Are all already condemned by God, or ONLY after rejecting Christ?

[psalms109:31]

We are all sinners in need of guidance from God and we are the messengers that is what it is teaching us, that our God desires their salvation not eternity in hell. God places us there to guide them. Our God desires mercy not sacrifice. That is the point of those verses not to say that infants when they die as infants will spend eternity in hell. We some how are acquired or condemned by our own words not by something we don't have the ability to do.

 

[Winman]

Psalms 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Of course babies don't speak anything right from the womb! So that is obviously not the meaning. So what IS the meaning?

Babies are born with the same nature as liars, a sinful one.

No, this verse is hyperbole or exaggeration and was never intended to be taken literally. Look at the rest of the Psalm.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

First, is David speaking of all men? NO, he is speaking of especially wicked persons which he distinguishes from the "righteous" in verses 10 and 11.

10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

You cannot use this verse to teach the total depravity of all men because it is not addressed to all men, but the wicked only.

Next, David says these wicked persons are poisonous like an adder. Are babies literally poisonous? NO.

Next, David says these wicked persons have great teeth like a great lion. Are babies born with a mouthful of huge teeth? NO.

Next, David says these wicked persons melt like snails. Do babies melt? NO.

And finally, David prays that all these wicked persons "pass away". Do you really believe David is praying that all babies everywhere perish? Nonsense.

So, to take this Psalm which is obviously figurative speech and hyperbole is ridiculous. Scripture like this should never be used to form doctrine.

Now compare this to Ecc 7:29;

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

Here, Solomon says he has found that God has made man upright, which means sinless or righteous, but "they" (plural, speaking of all men) have sought out many inventions. In other words, men are born sinless but soon go out and become sinners. The sin comes from within the man himself, it is his own invention.

Does this verse use exaggeration or figurative speech? NO, this verse can be understood literally, it is not saying something nonsensical like a baby being poisonous or having huge teeth like a lion.

Scripture does not show men are born sinners, it says they are made upright, but BECOME filthy.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

If you were born rich, you would never tell people you "became" rich. But if you were poor and attained wealth, then you would tell people you "became" rich. It is the same with scripture, if men were born filthy, then you would not say they have "become" filthy. But if men are born clean and afterward sin, then you would rightly say they have "become" filthy.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Here is a famous verse used to prove men are born sinners, which actually refutes original sin when rightly interpreted.

No piece of clothing starts as a filthy rag. All clothes start out clean and whole, but through use become filthy and torn.

No leaf ever starts out brown and dead, 100% of all leaves start out green and alive, but only later turn brown and die.

People let false doctrine blind them. The scriptures do not teach we are born sinners or dead in sin, they say we are born upright but become filthy in sin in time.

 

[percho]

And you are wrong yet again. You need to READ your Bible instead of parroting what someone else told you.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Jesus had just picked up a little child and set him in the midst of the disciples. Jesus told his disciples they must be converted and become "as little children" to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus did not specify any particular children here, he simply said his disciples must be converted and become as little children.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Is Jesus speaking of specific children here, or ALL children? If you are honest you will admit this must mean all children. And now in verse 6 Jesus speaking of these same little children says they believe in him.

So they are not guilty of unbelief as you falsely teach. You need to STUDY.

I think it means the exact same thing as John 3. To enter the kingdom of God/Heaven ye must be born again. Become a child of Spirit the God.

 

[percho]

Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus, Peter said that David wasn't writing concerning himself when he wrote, "thou will not leave my soul in Hades neither will me flesh see corruption," that this was speaking of the resurrection of the soul of Jesus from Hades and the flesh of Jesus resurrected incorruptible, no more to return to corruption.

Jesus the only one who has ever lived so resurrected from the dead. There had been other resurrections but none of them were construed as being born as was Jesus. See Rom.1:4, Col. 1:18 Rev. 1:5, Acts 13:30,33. Death/Hades if read from Ps.116:3 giving birth Acts 2:24

Peter said more about David. He said David was both dead and buried and his sepulchre was right there among them. David wasn't speaking himself but of the Christ who would come from his loins. The soul David on that day, fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus was still in Hades and the flesh of David was among them in the sepulchre he was laid in and according to Acts 13:36 had seen corruption.

Now David had said he could not bring his innocent child back from the dead but that he could go to him.

Where was this innocent child on that day?

 

[Winman]

Fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus, Peter said that David wasn't writing concerning himself when he wrote, "thou will not leave my soul in Hades neither will me flesh see corruption," that this was speaking of the resurrection of the soul of Jesus from Hades and the flesh of Jesus resurrected incorruptible, no more to return to corruption.

