Born in Sins

[Jerry Shugart]

No, Paul said (quoting Psa 14) we have GONE OUT of the way. We have gone off track, we have run off the road. He said we have BECOME unprofitable. If you were born dead in sins with a corrupt nature, then you could not later BECOME unprofitable. Why don't you accept what scripture says, not what Augustine and Calvin taught? The scriptures always say we have "gone astray" or "turned to our own way", or "become corrupt". Words have meaning.

good points, Winman.

We cam also see the same principle here:

"The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:11-12).

The Hebrew word shachath is translated "corrupted",and it means "to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)" (Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon).

 

[DHK]

You simply ASSUME men have a sin nature without scriptural proof. Because men sin does not prove they have a sin nature, Adam and Eve and even Satan and the fallen angels prove that, God declared all his creation very good.

You assume the opposite without Scriptural proof. I have given you Scriptural proof, and each time you ignored it.
You have not properly addressed Psalm 51:5.
You have not properly addressed Jeremiah 13:23.
Thus, I have assumed nothing, but given you proof of man having a sin nature.
Futhermore, sin is universal. All have sinned. There is none righteous, no not one. There is none good, no not one. Only God is good.
You have these all encompassing statements that you cannot deal with.

Look at your logic here. If there is one good person born into this world, why wouldn't that person be able to remain good? Why, out of the billions of people born throughout the ages, could not a single person remain "good"? It has never been done, has it? Why? Because we all have a sin nature. Jesus alone never had a sin nature. Jesus alone was born of a virgin to escape having a sin nature. This is another argument that you cannot answer. I have given you argument after argument, but you do not answer them. Please don't tell me that my beliefs are an assumption. They are not. They are founded on solid Biblical teaching which you are unable to refute.

Next try and refute historically. Throughout the ages people from orthodox Christianity from the time of Christ onward have always believed the depravity of man; not from Augustine, but from the Apostles onward. Show me who has not embraced this doctrine, or stop saying that Augustine is the inventor of this doctrine. Give evidence for your assertion.

James 1:13-15 explains the cause of sin. Every man sins when he is enticed by his own lust or desire.

James is writing to Christians. He is not speaking of the depravity of mankind. Here you go again taking Scripture out of context.

Eve clearly had these desires, they are shown and decribed in detail in Gen 3:6. The forbidden tree appealed to the lust of the flesh, it looked good for food. It appealed to the lust of the eyes, it was pleasant to the eyes. It appealed to the pride of life, it was "desired" to make one wise. Eve had all these lusts BEFORE she actually sinned. These natural desires are what most people call the sin nature. Jesus also had these desires, but he never obeyed them when they would have caused him to sin as Eve did.

Jesus was tempted also. Being tempted does not have anything to do with having a sin nature. That is simply a red herring.

Jesus had the same NATURE as us, this is directly said in Heb 2:16. He had lusts and desires and could be tempted.

You take this verse out of context. Read verse 17 and then verse 18. He had the same human nature as we did so he could empathize with us in being our Great Priest. Read Heb.4:15ff. It explains the same thing. It is the reason that we can come boldly before the throne of grace and find help in time of need. He understands our infirmities because he also was tempted just as we have or are being tested.

 

[Winman]

Paul was 'alive' only in his ignorance before God showed him that he actually was dead and didn't know it because God hadn't yet turned the light on for him. He was also alive in that God had not finally revealed to him that there is none good, that none keep the law, and that the law cannot save, but, in actuality, only condemns. Paul only thought he was keeping the law and therefore was 'alive in God', but when God showed him the truth about the sin and the law he realized that the law was not saving him but was condemning him. That was quite an eye opener, I'm sure.

No, Paul said said he was "alive" without the law "once". He said when the commandment came, "I died". He said the law "slew" him. This is very plain and clear. It absolutely refutes Calvinism and Total Depravity. A person must have knowledge of sin to be convicted by it. Until you understand the law before God you are spiritually alive. The moment you realize you have sinned against God you stand convicted and under the condemnation of death. It is a judgment.

