Are men "born in sin"?

[CatholicConvert]

Original Sin isn't a "stain" on the soul. It isn't a positive presence of anything. It's a privation. Original Sin is the loss of the indwelling presence of the Blessed Trinity in the human soul. It's a lack thereof.

Carson --

I am wondering about something and would appreciate your input from your studies.

What you have described above sounds alot like being "dead". Calvinists speak of man as being naturally "dead in sin" and even of men and women being born that way.

If we take the Biblical definition of "dead" (which is NOT the Calvinist erroneous definition), "death" is the state of separation from God (Parable of the Prodigal). To be separated from life is to be dead, right? And since all life is in and from our God, to be severed from Him is to be "dead," right?

Therefore, it seems that mankind is "born dead" naturally because we are born into that state of "original sin" which is the separation from God which is the inheritance Adam left his progeny. And being "born again" is simply coming to unite with the life giving God and have His life -- real life -- as ours.

Thus, if we are "dead" (separated from God) at birth by Adam's sin, we are indeed born with Original Sin (or perhaps Original Separation?)

Your comments or corrections, please?

Thanks,

Brother Ed

PS...to Neal....the Orthodox view of man is the same as the Roman view. Man is not "totally depraved" and "dead" in the Calvinistic sense. He is severely damaged by sin and cannot, without the grace and aid of God, do anything of himself to earn Heaven or repair himself.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Jerry,

You continue to misrepresent what I say. I never said that heaven is attainable apart from the grace of God.

I am not misrepresenting what you have said. You are condoning the idea that infants attain heaven apart from the redemption gained by Christ as if immaculate human nature can attain heaven on its own apart from Christ (e.g., infants).

Those who read our dialogue can discern that you are dodging the implication of your interpretation.

Adam & Eve were not in heaven. They were on an Earthly Paradise, and so it follows that a person who never sinned would only attain to this sort of natural paradise. The supernatural life of heaven is what was merited by our Saviour's redemption, and if an individual does not receive this fruit of the redemption, they cannot attain to heaven, thus the need of infants to receive the redemption of Jesus Christ to attain heaven.

Your position is entirely Pelagian because you believe that infants apart from Christ can attain heaven when heaven can only be attained because of what Jesus Christ did on the cross.

It's ironic that in your supposed defense of the Gospel, you have cheapened the Gospel.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
You are condoning the idea that infants attain heaven apart from the redemption gained by Christ as if immaculate human nature can attain heaven on its own apart from Christ (e.g., infants).

Carson,

Have you ever considered the implication of the teaching of Rome in regard to those who die as infants?

An infant dies,and he dies when he does not know right from wrong.He is absolutely innocent.Why should the poor creature be sent to everlasting punishment?

Rome presents a God who is unjust,unloving and cruel who would send an innocent and helpless infant to destruction.By her theology Rome presents to the world a God who is unreasonable,arbitrary,and capricious who will change an infants eternal destiny if a few drops of water are sprinkled upon it,accompained by the utterance of a few words.

Not only this,the God which Rome presents to the world will employ and recognizes agents (the Roman priest) no matter what their character and life may be.O yes,we are supposed to believe that the pedophiles priests of Rome are the Lord's agents who can sprinkle water on an infant and utter some cabalistic words and presto--the infant is headed for heaven instead of hell if he dies.

But yet this gross and misrepresentation of God is an essential part of the teaching of Rome.Is it any wonder that nonbelievers flee in horror at such profane teaching?

And you still have not answered my post on the thread "The 'Pagan' roots of the 'Traditions' of Rome".You attempted to undermine my credibility but all you did was call the words of the Father of the Second Vatican Council "trash".

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Yelsew]

Adam & Eve were not in heaven. They were on an Earthly Paradise, and so it follows that a person who never sinned would only attain to this sort of natural paradise. The supernatural life of heaven is what was merited by our Saviour's redemption, and if an individual does not receive this fruit of the redemption, they cannot attain to heaven, thus the need of infants to receive the redemption of Jesus Christ to attain heaven.

Since it is appointed unto man "once to die, then the Judgment", and

Since an infant cannot due to the way that God made us, "come to faith by hearing the word of God",

then the infant faces Judgment. Since the infant has not sinned, the Infant will be found "not guilty" of sinning and thus the infant is sprared from the Lake of fire and is given over to Jesus for eternal life. Without sin, one is righteous!

Of course the Apostles tell us that the Faith of the parent is sufficient for the "household", Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house! I wonder if it works the opposite for unbelieving parents? I don't think so, because in spite of the faith condition of the parents, the undefiled infant remains "righteous" in God's eyes.

Is the fate of the child conceived in sin death? Or must the child actually do the sin in order to receive the wage for it?

Then, one must also remember the purpose for Jesus, the Christ to die on the Cross, and that is to take away the sins of the world. So once again, the infant who has not sinned cannot be charged for sin because Jesus paid the penalt for sin whether or not committed.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ed,

I agree with your post.

Hi Jerry,

Have you ever considered the implication of the teaching of Rome in regard to those who die as infants?