Jesus the only one who has ever lived so resurrected from the dead. There had been other resurrections but none of them were construed as being born as was Jesus. See Rom.1:4, Col. 1:18 Rev. 1:5, Acts 13:30,33. Death/Hades if read from Ps.116:3 giving birth Acts 2:24

Peter said more about David. He said David was both dead and buried and his sepulchre was right there among them. David wasn't speaking himself but of the Christ who would come from his loins. The soul David on that day, fifty days after the resurrection of Jesus was still in Hades and the flesh of David was among them in the sepulchre he was laid in and according to Acts 13:36 had seen corruption.

Now David had said he could not bring his innocent child back from the dead but that he could go to him.

Where was this innocent child on that day?

Until Jesus ascended and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat in heaven, all saints had to wait in paradise or "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16).

This is why Paul said if Jesus be not raised ye are still in your sins.

1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

It was not enough for Jesus to spill out his blood at Calvary, he had to rise from the dead and sprinkle that blood on the mercy seat in heaven. Only then were men's sins forgiven and they were allowed to ascend to heaven.

So, this is where David and his dead son's souls were waiting, in paradise or Abraham's Bosom.

 

[percho]

Somebody help me out.

 

[Iconoclast]

Somebody help me out.

Sure:wavey: You just need to realize that Winman is not looking for truth or to actually study this out.he has an agenda,and offers out of context verses such as eccl7:29 for the 80th time, even though many have offered him correction......he does not want it:laugh:

if God sent the apostles back...Winman would tell them these same ideas...no matter what they said.

 

[webdog]

Sure:wavey: You just need to realize that Winman is not looking for truth or to actually study this out.he has an agenda,and offers out of context verses such as eccl7:29 for the 80th time, even though many have offered him correction......he does not want it:laugh:

if God sent the apostles back...Winman would tell them these same ideas...no matter what they said.

These kind of posts are completely uncalled for. The same could be said of your view, btw.

 

[percho]

Until Jesus ascended and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat in heaven, all saints had to wait in paradise or "Abraham's Bosom" (Luke 16).

This is why Paul said if Jesus be not raised ye are still in your sins.

1 Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

It was not enough for Jesus to spill out his blood at Calvary, he had to rise from the dead and sprinkle that blood on the mercy seat in heaven. Only then were men's sins forgiven and they were allowed to ascend to heaven.

So, this is where David and his dead son's souls were waiting, in paradise or Abraham's Bosom.

What my post states is; 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus the soul of David was dead in Hades and his corrupted flesh was laying in a tomb somewhere around where Peter was preaching.

That was the condition of soul and body of David 50 days after the resurrection of Jesus. The same also for his innocent baby son. David went to his son and they were both dead in Hades.

Christ was the one who had been taken from Hades, not David.

 

[HisWitness]

You are correct,AMY G,

in romans 3:23 it says that all men sinned at one point in time.When he sinned we sinned in Him.I have shown this to Winman and others several times, but they willing resist the truth on this.



This is what it says, this is what it teaches.It will never change.:thumbs::thumbs:

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs

 

[HisWitness]

When the angels fell, keeping not their first estate, there was never any proposals to ransom them, for each of those spiritual beings fell in his own individual capacity, and fell hopelessly. But the human race was a unit, represented by one head, Adam, yet here is the mercy of it, it left a way open by which we might be restored; for, if we fell by one Adam, there remained a posssibility of our rising by another Adam, CHRIST.

its not a possibility or a way open friend--IN LIKE MANNER the scriptures says--all condemned through 1 man and all will have mercy through 1 man Christ-- this is why people are starting to reject this portion of scripture here because some are see the truth in that if the first part is through one man then in like manner the second is through one man--so therefore they are totally rejecting the whole portion of the scripture because they refuse to see the Great Truth of what Christ's offering REALLY accomplished:jesus:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Sure:wavey: You just need to realize that Winman is not looking for truth or to actually study this out.he has an agenda,and offers out of context verses such as eccl7:29 for the 80th time, even though many have offered him correction......he does not want it:laugh:

if God sent the apostles back...Winman would tell them these same ideas...no matter what they said.

Does it ever cross your mind that perhaps your arguments are simply not as convincing as you think they are? Do you consider that it is possible, that perhaps your arguments are not near as slam-dunk as you think they are? You assume a "willing refusal"--does something in you prevent you from considering the possiblility that your posts simply aren't as brilliant as you think they are?
Your Romans 3:23 argument (for instance) is possibly the lamest argument in support of your theology I have heard in a while. You find it convincing, of course, because you already assume it is true.

Icon, the apostles WOULD be convincing, so also MANY other Theologians and teachers and Christians who hold to Original Guilt....You...simply aren't always that convincing, I'm sorry to tell you. That doesn't reflect negatively on Winman's intellectual honesty or on his teachability....it reflects the fact that you have simply been unable to demonstrate your points to reasonable satisfaction.

