• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

bibliology QUIZ

Do you believe in Errancy, Infallibility, or both and why?

  • Inerrancy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Infallibility

    Votes: 2 9.1%
  • Both

    Votes: 20 90.9%
  • None

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    22

Winman

Active Member
The thing is, Brother winman, is babies don't have to be taught to know how to lie, steal, pass the blame to others, etc. That's already instilled within them from their first father, Adam. However, they have to be repeatedly taught how to do the right thing. That's a sin nature acquired from the fall, and all are born with it.

Satan was created perfect, who taught him how to sin?

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

The fallen angels that were created with Satan were also "very good" (Gen 1:31) and yet they sinned.

Adam and Eve were very good, but Eve had lusts BEFORE she actually sinned and became corrupt.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

These are the three lusts of the world shown in 1 John 2:16, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. They are even shown in the exact order as shown in 1 John 2:16.

Jesus came in the flesh and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Having flesh that tempts us does not make us evil, it is when we obey these lusts when they transgress one of God's laws that we sin and become a sinner. If Eve had walked away from the tree of knowledge, she would have been no sinner, even though she was tempted by her flesh.

All that is necessary to sin is free will.

The scriptures say we LEARN sin from our fathers.

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

The scriptures say we received our vain or sinful lifestyle by tradition from our fathers.

Folks love to quote Psa 58:3 as proof of Original Sin;

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

First of all, this is hyperbole, no child ever born can immediately speak. It takes around a year before children begin to utter single words, usually about two years before they put words together.

But what language do children speak? What language did you speak when you were a little boy Willis? Why did you speak that particular language?

You spoke English, because your parents spoke English. You learned to talk from listening to your parents. And this is where you learned to lie also.
 
Okay, what sins did you teach your children? I know you didn't, but just a rhetorical question. Children know how to sin based solely on that "know how" passed down from Adam. No one teaches their child/infant/toddler how to lie. It's already "programmed" within them.
 

Winman

Active Member
Okay, what sins did you teach your children? I know you didn't, but just a rhetorical question. Children know how to sin based solely on that "know how" passed down from Adam. No one teaches their child/infant/toddler how to lie. It's already "programmed" within them.

Have you ever heard a child that cursed? I know I cursed when I was little, I remember being corrected. Where do you think I learned that?

Ecc 7:29 says they have sought out many "inventions", so man is able to conceive his own sinful ideas. I remember as a boy hearing the term "the perfect crime" and trying to imagine how I could rob a bank without being caught. It is not that I really wanted to rob a bank, but I liked the challenge of figuring out how to do it without being caught.

Willis, you are falling for a form of fallacy. Calvinists especially use this form of false argument. They will ask how does a child sin, implying that this proves their view is correct. It does no such thing. And just because a person might have difficulty answering a question does not prove their view correct. Do not fall for false arguments like this.

It's like asking why one person likes ketchup on a hot dog, and another mustard? I cannot answer, but that does not necessarily mean they were born that way. Maybe as a child they were served hot dogs with ketchup, and this is what they became accustomed to.
 

Winman

Active Member
Something you must understand about sin Willis, is that you have to know between right and wrong to be imputed sin.

Let's go back to Romans 9:11 again, what does it say about Esau and Jacob?

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

Would you agree that Paul clearly says Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mothers' womb?

But why did Rebecca go to see the man of God in the first place??

Gen 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

What were Jacob and Esau doing in their mother's womb? They were FIGHTING. And the impression I get is that this was a real battle. All twins likely struggle in the womb, but Rebecca was very troubled by this struggle, so these guys really must have been going at it in her tummy.

But were they sinning? NO. Why not? Because they had no knowledge between good and evil. They were simply fighting for space and room, comfort to satisfy their fleshly lusts. But they had no idea that fighting was wrong and therefore were not guilty of sin.

This is why God did not punish the children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness, because they did not know between good and evil.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

See Willis, you have to know between good and evil to commit sin. This is why Jacob and Esau were not sinners in Rebecca's womb, even though they were fighting with each other. And they did not know about Adam or his sin either.
 
The thing is, Brother winman, is that if Adam would have never sinned, none of his progeny would have been born fallen, either. Nor would the sentence of death be already upon them. They would have been born upright, because he would have been upright. We, being in his loins, would have been upright, because he was upright. But, he fell, and we, his progeny, being in his loins when he fell, fell in Adam.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Romans 3:23...says......All sinned.......at one moment in time,it is a completed act....end of story.....

Winman ...stop beating ECCL.7 and romans 7....like a baby seal.
 

Winman

Active Member
The thing is, Brother winman, is that if Adam would have never sinned, none of his progeny would have been born fallen, either. Nor would the sentence of death be already upon them. They would have been born upright, because he would have been upright. We, being in his loins, would have been upright, because he was upright. But, he fell, and we, his progeny, being in his loins when he fell, fell in Adam.

