Doctrine of Man - Part 22: Original Sin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 чер 2020
- Due to the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 and "shelter-in-place" recommendations, Dr. Craig gives this lecture from the safety of his home office.
For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
"Defenders" is Dr. William Lane Craig's weekly Sunday school class on Christian doctrine and apologetics. This video is part 22 of his locus on the Doctrine of Man.
Be sure to check out more doctrines as well as the audio of Defenders: www.reasonablefaith.org/defen...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Ezekiel 18, has always been a favorite passage of mine indicating that children are never condemned by their parent's actions.
That deals with actual sin... Not original sin
@@tomtemple69It does deal with original sin.
Original sin claims we are guilty because of the sin of our greatest grandfather Adam.
Ezekiel 18 claims children or descendants are not held accountable for their ancestors guilt.
Therefore Ezekiel 18 deals with the concept or original sin/guilt.
@@darrow2381 Ezekiel 18 is not speaking of original sin, the fact that you think it does shows you're twisting Scripture
Romans 5:18, one transgression condemns us all
why don't you use a clear passage instead of twisting unclear off topic passages?
@@tomtemple69 hey brother I first want to say we should discuss with love. Why assume we are “twisting scripture?” What if people are making mistakes? If you are a true Christian you must correct with love.
“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
Ezekiel 18:20 ESV
Ezekiel 18 goes against the idea that God would hold Adam’s children responsible for his sin.
Now you actually misquoted Roman’s 5:18 it’s not one transgression condemns us all.
“Therefore, as one trespass LED to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”
@@darrow2381 >“The soul who sins shall die.<
so babies who die in infancy, who sinned? the baby?
NIV: 18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
NASB: 18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind.
ESV: 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
i didn't misquote anything, you just found the translation you could make say what u want it to (and failed)
how does one trespass lead to condemnation for all men exactly?
Whether we have "original" sin or not, what I know is that I chose to sin, and I have lived my life regretting it. Fortunately I found Jesus, in no small part thanks to Dr. Craig, and I am slowly living more connected to God and more distant from sin. Thank God for his incredible grace towards us through his son!
You haven't choose to sin but you're a sinner, you don't have abilities to choose between sin and sinless. Why do you need to be born again? You need to be born again b/c you were not born of God if so then born of whom? Born of sin & satan. Dr.Craig have double PHD's but do not have the Holy Spirit in him but only the Spirit passed on to him from his Parents, that's unclean or satanic, don't incline to his teachings, better look at JESUS.
Correct. You, as someone born in Adam according to the flesh, are free to do, say, or think any evil thing you want. What you are not free to do is good (according to God's perfect holy standard of goodness, rather than your own evil standard of "goodness"). Now that you are in Christ according to the Spirit, you can actually do good, though not as often as you think due to the fact that we are all still in Adam according to the flesh, and because of this we pollute even the best of our good deeds with sinful motives and attitudes - sometimes we even pollute them after the fact!
@@arthur6157 Indeed. I am trying to remain humble, as I still have struggles. Particularly with lustful desires. I struggle very much daily. Fortunately, I have learned that God's love for me is not contingent upon my actions but upon how good HE is, that is to say, goodness and love are aspects of his character. This does not excuse my sins, or my sinful thoughts or actions, and I do not want to come across as arrogant in thinking that somehow my own actions have saved me. Far from it, it is only God's grace. I don't deserve it but here I am face to face with it. I only hope to someday be totally free from sin. If God can show me that, and I am the worst sinner I know, then God can show that to all. Blessings.
@@arthur6157"Now that you are in Christ according to the Spirit" - appreciate this but how is possible to become in Christ or within Christ?
@@williamgeorgepeter2969 Yes, we chose to sin, i chose to watch pronography, chose to commit adultery etc. It’s human will, however though, since we christians have the Holy Spirit who governs our will now, we abhor such actions anymore to a point where we don’t even wanna see or hear photos of or about such sins.
Just stumbled onto your video. Great stuff !! Yes i have found a teacher that tickles my ears, but most importantly in line with Scripture. God bless
Good week, doctor. And thanks! Man can only do good by Grace. How wonderful it would be if people recognized that
Blessings Dr. Craig
Good stuff, thanks.
For you formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mothers womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works, and my soul knows it very well. Ps 139:13,14.
