Featured Human State at birth?

The three stories which are one parable in Luke 15 is probably what caused me to question Original Sin. No matter how you try to work it, it doesn't work with Original Sin. If you believe the prodigal is a backslider (common explanation), then you must believe a person can lose salvation.

But you cannot explain the elder son. He never transgressed at any time his father's commandments. What man could say this? Yet, this is what Jesus said, and the father did not rebuke or correct the elder son, he in fact confirmed this statement when he said, "Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine."

Now, there is no way around it, the elder son is saved. The father called him "Son", he said he was "ever" with him, and "all" that he had is "thine". This surely is not the Pharisees.

The ONLY person this could possibly be in my opinion is a person who died in childhood. Romans 9:11 shows infants have done no evil. If a child died young like this, they would not be a sinner, and they would not be separated from God.

Verses like Romans 7:9 and 1 Peter 2:25 simply confirm this in my opinion. If Total Depravity is true, Paul could never say he was "alive" and it is a real stretch to believe he was only saying he "thought" he was alive. 1 Peter 2:25 cannot be explained away, it clearly says we like sheep have all gone astray (identical to Jesus's story in Luke 15) but are now RETURNED to the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls.

Ecc 7:29 agrees perfectly with all this scripture.

Original Sin does not agree whatsoever. You cannot make it work with any of this scripture.

 

Van

Heb 11:40 absolutely states David, one of the they will not be made perfect apart from us.

Dead people are raised from the dead.

But some will say, How are the dead (people) raised up? and with what body do they (the dead people) come?

It doesn't say, How are dead bodies raised and with what body do the dead bodies come.

But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed (person sown) his own body.

 

You have a right to your opinion; but that doesn't make it right.

 

Van this is how Adam who was the figure, type of him to come, was made. And there is a reason for him to be made this way.

What is man, Adam? Thou madest him, Adam a little lower than the angels;

Why was he made lower than the angels? If he had been made equal unto the angels then the following would have been true of him. Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels;

He was made do something most on here would say did not exist when he was made. He was not the crown of God's creation as he was created in the first man Adam but he will be the crown of God's creation when resurrected from the dead in the image of the resurrected only begotten Son of God, Jesus the Christ who had come in the image of the first man Adam.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death,

Adam was made to die so the only begotten Son of God being born in the image of the first man Adam though sinless could also die and be given life from the dead, soul and body by the Father, Spirit the God (literal of John 4:24) therefore destroying him that had the power of death, the devil.

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

By resurrection from the dead his soul and flesh were given life.

The soul that sins it shall die.

 

No, it reinforces eternal security. A son never loses his salvation. He can only lose his fellowship which the prodigal (please not the word "prodigal") son did.

News to me.

He was a son. That would indicate that he was saved. It depends on how you look at it. Maybe he was an unsaved son. That is a possibility. In that case he was a self-righteous, selfish, self-centered sinner, who cared for nothing but himself, and was not even glad to see his long lost brother come home. What a hypocrite!! Some people certainly know hot to pretend to play the part. But God can see the heart.

Children have an evil nature from their womb onward. There is no such thing as innocence any more. We are all under the curse. They only two that were truly innocent were Adam and Eve, and that was before they sinned. No one, not even infants, have known innocence since.

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
--It simply means that before he was saved he thought he was in the midst of the will of God throwing Christians into jail and persecuting them. The law, at that time did not condemn him. He was alive without the law, for he thought he was doing the law.
When the commandment came, that is, when he realized the reality of the law, convicted by the Holy Spirit, he saw the enormity of his sin, and it was as if he died within himself. He called himself "the chief of sinners."

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
--As in Isa.53:6 "All we like sheep have gone astray, but the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
We depraved creatures have already gone astray. But now we have come back to the one who created us. There is nothing difficult in this. I don't see your problem here.

