Warning: this may be dangerous for the faint of heart

[Yeshua1]

He simply denies any human is born with a sin nature and that Christ was thus born with the very nature that he wrongly imaginess every human being is born with - a sinless nature.

So each one of us could have potentially been chosen by God as the messiah, as jesus "only" kept Himself from sinning, as all of us 'could"

So all humans are born untainted by sin, and ONLY when we freely chose to sin, God is estranged from us?

 

[The Biblicist]

So each one of us could have potentially been chosen by God as the messiah, as jesus "only" kept Himself from sinning, as all of us 'could"

No, he would argue that only Jesus was the Chirst because only Jesus was the incarnation of God in flesh.

So all humans are born untainted by sin, and ONLY when we freely chose to sin, God is estranged from us?

That is precisely what he and a couple of others believe on this forum.

 

[evangelist-7]

So all humans are born untainted by sin, and ONLY when we freely chose to sin, God is estranged from us?

This is what the Qur'an teaches ... in about 10 places.
It teaches against the Bible on several major topics.

IMO, the most interesting example is Qur'an's stories differ from those in Torah.
From the very beginning in Genesis, most stories differ.
IMO, this is to cast doubts on the veracity of our Scriptures.

News Flash! ... Satan --> "Gabriel" --> Mohammed --> Qur'an --> Islam
.

 

[The Biblicist]

This is what the Qur'an teaches ... in about 10 places.
It teaches against the Bible on several major topics.

IMO, the most interesting example is Qur'an's stories differ from those in Torah.
From the very beginning in Genesis, most stories differ.
IMO, this is to cast doubts on the veracity of our Scriptures.

News Flash! ... Satan --> "Gabriel" --> Mohammed --> Qur'an --> Islam
.

When I condemned this denial of original sin you took the other side and used my words which were directed to condemn that error and applied them to me. Now, are you flip flopping???

Do you believe all men are born spiritually dead in sin or not?

 

[Winman]

He simply denies any human is born with a sin nature and that Christ was thus born with the very nature that he wrongly imaginess every human being is born with - a sinless nature.

Correct. Yeshua1 deliberately misrepresents me (no truth in him), but you simply do not know the scriptures, even though you have been shown.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

You can deny the scriptures, but they say God has made man upright. Man is not born a sinner. Romans 9:11 proves that little children have committed no sin.

You guys just don''t get it, sin is not a substance, or something you can inherit from your parents like blue eyes or red hair. Sin is a transgression of God's laws, it is a criminal act against God. Without law there is no transgression, so no man can be a sinner until he is old enough to understand God's laws. When a man understands right from wrong before God and willfully chooses to commit sin, this is when he becomes a sinner.

There is absolutely not one word of scripture that says all men are born sinners. You cannot show it because no such scripture exists. In fact, I have shown you scripture that says all men are made upright, and scripture that shows babies have not committed sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Correct. Yeshua1 deliberately misrepresents me (no truth in him), but you simply do not know the scriptures, even though you have been shown.

Many on this forum have taken every single text you have offered, including the two in this post and showed how you have misintepreted them.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

This refers to the act of God when he made man in the garden of Eden. From that point man has REPRODUCED AFTER HIS OWN KIND through generation.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

This text says NOTHING about your position one way or the other. It merely states a fact that election is not based upon post-birth activities but upon the pre-birth purpose of election by grace. It simply denies that good or evil acts after birth played any part in election. It neither denies or affirms that infants are born sinners. That is your imagination - period!

You guys just don''t get it, sin is not a substance, or something you can inherit from your parents like blue eyes or red hair.

First, no one to my knowledge has ever argued that sin is tangible. Second, sin is not merely an action but clearly a STATE OF HEART or STATE OF MIND, an irreversable inclination toward evil. That is precisely why there must be a rebirth as the condition received through natural birth is inclined to evil. Thus a "new" heart, a "new" creature is the only possible solution to sin.

This should be obvious to you since even you admit that once a person sins there is no natural reversal but necessitates a NEW CREATION. If your position had any merit it could be reversed just as it was initiated. The fact that it cannot demonstrates sin is more than mere actions and attitude but an irreversable governing inclination toward sin. That is precisely why the body of the elect must die or be supernaturally changed as the law of indwelling sin cannot be redeemed.