Seems like Pelagius and Molina would agree on many points. So what does WLC actually think of original sin? It seemed as though WLC is agreeing with his comments about Pelagius. Am I incorrect about this?
I came across this channel & was interested in the view of original sin here. The answer is very simple. However, many complicate the issue. No exception to that here. Since the Bible is about the generation of Adamic man & no others. More specifically it is about those chosen by God from the Adamic race the Israelites. The 1st sin in the Bible is simply disobedience to God which placed a generational curse upon the descendents of Adamic man & the earth that is still in effect today. Just ask a mother & a farmer.
Yeah, the answer is simple but scholars complicated the entire Bible. Ask Father & Mother is really true, once I said to my wife that the sexuality we indulge isn't sin? My wife said no it's not b/c we got married & outside of marriage only sex is immoral then i asked, what they do is there same we are doing? She didn't agree, then I asked her. Is anybody ever have a moral sex in front of others? At this point she started, are you crazy? I said, no I'm just asking b/c we have to look at it by various aspects, and thereafter, I didn't raise these issues b/c woman's are limited in understanding. However, I know that there's no scripture that says moral sex or such isllowed, thus, all sexual activitie are sin rooted from original sin.
So, you do not believe in a just and loving God. You believe in a dark and sinister God who would condemn innocent babies for the sin of another committed thousands of years ago.
It’s interesting that Pelagius gets so much flack, when in fact he did believe that salvation was still 100 percent dependent on God’s Grace.
So do Mormons, RCs, Muslims, & JWs. You see, mankind is born Pelagian in Adam. It's part of our sin nature (i.e., original sin). 😉
@@arthur6157 Appreciate & correct.
@@arthur6157 Wrong. Sin is not a condition; it is actions. James 1:14-15.
This was a very good explanation. Thank you. I know this was not the focus of this particular video, however, I’m also thinking of how the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary also is tied to Augustine.
Amen
Personal sin is the result of a sinful nature. So if David was inclined to sin, it was not because suddenly out of the blue he had received some moral dysfunction he had never had or experienced before. The text of Psalms 51:6, serves a preamble for David, to introduce his fight against sin, and why it was so difficult to defeat it: he had come to this world with a sinful nature, and no human is exempt from it. This verse is fully attached to the concept of original sin, since, entails that humans come with a moral dysfunction. What would be the cause of being given birth in sin?
Rojes, you rightly said. Scholars like Dr. Craig makes mistakes, David didnt blame his mother nor Adam but he blames the original sin which is rooted from Satan. Guys don't agree on Original sin are so supportive of Satan.
The doctrine of original sin is not biblical. It is a false man made doctrine.
I agree. Original sin is pretty clear and that David verse sums it up pretty well. You really have to twist the passage for it to mean otherwise when there’s a clear and simple reading of it. The disobedience of Adam created a condition in man where like Adam we choose to trust in our own wisdom over God. We aren’t punished for the exact type of sin as Adam but all men have done the exact same sin everyday in our lives.
Dr Craig, subtitles in Spanish ? Is posible ?
This is not convincing to me- we are condemned to death bc of Adam’s sin as he was cast out of Eden. But I don’t see anything saying we carry Adam’s sin. Condemned to die yes, and bc Adam screwed up. But no, I don’t see scripture saying that Adam’s sin is my sin. I sun on my own.
Pelagius for the win
We were made in the image of God. Conscience, Flesh and Soul. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. God is all-powerful and gave all three of HIS body parts consciousness to witness the creation of eternity.
I'm curious why so much of the Christian tradition has chosen to ignore or minimize the universality of Paul's understanding of Christ. In the passages cited from Romans (and also from 2 Corinthians, even if irrelevant to the specific evolution of doctrine), Paul describes the fall in Adam as a universal event in which all humanity participates. He then says that the free gift of acquittal has an even greater quality of univerality--the gift exceeds the trespass: in Christ, all are saved. At least in these passages, the gift of life is described as greater than the curse of death. Yet there are no conditions prerequisite to participating in the sin of Adam; it is involuntary and universal. The Church, however, has transformed the universal, unconditional gift of God into something conditional. No one can share in God's generosity without first meeting the requirements of the institution, without which damnation is inevitable. So it turns out that for the Church, the gift of God in Christ is limited and subordinate to the much more influential act of Adam, which the sacraments of the Church--not the gift of God in Jesus--alone can repair. And so the sacraments inevitably are weaponized as means of coercion and control, to be given or not according to the pleasure of the Church. Not exactly the God who causes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust, or the rain to fall on tthe evil and the good. How ironic, that we've taken our plows and beaten them back into swords.........