After salvation, Paul wrote to the Ephesians, "And you hath he quicked, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." and "Even when we were dead in sins..."
(Ch. 1). There is none good but God. All are born sinners from Adam, but Jesus paid for our sins on the cross, so God reconciled the world unto Himself before we were even born. Nevertheless, no matter how 'alive' one feels himself to be, until he is born again in Christ Jesus he is still dead in trespasses and sins, and has been since birth. Nobody is spiritually alive and will enter into heaven without being born again, and that does not happen before sinners are dead in trespasses and sins.

All men were dead in sins until they believed and their sins were forgiven and taken away. You cannot be spiritually alive while your sins remain. This passage actually refutes your view, because it shows the "cause" of death, which is sin. You cannot be regenerated, spiritually alive, and still be in all your sins as some teach. We had one fellow here who said he was born of the Spirit, regenerated and spiritually alive LONG BEFORE he heard the gospel and believed. This is impossible, until he believed he was still in his sin and under the penalty of sin which is death. This is not rocket science.

Great care should be taken by Christians when reading scriptures in which great care was taken by God to word them in exact detail. The passage in Rom. 7 shows the cause of Paul's death was not his turning away from God or "going astray", bringing him into death after he was already alive. None of that is in Rom. 7, but, instead, it is the commandment which is on the move, and at the time it shows up with all of its lights ablaze and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit to illumine and convict, Paul finally realizes for the first time that he wasn't alive after all, but was dead and had been the whole time.

And yet you would have to believe that Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made the mistake of saying he was ALIVE ONCE when according to you, you were never alive and were born dead in sins. Boy, if Paul were still around today, you Calvinists could correct his HUGE mistake.

People that go about to establish their own righteousness according to the law only think they are alive, but when the truth is revealed from heaven, they can see the law is that which condemns and will never give life to anyone. paul was a blasphemer in 1 Ti. 1:13, but he obtained mercy because he was doing it in ignorance, and at a time when he thought he was 'alive', but he wasn't alive, just ignorant of what Life really was.

No one is trying to establish their own righteousness, I firmly believe that all men sin. I believe that little children do wrong, but they are not accountable until they understand sin before God and willingly and knowingly sin. I am not denying all men sin, I affirm it.

What I am denying is that God caused you to be born dead in sin and utterly unable to be willing to believe. That would make God the author and cause of sin. I am not defending man, I am defending God. If Calvinism is true, every sinner has the PERFECT excuse for his sin. He could rightly claim that God made him a sinner through no fault or choice of his own, that he was born utterly unable to do right, and that God has unjustly condemned him for being the very creature God created him to be. That is all Augustine's doctrine is, a BIG EXCUSE for sin. It is blaming God for sin and not taking personal responsibility. That is why so many folks like this doctrine!

Besides, if Paul was alive until the law came, then how did he lose that life and become a sinner? Where is the evidence of the fall from grace? I just don't buy the idea that Paul was sinless until God turned on the light for him on the road to Damascus.

What kind of question is this? He sinned just like we all do. We all lie, or steal, or disobey our parents, commit adultery, fornication, covet... He sinned, and the wages of sin is death.

Maybe it would be better to just quote the passage and let others interpret for themselves, then, since I don't believe in works salvation either. Luke 14:26-30: "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish."

Jesus was speaking of being a disciple. Many are saved, few are disciples. There is a difference.

And yet, this verse does not refer to heaven: "Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief."
Heb. 4:11. This is that same rest spoken of in Heb. 3:11: "So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest."

The promised land was a figure of heaven, it was the land of milk and honey.

