JR,

I'm in no hurry. I'm hardly on the blog any more. I do ask that you take into account Calvin's position stated in Institutes 2.i.4-2.i.11. There he deals with original sin, especially as it relates to Adam. Having reread his position, I might have missed some parts of it. But I have to say that I agree with his position on this subject. Calvin doesn't define OS as Adam's sin or guilt being imputed, as I might have said above (in which case I was wrong), but rather the subsequent corruption of Adam's sin to his very nature, in which the image that he was made in was corrupted by sin, God decreed the entire creation to be subjected to the corruption until the time comes that the glory of the children of God be revealed (cf. Romans 8:20-22). This decree includes Adam's posterity as well. So it isn't genetics or magic, but God's purpose in Adam's sinning. Read Calvin and interact with him.

Jesse Black,

In regards to regeneration, the Scripture puts regeneration as a condition to obedience to God, as in Ezekiel 36:22-27 makes clear. It is by the replacing the stone-heart with the flesh-heart and the "putting in the Spirit" that God causes us to obey. But I am not saying this is the only goal of the Spirit. My point being that Honzo's view of sin and human nature negates the necessity of the regeneration work of the Spirit for obedience. A bad tree yields only bad fruit and a good tree yields only good fruit (Matthew 12:33 cf. Job 14:4).

Honzo,

I have been thinking about your "if Christ is fully human and w/o OS then all of mankind is w/o OS" argument. That falls short at two points in my mind: 1.) if Christ is a second Adam, then he would be like Adam who was not tainted with original sin, or sin at all until he fell, and thus Christ would be without Adam as the new humanity; 2.) it falls short on the Romans 8 passage cited above where God decreed the corruption that Adam brought upon himself to corrupt all of creation, not by the will of the creation, and thus Adam's posterity would be corrupted by this fall. I'm in a hurry and will come back and clarify later if you aren't getting me at all.

Hank,

I was struck by your statement:
"This question might be off subject but, how is it that one must be regenerated and have the Holy Spirit put in them so that God will cause them to obey?"

Is the regenerative goal of the Holy Spirit so that "God will cause them to obey?" What did you mean by this sentence?

Hank,

I promise I'm going to respond to you... I just want some time to make sure I've given you a well-thought-out response.  I promise I'm not ignoring you :)

Honzo,

I haven't gone back and read the other thread so may be you can rehash this if you have previously gone over it. Could you articulate how Jesus' divine nature interacts with his human nature in the battle against sin that Jesus would have faced. Hebrews does make it clear that he was tempted. But could his divine nature kept him from sin?

Secondly, your views of OS also seem to reduce to almost nil the need for the Holy Spirit to yield fruit in our lives. It down plays the need for regeneration that the Scriptures saying needs to take place (Ezekiel 36:22-27; Ephesians 2:1-5). This question might be off subject but, how is it that one must be regenerated and have the Holy Spirit put in them so that God will cause them to obey?

Just some questions I don't remember you having previously addressed. Any other synergists are welcome to take a shot. If you feel this is off subject, feel free to address it in another post.

It is my position that Jesus as he was fully human, is a counter example that demonstrates that the original sin concept is flawed. The counter to my counter is that either original sin is passed only through the father or that it is a mystery. Several of use have discussed this issue back on my post entitled "The Heritage of Sin." There is some good discussion on the topic back there. I personally find those explanations to be unsatisfactory and view the problem of Christ's nature a strike against Calvinism and its interpretation of original sin.

Maybe this is a stupid question.... I am not well studied in theology (I would be the masses part of mass theology). If Jesus is fully man, in the reformed view, how does it logically flow that he is not afflicted with the sickness of original sin when original sin is something that necessarily is transmitted from human to human?

You're defending this new guy rather tenaciously...

Wow, you had to edit my comment...

First of all, I hope I wasn't the one who was being uncivil. If I have been on this thread I do apologize. Yes I do take issue and am happy to debate this topic. I am grateful for jr's position.