There is a condition for participating in the guilt. One us to be born of the seed of Adam. Likewise the condition for participating in the righteousness of Christ, that one has to be born again of Christ
It's crazy that just because somebody has the title of doctor people would jump on board and believe that they are correct without any actual studying
Do you disagree with a point raised in this video? If so, which one and why? - RF Admin
Were Zechariah and Elizabeth without blemish before God?
I disagree with augustine on Imputed guilt of Adam. I agree sin is a spiritual disease.
Also disagree with infant baptism
Sin in, tree of life out.
Sin being passed down is a lie . We are not accountable for another persons sins, only our own.
Unless the concept of Original Sin is clearly seen with the Ante Nicene writers, I can’t be pop persuaded.
Look how Augustine used political means to get Pelagius condemned. When State and Church are mixed, it becomes a polluted mess. Jude 3 please.
And Jesus said to them, Yes, have you never read, Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies You have prepared praise for Yourself. Matt 21:16.
Death spread to all men for all have sinned doesn't mean every human is sinful from birth, it means from birth nobody has access to life without Jesus..
All sin - no argument. But some think Jesus had to be somehow unlike humans to avoid original sin.
The theory goes that Augustine had a manuscript of Romans with an error, I haven't dived into that yet but sin is universal among humans, but guilt is not imparted by virtue of being a human - you have to sin and all will but death IS imparted on humans by virtue of being human.
Romans 5 doesn't say all are guilty, it says all die.
It's a contentious issue, I know.
[Genesis 1:26 NASB] "[26] Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.""
Regardless of what else the image of God is, at a minimum, it is imaging God's moral and rational nature. While we did not lose the image God's rational nature in the Fall (though our rationality can be adversely affected by our fallen moral nature), we did lose his moral likeness to the degree that although we continue to be moral creatures, unlike the animals, we have become morally evil by nature. This nature Adam passed down to his offspring according to the principle of reproduction according to "kind" here established in Scripture:
[Genesis 1:11, 21, 24 NKJV] "[11] Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb [that] yields seed, [and] the fruit tree [that] yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed [is] in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
...
[21] So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that [it was] good.
...
[24] Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, [each] according to its kind"; and it was so."
[Genesis 7:14 NKJV] "[14] they and every beast after its kind, all cattle after their kind, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, every bird of every sort."
Keywords: "according to its kind". Reproduction is according to "kind" or if you will, image:
[Genesis 1:22, 28 NKJV] "[22] And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." ... [28] Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.""
[Genesis 8:17 NKJV] "[17] "Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that [is] with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.""
[Genesis 9:1, 7 NKJV] "[1] So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. ... [7] And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it.""
Since kinds reproduce after their own kind, so Adam reproduced a son in his own moral image/kind, and decidedly not in God's moral image. IOW, now, Adam's children more resemble him than God, morally:
[Genesis 5:3 NASB] "[3] When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of [a son] *in his own likeness, according to his image*, and named him Seth."
So the doctrine IS taught in the OT. A host of passages could be quoted wherein God talks about giving people new hearts and minds. Why would such a thing be necessary if mankind was not immutably evil by nature?
[Jeremiah 13:23 NKJV] "[23] Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? [Then] may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil."
Most people concentrate on the phrase "accustomed to do evil", rather than noting that it is physically impossible for an Ethiopian or a leopard to change their own skin color or coat pattern - God's real point. The Ethiopian is immutably black-skinned and the leopard immutably spotted. Since these categories are compared to human moral nature we can say children of Adam are conceived immutably evil by nature, just as the Ethiopian is conceived black by nature and the leopard spotted by nature. And yes, it is true that at immature stages of their development it may not be evident yet that the Ethiopian is black by nature and the leopard is spotted by nature, but time and maturation will make both of those unrevealed facts quite evident. Also, note that this verse is conditional: IF an Ethiopian can change his skin and IF a leopard can change its spots, THEN you who are accustomed to do evil may do good. Everyone with the maturity to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for themselves (rather than being covenantally covered by their fathers stretching back to Adam eating on their behalf ("...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" (original sin))). The concept of covenantally imputed righteousness and sin is well established in scripture, just consider Abraham ("...and Abraham believed God and He accounted it as righteousness") and our Lord. Without the doctrine of imputed sin (such as covenantal original sin) and righteousness, our sin could not have been imputed to Christ on the cross, and his righteousness could not have been imputed to us. We would be irrevocably damned, and of all people, "most to be pitied".
