| Poster | Thread | dougkristen
Member
Joined: 2004/1/28
Posts: 360
| | WSC. Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adams first transgression? | | Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adams first transgression?
Grace,
Doug
_________________
a Jesus freak
|
|  2004/11/18 9:20 | Profile | dougkristen
Member
Joined: 2004/1/28
Posts: 360
| | Re: WSC. Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adams first transgression? ANSWER | | A. The covenant being made with Adam,[40] 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.[41]
[40] Genesis 2:16-17. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
James 2:10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
[41] Romans 5:12-21. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 15:22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
_________________
a Jesus freak
|
| | 2004/11/22 12:57 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
A. The covenant being made with Adam,[40] 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.
I have often posted on this topic so Im not going to go into detail here but the doctrine of original sin (as this is usually called) can be upheld without the need for suggesting its descent by ordinary generation. (Not that this statement is saying such.) Through Adams disobedience sin passed, there and then, into the whole human race. The verbs used
[b] Wherefore, as by one man sin [u]entered[/u] into the world, and death by sin; and so death [u]passed[/u] upon all men, for that all have [u]sinned[/u]: [/b] (Rom 5:12 KJV)
are all Aorist which signifies, at its simplest, a past tense. Consequently the sin that entered through Adams disobedience does not spread from generation to generation, but spread, there and then, to the whole human race. This encompassed Eve whose disobedience did not have the same consequence as Adams. Hence original sin is not hereditary but congenital.
There have, however, been notable Christians who have rejected the whole notion of original sin, viz George Fox, Robert Barclay, Charles Finney.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/22 14:37 | Profile | KeithLaMothe
Member
Joined: 2004/3/28
Posts: 354
| | Re: | | Finney, incidentally, was ordained Presbeyterian, and as a condition of that ordination had to subscribe to the Westminster Standards (of which the WSC is a part).
Later on (as I've heard the story told), Finney actually read the Confession, and discovered that he had some differences with it. |
| | 2004/11/22 18:59 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
Later on (as I've heard the story told), Finney actually read the Confession, and discovered that he had some differences with it.
I have some struggles with Finney but I love his preface to Systematic Theology.
[i]I hold myself sacredly bound, not to defend these positions at all events, but on the contrary, to subject every one of them to the most thorough discussion, and to hold and treat them as I would the opinions of any one else; that is, if upon further discussion and investigation I see no cause to change, I hold them fast; but if I can see a flaw in any one of them, I shall amend or wholly reject it, as further light shall demand.
True Christian consistency implies progress in knowledge and holiness, and such changes in theory and in practice as are demanded by increasing light.[/i]
I have tried to make it my conscious philosophy.
This next quote, however, I would contest...[i]"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." [/i] Lectures on Systematic Theology: Lec 24 Moral Depravity
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/23 13:23 | Profile | RobertW
Member
Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri
| | Re: | | Quote:
There have, however, been notable Christians who have rejected the whole notion of original sin, viz George Fox, Robert Barclay, Charles Finney.
We may be even able to add Paris Reidhead to that list. I have to disagree with these men on this, but in the end we all know we have sinned so it is a mute argument. If we use the standard of God's absolute holiness as the contrast from which we work, none could deem themselves without sin. Isaiah cried out "woe is me for I am undone..." and such is the case for us as we see ourselves for what we are in the great light of God's Holy Word and Spirit.
I have spent a great deal of time studying these men, especially of late, and have just agreed to disagree. Charles finney was a lawyer and I have taken that into account in his writings. Much of their works are still quite wonderful and inspiring. I love reading George Fox :-). And the Lord's Power was OVER ALL..." I love reading Finney and listening to and reading Reidheads works. There is something in their writings (along with other teachers of perfection) that you do not find in other writings. It is a sense of the awesome reality of God that compells men to live holy and without compromise; for anything else at that level would seem like treason.
_________________
Robert Wurtz II
|
| | 2004/11/23 13:47 | Profile | philologos
Member
Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK
| | Re: | | Quote:
We may be even able to add Paris Reidhead to that list. I have to disagree with these men on this, but in the end we all know we have sinned so it is a mute argument.
I think you are right. We talked about Paris Reidhead quite early in the life of SI. There was one of the early AoG UK tutors at their Bible college who did not believe in original sin. In the UK Roger Forster, a leader in Icthus churches, does not believe in the doctrine either.
The question is not whether or not all have sinned. Everyone is agreed on this. The question is the interpretation of Rom 5:12. I have to admit that much of my theology would have to be reworked if I did not believe in congenital sin, as I prefer to call it. (such a reworking would not be the first!)
We Brits have made particular contribution in this field in the person of Pelagius who I think is responsible for some of Augustine's more extreme statements.
As far as I have been able to trace the earliest expression of the theology is Tertullian. I was thrilled when I came across this. It fits so well with my own current position on the matter.
"NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEPRAVITY OF MANS 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."
Tertullian 197-220 AD (Augustine of Hippo was later 354-430 AD) was one of the ante-Nicene fathers.
_________________
Ron Bailey
|
| | 2004/11/23 14:35 | Profile |
|
