Born Dead

[Van]

This concept teaches we are conceived in a separated from God state. United with God we are “alive” and separated from God we are “dead.” When Adam sinned and was corrupted, he was separated from God. Thus all in Adam are separated from God and therefore dead at conception. When God puts us spiritually in Christ, we are made alive together with Christ.

Now lets look at some arguments against the doctrine that as a consequence of Adam’s sin, mankind is conceived in a spiritually dead, separated from God state, and is born corrupted with the “old man” nature, referring to Adam’s nature after his eyes were opened.

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

If we are born dead in sins, how could Paul say he was ever alive once? And how could he die if he was born dead?

This verse is certainly difficult with differing views presented in commentaries. I believe Paul was saying he thought he was alive, not knowing that he was condemned, but when he became aware of the requirement of perfection, he “died” in that he became aware he was dead. This view is supported contextually with Romans 7:13. The law did not become death, but sin was shown to be death through the Law. Sin becoming utterly sinful speaks to awareness because sin is always utterly sinful from God’s perspective.

In summary, Romans 7:9 does not teach we were alive at conception, but rather we did not know we were dead. This view is consistent with being conceived in iniquity, and therefore separated from our holy God.

In the parable of the prodigal son, the illustration starts with the son being together with the Father, hence alive, then he chooses to sin and leaves the Father, becoming separated and hence dead, and then he returns to the Father on his own power, becoming alive again. Now can we say that everyone starts out alive or does everyone start out condemned already according to John 3:18? We start out condemned, and separated because if we were together with Christ we would be alive and not condemned.

I agree we can establish doctrine supported by parables but we must be careful not to take the illustration past its purpose. In this parable, the son starts out alive, but since this facet of the story does not mesh with all the verses that say because of Adam, we start out “in Adam” and not “in Christ,” that part of the stories’ detail does not override all the verses presenting that we are conceived in iniquity.

The other two illustrations of Luke 15, the lost sheep and the lost coin, tell the story of something belonging to the owner. Who is our owner? God. But because of the consequence of the Fall of Adam, mankind is conceived in a separated state, hence lost. When someone is united with Christ, they are recovered, found, redeemed, transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God. Next note that the 99 sheep are not really united with the Father, for they are in need of repentance. So the lost sheep actually represents a lost person who repents, which is consistent with being condemned already. The 10 coin parable makes the same point, the “owner” rejoices over the recovery of the one who repents.

In summary, both Romans 7 and Luke 15 are consistent with the Fall.

Next lets consider 1 Peter 2:25: The people in view, were continually straying which refers to the fact they were continually sinning. A lost separated person can continue to sin and store up wrath for himself or herself. The word returned might better be translated turn back, which describes a person who is going the wrong way, i.e. sinning, and then turning back toward the One who leads them in paths of righteousness. So again, no actual support for denial of the consequence of the Fall.

Everyone is created by God, and thus everyone is a “child of God” in the sense that God is our creator. But to say these children of God cannot be condemned and be children of wrath makes no sense. Next, God chose the nation of Israel to be His people, so in another sense, the believing children of the promise were “children of God.” And now, under the New Covenant, all those chosen by God and spiritually placed in Christ are born anew, becoming “children of God” in the third sense. So when we see the phrase, children of God, or sons of God, we must look to the context to see which of the three ways the phrase is being used.

As far as 1 Corinthians 15:22, the death referred to with “in Adam all die” is the second death at the judgment. Those in Adam have not been made alive, thus they are spiritually dead already and will suffer the second death.

On the other side of the ledger are those who add to the consequence of the Fall by redefining “dead” from being separated and unable to merit being reunited with God, to being unable to seek God and trust in Christ. Lets take a look at this erroneous view:

They cite Romans 3:11 which says no one seeks God. But this verse does not say no one ever seeks God at any time. Thus the Calvinist rewrite does not stand up to the light of scrutiny. The purpose of Paul in citing this OT verse is to demonstrate we are all under sin, for no one seeks God when they are sinning. Many verses teach men seek God from Genesis to Revelation.

