The Implications of Original Sin

[The Biblicist]

HP: Where do Scriptures state that?

1 Cor. 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

1. Are you saying that Paul does not say "in Adam"?

2. Are you saying there are none "in Adam"? If so, there must be none "in Chirst".

3. Are you denying that "IN Adam ALL die"?

4. Are you saying that simply because Enoch and Elijah never died that Paul lied when he used the word "all" die "IN Adam"? Did he also lie when he went on to say in this very same chapter that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Isn't it more likely that Enoch and Elijah either experienced rapture like transformation as Paul goes on to describe in verses 51-55 OR will be brought back to earth again and physically die perhaps like the two witnesses in Revelation? Or do you believe Paul simply lied when he said "IN Adam ALL die"?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: A foolish response indeed. All Christians will be resurrected.
Oh wait. Enoch and Elijah missed the boat. They are exceptions. They won't be resurrected. Such absurdities just to gain a "theological" point where there is none.

HP: Why would it be 'foolish' when all I did was bring to our attention clear exceptions to the word 'all' in Scripture no less? I suppose if it is evidence that would indicate something other than what you might desire, even though it is found clearly in Scripture, it is 'foolishness' for me to try and harmonize truth with truth if it does not fit into your personal idea of the text that you appear to simply ignore for obvious reasons such as OS?

All that can re reasonably assumed from that text is that just as 'all' that voluntarily follow Adam in sin will die, and so shall all that voluntarily follow Christ in salvation be made alive.....unless of course one is trying to find a proof text for universalism.

 

[glfredrick]

Biblicist... You are wasting your time. Both Jerry Shugart and Heavenly Pilgrim self-identified with Pelagianism earlier in this thread. Their theology is heretical and they are standing by it.

They may be the first case I've seen where someone is truly self-identified (versus accidentally) Pelagian, itself declared heretical doctrine by virtually everyone in orthodox Christiandom for most of its history.

Further, they are of a mind that the doctrine of original sin stems purely from an Augustinian invention, later lifted and pressed forward by John Calvin, ignoring the other historical writers that preceeded Augustine who held and supported the position based on their reading of Scripture.

Because they are yet lost in their sins, they cannot see what it is that you and others are trying to get through to them.

I do not say any of this lightly or in a merely perjorative sense. As I stated above, the two have "self-identified" in this camp.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

glfredrick, your personal attack in direct violation of the rules of this forum has been duly noted and your post flagged.

While that issue is hopefully going to be resolved by the moderators of this board, I will ask you to produce the evidence you say exists prior to Augustine of historical writers who held Augustine's position that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will as set forth in the notion of OS. Show us where any such writers believed babies were sinful and in need of baptism to cleanse them from this malady, again prior to Augustine. I am not above learning. Enlighten us.

 

[DHK]

glfredrick, your personal attack in direct violation of the rules of this forum has been duly noted and your post flagged.

What part of his post is a personal attack.
Those who deny the depravity of man; deny that man is born without original sin, believe in Pelagianism. Look it up. You don't know what this is??
Furthermore, the depravity of man is a doctrine found in the Bible.
You have no proof that Augustine is the originator of it.

Since it is the belief of all major Protestant groups, and even of the Catholic Church, and has been held by orthodox Christianity down through the ages, the onus is on you to prove that it originated with Augustine, otherwise you are spreading false information on the board. Do not post undocumented information. Do not post that statement again unless you can document it. I will consider it a lie unless you can document it. I don't see a personal attack here, but a statement of the facts.

 

[DHK]

HP: Why would it be 'foolish' when all I did was bring to our attention clear exceptions to the word 'all' in Scripture no less? I suppose if it is evidence that would indicate something other than what you might desire, even though it is found clearly in Scripture, it is 'foolishness' for me to try and harmonize truth with truth if it does not fit into your personal idea of the text that you appear to simply ignore for obvious reasons such as OS?

All that can re reasonably assumed from that text is that just as 'all' that voluntarily follow Adam in sin will die, and so shall all that voluntarily follow Christ in salvation be made alive.....unless of course one is trying to find a proof text for universalism.

Because sometimes there are exceptions, as was noted. But you picked at it unnecessarily. You no doubt knew that. I pointed out to you another notable exception. You didn't refute it. Why? It doesn't harmonize with the Bible. Does all mean all in every instance?

 

[The Biblicist]

glfredrick, your personal attack in direct violation of the rules of this forum has been duly noted and your post flagged.

While that issue is hopefully going to be resolved by the moderators of this board, I will ask you to produce the evidence you say exists prior to Augustine of historical writers who held Augustine's position that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will as set forth in the notion of OS. Show us where any such writers believed babies were sinful and in need of baptism to cleanse them from this malady, again prior to Augustine. I am not above learning. Enlighten us.

Seems to be an obvious observation and theological accuracy in definition!

If not, then point out the error!

