# Denial of Original Sin?



## toddpedlar (Jan 21, 2007)

Can anyone comment about the denial of original sin by Arminian Baptists (of course I don't need arguments FOR original sin  ) and what their arguments are, when they actually point to Scripture for justification of their doctrine? I am engaged in a discussion about this issue with someone who claims the innocency of infants - and I've honestly never actually spoken with anyone who holds to this that gave any Scriptural argument at all. All I've ever gotten is a runaround about an infant's inability to discern sin, and that they're therefore without sin. 

Anyone ever discuss this before in a serious way with the Word before you? How'd it go?

Also, what's the official SBC line on this? I know historically they'd have been more inline with the Calvinistic Baptists who are with us in this board, but I'm not sure what to expect of today's SBC.

Thanks,

Todd


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 21, 2007)

When people promote a view like this, I have to ask them, "So, what actually is _worse_ about abortion than letting the child grow til they are able to go to hell?!?"


----------



## VaughanRSmith (Jan 21, 2007)

This is what I mainly get...

"...rhubarb, rhubarb, age of accountability, rhubarb, rhubarb..."


With probably less rhubarbs.


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 22, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> When people promote a view like this, I have to ask them, "So, what actually is _worse_ about abortion than letting the child grow til they are able to go to hell?!?"


 That's amazing, Rev. Buchanan. I might have to use that line sometime.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 22, 2007)

This is tied to the "age of accountability" and no doubt, the question of the salvation of infants. I have a Calvinistic SBC friend who recently had a seminary class where they were told (falsely) "Baptists have never believed in original sin." 

I think the following is the pertinent passage from the Baptist Faith and Message: 



> III. Man
> 
> Man is the special creation of God, made in His own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of His creation. The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God's creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore, every person of every race possesses full dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.
> 
> Genesis 1:26-30; 2:5,7,18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalms 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 17:5; Matthew 16:26; Acts 17:26-31; Romans 1:19-32; 3:10-18,23; 5:6,12,19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18,29; 1 Corinthians 1:21-31; 15:19,21-22; Ephesians 2:1-22; Colossians 1:21-22; 3:9-11.


----------



## gwine (Jan 22, 2007)

So, until they are capable of moral action, they are not transgressors and they are not under condemnation? If that is what they are saying then aren't they denying that man is born already condemned?


----------



## BJClark (Jan 22, 2007)

toddpedlar;



> Can anyone comment about the denial of original sin by Arminian Baptists (of course I don't need arguments FOR original sin  ) and what their arguments are, when they actually point to Scripture for justification of their doctrine? I am engaged in a discussion about this issue with someone who claims the innocency of infants - and I've honestly never actually spoken with anyone who holds to this that gave any Scriptural argument at all. All I've ever gotten is a runaround about an infant's inability to discern sin, and that they're therefore without sin.
> 
> Anyone ever discuss this before in a serious way with the Word before you? How'd it go?



I guess one way to address this issue with them is by asking them...

When they were kids did THEIR parents teach them HOW to sin or did it come naturally? I mean, did their parents teach them how to lie? Did they teach them how to be selfish? or did those things come naturally to them?

Just because a person can't discern they are sinner, doesn't take away from the TRUTH that we are ALL still sinners. Does it?

They are using faulty logic, just because a person can't acknowledge they are a sinner, doesn't change the truth of God's word that they are still sinners does it??? The same would apply to an infant, just because they don't have the ability to confess or admit or acknowledge they are sinners, doesn't take away from the truth...they are still sinners...

Even a homosexual or a person going in for abortion doesn't discern what they are doing is a sin, if they did it would force them to examine their own lives before God and change their behavior. but just because they can't discern TRUTH, doesn't change the TRUTH!!


----------



## Machaira (Jan 22, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Anyone ever discuss this before in a serious way with the Word before you? How'd it go?



No . . . I've never had that particular conversation. If I ever do, the first questions I'd like to ask is, "If infants are born innocent, then why is it that they are capable of dying?" 

Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 
Rom 5:14 *Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam,* who was a type of the one who was to come.