The difference between you and others sometimes is that when someone doesn't buy their arguments, most people seek to know how they might make them better, study more, or phrase them more convincingly....They wonder how they might do a better job of presenting their side of the issues. You simply wonder what in the world is possibly WRONG with that person.

 

[Iconoclast]

HeirofSalvation

Your Romans 3:23 argument (for instance) is possibly the lamest argument in support of your theology I have heard in a while. You find it convincing, of course, because you already assume it is true.

You can feel however you want to...but you cannot accept the plain truth of romans 3:23/5:12.....all sinned as a completed action in time past...one point in time. Your whining and accusations will never change it.

All sinned...all died in Adam.....you cannot answer to it, your ideas have no place for it.....that is your issue, not mine:wavey:

The argument is "not Mine"...it has been known and understood in the church for a long time. Looks as if you are out of bullets:thumbs::wavey: I could tell when you start throwing rocks toward me:wavey:

The
root
of man’s sinfulness is his corporate identification with Adam’s sin,
for “all have sinned,” v. 23a.
(a)
A more precise translation here reads, “For all sinned,” emphasizing the
aorist tense, which lumps together all of mankind into a single class.
Furthermore, in contrast with the present tense of, “and are falling
short of the glory of God,” there is strong inference here that man as a
corporate race is perceived as having sinned from the beginning with
Adam (cf. 5:12 where “sin” is usedin the same aoristic manner).
1

Have sinned (ἥμαρτον)

Aorist tense: sinned, looking back to a thing definitely past - the historic occurrence of sin.

This reconciliation or atonement is ours in Christ in the same way sin, condemnation, and death became ours in Adam (implied). Hence, Paul uses Adam as a model, type, or a pattern of Christ [v. 14, last part]. The reason why Adam’s sin brought universal death is “because all sinned” in Adam, our father and representative, and not like Adam, our personal sins.

Note: In his commentary on Romans, John Murray gives five reasons why Paul meant in Adam and not like Adam:

Historically, not all die because they sinned like Adam. For example, babies have no personal sins, yet they die.

The use of the aorist tense implies a once-for-all act in the past. Compare this with Romans 3:23 (“all sinned,” i.e., in the past, also in the aorist tense, and “all are coming short of God’s glory” [i.e., sinning personally], in the present continuous tense).

In verses 13 and 14 (immediate context), the people who lived from Adam to Moses were dying (i.e., before God gave mankind His law as a legal code), even though their sins were unlike Adam’s deliberate transgression of a law [Gen. 2:16,17].

In verses 15-18 (unit context) Paul makes it clear that all men are judged, condemned, and die because of Adam’s sin, with no mention of their personal sins.

Paul is using Adam as a pattern or a type of Christ in Romans 5:12-21 [v. 14b]. If we insist that all die because we all sinned personally like Adam; for this analogy to fit Christ, we would have to teach that all live because all have obeyed personally like Christ. Not only is this the very opposite of Paul’s thought, but we would be guilty of making him teach legalism, something he fought against vehemently.





Wesley's Notes

3:23 For all have sinned - In Adam, and in their own persons; by a sinful nature, sinful tempers, and sinful actions. And are fallen short of the glory of God - The supreme end of man; short of his image on earth, and the enjoyment of him in heaven.


The continuous present tense here indicates that man sins on a day by
day basis and not merely occasionally. His sinning is an inevitable result
of sin as a principle. Because he is a child of Adam, he
will sin, though he does so agreeably. Man can only walk along a straight line in a crooked manner; he staggers on and on as if intoxicated, and that being under the influence of sin.


To sin is to act contrary to the will and law of God. Everybody is born into Adam and thus all sinned for when he sinned, for he acted as the representative for all his descendants. Men are not only sinners by nature, but are also sinners by practice and thus continually fall short (see below), in committing sin themselves. Thus there is a universal need for the gospel, which is thankfully mercifully universally available!

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).

 

[Iconoclast]

These kind of posts are completely uncalled for. The same could be said of your view, btw.

This is what is uncalled for: from winman----

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

Here, Solomon says he has found that God has made man upright, which means sinless or righteous, but "they" (plural, speaking of all men) have sought out many inventions. In other words, men are born sinless but soon go out and become sinners. The sin comes from within the man himself, it is his own invention.

This is a flat out denial of scripture:wavey:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

You can feel however you want to...but you cannot accept the plain truth of romans 3:23/5:12

I accept the plain truth of both passages....Romans chapter 5 has been discussed already in some detail....Your statements about chapter 3:23 are loaded with supposition and presumption.

all sinned as a completed action in time past...one point in time.

Yes

Your whining and accusations will never change it.

