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?

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.

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..

"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

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.

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

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.

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 OFMAN’S SOUL BY ORIGINAL SIN, THERE IS YET LEFTA BASIS WHEREON DIVINE GRACE CAN WORK FORITS RECOVERY BY SPIRITUAL REGENERATIONThere is, then, besides the evil which supervenes on the soul from theintervention 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, thecorruption of our nature is another nature having a God and father of itsown, namely the author of (that) corruption."\tAnd 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.

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." AugustineHistory 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

...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 HulseyActually there is no record in the Christian church of infant baptism ever starting. All new errors have a history as people opposed them and there was controversy about it. If Infant baptism ever begun then people would have hotly disputed it. I grew up Baptist count not believe that until I looked at history myself. What I found was that in the early church the debate was not about whether infant baptism was true and right or not, but how soon. There was a big meeting of leaders early on where a big question was "Shall we wait for the eigth day?" In otherwords, they all believed baptism to be similar to circumcision and thus the question about the 8th day. This was long before Augustine and later aposticies. All the objections to Infant Baptism would set aside the practice of the Hebrews circumsizing. Which would prove too much therefore are invalid. The Hebrew children did not yet have faith, while their parents brought them into the camp. etc. Anyway, a common mistake people make who do not know history (and we had many friends who are Anabaptist who were the main opposers of Infant Baptism) is that they do not realize that Augustine and others did not START the practice of Baptizing infants but began to suggest that such act saved the children. These children like the Hebrews needed to get saved after they sinned. But it was around that time where the formal church began to have this formal infant salvation by mystical water, etc. So when people look back they reject the baby with the bath water :( See A. M. Hills on the subject on my web site: http://truthinheart.com His Fundamental Christian Theology. This woke me up to these things some years back. It also lead me to see that Immersion is not the only way. I have an old book that is also online and I print: Letters on Baptism where a former Baptist minister and College president set out to publish an authoritive book proving his doctrine by the request of a major baptist publisher. After doing all of his research here he went over to the holy land and found all his arguements to fall to the ground, and that he had misunderstood the eastern ways. He then wrote the book I have and had to leave the denomination because he did not even see any evidence that anyone would have been immersed in any of the passages mentioned! This book convinced me even though I long had believed the contrary. Not too long ago an old Baptist minister ordered it and confessed he could not refute it and would not speak against sprinkling and pouring.Just a note for your interest.Rick

You haven't thought through the issue of what happens to a man when he comes to be 'in Christ'. Paul shows clearly in Romans 5 how we came to be 'in Adam'. These two conditions are mutually exclusive. A man remains 'in Adam' until he comes to be 'in Christ' when he is no longer 'in Adam.' But for all 'in Adam' Adam's condition remains their condition.In 1 Cor 15 Paul is speaking of 'physical death' which is the consequence of the DEATH that entered the human race through Adam. This is the 'so great a death' referred to elsewhere by Paul.To say that Augustine's teaching leads to universalism only shows that you haven't understood it. Rather than produce a universalism it resulted in an exclusivism that insisted that outside the 'church' there was no salvation at all, hence limbus patrum, limbus infantum, and hell. He was wrong on so many things but to accuse him of creating an inevitable road to universalism is unjust.

Philo wrote: Tertullian 197-220 AD (Augustine of Hippo was later 354-430 AD) was one of the ante-Nicene fathers. He wrote…"NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEPRAVITY OFMAN’S SOUL BY ORIGINAL SIN, THERE IS YET LEFTA BASIS WHEREON DIVINE GRACE CAN WORK FORITS RECOVERY BY SPIRITUAL REGENERATIONReply: Thank you for your information. I did not no that those quotes existed.Philo wrote: Does God hold me accountable for what Adam did? I don't read that in the scripture.Reply: Amen; neither do I. According to Ezekiel chapter 18, God, through the prophet, explains that a man is responsible for his own sins. He goes on to say that a son will not be judged for what his father did and vica-versa.Philo wrote: SIN cannot be forgiven, it needs a far more radical solution... you must be born again!Reply: Amen(!), There is no redemption for the sinful nature, only death, and the replacement of it by a new nature. God promised also in Ezekiel, I think it's in the 36th chapter, not to fix our heart and spirit, but to give us a new heart and a new spirit. If we only had more preaching like this in our pulpits instead of the post-modern, humanistic, seeker-sensitive, junk that "can't shake a leaf, let alone a soul" (David Wilkerson), we would have revival in our churches and a spiritual awakening in our communities.In Christ,Jeremy HulseyP.S. if you are wondering why I use the "so and so wrote:" and "reply:" method; it's because I haven't figured out how to use the quote button without messing up my whole entry.