We believers do enter into rest right here on earth, which is typified by the entering into the Promised Land, where battles remain to be fought still, yet the Lord is the One fighting our battles for us and giving us the victory in Him. Heb. 4:10 "For he that is (it does not say 'shall' or 'will someday', but 'is today, right now') entered into His rest, he hath also ceased (in the present tense, today) from his own works, as God did from His." Therefore, vs 11: "Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest..." This is not talking about working to enter heaven, but giving diligent attention to our spiritual growth in order to reach a level of maturity where we can walk with God in the Spirit and not in the flesh.

2 Peter 1:5 tells us to give all our energy to the adding of our faith the fruits of the character and nature of God, so that we do not fail of the grace of God spoken of in all of Hebrews.



Notice we "labor to enter into that rest" (Heb. 4:11), not slide into it backwards on our carnal, lazy heinies.

You cannot work your way to heaven. You are either saved by grace through faith, or you are saved by works. Take your pick.

No, Of course Jesus did not command us to become sinners. He already knew we were sinners. Jesus said in Matt. 19:17, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God..." Jesus is the Word made flesh, so of course He knows what the word of God teaches, like Eccl. 7:20 (among dozens if not hundreds of other passages), "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not."

Jesus said we must be converted and become as little children or we could not enter the kingdom of heaven. If children are sinners, then Jesus was saying we need to be converted and become sinners. Not difficult.

I'm going to have to stop here for now. I hope we are making progress and I hope we can discuss this more, possibly, later.

If you consider progress me believeing the false doctrine of Augustine and Calvin, then we have not made progress. I have studied the scriptures for many years to come to my view. Years ago I believed in original sin because that is what I was taught. But through studying the scriptures I have become convinced it is utterly false doctrine and the most serious error ever introduced into the church.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

The text found in Psalm 51:5 has been raised as in support of original sin or universal moral constitutional depravity.

First, the context is David is crying out to the Lord concerning his own heart. He is pouring out his heart for God to wash him from his sin, and his iniquity. He acknowledges his personal transgressions, and is reminded every moment of his sin. He recognizes that his sin is against God alone, and the evil that he sees as his sin is something he has done. In verse 4 he states, “Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight.” This indicates to me that David is expressing remorse for his own personal acts of evil before God and God alone. Just the same, as we enter verse 5 it would appear to me that his focus changes from himself and his own sin, to what he sees as a factor in finding himself in need of the forgiveness of his personal sins and acts of wickedness. The question is, is it the commonly held idea of original sin that he is expressing, or something else? I believe from the plain reading of the text, there is a different source of influence that he points to as opposed to OS. He shifts the focus from himself to the way he was ‘shapen’ and in particular his mothers actions. “ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did ‘MY MOTHER’ conceive me.”

Some have suggested that the word, “shapen” means “brought forth.” I believe that to be a good explanation of the word. It says that he was ‘brought forth’ in iniquity. The first thing I would suggest, is that I see nothing that would suggest that David was establishing or suggesting any ‘universal’ context by this passage, but rather was speaking directly to his own life and his own circumstances. Can you imagine how one could misconstrue Scripture, if every time an author spoke in the first person, we would extrapolate it to be universally applied notion? The verse does say that the circumstances he was ‘brought forth’ in was indeed ‘in iniquity.’ We will look at this further in a moment. For now, I will simply conclude that for one, this passage is not a passage that can be applied universally, but rather is one individual pouring out his heart in repentance speaking to his own circumstances surrounding his birth.

The latter portion of this verse states that ‘in sin did my mother conceive me.” This is the most revealing portion of the text, but remains one of which a great difference of opinions arise. I would only ask of the reader to once again look at this verse apart from any preconceived notions of OS and open their minds for a simple explanation that I believe sheds great light upon this passage.

The question can be raised, how could have David’s mother conceived him in sin? Are their any distinct possibilities apart from this relating to the dogma of OS? I say absolutely. If one is to just read the text, it in no way suggests a sinful constitution on the part of humanity in the least, but relates the fact that even from his conception, sin was involved. David simply states that he was conceived in sin by his mother. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how that is done, especially in light of all the talk on this list surrounding adultery and fornication. There is, I believe, much supporting evidence to support this idea, although within the confines of our discussion, when we are trying to limit our positions to those clearly established by the passage alone, should not be included at this time.