If there is no such thing as "original sin," then how can Paul tell us that we are all *"children of wrath by nature?"* Does God really direct His wrath toward those who are "innocent?"

Eph 2:3 . . .among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 22, 2007)

Exagorazo said:


> This is what I mainly get...
> 
> "...rhubarb, rhubarb, age of accountability, rhubarb, rhubarb..."
> 
> ...



I'm thinking more like 

"...spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam,
age of accountability, spam, spam, two eggs and spam!"


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 22, 2007)

Machaira said:


> No . . . I've never had that particular conversation. If I ever do, the first questions I'd like to ask is, "If infants are born innocent, then why is it that they are capable of dying?"
> 
> Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
> Rom 5:14 *Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam,* who was a type of the one who was to come.
> ...



All good points... I think, though, things like "born children of
wrath" and "sinful from my mother's womb" would be argued away
in terms of "tendency toward sin (yet not sinful)" and the like.
Don't have any clue what might be said about the capability
of infants to die (although I'm guessing they might say that 
death is natural?!?)

the discussion is over though - they don't want to discuss it.
Also found out they're Church of Christ, not SBC or any other
baptist branch.


----------



## Machaira (Jan 22, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> the discussion is over though - they don't want to discuss it.



 No surprise there brother. You're probably making too much Biblical sense.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 22, 2007)

I don't think the problem is that they think infants aren't sinners - the potential is there. The problem is a perfectionistic view that sin is an action - an infant can't act, ergo it can't sin!


----------



## SRoper (Jan 22, 2007)

Machaira said:


> No . . . I've never had that particular conversation. If I ever do, the first questions I'd like to ask is, "If infants are born innocent, then why is it that they are capable of dying?"



I've used this argument with some success against someone who held essentially Pelagian views. He was unable to answer it.


----------



## Machaira (Jan 23, 2007)

SRoper said:


> I've used this argument with some success against someone who held essentially Pelagian views. He was unable to answer it.



Exactly. It's definately an argument a Pelagian can't afford to ignore . . . although they do anyway. _"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."_


----------



## Calvibaptist (Jan 23, 2007)

gwine said:


> So, until they are capable of moral action, they are not transgressors and they are not under condemnation? If that is what they are saying then aren't they denying that man is born already condemned?



I am a Baptist, although not SBC. I believe the statement quoted from the Baptist Faith and Message does point to original sin. It says that "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence *whereby his posterity inherit a nature* and an environment inclined toward sin." This is not as clear as I would like it, nor as clear as the founders of the SBC would have said it. It probably does reflect a slight Semi-Pelagian tendency in the current SBC leadership.

It is important to understand, though, that the Baptist Faith and Message is not binding on any individual church. You would have to go to each church to find out what they believe.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 23, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> I am a Baptist, although not SBC. I believe the statement quoted from the Baptist Faith and Message does point to original sin. It says that "Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence *whereby his posterity inherit a nature* and an environment inclined toward sin." This is not as clear as I would like it, nor as clear as the founders of the SBC would have said it. It probably does reflect a slight Semi-Pelagian tendency in the current SBC leadership.
> 
> It is important to understand, though, that the Baptist Faith and Message is not binding on any individual church. You would have to go to each church to find out what they believe.



So my understanding is that the BFM states that all mankind are affected by Adam's Fall, but not sinful (and thus condemned at conception) because of it? In other words it points to an innate tendency to sin, but not a nature that is sinful and abhorrent before a holy God?


----------



## bookslover (Jan 24, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> So my understanding is that the BFM states that all mankind are affected by Adam's Fall, but not sinful (and thus condemned at conception) because of it? In other words it points to an innate tendency to sin, but not a nature that is sinful and abhorrent before a holy God?



Todd, for what it's worth (in any future discussions along this line you might have), in Psalm 51, David makes a distinction between actual sins committed (entire psalm, _passim_) and the sin nature (verse 5), making the precise point that he possessed the sin nature from conception.

For bonus points, Psalm 51:5 can be used to argue that life (including, of course, personhood) begins at conception, otherwise it makes no sense for David to say that his nature had been corrupted _since conception_ - not since birth.


----------