First, you assume that Reformed position of OS means that one does not sin willfully. This is a misrepresentation of the Calvinist position that many have. People seem to think that Calvinists view people as robots. But this is simply not true. Calvinists do believe that man has a will and make free volitional choices. Sin is a willful disobedience and open rebellion against God. But this volitional choice comes from a disposition towards sin, received as being a member of the humanity of Adam. Man is unable to not sin. I think that it would help further this discussion if you address the Calvinist position the way I have presented it, man sins willfully out of a disposition to sin.

My first question is how then you view the parallel between Adam and Christ? You do not answer this in any of your posts. If the justification of the new humanity is the result of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, then the condemnation of mankind runs in a parallel fashion, guilty is transferred to all of humanity's account. Adam is the head of all of his posterity as Christ is the head of his posterity. How do you account for this parallel in Romans 5?

As to Romans 5, your interpretation does not take all of Romans into view, as Piper did. Paul has stated in Romans 2:14-15 that the law was engraved on the heart and mind of man. However, the law as not written on stone tablets yet. That happened with Moses. So when a person willfully sins, it is a violation of that law on their hearts. But infants are not aware of that sin, but yet they are being held guilty of sin. And both thanatos and nekros are the results of Adam's sin, unless you can prove that Adam was going to die physically before the Fall.

Could you present an actual exegesis of the text of Romans 5:12-21? I think it will really help the Reformed here to see how you deal with the textual issues involved.

Also in Romans 6 Paul views sin as more than just actions. It is something that has enslaved mankind. It has life to it. How do you deal with Paul's view of sin, which is confirmed in John 8:36 by Jesus?

As regards to Proverbs 22:15, does not the law control physical actions without removing the problem of the heart? Did you not refrain from stealing or murder because of a fear of getting in trouble from the police? But did that keep you from coveting and hatred? No. So yes physical discipline by parents can drive acts of folly away from the child, but does not change the child's heart.

As regards Genesis 8:21, the Paul and Jesus would have understood the term "youth" in the ESV to mean infant as the primary translation of Scripture used was the LXX translated the term as infant. Honzo responded to this by saying the LXX isn't inspired. That negates every argument he has made in the previous comment when it comes to his Scriptural arguments because they are based off of a translation like the LXX. But I am guessing that isn't what you meant to do. So if Jews understood it to mean "infant" what do you do with that?

The term "suppose" put this text in the realm of the hypothetical in Ezekiel. Plus, the prophet is saying that if there was a person like that, who was righteous and then, in Judah this is how he would treat him. But there is no one in Judah who was righteous. They were all unrighteous and thus that is how he will treat them. This passage does not deal with the condition of man from birth but is rebuking the use of the proverb about God punishing the children of those guilty of sin, the sons of sinners are just as sinful as their parents.

You have yet to deal with Genesis 6:5 where God says of humankind before the flood, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." That is a very strong condemnation of the whole human race. Every intention was only evil continually! That seems to say that there is never a thought that is not evil.

There are many more texts that I can appeal to to demonstrate man's inability, which is part of the Reformed position of original sin and total depravity. There is Jeremiah 17:1-2, 9; John 3:5-7; 6:44, 65; Romans 3:9-18, 6:17-18, 8:6-7; Ephesians 2:1-5, 4:17-18; 1 Corinthians 2:14. But I do not want to have to do such a long comment on them here. This is probably too long.

Bob,

Didn't Pelagius teach that humans can remain perfect forever? That was the big sticking point, was it not? Not necessarily that humans were not born damned to hell, but that we could actually remain as Christ remained, sinless. That was Pelagius' error. That is not what is being said by JR in the least.

As a minor note, all of Christendom seemed to have Jr's definition of "original sin," i.e. that there isn't any, until Augustine rolled around with his psychological issues.