No it doesn't. This verse, along with many others, is used by most cults. The cults love the Book of Ecclesiastes more than any other book of the Bible because like this verse, it is so easy to take them out of context and make them mean something that they don't mean. Why was Ecclesiastes written? By whom? What is its theme?
"Vanity of vanities saith the preacher, all is vanity."
"There is nothing knew under the son."
Solomon, with all of his wisdom, riches and power seeks to prove that happiness cannot be found outside of God. Thus the verses, like the one you quoted are from the perspective of a secular philosopher, for that is how Solomon is viewing life. He is demonstrating that life cannot be found outside of God.
Eccl.7:29 is what an unsaved man would say about the spirit of man, not what a Godly man would say about the spirit of man. Solomon doesn't get to what God says about the matter until the last chapter of the book.

Well, when you take Scripture in its context it fits just fine.

 

No way, Jesus said he was both dead and lost, terms never used of a believer.

Well now you know.

The father did not rebuke or correct his son when he said he had not transgressed at any time his commandments. In fact, the father confirmed this when he said, "Son, thou art EVER with me". He was NEVER separated from the father and NEVER would be. Look up the word "ever".

That is the very question up for debate. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. You have not one verse of scripture that says we are born dead in sin, separated from God, while I have provided scripture that says God made man (plural) upright.

Paul didn't say he mistakenly believed himself to be alive at one time, which he could have easily said. No, he said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. You add to scripture when you say he "thought" he was alive, there is nothing of the sort said in this verse.

You contradict yourself. If we are born separated from God (as you say), then we could not return to God. Words have meaning, the word "return" means to come back to some place you have been before. I cannot return to Utah, because I have never been to Utah. I CAN return to California, because I have been to California before.

And calling people with whom you disagree a cult is an old tactic as well. Solomon simply said that one thing he had found, that God hath made man upright, but they (plural- showing he is speaking of all men) have sought out many inventions.

All of these scriptures are very straightforward and simple to understand unless a person's mind is blinded by a false doctrine. They all agree. Solomon said man was made upright, Paul said he was once alive, Jesus told three stories, and in all three stories the subject was not originally lost. The shepherd originally had 100 sheep, one went astray and was lost. The woman originally had ten coins, one was lost. The father had two sons, one left home in sin, became dead and lost. 1 Pet 2:25 says we were as sheep going astray (just as Jesus described in Luke 15), but are now returned (which Jesus also showed when the lost sheep was recovered). Jesus twice said the boy was alive "again" which would be impossible if he were born dead in sin and separated from God as you believe. All of these scriptures agree easily and refute your view.


You are simply hanging on to Original Sin because that is what you were taught. I also once believed OS because that is what I was taught as well, until I realized the scriptures contradict it over and over again.

What is one the favorite verse of Calvinists to prove Total Depravity?

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

I've seen Calvinists (and non-Cals) quote this verse dozens of times and say it proves we are born sinners. It does no such thing, it does not even mention our birth. To the contrary, it says we have "gone out" of the way. To "go out" of the way you must first be "in" the way. You cannot go "out" of your house unless you were first "in" your house. It says we are together "become" unprofitable. You cannot "become" unprofitable if you were born that way. If you were born rich, you would never tell anyone you "became" rich, you were ALWAYS rich. But if you were originally poor and worked hard until you were wealthy, then you would tell someone you were once poor, but "became" rich.

Words have meaning. You, like others try to twist scripture that is very straightforward and easy to understand. You must perform mental gymnastics to explain these scriptures away.

I accept it as literal, and all of these scriptures agree without the least twisting or wrangling of scripture whatsoever.

 

Eternal salvation was accomplished by Christ's work on the cross. His elect are born into this world as natural beings, without any righteousness until God quickens them to a spiritual life. God only quickens his elect.

 

Not according to 1 Cor 2:14 & Eph 2:3-4.

 

Ps 40:1, We are all born into this world as natural beings, without any righteousness until God quickens his elect to a spiritual life. The natural man will not cry unto God, 1 Cor 2:14. Ps 10:4.

 

Eternal salvation for God's elect (those that he gave to his Son) was accomplished by Christ's work on the cross, John 6:37-41. All mankind, including God's elect, are born into this world as natural beings without any righteousness until God quickens his elect together with Christ. God only quickens his elect to a spiritual life.

