[Son of Jack]

I have been questioning for some time now whether the doctrine of original sin is a biblical one or not. Let me say that I haven't decided one way or another yet, but I'm leaning toward sin being more a matter of nurture rather than nature and that Augustine was just flat out wrong on this one.

Thoughts?

[kmoney]

Just to be clear, what do you mean by nurture in the context of sin?

[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by Son of Jack

I have been questioning for some time now whether the doctrine of original sin is a biblical one or not. Let me say that I haven't decided one way or another yet, but I'm leaning toward sin being more a matter of nurture rather than nature and that Augustine was just flat out wrong on this one.

Thoughts?

Even if it is nature, nature doesn't force us to choose either way, so what's the big deal? We still have free will.

On the other hand, even if nature doesn't cause or promote sin, it is manifestly true that all people sin, even probably infants. So again, what's the big deal? We still choose to sin.

Of course though, you will want to be correct about the matter either way, so carry on.

[Ktoyou]

Originally Posted by Son of Jack

I have been questioning for some time now whether the doctrine of original sin is a biblical one or not. Let me say that I haven't decided one way or another yet, but I'm leaning toward sin being more a matter of nurture rather than nature and that Augustine was just flat out wrong on this one.

Thoughts?

It would be nature, our natural state. Now some hold sin is handed down by the 'seed' of Adam; I doubt this, as Paul said we are week in our carnal bodies, by nature and only changed by the Spirit.

[Ktoyou]

Originally Posted by Mike C.

Even if it is nature, nature doesn't force us to choose either way, so what's the big deal? We still have free will.

On the other hand, even if nature doesn't cause or promote sin, it is manifestly true that all people sin, even probably infants. So again, what's the big deal? We still choose to sin.

Of course though, you will want to be correct about the matter either way, so carry on.

I would agree with you about Nick H. but SOJ is usually straight and sincere.

[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

I would agree with you about Nick H. but SOJ is usually straight and sincere.

Oops, didn't mean to give the impression that he's not. Just posing the question if it matters much either way.

[Traditio]

Original sin is the loss of the original justification that Adam and Eve had. Human nature has been wounded. We inherit it from our First Parents.

[ghost]

What are the wages of sin?

What resulted from the sin of Adam?

How many men did it effect?

What does Jesus say all men are under who have not believed in Him?

What does Paul say that every man is in Romans 5:10?

What does Jesus say abides on all men who do not believe in Him?

What does Paul say we are by nature in his letter to the Ephesians?

If you can answer these questions you will KNOW whether men are sinners because they sin, or sin because they are sinners.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Son of Jack

I have been questioning for some time now whether the doctrine of original sin is a biblical one or not. Let me say that I haven't decided one way or another yet, but I'm leaning toward sin being more a matter of nurture rather than nature and that Augustine was just flat out wrong on this one.

Thoughts?

Eureka. You are on the right track, but will take flack (not all tradition is truth, so continue to grow a spine and you will be fine).

http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm

All you wanted to know about sin but were afraid to ask.

You have a false dichotomy. It is not just nature vs nurture (this may relate to personality, preferences, etc.), but nature (at conception or later), nurture (environmental influences, opportunities, etc.), and volition.

Ultimately sin is volitional, moral, rebellion, selfishness, lawlessness, disobedience, missing the mark, etc.

Augustine was wrong to reduce it to a metaphysical/substance/being/thing issue instead of volitional (he was in bondage to sin, so his personal struggle influenced his view).

We are sinners because we sin; we are not sinners because we are conceived no fault of our own (Rom. 1-3). We do not sin because we have a caustive, nebulous Adamic sinful nature back of the will, but because of our mind/will (Adam/Lucifer fell from innocence without a sinful nature).

There is also a difference between physical depravity (genetic) and moral depravity (volitional).

Ghost will say I am going to hell for these issues, but I would rather be biblical than approved of men and mice.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Mike C.

Even if it is nature, nature doesn't force us to choose either way, so what's the big deal? We still have free will.

