Original Sin Again

"JonC,

The aorist tense here is referred to as "timeless aorist" which gathers up the whole human race for all time into this condemnation (see also A T Robertson). There are no exceptions save Christ Jesus as Paul has made clear in the preceding indictment in (Ro 1:18-3:20) Godet agrees writing that the aorist tense

'transports us to the point of time when the result of human life appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment."

MacDonald writes that the aorist tense pictures the fact that…

Everybody sinned in Adam; when he sinned, he acted as the representative for all his descendants. But men are not only sinners by nature; they are also sinners by practice.

Leon Morris writes that…

The aorist pictures this as past, but also as a completion. It certainly does not mean that sin belongs wholly in the past, for Paul goes on to a present tense when he says fall short of the glory of God. Elsewhere in Romans the glory is often future (Ro 2:7, 10; 5:2; 8:18, 21). But there is also a present glory, for God “made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; John 17:22). But this is something Christ produces in believers. Sinners fall short of it. Not only did all sin in the past, but they continually come short of God’s glory. (Ibid)

Vincent writes that the aorist tense means "looking back to a thing definitely past — the historic occurrence of sin."

Remember that men and women sin because we are sinners by nature. A plum tree bears plums because it is a plum tree. The fruit is the result of its nature. Sin is the fruit of a sinful heart. “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer 17:9).

 

Jon the concept of Romans 5:12 is a very simple one, we all sinned in Adam. We are all already condemned when we enter the time continuum of this world.

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.

You are over complicating it Jon.

Adam - sin and death
Christ - eternal life.

 

This is an irreconcilable disagreement, let the readers go over the posts and decide for themselves.

 

We have agreed to disagree brother

 

We could no more justify Original Sin because of that than we can Transubstantiation, which has been taught longer.


God bless.

 

I did address what you said directly, and apparently you are not able to comprehend how I addressed it, so okay.

I didn't say you did. It is a question meant to oppose your position in the statement it is asked of.

Okay, Van.

I will stop addressing you. Because you create impossible conditions for discussion/debate. Everyone "deflects and obfuscates," and you are alway the victim.

My sympathies.


God bless.

 

Actually that is your position.

The heavens and earth were created for man, not demons, not pre-existing spirits who would become humans as though Creation were some type of Purgatory.

Satan was a visitor to Creation, not part of it, not imprisoned there, as noted several times already. He has freedom to roam the earth seeking whom he may devour at this time, and indeed walks to and fro.

And the first point of attack is on Sound Doctrine. If he can get people caught up in nonsense, they will not spend their time seeking truth.


God bless.

 

I think they were quoted in the other thread, so if they have not been brought up in this one I would be glad to discuss why this passage does not teach a "hereditary sin."

But if I repeat what I have already said it may be that someone might think I am hemming and hawing.



Okay, since you asked so nicely, I will make a few points on this proof text.

1. We don't cancel the numerous statements that teach the wondrous nature of the babe in the womb being formed;
2. We don't overlook the fact that God is said to be the One who created David in the womb, and that his (David's) days were numbered before he was even born;
3. We don't attribute sin to David's formation because we must equally state that God is the one that shaped David in sin: a basic principle of Scripture is that God is not the One that creates sin, it is a result of mankind's actions...always;
4. We don't overlook the fact that David takes personal responsibility for his own sin, and does not blame it on Adam;
5. David denies any involvement of God in regards to his sin (v.4);


Verse 5, when held in light of the wondrous nature attributed to the babe being formed in the womb, fits the broader context of Scripture when viewed as an acknowledgment of Man's condition. All men, after the Fall, come into a world that is cursed and suffering the consequences of sin.

If it does not relate the condition of his parents, then it must be God in view, because only the parents (and here in particular the mother) and God are relevant to a child coming into being.

Being formed in iniquity is the only option Adam's descendants have, because that is the condition of all involved in procreation.

We see the difference between Adam's creation and procreation here:


Genesis 5
King James Version (KJV)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

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


Because sin and iniquity were the new conditions men are born into, all men are "formed in iniquity." That does not mean a babe in the womb is sinning, and thus bringing upon him/herself the penalty of sin. If that is the case, then David's baby went into torment, as did David, if we believe he was correct that he would see his child again (that he would go to him).

First, I wonder how it is that "heathens" could be privy to the knowledge of sin. This is knowledge revealed by God.

Secondly, and more importantly, the author is not being honest in his exposition: David states several times that the sin in view is his own. This...

Nor is the sin he speaks of any actual sin of his own, and therefore he does not call it, as before, "my" iniquity and "my" sin;

...can be said of the focal statement (proof text) but throughout the Psalm it is David's sin in view. The author does well to point out...

Nor is the sin he speaks of any actual sin of his own, and therefore he does not call it, as before, "my" iniquity and "my" sin; though it was so...


God bless.

 

No man was "perfect" prior to the Cross:


Hebrews 11:39-40
King James Version (KJV)

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.


"Perfection" here is in a context which regards remission of sins. We know Adam was not forgiven in completion.

In large part, yes. Discounting the physical effects the curse has had on man and creation.

This is generally how I view it. Mankind was destroyed because they rebelled against God. The knowledge of God would have had to have been passed down from Adam and Eve.

I see nothing in this that suggests sin is an inherited disease passed down from father and mother to children.

There is a primarily physical context to the Curse.

Agreed.

Agreed.

The Garden didn't become an enemy, man became the enemy.

It didn't justify the Augustinian concept at all.


Continued...

 

Agreed.

What they inherited was separation from God and being born into a cursed world.

And that is the condition that stands to be remedied in the Cross.

It is.

Agreed. His lifespan has shrank, for example.

His brain capacity is shrinking.

He is not born in conditions that would preclude sin. He will inevitably commit sins already introduced to the world, often (if not always) those of his own parents.

There is a physical aspect to the consequences of the Fall, but they are...physical. Adam would have fared no better having lost communion with God than we do, and would have fared no better than we do having communion with God.

Man is at enmity because he is not in relationship with God. Adam had direct communion with God but still became at enmity.

And no man has ever known the will of God, or performed it, until God first intervened and revealed His will to them.

Be glad to discuss this with you.

Its simply not possible for him to be under bondage...until sin entered the world.

Consider:


Romans 8:21
King James Version (KJV)

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.


The impact of the curse is on everything in existence. While I hold to a spiritual union of sorts between Adam and God, much of what happens can be seen in physical terms. I do not view Adam as equivalent to those who are immersed into God and born again, but view that as the eventual Plan of God for mankind.

The one thing we see Adam capable of doing, which is no different than ourselves...is sinning. We might liken that to our condition as born again believers, where we have communion with God, yet still sin. But we cannot liken Adam to the glorified saint, because if he had been glorified, he would not have died.


God bless.

 

The sky will fall,

 

Think Satan did that though!

 

And His fall has given the sin nature now to all save Jesus Christ!