BORN DEAD

It's been heartbreaking to read this thread. Helen and her fellows have denied original sin, which no historical arminian ever did that I know of. They have fallen head-long into pure pelagianism.

As I read the OP, I was moved by the truth of the desparate wickedness of the heart of fallen man. I just don't understand how anyone could read that and still be blind. I'm starting to think that maybe pelagians are not even regenerate. Is that an over reaction?

 

JD, just what is original sin? People always want to bring up the phrase 'original sin' and yet they have no clue what it is.

 

sfiC,

How do you know that J. D. has no clue what original sin is?

"According to Christian tradition, Original sin describes the condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are hereditarily born. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin committed by mankind, seen as the seed of future evil effects for the whole human race."

From Wikipedia

I see J. D.'s point. This appears to be what Helen is denying.

 

mankind's disobedience to God's command is not the original sin.

The original sin was when lucifer tried to extol himself above the most High God.

Pride is the original sin.

 

He didn't say "the original sin". He said "original son" without "the". Again: "Original sin describes the condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are hereditarily born."

 

Original sin, in theology, has to do with the source (origin) of sin; it's not so much about the FIRST sin, although the first sin of Adam stands as the perfect picture of the doctrine.

It has an application that says that Adam, by reproduction in his fallen state, has passed his fallen state on the all of mankind. So the basic tenet of original sin is that we are sinners by birth, or nature, and the actual committing of sins stand as evidence of the sin nature.

This teaching is common in all orthodox traditions, INCLUDING arminian baptist traditions. I think that only Pelagius and a few other eccentrics taught that sin is not inherited and already implanted by nature into the heart of man.

Some of you trained theologians can correct me if I got that wrong.

 

I'm amazed by how many answers to standfirm's post were posted while I was typing mine up. You guys are good!

 

God commanded that the law be kept. Has any man ever kept it? Moses wrote it and he didn't. Only Christ has kept the law for he was the only one who could. </font>[/QUOTE]Timtoolman what is your take on this?

 

Inasmuch as 'original' means 'first' then Standing is absolutely correct. The first sin was Satan's and it was pride.

The first sin by humans was Eve's but she is never biblically held accountable for she was deceived.

The first sin to infect mankind as a whole was Adam's and although yes, it was disobedience, there is also the argument that it may have been misplaced love -- preferring Eve to God and wilfully joining her in her fallen state.

 

Helen,

Unfortunately you do not get to decide what theologians mean by the "original sin". When they use that phrase, and when J. D. uses it, they are not talking about the very first sin committed. Therefore, though your observations may be correct, they are irrelevant to this discussion.

 

I know what Calvinists mean by original sin, but as far as I am concerned, that is the twisting of the meaning, not the actual meaning of the word, which both Standing and I have mentioned.

It has an application that says that Adam, by reproduction in his fallen state, has passed his fallen state on the all of mankind. So the basic tenet of original sin is that we are sinners by birth, or nature, and the actual committing of sins stand as evidence of the sin nature.

"Origin" is fine. But the fact is that Calvinists claim that in being subject to Adam's sin, we are somehow all RESPONSIBLE for it, and that is nonsense. We are born sick with sin nature, and we WILL sin when we are able to do things volitionally, but no one, but NNE is born guilty of sin! You cannot be guilty of something you have never done. And to use 'original sin' in that manner defies the meaning and intent of the Bible.

 

Amen, Helen

 

Helen,

"Original sin", or "the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam" is not a Calvinist doctrine. It was taught long before Calvin. Roman Catholics believe it. John Wesley affirmed it. Please, get your facts straight.

 

Hereditary stain, fine. Hereditary responsibility, no.

Brother James, we must let Bible interpret Bible. In Romans 7 Paul says he was alive before the law came into his life. He is not talking about reincarnation; he is talking about spiritual life. That means that before he knew the law, he was not separated from God. He was not born separated, or dead, because of sin. He was born sick with it; deeply affected to the core of his being with sin nature. He would sin. Because of that nature, once he reached an age of knowing the law, he would rebel. That was his nature -- his sin nature. And then he would be separated from God; he would die spiritually.

But if a person is born separated from God already, then why is it that Jesus said that the angels of the little ones always see the face of the Father in Heaven?

 

Stains of sin will keep one out of Heaven. If you won't have Adam's guilt then how can you have Christ's righteousness?

 

Christ died for all sin. Or so Hebrews says. Therefore the little ones are completely covered by His sacrifice.

 

Then why aren't all of the big ones covered too? And if you won't have Adam's sin then how can you have Christ's righteousness?

 

I had sins enough of my own, thank you!