Everyone we have ever met is evil by nature. We wouldn't know what to do if we actually met a good person according to the flesh. You see, being evil ourselves, we compare ourselves among our fellow evil human beings rather than comparing ourselves to the moral standard of goodness revealed in the incarnate Word and the written word, which reveals God's own immutably good by nature divine moral nature. Thus, those we think of as "good", are merely less evil than the average of society, or, because we are evil ourselves and that requires that we think of ourselves as "good", we compare them to ourselves. If they are "better" than us they are good (because we are good), and if they are worse than us they are evil (because we are at least the minimum acceptable standard of goodness).
/rant: off
Read Urantia book and find all the answers. Seriously.
6:51 min. Bishop of the Church. Which Church? The Catholic Church. St. Augustine of Hippo, Bishop was in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. God Bless!
God said to Adam the day you eat the forbidden fruit, you would surely die. Genesis 2:17. Thus, it's understandable wages of sin is death. So, what does mean death? I'm sure Bill making tremendous mistakes in his teaching of original sin.
Death is that the Spirit God breathed into his nostrils was Departed from his physical body, and instead, the Spirit rooted from the forbidden tree Arrived into his physical body. Thus, the original sin brought death and it continued to the subsquent generation until now.
You may not agree the Spirit rooted from the forbidden tree ARRIVED into his body, and instead, you may say that Adam was separated from God or Adam Spiritually died but Adam didn't separate from God or Spiritually not die b/c there's no death for spirit. So, litrally there's a satanic spirit or unclean Spirit passed on to sinner, thus passed on from generation to generations during sexual activities which is sin even in the bond of this age marriage b/c of the fact that sex is being done either in darkness or in secret, therefore, it"s sin. In John 3, the Lord says to Rabbi Nicodemus, unless you BORN AGAIN that means what? Why one has to be born again? One has to birn again b/c his first birth wasn't of God, if so then born of whom? Sin or Satan. Thus, needs to be born again. How to be Born Again? This's similar to Adam's first day, God breathed the same way Holy Spirit must be ARRIVED into a sinner so that the satanic from a sinner must be DEPARTED. So, these TWO events happen in a fraction of or w/o a gap of time in a human body. Jesus says in verse 8, there is Coming & Going, the satanic from must go & the Holy Spirit must come. Thus, if anybody born again then he never dead again b/c he passed from death unto eternal life, and that 2nd death have no power over him but he would become like JESUS and repeat what Jesus did back then.
So, original sin have such a profound message and also provide, how to get rid of it through JESUS but you teach something irrelevant today, you haven't studied the repercussions of original sin & that do not know the remidies.
You need to know what is this age maariage & what is that age maariage & the difference betwen these two marriages.
You said Psalm 51:5 is hyberbolic but David blames not his mother, nor Adam but sin & satan for his birth, thus you seems supportive of satan & sin which you don't know yourself. This's how front line ministers like you were deceived by the devil. I'm really sad when I look at your ignorance of facts.
The "Original" sin was acts and omissions of 1/3 of the original inhabitants of Heaven that actually occurred in Heaven when Satan stirred up a rebellion against the rightfully God-appointed King of Heaven. This resulted in the fall when we were all consigned to Paradise - a spiritual sphere somewhat lower than Heaven. A fast-track attempt to rehabilitate all the fallen spirits failed due to the further disobedience of Adam and Eve, two former spiritual leaders of Heaven, in the Garden of Eden which was located in Paradise. The Garden of Eden was a spiritual garden and not located on earth as many believe today. The physical world did not exist at that time and was brought into existence as a result of the second fall when God put together His Secret Plan of Redemption.
1 Corinthians 2:7: "We proclaim the mysterious plan conceived by God in His wisdom, a plan which has hitherto been concealed, but which God established before time began in order to lead us back to glory. This plan was known to none of the rulers of this world, (Satan/Lucifer) for otherwise, they would not have crucified the lord of glory." There is a subtle clue in that passage with the phrase "before time began." Time does not exist in Heaven and this phrase indicates that there was need for a Redemptive Plan before the physical universe was created. In actual fact the physical creation was an important element of God's Plan of Redemption.
