The coupe de grace of deniers of original sin

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1773384#post1773384



HP: Well that is a no brainer as to why David felt that way DHK. Jews did not believe that infants and young children were sinners to start with as you, Biblicist, and others obviously do.

DHK: Pure opinion. Document it.

HP: Do your own research. I have repeated stated the words of one of the most highly respected authorities on Jewish culture and doctrine. Did you believe Edersheim? Who was it just a day or so ago that searched the internet for a Jewish site and reported that they concurred with Edersheim's findings? Whatever. Lead a horse to water but making him drink is yet another task.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If anyone knows a better source on Jewish antiquity, who is it other than Edersheim? I am open for suggetions. Lets compare sources if there are some to compare. Ask your favorite Jew to come on and give us his opinion.

 

[DHK]

Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim



HP: Well that is a no brainer as to why David felt that way DHK. Jews did not believe that infants and young children were sinners to start with as you, Biblicist, and others obviously do.


HP: Do your own research. I have repeated stated the words of one of the most highly respected authorities on Jewish culture and doctrine. Did you believe Edersheim? Who was it just a day or so ago that searched the internet for a Jewish site and reported that they concurred with Edersheim's findings? Whatever. Lead a horse to water but making him drink is yet another task.

Edersheim, Mosheim, and all the other "sheims" in the world are not authorities.
The Bible is the authority that you need to consult, and is the only one that I will accept. Demonstrate your belief through the Scriptures. It is evident that you cannot. I can demonstrate the depravity of man to you. But there is no part of your philosophy that you can support with Scripture.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, if it helps, Edersheim believed in original sin. Now can you trust him? That is another reason I like him. When the evidence seemed opposed to his own held notions he still tells it like it is. I like that in a writer. :thumbsup:

 

[savedbymercy]

convicted

It was YOU who stated in another thread where you stated that God's elect are never in a state of condemnation.

But that is not saying that the elect are never sinners. Now are you going to show us where I stated or posted that the elect are never sinners or what ? If you are going to point something out about what a person said, please be honest enough not to misrepresent it, if you need to, just copy and quote the phrase you want to point out as your objection, just do not put your slant on something !

 

[marke]

Marke, this might give you some fodder to consider on "Sins of Ignorance.

Sin, as it was made plain at the time of the giving of the law, was divided into two categories, sins of ignorance, and what was denoted as presumptuous sin, that done with a "high hand", as defined in rabbinical writings. It is noteworthy to notice that ONLY "sins of ignorance" were provided the opportunity of forgiveness through the sacrificial system of sacrifices. There were NO sacrifices to be offered for sins that were denoted as being presumptuously committed, or with a "high-hand", according to the law, but rather only the fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation from God in such cases.

Alfred Edersheim, in the book "The Temple", points this out on pp. 128. "Sins of ignorance" were not just sins that were committed through a want of knowledge as one might think, but included sins that one might have perceived as unintentional or by way of some weakness, or when the offender had not realized his guilt at the time of the infraction. It is also noted by rabbinical sources, that if one voluntarily confessed his sins, that the sin or sins would be classified as "sins of ignorance" as well. (Pp. 133) Some brought sacrifices every day to cover for their "sins of ignorance"! One can readily perceive that what the Jew understood as being "ignorance" is not synonymous with our notions of it today. Further more, God stated in Ac 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" What God once "winked at" as being the results of what might be denoted as "ignorance", He obviously looks at in a different light in this enlightened age. Of a truth, we conceive more clearly the law than those who lived at the time of the giving of the law. "To whom much is given, much is required."

