The term has two basic meanings. One references the "Original Sin", where Adam and Eve defied God in the Garden of Eden. Big deal. No acrimony there. The other meaning, however, seems to be a very unpopular concept these days. The doctrine of Original Sin says simply this: We are born sinners.
The idea is certainly not popular today. It is not popular first from the world's viewpoint because, as everyone knows, people are basically good. In other words, despite all the evidence to the contrary, lots of people still think that humans are good at their core. In other words, Natural Man is a Pelagian. Sadly, the doctrine is also roundly denied among Christians (real or imagined). "No, no," my faithful Christian readers might say, "that's not so. We believe that 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God'. Isn't that what you're saying?" That's only part of it. The doctrine of Original Sin says, "We are born sinners." In other words, that innocent baby you may be holding or thinking of ... isn't innocent. If your response is, "What??!!" or something similar, you've discarded, along with Natural Man, the doctrine of Original Sin.
Now, I'd like to point out from the start that the doctrine is rooted in Scripture. That doesn't help much, I know, because people who value Scripture still disagree, but I'll still make the case from Scripture. Beyond that, though, it is a historic, orthodox, Christian doctrine. I didn't make it up. I didn't surmise it from my reading of the Bible all on my own. It has been around since Scripture was finished, of course, but it was affirmed by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and on and on. They aren't proof, but they certainly serve as "character witnesses" for the doctrine, so to speak. That is, it isn't some obscure, remote, unheard-of notion that no one held and no one believes. It is a historical doctrine.
So ... where do I find it? I find it first stated, ironically enough, by God. "And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth'" (Gen 8:21). You get the gist of what God is saying here. "Why do this again? Their sin is a constant." But what you may miss is the concept of Original Sin: "The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth." There it is, stated as clearly as it can be stated. The word used here, "youth", is not the same concept as when you think of a "youth group" at church. That group is likely junior high and above. It is the Hebrew version of "not adult". It is "childhood" from infancy to adolescence. According to God, "The intention of man's heart is evil from infancy on." That is God's commentary on the doctrine of Original Sin.
It's elsewhere as well. David assumed it when he said, "I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). That is not "My mother sinned when she conceived me." No ... it's "I was a sinner at my conception." Paul says it in Romans -- "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" (Rom 5:12) -- and in 1 Corinthians -- "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:21-22). So here's the basic concept. In Adam all died spiritually. Adam's sin is imputed to all of Adam's race. All humans are born sinners, regardless of whether or not they've actually committed an initial sin.
"Oh, my ... how can you say that about those little babies?" you might say, and I'd fully understand. I mean, look at those innocent faces. And think about the sins we commit, even as Christians. They've done nothing at all like that! True ... so true. The problem here is that we're making comparisons -- comparisons to the wrong thing. First, let's ask ourselves, was Paul accurate when he wrote, "As it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one" (Rom 3:10-12)? If we hold that he was accurate, then we will have a problem with our own argument that babies are innocent. In other words, "Well, Paul, you're close, but 'no one' is an overstatement because every single infant is righteous, valuable, good. Really close, Paul, but, seriously, that's an overstatement." Yeah ... I don't think that's where we want to go. So what can we conclude? If no one is naturally righteous, then something about that sweet, innocent-looking newborn is wrong. First problem: Human beings are stillborn, spiritually speaking. Born spiritually dead, that sweet thing is under God's wrath. Second problem: "Righteous" entails not doing what God doesn't want and actually doing what God does want. What does God want? It's simple. "No other gods." He gets all the glory. He is the one to be honored. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" ... that kind of thing. Very simple. And what is an infant doing from the moment of birth? Thinking only of self. Oh, that's mostly what we all do all the time, and therein lies our problem, but babies aren't immune. They're ... guilty.
Don't get me wrong. I like babies. I don't look at that sweet little grandchild of mine and say, "Ewww, repent, sinner!" She is certainly "more innocent" than I am. But ... if the Bible is to believed, the doctrine of Original Sin cannot be avoided. The fact that it is regularly denied by both unbelievers and believers simply serves as a reminder that ... we're all sinners. We all tend to operate from a faulty measure of "sin" and we all need salvation. Yes, even that dear little child.
24 comments:
The doctrine of Original Sin says simply this: We are born sinners.
Perhaps we could agree that this is an oversimplification of the doctrine? The doctrine actually teaches that we are born with a bent to sin. With a sinful nature and a tendency to imbibe in sin.
