For anyone else wanting to compare, here is chapter 6 of the WCF and SLC side-by-side: WCF and SLC Chapter 6.pdf

Lemke made reference to section VI of chapter 6 of the WCF and SLC. Section VI is completely different in the SLC than in the WCF, as the writers of the SLC seem to want to stress that believers in this life continue in sin. But even with that, SLC section III (discussed in a moment) contains most of the language found in the SCF section VI. Recognizing that confessions always arise in a particular historical context, the SLC probably changed section VI, moving the original contents to section III, in order to respond to an issue in their day.

But the main section on original sin, section III, is very similar in the two confessions. The SLC is longer, expanding some of the points, but so far I cannot see any actual difference in what they teach about original sin. So the change in section VI is due to an altogether different focus in the SLC, but section III, on original sin, is essentially the same.

Now to go make a 5 year old giggle.

15. Article. — Of original, or birth, sin.

Original sin, is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally descendeth from Adam by natural generation, by means of which, man has not only lost that original righteousness, that God created him in, but
is naturally inclined to all manner of evil, being conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity; and, as St. Paul saith, the flesh lusteth against the spirit. And therefore every man justly deserveth God’s wrath, and damnation. And this concupisence, or indwelling lust, remaineth even in the regenerate, that they cannot love nor obey God perfectly in this life, according to the tenour of the first covenant.

That “original sin” by this definition is something that “remaineth even in the regenerate” shows, it seems to me, that this is something other than an Augustinian understanding of original sin.

At any rate, thanks for the historical note on the confessions. Look forward to seeing the others as well.

5. That there is no original sin (lit;, no sin of origin or descent), but all sin is actual and voluntary, viz., a word, a deed, or a design against the law of God; and therefore, infants are without sin.

I can at least answer your historical question regarding Baptist confessions of faith that have repudiated original sin:

1. John Smythe’s “Propositions and Conclusions concerning True Christian Religion”:

18. That original sin is an idle term, and that there is no such thing as men intend by the word (Ezekiel 18:20), because God threatened death only to Adam (Genesis 2:17) not to his posterity, and because God created the soul (Hebrews 12:9).19. That if original sin might have passed from Adam to his posterity, Christ’s death, which was effectual be-fore Cain and Abel’s birth, He being the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, stopped the issue and passage thereof (Revelation 13:8).20. That infants are conceived and born in innocency without sin, and that so dying are undoubtedly saved, and that this is to be understood of all infants, under heaven (Genesis 5:2; 1:27 compared with 1 Corinthians 15:49) for where there is no law there is no transgression, sin is not imputed while there is no law (Romans 4:15 and 5:13), but the law was not given to infants, but to them that could understand (Romans 5:13; Matthew 13:9; Nehemiah 8:3).

NOTE: I don’t know how long a single comment can be, so I’ll break these out.