Doctrine of Man Part 25: A Continued Evaluation of Original Sin

[@teddymacalagay8245]

This is very enlightening. Thanks Dr. Craig. God bless you even more as you bless others in your teachings!

[@reydemayo8906]

Godbless Dr. Lane Craig for your Utube Ministry.... Its been always honor to hear you

[@internetenjoyer1044]

Augustine's genius has blinded the western tradition to his faults.

[@josephn.partain7733]

Dear Dr. Craig, It seems your strategy from the start (Part 22) was to show that the doctrine of original sin is nowhere to be found in the Bible but Romans 5:12-21. By knocking out any intrabiblical support for that doctrine (Genesis 2-3, Psalm 51:5, and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22), you hoped, to narrow things down to Romans 5:12-21, then (in part 24) make easy work of that passage itself by showing the doctrine of original sin is not there either. My argument under Part 22 was that there are good reasons to believe that the intrabibical texts just mentioned are still in play for an understanding of Romans 5:12-21. Then my argument under Part 24 was that contrary to the rules of sound interpretation you interpreted the whole of Romans 5:12-21 by the part which is Romans 5:12, “so death spread to all people because all sinned.” I noted that Romans 5:12-21 is about two men (Adam and Christ), their deeds (Adam sinned and Christ died), and the effects on “the many” (all other people). The point of this text is that through Adam’s sin people die (both physically and spiritually) as is stated repeatedly and in various ways in Romans 5:15-19. “In Adam all die” (1 Corinthians 15:22). This is what makes Adam “a type of the one who was to come [that is, Jesus Christ]” (Romans 5:14). Adam did one thing as our representative, and it caused adverse effects (death, condemnation, judgment, sinfulness) for the entire human race yet in his loins; Christ did one thing as our representative and it caused eternally blessed effects (justification, eternal life, righteousness) for all who are born again and made a new creation through faith in Him. As touched on in my comment under Part 24, to claim as you do that this passage is teaching that people die not because of Adam’s sin imputed to them but their own sins destroys the type (5:14) that Adam is in relation to Christ in the logic of Romans 5:12-21. With Adam as that type, if you consistently apply the logic of your position to Christ it would mean that just as we die because of our own sins in Adam (the conclusion you argue for), we live (or have eternal life) by our own works or righteousness in Christ. However, from your treatment of the doctrine of salvation (in an earlier segment), I know you don’t accept the latter conclusion. But, to my mind, it is a fairly glaring problem for your argument against the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race. After your analysis of Romans 5:12-21, you conclude (at the beginning of Part 25) that neither Adam’s sin is imputed to us nor have we inherited from Adam a corrupted or sinful nature. Consequently, “Augustine’s doctrine of original sin is not incumbent upon the biblically faithful Christian.” The question is, of course, what the Bible teaches on Original Sin. What Augustine (or Luther or Calvin for that matter) thought about that doctrine is ultimately not the issue. In addition, if the Bible does teach Original Sin, then, it is incumbent on the biblically faithful Christian to receive that doctrine. To associate a particular uninspired author with a doctrine, as if the one named is the source of that doctrine and not Scripture itself, makes it easier to dismiss the doctrine. In this case, however, what matters is the actual meaning of Romans 5:12-21, which comes from the mouth of God (as I’m sure you would acknowledge). Apparently, the underlying question behind your rejection of the imputation of Adam’s sin to the human race is: How can it be just for God to punish others for a sin they themselves did not commit? Or: How is it just for people who didn’t actually eat the forbidden fruit to suffer the punitive effects or consequences of that sin? First, it may be important here to ask a question that is somewhat of a variant on the question Plato asks in the Euthrypho, namely, Is something pious because the gods love it or is it pious because it is pious? For our purposes, we’ll put the question this way: Is something just because God does or says it in the Bible or is it just because it is just? Put differently, is God accountable to some extra-biblical standard of justice that we as humans have come up with through our own reason? The difference between a Biblical and secular approach to the meaning of what is just or fair is that a Biblical approach begins with God and the Bible for its knowledge of justice. (“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” - Proverbs 1:7.) If God reveals that He has said or done a thing, that thing is just because God is just. It is just because it discloses who God is in His glory as One who cannot but be just and who, therefore, answers to no one for what defines His justice. A secular approach, on the other hand, begins with what the human mind through its own insight or reason determines to be just or fair. Now there are Christians who mix or blend these two approaches. They begin with themselves (as secularists do) for their determination of what is just or fair and then interpret the Bible (sidestep or overlook things, pick what they want-leave what they don’t want, twist things, etc.) to fit their prior determination (which is not hard to do) of what the Bible would say. Of course, if we’ve made up our minds the Bible is not going to say something, it won’t. In this manner, secular Christians seem to be under the authority of the Bible but actually are not. In this case, the Bible is made to cloak what is actually fallen human reason governing knowledge as its first principle and making God subject to the same. Second, the Bible shows that God has indeed held people accountable for sins that someone He looked upon as their representative committed in their stead. For instance, when Achan took things that God had commanded the nation of Israel at war with other nations to destroy, God held the whole nation accountable. The nation of Israel knew they had a problem when they were defeated by their enemies. When Joshua inquired of God about the matter, God said: “Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant that I have commanded them; they have taken some of the devoted things [that is, devoted to destruction-jnp]; they have stolen and lied and put them among their own belongings” (Joshua 7:11). Notice how God keeps saying, “they...they...they.” Only one person actually did these things: Achan. The one did something and the many suffered the consequences as if they had done it. By God’s reckoning, in Achan (with him as their representative), the nation of Israel sinned. They were held accountable, even suffered the punishment for it, as if they themselves had sinned. Is that just? It is, particularly, if we believe that something is just because God says or does it and not just because it is (by our own fallen human standards) just. Another example: When King David sinned by taking a census of the nation (2 Samuel 24:1,8), the Bible says that as a judgment for that sin God “struck Israel”-the nation itself (1 Chronicles 21:1, 7). Seventy thousand men died. God saw King David as the nation’s head or representative such that what David did was counted against the nation itself. That is, when David did wrong in this case, the entire nation of Israel did wrong through or in him. In sum, what these two examples show us (there are others in the Bible) is that God in His sovereignty at times views one person as a representative of others. This is just because it is what God has disclosed about Himself. Moreover, if God clearly has done this with Achan and David as representatives in relation to the nation of Israel, why would it seem strange that He would do this with Adam and the human race? That is, if in Achan, the nation of Israel sinned and in David, the nation of Israel sinned, why does it seem unfair or inappropriate to say that by God's reckoning and in Adam as their representative, all members of the human race sinned? Respectfully yours, Joseph