We are not sinners until we actually sin. So, therefore, babies are not sinners. They have not sin. They are not "born sinners," because no one is guilty of a sin until they actually commit a sin. As the Bible notes, "Each one is held accountable for their OWN sins."
THIS is the doctrine of original sin as I'm familiar with it.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia...
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
NOT that we are "born sinners."
I note the difference because this oversimplification of the doctrine can lead to all sorts of wrong and awful understandings.
Now I will note that some church leaders have had odd understandings of this doctrine. According to wikipedia...
Augustine of Hippo taught that original sin was physically transmitted from parent to child through the concupiscence (roughly, lust) that accompanied sexual reproduction, weakening the will and making humanity a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd). In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned.
I don't think this thinking is the norm within orthodoxy and it sure isn't the norm within plain common sense.
According to Calvin...
Therefore original sin is seen to be an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all parts of the soul . . .
Original sin is the suggestion that within our nature, we have a tendency towards corruption and sin. It is NOT the suggestion that babies are sinners. Not within orthodox Christianity as I understand it.
If by "born sinners," you merely mean this same thing - that we are born with a tendency to sin (and not that infants are sinners) - then we are in agreement, but I did want to strive to clarify that, given some of our previous conversations and, indeed, given what you've said here.
Where Paul talks of being a sinner from conception, that would be more reasonably explained as hyperbole, not that Paul indicated that as a two day old infant, he was willfully making decisions to sin. That simply is not the case nor is it even possible.
This is the problem with being dogmatic and overly literal: You can come to conclusions that are not borne out by simple logic. And if you hold a theological position that is not born out by fairly obvious logic (not that our logic is perfect, either), it is probably time to reconsider your theological position.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you - surely you don't think an infant one hour old has sinned?
In re-reading your position, I'd hope that you'd reconsider. It's just not orthodox nor logical nor biblical.
You say...
"No other gods." He gets all the glory. He is the one to be honored. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" ... that kind of thing. Very simple. And what is an infant doing from the moment of birth? Thinking only of self. Oh, that's mostly what we all do all the time, and therein lies our problem, but babies aren't immune. They're ... guilty.
No! No, one is not guilty of sin for merely thinking of your own needs and CERTAINLY not a baby. Come now, let us reason, brother. This is a nutty view, one you have pulled together contrary to the Bible and logic because of a verse where Paul says "No one does good," and a line that YOU take to mean Paul thought he was a sinner as a baby (although the line doesn't actually say that).
Being "brought forth in iniquity" does not mean that it is sinful for parents to have sex and have children. That is not iniquity! That is beautiful and God-blessed. The baby being born is not in iniquity (ie, is not in the midst of some sinful action). Paul is using hyperbole to make a point, obviously, since we know that it is not church doctrine that sexuality is sinful or that having babies is sinful.
It sure seems you're twisting logic and other scripture in order to hold to a fairly literal interpretation of a couple of verses that need not be taken literally.
Here, some fella named David Ray Fanning has provided these biblically compelling reasons why it is clear that babies are NOT sinners...
The Bible is clear that babies are not sinners for the following reasons: 1) Sin is a personal choice (Isaiah 53:6 states, “All we like sheep have gone astray” NOT “All were born astray”; James 1:14-15 states, “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his OWN desires…when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” NOT “When conceived/born, babies inherit the sin of Adam”); 2) Everyone is responsible/accountable for his own personal sins (Ezekiel 18:20 states that children do not bear the iniquity/guilt of their parents; Romans 14:12 states that each one will give account of HIMSELF to God); 3) Children are pure, innocent and without sin (Isaiah 7:14-16; Matthew 18:2-4; 19:13-15; Mark 9:36; 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; Romans 9:10-12; I Corinthians 14:20)...
The Bible is clear that babies are not sinners for the following additional reasons: 5) God gives babies their human spirits and makes them in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Acts 17:25; Hebrews 12:9). God is not the giver or source of sin (James 1:13, 17); 6) The Scriptures indicate that sin is chosen (not inherited) by humans at some moment during their “youth” (not at conception or infancy, Genesis 8:21: Job 13:26; Isaiah 7:16; Jeremiah 3:25; 32:30) at which time they are held accountable and spiritually separated from God (Isaiah 7:15-17; Romans 7:7-12); 7) Jesus was conceived as an offspring of King David “according to the flesh” through Mary and was “born of a woman” (Romans 1:3; Galatians 4:4). No baby, including Jesus, is conceived/born a sinner (Hebrews 4:15)...