I don't think any of us would argue that one must be born again to inherit eternal life. But, as I read through these posts I must comment because I think a lot of the arguement would be solved if we looked at the Scriptures.Much of the problem with this issue is improper translation of Scripture. For one thing, although many versions use the phrase "sinful nature," the actual Greek word is translated "flesh." There is no denying that we were all born into flesh and therefore we all have fleshly desires -- but the problem I have with calling it a "sinful nature" is that our fleshly desires (when in submission to the will of God) are not at all sinful. When God created Adam, GOD placed certain desires in Him. (And God gave Adam a covering of flesh BEFORE he sinned.) Sin entered the world when Adam chose to be master of his flesh, instead of bringing his flesh into subjection to God. So, this is where man was corrupted -- and this disease of ruling ourselves is what we must be saved from. This is the whole essence of sin. The Bible makes it clear that ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. And there is truly no way that one can obey God apart from the enabling power of Christ -- which only comes when one is born again. The issue that I have with this doctrine is that many use it as an excuse to sin. "Well, I've been born with a sinful nature, so I can't help it." But Jesus walked in the flesh as we do and was faced with every temptation that we are faced with but He resisted sinning because (by the power of the Holy Spirit) He brought His fleshly desires in subjection to God. My point is that our flesh is corrupted when we rule ourselves -- not just because Adam sinned so now we can't help it. And we sin when we choose to rule ourselves -- not just because we were born with a nature to do so. Is it possible to not sin apart from God? No! But that doesn't mean that it was Adam's fault that I did.I hope and pray this made sense. --Maria

You haven't thought through the issue of what happens to a man when he comes to be 'in Christ'. Paul shows clearly in Romans 5 how we came to be 'in Adam'. These two conditions are mutually exclusive. A man remains 'in Adam' until he comes to be 'in Christ' when he is no longer 'in Adam.' But for all 'in Adam' Adam's condition remains their condition.In 1 Cor 15 Paul is speaking of 'physical death' which is the consequence of the DEATH that entered the human race through Adam. This is the 'so great a death' referred to elsewhere by Paul.To say that Augustine's teaching leads to universalism only shows that you haven't understood it. Rather than produce a universalism it resulted in an exclusivism that insisted that outside the 'church' there was no salvation at all, hence limbus patrum, limbus infantum, and hell. He was wrong on so many things but to accuse him of creating an inevitable road to universalism is unjust.[That statement as quoted by Augustine indeed leads to universalism. I know he did not believe in universalism. But many theologians said contradictory and wrong things. My point still stands. You have not made clear what you mean. If you wish to expand what you mean perhaps I may see the connection between what I showed and what you responded to. It seems at least choppy. I also think you are flying off the handle to call my statement unjust. The sentence in itself as you quoted, and as it relates to the obvious scriptures mentioned, appears to lead to universalism. Granted that he could have been meaning something different than the words normally mean, whatever the case it still leads people to naturally assume the universalist position. And indeed this was a great occasion for universalism 150-250 years ago. And it did not really go away until people silenced that stronghold with the true biblical picture. It was also related to the wrong view of the atonement which supposed that Christ paid the literal penalty for those who He died for. Thus the universalists noticed that He died for all, and therefore all must be saved. Anyway, I would agree that Adam's sin brought great trouble upon this earth and our bodies, and that we are greatly tempted more than if he had not sinned. The flesh is indeed weaker and more of a source of temptation than before. And in fact all people have sinned at some time in their childhood. But my points about Jesus must be kept in mind, because He had the same physical nature (and I am not referring to character here, but physical nature) as we do. He shared the weakness of the flesh, and there is no evidence that he had a physical being as Adam before the fall had (although he never sinned and brought harm to His body as we all have). So however we define our terms about the weaknesses and pronness to sin, Christ still had the same. So all this mystical theology can make people forget that Jesus experienced what we did, and lead many people to suppose of themselves as more victims rather than guilty sinners (who alone are to blame for their sins). The Federalism theology tends to miss these things and confuse many people, and lead to some serious problems in poeple's practical lives. I have seen this many times, and most people cannot clearly define what they mean. I will say also that Romans 5:12 expands what verse 17 to 19 mention more in general, which is that all men sinned, not merely Adam sinned therefore we are sinners, but we all each sinned AS Adam had. Just as all who lie or sin are children of the devil because he has sinned from the beginning, so we are of Adam because we have individually chosen to sin in the same manner. Again there is no sin if there is no law, as the next verse says and as John says both in the Gospel and 1 John. An infant does not sin when it does not even understand the law of God. So whatever we inherit from Adam, there is no guilt in it and we need to be careful to define our terms so that people don't get that impression. There have been too many people stumbled by religion because many have taken this theology to the point of saying babies must be sinful and therefore lost (and many--all the aborted children--are in hell!). Again, also, Christ received what we all did otherwise He was not the same person Hebrews talks about and is not able to sympathize with us IN ALL POINTS and not a true mediator, etc. Please understand my only reason for stressing these things is because of so much apparently needless confusion in history, and so much stumbling Christians and non-Christians. So many people today justify their sin because they are told that they are born sinners. Who really would feel guilty if they were born with something that MADE them commit evil? It would not be their fault would it? Everyone knows this deep down. But Paul says chapters earlier that this is NOT the case. All have personally chosen the wrong path, they are exclusively responsible for their own sins. Few people holding the Agustinian theories spend much time in Romans 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 but focus mainly on 5, 7, and 9. So then whole passages are taken out of context as the foundation is not considered. It is a progressive argument against the Pharisee, and not an attempt to prove Phariseeism as some end up doing by insisting upon Rom 7:14-22 being Paul's present state. I will only be satisfied when we use biblical language and avoid non-biblical language or reasonings that stumble people in the ways mentioned. I hope you can understand my motivation in this. I am strongly against making bad people look worse than they are. And I have great appreciation for people who even did believe that infants were going to hell--like Jonathan Edwards, whose works I sell on CD. Please excuse my choppiness as I have said so many different things in a short space.]