In summary, Calvinism simply and mistakenly redefines being “dead” to include “total spiritual inability.” Contrary to this - being born dead is a valid teaching of scripture, we are conceived in iniquity (in Adam) and not “in Christ.” God puts those of His choosing in Christ where we are “made alive” together with Christ. In our fallen “dead” state, all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags, we are unable to do anything to merit salvation. Thus this OT truth leads us to Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you saying that we are born in an innocent state before God, and that we become sinners when we chose to actually sin then?

So before God gave the Law Paul spoke of, thru Moses, that people were not viewed as sinners by God?

 

[Winman]

This concept teaches we are conceived in a separated from God state. United with God we are “alive” and separated from God we are “dead.” When Adam sinned and was corrupted, he was separated from God. Thus all in Adam are separated from God and therefore dead at conception. When God puts us spiritually in Christ, we are made alive together with Christ.

That is not what Jesus showed when describing sinners in Luke chapter 15. The lost sheep was not originally lost or separated from the shepherd, the silver coin was not originally lost and separated from the woman, and the prodigal son was not originally lost and separated from his father.

Now lets look at some arguments against the doctrine that as a consequence of Adam’s sin, mankind is conceived in a spiritually dead, separated from God state, and is born corrupted with the “old man” nature, referring to Adam’s nature after his eyes were opened.

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

If we are born dead in sins, how could Paul say he was ever alive once? And how could he die if he was born dead?

This verse is certainly difficult with differing views presented in commentaries. I believe Paul was saying he thought he was alive, not knowing that he was condemned, but when he became aware of the requirement of perfection, he “died” in that he became aware he was dead. This view is supported contextually with Romans 7:13. The law did not become death, but sin was shown to be death through the Law. Sin becoming utterly sinful speaks to awareness because sin is always utterly sinful from God’s perspective.

Now you argue like a Calvinist, that scripture does not mean what it obviously says, and that the Holy Spirit is not able to properly express himself. Paul did not say he "mistakenly believed" he was alive without the law once, he quite plainly said he was alive, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He didn't say he discovered he was already dead, he said he "died" and that sin "slew me".

In summary, Romans 7:9 does not teach we were alive at conception, but rather we did not know we were dead. This view is consistent with being conceived in iniquity, and therefore separated from our holy God.

I disagree. Romans 7 along with many other scriptures like Luke 15, Ecc 7:29, 1 Pet 2:25 argue strongly that men are not born dead in sin or separated from God.

In the parable of the prodigal son, the illustration starts with the son being together with the Father, hence alive, then he chooses to sin and leaves the Father, becoming separated and hence dead, and then he returns to the Father on his own power, becoming alive again. Now can we say that everyone starts out alive or does everyone start out condemned already according to John 3:18? We start out condemned, and separated because if we were together with Christ we would be alive and not condemned.

Jesus was speaking to grown men who all had sinned, not little babies or very young children who had no knowledge between good and evil.

I agree we can establish doctrine supported by parables but we must be careful not to take the illustration past its purpose. In this parable, the son starts out alive, but since this facet of the story does not mesh with all the verses that say because of Adam, we start out “in Adam” and not “in Christ,” that part of the stories’ detail does not override all the verses presenting that we are conceived in iniquity.

Parables express spiritual truth, it is important not to ignore them. Jesus told three parables in Luke 15, and none were originally lost or separated. The sheep was not originally lost, the silver piece was not originally lost, the prodigal son was not originally lost. Do you believe Jesus forgot the doctrine of Original Sin? Absurd!

The other two illustrations of Luke 15, the lost sheep and the lost coin, tell the story of something belonging to the owner. Who is our owner? God. But because of the consequence of the Fall of Adam, mankind is conceived in a separated state, hence lost. When someone is united with Christ, they are recovered, found, redeemed, transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God. Next note that the 99 sheep are not really united with the Father, for they are in need of repentance. So the lost sheep actually represents a lost person who repents, which is consistent with being condemned already. The 10 coin parable makes the same point, the “owner” rejoices over the recovery of the one who repents.

Yes, one sheep went out and became lost, and later repented. The prodigal son was not originally lost, but he knowingly and willingly went out in sin and became lost. He was joined to a citizen of that far country which I believe represents Satan. This is when a man becomes a child of the devil, a child of wrath.

Nevertheless, the boy was able to come to himself and repent. When he returned to his father, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. If we are born dead in sin, then no man could be said to be alive again.