I believe that with just the information we can gather thus far, utilizing simply the words and context of this passage apart from any presuppositions of OS, a fair minded individual can say with confidence, this passage of Scripture does not lend itself to any universal idea of OS as is so widely taught and accepted.

 

[convicted1]

No, Paul said said he was "alive" without the law "once". He said when the commandment came, "I died". He said the law "slew" him. This is very plain and clear. It absolutely refutes Calvinism and Total Depravity. A person must have knowledge of sin to be convicted by it. Until you understand the law before God you are spiritually alive. The moment you realize you have sinned against God you stand convicted and under the condemnation of death. It is a judgment.


All men were dead in sins until they believed and their sins were forgiven and taken away. You cannot be spiritually alive while your sins remain. This passage actually refutes your view, because it shows the "cause" of death, which is sin. You cannot be regenerated, spiritually alive, and still be in all your sins, as some teach. We had one fellow who said he was born of the Spirit, regenerated and spiritually alive LONG BEFORE he heard the gospel and believed. This is impossible, until he believed he was still in sin and under the penalty of sin which is death. This is not rocket science.



And yet you would have to believe that Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit made the mistake of saying he was ALIVE ONCE when according to you, you were never alive and were born dead in sins. Boy, if Paul were still around today, you Calvinists could correct his HUGE mistake.


No one is trying to establish their own righteousness, I firmly believe that all men sin. I believe that little children do wrong, but they are not accountable until they understand sin before God and willingly and knowingly sin. I am not denying all men sin, I affirm it.

What I am denying is that God caused you to be born dead in sin and utterly unable to be willing to believe. That would make God the author and cause of sin. I am not defending man, I am defending God. If Calvinism is true, every sinner has the PERFECT excuse for his sin. He could rightly claim that God made him a sinner through no fault or choice of his own, that he was born utterly unable to do right, and that God has unjustly condemned him for being the very creature God created him to be. That is all Augustine's doctrine is, a BIG EXCUSE for sin. It is blaming God for sin and not taking personal responsibility. That is why so many folks like this doctrine!


What kind of question is this? He sinned just like we all do. We all lie, or steal, or disobey our parents, commit adultery, fornication, covet... He sinned, and the wages of sin is death.





Jesus was speaking of being a disciple. Many are saved, few are disciples. There is a difference.



The promised land was a figure of heaven, it was the land of milk and honey.





You cannot work your way to heaven. You are either saved by grace through faith, or you are saved by works. Take your pick.



Jesus said we must be converted and become as little children or we could not enter the kingdom of heaven. If children are sinners, then Jesus was saying we need to be converted and become sinners. Not difficult.





If you consider progress me believeing the false doctrine of Augustine and Calvin, then we have not made progress. I have studied the scriptures for many years to come to my view. Years ago I believed in original sin because that is what I was taught. But through studying the scriptures I have become convinced it is utterly false doctrine and the most serious error ever introuduced into the church.

Hey Brother Winman, guess what? You guessed it!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[convicted1]

The text found in Psalm 51:5 has been raised as in support of original sin or universal moral constitutional depravity.

First, the context is David is crying out to the Lord concerning his own heart. He is pouring out his heart for God to wash him from his sin, and his iniquity. He acknowledges his personal transgressions, and is reminded every moment of his sin. He recognizes that his sin is against God alone, and the evil that he sees as his sin is something he has done. In verse 4 he states, “Against Thee only have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight.” This indicates to me that David is expressing remorse for his own personal acts of evil before God and God alone. Just the same, as we enter verse 5 it would appear to me that his focus changes from himself and his own sin, to what he sees as a factor in finding himself in need of the forgiveness of his personal sins and acts of wickedness. The question is, is it the commonly held idea of original sin that he is expressing, or something else? I believe from the plain reading of the text, there is a different source of influence that he points to as opposed to OS. He shifts the focus from himself to the way he was ‘shapen’ and in particular his mothers actions. “ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did ‘MY MOTHER’ conceive me.”