As an afterthought, I would note that Judaism did not have this concept of original sin (at least of the sort that you're apparently describing here), back then or now [ source].
As you note earlier: Is it possible that thousands of years of believers had it wrong and then suddenly, Augustine rightly reinterpreted (some of) the words of the Bible to get this new doctrine? (although in the midst of doing that, you have to disregard OTHER teachings from the Bible that are clear).
OR, is it more likely that Augustine (and others who followed his lead) took what should more likely be treated as hyperbole and he treated it as literal, and was mistaken in doing so?
So, in addition to the Bible and logic arguing against your (and Augustine's) take on this extrabiblical doctrine, history argues against it, too.
By the way, you ought to check out the source you used -- the Catholic Encyclopedia. They specifically address the question, "Are we condemned for personal sin?" They answer, "No!" They say in that very article that it is not "personal sins", but "one first sin which was enough to transmit equally to all men a state of sin and the title of sinners." They understand Rom 5:12 to say what I understand it to say: "The words 'all have sinned' must mean, 'all have participated in the sin of Adam'."
Oh, and as for Augustine? His argument was with Pelagius. He did argue about sinful sex, sure, and you and I would agree he was wrong, but his primary argument on this topic was what is known as "the Federal Headship of Adam." That is, Adam, as our duly designated representative in the Garden, failed. Therefore, all of the human race gets that failure status. Neither did Augustine originate the concept. (Infant baptism, practiced before Augustine, largely revolved around this very concept.)
I know Augustine did not originate it (or at least that's my understanding), but he seemed to be the early big proponent of this mistaken take on the topic. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly and the cause was championed by someone else before Augustine?
Regardless, I'm glad to hear we agree that Augustine was wrong about sexuality. I hope you'll consider all the verses that argue against sinning babies and come to agree with me (and, I believe, most evangelicals) on the point.
Thanks for pointing out my source's error. I'm not Catholic nor especially familiar with their stance, and rushed too quickly in using that source, I reckon.
Very interesting article here by Dr. Albert Mohler who 1) agrees with the doctrine of Original Sin and 2) explains why infants (who he considers sinners) and others still go to Heaven when they die.
You'll have to provide a better source than Mohler if you want credibility with me. He's not very much of a historic Baptist. It does not surprise me that he rejects traditional baptist teaching on this point.
And, as a note, I will say that I AGREE with the doctrine of original sin in its more correct understanding (ie, that we inherit as humans a bent to sinning). It's this notion of baby sinners that is problematic.
I would hope that at some point you take up the logical and biblical problems with the notion of sinning babies. Very specifically, what possible sin do you think a 1 day old baby could possibly commit?
Do you agree with the quite logical position that one has to KNOW about sin in order to commit sin? That is, sin is a willful disobedience on some point and, quite obviously, at 1 day old, babies simply aren't making willful decisions about anything. They are not thinking, rational beings at the point in time.
Even Mohler, despite his repeated poor biblical reasoning, is not far wrong here. Mohler says, "Have those who died in infancy committed such deeds? I believe not, for they have not yet developed the capacity to know good from evil." Ie, babies have not sinned.
So, I believe your source is supporting my position. Mohler's point is that all babies have "Adam's sin" attributed to them (as Mohler says, "Adam's sin and guilt, imputed to every single human being, explains why we are born as sinners"... when he says babies are sinners, he means just what I've been saying (sort of), that babies have Adam's sin "imputed" upon them. Where I disagree with him (and perhaps am getting away from many evangelicals) is what that means. He takes that to mean that babies are sinners, or so it appears, since he uses that phrase. Whereas I'm suggesting that it means that we have a tendency towards sin. Not that babies are charged with Adam's sin or that they have committed a sin themselves.
Mohler actually seems to be saying both, so, again, he's not someone I put much respect in. When he says, though, that babies have not committed "such deeds," since they "have not yet developed the capacity to know good and evil," Mohler is right.
Oh, man, that's really bad. I wrote a big long thing way back after your first comments and ... it never showed up. (There is a hint. My "first comment" says, "By the way ...".)
