Are we born spiritually dead?

I get it now. When God said "in the day that you eat of it" He really meant "sometime within 1,000 years after you eat of it".

What was I thinking? It's so obvious - and I'm sure Adam had read 2 Peter and made the same connection you did, so he knew exactly what he was getting into.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2 Pet 3:8] But there is one thing, my dear friends, that you must never forget: that with the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AND
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gen 5:4 Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he fathered sons and daughters.
Gen 5:5 In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though long lived, Adam died!

I don't see the connection here? Are you saying that 930 years are like a moment to God since a day is like a thousand years?

Or are you simply saying that Adam died because his once innocent nature had been engulfed in the sin nature and that the wages of sin is death, whether or no he were to ever sin again, it remained he must die, even as we, because man is born spiritually dead, he is unable to prevent the physical death and though the spirit can be quickened by the Grace of God, still yet the flesh is subject to the wages of sin.

I think this particular aspect of reality gives you free-willing Arminians a head-banging migraine while at the same time fostering in your very being a rush of adrenaline which Nimrod must have felt while engaged in the hunt; you know Nimrod, he began to be a mighty one in the earth, wonder why the Bible particularizes this? He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel.



Bro. Dallas

 

Explain how man is born spiritually dead!

Then explain how "the life of the flesh is spirit"

You see, if the spirit is dead, the flesh must also be dead!

 

Explain how man is born spiritually dead!

Then explain how "the life of the flesh is spirit"

You see, if the spirit is dead, the flesh must also be dead! </font>[/QUOTE]Spiritually speaking man is a sinner, it is your (and my) iniquities that separate us from God. The flesh is dead, apart from the life force of the spirit; this force is given to man from God, but man inherits by the flesh a sinful nature which permeates his entire being, even body, spirit and soul.

Bro. Dallas

 

Excuse me for interrupting, but you know this cannot be, for if so, you shoot yourself in the foot either way, you claim man is not born depraved and must progress into sin, yet we some infants die having not yet reached a rational age and ability to choose sin, yet you desire to say that man does not die until he rebels against the law of God, I say man is born in open rebellion against God.

The elect Apostle Paul agrees with me.

Bro. Dallas

 

I believe that believers are dead to sin, we have, after all, died with Christ and been raised with Christ.

You are placing too much emphasis on the literal with this topic, IMHO.

Deal with the explanation as to why my wife once miscarried a child after 5 weeks of pregnancy, at which time a life was lost, in your assumption an innocent life without sin, and thus should not have been subject to the wages of sin. Or as to why others witness the birth of their child, but only witness the life for brief moments.

Maybe if you can convince of these chose to enter into rebellion against God by their own choice to harden themselves, then I may listen a little closer to your argument.

God Bless.
Bro. dallas

 

That wasn't an accusation. I just read your posts as saying man progresses by gradations into a hardened sin nature. The post I replied to initially asked Aki whether Adam did not truly die until after he actually rebelled against the Law of God. But in truth, and I believe you know this, man lost the innocence he possessed at his creation. Only after this fall is there any mention of Adam knowing his wife and of her conceiving. This shows the imputation of the sin nature and the inability for man to claim any longer any resemblance to a 'free-will' which would permit his coming to God through Christ that he might be saved.

Bro. dallas

 

it could have been a case. however, God in His sovereignty decided to impute Adam's sin and get each person spiritually dead at birth.

if God imputes Adam sin to an individual, God cannot wait for the individual's first personal sin before condemning him. it is how God's justice works. when something does not meet His rigtheousness, God outrightly condemns it.

"God did not wait!"

 

Amen! Brother Aki.

Bro. Dallas

 

AKI,

Would you be so kind as to prove that God imputed Adam's sin into Adam's lineage?

 

From - members.aol.com/ImBaptCh/dos.htm

The Doctrine of Original Sin
by Steve Cowan, Pastor
Immanuel Baptist Church
Fayetteville, Arkansas

When one looks out into the world, one of the most startling observations is that of the universality of sin. There is not one culture, not even one person, that has gone without committing wrongful acts toward God and man. In history, of course, one is prone to notice the evil done by important figures such as Nero and Hitler. Yet these are merely extreme examples of what is obviously a common tendency among all people. Even the most virtuous persons have not acted virtuously in every instance. At some time, everyone has acted selfishly, maliciously, or impiously.