In summary, both Romans 7 and Luke 15 are consistent with the Fall.

Yes, and they are consistent with every man personally choosing to sin when he is of age and spiritually dying and becoming separated from God.

 

[Winman]

Next lets consider 1 Peter 2:25: The people in view, were continually straying which refers to the fact they were continually sinning. A lost separated person can continue to sin and store up wrath for himself or herself. The word returned might better be translated turn back, which describes a person who is going the wrong way, i.e. sinning, and then turning back toward the One who leads them in paths of righteousness. So again, no actual support for denial of the consequence of the Fall.

Everyone is created by God, and thus everyone is a “child of God” in the sense that God is our creator. But to say these children of God cannot be condemned and be children of wrath makes no sense. Next, God chose the nation of Israel to be His people, so in another sense, the believing children of the promise were “children of God.” And now, under the New Covenant, all those chosen by God and spiritually placed in Christ are born anew, becoming “children of God” in the third sense. So when we see the phrase, children of God, or sons of God, we must look to the context to see which of the three ways the phrase is being used.

As far as 1 Corinthians 15:22, the death referred to with “in Adam all die” is the second death at the judgment. Those in Adam have not been made alive, thus they are spiritually dead already and will suffer the second death.

On the other side of the ledger are those who add to the consequence of the Fall by redefining “dead” from being separated and unable to merit being reunited with God, to being unable to seek God and trust in Christ. Lets take a look at this erroneous view:

They cite Romans 3:11 which says no one seeks God. But this verse does not say no one ever seeks God at any time. Thus the Calvinist rewrite does not stand up to the light of scrutiny. The purpose of Paul in citing this OT verse is to demonstrate we are all under sin, for no one seeks God when they are sinning. Many verses teach men seek God from Genesis to Revelation.

In summary, Calvinism simply and mistakenly redefines being “dead” to include “total spiritual inability.” Contrary to this - being born dead is a valid teaching of scripture, we are conceived in iniquity (in Adam) and not “in Christ.” God puts those of His choosing in Christ where we are “made alive” together with Christ. In our fallen “dead” state, all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags, we are unable to do anything to merit salvation. Thus this OT truth leads us to Christ.

I am just going to skip over all this, you are simply trying to explain scripture away. Peter knew what he was saying, he said we were all like sheep going astray, exactly as Jesus described in Luke 15. You have to first be in the flock to go astray, just as you would have to have a home to run away from home.

And no one can RETURN someplace they have never been. If we are all born dead in sin, separated from God, then it would be impossible to say we are RETURNED to God, but that is exactly what Peter said.

One last thing, those 99 persons who did not go astray and need no repentance, and the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time are easily explained as babies and young children who died before they ever had a chance to sin. There have been probably BILLIONS of children who have died early like this, and this explains the high number (99) sheep that went not astray and need no repentance compared to the one sheep who went astray and became lost.

In fact, we see this directly in Matthew 18;

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Jesus never speaks evil of children, in Matthew 18 he tells his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. Was Jesus telling his disciples they must become wicked little sinners? Ridiculous!

Again, Jesus describes 99 sheep that never went astray, these are the same 99 that did not need repentance in Luke 15. Verse 14 shows exactly whom Jesus is speaking of, THESE LITTLE ONES. Jesus is speaking of little children throughout Matthew 18.

Note also that little children have angels who always behold the face of the Father. They are not separated from God.

You can believe Augustine and Calvin if you want, I will believe Jesus. Scripture does not support Original Sin whatsoever.

 

[Van]

I wish you would have skipped your whole regurgitated post. We have discussed this at length, and each and every one of your arguments has been rebutted. Rather than address the rebuttals, you simply restate your mistaken views.

1) I never dismiss or nullify any scripture. Your charge that I do is just like the Calvinists, attempting to discredit the person rather than addressing the scripture.

2) You have posted the "no one can return to a place they have never been" foolishness time after time. The word translated "return" simply means to turn to another direction. Point of origin is nowhere implied in the message. This has been pointed out time and time again. Why not address the truth?

 

[Van]

Are you saying that we are born in an innocent state before God, and that we become sinners when we chose to actually sin then?