 

[glfredrick]

glfredrick, your personal attack in direct violation of the rules of this forum has been duly noted and your post flagged.

While that issue is hopefully going to be resolved by the moderators of this board, I will ask you to produce the evidence you say exists prior to Augustine of historical writers who held Augustine's position that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will as set forth in the notion of OS. Show us where any such writers believed babies were sinful and in need of baptism to cleanse them from this malady, again prior to Augustine. I am not above learning. Enlighten us.

I did not personally attack you. I did not even point my post to you. And, you did self-identify with Pelagianism and even defended it in an earlier post.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Their theology is heretical and they are standing by it.

What is heretical is the way that God is portrayed by the Calvinists. They say that mankind is deprived of "original righteousness" because of God's punishment.:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

They say that as a result of this punishment upon mankind inflicted by God that all men come out of the womb WHOLLY inclined to all evil:

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
　
And then when man does the very things which God caused when he punished them He turns around and punishes them again:
　
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who deprives men of "original righteousness" and then punishes them for being unrighteous!

And then you have the temerity to accuse those who deny this blasphemy as being lost in their sins!

"He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool" (Prov.10:18).

 

[DHK]

What is heretical is the way that God is portrayed by the Calvinists. They say that mankind is deprived of "original righteousness" because of God's punishment.:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

They say that as a result of this punishment upon mankind inflicted by God that all men come out of the womb WHOLLY inclined to all evil:

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
　
And then when man does the very things which God caused when he punished them He turns around and punishes them again:
　
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who deprives men of "original righteousness" and then punishes them for being unrighteous!

And then you have the temerity to accuse those who deny this blasphemy as being lost in their sins!

"He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool" (Prov.10:18).

Without contradicting Scripture (that no man is justified by the law), prove the opposite.
You have failed to demonstrate to anyone on here that your view is Biblical. You haven't produced one verse of Scripture that supports your view, save that your proof-texts are without exception taken out of context.

You believe in the heresy of Pelagius--Pelagianism. Demonstrate through Scripture that this is not a heresy and that it is Biblical. That is what you must do.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Without contradicting Scripture (that no man is justified by the law), prove the opposite.

You obviously cannot understand a simple argument. No one is justified by the law because at one time or another he decides to go his own way and not God's way. On the other hand, theoretically a person has the ability to be justified by his own works, as witnessed by the words of the Apostle Paul:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

If it was not at least theoretically possible for a person to be saved by the law then why would Paul say that "the doers of the law shall be justified"?

If it was not at least theoretically to obtain eternal life by the law then why did the Lord Jesus tell the young man the following?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You believe in the heresy of Pelagius--Pelagianism. Demonstrate through Scripture that this is not a heresy and that it is Biblical. That is what you must do.

HP: If anyone desires proof that DHK has indeed studied Augustine, consider the facts. Augustine had all the works of Pelagius destroyed by fire. Only one small portion that I know of remains. What is commonly known of the thoughts of Pelagius is limited to what Augustine himself said about him. If, I say again, IF, DHK has read about the views of Pelagius, he has indeed been forced to study the writings on none other than Augustine in spite of his insistence to the contrary. If on the other hand he has not read Augustine, he knows nothing in reality of what he calls heresy, but rather is only regurgitating the false accusations of men.

Conclusion. DHK is either a student of Augustine by his arrogant and careless remarks as to the beliefs of Pelagius being those of a heretic, or he is speaking of a subject he personally has not the foggiest about. Which is it?

It certainly does not take the most studied man on the block to simply slander another.

 

[DHK]

HP: If anyone desires proof that DHK has indeed studied Augustine, consider the facts. Augustine had all the works of Pelagius destroyed by fire. Only one small portion that I know of remains. What is commonly known of the thoughts of Pelagius is limited to what Augustine himself said about him. If, I say again, IF, DHK has read about the views of Pelagius, he has indeed been forced to study the writings on none other than Augustine in spite of his insistence to the contrary. If on the other hand he has not read Augustine, he knows nothing in reality of what he calls heresy, but rather is only regurgitating the false accusations of men.

Conclusion. DHK is either a student of Augustine by his arrogant and careless remarks as to the beliefs of Pelagius being those of a heretic, or he is speaking of a subject he personally has not the foggiest about. Which is it?

It certainly does not take the most studied man on the block to simply slander another.

Can you document these claims. I don't believe them, since I have read some of Pelagius's works on-line by doing a simple search. Where do you get your false information from?

 

[DHK]

You obviously cannot understand a simple argument. No one is justified by the law because at one time or another he decides to go his own way and not God's way. On the other hand, theoretically a person has the ability to be justified by his own works, as witnessed by the words of the Apostle Paul:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

If it was not at least theoretically possible for a person to be saved by the law then why would Paul say that "the doers of the law shall be justified"?