The Scriptures, too, attest to the universality of sin. The Apostle Paul writes that "there is no one righteous, not even one" (Rom. 3:10) and "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). I Kings 8:46 says that "there is no one who does not sin." There can be no doubt that experience and Scripture both teach that sin is a universal occurrence among human beings.

Why is it that sin is so prevalent? Why cannot we find even one exception, one person (besides Christ) who has not sinned? The answer to this question is found in the Church's doctrine of Original Sin. This brief essay will discuss the meaning of original sin as well as outline the various ways in which this doctrine has been understood in church history. One of these ways will be shown to be the best view in light of the biblical data.


The Meaning of "Original Sin"

Original Sin does not refer to the first (i.e., Adam's) sin. Rather, it refers to the result of that first sin. Adam was created righteous and in God's holy image (Gen. 1 and 2). He had, as Augustine explained long ago, a perfectly free will; he was able to choose either good or evil. Yet, Adam used his free choice to choose sin (Gen. 3:16). There is no explanation as to why he so chose. All one can know is that his choice was freely made. Neither God nor Satan forced him to sin.

As a result of Adam's sin, the whole human race has been plunged into darkness. Man's whole nature has been corrupted so that all men are predisposed toward, and guilty of, sin. This is what is meant by original sin. As Anthony Hoekema explains, original sin includes both guilt and pollution. The guilt aspect has to do with the fact that all of mankind somehow participates in the sin of Adam. How this happens will be discussed later, but suffice it to say now that all men stand condemned before God because of the guilt they share with Adam. Scripture makes this abundantly clear in Romans 5:14-19. Paul writes that "death reigned from the time of Adam...even over those who did not sin by breaking a command" (v. 14); "the judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (on all)" (v. 16); "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (v. 18); and "through the disobedience of the one man, many were made sinners" (v. 19). Also in I Corinthians 15:22 Paul writes, "in Adam all die." All of this shows that the spiritual and physical death suffered as a consequence of sin has been applied to all men because of Adam's one sin. This does not mean that Adam's descendants are being unduly held accountable for his sin. What is being said is that in some way (which, again, will be discussed later) all men participated in Adam's sin so that all are actually guilty.

The pollution aspect of original sin concerns man's sinful nature. This is the aspect that accounts for the universality of sin. Because of the Fall, man is no longer both able to sin and able to not sin. He is only able to sin. The entire inclination of his being is toward sin and rebellion. Man, as Calvin claimed, is "totally depraved." Jeremiah asserts that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt" (Jer. 17:9; see also Mk. 7:21-23). Paul declares: "All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is none good, not even one" (Rom. 3:12, Ps. 14:2-3). Unregenerate men are slaves to sin (Rom. 6:17, 20; John 8:34). By his very nature, man is an object of divine wrath (Eph. 2:3).

Furthermore, man's mind has been corrupted (Eph. 4:18), and he cannot understand the things of God (I Cor. 2:14). This inherent corruption in man exists from the very first moment of his existence. David claimed he was "sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5), and Genesis 8:21 affirms that "man's heart is evil from his youth."

Of course, when it is said that man is totally depraved, this should not be taken to mean that people never do anything positive or good, or that one is always as bad as he could possibly be. All people occasionally do things that benefit others. What total depravity means is that even man's righteous deeds "are as filthy rags" (Is. 64:6). Nothing is done without some taint of sin; of what Jonathan Edwards called "enlightened self-interest." A person may do some outwardly good deed, but deep in his heart there is some motivating factor that serves the self. He does the good deed because it is expedient for himself at the time. Thus, for a deed to be truly good, in an ultimate sense, one's motives must also be good. Motivation is the crucial point at which everyone fails.

This problem of apparent "good" deeds can also be explained by the fact that man tends to describe goodness in relative rather than absolute terms. A man is said to be good relative to other men. For example, compared to Adolf Hitler, it would be fair to say that Winston Churchill was a good man. However, the Bible speaks of goodness relative to God. Compared to Him, no man, no matter how praise-worthy his actions, can be called good (c.f. Lk. 18:19).

So, the Biblical view of Fallen Man is that he exists in a state of moral corruption. His whole being is inclined toward sin so that he is unable, in his own power, to please or know God. He cannot even choose God of his own volition (John 6:44,65).

