# Defending Original Sin



## Weston Stoler (Oct 15, 2011)

I have a friend who has been talking to a Church of Christ fellow and he gave her a pamphlet that tried to present the case that their is no such thing as original sin. How would you prove your case for original sin? We already talked about it but I would like to here some of your ideas


----------



## Tim (Oct 15, 2011)

I would go to Romans 5 to start. Talk about the similarities and differences between Adam being our representative and Christ being our representative. If Adam is our representative, we are in his original sin. Many people want to deny this because they have difficulty in accepting how the consequences of the sinful action of one man are given to all who descend from him. But, on the other hand, they are happy to accept the benefits of the righteous action of one man (Christ). Federal headship (not "federal vision") works very much the same for sin and righteousness. From there you can describe the picture of adoption. We are not naturally born into Christ in the same way that we are naturally born into Adam, but rather "born again" through faith and adopted by God.

I would try to show how the understanding of headship is a consistent system only when you understand it to include the aspect of original sin. 

I would suspect that one who denies original sin does not fully understand headship, imputed righteousness, adoption, etc.


----------



## Rufus (Oct 15, 2011)

Also to add to what Tim said, the fact that you won't find a single person who doesn't have a strain of sin in his life.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Oct 15, 2011)

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies." (Psalm 58:3)


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 15, 2011)

Relieved to see that you are concerned with defending the _reality_ of original sin and not the sin itself! The thread title had me worried!


----------



## Tim (Oct 15, 2011)

Rufus said:


> Also to add to what Tim said, the fact that you won't find a single person who doesn't have a strain of sin in his life.



Yes. It is more proper to say that we sin because we are sinners, not the other way around. Corruption was one of the consequences of the original sin, and this corruption was passed on to us. From this corruption proceeds our actual sins. The Westminster documents address this, of course.


----------



## MarieP (Oct 15, 2011)

How would you respond to someone who says that Christ removed the guilt of original sin from all people, but not its power? Meaning, we are no longer born estranged from the womb, but that, when we reach an "age of accountability" we (without fail) sin and alienate ourselves from God.

They would point to Jeremiah 31:29-30

"In those days they shall say no more:
‘ The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’
But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

They also said that the New Covenant was made with all of humanity, though they're not universalists.

And I have a feeling Presbyterians and Baptists would answer this in differing ways! Though both would agree that profession of faith has something to do with entering the New Covenant- entrance into the Covenant is not automatic (I was actually told I was adding something to grace by requiring faith for entry into the Covenant! Though they agreed faith and repentance was needed for forgiveness- go figure!)

By the way, the people in question are my parents- it is an amazing thing to see how God has grown them in their interest in spiritual things over the past few years- this view of theirs is of course perplexing and disturbing, but I believe they are saved.

They are Disciples of Christ, though they are more conservative than most in the denomination (they believe Jesus is the only way of salvation and that the Bible is our authority for life and godliness!)


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Oct 15, 2011)

In looking at a text, it is good to not only understand what it says, but what it doesn’t say. Also, when we study the Scripture, we must realize that the Bible is in harmony with itself, so one cannot try to “pit” one verse against another, but must seek to understand how they are in balance.
That said, we look at Psalm 58 and Jeremiah 31:29-30 together and see that one teaches original sin (which we continue to have- i.e. Paul says he is presently the chief of sinners) as well as actual sin. Jeremiah is speaking of those dying for their actual, personal sin after the Babylonian captivity and that people could no longer blame their ancestors for them being punished for sin. 

The New Covenant is not with all humanity, since in the new covenant in the same passage of Jeremiah, it says, [33] But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [34] And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Can unbelievers be said to have the law written on their hearts (spiritual regeneration) as well as knowing God personally as well as the forgiveness of sins? I think not...

As a Presbyterian I would state the baptized infants are brought into the visible church, the community of faith (as is stated in the WCF ch.25), but may not be in the New Covenant. The Westminster Confession nowhere (that I have read) states that all baptized children are necessarily in the new covenant. Baptized children must have saving faith to be in the New Covenant (as chapter 7 states), though they are part of the visible church.


----------



## MarieP (Oct 15, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> As a Presbyterian I would state the baptized infants are brought into the visible church, the community of faith (as is stated in the WCF ch.25), but may not be in the New Covenant. The Westminster Confession nowhere (that I have read) states that all baptized children are necessarily in the new covenant. Baptized children must have saving faith to be in the New Covenant (as chapter 7 states), though they are part of the visible church.



Interestingly enough, the WCF never states that children of believers are in the New Covenant! Though, at least in my experience, that seems to be what sets paedobaptists apart from credobaptists. In the Old Covenant, were the signs ever administered to those outside the Covenant?

About to read this thread here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/esau-covenant-30290/


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Oct 15, 2011)

Perhaps you have come across Paedobaptists who have made the mistake of equating children of believers being in the visible church with necessarily being in the new covenant. But, no, the WCF does not make that equation, which is why I had no problem making the transition from Reformed Baptist to Reformed Presbyterian...


----------