So before God gave the Law Paul spoke of, thru Moses, that people were not viewed as sinners by God?

Are you saying you like to misrepresent others? The many, everyone other than Christ, were made sinners. If you deny this, nothing I can say will stop you from posting misdirection, misinformation and useless twaddle time and again. Why do you hate the truth?

 

[Winman]

I wish you would have skipped your whole regurgitated post. We have discussed this at length, and each and every one of your arguments has been rebutted. Rather than address the rebuttals, you simply restate your mistaken views.

1) I never dismiss or nullify any scripture. Your charge that I do is just like the Calvinists, attempting to discredit the person rather than addressing the scripture.

2) You have posted the "no one can return to a place they have never been" foolishness time after time. The word translated "return" simply means to turn to another direction. Point of origin is nowhere implied in the message. This has been pointed out time and time again. Why not address the truth?

I would be willing to bet that many believe I have rebutted you.

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it obviously says. Not a good argument by anyone's standard.

Paul didn't say he "thought" he was alive, or that he "mistakenly believed" he was alive, Paul said he was ALIVE without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he DIED. You must be alive to DIE.

Jesus said the prodigal was alive AGAIN. You must have been alive ONCE to be alive AGAIN.

My argument is that scripture means exactly what it says.

 

[Winman]

Oh, and the word "returned" (ἐπιστρέφω (epistrephō)) in 1 Pet 2:25 does indeed mean to return someplace you have been before, the same word is used in several verses to show this.

Mat 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

Peter used the same comparison Jesus used of a sheep going astray, but now we are RETURNED to the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

This sheep was not originally lost, the shepherd had one hundred sheep originally, but one sheep went astray.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

You will not admit it, but scripture shows we belonged to the flock until we all went astray and became lost.

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it literally and obviously says. My argument is that scripture means exactly what it says.

 

[Winman]

Oh, and the word "returned" (ἐπιστρέφω (epistrephō)) in 1 Pet 2:25 does indeed mean to return someplace you have been before, the same word is used in several verses to show this.

Mat 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

Plain as day to the honest reader.

Peter used the same comparison Jesus used of a sheep going astray, but now we are RETURNED to the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

This sheep was not originally lost, the shepherd had one hundred sheep originally, but one sheep went astray.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

You will not admit it, but scripture shows we belonged to the flock until we all went astray and became lost.

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it literally and obviously says. My argument is that scripture means exactly what it says.

 

[Van]

Oh, and the word "returned" (ἐπιστρέφω (epistrephō)) in 1 Pet 2:25 does indeed mean to return someplace you have been before, the same word is used in several verses to show this.

Mat 12:44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.

Plain as day to the honest reader.

Peter used the same comparison Jesus used of a sheep going astray, but now we are RETURNED to the Bishop and Shepherd of our souls.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

This sheep was not originally lost, the shepherd had one hundred sheep originally, but one sheep went astray.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

You will not admit it, but scripture shows we belonged to the flock until we all went astray and became lost.

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it literally and obviously says. My argument is that scripture means exactly what it says.

More regurgitation of falsehood.

1) You implied I was dishonest, yet you selected verses that did not reflect the range of meanings found in scripture for the Greek word in question.

2) 1 Peter 2:25 says folks were straying, going away from the right path (following Christ) but now have (returned or turned) to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. Thus a change in direction is being stated, and point of origin is no where to be found.

3) Many translations do indeed render the word "returned" but others translate it as turned or turned back (Wycliffe,NET, Mounce, LEB, and YLT). Thus your argument is based on choosing translations and then reading into the chosen word a meaning not even found in many other translations.

4) Lets look at how the same author (Peter) used the same word.

2 Peter 2:21"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." Note that the idea being expressed by the same word is the opposite of "returned to point of origin."

In 2 Peter 2:22 we see the word used as returns with the meaning referring to point of origin, i.e. the dog's own vomit. Thus Peter uses the word both ways with the choice indicated by the context.​

In summary the context of 1 Peter 2:25 refers to folks going in the wrong direction changing direction, rather than returning to point of origin.

 

[Winman]

More regurgitation of falsehood.

1) You implied I was dishonest, yet you selected verses that did not reflect the range of meanings found in scripture for the Greek word in question.