Okay, I can't duplicate all of that. It was full of corrections to errors you made in your original comments (which, by the way, remain), but I do need to repeat now what failed to post. It is absolutely, abundantly, glaringly clear that you do not understand the doctrine of Original Sin. You don't get it. You are not comprehending the idea. This is clear in the way you address it with disdain for the doctrine and insults for me. (Surely I can't take comments like "nutty idea" as a compliment.) You don't get it. And so you are vehemently protesting an idea that you don't understand.
Here's what I recommend. Go find out what it actually means. Don't go to wikipedia as a theological source. Certainly don't go to your favorite "Why they are wrong" sources. Find sources that argue the doctrine as true. Read the entire argument from the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance. (Interestingly, this doctrine is not one that the Reformers disagreed with the Catholics on. It has been the Catholic doctrine since the inception of Roman Catholicism and was the Reformed doctrine after that. In other words ... historical orthodoxy.)
If you dare, try Jonathan Edwards' piece entitled The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. (I don't mean "if you dare" as in "you might change your mind". I mean "if you dare" as in "it's a lengthy read".)
I'm not suggesting you look into this to change your thinking. That's not going to happen. I'm suggesting you educate yourself about things you don't understand before arguing against them. That way you can correct errors in your thinking even if you still consider mine faulty and more effectively argue your points. Right now you're shooting in the dark. You don't get it. Check on other sources and find what it really means before arguing that I'm an idiot and a God-hater. (Funny ... I meant both of those as humorous. Why don't they look that funny?)
You really need to know what you're against here. Trying to explain it in this format isn't going to happen -- you're too far off and I don't have enough time and space here. Please ... take a look into it before you argue it further.
Brother, I have read Jonathan Edwards and have been a big fan of his in many ways (less so now, but certainly in the past). I have read his position and understand that he's one of the ones that associates "original sin" (which, again, I don't disagree with) with the "utter depravity of humanity."
That you THINK that I don't understand the concept does not mean that I don't understand it or have not read your "side" of the topic. Don't forget, for my first nearly 30 years of life, I was a die hard traditionalist in most ways.
My reading list was nearly exclusively conservative/traditional (CS Lewis, Edwards, Ravenhill, Dobson, Swindoll, Wesley, The Bible, the Bible, the Bible, etc, etc, etc). I am quite familiar with the source content from a first person point of view. I was reading Edwards when I was probably 13-14 years old.
You can have a hunch that I'm mistaken, and that's ALWAYS a safe bet (being human and all, I'm prone to mistakes), but unless you point to some place where I've made a mistake ("Dan, here you said... and that is mistaken because...") then I have no idea what you're talking about. I am teachable, but I'm not psychic.
And once again, as you are noting here, I wrote what I wrote with a smile on my face (including "nutty" - I consider that a humorous little word), so don't mistake my comments for angry, they're not.
Now, having said that, I'm still curious if you'd be willing to tell me which sin exactly a one day old infant has committed.
I'm still curious what you do with all of the Bible passages you have to ignore in order to create a sinful infant.
Perhaps it would be helpful for clarification's purpose if I were to restate where I agree with you on this point:
1. I agree that we are all sinners.
2. "All" in this case, though, is hyperbole. I believe that all of humanity are sinners, eventually. However, it is obvious that we are not all sinners all the time. We only sin when we make that decision to sin. That being the case, babies aren't sinners because they have not chosen to sin. "Sin" implies a conscious rebellion against what is right.
3. I agree with the doctrine of Original Sin insofar as it says that we all sin and we all have as part of our human nature a tendency to sin. Here again, though, we must use reason. Just because we have a tendency towards sin does not mean we are always sinning. And reasonable people can agree that babies aren't making a conscious effort to sin.
4. Because we are sinners, we are in need of salvation. That salvation comes from God, by God's grace, through faith in Jesus.
5. Because babies have not sinned, they are not under God's wrath. They aren't condemned as guilty because someone else sinned. Each person is only guilty for any sins they personally commit. To suggest otherwise is contrary to what the Bible clearly teaches. (we may not agree on this point, although I have a hard time understanding how anyone could disagree here. You tell me.)
As I said, addressing all the errors in your understanding and trying to help you to be clearer is not possible in this venue.
Further, it is really impossible to retain a friendly dialog with your "smile on my face" comments that cannot be taken in anything but a pejorative sense. I do not ignore Bible passages, for instance. You could ask the question in a way that isn't insulting ... but you didn't. So I have a choice. Either I'm willfully ignorant or intentionally throwing out Scripture. Hmmm ... which one shall I take? You see? There is no good way for me to answer that. Nor is there much possibility of a friendly conversation with that kind of rhetoric, "smile on my face" or not.