Everyone on earth is concerned with their destination at the end of their life but few stop to think about the reason they are on earth, how they came to be on earth, or why did they need to be redeemed.
Dr. Craig,
Your first claim is that there is no doctrine of original sin in the account of the fall in Genesis 2-3. A bit misleading perhaps? At least, potentially, isn’t all there is to know about original sin nested in that passage? Undoubtedly, the apostle Paul in places like Romans 5:12-21 makes more explicit the effects of Adam’s sin in the Genesis account, but if we observe carefully what happens after the fall, it seems evident that the idyllic world in existence prior to Adam’s sin had become radically disordered: “subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Romans 8:20-21). The ground was cursed (Genesis 3:17). The nature of the animate and inanimate world was altered. The animal kingdom and things like weather patterns were altered for the worse. The threat or existence of conflict, strife, and death spread all over the planet.
Are we to suppose, then, that what Adam and Eve and their generations after them were by nature after the fall was unchanged? That in such a disordered world after their sin, Adam and Eve alone were still upright? Was there not a radical change in this guilty pair, fleeing the Garden of Eden? Is it not evident in their generations after them? For instance, we observe in chapter four that Cain, mastered by sin, kills Abel; chapter six, rampant wickedness brings the divine judgment of a great flood; chapter nineteen, sin has become such a problem in Sodom and Gommorah that God has to destroy those cities; finally, chapter twelve, with the calling of Abraham and the beginning of a nation which throughout Old Testament history will prove themselves time after time to be unfaithful to God even to the point of crucifying their Messiah (mind you, what all of us in their sandals would have done), we see the effects of Adam's sin ultimately playing out.
Therefore, it isn’t merely that through Adam’s sin the human race died spiritually (Ephesians 2:1) and would later die physically (Genesis 3:19). Adam and Eve became mortal, which is to say, ruled in principle by sin and death (Romans 8:2). This had vast consequences not only for their physical life but also their moral nature or inclinations as well as that of all their generations to come. In other words, death itself coming upon and spreading through the human race had released its poison in mankind’s very nature (“the sting of death is sin”-1 Corinthians 15:56). People had become “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) and “by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Surely the effect of what happened when Adam sinned, therefore, is more than a bad example for good people to avoid. Sin as death’s sting has subjugated the human race in its very nature from the time of Adam until a world-altering event happened such that an apostle of Christ in A.D. 57 writes: “Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:24) In sum, when Paul in Romans 5:12-21 draws out more fully the implications of Adam’s sin, he isn’t pulling something out of thin air by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These things were already evident in what Scripture itself relates after the fall in Genesis two and three about a tragic change for the worse in all Adam’s descendants such that even after the flood in Noah’s time God said of the nature of man: “for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21).
As for Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” you remind us that the Psalms are poetry. And, in this particular case, you propose that hyperbole is used by David to express how sinful he feels. That is, on your account, David exaggerates things to strengthen a point he is making but does not mean to be taken literally.
As for the reminder that the Psalms are poetry, I am sure you don’t mean by that that the Psalms do not at times give us God-breathed, authoritative propositions about God, man, salvation, etc. No doubt you are aware that some of the most important statements about the future Messiah used in the apostolic preaching of the gospel come from the Psalms (such as, “You will not let your Holy One see corruption”-Psalm 16:10). No doubt you are also aware that when Paul is demonstrating from Scripture that we are justified by grace through faith alone (a significant, evangelical doctrine), he supports his case by a quote from one of David’s Psalms, “Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin” (Psalm 32:1,2). I think you would agree, therefore, that to say the Psalms are poetry doesn’t mean they are any less theologically reflective, authoritative, or concretely meaningful in their content as divine revelation. So, if, for example, we were to suppose hypothetically that David’s statement did indeed express God’s truth that all humans are sinners from conception, would you agree that to claim the Psalms are poetry is no reason to dismiss it as such?
As for your proposal that Psalm 51:5 (“in sin did my mother conceive me”) is a hyperbole, again, we might define a hyperbole as an exaggeration that makes a point but isn’t meant to be taken literally.