 

Pitchback

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if Adam and Eve were allowed to remain in the Garden, they may not have died because they were never separated from the tree of life.

Putting that aside, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have needed to believe in a redeemer, for no one yet needed to be redeemed.

Scripture says even though not knowing their right hand from their left, they are condemned because of the sin of Adam, Romans 5:18. Saying they are innocent without addressing whether they are condemned misses the issue. Then we have John 3:18 which says, in my interpretation, that everyone in unbelief is condemned already, thus babes are condemned.

It is a lock, folks.

 

With all due respect, can you use some different verses for a change? You post these same verses over and over again. It's like you have these verses "on demand", and all you have to do is "click" and there they are.

 

Look @ it like this forest. You're @ a restaurant with your wife. Both of you order a glass of pop with your meal. Someone taints your pop with some poison, but ends up with your wife drinking it and dying. Is it your fault that you gave her the tainted pop? No. Why? You had no idea is was tainted/poisoned. Sin is all about the intent. Sin isn't the lack of something, as some proclaim. But it is the act of something; violating God's laws.

When Adam sinned, it caused our flesh to be tainted/poisoned by sin. It's not our fault what Adam did. Augustine started this mess my using a latin text. Our soul comes from God, correct? Do you believe that the soul(inner man) comes from the union of sperm-egg? Where exactly does the soul come from? It either comes from God of mankind, there's not an either/or option. Now, God imparts the soul into the tainted/poisoned flesh, and when the soul knows to do good, and does it not, to them it's sin. It's then that God imputes/accounts sin unto them, and they are held accountable.

 

God never mentioned Adam's descendants being made sinners in the curse.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

God said "cursed is the ground for thy sake". He did not curse Adam himself, although he did say Adam would return unto the ground from which he was taken. Thus, we all die physically. But God did not say Adam's moral nature was cursed and that all his descendants would be born sinful.

And people misinterpret Romans 5:12, it does not say sin passed upon all men, it says death.

Original Sin teaches the opposite of scripture. The scriptures say sin brings forth death, but OS says death brings forth sin. OS says we sin because we are born dead, the scriptures say we die because we have sinned.

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

If OS is true, then James 1:15 cannot be true. If you were born dead and separated from God, then sin could not bring forth death, as you were already dead. You could sin all you want and it would not make a bit of difference, you can't be any more dead than dead.

If OS is true, sin does not bring forth death.

Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If OS is true, the "end" of sin is not death, the "beginning" of sin is death. If OS is true, then the wages of sin is not death, a man was already dead the moment he was conceived. You cannot make someone MORE dead.

 

As preveiously addressed, scripture uses the metaphor of death over and over. Born again believers have died to sin. But we continue to think and do sinful things. So the idea is we have been separated from the consequences including death of sin. Paul teaching before we are born again that we are dead in our tresspasses is teaching we are separated from God. Now we are dead, separated, for two reasons, we were made condemned sinners through the transgression of Adam and we are condemned sinners through our own pre-salvation sins.

There is no question Adam's sin had consequences for the many, and to deny those consequences, i.e. condemned already because of unbelief, is simply not living by the word of God.

 

Hi Winman,

My answer is that this is all about the meaning of Romans 5:12 which, on that point, I believe you agree.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.​

While most passages relate to sin in the present tense (or rather in the passage of time), Romans 5:12 has it as "sin entered into the world".

This is the aorist tense which admitedly can be disputed as to it's scope in terms of duration. For the most part it is usually translated as the simple past. But in Romans 5:12 the scope is "all" without exception.

IMO Young's literal Translation captures the aorist function :

Romans 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin.​

IOW our condition happened in a moment of time in the past as well as its consequence (otherwise infants could not die if you view is correct) the scope being "all".​

"Tense" is a constant problem for us in many areas of theology because God is timeless existing in the eternal state.​

However, Jesus Christ (the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity) became flesh, a mortal human being subject to death and entered into the time continuum.​

Yet, being God Himself and timeless, He is portrayed as having been "slain from the foundation of the world".​

So, the scripture sees sin and death as both something completed in the past as well as being worked out in the present having been caused by the sin of "one man" passing through "all men" down the corridors of time.​

We all die because we are all sinners, the children of wrath.​

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.​

HankD​

 

Hank, words have meanings. Scripture states sinners are guilty, yet above you say they are sinners...but are not guilty yet. It cannot be both ways. By NATURE we are at enmity with God, and our flesh is cursed...but like you correctly stated we are not guilty until transgressing God's law

 

Hank let me ask you something concerning the YLT of that verse.