[@fhengal]

Yeah, it seems to me that any attempt to undercut original sin and what is imputed to people by Adam similarly undercuts any benefits that could be imputed to people through Christ. If the position and consequences of the first Adam can't be fully applied to people, then how can we expect to benefit from the position and consequences of the second Adam? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?

[@westshot7338]

How do you respond to the following counterargument?: Allow us to inverse your objection, "With Adam as that type, if you consistently apply the logic of your position to Christ it would mean that just as we die because of our own sins in Adam (the conclusion you argue for), we live (or have eternal life) by our own works or righteousness in Christ." The inverse may read something like, "With Adam as that type, if the arguer for original guilt were to consistently apply the logic of their position to Christ it would mean that just as we are automatically guilty at birth because of the sinful act of Adam (the conclusion they argue for), we are automatically righteous at birth because of the righteous act of Christ." Do you see the problem? We are not automatically, from birth, made righteous by the righteous act of Christ. We have to put our faith in Christ and turn away from our sin in order to take advantage of the grace which he has granted us. -------------- It seems unwise to press the typology for symmetry between the mechanism by which humanity falls into sin and the mechanism by which humanity is saved through faith in Christ. Not everything about Adam's life is reflective of Jesus'. Paul is only drawing this particular theological pattern between the singular acts of Adam and Jesus resulting in the death/sin and life/righteousness of humanity, respectively. God bless my friend.

[@PierceLoftin]

thanks for sharing Dr Craig! more works on the way ;)

[@FightForTruthMedia]

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG IS THE ABSOLUTE MAN! He inspired me to create my own Christian KZbin Channel to refute the lies of cultural Christianity! Check it out!