I chose the verse that uses the same exact word that most clearly showed it meant to return to someplace you were before. You cannot refute it.

2) 1 Peter 2:25 says folks were straying, going away from the right path (following Christ) but now have (returned or turned) to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls. Thus a change in direction is being stated, and point of origin is no where to be found.

No, they were not straying if Original Sin is true. A wild sheep that has always lived out in the wild is not said to be "gone astray". Only a sheep in the flock can "go astray".

3) Many translations do indeed render the word "returned" but others translate it as turned or turned back (Wycliffe,NET, Mounce, LEB, and YLT). Thus your argument is based on choosing translations and then reading into the chosen word a meaning not even found in many other translations.

That's because it means "returned".

4) Lets look at how the same author (Peter) used the same word.
2 Peter 2:21"For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." Note that the idea being expressed by the same word is the opposite of "returned to point of origin."

No, it means they returned to the life of sin they had just came from. They could have left sin and believed on Jesus, but they returned to the sin they loved.

In 2 Peter 2:22 we see the word used as returns with the meaning referring to point of origin, i.e. the dog's own vomit. Thus Peter uses the word both ways with the choice indicated by the context.

In summary the context of 1 Peter 2:25 refers to folks going in the wrong direction changing direction, rather than returning to point of origin.

The dog "returns" to his own vomit. He goes back to the spot where he just vomited and eats his own vomit.

You are refuting yourself and completely supporting my interpretation whether you realize it or not.

1 Pet 2:25 is just one of many scriptures taken together that refute Original Sin. Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died.

He has just explained that he would not have known sin except for the law, he would not have known lust except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet".

Paul is describing the time in every young Jew's life when he learns the law and becomes responsible. It is the Bar Mitzvah for boys, and the Bat Mitzvah for girls. This literally means "son of the commandment". It is when all Jewish boys study the law. Afterward they are considered adults and held responsible under the law.

Paul had thought if he kept the law he would inherit life. And in fact, if a person perfectly kept the law, he would not be lost and WOULD merit eternal life.

Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Of course, Paul did not keep the commandments, no man except Jesus has ever done that, so sin used the law to convict him as a sinner and he spiritually died. Sin "slew" Paul. You have to be alive to die, you have to be alive to be slain.

Paul did not say one word about mistakenly believing he was alive, and he was quite able to say that if he intended. No, Paul clearly told us he was alive WITHOUT THE LAW, but when the law or commandment came, that is when he died.

Little babies and little children cannot comprehend the law and are therefore not accountable. They are not sinners and they cannot be condemned. They are spiritually alive until they know right from wrong. Once they know right from wrong and willingly and knowingly choose to sin, at that point they spiritually die.

Jesus said the prodigal was alive AGAIN. He was not separated from his father at first, but he chose to leave home knowingly and willingly. He joined himself to a citizen of that far country (Satan). This is when he spiritually died. When he repented and came home, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. Jesus knows doctrine, you cannot be alive again, unless you were alive ONCE.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Your argument is that scripture does not mean what it plainly and obviously says, and that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.

My argument is that scripture means exactly what it obviously says, and that Jesus knew EXACTLY what he was saying.

You can call my view any name you want, I will let the reader decide who is trying to wrest scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

In Gen 3 God says He puts supernatural emnity between the children of the woman and the children of the serpent.

In John 12:32 says God "draws ALL unto Him" for in He is not willing for any to perish but for "ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

In John 16 God "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" not "just the saints".

In Romans 1 "they are without excuse" who reject the claims of God on their life - even the pagans - the barbarians - without excuse.

Thus God does supernaturally "DRAW ALL".

And even the Calvinists will admit that the supernatural drawing of God - enables all the choice that depravity disables when it comes to choosing eternal life.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

In Gen 3 God says He puts supernatural emnity between the children of the woman and the children of the serpent.

In John 12:32 says God "draws ALL unto Him" for in He is not willing for any to perish but for "ALL to come to repentance" 2Peter 3.

In John 16 God "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" not "just the saints".

In Romans 1 "they are without excuse" who reject the claims of God on their life - even the pagans - the barbarians - without excuse.

Thus God does supernaturally "DRAW ALL".