The Pelagian Heresy

The Doctrine of Original Sin, as outlined above, has not gone unchallenged, however. Perhaps the strongest opposing view (and one which often recurs today) was put forth by a British monk named Pelagius in the early fifth century. His view could be called the "imitation" or "sociological" theory of original sin. In actuality, this is not a theory of original sin at all, but simply an attempt to explain the universality of sin without involving Adam's descendants in their father's evil act. Pelagius held that Adam's fall did not pollute his descendants, nor were they guilty of his sin. Each person is born innocent just as Adam was, and is free to sin or not sin as he wills. The fact that all people do in fact sin is due to the bad example that Adam set for mankind. Every person inevitably imitates Adam's transgressions because he is born into an environment permeated by the sin of his predecessors. Pelagius was drawn to this view because he felt that original sin lead logically to the idea that mankind is unjustly punished for the sin of another. Therefore, he taught that each person started life in innocence and then sinned on his own before being condemned by God.

Nevertheless, the imitation theory must be rejected. There are several reasons for this:

1) It is contrary to Scripture. Nothing could be plainer in the Scriptures than the corporate solidarity of all mankind in the sin of Adam. The crux of the argument between Pelagius and Augustine on this matter revolved around the interpretation of the last phrase in Romans 5:12: "Because all sinned." Pelagius said that this phrase indicated that death came to all men because all men sinned on their own. Augustine believed it meant that all died because all sinned in Adam. Though there is nothing in the grammar of this phrase to preclude the Pelagian interpretation, the context clearly demands the Augustinian position. In verses 13 and 14 Paul states that death reigned over those "who had not sinned." On five occasions in verses 15 through 19, Paul asserts that condemnation comes to all men because of the one sin of the one man, Adam. Furthermore, throughout this passage, Paul is drawing an analogy between the righteousness imputed to believers because of the obedience of Christ and the death imputed to mankind because of Adam's disobedience. What is the point of this analogy if we do not really sin in Adam, but we are made righteous in Christ, the Second Adam?

2) It cannot account for the death of infants. If everyone is born innocent, and death is a punishment for sin, then there is no reason for infants (who have not sinned) to die. Yet, it is a fact that infants do die. This does not necessarily imply that deceased infants must go to Hell on the traditional view of original sin. It is possible that there is a special provision of God's grace for people who have not actually sinned. Nevertheless, the death of infants can only be explained if we assume they are not innocent of sin.

3) It begs the question. As R.C. Sproul points out, if everyone is born innocent, one ought to expect exceptions to the "universality" of sin. Why is it that no one ever chooses obedience if all are born with a neutral disposition? The appeal to societal influences (or imitation) is inadequate. How can society corrupt every individual until it becomes corrupt itself? And how can it become corrupt if there are some uncorrupt people who would choose not to corrupt it?

How, then, is Adam's sin imputed to all men? How is it that everyone is said to have participated in it? The two most prominent theories in this regard are the realist theory and the federal theory (sometimes called the "representative" or "direct imputation" theory).

The Realist Theory

Realism was held by Augustine and, perhaps, Calvin. It seeks to avoid, like Pelagius, the idea that someone can be held accountable for another's sin. Briefly stated, it claims that the guilt of Adam's sin is rightly charged to all men because all were actually present in Adam when he did it. Everyone, genetically speaking, was there in the loins of Adam. Therefore, since Adam physically encompassed all of his posterity, they are all guilty of his sin. Biblical support for this view is found in Hebrews 7:9-10, where Levi is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek because he was "in the body of his ancestor."

There are several problems with realism, however:

1) Hebrews 7:9-10 does not explicitly support this view. The author of the epistle qualifies his statement regarding Levi with the words "so to speak" (NASB), implying that his language is figurative rather than literal.

2) Realism does not really solve the problem of the relation between Adam's sin and his posterity. Even proponents of the view do not believe that everyone was present in Adam's body as individuals, nor do they participate in his sin personally. So, how can the whole human race really be guilty?

3) The analogy between Christ and Adam vitiates the realist theory. If there is no "realistic" or "genetic" connection between Christ and mankind, why must there be one between Adam and mankind? Everyone is not descended from Christ physically, yet his righteousness can be imputed to believers. Therefore, there need not be a realistic theory to account for the imputation of sin.