Without law there is no transgression, so no man can be a sinner until he is old enough to understand God's laws. When a man understands right from wrong before God and willfully chooses to commit sin, this is when he becomes a sinner.

Law is required for JUDGEMENT against sin and that is precisely why dying infants are not in danger of judgement. KNOWLEDGE of law plus a willing heart (with or without action) is required for condemnation by the law and that is another reason why dying infants are not in danger of judgement.

However, the existence of a SINFUL DISPOSITION and even SINFUL ACTIONS are possible without knowledge of law simply because sin is not defined or dependent upon understanding or realizing there is Law. The Law of God exists independent of and is not determined by human actions or knowlege of its existence or character. Otherwise, the Bible could never address sins due to ignorance. Ignorance does not change the nature of sin although it does change the judgement toward sin. Another reason why infants are not in danger of judgement even though they are sinners by nature/disposition and even though their actions are sinful in spite of their ignorance.

There is absolutely not one word of scripture that says all men are born sinners. You cannot show it because no such scripture exists. In fact, I have shown you scripture that says all men are made upright, and scripture that shows babies have not committed sin.

There are scores of scripture that teach this truth and you know it as they have been repeatedly placed in your face numerous times. YOU EXPLAIN THEM AWAY and not very well I might add.

 

[Winman]

Many on this forum have taken every single text you have offered, including the two in this post and showed how you have misintepreted them.

No, you haven't because these scriptures are so simple and straightforward it is impossible to misinterpret them. You simply deny what they clearly and plainly say to hold to your man-made doctrine which you have no scripture to support.

This refers to the act of God when he made man in the garden of Eden. From that point man has REPRODUCED AFTER HIS OWN KIND through generation.

No, it is speaking of all men. The word "they" is plural, pointing back to the word "man" showing this is speaking of all men, not Adam only.

This text says NOTHING about your position one way or the other. It merely states a fact that election is not based upon post-birth activities but upon the pre-birth purpose of election by grace. It simply denies that good or evil acts after birth played any part in election. It neither denies or affirms that infants are born sinners. That is your imagination - period!

I realize this verse is about election, nevertheless, this verse shows that little babies have neither "done" good or evil. Sin is something you "do". Anybody with a lick of sense knows that, but you deny the obvious.

First, no one to my knowledge has ever argued that sin is tangible. Second, sin is not merely an action but clearly a STATE OF HEART or STATE OF MIND, an irreversable inclination toward evil. That is precisely why there must be a rebirth as the condition received through natural birth is inclined to evil. Thus a "new" heart, a "new" creature is the only possible solution to sin.

Sin is a choice, it is a willful transgression of God's law. A baby cannot comprehend what is good or evil, much less God's law and therefore cannot commit sin.

This should be obvious to you since even you admit that once a person sins there is no natural reversal but necessitates a NEW CREATION. If your position had any merit it could be reversed just as it was initiated. The fact that it cannot demonstrates sin is more than mere actions and attitude but an irreversable governing inclination toward sin. That is precisely why the body of the elect must die or be supernaturally changed as the law of indwelling sin cannot be redeemed.

The reason we are a new creation is because our spirit that has been washed of sin is joined to the Holy Spirit and becomes a new creation.

1 Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Just as when a man and woman come together physically and a new person is created, when our spirit is cleansed of sin and joined to the Holy Spirit a new person is created or born again. This is what Calvinism absolutely fails to understand. It takes two persons to create a new person.

Now we are able to overcome sin because we have the Holy Spirit and the Word of God dwelling in us. Before this we operated in the flesh and obeyed the flesh. The flesh itself is not evil, but it lusts against the Spirit, it wants to do what it wants to do to satisfy itself. When we obey the flesh when it transgresses God's laws we are guilty of sin and corrupted.

Law is required for JUDGEMENT against sin and that is precisely why dying infants are not in danger of judgement. KNOWLEDGE of law plus a willing heart (with or without action) is required for condemnation by the law and that is another reason why dying infants are not in danger of judgement.

Physical death is a consequence of sin. When Adam and Eve sinned they were cast out of the garden and kept from the tree of life. This is why we physically die. Spiritual death is a judgment because of sin. Adam and Eve spiritually died the moment they sinned, they physically died because they were separated from the tree of life, which was also part of the judgment.