Another notion that cannot be overlooked is the use of words when training the unenlightened or children. We see a cold stove and point to the burner and say to the young child “HOT!” The burner is not literally hot, but will be on occasion, and if one desires to see the child keep from serious injury, we might tell them it is hot, even when in reality it is not. Such is the case with the word sin in the OT. When God told them, in this training period, that something was sin, I do not believe that the action in and of itself incurred the full penalty of the law, for they were in large part ignorant of the truth. God was training them to recognize the things He approved of. Not until they understood the intrinsic element of the command apart from rewards or punishment was sin actually imputed to their actions. Only God knows when that happens. Hence the words from God, “Ac 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"

No where in the NT addressed to this enlightened generation, do we find any mention of sins of ignorance to my knowledge. Although in common parlance one might speak of sin committed in ignorance, it in no wise undermines the clear teaching of Scripture that honest ignorance is seen as sin by God. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God.

Good post. Thanks for that. I see the issue of ignorance in Num. 15 as having relevance in typology as highlighting the difference between sins committed under natural fleshly inclinations before the 'enlightenment' brought to the heart by the Holy Spirit (John 1:9), and sins of willful rebellion against God as a result of the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. There were various sacrifices made for sins of ignorance in Num. 15, but absolutely no sacrifice for willful, presumptious sins, which I believe are speaking of the willful rejection of God and His salvation by individuals convicted of their need to come to God for salvation through Christ.

I also believe all sins committed by all men have been forgiven or 'put under the blood' of Christ's atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. There is an exception, however, according to Jesus, and that is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which will never have forgiveness. In other words, that one sin is not covered by the blood atonement.

Nicodemus confessed to the Lord that the Pharisees knew He was of God because of the testimony of His miracles, which all Jews knew proved Jesus was of God. So when the Pharisees said Jesus was casting out demons by the power of the devil, they knew what they were doing was lying against what they knew to be true and slandering Jesus who they knew to be from God. This willful blasphemy was not done in ignorance and therefore had no forgiveless.

Jesus said, "verily I say unto you, ALL SINS SHALL BE FORGIVEN unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness..." (Mark 3:28-29). Rejecting God when being convicted and enlightened by the Holy Ghost and the word of God is the only sin which is not covered under the atonement and, if never repented, will be the only sin resulting in the eternal condemnation of God.

Paul was a blasphemer, and yet he was forgiven, because he "did it ignorantly..." (1 Tim. 1:13). The soldiers nailing jesus to the cross were forgiven, because "they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marke, it is indeed I that am slow. I need to read your post over a few more times. You are a very able writer my friend. have you saw tha ad stating Baptist writers needed? You need to apply. :thumbs:

The last sentence I wrote was wrong. Honest ignorance is 'not' seen as sin by God. It is too late to edit the post. Forgive me.

 

[convicted1]

convicted



But that is not saying that the elect are never sinners. Now are you going to show us where I stated or posted that the elect are never sinners or what ? If you are going to point something out about what a person said, please be honest enough not to misrepresent it, if you need to, just copy and quote the phrase you want to point out as your objection, just do not put your slant on something !

First off Brother, please accept my sincere apology for what I wrote to you in an earlier post. I was wrong for typing that, so again, please forgive me.

Now onto this post. You have stated emphatically that God's elect are/were never under condemnation, correct? Now, how can someone be in Christ and sinner? Sin is what causes condemnation, doesn't it? No sinner is in Christ at any point in time. When Jesus brings them from darkness unto Light, from death unto life, etc. is when they are placed in Christ.


You can't be free from condemnation and a sinner simultaenously.

 

[savedbymercy]

convicted

You have stated emphatically that God's elect are/were never under condemnation, correct?

Correct !

Now, how can someone be in Christ and sinner?

This question is off base. But Paul stated as a converted believer that he was the chief of sinners 1 Tim 1:15

15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

This " I am chief is present tense in the greek" why did he not say this in the past tense" of whom I was Chief ?

Sin is what causes condemnation, doesn't it?

Yes ! It is what caused Christ condemnation in the place of those He died for !

No sinner is in Christ at any point in time.

Thats a lie. Believers sin all the time in Christ, however an elect person is never condemned for their sins because Christ was condemned in their stead. God either condemns the person for their sins or the persons Surety, but not both, that would be a miscarriage of Justice on God's part..

 

[The Biblicist]

Gentleman,

There are other threads that deal with the subject you are discussing! I started this thread to deal with original sin.