If Adam had not sinned and had children, any one of them could have to chosen to sin at any time. All that is required to sin is free will and a lack of faith in God.

Now you are correct about the sentence of death, and this is exactly what Romans 5:12-21 is teaching. Adam was the legal precedent for those who sin.

A legal precedent is usually based on how the court treats a crime the first time. To be consistent and fair, persons who commit the same crime afterward are treated the same way.

a. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
b. Law A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.


Note B. In law a legal precedent is a decision that is used as a standard for subsequent similar cases. This is what Romans 5 is teaching. Adam's punishment for sinning was spiritual death. Please note that all the terms in this chapter are legal terms like justification, condemnation, imputed, righteous, sinner, etc... This chapter is not speaking of physical death. Go read 1 Corinthians 15 and you will see the opposite, this chapter talks about bodies, being raised, corruption, etc... These are terms dealing with the physical body and 1 Cor 15 is the "resurrection" chapter.

No, Paul is speaking of judgment and condemnation. Because of Adam, every man who sins as he did is judged as a "sinner" and sentenced to death. So Adam brought death to all men, and made all men "sinners".

Likewise, Jesus is the legal precedent for those who believe, as Jesus trusted his father, laying down his life and trusting his Father to raise him from the dead. All those who trust Jesus as he trusted his Father are imputed righteous.

You cannot teach that all men are unconditionally made sinners in Adam, and not also teach that all men are unconditionally made righteous by Jesus. You have to treat both halves of each verse equally in Romans 5.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If Adam's sin is imputed to all men unconditionally, then so is Jesus's righteousness and you have Universalism, it is inescapable.

Now, if you understand that all men are conditionally made sinners when they sin like Adam, then it is equally true that all men who conditionally believe as Jesus did are imputed righteous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point is Brother winman, his progeny would have what he had, what he passed down to them. If he was still upright, they would have been born upright. If he was fallen...and he was, they would be born fallen, too. They were going to take his image, regardless what state he was he was in.
 

Winman

Active Member
The point is Brother winman, his progeny would have what he had, what he passed down to them. If he was still upright, they would have been born upright. If he was fallen...and he was, they would be born fallen, too. They were going to take his image, regardless what state he was he was in.

I have shown you that all men are born upright several times now.

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

You know what is amazing to me? Folks will completely ignore and deny this verse even when it is right in front of them, yet they will believe a doctrine that is nowhere shown in scripture. You cannot show any verse that says all men are born sinners. You can't do it, because no such scripture exists.

Did Paul say he was born dead in sin? No, Paul said he was alive until he learned the law.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Did Paul say Jacob and Esau were sinners in their mother's womb? NO, he said they had done no evil.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Now you have to admit Willis, if I am teaching false doctrine, I am doing an excellent job. I have shown you probably a dozen scriptures that all argue against Original Sin, and I could show you many more.

And yet you believe something NEVER shown in scripture. Not once. You can't show it.
 

Winman

Active Member
Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:22, just for starters...

Romans 3:23 refutes your interpretation of Romans 5:12;

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

This is the point Dr. MacGorman made I posted earlier. In Romans chapters 1 through 3, Paul repeatedly shows all men are sinners because they have committed personal sin, Paul does not mention Adam even one time in these chapters.

Romans 5:12 would contradict these earlier chapters if we are made sinners because of Adam's sin.

Dr. J. W. MacGorman said:
4. Many interpreters of Romans 5:12-21 have tended to ignore both its general and immediate context in the letter. In Romans 1:18 to 3:20 Paul set forth his doctrine of sin. Here he showed how all men, Gentiles and Jews alike, have become guilty, because all men have sinned (3:9, 19, 23). Human guilt derives from human sin; it is not inherited. Men are guilty because they have sinned, not because they were born.”

“No interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that obscures or refutes the plain teaching of Romans 1:18 to 3:20 can be correct. Is it not interesting that Paul managed to demonstrate the guiltiness of all men in this earlier passage without any reference to Adam?”

also;

Dr. J. W. MacGorman said:
“We want to know how men were made sinners by Adam's disobedience. Was it because all men were seminally present in the loins of Adam when he sinned, and thus inherited his guilt (Augustine)? Was it because Adam as the federal head of the race cast the wrong vote in Eden, and so rendered all men guilty before God (Cocceius)? We must affirm that there is no evidence for either of these theories of original sin in this passage. Indeed a study of both Genesis 3:1-24 and Romans 5:12-21 reveals that neither passage explains how the effects of Adam’s sin were transmitted to his descendants.”

“We know that the death of Christ on the cross does not automatically grant all men a right standing with God. In Romans 3:24-25 Paul made plain that Christ's accomplishment on the cross avails for us only upon the basis of our faith in him. We do not inherit salvation because of what Christ has done. Rather by God's grace we receive salvation through faith in Christ.

