A call for definitions
I think that Aristotle said that “Without the same definitions, nothing can be agreed upon.” With that mindset in … er… mind, I want to understand better where the other side is coming from, not to condemn them, but to understand them better and to perhaps find the best idea that fits the most closely with the truth. So, to the others that read this blog, I ask thee a few questions:
- What is the definition of original sin?
- What is the definition of a sinful nature?
My answers:
Original sin: Humans, by their nature are tainted with a sin that is passed on from their parents. This original sin damns each new born baby to hell.
Sinful nature: Humans have in their nature, a natural tendency to sin. This results from the temptations in the world, the culture of sin that pervades human cultures, and the free will that God has given humans.
Editor’s Note: I changed the attribution of the quote to Aristotle instead of Augustine. I think that is who said that first.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I did not say you did use the words. I am just saying what it would do, condemn each person born (and unborn) to hell.
Others?
I would like to point out a mis-type on my part. “Sin nature is not the result of or from the outside world and the free will of God.” It should read “and the free will of man.”
1) By OS I mean that I believe we are born under the cursed effects of the fall of Adam our federal head. The effects are we are born into a guilty race (man) with a nature disposed to sin (my one year old doesnt need instructions in disobedience she just does it naturally). The aforementioned are chiefly metaphysical in nature yet there are physical effects including death and disease which also are due to Adam’s sin on his progeny.
Side note: Because I am a Calvinist I believe in infant regeneration, I can say that because regeneration is not dependent upon some cognitive assent resulting in a choice rather it is a soveriegn act of God. This is why I think Arminians have a hang up with OS and questions like “What about the unreache?”Arminian theology presupposes that for regeneration to occuur an intellectual assent is necessary so we end up with all sorts of unbiblical doctrines to defend the idol of free will. (Like the denial of imputation going on in this discussion).
2.Sin nature is part of the effects of OS, it is basically a heart with a bent towards sin naturally (again 1 year olds aren’t taught to disobey they just do it). This nature is predisposed against God and His rule (that’s what the fall was about) and can only be remedied by a soveriegn work of grace called regeneration.
1. Never ever used the words “This original sin damns each new born baby to hell.” Otherwise you are correct.
2. Sin nature is essentially correct when you say, “Humans have in their nature, a natural tendency to sin.” HOwever the last statement is backwards. Sin nature is not the result of or from the outside world and the free will of God. The sin nature brings about a corrupt will and thus the sinful coulture around us.