Here's the basic position: In Adam all died. All human beings are born spiritually dead. (I'm looking ... I'm reading over what I just wrote ... I'm trying to find something that says ... nope ... not there ... I didn't say "The baby that the doctor is holding in his hands has already committed a sin.") You keep hounding this point of "What sin did they commit?" I'm not talking about a sin. I'm talking about a condition. They were born "in sin" (David's words). I'm talking about spiritually dead beings who, being spiritually dead, have no relationship with God. Or, as David puts it, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3).
The argument from Paul's epistle to the Romans is " just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men" (Rom 5:12). The argument that Paul uses goes something like this. "Isn't it strange that no one between Adam and Moses had the Law and yet all died?" (Rom 5:13-14). More importantly, Paul is making a parallel argument in Romans 5. "Just as" in one case, "even so" in the other. What is the "just as"? Just as Adam's singular transgression resulted in "condemnation to all men", so Christ's righteousness results in justification. This is very important. How do we get saved? We are saved by imputed righteousness. Paul says "That's how we ended up sinners -- Adam's imputed sin."
The disconnect here is manifold. You believe we are sinners because we commit sins; I believe we commit sins because we are sinners. You're asking about individual actions; I'm talking about a spiritual condition. And you're assuming I'm in some tiny minority while the truth is that this view of the sinful condition of Man has always been the standard view. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that standard, orthodox Christianity has questioned that position.
And that's just a few of the major disconnects. I'm not talking about logical fallacies or factual errors from your comments. There are those. We're talking about two different things. You're talking about actions; I'm talking about a condition. You see actions as the problem; I see actions as the result. And it doesn't seem like I'll be able to get that across to you ... especially when your approach is so ... disparaging.
Look, I'm sorry if I sound disparaging. I assumed, based on your example, that some pushing back is okay and accepted in the right spirit. After all, when you said:
"Go find out what it actually means..." or If you dare..." or I'm suggesting you educate yourself about things you don't understand or "You don't get it...", I didn't take any of those to be mean-spirited, even though there is that edge there that could be taken that way ("if I DARE"? Are you suggesting I'm too cowardly to read your "side?" "Go find out what it means?" Are you suggesting I'm ignorant of which I speak?).
We are discussing this as two fellow Christians who have an apparent disagreement and I'm okay with a little bit of rough language, as long as I'm not taking you to be intentionally mean-spirited about it. It has honestly not been the spirit in which I've offered my opinions. If I wanted to be insulting about it, I would have used a curse word or something more disparaging than "nutty." I'm sorry you have misunderstood my intent and tone. I will strive to be more cautious with my words in the future.
Or, if it's the case that you'd rather I not comment here at all, just give the word. I'm honestly only having a conversation because I find the topic and the apparent disagreement interesting. If you don't want me around, just say so and I'm gone.
As to our disagreement, I think you are correct in diagnosing that I believe we are sinners because we commit sins. I hope you have also heard me say that we are sinners because it is within our nature. I've made that sort of comment a few times now and have tried to be clear about it.
So, we don't disagree, I don't think. I think BOTH/AND. We are sinners because we sin and we sin because we are sinners. Do you think it is an EITHER/OR situation?
And, as I have repeatedly stated, I AGREE that humanity is sinful, I'm not disagreeing with that take on Original Sin. You can tell that I agree by the way that I say, "Humanity is sinful by nature." or "We have inherited a tendency to sin."
I agree with thee, I agree with thee, I agree with thee. Okay?
What specifically I'm objecting to is the notion of babies as sinners. THAT is what I'm saying is not an orthodox view. I AM WELL aware that there are those Christians out there who hold to that view, but I don't believe (and here, maybe I'm mistaken - I have no data to back this up, only observation) that it is the predominant view within orthodoxy.
And that gets back to some of my original questions to you. IF you are saying "babies are sinners" in the sense that they have inherited a sinful nature, then we agree. It does not sound like you are saying that, though and that is why I have repeatedly asked for clarification. It's sort of like Mohler, you both seem to be saying both.
You SEEM to be saying, "Babies are sinners. They commit sin when they want their way." But when asked for an indication of what specific sins you think they are guilty of, you and Mohler both seem to fall back to the sinful nature aspect of it. If that's all you're saying and you're using the word "sinner" to imply a sinful nature, then we agree mostly, we're just disagreeing on semantics.
