Human Nature versus Sinful nature

[The Biblicist]

Though I agree with most of your conclusions I believe it is wrong for you to use Ezek.18:20 for a proof-text here. It has nothing to do with this subject. The context there is: murder, oppressing the poor, cruelty, and Capital Punishment. The son (of the father who commits such atrocities) shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Just because his father was a murderer or rapist, does not mean that the son should automatically be classified as one. That is the meaning of the verse. I wish people would not take it out of context.

I think you misunstand me. I am not the one using it for a proof text. I am the one denying it can be used for a proof text. It is our good friends Jerry and HP who continually use Ezek. 18:20 as a proof text. I am denying that Ezek. 18:20 is applicable to our discussion about original sin and Adam.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of scripture, Calvinism teaches that you are born dead, which causes you to sin. The scriptures say we sin, and this causes us to die. Exact opposites.

The wages of sin is death, not the wages of death is sin. But that is what many falsely teach.

HP: And that is the truth succinctly stated. :thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Before Eve ate of the forbidden tree she "desired" it because it could make her wise:

"And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen.3:6).

She had this "desire" for the tree before she partook of it so she had a desire for that which was forbidden. What is the difference between that and what the Lord Jesus spoke of here?:

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

The Greek word translated "lust after" means "to have a desire for" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Secondly, are you saying that 'infants" desire forbidden things? If your answer is "no" then you have not yet demonstrated that sin dwells in infants.

As you say, lust simply means desire. Desires can either be good or bad.
Eve desired the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But the Bible says she was deceived. Remember she was created perfect, in perfect innocence and had not known "evil" up to this point. It was Satan that tempted her, and she gave into this beautiful looking fruit, "that was pleasant to the eyes," and only according to Satan "able to make her wise." She had already been deceived, so deceived that she was convinced that wisdom would come from eating of the tree than from trusting in God. She had been listening to Satan too long.

See the difference. When a man lusts after a woman, he doesn't have to. First, he has the law of God already written in his heart. His conscience tells him it is wrong. He has already tasted evil. That is something Eve had never known. He absolutely knows right from wrong. He chooses to lust after something that is not his to have, and if he takes that which is not his to have, he commits more than one sin: lust, adultery, (and whatever else may be involved--kidnapping? molestation, anger, rape, assault, etc.) One sin leads to another and another. But the first sin was committed in the heart--the lust or desire to have something that was not his--coveting and lusting for someone else's wife or daughter.

Sin dwells in a person who is capable of thinking or reasoning--old enough to choose between right and wrong.
The sin nature dwells in all mankind, infants included. It is inherited. It is called the Adamic nature for it comes from Adam. It is part of the curse. The entire creation is under a curse and groans and travails even now. We wait for the redemption of our bodies, the Bible says.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: And that is the truth succinctly stated. :thumbsup:

DHK is not a Calvinst but believes in Original sin
Roman Catholics are not Calvinists but beleive in original sin
Lutherans are not Calvinists but believe in original sin
Methodists are not Calvinists but believe in original sin

So, why are you attempting to restrict the doctrine of original sin to Calvinism?????

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sin dwells in a person who is capable of thinking or reasoning--old enough to choose between right and wrong.

Before the fall both Adam and Eve were capable of thinking. They were also old enough to choose between right and wrong.

So by your own definition they both had sin dwelling in them before the fall.

The sin nature dwells in all mankind, infants included.

If you are right then using your own definition then we must believe that infants are capable of reasoning and are old enough to choose between right and wrong!

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

 

[DHK]

Before the fall both Adam and Eve were capable of thinking. They were also old enough to choose between right and wrong.

So by your own definition they both had sin dwelling in them before the fall.

If you are right then using your own definition then we must believe that infants are capable of reasoning and are old enough to choose between right and wrong!

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

I explained these things to you very carefully.
You are putting words into my mouth that I did not say.
How can you even have such convoluted thinking.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I explained these things to you very carefully.
You are putting words into my mouth that I did not say.
How can you even have such convoluted thinking.