I would ask you to take your discussion to the appropriate thread instead of derailing this thread!

convicted



Correct !



This question is off base. But Paul stated as a converted believer that he was the chief of sinners 1 Tim 1:15

15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

This " I am chief is present tense in the greek" why did he not say this in the past tense" of whom I was Chief ?



Yes ! It is what caused Christ condemnation in the place of those He died for !



Thats a lie. Believers sin all the time in Christ, however an elect person is never condemned for their sins because Christ was condemned in their stead. God either condemns the person for their sins or the persons Surety, but not both, that would be a miscarriage of Justice on God's part..

 

[convicted1]

Gentleman,

There are other threads that deal with the subject you are discussing! I started this thread to deal with original sin.

I would ask you to take your discussion to the appropriate thread instead of derailing this thread!

Sorry about that.

 

[DHK]

DHK, if it helps, Edersheim believed in original sin. Now can you trust him? That is another reason I like him. When the evidence seemed opposed to his own held notions he still tells it like it is. I like that in a writer. :thumbsup:

Your original quote:

HP: Well that is a no brainer as to why David felt that way DHK. Jews did not believe that infants and young children were sinners to start with as you, Biblicist, and others obviously do.

Pure opinion. Document it.

Why the contradiction?
The Jews did not believe in original sin.
Edersheim is a Jew.
Edersheim did believe in original sin.

Quit the flip-flopping and double-speak.

Use the Bible as your authority. That is the only authority that I will accept in this discussion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK:
Why the contradiction?
The Jews did not believe in original sin.
Edersheim is a Jew.
Edersheim did believe in original sin.

Quit the flip-flopping and double-speak.

Use the Bible as your authority. That is the only authority that I will accept in this discussion.

HP: There is no contradiction or flip flop in the least. When I spoke of Jews, I was speaking directly to the Jews of the Old and New Testament era. Edersheim obviously was a modern day converted Jew, a believer in Jesus Christ. He had obviously accepted the common view of many Christians of original sin for reasons clearly unknown to me.

Here are his own words, not mine. "The statement that as in Adam all spiritually died, so Mesiah all should be made alive, finds absolutely no parallel in Jewish writings. " That would include, but not be limited to the OT.

Clearly Edersheim as a Christian, misinterpreted the writings of the Apostle Paul just as so many in the church do today. No where does Paul ever say that "all died spiritually in Adam." He was clearly taught wrong or simply read into the Scriptures something simply not there.

 

[DHK]

Here are his own words, not mine. "The statement that as in Adam all spiritually died, so Mesiah all should be made alive, finds absolutely no parallel in Jewish writings. " That would include, but not be limited to the OT.

Clearly Edersheim as a Christian, misinterpreted the writings of the Apostle Paul just as so many in the church do today. No where does Paul ever say that "all died spiritually in Adam." He was clearly taught wrong or simply read into the Scriptures something simply not there.

Edersheim was a Jew; not a Christian.
Most of all he was a historian, and reported what he saw at the time. He was not known for his theology.
Again, you miss the mark. My authority is not Edersheim. His opinion is not worth much. What saith the Lord. Give me Scripture. Leave the "Sheim's" out of this discussion.

 

[The Biblicist]

A. Every single Biblical Text that specifically addresses the moral state of infants at birth unanimously demand infants are sinners/unclean at birth:

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
16 How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?

Job 14:1 1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble......4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

Job 5:7 Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward.

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Psa. 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Pr 22:15 ¶ Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Gen. 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Isa 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.



B. Symbolically bearing children make the mother unclean:


Le 12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

C. Observational Evidence

Infants need no training, no examples, no rational choice to display attitudes and actions that cannot be attributed to the fruits of the Spirit but characterize the fruits of the flesh.


