of court, but we are dealing with God’s logic here and this is a revelation.
Western culture has overdosed on individuality and personal rights. I hope I won’t offend any of my USA brethren if I quote something which is usually close to their hearts. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted..” This is noble and praiseworthy but ‘the right to pursue happiness’ as an ‘unalienable right’ is not a biblical revelation, it is a Greek philosophy usually known as hedonism. (for an expansion of this idea listen again to ’10 shekels and a new shirt’. https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=2902
The Sinai covenant united people together into a corporate entity under the lawgiver; they were ‘baptised into Moses’ 1 Cor 10) Using an old translation e.g. the KJV will illustrate this again and again by the way it changes from the plural pronoun to the singular and back again constantly in reference to Israel. From one perspective ‘the man that sinneth, he shall die’ from another Achan’s sin contaminates the whole nation. Sin offerings are prescribed for individuals and for the whole nation. This is such an alien concept to our generation that it has become one of the main reasons I stick to the KJV; it forces me to consider myself as an individual AND as a member of a corporate entity. I could say much more but I will press on…
The human race, under the wrong head, is a corporate entity. This is why Adam’s sin has affected it. This is the ‘old man’. (In Hebrew man and Adam are often the same word). Jesus identified Himself with this utterly on the cross; this was His baptism (my baptism, He called it). In Rom 6:6 many modern translations have not translated the phrase ‘our old man’ but have interpreted it. Consequently we have ‘our old nature’ (NASV), ‘our old self’ (NIV). These interpretations break a link. The ‘old man’ is used in contrast to the ‘new man’. If we lose the phrase ‘old man’ we lose the word link with ‘new man’. There is an unfailing characteristic of the ‘old man’, “in Adam all die”.
According to Romans 6:6 “..our old man, was crucified together with him in order that the sinful body might be made powerless, that we should, no longer, be in servitude to sin;” Rotherham Literal Translation. (this would have been even better if it had used the old phrase ‘body of sin’. )
There’s much more to say, but I’ll pause to give chance for reflection and comment or protest! WKIP

_________________
Ron Bailey

Lots of great philosophy guys, but where's the beef? There is no belief in original sin in Jewish theology. Why do we as Christians feel the need to excuse our sin by blaming it on some "congenital" desease. You guys can keep baptizing your children to "remove the stain of original sin" if you choose. I just hope that you tell them "the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die"!

Read the chapter "Moral depravity" in Charles Finney's Sytematic Theology, also Read Albert Barnes commentary on Romans 5. Both are excellent on the subject.

Why is there this strange assumption that to be "mainstream" you must adhere to this rediculous doctrine. I don't know if you have looked lately, but the "mainstream" and "orthodox" christianity has become quite pathetic.
Until you can get this generation to fess up to their own guilt and responsibility for the sins they have committed the church will continue in its lethargy. As long as you convince them that they were born sinful, they will remain sinful.
The homosexuals are arguing that they are born that way. How can to tell them any different?

_________________
Tony Phillips

Hi aphill
Your quote: “Lots of great philosophy guys, but where's the beef? There is no belief in original sin in Jewish theology. Why do we as Christians feel the need to excuse our sin by blaming it on some "congenital" desease. You guys can keep baptizing your children to "remove the stain of original sin" if you choose. I just hope that you tell them "the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die"!”