IF you are saying, though, that they are actually SINNERS, in that they have committed sins, that is where I object.
After reading more of what you have to say, it sounds like to me you are merely suggesting that babies have a sinful nature (as does all of humanity), NOT that they have committed sins. If that's the case, then we agree and no harm, no foul.
Okay, first, I don't know what's going on. I approved all 3 of your comments and only 2 came through. I don't get it. Nor did I do it.
It would appear that your primary disagreement is in the use of the term "sinner" as a condition rather than an act. Or, to put it another way, "sin" can only be something you do, not something you are. Or, in your terms, I see "sin" as both a condition and an action. ;) You believe that the only thing that can damn someone is an act they commit. I believe (and I understand the Bible to say) that dead people don't go to heaven. Thus, spiritually dead people are sinners under God's just judgment. No act required.
(I explained "if you dare" because I knew it might be misunderstood. I explained that it was a lot to read and hard to read. Did you not see that?)
Oh, and if you felt that I was suggesting you didn't understand the doctrine, I failed to properly communicate. I'm quite sure you don't understand the doctrine. If that's perceived as an insult, please, please forgive me. I mean no insult by it.
Years ago I ended up in a discussion with someone over infant baptism. I found that I was arguing about something I didn't understand. After lengthy study and discussion, I finally understood it. I could even argue it and defend it. I don't believe in it. I didn't understand the doctrine that I was arguing against. I recommend anyone who wants to argue against something first understand it.
I'm not at all sure we're disagreeing. You say, "You believe that the only thing that can damn someone is an act they commit."
Yes, that is correct. That is the orthodox position (orthodox in my traditional circles growing up Baptist and hanging around Methodists and Nazarenes). If someone lives a perfect life, they are not condemned by God. It is THEIR sin that they commit that condemns them, not someone else's sin. Do we agree on that point?
Again, I would suggest that if you have a point to make about something I believe that you believe to be wrong, you can point it out. But just saying, "You don't understand" tells me nothing except what you have a hunch about. Doesn't that make sense?
And to clarify, you suggested...
It would appear that your primary disagreement is in the use of the term "sinner" as a condition rather than an act. Or, to put it another way, "sin" can only be something you do, not something you are.
No, that's not exactly what I think. Partially, correct, though.
Sinner is something you are once you sin. Before you sin, you are not a sinner.
That just seems to be an obvious tautology based on basic semantics, yes? Someone is not a biker unless they've ridden a bike. Someone is not a runner unless they run. And someone is not a sinner unless they sin.
Someone with an inclination to bike may have a biking spirit before they ever bike, but they are not a biker, by definition. Someone may have a sinful spirit or nature before they ever sin, but until they sin, they are not a sinner.
Glad to clarify and perhaps bring us another step closer.
A further clarification/thought...
Or, to put it another way, "sin" can only be something you do, not something you are.
As I have noted, I think both/and.
Having said that, I think as far as God is concerned, sin is something we do. We are not, I believe, in God's eyes ugly despicable filthy sinners. We are beloved children of God whom God wants the best for. And God does not want us to sin because that is not what is best for us, it's hurtful and harmful.
So, almost as an aside on approaches to evangelism and living out our Christianity, while I think both/and, I think primarily sin is something we do, not something we are. We ARE Children of God. Sin is just a byproduct of living within our own humanity. (This line of thinking gets back to an earlier post of yours about how we approach people - are we and others filthy disgusting worms or are we children of God whom God delights in and wishes to save from those sins we do?)
For consideration.
One more:
As to this...
I failed to properly communicate. I'm quite sure you don't understand the doctrine. If that's perceived as an insult, please, please forgive me. I mean no insult by it.
You are free to think that I don't understand it if you want, no insult taken. I'm just pointing out that there is no more reason to perceive that as an insult than there is to perceive that I think the notion of sinning babies is nutty. I'm quite sure it is a goofy, nutty concept. Babies simply don't sin.
There's no real difference between the two ideas, and that's why I'm not sure why you perceive it as an insult. It's not any more insulting for you to suggest that you think that I don't understand a concept I was raised with and know quite thoroughly than it is for me to suggest that your impression of sinning babies is nutty, fair enough?