We do not inherit salvation through Christ's obedience apart from our personal involvement in faith. Nor do we inherit condemnation through Adam’s disobedience apart from our personal involvement in sin. Neither salvation nor guilt can be inherited.”

And 1 Cor 15:22 does not say we are born dead in Adam, it says in Adam "all die" which is FUTURE tense. This verse is not speaking of spiritual death, but if it were it would absolutely refute Original Sin.

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

You are not putting real thought into these scriptures Willis, if you did, you would see they easily refute Original Sin.
 
You are correct ... /// yadda yadda yadda /// ... the one chosen by the Lord.
A lengthy post which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. So David had two sisters. Big deal. None of that convoluted reasoning can possibly lead anyone to the conclusion that David's mother was not the mother of his siblings. But then, the "reasoning" has to be convoluted in order to reach the erroneous conclusion that Romans 1:26, 27 does not that Adam's sin was imputed to all mankind.
 

Winman

Active Member
A lengthy post which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. So David had two sisters. Big deal. None of that convoluted reasoning can possibly lead anyone to the conclusion that David's mother was not the mother of his siblings. But then, the "reasoning" has to be convoluted in order to reach the erroneous conclusion that Romans 1:26, 27 does not that Adam's sin was imputed to all mankind.

David's sisters are identified as the daughters of Nahash, not Jesse.

1 Chr 2:13 And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third,
14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth,
15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh:
16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three.


2 Sam 17:25 And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.

I guess if you call the scriptures convoluted, my view is convoluted. :rolleyes:
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
How does:
Rom 1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

Rom 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


God's giving up wicked people to a twisted and convoluted mind because of their descent into perversion and homosexuality and idolatry spoken of Throughout Romans 1 and two demonstrate:

that Adam's sin was imputed to all mankind.
????
Nothing about Original Guilt or Adam's progeny being guilty either by co-commission or imputation there whatsoever.

....It's in our heads and in our traditions, not Scripture.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12, 1 Cor. 15:22, just for starters...

Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

All HAVE SINNED
That's something you actually DO.
hence they
HAVE COME....not "ARE"

If we all are personally guilty of Adam's sin then two things:
1.) That we "have" sinned is irrelevant, because it was done in Adam
2.) We did not "come" short either....we were, always Had been short since we are supposedly guilty of Adam's sin.

Why does Paul even bother to demonstrate our un-worthiness by saying we have come short because we have sinned?............It would be irrelevant.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

as by one man sin entered into the world Adam was the first human being, if he sinned then sin literally ENTERED into the world through him by default. He was, in fact, the first man to have sinned willfully. That's not saying you were personally present in his loins committing it with him. You are assuming that.

....death by sin
The consequences for sin is death. They are consequences which come from Adam, as the representative of humanity. Even ANIMALS DIE (and because of Adam).
Rom 8:20
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21
Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22
For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now

The entire planet is on it's way to an ultimate and permanent heat-death when our good Sun finally burns out. The Entire physical Universe is set to ultimately die and be destroyed. Whether God returns to do it or not.....it's a done deal, and because of sin.
for that all have sinned Paul wraps up vs. 5:12 by explaining the cause and ultimate result of death being because: all have sinned

That's not what Original Guilt teaches:
You would contend that death and sin is the result of Adam's sin and your/our presence and co-commission of the sin with him in his loins

(pre-supposing an un-provable assumption of the pre-existence of souls I might add)

How does Romans 5:12 say all of that?
Answer: it doesn't....Tradition and centuries of assumption say that.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Now to understand vs. 22 it is rather critical to note that
THE ENTIRE CHAPTER
is entirely about physical resurrection from the dead and the hope of physical life Let's begin to demonstrate this from the context:
1Cr 15:3
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Cr 15:4
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:


1Cr 15:12
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?


1Cr 15:15
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1Cr 15:16
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:


1Cr 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.


That's the contex....now, let's see the immediate preceding verse from which Paul segues directly into 1 Cor. 15:22 namely, vs. 21
1Cr 15:21
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

directly into:
1Cr 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


This now presents us with a question:
Will ALL PERSONS in fact be Resurected from the DEAD??

Why yes! :eek: they will!:

Jhn 5:28
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

Jhn 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


See!!
Now, with a proper understanding of the simplicity of I Cor 15:22 you will no longer have to insist on those awkward Calvinist arguments where they explain (in impressive and fascinating detail) how the ALL is in fact all in the first half of that sentence
but that it takes on a completely different definition and ALL is not in fact ALL in reference to the second half of that sentence!!!

You can simply believe that ALL DIED in Adam (physically) <---they have
and ALL shall be MADE ALIVE in Christ (physically) <---- they will.