I don’t know how you can write this if you have read the previous postings on this thread.
1. You reject a Christian consensus on ‘original sin’ but constantly refer to a Jewish consensus on the same subject. There is no belief in Jewish theology for the Trinity, the substitutionary death of Christ, Jesus as the Christ, heaven, the Personality of the Holy Spirit, turning the other cheek, the New Man church of Christ etc etc. In fact, almost every major Christian doctrine. If you are going to insist on Jewish theological approval you will need to throw away your New Testament. Do you think it likely that a Jewish concensus is more reliable than a Christian concensus? The reason Paul hit so much opposition was because he rejected so much ‘Jewish concensus theology’.
2. I don’t blame Adam for my sins, my sins are my responisibility, 100%. But there is a diabolical character to human sin which does not have a human origin. Greg has two sermons of mine on this website which will amplify this.
One is called ‘repentance’ and the other ‘regeneration’. If you really want to know what I believe that’s your best source.
3. I have never believed in ‘infant baptism’. Often people make the right diagnosis but prescribe the wrong remedy. Infant baptism is a case in point. Augustine (and I think it is one of the few areas where I agree with him) made a correct diagnosis but his remedy was nonsense. He arrived at his prescription partly as a result of his ‘loyalty’ to the Roman church. According to that view salvation was only possible within the ‘boat’ of the Roman church, and entrance into that boat was by official Roman baptism. Infants needed to be in the church to avoid limbus infantum, hence infant baptism. If you start from the wrong place it doesn’t matter how logical your thinking is you get the wrong answer. Sometimes our loyalties can give us tunnel vision. I acknowledge your debt to Paris Reidhead but don’t entrench yourself in a blind loyalty, examine the evidence, listen to the arguments and make your own decision.
4. If you have read my contributions to this thread you will know that I am not presenting Augustinian, Calvinistic or Lutheran theology. For good or bad this is my own. Don’t try to pigeon hole me into a doctrinal group, just listen to me. If my statements are not consistent with the biblical revelation reject them and try to correct me. I don’t want to be proved right, I just want the truth.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Philologos,

It is true that the jews did not understand new covenant theology. They did however understand the nature of God and man. They did understand atonement, repentance and faith. They understood community and covenants. The revelation of the life, ministry, death, resurection and introduction of a new covenant by the Lord Jesus remains a mystery to them. Yet the new testament was hidden within the old. Paul recieved much of the revelation of Christian theology and he taught us in light of his Jewish theology and culture. Surely, Paul must be interpreted in a historical context.

I am sorry if you feel I have "pigeon holed" your theology. Not my point. However, it is true that most Christians have no original thoughts on Christian doctrine. In fact most of what Christians believe they have learned through osmosis, that is from their preacher's and teachers. Augustine and Calvin have created the thoughts of most of western Christianity.

I do owe a tremendous weight of gratitude to Paris Reidhead, however, there are many others who influenced my conversion and education. I have never argued in favor of a doctrine that I myself have not spent countless hours of prayer and study to come to a conclusion of.

My argument aqainst original sin is that the Bible defines sin as "transgression of the law" This transgression is a free choice by moral beings. The effect of Adam's sin does extend to his posterity. That is, we will die physically because of him. We are born with the need for self preservation, ultimately this leads to sin.
Nowhere in the story of the fall does the Bible say that Adam was the "federal head" or that his sin would be transmitted to his posterity. I believe it would have said so if the doctrine of original sin was true.

You say that there is a "diabolical character to human sin which does not have a human origin" What sin have you ever committed that you did not originate? If any sins are not of our own invention we have a great argument on judgment day. The Jews have held to a dual nature of man. Whereby man has both the nature to choose good and the nature to choose evil. Neither nature is righteous of sinful. Which nature we live by is what deterimines our character. This is the same view held by Pelagius, who suffered under Augustine.

How is it that we are created in the "image of God"? Is God's image marred by the stain of original sin. Jesus was born with a human nature, was this nature sinful? If not then He was not "tempted as are we".

At some point we have to stick with the fact that sin is a choice. That temptation is at the root of sin. If we can overcome temptation we overcome sin.

_________________
Tony Phillips

aphill
Your quote: “My argument aqainst original sin is that the Bible defines sin as "transgression of the law" This transgression is a free choice by moral beings. The effect of Adam's sin does extend to his posterity. That is, we will die physically because of him. We are born with the need for self preservation, ultimately this leads to sin.
Nowhere in the story of the fall does the Bible say that Adam was the "federal head" or that his sin would be transmitted to his posterity. I believe it would have said so if the doctrine of original sin was true.
You say that there is a "diabolical character to human sin which does not have a human origin" What sin have you ever committed that you did not originate?”

You are not distinguishing between The Sin and A sin.
“to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). (Literally ‘a sin’ the definite article is missing) The consequence of such an action is a sin but ‘a sin’ does not create The Sin. However, it did so in Adam’s case. Eve transgressed a known law and that was a sin. Adam transgressed a known law and that was both ‘a sin’ and the beginning of The Sin. Eve’s sin had no apparent knock-on effect to creation in general or humanity in particular.