On the other hand, even if nature doesn't cause or promote sin, it is manifestly true that all people sin, even probably infants. So again, what's the big deal? We still choose to sin.

Of course though, you will want to be correct about the matter either way, so carry on.

Infants lack moral and mental capacity to sin. Crying and fussing to have physical needs met is communication, not sin. The problem is that King Baby (Freud) continues in this pattern as ultimately chooses Kingdom of Self over the Kingdom/rule of God.

We are all sinners in need of a sinless Savior, so the debate should not cause more heat than light (except with those who don't get it).

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

It would be nature, our natural state. Now some hold sin is handed down by the 'seed' of Adam; I doubt this, as Paul said we are week in our carnal bodies, by nature and only changed by the Spirit.

Sin in sperm or blood is speculative nonsense. So, the virgin conception relates to God becoming man in Christ, not the reason why Christ is sinless (Mary contributed genetics and she was a sinner). Augustinian Federal Headship is also theory, not fact.

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Original sin is the loss of the original justification that Adam and Eve had. Human nature has been wounded. We inherit it from our First Parents.

Physical depravity is genetic and taints the whole race. Even redeemed saints and Jesus died (Rom. 3:23), but Jesus was sinless (moral depravity is volitional, not genetic).

[godrulz]

Originally Posted by ghost

What are the wages of sin?

What resulted from the sin of Adam?

How many men did it effect?

What does Jesus say all men are under who have not believed in Him?

What does Paul say that every man is in Romans 5:10?

What does Jesus say abides on all men who do not believe in Him?

What does Paul say we are by nature in his letter to the Ephesians?

If you can answer these questions you will KNOW whether men are sinners because they sin, or sin because they are sinners.

Adam's original sin did lead to death, but this is physical vs moral depravity. The original sin was Adam sinning. He alone is responsible for this. We follow in his footsteps, so we are responsible for our sins.

Eph. 2 and Rom. 1-3 correctly shows that those who have mental and moral capacity are condemned sinners (excludes babies, so they don't go to hell). We are objects of wrath by nature after we choose to sin, not when we are conceived. The contexts are explicit about sins=condemnation. Proof texting a traditional original sin view from a few verses does not negate the warp and woof of all of Scripture when these texts have alternate, more biblical understanding.

Exchanged Life theories may disagree, but I want to be biblical, not popular with you.

So, the right answer is that we are sinners because we sin (note Rom. 5...why? for all have sinned....).

[Mike C.]

Originally Posted by godrulz

Infants lack moral and mental capacity to sin.

Sounds nice, but is it true? I haven't decided for certain (but lean heavily towards no). Of course, if original sin is true, which I believe, then it is all but certain the answer is no. Yet even with original sin, people still choose to sin of their own accord, and are fully responsible, including, it seems, infants.

How fond we are of infants has nothing to do with whether or not they sin.

Crying and fussing to have physical needs met is communication, not sin.

Yes I agree. I think Jesus cried and fussed without sinning. But a baby will hit another baby whom he or she dislikes, for no good reason. Babies are born innocent of wrong doing, but are not angels. Did Baby Jesus ever smack another baby?

The problem is that King Baby (Freud) continues in this pattern as ultimately chooses Kingdom of Self over the Kingdom/rule of God.

How do you know New Baby doesn't do the same? It's a matter of the heart, not of the brain.

We are all sinners in need of a sinless Savior, so the debate should not cause more heat than light (except with those who don't get it).

Totally agree.

[SovereigntyIsGods]

Originally Posted by Mike C.

Even if it is nature, nature doesn't force us to choose either way, so what's the big deal? We still have free will.

On the other hand, even if nature doesn't cause or promote sin, it is manifestly true that all people sin, even probably infants. So again, what's the big deal? We still choose to sin.

Of course though, you will want to be correct about the matter either way, so carry on.

Why do we choose to sin though? Were we slaves to sin?

Rom 6:18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Rom 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.