In reality isn't the most important word in that translation the definite article preceding the words sin and death?

It appears to make those words more explicit.


I think we see the same thing when where in the Greek the definite article the precedes faith, the faith, which implies a faith beyond something that could come from sinful man.

BTW I know no Greek.


Van & Hank

What is the end result of all of this. We were guilty. Christ died for us. We have been forgiven and begotten again to a lively hope.

Yet we are still dying.

2 Cor 4:10-Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present [us] with you.

Is not our future resurrection in reality the salvation of our souls? Could there be a future for the soul outside of our resurrection? Thou will not leave my soul in Hades. Isn't the resurrection in reality the birth as new creations in the exact image of the risen Christ, then the firstborn of many brethren?

Does that spirit of faith come to us by the Holy Spirit and just what was that faith according as it is written?

 

Hank, I understand your interpretation perfectly, I simply do not agree with it because too many scriptures contradict it. Ecc 7:29 says men are made upright, so Adam's sin could not have passed on them. Besides that, God directly says the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. God said each man shall die for his own sin. So, in my opinion your interpretation MUST be wrong.

The Eastern Orthodox Church that used only Greek texts have always held that this verse teaches each man dies for his own personal sin and disagreed with Augustine's interpretation. This is historical fact. This is the view I hold. My view does not violate or contradict Eze 18:20, or Ecc 7:29, or any of the many scriptures I have presented in this thread. Your view contradicts ALL of them.

I believe Augustine was wrong, and I believe he erred because he used a flawed Latin text that translated Rom 5:12 to say "in whom all have sinned", which Augustine interpreted to mean "in Adam". I believe this was total error on his part.

If we inherit a sin nature from Adam though no choice or fault of our own, and if we are compelled to sin because of that nature, then we are not transgressors, but victims. You cannot hold someone repsonsible for doing the only thing they can possibly do.

But I do not hold that. I believe we are born upright with free will and that all men freely choose to sin just as Adam and Eve did. This makes us transgressors and not victims, therefore our condemnation for sin is just.

 

Yes, I understand your point of view as well.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not agree with several doctrines of the Latin Churches or the mainstream Protestantant churches.

Baptists (IMO) are none of the above.

Just because they use the Greek text only does not gaurantee doctrinal purity.

Though they are Trinitarian they have an heritical view of the Holy Spirit.

Also they hold to a works salvation in which it is up to the believer to maintain a state of Sanctifying Grace though the receiving of the sacraments at the penalty of perdition.

They use a Greek term for the transformation of the "Eucharist" (metousiosis intead of transubstantio) in which they believe the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Why not go all the whole route and accept everything they teach?

I explained the use of the different verb tenses of sin so I won't repeat that part except to say that we are held accountable at the actual point in time in which we first sin with volition, until then we are not held accountable.

You also are calling upon human logic when you said the following

"If we inherit a sin nature from Adam though no choice or fault of our own, and if we are compelled to sin because of that nature, then we are not transgressors, but victims. You cannot hold someone repsonsible for doing the only thing they can possibly do".

IMO that is flawed reasoning because our condition is confirmed (we put our stamp of approval on what we are) when we commit that first sin.

But it gets even worse, not only do we put our stamp of approval on sin - we are not just neutral about it, but we love our sin.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.​

There is that troublesome aorist tense again "loved darkness" it happened somewhere other than the present or future.​

Therefore, as you have said repeatedly, we (the dead) must hear His voice in the present tense, believe on Him and possess eternal life in the present tense.​

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.​

Metaphysically, it's really all a done deal (from the foundation of the world), yet we must receive Him in the timestream of life.​

HankD​