I know that the Bible doesn’t use the word ‘federal’ any more than it uses the word ‘governmental’ or ‘moral’ but please consider the following. God held Adam responsible for what had happened. He came searching for Adam; Adam, where are thou. Note the personal pronoun. On reading the remainder of Genesis 3 we discover that the ground is cursed because of what Adam has done; ‘thou’ again. The ‘curse’ is the consequence of what ‘thou’ has done. It was Adam that was expelled from the garden; ’thou’ again. God drove out ‘the man’. God made ‘coverings’ for both Adam and Eve but He held Adam responsible. I know that Eve went with him but it was Adam who was expelled. Eve shared his fate, as do we.

In one climactic moment The Sin entered the world (it is older than our world) ‘through’ (dia) one man, and The Death through (dia) The Sin. Consequently (outOs) The Death ‘passed through’ into (eis) all men for all did sin (this is Aorist and should be translated ‘did sin’. ‘have sinned’ would be Perfect tense. To Nebuchnezzar Daniel said ‘Thou art this head of gold’. In a similar way we may say of Adam ‘thou art Man’.

‘Federal’ BTW is a happy choice of word; it is a corporate entity in which individual members retain individual responsibility.

_________________
Ron Bailey

We can’t let this thread end on this note so I will talk to myself a little. (A very biblical concept, BTW.)

“knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin;” Rom 6:6 ASV

I’ve turned to the old ASV for its accuracy of tenses at this point. Literally this verse speaks of “the old ours man” . in other words “our ‘the old man’”. This combination of the singular for ‘man’ and the plural for the possessive pronoun is thought-provoking. We might have expected ‘our old men’ or ‘my/thy old man’ but instead we have this combination of singular and plural. Apparently we share something; all of us have something in common. The word for ‘old’ is ‘palaios’ which is the prefix we use in ‘Palaeolithic’ or ‘Paleontology ‘. It means from ‘ancient times’. Apparently we all share something from ancient times. Add to this the fact that to the Hebrew mind the word for ‘man’ at this point would be ‘Adam’ and we have a fascinating insight into the mind of Paul and the heart of God. If I were paraphrasing it I might say something like “that ancient Adam who is shared by us all”.

My hypothesis is that what we have here is a corporate entity that includes the whole race ‘in Adam’. The corporate entity (aka ‘body’) is now under the wrong ‘head’ and is consequently “the body of sin” or as it says literally “the body of The Sin”. I think we have synonyms here; ‘our “the ancient man” ‘ and ‘Sin’s Body’. The body exists to fulfil the intention and direction of the head. One way in which it is sometimes helpful to identify something is to try to identify its antonym. What would be the opposite of ‘the Ancient Man’? I suggest ‘The New Man’. What would be the opposite of ‘Sin’s body’? I suggest ‘Christ’s body’.

My hypothesis is that God has brought something to an end in order to make way for something else. Sin’s Body has been rendered ineffectual; katargeo does not mean cease to exist. (katargeo is a great word to meditate on. I have added a post to the Word Study section) Satan’s control of the human race was broken in Christ as He became Sin for us. This is only true ‘in Christ’ which is why God puts us into Christ, (irrespective of whether we are Gentile or Jew, Male or Female etc) and in doing so God has created a New Man or a New Body. If any man be in Christ he becomes a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Consequently Adam “is the figure of him that was to come” (Rom 5:14), and Christ is rightly described as the Second Man, the Last Adam. BTW it is amazing how often hymns and commentaries get these the wrong way around. Biblically, Christ is the Second Man; there have only really been two and all individuals are in one or the other. Again, biblically, Christ is the Last Adam; there will be no more beginnings for the human race.

Adam headed up the old race; Christ heads up the New.

I’ll pause a while.

_________________
Ron Bailey

Do you recall that word ‘katargeo’? If we translate it ‘neutralised’, here is a little list of some things which are already ‘neutralised’ ‘in Christ’. Please check them out.

Sin’s Body Romans 6:6
The Law’s Control Romans 7:2,6
The Glory of the Old Covenant 2 Cor 3:7
The Veil on the Heart of Israel 2 Cor 3:14
The Demands of the Law Eph 2:15
Death 2 Tim 1:10
The Devil Hebrews 2:14

Sure, there’s more to come but this is already done ‘in Christ’. If a Brit may borrow a favourite North American word, awesome!

‘How shall [b]we[/b] escape, if we neglect so great salvation…?

_________________
Ron Bailey