If it was not at least theoretically to obtain eternal life by the law then why did the Lord Jesus tell the young man the following?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

Don't take Scripture out of context. These verses have already been refuted.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Can you document these claims. I don't believe them, since I have read some of Pelagius's works on-line by doing a simple search. Where do you get your false information from?

HP: Oh you have? Point us to those word of Pelagius himself. I know there might be a few notes by him, for some time back I read some notes on parts of the NT that are said to be his, although that might well be questioned.

Show us what you have read. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

If it was not at least theoretically to obtain eternal life by the law then why did the Lord Jesus tell the young man the following?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

The conversation in Matthew 19 starts from verse 16 and ends at 22.

Why have you rudely jumped into the conversation at verse 17, interrupting the rich man and Jesus, not really knowing what they are talking about. Why not read the entire conversation, and find out what Jesus really told him to do?

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. (Matthew 19:21)
--There is the end of the conversation, and that is what Jesus told him to do. If he would give up his riches and follow Christ, he would be making Christ as Lord, trusting him and him alone.
But instead he clung to his riches, coveting them, proving he broke the Ten Commandments, and his riches have become an idol to him, standing between him and Christ. That is the end.
He would not obey Christ.
He will end up forever apart from Christ in a Christless eternity.
That is the message here. But you are taking Scripture out of its context, butting into the middle of a conversation, when you rudely should not be doing such things.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Don't take Scripture out of context. These verses have already been refuted.

You have refuted nothing. All you do is say that we cannot believe the Lord Jesus' plain words when He answered the young man as to how he could receive eternal life:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

You said nothing that answers why Paul would say the following if it were not at least theoretically possible for a person to be justified by keeping the law:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

But you are taking Scripture out of its context, butting into the middle of a conversation, when you rudely should not be doing such things.

You have studied the context and you evidently consider yourself an expert on the conversation between the young man and the Lord Jesus. So please give us your interpretation of the following words of the Lord Jesus:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

 

[The Biblicist]

You obviously cannot understand a simple argument. No one is justified by the law because at one time or another he decides to go his own way and not God's way. On the other hand, theoretically a person has the ability to be justified by his own works, as witnessed by the words of the Apostle Paul:

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified" (Ro.2:13).

If it was not at least theoretically possible for a person to be saved by the law then why would Paul say that "the doers of the law shall be justified"?

If it was not at least theoretically to obtain eternal life by the law then why did the Lord Jesus tell the young man the following?:

"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt.19:17).

A. The preceding context (Rom. 2;1-5) deal with self-righteous hypocrits who believe they will escape judgement by their works.

B. The subsequent context (Rom. 2:17-28) demonstrates why the Self-righteous Jew will not be justified better than the heathen.

C. Romans 2:6-16 is placed right in the middle of this context of self-righteous hypocrits in order to demonstrate why self-righteous hypocrits will not escape the righteous judgment of God.


1. The Self-righteous hypocrit who believes he will escape the Judgement of God according to his own works - vv. 1-5

a. The Nature of their Hypocrisy - v. 1
b. No escape from the judgement of God - vv. 2-3
c. No escape because such hypocrits despise the goodness of God - v. 4
d. No escape because such hypocrits have impenitent hearts - v. 5a
e. No escape because such hypocrits will be judged according to Righteous principles - v. 5


2. The Righteous Princples that will judge hypocrits - vv. 6-16

a. Righteous because it will be according to their works - v. 6
b. Righteous because the Law determines what is righteous and unrighteous works and the just consequences - vv. 7-10
c. Righteous because God is no respector of person - v. 11
d. Righteous because judgment is according to the light each is given - vv. 12-15
d. Righteous because the standard for righteousness is revealed in the gospel - the Person of Jesus Christ - v. 16


3. Why the Self-righteous Jew is not better than the Heathen - vv. 17-28

a. The basis for their boast over the heathen - vv. 17-20
b. The hypocrisy of their boast - vv. 21-24
c. The hypothetical "if" for the basis for their boast - v. 25
d. The flaw in the hypothetical "if" - vv. 26-27
e. The hypothetical flawed conclusion - vv. 28-29

Our friends (Jerry, HP, Wiman) will adamently reject the above outline but it will serve those who know the truth from being deceived by them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Sorry Biblicist, friends don't call friends heretics.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Our friends (Jerry, HP, Wiman) will adamently reject the above outline but it will serve those who know the truth from being deceived by them.

No one will get any truth from what you said above. Those who reject the truths which we have presented do not want the following teaching of Calvinism to be exposed, specifically the way that God is portrayed by the them. They say that mankind is deprived of "original righteousness" because of God's punishment.:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

They say that as a result of this punishment upon mankind inflicted by God that all men come out of the womb WHOLLY inclined to all evil:

"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
　
And then when man does the very things which God caused when he punished them He turns around and punishes them again:
　
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who deprives men of "original righteousness" and then punishes them for being unrighteous!

There has been a constant attempt to derail this thread by those who do not want anyone to see how the Calvinists portray God.