[@EmV-si1eu]

The doctrine of original sin is one of ESSENTIAL tenants of Christianity!

[@donaldmonzon1774]

Because of Adam all were cut off from the tree of life (you shall surely die) ....the knowledge of evil entered the world through his sin ( no longer a hedge around us / adam was innocent, protected somewhat like job before sin) therefore a constant stream of temptation followed.... perhaps we are literally physically , mentally and spiritually malnourished , therefore overwhelmed... abide in the vine to receive His life and power to overcome 🤔 ?

[@richardgarcia3562]

Thanks for the explanation., that logic to justify reformed theology would never hold up in court.

[@davidstockment8640]

It depends on whether you are talking about the court of fallen mankind or the court of God!

[@shinywarm6906]

The idea that it is just to prosecute and punish a person for Adam's action because that person "would have done the same thing given the chance" *but they didn't actually do* - is to flout natural justice. Or else (as WLC implies) it suggests there really is no free will at all - we are all predestined to act in the same way(s). I have heard WLC attempt a further justification of this "guilt by proxy" notion by suggesting it is equivalent to the legal concept of vicarious liability, whereby an employer can be held liable for unlawful acts perpetrated by an employee. But this too is flawed. The relationship between an employer and employee is nothing like that between Adam and his descendants. For example, employers have a defence if they can show they have taken care to minimise the likelihood that an employee will act unlawfully. But it is impossible for any decendant of Adam to exercise any restraint on Adam's behaviour. Second, the reason the legal concept exists is to ensure a victim has access to adequate compensation for an unlawful act. But no decendant of Adam is in a position to provide adequate compensation for Adam's unlawful act; neither does the putative penalty - separation from God, or hellfire - offer any compensation to the wronged party.

[@krishyyfan5153]

God is omniscient ...He must have seen all possible world and all possible scenarios and the result is ...Adam and humanity will choose evil and eat the Fruit and abuse their Freedom in Eden, no matter what the condition...Just think of Dr. Strange...God is more powerful than Dr. Strange... He can see all scenarios ,yet he has foreseen that Adam and humanity will Always freely choose evil and Eat the Fruit no matter what the scenario or condition or possibilities...

[@shinywarm6906]

@@krishyyfan5153 I'm not sure how that helps. You're saying that God deliberately created a being who will always fail to make the choice God himself has constructed. On what possible basis can it be justifiable to punish someone for failing a test you yourself have constructed in such a way that you know they will fail it? It's like a teacher teaching a class of 5 year olds basic Englush, and the setting them an exam in advanced Sanskrit and them punishing them for failing that exam

[@krishyyfan5153]

@@shinywarm6906 It's not God who made humanity fail...it is the Free Choice of man to fail...God simply sees all multiple possibilities where man FREELY exercises his choices... In all those multiple possibilities, man simply FREELY choose Evil and eat the fruit...

[@shinywarm6906]

@@krishyyfan5153 I'm only restating your claims. 1 God created humans, including all their strengths, weaknesses, wisdom and foolishness. 2 God knows everything, including every decision every human will ever make. 3 God created everything else in the universe and placed humans in the universe he created. 4. He knew when he created humans, that the qualities he gave them would mean that every one of them would fail to make the choices he deems to be righteous. 5. He punishes those who fail to make what he considers to be righteous choices. Which of the above points do you dispute? If someone designs a car that cannot be driven without the engine exploding, who's to blame for killing the passengers - the driver or the designer?

[@krishyyfan5153]

@@shinywarm6906 foolishness and ignorance is not created by God...it is an EFFECT of Original Sin....Do you even read the bible?? Adam had all the wisdom to create the right Choice, but he chose Evil, that is why his sin is very grave... And if you dispute Original Sin...say good bye to Democracy, for the Political system itself is built on the idea of Original Sin.... 🙄 1) why do we believe in Separation of powers theory? 2) why do we believe in limitation of terms of office?? We OBVIOUSLY don't give Absolute Powers to Politicians because we know that Politicians would EASILY be Corrupted... 🙄 We know we have a strong tendency to do evil because of Original sin..Our Free Will is wounded... 🙄

[@malakiyahj4931]