No, I never have. I just take what's taught to me in a rote manner without thought - like a zombie - and never consider the implications.

An infant dies,and he dies when he does not know right from wrong. He is absolutely . Why should the poor creature be sent to everlasting punishment?

This is why theologians have formulated the theological speculation of Limbo.

By her theology Rome presents to the world a God who is unreasonable,arbitrary,and capricious

Now you're starting to sound like a Seventh Day Adventist.

Jerry, no infant could ever attain heaven - even without the stain of particular sin. Heaven can only be acquired as a supernatural gift of God by grace.

Your assumption is that we somehow "deserve" heaven - even if we never sin. This is Pelagian.

 

[Frank]

Carson,
No one is advocating someone deserves heaven. It is unmerited favor. You cannot use the scriptures to prove infants are born sinners. God has paid for all sin ( I John 2:2). he paid for the sins of those under the old covnenat who did not even knwo Christ when they were subject to the Law of Moses ( Hebrews 9:15-17). Are you saying becsue of ignoracne they get a free pass,as they could not obey the gospel to be saved ( Hebrews 5:8,9). The gospel of Christ is God;s power to save ( Romasn 1:16).Yet, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob are saved before the gospel ( Mt. 8;11). How? A free pass, or is it by the standard of law under which they lived? If it is by their faith under that law. What law does an unborn infant LIVE under. What sin does he commit (I John 3:4). The Bible says in Gal 5:19,20,Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Furthermore, the Bible says in Luke 16:18,Luke 18:16  But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Your theolgy makes forces Luke to make the inspired message read " suffer the little devils to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God. Your doctrine of original sin is false and cannot be harmonized with the totality of the inspired evidence.

Jesus was made of a woman ( Gal. 4:4,5). This would make Christ a sinner. This contradicts the words as theyare found in I Pet. 2:21,22. The Bible says in those passages  For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
Of course, this forces you to accept another false doctrine of the immaculate conception. This one is based on BOOK 000, CHAPTER 000, VERSE 000. Oh, what tangled webs false doctrines weave.

 

[Frank]

Carson,

No one is advocating someone deserves heaven. It is unmerited favor that grants heaven. God has paid for all sin ( I John 2:2). He paid for the sins of those under the old covenant who did not even know Christ when they were subject to the Law of Moses ( Hebrews 9:15-17). Are you saying because of ignorance they get a free pass,as they could not obey the gospel to be saved ( Hebrews 5:8,9). The gospel of Christ is God's power to save ( Romans 1:16).Yet, Abraham, Issac, and Jacob are saved before the gospel ( Mt. 8;11). How? A free pass, or is it by the standard of law under which they lived? If it is by their faith under that law. What law does an unborn infant LIVE under. What sin does he commit (I John 3:4)? The Bible says in Gal 5:19,20, Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Furthermore, the Bible says in Luke 18:16,  But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
17  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Your theology forces Luke to make the inspired message read " suffer the little devils to come unto me and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God. Your doctrine of original sin is false and cannot be harmonized with the totality of the inspired evidence.

Jesus was made of a woman ( Gal. 4:4,5). This would make Christ a sinner. This contradicts the words as they are found in I Pet. 2:21,22. The Bible says in those passages  For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Of course, this forces you to accept another false doctrine of the immaculate conception. This one is based on BOOK 000, CHAPTER 000, VERSE 000. Oh, what a tangled web false doctrines weave.

 

[Frank]

I had to say it twice.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
This is why theologians have formulated the theological speculation of Limbo.

Carson,

Did King David think that he was going to "limbo" when he said these words in regard to his child who had died?

"And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me"(2Sam.12:23).

Of course David was not speaking of some man-made idea of "limbo".He knew that he was "saved" (Ps.16:10;Ro.4:6-8),so when he was speaking of going to his child who had died he was speaking of seeing his child in a place of salvation.

I just take what's taught to me in a rote manner without thought - like a zombie - and never consider the implications.

I wish that you would give me some evidence that you are only kidding.So far I have seen none.Obvioisly you do not want to consider the implications of the meaning of the word "re-generation" or the meaning of being "born again" in the Spirit.

Heaven can only be acquired as a supernatural gift of God by grace.

Yes,the believer is justified freely by His grace.So why does Rome teach that the believer must "merit" all the graces needed to attain eternal life?:

"No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods"(Catechism #2027).

If one must "merit" eternal life,then it is clear that eyernal life is not a free gift that comes unto all and upon all who believe.A free gift comes to those who are not "entitled" to that free gift.

But the word "merit" means "something that entitles to reward".

If one must do "works" to merit salvation,then the reward is no longer of grace.

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace"(Ro.11:6).

Your assumption is that we somehow "deserve" heaven - even if we never sin. This is Pelagian.

Rome teaches that one can "merit" salvation,so in effect they are teaching that one can "somehow deserve heaven".This is Pelagian !

In His grace,--Jerry

[ November 17, 2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Jerry Shugart ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Jerry,

Jews did not have a clear revelation of the afterlife. There were different schools of thought regarding whether there would even be a physical resurrection of the body, and generally, Israelities referred to the place after death as Hb. Sheol (Shay-ohl), Gk. Hades, and Eng. Hell, which was also referred to as the Bosom of Abraham.