However, the existence of a SINFUL DISPOSITION and even SINFUL ACTIONS are possible without knowledge of law simply because sin is not defined or dependent upon understanding or realizing there is Law. The Law of God exists independent of and is not determined by human actions or knowlege of its existence or character. Otherwise, the Bible could never address sins due to ignorance. Ignorance does not change the nature of sin although it does change the judgement toward sin. Another reason why infants are not in danger of judgement even though they are sinners by nature/disposition and even though their actions are sinful in spite of their ignorance.

The flesh itself is neither good or bad, it simply wants what it wants. Our flesh does not make our decisions for us. When we obey the lusts of the flesh when it transgresses God's laws we sin. The scriptures are plain that no man is judged of sin until he is mature enough to understand right from wrong.

There are scores of scripture that teach this truth and you know it as they have been repeatedly placed in your face numerous times. YOU EXPLAIN THEM AWAY and not very well I might add.

Scores? There is not even ONE verse that says men are born sinners, you cannot possibly show it. I challenge you to show any scripture that says all men are born sinners.

 

[The Biblicist]

No, you haven't because these scriptures are so simple and straightforward it is impossible to misinterpret them. You simply deny what they clearly and plainly say to hold to your man-made doctrine which you have no scripture to support.

Your responses are simply empty of substance and do not address my original responses.

No, it is speaking of all men. The word "they" is plural, pointing back to the word "man" showing this is speaking of all men, not Adam only.

First, "man" is a compound singular inclusive of all mankind. Thus the plural pronoun is completely fitting for the singular. Second, INDIVIDUALS come through REPRODUCTION AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, a process begun in Genesis 1. Third, to make man "upright" refers to the "image" in Genesis 1:26.

I realize this verse is about election, nevertheless, this verse shows that little babies have neither "done" good or evil. Sin is something you "do". Anybody with a lick of sense knows that, but you deny the obvious.

This text does NOT say ANYTHING about little babies at all. What it says is that post-birth actions whether good or EVIL do not have anything to do with the basis of election. The very fact that "EVIL" is included completey anhilates your whole line of reasoning.

Sin is a choice, it is a willful transgression of God's law. A baby cannot comprehend what is good or evil, much less God's law and therefore cannot commit sin.

Your argument is baseless! Even in your scenario, subsequent choices to do evil are due the STATE OF AN EVIL HEART that is inclined to choose evil. Hence, the will is not the point of origin.

Furthermore, Paul says "the carnal" or NATURAL mind is in a CONDITION of sin (Rom. 8:7-8) and he does not qualify that by age or the first act of willful sin. Instead he contrasts it with another CONDITION "in the spirit" versus "in the flesh." There is no THIRD condition offered by Paul. Infants are born "in the flesh" and therefore the "NATURAL" refers to what comes with NATURAL birth as the those "in the Spirit" comes with SPIRITUAL birth.

The reason we are a new creation is because our spirit that has been washed of sin is joined to the Holy Spirit and becomes a new creation.

You simply ignored my argument. If your theory, interpretation had any merit it could be reversed just as it was initiated BY AN ACT OF WILL without any work of Creation by God (Eph. 2:10a). The fact that NO MAN can come to Christ in faith except it be given unto him by the Father (Jn. 6:44; 64) and that "every man" given by the Father does come (Jn. 6:45) and is raised to life eternal (Jn. 6:39,40,44) completely destroys your whole theory.

1 Cor 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Just as when a man and woman come together physically and a new person is created, when our spirit is cleansed of sin and joined to the Holy Spirit a new person is created or born again. This is what Calvinism absolutely fails to understand. It takes two persons to create a new person.

What you are failing to see is CAUSE versus EFFECTS when it comes to this union with God. You nor your will is the CAUSE of new birth as John explicitly and clearly states in John 1:13; as James says clearly in James 1:18 and as Paul clearly states in the very verse you abuse as a proof text - Rom. 9:11 as election is not conditioned on any post-birth activity good or evil.