And even the Calvinists will admit that the supernatural drawing of God - enables all the choice that depravity disables when it comes to choosing eternal life.

in Christ,

Bob

No one is denying that all men will sin and become lost, the issue is whether men are born lost. Read the three parables in Luke 15 where Jesus describes lost sinners, none were originally lost.

The sheep was not originally lost, the shepherd had 100 sheep. One sheep "went astray" and became lost, the shepherd now had 99 sheep that went not astray and needed no repentance. They were not lost.

The woman had 10 silver pieces, none were lost. She lost one and recovered it.

The father had two sons, one went out in sin and became lost. It was at this point he joined himself to a citizen of that far country (Satan).

When the prodigal returned home of his own volition, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

If men are born lost (they aren't) then it could never be said they are alive AGAIN, because they were never alive at all, but Jesus clearly said the prodigal was alive AGAIN.

The elder son was NEVER lost, and the father confirms this;

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

The elder son claimed that he never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Did the father correct or rebuke him? NO, the father confirmed that what the elder son said was true, he called him SON, and said THOU ART EVER WITH ME. They were never separated by sin.

Note that the father also distinguishes between the elder son and the prodigal, only the prodigal was dead and lost, and was now alive AGAIN.

The only persons who have never sinned are little children and babies who die before they can sin. Scripture clearly shows babies have not sinned.

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; )

Children are not born dead, they are not lost, they are not sinners, they are not separated from God by sin. But all men when they come of age choose to sin and become separated from God.

But originally, all men are made upright.

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

Men are NOT born dead in sin, men are born upright.

 

[BobRyan]

No one is denying that all men will sin and become lost, the issue is whether men are born lost. Read the three parables in Luke 15 where Jesus describes lost sinners, none were originally lost.

The sheep was not originally lost, the shepherd had 100 sheep. One sheep "went astray" and became lost, the shepherd now had 99 sheep that went not astray and needed no repentance. They were not lost.

Your point is true in the sense that infants need a Savior and have one. So an infant that dies - will not go to hell.

But it is not true that the infant does not need a Savior. Because the sinful nature as described in Romans 3 is fully a part of the infant born to fallen man.

As for the 1 lost sheep -

Mankind was not created lost - Adam and Eve were in perfect harmony with God - but Christ came to this World - this lost world because "God so Loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son"


The woman with 10 silver pieces - and the prodigal son represent mankind - the entire planet created perfect - but then lost only when Adam fell.

As you point out - The elder son was NEVER lost, and the father confirms this;

The elder son needed no grace, no Savior, no forgiveness. IMHO He represents the angels who never fell.

As you point out - "The elder son claimed that he never transgressed his father's commandment at any time."

No transgression against the law - no need for forgiveness, mercy or grace.

Unfallen angels.

"Did the father correct or rebuke him? NO, the father confirmed that what the elder son said was true, he called him SON, and said THOU ART EVER WITH ME. They were never separated by sin. "

Agreed. The unfallen angels are also called the "sons of God" in the Bible.

The only persons who have never sinned are little children and babies who die before they can sin. Scripture clearly shows babies have not sinned.

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; )

Children are not born dead, they are not lost, they are not sinners,

I agree that they have not sinned and that they are not left to go to hell but rather they go to heaven.

But unlike the unfallen Adam and Eve - they do have sinful natures. Natures that by "nature" are bent toward sin and are described by Romans 3.

The nature is corrupt from birth though the child has made no choice for sin or rebellion and for this reason they need a Savior - and they have one.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Having said that - I will say this - the Bible speaks of "hardening the heart" - if the teenager, the young adult that has not yet accepted Christ CAN choose to "harden their heart" it means that their heart is at a point that is not hardened before such a choice is made. It means that even as a lost person whom we will all charge with having chosen sin - they still have a heart that is not fully hardened against God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

Your point is true in the sense that infants need a Savior and have one. So an infant that dies - will not go to hell.

No, infants are not lost.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Jesus never spoke evil of children. In Matthew 18 he places a little child in the midst of his disciples and tells them they must be CONVERTED and BECOME as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. Was Jesus telling his disciples they must become sinners? ABSURD.