1. The Most High = YAH 2. The Most High's only begotten Son = Yahshua 3. The Spirit that came in the form of a 🕊, the Spirit that came down as "tongues of 🔥" during Pentecost = YAH Ruach HaKodesh 4. YAH's people = Those who keep the commandments of YAH and the faith of Yahshua. 5. If humanity is so evil and sinful, than we should just stop having children. 6. Humankind is an illusory, divisive, and disastrous construct. 7. "The world" or "this age" is probably not 🌎 but is an evil system that has been put in place to control, manipulate, deceive, imprison, feed on, and kill people. 8. The rulers of this "world" are the satans, which are what some call fallen angels, archons, demons, nephilim, evil jinn, ultraterretrials, so-called "gods", evil aliens, and other titles--we don't really know what they are but they're there.

[@mackdmara]

We should never tie Christianity to a political power. Once Hitched, you become the forced to live or die with the type of politician you put forth as Christian. If that isn't Christ as king, Don't! We should vote for the things that will support Christ's ethics, not by party, system, or Earthly Kingdom. Something that stinks is going on, but I don't see a good man there. I agree that humans are trying in an effort that will ultimately be to much for them to bear.

[@stephen2975]

The idea of original is such a nonsense! It is obvious from the beginning, Cain was not held culpable for Adams sin! We know this from his conversation with God! Enoch walked with God! Was he inherently sinful? God does not fellowship with sinners! I believe we confuse sin with it's root, self! God said to Adam, he was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil! This knowledge is the same knowing as when the Bible says, that a man knew his wife, it is an intermit knowledge that cannot be undone. We know from John, All that is in the world, the last of the flesh, the last of the eyes and the pride of life! These are the sins of Adam! Read the temptation and see this is the ground given over to Satan in the garden! This is how sin came in, and how man is tempted!

[@tomaskovarik1215]

I no longer believe in Christianity because everybody seems to have different and contradictory interpretation of lot of things (including baptism and eschatology), nobody agrees with anyone, it is a mess. I am leaving Christianity today

[@timsharpe6652]

Eschatology is a none salvivic issue . One can have different positions on this . It's not a core fundamental essential on the Christian Faith . It's a secondary or tertiary issue my friend

[@theophilus5132]

Hey Tomas. I hear what you are saying. I realize that whatever I can type here is probably not going to change your mind magically, but I can tell you that I've thought along those same lines. My conclusion to the "differences in denominations" objection is I have given up on trying to know everything or be correct about everything. After I became a disciple as a young teenager, I remember the Jehovah's Witnesses visited me, who then contradicted nearly everything I affirmed. It threw me for a loop and shook me if I had been misled or duped about what I believe. After that encounter (or series of dialogs), I purposed to read through the entire NT with pen in hand with the express purpose of answering the questions "Who is Jesus?" and "What must I do to know God?" It seems reasonable to me that if a person wants to know God, he will find him (Acts 17:22-34). My encouragement is to don't put your ultimate trust in theological systems or the ecclesiastical authority of denominations. Paul's primary thesis in his letter to the Galatians is to answer the question, "What is the gospel?" It is trust in Christ that saves us, not a commitment to isms. There is no comprehensive theological test at the final judgment where you gain or lose points based on how good you are at refuting those to whom you disagree. Jesus loves you, and your union with Him is what matters most. He will carry you through. Keep your eyes fixed on Him and not the contest of always being right about everything. I will pray for you, my friend. Take care. Show less

[@mrJety89]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZ3Hp5yjZt6dj68

[@flyingphoenix113]

Tomas, I think you should examine your belief systems as a whole before you decide to commit to such a path. There is widespread disagreement at the academic level in just about every field. In spite of this disagreement, I doubt you will stop taking medicine when you get sick (in spite of disagreements about the side effects or efficacy). Likewise, I doubt you will abandon belief in the laws of physics just because quantum mechanics calls into question the manner in which these laws operate (or their reliability thereof). You are committing yourself to an indefensible epistemological system.

[@somerandom3247]

Good to see another survivor making it out of this ridiculous cult :) The bible contains so many contradictions that it is impossible to follow word for word. So I'm not surprised the Christian sects disagree so much