Now we are able to overcome sin because we have the Holy Spirit and the Word of God dwelling in us. Before this we operated in the flesh and obeyed the flesh. The flesh itself is not evil, but it lusts against the Spirit, it wants to do what it wants to do to satisfy itself. When we obey the flesh when it transgresses God's laws we are guilty of sin and corrupted

The fact is that the human will after new birth is not able to overcome sin (Rom. 7:14-25) as the power is not in the will to do good but in the power of the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom. 8:11-13). If it were, then Paul would not also say "For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure" IF the power or cause is found in the human will in either the lost or saved. Paul denies such ability in the lost (Rom. 8:7-8).

Physical death is a consequence of sin.

HALF truth thus whole lie! Immediate SPIRITUAL death in the very "day" he ate occurred which resulted in physical and then eternal death (Eph. 2:1). Spiritual and eternal death are EQUALLY consequences of sin and it is DEATH in whole that is "passed" to his offspring through birth (Rom. 5:12).

This is why we physically die."

No it is not! Physical death is simply the conclusion of SPIRITUAL death that precedes it and thus babies die because they are SPIRITUALLY dead coming into this world and their subsequent life proves it.

The flesh itself is neither good or bad, it simply wants what it wants.

You do not discern between the literal and metaphorical use of the words "the flesh" as Romans 7:14 explicitly states that there is NOTHING GOOD in "my flesh." Here he uses it metaphorically to define "the law of sin" as it expresses itself through the physical appetites/lusts of man, which is also called the "law of death" or indwelling PRINCIPLE OF ENMITY TOWARD GOD (Rom. 8:7) that characterizes all who are "in the flesh" (natural state) that literally and always works decay and disease that always ends in the physical death of the body (not the spirit) unless God supernaturally removes it from the body (1 Cor. 15:53-55).

Scores? There is not even ONE verse that says men are born sinners, you cannot possibly show it. I challenge you to show any scripture that says all men are born sinners.

No, I can provide a long list but it will do no good because you simply EXPLAIN AWAY the obvious meaning:

Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
3 And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he bounds that he cannot pass;

This is a context of the condition of man at birth when BORN OF A WOMAN - v. 1 as he "COMETH FORTH" - v. 2 as "UNCLEAN" because the immediate human source (mother) is "UNCLEAN" in nature and nothing "UNCLEAN" can bring forth something "CLEAN" in nature and the topic here is consistently BIRTH right up to and including verse 4 as the infant life manifests this UNCLEAN nature as it "is of few days, and full of trouble" because of his UNCLEAN origin.

 

[mont974x4]

This is what the Qur'an teaches ... in about 10 places.

It is essentially what Wesley taught and what Nazarene's now teach about sin. Sin, defined by Wesley, is the willful breaking of a known law of God. It goes right along with the idea that there is at least some good in people so they choose God. It is also a key part in rejecting the perseverance of the saints. Man's will overrides God's will.

There are a lot of problems in this line of theology but keeping strictly to what is and isn't sin my prof's at Nazarene Bible College could never answer my questions about holding to Wesley's definition of sin in light of the definitions of sin, iniquity and transgression from Psalm 51. They also could not explain their definition in light of God commanding a series of sacrifices for the unknowing breaking of God's law (Lev 4 and 5 and a few others).

 

[Winman]

Your responses are simply empty of substance and do not address my original responses.





First, "man" is a compound singular inclusive of all mankind. Thus the plural pronoun is completely fitting for the singular. Second, INDIVIDUALS come through REPRODUCTION AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, a process begun in Genesis 1. Third, to make man "upright" refers to the "image" in Genesis 1:26.



This text does NOT say ANYTHING about little babies at all. What it says is that post-birth actions whether good or EVIL do not have anything to do with the basis of election. The very fact that "EVIL" is included completey anhilates your whole line of reasoning.





Your argument is baseless! Even in your scenario, subsequent choices to do evil are due the STATE OF AN EVIL HEART that is inclined to choose evil. Hence, the will is not the point of origin.

Furthermore, Paul says "the carnal" or NATURAL mind is in a CONDITION of sin (Rom. 8:7-8) and he does not qualify that by age or the first act of willful sin. Instead he contrasts it with another CONDITION "in the spirit" versus "in the flesh." There is no THIRD condition offered by Paul. Infants are born "in the flesh" and therefore the "NATURAL" refers to what comes with NATURAL birth as the those "in the Spirit" comes with SPIRITUAL birth.