Then we see the story again of a shepherd with 100 sheep, NONE were lost. One went astray and became lost, he searched and recovered it. Jesus said there is more joy over this one lost sheep than 99 THAT WENT NOT ASTRAY. In Luke 15 Jesus said WHICH NEED NOT REPENTANCE. These 99 sheep are not lost.

And then in verse 14 we see Jesus is still speaking of little children when he says it is not his Father's will that one of THESE LITTLE ONES should perish.

So, scripture DOES NOT show little children lost and in need of a Saviour, it shows the exact opposite.

But it is not true that the infant does not need a Savior. Because the sinful nature as described in Romans 3 is fully a part of the infant born to fallen man.

I notice you did not show the scripture that says this. Why not?

As for the 1 lost sheep -

Mankind was not created lost - Adam and Eve were in perfect harmony with God - but Christ came to this World - this lost world because "God so Loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son"

Yes, but it is speaking of men, not babies and little children.

The woman with 10 silver pieces - and the prodigal son represent mankind - the entire planet created perfect - but then lost only when Adam fell.

Nonsense, the scripture clearly says they represent sinners, and each one was lost because they personally went astray.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

Jesus is not speaking of mankind as a whole here, but individual sinners.

As you point out - The elder son was NEVER lost, and the father confirms this;

The elder son needed no grace, no Savior, no forgiveness. IMHO He represents the angels who never fell.

No, the father had two sons. They elder son was a normal person just like the prodigal. You are adding to scripture.

As you point out - "The elder son claimed that he never transgressed his father's commandment at any time."

No transgression against the law - no need for forgiveness, mercy or grace.

Unfallen angels.

You have not one word of scripture to support this. In fact, the angels are represented by the "servants".

Luke 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

The servants are most likely angels here, but the elder boy was a SON, and the prodigal was his BROTHER.

"Did the father correct or rebuke him? NO, the father confirmed that what the elder son said was true, he called him SON, and said THOU ART EVER WITH ME. They were never separated by sin. "

Agreed. The unfallen angels are also called the "sons of God" in the Bible.

But they are not our brothers. The elder son was the brother of the prodigal.

I agree that they have not sinned and that they are not left to go to hell but rather they go to heaven.

But unlike the unfallen Adam and Eve - they do have sinful natures. Natures that by "nature" are bent toward sin and are described by Romans 3.

The nature is corrupt from birth though the child has made no choice for sin or rebellion and for this reason they need a Savior - and they have one.

in Christ,

Bob

Again, you fail to show that scripture that says we are born with a sinful nature. I can show you scripture that utterly refutes your view.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul said the Gentiles DO BY NATURE THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE LAW.

Paul does not say we sin by nature, he said the opposite. Now you show me where Paul EVER says we sin by nature.

 

[BobRyan]

Again, you fail to show that scripture that says we are born with a sinful nature. I can show you scripture that utterly refutes your view.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul said the Gentiles DO BY NATURE THE THINGS CONTAINED IN THE LAW.

Paul does not say we sin by nature, he said the opposite. Now you show me where Paul EVER says we sin by nature.

In Romans 3 Paul says "are we different than they ? No not at all" -- his entire statement claiming that "no one seeks after God - no not one" -- he applies to himself and all mankind.

This can only be true about the sinful nature - since elsewhere Paul argues that HE is in fact an "example" for all other Christians and they should "follow my example" 1Thess 1 -- even more he argues that we should mark those who do NOT follow the example set by Paul (Phil 3). Thus is "depravity" description that you find in Romans 3 that He claims for ALL mankind - saying "NO one seeks after God - no not one" - is in reference to the sinful nature alone.

In Romans 7 Paul claims that the sin principle is inside him "At war with the law of my mind".

The sinful nature is perfectly described there.

In Romans 8 Paul says that the mind set on the sinful nature "does not submit to the law of God - neither indeed CAN it" NASB.

------------------------

In your reference above to Romans 2 - the text you quote shows the work of the Holy Spirit -- the New Covenant -- so this is not the case of "natural goodness" but rather it is a case of the work of the Holy Spirit.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Heb 8
“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
When I will effect a new covenant
With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
...
10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
After those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.


It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit and the New Covenant that does the Romans 2 work of writing the works of the law written on the heart.