D. Definition of Sin

1. Jesus defines sin to be wrong "thoughts" or a sinful condition of heart:

Mt. 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Mt. 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


2. Paul defines sin as coming short of the glory of God:

Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1Co 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

Col 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

Col 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;


Responses by those who believe children are born sinless:

1. They must EXPLAIN AWAY the above texts.

2. They have no biblical texts that address the moral character of infants (except Messanic prophecies that refer to a virgin born child)

3. They must INFER their position from texts that can be easily interpreted to harmonize with the above texts (e.g. Heb. 2:17).

4. They must limit the definition of sin to willful acts

 

[floor]

These fella's on this forum who keep denying that infants are born with a sinfual nature cannot answer a simple question but must CHANGE THE SUBJECT every time I ask it! Why? Because it exposes their foolish theology so clearly that their only option is to ignore the question and run as fast as their little feet can carry them.

Infants as soon as they are capable of expression from birth manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, etc., without being trained to do so, without being capable of rational understanding or willful decision to do so and parents must restrain them by discipline - FROM WHENCE DO THESE THINGS COME?

1. Do they come from the fruit of the Spirit?

2. Do they come from the fruit of the flesh?

3. Are these traits of the "image of God"??


At the very minimum they are sins by OMISSION since such traits surely "come short of the glory of God"?

So from whence do such attitudes and expressions come from if not from birth by nature???

If you don't like the label "original sin" then put any label you like on it but from whence do the attitudes naturally expressed in infants arise?

 

[floor]

As a physician, allow me to explain what is going on with the infant when he / she (he from now on) performs acts of what you call anger, selfishness, stubbornness, etc. Infants are defined as newborns up to the age of one year. Infants in this age exhibit largely one behaviour - crying. It is usually this singular act that generally gets called anger, stubbornness, selfishness etc.

If we consider that infants were for 9 months in the womb where they (in most developed parts of the world at least) do not face want (lack of any good thing), the first act that they do on exposure to the earth through the birth canal (itself a quite traumatic experience) is the first cry. This is required for the expansion of the lungs that is for the first time exposed to the atmosphere.

Once the umbilical cord is cut, all nutrition that the child was receiving continuously for the past 9 months is suddenly cut off. Almost immediately after birth, the neonatologist probes and slaps the baby, sticking tubes into the baby's orifices to confirm that all the passages are patent. The baby soon after birth cries because he is in a new environment and while he does not yet realize fear, he does recognize that sustenance is missing, and so he does the only deed that God has blessed the child with - crying. In response to this the baby receives the mother's milk.

In the initial months of its life, the infant cries whenever it is hungry or whenever it passes urine or stools. Since the baby's tummy is small, it can only take in small feeds and requires small but frequent feeds. As the infant grows, it is able to take in more milk which would sustain the infant for longer periods. To call a starving baby selfish because it cries when it is hungry is wicked. However, even a well fed baby does get hungry and since crying is the only communication afforded him, he cries. You wouldn't call a paralyzed man selfish because he calls for help when he has passed stools in his adult diaper. Similarly, the infant's call for help when he passes stools, is crying.

As regards stubbornness, I understand why the questioner would imagine this to be so. However, it is important for us to recognize that persistence is the gift God has given infants to help them learn turning over, crawling, walking, running, talking, climbing stairs. In fact every milestone that the pediatrician would require of your child requires persistence. It is this persistence when applied in situations we would prefer the child not be so persistent that we call stubbornness. However, the child does not know what it means to do wrong. All he knows is that you were cheering him along as he tried to walk and talk and climb stairs. He recognizes that you were pleased with his persistence. All he knows is to be persistent. Parents repeatedly showing displeasure at the repeated unwanted action of the infant will help the infant realize this action is bad or to be avoided.

Finally, the infant learns fastest by imitating his environment. I find it arrogant when people say that they never had to teach the child how to be angry, or stubborn, or selfish. More often than not, those will be the households with the greatest anger, stubbornness and selfishness shown by the parents to one another. It is important to recognize that infants learn by imitating his primary caregivers and only secondarily by imitating other people. This is why we often see the child developing mannerisms of his parents.

I hope this helps.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This zombie thread from 2011 is closed.