Some have suggested that the word, “shapen” means “brought forth.” I believe that to be a good explanation of the word. It says that he was ‘brought forth’ in iniquity. The first thing I would suggest, is that I see nothing that would suggest that David was establishing or suggesting any ‘universal’ context by this passage, but rather was speaking directly to his own life and his own circumstances. Can you imagine how one could misconstrue Scripture, if every time an author spoke in the first person, we would extrapolate it to be universally applied notion? The verse does say that the circumstances he was ‘brought forth’ in was indeed ‘in iniquity.’ We will look at this further in a moment. For now, I will simply conclude that for one, this passage is not a passage that can be applied universally, but rather is one individual pouring out his heart in repentance speaking to his own circumstances surrounding his birth.

The latter portion of this verse states that ‘in sin did my mother conceive me.” This is the most revealing portion of the text, but remains one of which a great difference of opinions arise. I would only ask of the reader to once again look at this verse apart from any preconceived notions of OS and open their minds for a simple explanation that I believe sheds great light upon this passage.

The question can be raised, how could have David’s mother conceived him in sin? Are their any distinct possibilities apart from this relating to the dogma of OS? I say absolutely. If one is to just read the text, it in no way suggests a sinful constitution on the part of humanity in the least, but relates the fact that even from his conception, sin was involved. David simply states that he was conceived in sin by his mother. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how that is done, especially in light of all the talk on this list surrounding adultery and fornication. There is, I believe, much supporting evidence to support this idea, although within the confines of our discussion, when we are trying to limit our positions to those clearly established by the passage alone, should not be included at this time.

I believe that with just the information we can gather thus far, utilizing simply the words and context of this passage apart from any presuppositions of OS, a fair minded individual can say with confidence, this passage of Scripture does not lend itself to any universal idea of OS as is so widely taught and accepted.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

DHK, you should know better, the scriptures say when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished brings forth death. The Bible says the wages of sin is death.

And since all have sinned, all have a sin nature. Who among has not sinned. Who among you has conquered sin? Who among has not this nature? Certainly not Paul who said: "Sin dwells in me."

Augustine and Calvinism teach the exact opposite of scripture, they teach you are born dead, and this spiritual death brings forth sin.

They teach the basic (and I mean basic) truths regarding this topic, that all of orthodox Christianity throughout the ages have taught. You are the one standing outside orthodox Christianity teaching what Humanism teaches today--that man is good, and not evil. That is the religion of Humanism. It exalts man. If man is good, he would never have to sin. Why does he?

Sin ---> Death SCRIPTURAL

Thus the sin nature.

Death ---> Sin UNSCRIPTURAL

Death is the consequence of sin.

There is not one verse in all scripture that says we are born dead, and that this death causes us to sin. All scripture says we sin, and this sin brings forth death.

If you would read my posts and answer them point by point you find plenty of Scripture to contend with.

The order is important, you have it backwards as Augustine and Calvin falsely taught.

"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Adam died. Though dead he talked with God.
What did death mean for Adam? It meant spiritual separation.
That separation was not restored until blood was spilled in an animal sacrifice and God provided skins for them. Blood had to be shed.
But Adam did die. In dying he brought a curse upon himself and mankind--a sin nature that was passed upon all mankind.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

HP: What does this verse have to do with 'establishing' any such notion as original sin? You are the stickler that conveniently crys 'Context' at every turn. Tell us DHK, What is the context surrounding this passage? Is it OS or depravity from birth?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Winman: And since all have sinned, all have a sin nature.