If you claim that this is all just the "natural goodness of man" you make the Gospel provision of the New Covenant - a miracle of God , into nothing more than the innate natural goodness of man.

The "by nature" comment in Romans 2 is not a claim that they are saints due to the natural goodness of fallen mankind -- but rather that they had no access at all to the Bible - no access to the Word of God - no access to instruction and yet guided by the Holy Spirit they enter into the New Covenant - yet totally ignorant of the details of the Word of God.

Other translations say "do instinctively the things of the Law of God" - because they do not have access to the Word of God - all they have is instinct and following the leading of the Holy Spirit who "convicts the Word of sin and righteousness and judgment".

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In Gen 3 God puts supernatural emnity between the seed of the Woman and seed of the serpent. An all mankind level supernatural effect.

In John 16 - The Holy Spirit convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment. Another all-mankind effect.

In John 1 Jesus is the light that coming into the world "enlightens every man". Again - all mankind.

In John 12:32 Jesus "Draws ALL" unto Himself. Another all-mankind level supernatural effect.

That is a lot of supernatural work being done for ALL mankind. How then can we evaluate mankind in the ABSENCE of all that supernatural work of God to see what "natural goodness" he has or what natural evil? It is like a fish asking what it is like - outside the water when it has no way to get into such a situation.

So the only clue that we have is Romans 3 where Paul claims that all mankind are depraved and that no one seeks after God.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed. The unfallen angels are also called the "sons of God" in the Bible.

No, the father had two sons. They elder son was a normal person just like the prodigal. You are adding to scripture.

You have not one word of scripture to support this. In fact, the angels are represented by the "servants".

Luke 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

The servants are most likely angels here, but the elder boy was a SON, and the prodigal was his BROTHER.

But they (angels) are not our brothers. The elder son was the brother of the prodigal.

Angels are fellow servants WITH us.

Rev 22
9 But he *said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”

“See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book.

They are the sinless "fellow servants" of God with us and with those who obey the Word of God.

But they have never sinned. They have remained faithful to God and have seen all that has gone on - even our own failure.

The parable Christ tells the sinless son of the father - sees what the rebel does - but chooses to remain faithful and not to sin.

Infants do not have the level of understanding and choice and perseverance and faithfulness that is manifest by the sinless son in the parable.

Of course you can only employ parables so far - but I think this much fits.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

Agreed. The unfallen angels are also called the "sons of God" in the Bible.

Again, the elder son was the BROTHER of the prodigal, he was not an angel.

Angels are fellow servants WITH us.

Yes, and the servants in Luke 15 are probably angels, but the elder son was the brother of the prodigal son, he was not an angel.

Rev 22
9 But he *said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.”

“See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book.

They are the sinless "fellow servants" of God with us and with those who obey the Word of God.

Again, the elder brother is distinguished from "the servants" and is the brother of the prodigal. You can keep insisting that the elder son was an angel, and I can keep on refuting it with scripture.

Luk 15:25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

Again, the elder brother was not one of the servants, he was the brother of the prodigal. If you cannot grasp this, that is not my problem.

But they have never sinned. They have remained faithful to God and have seen all that has gone on - even our own failure.

The elder son was the brother of the prodigal, not an angel. Sheesh.

The parable Christ tells the sinless son of the father - sees what the rebel does - but chooses to remain faithful and not to sin.

Infants do not have the level of understanding and choice and perseverance and faithfulness that is manifest by the sinless son in the parable.

Of course you can only employ parables so far - but I think this much fits.

in Christ,

Bob

Well, I believe the elder son is an infant or small child who died before he could ever sin, such as scripture shows in Romans 9:11. Here we are told that Esau and Jacob had not sinned in their mother's womb. If they had died, they would be without sin. Millions if not billions of babies have died in their mother's womb, or shortly after birth. This would account for the many (99 sheep) that went not astray and need no repentance to the one sheep that went astray, but later repented.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

You see, if Original Sin is true (it isn't) then there is no such thing as 99 just persons who need no repentance. This would have Jesus speaking of people that could not possibly exist. ABSURD to say the least.

No, Jesus knows doctrine better than Augustine, and he tells us of 99 just persons that never went astray and need no repentance. It was Jesus that told us of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time.

You can believe Augustine, I will believe Jesus.