I find myself in the unique position of having to defend Augustine. Unique because I disagree with him on almost everything, defending because there is no necessary connection between him and universalists. Universalism did not arise from a wrong view of sin but from a wrong view of love. Universalists said (and say) that God's love must ultimately win through and guarantee final salvation; thorough-going universalists include all the creation (and Satan in this). They have not understood that what is demonstrated at Calvary is not 'love' as men use the word but 'holy love'. Augustine was not the first to speak of 'original sin', (see my earlier posting) and I would rather move away from him to the biblical revelation.Beginning at Rom 5:12 Paul speaks of 'sin' as a person. If you read the verses in Youngs Literal Translation (or the Greek) you will find that having referred to 'sin' without the definite article, from this point he refers to THE sin. This abrupt change is highly significant. I will try to illustrate; when NT uses the word 'spirit' without the article is has 'characteristic' as its focus. When is uses 'the spirit' (with the article) it has 'his personality' as focus. I won't clog this post with refereces but I can supply if any request.The significance is that at Rom 5:12 Paul begins to speak of 'the sin'; this is not sin as an event nor sinfulness as a characteristic but SIN as a person.Something has happened to our race; and alien life force has invaded it. I have visited Nazi death camps in Poland; only Paul has an explanation for the 'diabolical' behaviour of the human race.What is true for THE SIN is equally true for THE DEATH which followed THE SIN through the door opened by Adam. It is because THE DEATH has entered that people (and babies, and birds and trees) die even though they are not 'guilty' of Adam's disobedience. It is regeneration that puts us 'into Christ'. No one is 'in Christ' automatically because of what Christ has done. Regeneration changes our nature. "If any man (note the 'if') be in Christ he is a new creation: old things are passed away; behold, all things 'have become' new." Hence in the regenerate 'the old man' is no more but the 'new man' has begun.

This post is an attempt to carry over from the "Ravenhill" section because the thread was taking this new direction.In the "Ravenhill's Roots" thread, philologos wrote:"ToddThanks. I certainly see your point, but the implications are puzzling. How many times could a man do this? I am aware of Finney's idea of the first conscious rebellion of an individual constituting a covenant with sin and death. I think the teaching is that this initial act puts an individual 'into Adam'. ('revivaltheology' if this statement needs tweaking, please tweak) If this be described as an old nature I can see that regeneration/sanctification could be said to 'eradicate' this, however what happens the next time the individual is consciously rebellious? Would that re-constitute the old nature? I suppose a man could them be 'sanctified' again, and again.... How many times could this happen? I think the answer has already been given by 'revivaltheology' in that Finney was not strictly speaking 'eradicationist'.This is one of the dangers in lumping folks together into groups. I don't regard myself as an 'eradicationist' simply because I don't like the word. However that particular group has most in common with my own understanding and I am not reluctant to be associated with them. Sometimes when you only have 2 options its difficult to make the call.Here's a little bit of trivia. The Finnish language didn't have a word for the colour 'orange' until the 20th century. On seeing an orange (the fruit) you had to decide whether or not is was red or yellow. I feel a bit like that when asked whether I am 'suppressionist' or 'eradicationist'."I like that trivia. Thanks. I might use that someday.Here's my response to our little debate:Once a man has chosen to sin, and thus sin has entered and become a part of him, it reigns in him as well as death. That is, unless he comes to have faith in Jesus Christ at which time death is overthrown and no longer reigns but instead life reigns. It is a shift in natures I guess. You may consciously sin again, but your new nature doesn't change. Once you have believed, you have a clean slate by the blood of Jesus. But if you sin, you have an advocate with the Father and He is faithful and just to forgive our sins if we confess them. When we confess them, we once again have a clean slate. You can never become "clean" by nature in the first place without the blood. But by the blood we pass from death to life. I really like what you said in your teaching entitled "Propitiation." You said something like (please correct this), "Until you talk to God about your sin He will talk to you about it. Once you talk to Him about it, He won't mention it again."That's wonderful. I think you phrased it better though.

If you liked that trivia you may like this. Hebrew didn't have word for 'frustration' until the mid-seventies. Before the new word was absorbed into the language, people who spoke only Hebrew were never "frustrated". They may have been "angry" or "disappointed" or they may have experienced a sense of turmoil in certain situations, but the acute feeling of frustration itself was unknown to them until the word for it was translated from the English language.You see that up until that time if people identified their reaction as 'anger' or 'disappointment' it was much easier to target the remedy. But if I am 'frustrated' it is somehow not my problem but someone elses. The labels we put on things have lasting significance.