As to the Doctrine of Original Sin and my (supposed) lack of understanding thereof, I might ask which Theory of Original Sin do you subscribe to?
The Augustinian Theory (5th Century)?
The Federal Theory (17th Century)?
The Theory of Mediate Imputation (17th Century)?
I could be way off here (again, I have no numbers or studies to back my position, just personal observation), but it seems to me that I'm describing the Theory of Mediate Imputation and that SEEMS to me to be the most common in evangelical circles.
This 17th Century Theory suggests that it's not Adam's SIN that is imputed to all of us, but rather a sinful nature, a bent towards sin, as I was taught in my Baptist world. Are you holding to a more Augustinian view, do you suppose?
Dan: "'You believe that the only thing that can damn someone is an act they commit.' Yes, that is correct. That is the orthodox position (orthodox in my traditional circles growing up Baptist and hanging around Methodists and Nazarenes)."
Okay, now, see? You prefaced this with "I'm not at all sure we're disagreeing" and this was a point I listed in which we disagree. I do not believe that statement. You do. But, beyond that, you've hinted at a key problem in our understanding. You listed "orthodox" as "Baptist, Methodist, Nazarene" and I list "orthodox" as "from the beginning of the Church." All of those you mentioned are not of the Reformed persuasion, for instance. Baptist and Methodist used to be, but left it a century ago. Now, why am I pointing this out? Because the doctrine of Original Sin as I'm explaining it is "orthodox" as in "from the early Church through the Reformation" (and, of course, all who continue in that tradition today). All of that line of orthodoxy believed and still believe that we are sinners at birth.
From the London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689: "For from this, death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body." From the Westminster Confession of Faith: "[Adam and Eve] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed[1]; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation." From the Augsburg Confession: "Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost."
[1]GEN 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 17 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. ACT 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. ROM 5:12 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. 15 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. 16 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. 17 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.) 18 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. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 1CO 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Dan: "Before you sin, you are not a sinner."
Now, see? I said we sin because we're sinners and you say we're sinners because we sin. I am referring to "sinner" as the nature of the beast. It's like this. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep My commandments." You see that the origin of doing in this case is loving. If we are lovers of Christ, we will obey. It is not the obedience in view, but the love. Obedience doesn't produce love; love produces obedience. Even so, the state of sin into which we are born produces sinful actions. Thus (again), "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Psa 58:3). Natural Man doesn't develop hostility to God; he is born that way. That is, humans are born dead. Calvin puts it this way: "Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19)."
But trying to communicate on a less ethereal plane, so to speak, you believe that babies who want only their way and will do whatever they have to do to get it are just fine. They're not sinning. There's nothing wrong here. Right? Why, then, would you or I be liable to charges of sin if we do that? Or would you argue that ignorance is an excuse.
When you go into your description of how we should view humans you run into the biggest problems we've encountered (you and I) yet. "I think as far as God is concerned, sin is something we do. We are not, I believe, in God's eyes ugly despicable filthy sinners." That's how you see it. I see it this way: God views us as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (Rom 9:22), "dead in the trespasses and sins", "following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience", "carrying out the desires of the body and the mind", "by nature children of wrath" (Eph 2:1-3). Your view would require me to say, "Don't worry, folks. Everything is okay. God loves you. He'll fix everything." My view requires me to say, "Run for your lives, people! You're in imminent danger! If you don't turn around now, you are without hope!" Or, to put it another way, I see the Gospel (good news) as only "good news" if there is bad news ... and there is serious bad news.
All of that line of orthodoxy believed and still believe that we are sinners at birth.
Okay. And by "sinners" you don't mean that babies have committed a sin, but rather that they have a "sin nature." Isn't that right?
IF that is what you mean, then I agree and just disagree semantically with the notion of using the word "sinner" to describe a baby who has committed no sin, has not been ABLE to commit a sin.
I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong) that is where our disagreement is, not in the notion that we all have a "sinful nature," ie, a tendency towards sin. Lacking any significant indication that you believe babies HAVE ACTUALLY committed some sin, I don't believe that is what you're saying (although you seem to be hedging your bets and sort of hanging on to that as a possibility).
IF on the other hand, the Reformed church - which it appears you identify with - believe that babies actually sin, I disagree and think that is just a silly position (is "silly" offensive? I'm just trying to explain my position - it is my position that it is silly, nutty, ridiculous, goofy, etc, to suggest that babies sin. I do not mean that to disparage you personally, it is simply my view on that point).