You simply ignored my argument. If your theory, interpretation had any merit it could be reversed just as it was initiated BY AN ACT OF WILL without any work of Creation by God (Eph. 2:10a). The fact that NO MAN can come to Christ in faith except it be given unto him by the Father (Jn. 6:44; 64) and that "every man" given by the Father does come (Jn. 6:45) and is raised to life eternal (Jn. 6:39,40,44) completely destroys your whole theory.



What you are failing to see is CAUSE versus EFFECTS when it comes to this union with God. You nor your will is the CAUSE of new birth as John explicitly and clearly states in John 1:13; as James says clearly in James 1:18 and as Paul clearly states in the very verse you abuse as a proof text - Rom. 9:11 as election is not conditioned on any post-birth activity good or evil.



The fact is that the human will after new birth is not able to overcome sin (Rom. 7:14-25) as the power is not in the will to do good but in the power of the indwelling Spirit of God (Rom. 8:11-13). If it were, then Paul would not also say "For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure" IF the power or cause is found in the human will in either the lost or saved. Paul denies such ability in the lost (Rom. 8:7-8).




HALF truth thus whole lie! Immediate SPIRITUAL death in the very "day" he ate occurred which resulted in physical and then eternal death (Eph. 2:1). Spiritual and eternal death are EQUALLY consequences of sin and it is DEATH in whole that is "passed" to his offspring through birth (Rom. 5:12).


No it is not! Physical death is simply the conclusion of SPIRITUAL death that precedes it and thus babies die because they are SPIRITUALLY dead coming into this world and their subsequent life proves it.




You do not discern between the literal and metaphorical use of the words "the flesh" as Romans 7:14 explicitly states that there is NOTHING GOOD in "my flesh." Here he uses it metaphorically to define "the law of sin" as it expresses itself through the physical appetites/lusts of man, which is also called the "law of death" or indwelling PRINCIPLE OF ENMITY TOWARD GOD (Rom. 8:7) that characterizes all who are "in the flesh" (natural state) that literally and always works decay and disease that always ends in the physical death of the body (not the spirit) unless God supernaturally removes it from the body (1 Cor. 15:53-55).




No, I can provide a long list but it will do no good because you simply EXPLAIN AWAY the obvious meaning:

Job 14:1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.
2 He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not.
3 And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee?
4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he bounds that he cannot pass;

This is a context of the condition of man at birth when BORN OF A WOMAN - v. 1 as he "COMETH FORTH" - v. 2 as "UNCLEAN" because the immediate human source (mother) is "UNCLEAN" in nature and nothing "UNCLEAN" can bring forth something "CLEAN" in nature and the topic here is consistently BIRTH right up to and including verse 4 as the infant life manifests this UNCLEAN nature as it "is of few days, and full of trouble" because of his UNCLEAN origin.

Blah, Blah, Blah and not one verse that says all men are born sinners.

And your scripture from Job severely hurts your argument as Jesus was born of a woman.

Cause and effect? Satan was created perfect and he sinned. Adam and Eve were very good and they sinned. This proves that a sin nature is not necessary to sin, there goes your argument.

And you even admit man in Ecc 7:29 is plural! Well, try believing what the verse says. It says all men are made upright, which means righteous, without sin.

 

[Winman]

It is essentially what Wesley taught and what Nazarene's now teach about sin. Sin, defined by Wesley, is the willful breaking of a known law of God. It goes right along with the idea that there is at least some good in people so they choose God. It is also a key part in rejecting the perseverance of the saints. Man's will overrides God's will.

There are a lot of problems in this line of theology but keeping strictly to what is and isn't sin my prof's at Nazarene Bible College could never answer my questions about holding to Wesley's definition of sin in light of the definitions of sin, iniquity and transgression from Psalm 51. They also could not explain their definition in light of God commanding a series of sacrifices for the unknowing breaking of God's law (Lev 4 and 5 and a few others).

Why do you mention the Muslims and the Quran except to smear by assocation?