As we consider your claim here, to identify a hyperbole in the Bible, we may go in one of at least three directions:
(1) If taken literally, does an expression convey something so exaggerated as to be impossible? If so, it may be a hyperbole. For example, Jesus’s statement that the Pharisees had strained at gnats and swallowed camels was a hyperbole. He meant they overly emphasized less important matters and failed to emphasize the really important things. On Psalm 51:5, one might argue that for one to sin does not necessarily mean that one is born in sin. From that standpoint, it would seem exaggerated. On the other hand, were we to ask if being conceived in iniquity is so exaggerated as to be an impossibility, I think we would agree that it isn’t. In that case, there would also be no explanation needed as there is when an expression is a hyperbole. Hence, David’s “in sin did my mother conceive me” is not a hyperbole under this consideration.
(2) If taken literally, does an expression convey something so exaggerated as to be untrue? If so, it is a hyperbole. When the Pharisees were discouraged about how influential Jesus was with the people, they said, “Look how the whole world has gone after him” (John 12:19). It wasn’t literally true that everyone had gone after him. These Pharisees certainly hadn’t done so. Is David’s “in sin did my mother conceive me” so exaggerated as to be untrue? Well, it seems this isn’t something that could be decided from a reading of Psalm 51:5 alone. Hypothetically, if there are other places in the Bible that show we are conceived in iniquity, then what David is saying here is not a hyperbole.
(3) If taken literally, does an expression convey something so exaggerated as to be contrary to what the Bible teaches elsewhere? If so, it may be a hyperbole. For example, Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Of course, the Bible teaches that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, even love our enemies. So this is exaggerated language which is not literally true, as it contradicts what the Bible teaches elsewhere. Jesus only meant that he accepts no rivals in his reign over our hearts. As for Psalm 51:5, one might argue that for one to sin does not necessarily mean that one is born in sin. From that standpoint, it would reasonably seem exaggerated. But it ultimately depends on what the Bible teaches elsewhere. If, for instance, Romans 5:12-21 teaches that sin enters the world through Adam’s sin and has been passed down from Adam, generation after generation, then David’s “in sin did my mother conceive me” is neither exaggerated nor contrary to that doctrine but completely consistent with it.
Let's consider now your treatment of 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, which says, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” Here you say that compared with Romans 5:12-21 the parallel is different. Whereas Romans 5:12-21 is about the spiritual consequences of Adam’s sin and Christ’s death, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 is about the difference between Adam’s creation and Christ’s resurrection. You mention that you had demonstrated this in previous lessons. There are, however, twenty-one such lessons. I wish you had, by way of review, just briefly presented here your reasons for making this claim. As it is, your claim that 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 is about the difference between Adam’s creation and Christ’s resurrection is obviously untrue based on what the text explicitly says. There is a place, admittedly, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that says, “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” That verse fits your claim. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 does not. Your quite significant (if not momentous) conclusion here, “So 1 Cor. 15:21-22 is not relevant after all to the doctrine of original sin,” is without any argumentative support. That means 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 is still in play as a relevant commentary for our understanding of Romans 5:12-21. (More on this later when I comment on your Part 24.)
Respectfully yours,
Joseph
Scholars like Dr.Craig makes more complex of the fact in a way, not to understand the facts of the Bible. It's very clear Adam realised that he's naked when the day he eat the forbidden fruit but earlier he didn't realise though he was naked, thus there's a change of consciousness that only implies that God's Spirit breated into his nostrils was departed from his brain due to the arrival of the Spirit rooted from the tree of the knowledge of good & evil.
This two incidents happened in two seconds having no gap of time, thus Adam has become mortal from immortality. So, Adam died & resurrected to sin.
In other words Adam passed from Eternal life and to death. Since then the Spirit that's passed on to the subsquent generation is only through sinful activities except JESUS and that the sin is very much active. Thus, saying original sin isn't exists is something so supportive of Satan & Dr.Craig is missing many facts.
