Thanks Johann.

IMO nicely stated.

I have only read a tiny bit on this, but I fail see how Adventist belief as state in the 28 FB falls into either of the two theories that have been stated.

Good post Johann. Would you also write a summary on Pelagius for us?

Crater, what about the second part of the question, comparing Augustine and Pelagius to folk Adventism?

There is a chapter on Original Sin on the BRI (SDA) site where there is a section on Pelagius. I have tried to copy it and post it here, but my copying is not functioning right now.

I am able to copy it, therefore, here it is:

-----beginning of quote-----

Pelagius (5th century) was a well-educated Briton, trained in law, who appeared in Rome around the year 400 teaching Christian perfection and calling for repentance and penitence. According to Pelagius, Adam was created with a middle nature, i.e., neither holy nor sinful, but with a capacity for both good and evil. He was created mortal, but with an entirely free and undetermined will. He chose to sin yet his fall injured no one but himself. Pelagius denied any hereditary transmission of a sinful nature or of guilt, thus man is still born in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall. There are no evil tendencies or desires in man’s nature. The only difference between Adam and man is that the latter has the evil example before him. Sin does not consist in wrong affections or desires, but only in a separate act of the will.34 Sin’s universality, said Pelagius, is due to wrong education, to bad example, and to a long-established habit of sinning. “By force of habit, sin attains a power akin to that of nature - sin becomes as it were ‘second nature’.”35 God’s grace for Pelagius is primarily God’s gift of man’s good nature with its capability of freely choosing and doing the good. He saw grace in terms of “external gifts and natural endowments, such as man’s rational nature, the revelation of God in Scripture, and the example of Christ.”36 Jesus Christ, according to Pelagius, is the fullest concretisation of the original grace of nature. As the direct image of God, Christ is a mirror of what man is and ought to be. By beholding Christ man becomes changed into His image because Christ’s example effects a resonating response in man’s deepest being, i.e., in his memoria - the noetic ontological link with his original nature.37 Pelagianism with its rosy view of human nature was condemned at various councils and finally anathematised at the Council of Ephesus in 431.38

-----end of quote-----

Hello everyone,

I recently read a paper related to this issue as I myself have been going over original sin. I would love to hear anyones reponse to the paper and whether it was helpful to this topic.

http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/sinoriginal-web.pdf

Aaron

I am not familiar with the term "folk Adventism" västergötland. Is it a term used in your religious frame work or your part of the world? It would be helpful if you were to give a definition of "folk Adventism" and what "folk Adventism's" belief is on it the subject.

Folk adventism is a term I use here to describe adventism as it is really found in the pews of adventist churches. It is expected to be different from church to church and at times may also vary within single churches. Folk adventism may differ from 28FB adventism to a greater or smaller degree. Thus, folk adventism would be explaining the difference between what you read in the adventist confessions of 28FB (and maybe church manuals?) and what you meet and observe and experience in your own life and in the church life that you are part of.

Thomas,

Are you actually referring to "folk Adventism" as "real Adventism"?

Here's a summary from the above document:

1. The Pelagian View: In this view Adam transmitted neither corruption nor guilt to his descendants. His sin is only a bad example. Hence baptism does not remove sin or guilt in infants since they have none. Physical death is not the penalty of sin, but an original law of nature. Romans 5:12d, “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”, means: “all incurred eternal death by sinning after Adam’s example.” Unitarians hold this view today.
2. The Augustinian View: In this view Adam transmitted both corruption and guilt to his descendants. It holds that God imputes the sin of Adam directly (immediately) to all his posterity, because when Adam sinned all humanity was seminally present in him as its head. Romans 5:12d refers to physical, spiritual and eternal death for all men, because all sinned in Adam their natural head. Luther and Calvin held this view and the Roman Catholic Church and Lutheranism are its modern representatives.
3. The Arminian View: In this view Adam transmitted corruption but no guilt to his descendants. The state of sin into which man is born does not in itself involve guilt or punishment. Only when man consciously and voluntarily sins and he thereby ratifies his corrupt nature, then God imputes to each man his inborn tendencies to evil. Romans 5:12d is understood to mean that physical and spiritual death is experienced by all men because all consent to their inborn sinfulness by acts of transgressions. The Methodist Church is the modern representative of this view.

In terms of original sin, I think Adventism is split between the Augustinian and Arminian view. I don't think the Pelagian view has a significant following.

It seems that the majority of academia currently holds the Augustinian view. OTOH, the majority of conservatives hold the Arminian view. As for the "regular" folk in the pews, they don't seem to participate in this debate. But as far as I can tell, the majority of laity that is even concerned about this belong to the ultra-conservative crowd; and most of those are Arminian.

My question is, What does Scripture teach? In which way does the Biblical understanding of Seventh-day Adventists help us find a solid answer to this issue?

Is there a danger we compromise any of our landmarks in order to explain our stand?