The Federal View

The federal theory is the only view that does true justice to the Biblical material. This view holds that when Adam sinned, he was acting as the legal representative of all mankind. He stands at the head of the human race as the prototype man. It is not without significance, therefore, that the name "Adam" is not only the first man's proper name, but can also denote "mankind" generally. Adam represents all men in the same way that an elected official is said to represent his constituents. He acts of their behalf, so that his "vote" in favor of sin was everyone's vote. Therefore, God imputes the consequences of Adam's sin--guilt and pollution--to all of his posterity. On this view, all of the Biblical statements about all sinning in Adam can be taken seriously, and without resorting to a realistic interpretation. We truly participated in Adam's sin, but in a representative rather that actual sense. The guilt mankind incurs is applied forensically and judicially.

The chief objection against this theory is that it is not fair. God would be unjust to let one man represent mankind on so serious an issue. Each person ought to stand on his own. This objection can be answered in two ways.

1) It assumes that God cannot choose a perfect representative. When voters choose someone to represent them the delegate may not accurately portray their views. When God chooses, however, one can be assured that He will choose someone who will perfectly represent his constituents. Adam acted as any man would have acted. To believe otherwise only reflects the extreme arrogance of fallen men.

2) It abrogates the analogy between Christ and Adam. Paul claims that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22). If it is wrong for Adam to represent mankind in the Garden, it is wrong for Christ to represent them on the cross. If each man must stand on his own in regard to the Fall, then each man must stand on his own in regard to salvation. That means that each man must work for his redemption--a clear repudiation of the Biblical teaching on salvation by grace alone.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Original Sin is an important aspect of Christian theology. It helps the believer understand the cause for the universality of sin and the way in which everyone inherits the guilt and sinful nature of Adam. It also shows man's need for redemption in Christ. Paul could not have said it better when he wrote: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19).


For Further Reading:

Edwards, Jonathan. On the Freedom of the Will
Hoekema, Anthony. Created in God's Image
Sproul, R.C. Chosen by God

 

Mr. Bill, you seem to have overlooked the obvious, which is the audience. I find that terribly interesting, since you have the tendency to narrow the audience to a Joe's third cousin twice-removed when it supports your bizarre doctrines to do so, yet you somehow completely miss the direct reference to the audience in unambiguous terms:

2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.

And then immediately after your quote... "16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren."

If he were describing the entire salvation process (as Paul does in Romans), it might make sense that he's talking about the unsaved in this passage. But the whole book is comprised of exhortations and warnings to believers, so that interpretation simply won't do.

Then what's this "death" we're talking about? How about physical death?

The above is not talking about temptation and sin, but disrespect for the significance of the Lord's supper, and a lack of love for the brethren. But the consequences are clear. God disciplines these believers by allowing them to become weak, sick, and die (fall asleep).

So your attempt to use James to say death follows later on fits perfectly with the rest of your doctrinces. It is entirely without merit.

 

Bill,

Absolutly not. Why? The words in greek are different.

James 1 uses the word thanaton (Death; be struck a deadly blow; leading to death; near death; in danger of death)

Ephesians 2 uses the word Nekros (Dead; lifeless; a dead person; corps; useless, ineffective)

Your entire premise about these words being related is wrong. Each have their own range of useage. They are probably not synonyms.

Similarly, if we are to take "Nekros" as analogous, we would also have to take the same word, as it relates to Jesus' death, etc. the same way. Now, I don't think you want to say that Jesus' death was an analogy...do you?

Again, you may try to derail our "Dead" arguements from Eph 2. However, you cannot do it using the above-quoted analogy. It simply is not allowed by the greek text.

Blessings,

Archangel

 

Well, I see you finally came around! The only way it could be impossible is if I am inclined to take jabs, and must follow my inclination. That would mean I do not have free will with respect to taking jabs. So for you to say that it is impossible for me to make an argument without taking jabs is to admit that calvinists are right. I'm glad you finally admit the truth.

To say unbelievers are tempted by their own desires would be to play down their condition. Unbelievers live by their own desires, because they are slaves to them. And, no, that does not bring forth death. Unbelievers are already dead.

The "give birth" stuff is just more of your debate nonsense. Just because one uses the same figure of speech to express two different points doesn't mean there's a connection between them.