Augustine was on the right scent trail, so to speak, but barking up the wrong tree. Baptism is the bloodless sign and seal (Christ having already shed his blood for us) of God's Covenant of Grace with Adam after the Fall, now called the New Covenant in the New Testament administration of the CoG (in the OT administration of the Covenant of Grace it was the bloody sign and seal of circumcision). In infant baptism, Christ becomes the Covenant Representative, at least according to the flesh, of the child. If the infant, only being guilty of OS or of OS and sins of ignorance, perishes prior to beginning to sin willfully with knowledge and understanding by "eating", so to speak, "from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" for themselves (the term, "age of accountability", is theologically inaccurate since we are always ACCOUNTABLE before God for our sin and guilt, whether imputed, ignorant, or willful), then the infant is saved due to Christ fulfilling the Day of Atonement sacrifice "for the sins of the people committed in ignorance" for them. Christ's fulfillment of the DoA sacrifice for his people is exactly antithetical to the "original sin" of Adam and is the grounds for God sovereignly regenerating us "against our will". In it, what might be termed "original righteousness" is imputed to us from Christ by God (we were made guilty by being born in the first Adam without our knowledge or understanding and thus "against our will", and therefore we're made righteous without our knowledge and understanding and "against our will" by being born in Christ the Last Adam). Once we reach the age when we sin high-handedly and with knowledge and understanding, then we must be included in the number of those for whom Christ fulfilled the Passover sacrifice also. Therefore, all that is necessary for the salvation of human zygotes, infants, and small children is that (1) they are only guilty of OS or of OS and ignorant sins and not of willful sin with knowledge and understanding, (2) they are "elect", and (3) they are born in Christ (regenerated) by the word (Word/Logos) and the Spirit. No personal faith required. The faith of their new Covenant Representative covers them covenantally. On synergistic views of salvation, the salvation of infants is impossible since they cannot be regenerated without first willfully placing their trust for salvation in Christ alone (due to the heterodox synergistic order of salvation, wherein faith results in regeneration, rather than the orthodox order of salvation wherein regeneration results in faith) any more than they are capable of understanding what it is to sin (hence the necessity of the heterodox synergistic doctrine of "the age of accountability"). On the other hand, personal faith is required for Christ's work in the Passover sacrifice to be accessed since our own personal willful sin with at least some degree of understanding was required to make us guilty of these high-handed sins covered alone by Christ "our Passover Lamb".
Please refer him as St. Paul and St. Augustine of Hippo, Bishop. They are in heaven, we are not (yet). God Bless
The doctrine of original sin is not biblical. It is a false man made doctrine.
@@candyclews4047 Just believing in Christ does not make one saved.
@@candyclews4047 Muslims and oneness Pentecostals believe in Christ. Would you say they are saved?
@@candyclews4047 If belief is all you need, then you would say that repentance is not needed since repentance and belief are different. Will you say that?
@Candy Clews I am trying to find out if you believe that faith only saves. Many people do, and they say nothing else is needed for salvation.
Do you believe in faith only salvation?
For though the twins were not yet born and Had Not DONE Anything Good Or Bad,...Rom 9:11.
Sin did not enter the world by one man, as Paul teaches in First Timothy chapter 2v14, but by one woman, and Adam did not sin and therefore die as Romans chapter 5v12, teaches, so passes or spreads to all men when all personally sin, and when Paul says in v15, by the offense of one many be dead, the many are the same people as the all of v12, and so when we come to v 19, for as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one, Christ, many are made righteous, if the many are the all of v12, and v15 and v19, and they are, and if they are automatically made sinners in Adam's disobedience , then they are automatically made righteous in Christ, but since the rest of the New Testament does not teach universal salvation or righteousness, in means that v12, teaches that we all die when we all personally disobey God, just as Adam did not die when Eve was the first to sin, but died when He personally followed her sinful example and personally sinned, and we become personally become righteous bt obeying from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered unto you, and you were freed from sin to become the servants of rightousness
@17:02 "they all eventually fall into sin" is heretical IMO bc that means that people could die before sinning, be in Heaven and they did not need Jesus to save them! wow!
What's wrong with that? There are other ensouled beings in heaven that are not saved by Jesus - angels.
Infant baptism is a doctrine made by men not a wisdom from the Holy Spirit. The punishment for the sin of Adam & Eve is called ORIGINAL SIN period! And the punishment is Death of our flesh. If the sacrament of baptism is true or effective that it can remove the Original Sin, No pagan believers should have died. If Adam & Eve did not commit the original sin they should be eternal in Eden because they were not created to die. And they were warned before hand. Why do you preached that there are already mortals who died in heaven? Jesus said “No one has ascended to heaven except for the one who comes down from heaven” John 3:13.