This is mere trash-talk...I am not whining, but you clearly get upset when we do not all bow to your "correction"

All sinned...all died in Adam.....you cannot answer to it, your ideas have no place for it.....that is your issue, not mine:wavey:

This is where you simply make pure unwarranted supposition....Adam is not mentioned at ANY point in the entire chapter Icon, not once. Zero, Zilch, Nada. What the Chapter does say, and repeatedly...is that individuals have purposed to DO wicked things, and become wicked see here:
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
Rom 3:13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit;
Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:

The argument is "not Mine"...

No, you do not make your own original arguments, you copy/paste the select readings and renderings of others who have taught you to believe as they do. As I said, you are Confession-first:Scripture-second, you reinforce that here:

it has been known and understood in the church for a long time.

Q.E.D.
You appear to have no idea what you are talking about when you say "The Church" has "known" something. All that means historically, is that the particular sub-set of Christian Theologians from your particular ethno-social tradition have believed this in a majority for a signifigant period of time. Certainly, No one in the Eastern or Orthodox traditions believes as you do, and decidedly, not every-one in even your particular tradition has (though most have). You have little idea how ethno-centric and limited this statement of yours is.

Looks as if you are out of bullets:thumbs::wavey:

This is an inane statement.

I could tell when you start throwing rocks toward me:wavey:

No one was throwing "rocks" at you, Sigmund. You are being thin-skinned today.
Your parrotted argument from Romans 3:23 is this:

Wesley's Notes

Godet agrees

MacDonald writes

Leon Morris writes

Vincent writes

John Murray gives

However, you have not in any way exegeted the passage, you simply quoted a few selections from YOUR PARTICULAR Point of View, the argument simply isn't that powerful, Icon because it is loaded with pre-supposition. You must understand that you are taking the particular grammatical form of the simple particle and extrapolated back to Adam in a chapter where Adam is not even mentioned. Whether or not your POV is correct, this is simply NOT a great argument for it....Many of your quotes come from "COMMENTARIES" anyway...it is the purpose of a Commentary to take some liberty and expound BASED UPON PRE-SUPPOSITION That's fine.
You hardly realize that Wesley doesn't exactly make your point either...you think he does, but you need to read your own source more carefully next time. You are actually reading your own supposition INTO your commentary too. I wouldn't appeal to Commentary to prove such a point, but you do. And yet, you are getting huffy and defensive because the entire board has not reacted to it by immediately swallowing it hook, line and sinker. Sorry Dude, make a better case.

 

[Aaron]

I knew this would turn into "What about infants?"

Conceived and born of corrupt parents, they are corrupt and unholy at conception, and those who die outside faith in Christ die in their sin.

God does not judge according to the outward appearance of cuddliness and innocence. He judges righteously.

 

[webdog]

I knew this would turn into "What about infants?"

Conceived and born of corrupt parents, they are corrupt and unholy at conception, and those who die outside faith in Christ die in their sin.

God does not judge according to the outward appearance of cuddliness and innocence. He judges righteously.

Finally someone who admits all infants are in hell. At least Error'in is consistent.

 

[webdog]

This is what is uncalled for: from winman----


This is a flat out denial of scripture:wavey:

So now it is uncalled for to disagree with YOUR understanding of Scripture...unless you are claiming to have written it? Win man has not only NOT denied any scripture you and others have given, he patiently has dealt with each and every one from how he understands it. You have falsely accused him (me and pretty much everyone else who doesn't agree with you) time and time again. This is wrong.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Finally someone who admits all infants are in hell. At least Error'in is consistent.

Agreed....I appreciate Aaron's intellectual honesty about what he believes. Infants (according to this scenario)....are created filthy and deserving of hell and soon after they are born (or in the case of abortion, which was VERY MUCH practiced in the Ancient World)...they go to eternal torment! From Momma's womb (which they never asked to enter) straight to eternal torture.

Folks....we finally have a consistent Calvinist on our hands :wavey::wavey::jesus:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

So now it is uncalled for to disagree with YOUR understanding of Scripture... Win man has not only NOT denied any scripture you and others have given, he patiently has dealt with each and every one from how he understands it. You have falsely accused him (me and pretty much everyone else who doesn't agree with you) time and time again. This is wrong.

This could not be more rightly stated....Winman does LITTLE but counter arguments STRAIGHT from Scripture (as he understands it)....Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right. But he simply exegetes Scripture as he knows it, and debates based on the Scripture ALONE...He's the most "Sola Scriptura" person in this debate.

He's their whipping-boy only because that is PRECISELY what he does. He is assaulted by CONSTANT abuse due to his tenacity in responding ONLY via his understanding of Scripture, and it infuriates his opposition. This is one of the reasons that although I disagree with him on some points....I find HIM convincing and others, not near as much. So, they get enraged when Win makes some arguments from Scripture. Good for them. I've never seen them really counter MOST of his arguments from Scripture....I've seen them make "Appeals to authority", "Ad Hominems", and "Ad Bacculums"...but they rarely go straight to Scripture to refute him. It's quite sad.