Why not speak of the Jews who had the OT scriptures including the Psalms and Leviticus? They have NEVER interpreted any of these scriptures to teach Original Sin. They interpret Psalms 51 to teach we are born into a sinful world. This is what Job is saying, how can you bring something clean out of the unclean? It is the world around us that is unclean, we are naturally polluted by it, just as if you threw something clean into a mud puddle, it would be polluted by it.

The Jews teach man is born neutral, neither good or bad, but innocent. They had these same scriptures for thousands of years and never saw Original Sin in them. It was Augustine with his Manichean doctrine that all matter is evil that first taught OS. The Greek church immediately rejected Augustine's interpretation from a flawed Latin text. This is a fact of history.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ridicule is your ultimate weapon as you again could not deal with my responses with any substantive replies and so you respond "blah, blah, blah"

And your scripture from Job severely hurts your argument as Jesus was born of a woman.

Only if the scripture makes no decisive difference between the birth of Christ and all other humans. So much for your objection as it is self evident there is a decisive difference made between the birth of Christ and the birth of all other humans. It is called the VIRIGIN BIRTH.

Only if the sin nature (principle of indwelling death = spiritual separation) is "passed" down from the woman alone in human reproduction. The virigin birth demonstrates it does not but it is "passed" down from the male participant in birth. Hence CAUSE and EFFECT in regard to passing down of the "law of death" or "the law of sin" in all others born of women is due to male participation in the process of birth. By one "MAN" sin entered into the world and by one "MAN" we were made sinners.

And you even admit man in Ecc 7:29 is plural! Well, try believing what the verse says. It says all men are made upright, which means righteous, without sin.

Selective reading on your part! I also said that the term "man" as used in Genesis 1:26 comphrends a plurality and so "they" or mankind were "made" by God from the beginning in his "image" or "upright." However that is the prefall CORPORATE condition not the post fall INDIVIDUAL condition of every person.

Selective reading on your part! I also said, this verse speaks of a signular point in history where all were "made" by God but now individualization comes through REPRODUCTION AFTER ITS OWN KIND or "born of women" rather than "made" by God.

Finally, the context of Job 14 does not refer to the EXTERNAL world as the "unclean" element into which they are born but refers to the SOURCE from which they are born. Nowhere does verses 1-5 state or even imply that the EXTERNAL world is being referenced to.

What did I say? I said you would simply EXPLAIN AWAY any scripture that says clearly what it says and that is precisely what you attempted to do, unsuccessfully I might add.

 

[The Biblicist]

Ridicule is your ultimate weapon as you again could not deal with my responses with any substantive replies and so you respond "blah, blah, blah"



Only if the scripture makes no decisive difference between the birth of Christ and all other humans. So much for your objection as it is self evident there is a decisive difference made between the birth of Christ and the birth of all other humans. It is called the VIRIGIN BIRTH.

Only if the sin nature (principle of indwelling death = spiritual separation) is "passed" down from the woman alone in human reproduction. The virigin birth demonstrates it does not but it is "passed" down from the male participant in birth. Hence CAUSE and EFFECT in regard to passing down of the "law of death" or "the law of sin" in all others born of women is due to male participation in the process of birth. By one "MAN" sin entered into the world and by one "MAN" we were made sinners.






Selective reading on your part! I also said that the term "man" as used in Genesis 1:26 comphrends a plurality and so "they" or mankind were "made" by God from the beginning in his "image" or "upright." However that is the prefall CORPORATE condition not the post fall INDIVIDUAL condition of every person.

Selective reading on your part! I also said, this verse speaks of a signular point in history where all were "made" by God but now individualization comes through REPRODUCTION AFTER ITS OWN KIND or "born of women" rather than "made" by God.

Finally, the context of Job 14 does not refer to the EXTERNAL world as the "unclean" element into which they are born but refers to the SOURCE from which they are born. Nowhere does verses 1-5 state or even imply that the EXTERNAL world is being referenced to.

What did I say? I said you would simply EXPLAIN AWAY any scripture that says clearly what it says and that is precisely what you attempted to do, unsuccessfully I might add.

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

Note that Eliphaz is directly responding to Job's use of "clean" and "unclean" in Job 14:1-5 in regard to human nature received at birth and neither is speaking of the external environment of this material world as the cause.