Did you not say the following?:

Sin dwells in a person who is capable of thinking or reasoning--old enough to choose between right and wrong.

What do you mean by that? I thought you were describing those who have a sin nature.

If that is not what you were saying then please be more precise.

 

[DHK]

Did you not say the following?:

What do you mean by that? I thought you were describing those who have a sin nature.

If that is not what you were saying then please be more precise.

"Sin" dwells in a person capable of reason and thinking.
Sin dwells in you, especially if you look upon a woman to lust after her.
Can an infant look upon a woman to lust after her??? No.
But an infant still has a sin nature. I do not say then that "sin" per se, dwells within a newborn, but the sin nature does. For the infant is born with a sin nature. It is inherited. No one is innocent. We are all under the curse. All of creation is. We no longer have the image of God. We have the image of Adam, as Seth does.

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

It appear to me that those holding to original sin must feel they are compelled to formulate a reason why all sin. Now logic would suggest to me that if I needed to form a theory in that regard, that I first might need to first figure out why the angels and Satan fell, and why both of our perfect parents in a perfect environment fell, and then apply those finding in advancing a universal doctrine.

I have never once heard a single explanation as to what caused those spoken of to sin. It is beyond amazing to me why they think they have the reason why men sin all wrapped up in a bag with the Augustinian notion of original sin. Orthodoxy!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)

HP: Pardon me but how are you determining the 'context' of this passage? Is there any outside possibilty of you assuming without proof this supports the notion of OS?

Isn't it strange how when one approaches the Bible from a clear unproven presupposition, that all the verses line up so nicely in support of ones assumptions?

 

[DHK]

It appear to me that those holding to original sin must feel they are compelled to formulate a reason why all sin. Now logic would suggest to me that if I needed to form a theory in that regard, that I first might need to first figure out why the angels and Satan fell, and why both of our perfect parents in a perfect environment fell, and then apply those finding in advancing a universal doctrine.

I have never once heard a single explanation as to what caused those spoken of to sin. It is beyond amazing to me why they think they have the reason why men sin all wrapped up in a bag with the Augustinian notion of original sin. Orthodoxy!

What does "original" sin mean?
It means "first" sin.
Who committed the first sin among mankind, according to the Bible?
Was it Adam?

Can you document that it was Augustine that first came up with this doctrine, and not the apostles?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We no longer have the image of God.

"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness" (Jas.3:9).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Can you document that it was Augustine that first came up with this doctrine, and not the apostles?

HP: I know one thing for certain. Neither you nor Augustine have proved that one single apostle taught any such notion as infants are sinful from birth, nor did one singel OT writer support any such notion.

As for proving that Augustine was the father of the doctrine of original sin, I have relied on other historical writers. I have never seen one shred of evidence from any other early Christian fathers that taught any such notion. We also know that no less than two church councils exonerated Pelagius, who disagreed with Augustine on original sin, from all charges. He was no heretic until Augustine stacked the deck against him the third time around.

I challenge you to show from the writings of one solitary early church father who taught such a notion as original sin. I have heard some try, but it was clear to me that they treat their writing in the same manner as they do Scripture, and simply inject the notion as a presupposition proving their point in their own mind of course.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, maybe we can all learn something. I have not arrived. I recognize the need to continue to be open to truth as God reveals it to my heart and mind.

Let me just say this, IF one could show that any early church father taught original sin, and required such a belief to escape the condemnation of being called and treated as a heretic, I would still have to examine the truth taught in light of the Scriptures and reason. I believe you would say the same on that point.

 

[DHK]

HP: Pardon me but how are you determining the 'context' of this passage? Is there any outside possibilty of you assuming without proof this supports the notion of OS?

Isn't it strange how when one approaches the Bible from a clear unproven presupposition, that all the verses line up so nicely in support of ones assumptions?