HP: Now that makes perfect Scriptural and reasonable sense.:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

The question can be raised, how could have David’s mother conceived him in sin? Are their any distinct possibilities apart from this relating to the dogma of OS? I say absolutely. If one is to just read the text, it in no way suggests a sinful constitution on the part of humanity in the least, but relates the fact that even from his conception, sin was involved. David simply states that he was conceived in sin by his mother. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand how that is done, especially in light of all the talk on this list surrounding adultery and fornication. There is, I believe, much supporting evidence to support this idea, although within the confines of our discussion, when we are trying to limit our positions to those clearly established by the passage alone, should not be included at this time.

I believe that with just the information we can gather thus far, utilizing simply the words and context of this passage apart from any presuppositions of OS, a fair minded individual can say with confidence, this passage of Scripture does not lend itself to any universal idea of OS as is so widely taught and accepted.

This is garbage. There is no hint of David's mother committing adultery or fornication. Samuel came along and blessed them. They were the chosen family from whom the king of Israel would come. To insinuate such is trash talk. You have no evidence. If you did you would present it.

 

[convicted1]

If we are born in sin, then bringing forth a child to love would be a curse, and not a blessing from the Lord.....duh!

 

[DHK]

HP: What does this verse have to do with 'establishing' any such notion as original sin? You are the stickler that conveniently crys 'Context' at every turn. Tell us DHK, What is the context surrounding this passage? Is it OS or depravity from birth?

I have explained this passage too many times to count. Go back and read one of the many times I have posted it, and then refute it.

 

[DHK]

I have explained this passage too many times to count. Go back and read one of the many times I have posted it, and then refute it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1775199&postcount=213

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If man is good, he would never have to sin. Why does he?

If you are right then why did Adam sin, especially since he was created in a state described as being "good"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

If babies come forth wicked from the womb they certainly do not deserve anyones love, not ours and certainly not God's. They would deserve death and hell, nothing more and nothing less.

Strange thing but our children deserved our love. For us to show anything but love to them would have been sheer wickedness. God loved them also! He says that he is angry with the wicked every day.

Psalms 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

Hmmmmmm.

 

[Winman]

You assume the opposite without Scriptural proof. I have given you Scriptural proof, and each time you ignored it.
You have not properly addressed Psalm 51:5.

I have explained several times. In verses 1-4 David clearly confesses his sin and takes personal responsibility for it. If your view is correct, he suddenly changes course in vs. 5 and blames his mother (and God by extension) for his sin. He was born a sinner, he cannot help it that he committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah killed. NONSENSE.

You have not properly addressed Jeremiah 13:23.

I did address it, it says we are "accustomed" to sin. Look in the dictionary, accustomed means a learned behavior.

:jesus:
Thus, I have assumed nothing, but given you proof of man having a sin nature.

No, you have bought Augustine's false doctrine that excuses sin and blames God hook, line, and sinker.

Futhermore, sin is universal. All have sinned. There is none righteous, no not one. There is none good, no not one. Only God is good.
You have these all encompassing statements that you cannot deal with.

I agree 100% that all men have sinned. I do not believe babies and little children are accountable, because they have no knowledge between good and evil as God clearly says in Deut 1:39.

Look at your logic here. If there is one good person born into this world, why wouldn't that person be able to remain good? Why, out of the billions of people born throughout the ages, could not a single person remain "good"? It has never been done, has it? Why? Because we all have a sin nature. Jesus alone never had a sin nature. Jesus alone was born of a virgin to escape having a sin nature. This is another argument that you cannot answer. I have given you argument after argument, but you do not answer them. Please don't tell me that my beliefs are an assumption. They are not. They are founded on solid Biblical teaching which you are unable to refute.

Just because I can't explain it proves nothing. I can't explain why some folks like ketchup on a hot dog while others prefer mustard, yet I know it is true. I know by observation that all men sin.