Yes, original sin is passed down from the original Covenant Representative of the Covenant of Works, Adam, to his offspring. But, some of those offspring (males) become covenant heads themselves and pass OS to their own offspring. This isn't due to biology, per se, but due to covenantal succession and LEGAL inheritance. Adam is dead, but he bequeathed to his heirs their legal inheritance as guilty sinners, sinners by nature, and as sinful covenant heads of families. Therefore, Christ having no legal covenant inheritance according to the flesh in Adam, was born without original sin and guilt in his human nature. Christ was born with a mutably good human nature of the sort Adam was created with, and his mutably good human nature was then "perfected" (made immutable) in his temptation in the wilderness (a type of Adam's temptation, but only worse), and his human nature is now immutably good forever. Needless to say, his divine moral nature always was immutably good from eternity. It is Christ our new Covenant Representative's now immutably good human nature that we will LEGALLY INHERIT at the resurrection (Hallelujah!). This is why Christians will not want to sin in eternity future.
@Papa Smurf Thanks. Nothing will help you to understand the narrative and doctrine taught in scripture more than understanding that Christ, "the Last Adam", is God's replacement for the first Adam, our original covenant representative. Where Adam failed miserably, Christ succeeded gloriously. Another helpful little tidbit is to understand that Israel in the Promised Land is both a type of Adam in the Garden, right down to his expulsion out of it to the east (just like Israel), and simultaneously a type of the second coming of Christ (especially of Israel's conquest of Canaan and the golden age of the united kingdom). The leaders, including the kings of Israel, typify the Man Adam/Christ, and the people of Israel typify the Woman/the Church. These types are carried forward into the NT with the Man Christ and his bride the Church (the Woman). Because Israel typifies both the failure of Adam and the triumph of Christ at the same time it can be a little confusing. Ever wondered what in the world Adam was supposed to do about that talking serpentine Dragon in the Garden, for instance? He was supposed to do what Israel was supposed to do and also failed with their particular dragon in God's temple garden - the Canaanites, namely, drive them out of God's temple garden or kill them if they refused to leave. So what happens after Christ's water baptism, Spirit baptism, and 40-day temptation in the wilderness? Didn't he enter the Land and begin driving out the serpentine Dragon from God's temple garden by exercising demons out of people (the first instance of God's temple), people who were living in God's new temple Garden, the Promised Land (the second instance of God's temple. What happened with national Israel? They were water-baptized in the Red Sea according to Paul, right? They were driven (led) into the wilderness by the Spirit (the pillar of cloud by day and fire (tongues of fire?) by night), right? They were tempted or tested for 40 years in the wilderness, right? And then they entered God's temple garden in the power of the Spirit and began driving the Serpent (the Canaanites) out of it.
God in scripture doesn't teach theology the way we do, through systematic theology. He teaches his people theology in the narrative of his mighty deeds. The Deluge and the Passover/Exodus are the first advent of Christ. In the Deluge, Christ is typified by both Noah (human type), who builds an ark of wood (the Church/the cross) for the salvation of his family (the elect), and by the ark itself (non-human type), which can shelter God's elect from his own holy wrath (the Flood) for their sin. In the Exodus Christ is both Moses (human type)who leads his people out of Egypt (the world system) and the Paschal Lamb (non-human type) whose shed blood protects them from the destroying angel (again, the wrath of God for their sins). The conquest of Canaan and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are the second advent of our Lord - two spies/two angels, and in apocalyptic prophecy, two witnesses. Who is Rahab? The Woman, the Church on earth when Christ returns for her. What sort of a woman is she? A prostitute (sexually (spiritually) immoral). Who is Lot? The Man, the leaders of the Church at Christ's return. His wife (the Woman/Church/people of God) looks back to Sodom (the world) and is turned into a pillar of salt. His incest with his daughters. There are layers within layers within layers of rich biblical theology here.
I hope I've given you some things to think about when you read, study, and meditate on scripture, PS. I hope they edify you and increase your faith. Nothing would give me greater pleasure.
The doctrine of original sin is not biblical. It is a false man made doctrine.
@@timothyseals3791 Do you Pelagian Heresy much, Tim?
[Psalm 51:5 NKJV] "[5] Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me."
Great teaching...Now if he would only realize the Trinity Dogma is also false.
Those who believe in original sin, believe in an unjust and unloving God, who would condemn newborn babies for the sin of another committed thousands of years ago. Not only that, but condemn them to eternal misery. FOREVER. As a loving parent, would you do that to your child? Of course not. The doctrine of original sin therefore is the doctrine of Satan, the accuser of the brethren.
If you think you dont inherit original sin from Adam, you better forget abt Jesus! You are sinless!!😂