Quoting an Israelite with regard to the nature of the afterlife after receiving the blessing of Christian revelation is like going to a Medieval doctor for an opinion on which type of reconstructive surgery to choose for your busted knee.

Obvioisly you do not want to consider the implications of the meaning of the word "re-generation" or the meaning of being "born again" in the Spirit.

Jerry, you're being antagonistic. I have considered the implications, and I have already given the etymology of the word as well as its implications in my previous post above.

Enough of the empty, repetitive polemics. Respond to what I wrote specifically instead of blindly repeating these mantras as if mere repetition is convincing.

So why does Rome teach that the believer must "merit" all the graces needed to attain eternal life?: "No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods"(Catechism #2027)

Did you just cut/paste this paragraph from an Anti-Catholic website or did you read it in context?

What do you think "moved by the Holy Spirit" means?

Read CCC #2011, which precedes #2027:

"2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently
their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earths exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone ... In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself (St. Therese of Lisieux).

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:6).

You've just quoted the Roman Catholic Council of Trent:

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether fait or works—merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace (Trent, Decree Concerning Justification, Ch. 8).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Quoting an Israelite with regard to the nature of the afterlife after receiving the blessing of Christian revelation is like going to a Medieval doctor for an opinion on which type of reconstructive surgery to choose for your busted knee.

Hi Carson,

The subject we are discussing is whether or not an infant is saved if he dies.And King David,who knew that he was saved,also knew that he would be with his dead baby in the afterlife.So David knew that his baby was in a state of salvation:

"And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me"(2Sam.12:23).

I have considered the implications, and I have already given the etymology of the word as well as its implications in my previous post above.

You just ignored what I said in regard to the meaning of the term "born again" and "regeneration".

The Lord Jesus said that a man cannot see the Kingdom of God unless he is "born again".

This born again experience is not in regard to being "born again" from the mother's womb,but instead it is in reference to being "born of the Spirit"(Jn.3:8).

The word "again" means "once more".

So if one is "born again of the Spirit" then that means that one must have been born first of the Spirit.One cannot be "born again of the Spirit" unless he was before "born of the Spirit".

The prefix "re" in the word "regeneration" means "a prefix indication repetition".One cannt be "regenerated" unless he has previously been "generated".

Did you just cut/paste this paragraph from an Anti-Catholic website or did you read it in context?

The context in which it was written does not change the fact that Rome teaches that the believer can "merit" for himself all the graces needed to obtain eternal life.

The word "merit" means "something which entitles to reward".

And if anyone is "entitled" to eternal life,then that means that the Lord is "in debt" to give that reward to that person.But Paul makes it plain that if the Lord is "in debt" in regard to any reward,then that reward is no longer of "grace":

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not recokoned of grace,but of debt"(Ro.4:4).

Make no mistake about it,Rome teaches that in order to "attain" salvation one must observe the Ten Commandments.They teach that aided by the Holy Spirit one must observe the Ten Commandments in order to "merit" for themselves all the graces needed to obtain eternal life.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

[Frank]

Jerry:
You have made good points in this thread. It is true men are not born sinners. This is simply making God unmerciful.
Consider Adam and Eve. God told them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. However, according to the original sin folk God made them sin by making them eat it because God made them sinners.
In short, that would be like me telling my kids do not eat that chocolate, and then forcing them to eat it. Then , as a result of them eatiing it, I beat the stuffings out of them. This is the God of those who espouse this nonsense.

Furthermore, I doubt you will see any response to the scriptures I posted about this subject.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Frank,

You did indeed list some very good Scriptual verses that demonstrate that an infant is not born in sin.Here they are again and I challenge anyone to address anyone of the verses:

1. Scripture plainly teaches that sin is not inherited. “. . . the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father . . .” (Ezek. 18:20); every person is responsible for his own conduct (Rom. 14:12).
2. Human sinfulness commences in that period of one’s life that is characterized as “youth” (Gen. 8:21; Jer. 3:25).
3. A child must reach a certain level of maturity before be is able to choose between evil and good (Isa. 7:15, 16).
4. The qualities of little children are set forth as models for those who would aspire to enter the kingdom (Matt. 18:3; 19:14), and for those already in the church (1 Cor. 14:2O). Surely the Lord was not suggesting that we emulate little, totally corrupt sinners!
5. The human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, it is given by God (Eccl. 12:7; Heb. 12:9). Hence, at birth it must be as pure as the source from whence it comes.
6. Children are referred to as “innocents” (Jer. 19:4; cf. 22:3).
7. No interpretation can be assigned to any passage comprised of poetical or figurative language (including Ps. 51:5) which makes it contradict clear doctrinal statements elsewhere framed in prose. The Scriptures plainly teach that one commences to do evil from the time of his “youth,” not from the point of conception (cf. Gen. 8:21; Job 13:26; Jer. 32:30).
Clearly, babies are not born in sin.

Amen.

Well done,Frank!

In His grace,--Jerry