First I am not a Calvinist and have never read Augustine, so don't throw me into that camp.
Second, you don't take advice very well; are not very teachable, so I don't know about your knowledge of the Bible. Most of your questions could have been answered by reading Genesis three, but you were not interested. The answers to these questions are found in chapters one to five.
Chapters one and two of Genesis states that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God.
Chapter five states that Seth was made in the image of Adam, after his likeness.
Chapter three describes the fall, and sin of Adam, where the image of God in Adam was marred by sin. Adam was no more perfect in God's sight. This again is affirmed by the description of the birth of Seth.

It is also affirmed by Paul in Romans five, that as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners.

 

[DHK]

HP: I know one thing for certain. Neither you nor Augustine have proved that one single apostle taught any such notion as infants are sinful from birth, nor did one singel OT writer support any such notion.

The onus is on you.
It is taught in the NT, OT, by almost all Protestants, the Catholics, and orthodox Christianity throughout all centuries. Now you tell me who do you associate yourself with? Not mainstream Baptists. What major Protestant groups believe the same way you do? Charismatics, perhaps?
Those who are largely outside orthodox Christianity believe the Pelagian doctrine that you do. It is a heresy, or has been considered a heresy from before the time of Augustine. Looking at it from that point of view original sin is the default orthodox point of view held from the apostles onward.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: First I am not a Calvinist and have never read Augustine, so don't throw me into that camp.

HP: I am not throwing anyone into any camp. If your ideas do closely correspond with historic views such as those Augustine or anyone else held, it is completely reasonable to show such agreement. That is not meant to offend, just showing that such a notion is not novel with yourself or some other individual.

DHK: Second, you don't take advice very well; are not very teachable, so I don't know about your knowledge of the Bible. Most of your questions could have been answered by reading Genesis three, but you were not interested. The answers to these questions are found in chapters one to five.

HP: You are the teacher here. I simply asked you a question you avoided like the plague. I am not debating the Scriptures, I am debating YOUR ideas concerning them. I ask you again. Did Eve sin when she ate of the fruit willingly? Does deception mean no sin is involved? Did she not sin 'originally' in context of the time element involved?

What if when you ask me how I feel on an issue, that I would simply say, "It is in the Scriptures. Read it." ? What would that help in a debate between us?

DHK: Chapter five states that Seth was made in the image of Adam, after his likeness.
Chapter three describes the fall, and sin of Adam, where the image of God in Adam was marred by sin. Adam was no more perfect in God's sight. This again is affirmed by the description of the birth of Seth.

HP: All men today are made in the image of God, including the drunk in the gutter. For you to suggest otherwise is absurd. To mention that ones children are made in their image is not suggesting in any way that they are not also made in God's image. Certainly the fall did mar our physical sensibilities as descendant of Adam, but that does not negate the fact we are still made in His image. Your philosophy of sin is driving unwarranted conclusions form the texts mentioned.

DHK: It is also affirmed by Paul in Romans five, that as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners

HP: Just as "ALL" are made righteous, correct? From your interpretation of "all" in the first of that verse, how can you avoid the 'all' in the last portion, or treat if in a different manner than what is convenient for you to do in support of original sin with the first 'all' mentioned?

 

[The Biblicist]

[/COLOR]

Sin of ignorance is still sin. There is no such word as "originally" in the Bibical text. You are taking that word form a Theological position! The theological position has to do with Adam's indivdiual act (not Eve's) relationship to the human race.

So you are being deceptive and misleading! If the term "original" was found in the Biblical text you would have a point - but it isn't - so you don't.

What you are doing is PERVERTING the term "original" as applied to the THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE! So your are being dishonest with the position and the meaning of the term as it is applied by that doctrine!

 

[DHK]

HP: All men today are made in the image of God, including the drunk in the gutter. For you to suggest otherwise is absurd. To mention that ones children are made in their image is not suggesting in any way that they are not also made in God's image. Certainly the fall did mar our physical sensibilities as descendant of Adam, but that does not negate the fact we are still made in His image. Your philosophy of sin is driving unwarranted conclusions form the texts mentioned.

Was Seth made in the image of God. Yes or no.

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)