I was hoping this thread could stay a civil and respectful thread despite differences in option on this set of ideas. Lets try to keep it that way, please.

It seems that a lot of the reformed people around here are taking great exception to JR's comments, 1) that Augustine was the author of original sin, and 2) that only through magic or genetics can original sin be passed down.

I think there are some merits to these statements. If you look at Church history you will find zero postulation of original sin within the Apostolic Church (or proto-orthodox church, or the branch of Christianity, which despite is minority status in the second century, came to dominate all other branches) until the 400s with Augustine. It is just not there. Well, it is there in some acetic, some Jewish-Christian, and some "gnostic" (for a lack of a better word) groups, but they are full of doctrines that I am sure all of us here would outright reject.

From a historical theology standpoint, that is a problem for the reformed camp. From the time of Paul and onward, no one seems to have believed in original sin. Sinful humankind, yes, but no articulation of the "imputation" of sin onto a spotless newly created human soul.

In addition to this, it also seems to be the case that Augustine misinterpreted Romans 5:12 because of an error in manuscripts. Again, from a historical standpoint, the doctrine of original sin, as defined in the reformed camps, using legalistic terms, was created 400 years after the time of Christ and on top of that, the interpretation of the passage that Augustine used was a flawed one.

Furthermore, the notion of original sin, as a damning stain placed upon the soul by God because of a genetic link with Adam, does not seem to fly with God given notions of justice and directly contradicts not only the definition of sin (a violation of God's law).

Take a look at what Ezekiel says about this in Ezekiel 18:4-20

4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son—both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

5 "Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.

6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife
or lie with a woman during her period.

7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

8 He does not lend at usury
or take excessive interest. [a]
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between man and man.

9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.

10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things [b] 11 (though the father has done none of them):
"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.

12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.

13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.

14 "But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

15 "He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife.

16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

17 He withholds his hand from sin [c]
and takes no usury or excessive interest.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.
He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.

19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

If a human does not willfully rebel against God, that person is sinless. Sin is the willful rebellion against God. It is not imputed, it is not "credited" to a baby, nay a fetus. When a person chooses to go against God, they sin. We are told that all people who are able to sin, sin.

The Piper exegesis of Romans 5:14 does not convince me at all.

There are those who died without seeing a law and choosing to sin against it.

Who are they? I think the group of people begging for an explanation is infants. Infants died. They could not understand personal revelation. They could not read the law on their hearts and choose to obey or disobey it. Yet they died. Why?

The infants answer is wrong, Paul is talking about the people who lived before the LAW was given. Those people died because, as shown above, people die (spiritually) when they willfully rebel against God. Infants don't die (spiritually).

Furthermore, Piper has it wrong in the other article you quoted. It really seems like he is importing reformed doctrines onto scripture. Original sin in Proverbs 22:15? Hardly. A better "exegesis" would be to say that children don't know how to act properly. How does Piper explain the second half of the verse: "but physical discipline will drive it far away."? So, we can drive away Original Sin with physical discipline? I don't think so, and I don't think Piper does either. I just think he was prooftexting. Again, Genesis 8:21 can easily mean that from a time when people figure out right from wrong and choose wrong (e.g. childhood) that their hearts are full of evil.

Romans 5:12; 6:23 do not teach that both spiritual and physical death entered into this world because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Their is death, and this death is the one that Christ saves us from. Christians still seem to physically die :. I take Paul to be referring to a spiritual death.

Because of the above problems and more, I don't take Piper's or the reformed camp's word on the imputation of sin onto new humans. I do hold that all humans whom are capable of sinning do sin and that all of those people in that group die a spiritual death.

Then there is Christ. I have written at length about how if Christ was truly completely human as he was truly completely God, he would have had to of had original sin as well (as well as a host of other issues, such as Augustine's error and how God can be the cause of our salvation and we still have free will to enter into it). Since we know he was without sin, then it follows that those that are completely human do not have original sin hanging above their heads.

jr,

Hey man, since you already know that I am Reformed and embrace the doctrines of Grace, I am not going to take the time to espouse my own position but just refer you to Brad's posts.