See! no more being forced to re-define the word "All" as meaning two separate things in one single independent clause! :godisgood:



So, now, the question remains:
Where, exactly are all those myriads of passages which state that all persons future were present in Adam and personally co-committing sin with him in the garden either by proxy or by somehow pre-existing as souls and being in his loins?


"Original Guilt" re-defines Sin itself as nothing more than Ribonucleic Acid, and it means nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother IJ, thanks for you retort.

Here's the thing, Adam ushered sin into the world, and death was a consequence of it, being separated from the Tree of Life. Without him sinning, if they had children....I am not for sure if they would have had children if they hadn't fallen, because I wonder if they truly were attracted to each other, because they hadn't lusted after each other, imo....but that's another topic in itself....they would have been born in Adam's image, which would have been still upright. So that shows me that his image, regardless the fall or not, would have been passed unto his progeny. If he was still upright, they would have been born upright; if fallen, then they would have been born fallen. Cain, Abel, and Seth were all born after Adam's fall.....you know this already.....yet, Seth was the only one who was stated to have been born in the image and likeness of Adam...I am pretty sure the same goes for the other two just mentioned, but where the bible doesn't speak, I won't speculate. Anyhoo, Adam's position, did, and does, have a bearing on us today. We die due to his sinning. We suffer pain, death, loss of loved ones, etc because of one man's deeds centuries ago.
 

Inspector Javert

Active Member
Here's the thing, Adam ushered sin into the world, and death was a consequence of it, being separated from the Tree of Life.
Correct.
Without him sinning if they had children....I am not for sure if they would have had children if they hadn't fallen, because I wonder if they truly were attracted to each other, because they hadn't lusted after each other, imo....but that's another topic in itself....
SURE THEY WOULD!!!
They were married.
Feel free to lust after your spouse with abandon. I am quite sure they both did. And they were sinless in doing so.
they would have been born in Adam's image, which would have been still upright.
Presuming by "image" the Genesis specifically means something like:
(after his possession or non-possession of sin-guiltiness or guilt)
which I do not assume.

The Bible just says that Adam begat Seth after his likeness and after his image:
1.) If the concept were critically about Original Guilt, why not say this in reference to Cain and Abel??? Why wait till Seth?
2.) Especially if the first recorded instance of willful sin not including Adam was just laid out in plain and painful detail just prior?

Why not say:
And Adam begat Cain and Abel in his own image (meaning wicked and evil).....
and, now.................. here's Cain murdering his brother
So that shows me that his image, regardless the fall or not, would have been passed unto his progeny.
By image and likeness, I maintain Genesis is speaking of physical image similitude, etc....i.e. a human.

Animals also beget their children after their own image and likeness as well.
Genesis is about geneology and ancestry.
If he was still upright, they would have been born upright; if fallen, then they would have been born fallen.
You are assuming that Genesis is attempting to introduce some heretofore unmentioned and un-discovered doctrine of sin as RNA....maybe, since Adam is like "begetting" and Seth just oh, is so much the spittin image of Dad (but has his mother's cleft chin)....
The are simply introducing a geneology for the actual ancestry of consequence (as opposed to Esau who is Edom) namely:
Seth > Noah > Abraham > David > Jesus
yet, Seth was the only one who was stated to have been born in the image and likeness of Adam...
Because he is the ancestor who's geneology matters.
I am pretty sure the same goes for the other two just mentioned, but where the bible doesn't speak, I won't speculate.
Feel free to speculate on this one...I would confidently say that Cain and Abel were both begat in Adam's image and likeness as well.

If not...

Then Eve has got some 'splainin to do.
Anyhoo, Adam's position, did, and does, have a bearing on us today. We die due to his sinning.
Correct.

But you want to introduce that means that we all actually sinned in and with him....That's the part which is utterly assummed.
We suffer pain, death, loss of loved ones, etc because of one man's deeds centuries ago.
Ditto Bambi's daddy........
But he was born in the image and likeness of Bambi's grandaddy:

Paul mentions this in Romans 8:20-22, which as I posted it above I will simply reference here.:
 
Brother IJ,

Adam caused us to be born positionally outside of Christ. Adam was created in complete accord, complete harmony, complete joy of his Maker, his Creator, his Master, and he sinned, and we, still being in his loins, sinned in Adam. We fell, when he fell, being in his loins. If he had not have done this deed, everyone of his progeny would have been born in complete accord, complete harmony, complete joy, still being in the Garden, partaking of the Tree of Life. But Adam and Eve got the "ole heave ho" out of there "lest they take hold of the Tree of Life and live forever". This is what I am driving at. God thrust them out of "paradise on earth" and we, still being in his loins, were thrusted out, too. We suffered the same fate Adam did, and not of our doing. This proves we suffered the same fate, for something we didn't do.
 
Top