Stan said:
you believe that babies who want only their way and will do whatever they have to do to get it are just fine. They're not sinning. There's nothing wrong here. Right? Why, then, would you or I be liable to charges of sin if we do that? Or would you argue that ignorance is an excuse.1. I believe for a baby to want food or milk, that is absolutely NOT sinful. (do you disagree?)
2. I believe it would be ridiculous and offensive in the extreme to suggest that babies sin when they want to be fed. (Do you disagree?)
3. I believe for a baby to fuss and wail and want to have excrement removed from their bodies, that baby is NOT sinning and, again, it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Do you disagree?
4. I believe for an adult to want food and water is completely normal. I believe for most adults, they have the ability to wait for a while to have their needs met (babies have no such concept). Do you disagree?
I'm not sure of your point in your comment above. It's not sinful to have needs and to try to meet them. And for infants, it's not sinful if they fuss and wail about it, "demanding" attention. And (in MY opinion) it is just about as awful as hell to suggest that such behavior is sinful. Are you suggesting that? Not really, are you?
If it is truly the case that you're suggesting babies who cry "demanding" to be fed are sinning in so doing, then we absolutely do disagree on that point.
If that's the case, though, I don't suggest that you're not a Christian or that you're stupid or evil, I just strongly disagree with your point and don't believe it represents either a Godly view (on that point) or a logical view or a biblical view or a Christian view. That some Christians in the past may have thought such does nothing for me any more than the fact that some Christians in the past held slaves or oppressed women. To the extent that they believed it, they were wrong.
I still find it hard to believe that very many people actually believe what I think it is you're suggesting. Even you. But you can tell me.
If by "have a 'sin nature'", you mean "not under any judgment from God", then we're still in disagreement. If by "disagree semantically" you mean "There are indeed those who do good, contrary to what Paul wrote", then we're still in disagreement. If by "sin nature" you mean "but that's not a bad thing" (as you seem to be suggesting), then we're still in disagreement. The sin nature, as described in Scripture, is a dead spirit. A person (of any age) with a dead spirit is unable to relate to God. A person unable to relate to God is a person without eternal life (John 17:3), a person hostile to God (Rom 8:5-8), a person inclined only to evil. Now, you may believe that these are minor points somehow, that they do not warrant the just wrath of God, but I would contend otherwise. You contend that a baby who lies to get its way (I consider it a lie when someone acts as if the world is ending when the reality is that they're just not happy being where they are, as an example) is just being a baby, not doing something wrong. I would argue that an adult who does the same is selfish, self-centered ... and sinning by definition. So if I appeared to hedge on the question of whether I think babies sin, again, I failed to express myself clearly.
But I suspect your approach is largely anthropocentric. It starts with humans as of ultimate imporance. Since I believe that the only being of ultimate importance is God and anyone who claimst that position (as babies naturally do and as you and I naturally do) is sinning.
My view is the historically orthodox view derived from Scripture and agreed upon for centuries by the Church. I don't have any reason to think that these facts (historically orthodox and derived from Scripture) would matter to you. You've already made it abundantly clear that history and even Scripture may be wrong. (Just so you don't take offense at that, I'm thinking of your argument that God could not have commanded such a thing as the killing of an entire people group even though it says He did, or that "homosexual" could possibly be a sin even though the Bible seems to be clear on the topic and all of Church history confirms it.) Instead you believe that you arrive at your conclusions by logic. Besides Scripture and history, my observation of humans in general and babies in particular seem to confirm what I'm saying, so we disagree on all points -- history, orthodoxy, the Bible, experience, and logic. Why would that matter to you?
Stan, I guess I'm about through with this conversation. Suffice to say that you misunderstand at least some of my positions (I didn't suggest that having a "sin nature" is not a bad thing - quite to the contrary, for instance).
I wish you had answered my questions in the previous post, for clarifications purposes. I'm still not clear on whether you are saying merely that babies are born with the human trait of having a "sin nature" or if you're saying babies actually sin.
If the latter, I knew that there were some people out there like that, but I don't run into anyone from that group often, even in my conservative circles.
If you do indeed think that babies sin and are held in judgment for whatever sin that may be, I'd hope you'd reconsider. That position is not born out by logic, nor by the Bible.
Thanks for the conversation. I may post some thoughts on this topic on my blog here soon.
Peace.
Post a Comment