However, I would like to comment your sentence, "not even Augustine (who, let's face it, taught the Reformers most of their theological frameworks) would go so far as to claim that sin is genetic, which you essentially must do (or appeal to magic) if you want to argue as you do." I would not appeal to genetics or "magic" but rather to imputation. God imputes to the whole human race, all of those in Adam, the sin of Adam, thus all of Adam's humanity is guilty of Adam's sin and thereby guilty of sin by God and cursed with the sin nature. This is the same as all of Christ's humanity has Christ's righteousness imputed to them and are righteous before God on account of Christ's righteousness and have the Holy Spirit dwelling in Christ's them conforming them to Christ's image. Adam is the  federal head of the old humanity, Christ is the federal head of the new humanity.

This isn't magic or genetics, its legal terminology. I do not appeal to magic or genetics. I am trying to maintain the parallels found in Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.

I hope this clears up some possible(?) misunderstanding of how Reformed theology understands how Adam's sin is transmitted to all of humanity. I would love to have a discussion over the merits of this view on this thread if anyone wants to discuss it.

Wow, is there any way to get spaces in your paragraphs now?

I for some reason agree with Brad [edited]. What this fellow Barron seems to be describing is classical Pelagianism, we are not by nature sinful but learn sin from the world/culture around us. Contrary to this statement by jrmadill:

"not even Augustine [...] would go so far as to claim that sin is genetic, which you essentially must do (or appeal to magic) if you want to argue as you do."

I don't think we are strictly saying that sin being passed down is genetic (although it is in part, through disease and sickness). Also, to have sin transferred from Adam down to all his progeny and not have it genetic does not leap into the realm of "magic" unless you are am atheist materialist [edited] In reality I don't need to know the precise mechanics of HOW sin is passed down to know that that is what the Bible teaches, that all are born corrupt and radically depraved.
[edited]

brad,

i'm not especially worried about being in the minority of Evangelicalism... the movement has a long history of anti-intellectualism and overly literalist biblical interpretation, so i'll stick to more mainline denominations if i really want to be Nicean.

strictly speaking, the statement you quoted and mine don't contradict, and i think that claiming my view does not square with "the whole bible" is a bit overly simplistic, especially if you interpret the bible through a calvinistic lens (which i'm assuming since you like Piper's reading of OS; if i'm mistaken, forgive me).  I would encourage you to consider the 2,000 year history of interpretation of the doctrine, not merely the 200-some odd years Evangelicals have been trying to sort it out.  not even Augustine (who, let's face it, taught the Reformers most of their theological frameworks) would go so far as to claim that sin is genetic, which you essentially must do (or appeal to magic) if you want to argue as you do.

jrmadill:

i couldn't disagree more. your view does not square with the whole of the bible.

though there are my doctrines that leave Christians disagreeing [calvinism vs. arminianism for example], the concept of original sin you described puts you in the minoriy within evangelicalism.

i have written extensively on this subject here on theology for the masses. I think the clearest definition comes from an earlier post I wrote about a year ago here on tfm:

Original sin/substitutianary atonement defined

Further, I like the succintness of puritan bob's definition from henry's similar question on 9.10.06:

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).

Here are some other related posts:

Piper Exegets Romans 5:14
Can We Beat the Odds?

I understand Original Sin following Robert Barron (And Now I See), drawing on Catholic tradition.  Barron understands Sin to be a culture into which we are born, like a poisonous atmosphere we begin to breathe from our first gasp.  We must learn to breathe a different sort of air if we want to escape.

Original Sin: are you Perfect? If you say no [like it should be :-)], that's Original Sin for you. You need a Savior. We all have something that we need forgiveness for.

EI
[adapted from Ravi Zacharias]