Note that "righteous" is used as a synonym in the same verse for "clean" in regard to man "born of a woman" - v. 14

Note that "clean" is defined as sinlessness in verse 15 as even "the heavens" (plural) are being directly compared to God and the antynyms for "clean" are "abominable....filthy...iniquity" in verse 16.

Hence, the term "clean" refers to MORAL righteousness by both Job and Eliphaz as Eliphaz is responding directly to Job's use of "clean" and "unclean" in the context of human birth in regard to the human nature from the womb of the mother in Job 14:1-5.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Biblicist, what is your position on this topic?

I don't think using Mary's genetic material would necissarily cause Jesus to be a sinner. Sin is a condition of the soul which affects the body, mind, and will as well. Jesus being incarnate joins himself to humanity in all aspects save sin. However, using Mary's genetic material (blood) he would fully fulfill all prophesies given to David and Abraham. but Jesus' soul is certainly pure.

 

[evangelist-7]

When I condemned this denial of original sin you took the other side and used my words
which were directed to condemn that error and applied them to me.
Now, are you flip flopping???
Do you believe all men are born spiritually dead in sin or not?

Like I said, you have no spiritual discernment at all ... just mind/intellect.

Telling you what Qur'an says is telling you what I believe?

C'mon, get a clue ... thou hast AGAIN disqualified thouself from any serious credibility.
.

 

[evangelist-7]

It is essentially what Wesley taught and what Nazarene's now teach about sin. Sin, defined by Wesley, is the willful breaking of a known law of God. It goes right along with the idea that there is at least some good in people so they choose God. It is also a key part in rejecting the perseverance of the saints. Man's will overrides God's will.
There are a lot of problems in this line of theology but keeping strictly to what is and isn't sin my prof's at Nazarene Bible College could never answer my questions about holding to Wesley's definition of sin in light of the definitions of sin, iniquity and transgression from Psalm 51. They also could not explain their definition in light of God commanding a series of sacrifices for the unknowing breaking of God's law (Lev 4 and 5 and a few others).

It seems you're missing the point entirely.
Of course, your definition of sin is correct.

But, what we're talking about is ... Because of man's sin nature, he MUST sin!
Get it ... Got it ... Good.

.

 

[evangelist-7]

... and not one verse that says all men are born sinners.

The whole point of this thread is ... Some spiritual truths are only revealed via the Spirit.

God had His reasons for not revealing everything in da black and white
i.e. written in black on white ... so they would be obvious to guys like you.

E.G. Jesus explained why He spoke in parables so much! And His reason proves da red.
.

 

[mont974x4]

It seems you're missing the point entirely.
Of course, your definition of sin is correct.

But, what we're talking about is ... Because of man's sin nature, he MUST sin!
Get it ... Got it ... Good.

.

I did not miss the point. We are discussing sin and you brought up how Muslim's teach on it. I was pointing out how a sect of Christianity teach on it. But thanks for the passive aggressive insult. Have a nice day.

 

[evangelist-7]

Why not speak of the Jews who had the OT scriptures including the Psalms and Leviticus?
They have NEVER interpreted any of these scriptures to teach Original Sin.
They interpret Psalms 51 to teach we are born into a sinful world.
The Jews teach man is born neutral, neither good or bad, but innocent.
They had these same scriptures for thousands of years and never saw Original Sin in them.
This is a fact of history.

The following are facts of history ...
God said the Jews were spiritually blind and deaf.
God said He would not heal them of this.
God said He would disperse them to the 4 corners of the earth.
God did.

News Flash ...
The Jews have remained in this condition ... they still are spiritually blind and deaf.
Except for a few (so far) Messianic Jews (MJ).

God's promise to bring the Jews back together is done.
God's promise to place His Spirit in them, have a relationship with them, etc. is being done (in MJ).
.

 

[evangelist-7]

I don't think using Mary's genetic material would necissarily cause Jesus to be a sinner.
Sin is a condition of the soul which affects the body, mind, and will as well.
Jesus being incarnate joins himself to humanity in all aspects save sin.
However, using Mary's genetic material (blood) he would fully fulfill all prophesies given to David and Abraham.
but Jesus' soul is certainly pure.

Please recall that Christians believe: the soul = mind/intellect, will, and emotions.

But, don't forget the other thread ... http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=81861
.