Next try and refute historically. Throughout the ages people from orthodox Christianity from the time of Christ onward have always believed the depravity of man; not from Augustine, but from the Apostles onward. Show me who has not embraced this doctrine, or stop saying that Augustine is the inventor of this doctrine. Give evidence for your assertion.

They believed it because if they disagreed they would be sawn in half or burned at the stake. The Eastern church never agreed with Augustine's view of Rom 5:12 from a Latin text. The Greek does not support Augustine's view. The Eastern church with Greek texts have never held to Augustines' concept of original sin.

James is writing to Christians. He is not speaking of the depravity of mankind. Here you go again taking Scripture out of context.

James is showing how sin occurs. Every man is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts. When lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin, and when sin is finished, it brings forth death. Sin is the cause, death is the effect. You teach the opposite, you teach we are born dead, and this causes us to sin. That is utterly unscriptural.

Why warn folks about sin if they are already dead in sin? How could it hurt to sin more? You can't be anymore dead than dead.

Jesus was tempted also. Being tempted does not have anything to do with having a sin nature. That is simply a red herring.

Sure it does. Having lusts and desires is what folks mean when they say sin nature. They say men have a desire to do wrong. Jesus was tempted to eat bread when Satan tempted him, he was very hungry. But he denied his lust and obeyed God and did not sin.

You take this verse out of context. Read verse 17 and then verse 18. He had the same human nature as we did so he could empathize with us in being our Great Priest. Read Heb.4:15ff. It explains the same thing. It is the reason that we can come boldly before the throne of grace and find help in time of need. He understands our infirmities because he also was tempted just as we have or are being tested.

I took nothing out of context. Heb 2:16 very clearly says Jesus had the nature of the seed of Abraham. Verse 17 says he was made like unto his brethren in ALL THINGS. Verse 18 says he "suffered" being tempted. Heb 4:15 says he was tempted in ALL POINTS AS WE ARE, yet without sin.

I agree that having lusts and desires and being tempted is not sin, that is the very point I am trying to make. Being born with desires does not make you a sinner, it is when you obey these desires when they would cause you to sin against God that makes you a sinner. You have to actually sin to be a sinner.

 

[convicted1]

If you are right then why did Adam sin, especially since he was created in a state described as being "good"?

Actually Adam was made just "okay", and not good, let alone very good. You're reading more into the text than what the context of the content states that the context holds in its content. Get it?

 

[The Biblicist]

If we are born in sin, then bringing forth a child to love would be a curse, and not a blessing from the Lord.....duh!

Are you serious? When the child reaches the age of accountability do you kick them out the door because of the obvious curse of sin manifested? Should God never have brought you into the world because of your sins???

Pathetic argument! It only shows the extreme you guys will go to defend your errors.

 

[convicted1]

Are you serious? When the child reaches the age of accountability do you kick them out the door because of the obvious curse of sin manifested? Should God never have brought you into the world because of your sins???

Pathetic argument! It only shows the extreme you guys will go to defend your errors.

Not what I meant Brother. But if a baby is born in sin, and dies before it could ever place faith in Christ, what's the obvious outcome? When a baby is born, it is under God's grace until God imputes sin unto them. After this, they are under condemnation and in need of being reconciled back to Him. To be reconciled means be "brought back". To be redeemed means to be "bought back". To be restored means to be "placed back". None of these can be possible if God didn't have them in His grace from birth to begin with.

 

[DHK]

If you are right then why did Adam sin, especially since he was created in a state described as being "good"?

The most likely reason for that (although we don't know for sure) is that he didn't know what would become of his wife. His wife was tempted and ate. But Adam rebelled. It seemed to be a choice for him. To side with Eve or to side with God. He chose the former, for what reason we do not know. He could have refused and chosen to eat of the fruit of the tree of life instead. No one can blame it on his sin nature, just as no one can blame the fall of Lucifer on the sin nature nor one third of the angels that fell with him. But two thirds of the angels remained in heaven, making the right choice.