Born in Sins part2

No, there is one man mentioned...concerning


Romans 5:18-19

King James Version (KJV)

18Therefore 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.

All men, by the offense of one, not many, are said to have "judgment come upon them unto condemnation."

That is the point which cannot be denied, though you say "many are mentioned."



19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.


To make sure that it is not thought that death only passed to man, here, by "one man" many were made...sinners.

But we are not focusing on the result of Adam's sin, just the recognition that scripture acknowledges that he, and he alone, brought a judgment of condemnation upon man.

Christ taught this himself:


John 3

14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:


First, that man might live, and this is of course speaking of eternal life, not only did Christ have to come, but he had to die.


15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.


Man must believe in Christ, and it is specific with the reference to the serpent lifted up...they must believe that Christ's sacrifice satisfies the penalty that awaits every man due to his sin.


16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Those who do not believe in Christ will perish.

Those who do, will receive eternal life.


17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.


The world was already condemned, but, Christ did not come to pass judgment, as He will one day, but to die that the world might be saved through Him, and that because He was lifted up (crucified).


18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Now this is altogether clear, and without dispute: those that do not believe on Him are condemned already, which condemnation took place at the time of Adam's sin.

Is there a child born believing? Is there a man that grows up without sin? As I said, I also believe that a person must have an understanding, and this understanding is impossible in the heart and mind of a child, and we can safely say that no child is sent to hades, nor will end up eternally condemned. But, that in no way negates that which Romans 5 and John 3 teach. In John 6, except a man eat of the flesh of the Son, they have no life.

Life is granted through belief in Christ, and again, specifically that He has died in our place.


19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Not "some men," or even "many men."

Men...period. They loved darkness rather than light. Their deeds were evil.

While I do not claim to understand predestination to the full, we cannot say that scripture does not teach this. I usually look at it as pertaining to the onmiscience of God. I do not view it as God playing favorites, as God is no respecter of persons, and I feel it would be unfair to think that God would command man to believe then not supply that opportunity to man. No man will stand before God and plead ignorance.

But, this is not really the discussion at hand.

In view is original sin, and at the heart of the topic is an apparent hatred for Calvinism. I hope that does not extend to Calvinists themselves, as surely you would admit that there are as many associated with that particular faith which are ignorant of a higher understanding of it's doctrine, just as there are in any other faith, right?

Where is that in the verses we have discussed?

Christ's obedience cannot be compared to the obedience expected of men, especially when it comes to following the law. Man was incapable of keeping the law, which is why there was a need for the New Covenant.

"For finding fault with them..."

Not the Covenant of Law, or, the First Covenant.

That's not how Paul described his own sin:


Romans 7

King James Version (KJV)

5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.


Paul does not exclude himself from this. He states his condition as "when we were in the flesh."


6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

Dead and delivered from the law. "We" should serve in newness of spirit.

Not in the oldness of the letter, which I suggest to you speaks of the First Covenant, even as we see here:



2 Corinthians 3:6-8

King James Version (KJV)

6Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

7But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

8How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?



Romans 7

7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.


The law, the First Covenant, did not give life, but as stated by Paul in Galatians, the law served to show man his sin, and here, Paul admits he would not have recognized his sin...but for the law. When the law showed Paul his sin, which he was already committing, he was of course convicted after the fact of his guilt.

Interesting, no? He would not have known his sin if not for the law.


And I will have to end there, HP. I am tired, and time to spend some time with my wife.

See you next time, and until then...

God bless.

 

Since it is indeed theoretically possible that a man can obtain eternal life by his works then it is evident that a man is not born dead in sin.

If a man is born dead in Adam's sin then no law-keeping can bring him righteousness or eternal life. If he is ever going to be justified then it must be by the pentalty being paid. He must be "justified by death," he must be "justified by blood" (Ro.5:9).

Therefore if a person is born dead in sin then it is not theoretically possible that anyone can gain eternal life by his own works or deeds as judged by law. However, the Lord Jesus made it plain that it is theoretically possible for a person to gain eternal life by keeping the law.

 

Of course he was. But what he said there does not prove that a man does not have the ability to keep the law. Sooner or later all men decide to go their own way instead of God's way. That is exactly what the following verse is speaking about;

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

On the other hand, the Lord Jesus made it perfectly clear that a person has the ability to keep the law, as witnessed by His words to the lawyer:

"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live" (Lk.10:25-28).

According to what the Lord Jesus said there can be no doubt that at least in theory a person can obtain eternal life by keeping the law. Or else we must believe that the Lord Jesus was not telling the truth when He said:

"this do, and thou shalt live."

If a person could not possibily obtain eternal life at least in theory then the Lord Jesus would never have said, "this do, and thou shalt live."

 

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)
--Why doesn't it? By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. Justification by keeping the law is impossible. Even if you could keep all the law it would be all fruitless in the end, because justification is by faith (Rom.5:1). So the entire conversation is moot.
There is only one way to heaven, and that is through Christ; not through works; not through the law.

Please don't quote Scripture out of context.
"This only have I found...."
What did he find? Who is "he"? What was he looking for? Why was he looking? Did he find it? Was it what he was really looking for? Maybe what he found wasn't the thing he was looking for in the first place. Ecclesiastes is the favorite book for the cults. Do you know why?

Was the lawyer serious?
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 10:25)

But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:29)
--Then Jesus gives the story of the Good Samaritan.
This man was only interested in tempting Jesus, and then in saving his own reputation, justifying himself. He wasn't interested in eternal life at all. Thus the answer that Jesus gave was according to the question that the lawyer asked.
In witnessing to a person it is wise to point them to the law first. This shows them that they are a sinner. No man can keep the law. If a person does not realize that they are a sinner, then they will never be saved. Take a lesson from Jesus here. The law does not save. But the law points to our need for a Savior.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:24-25)

 

And in return, I will have to also disagree, surprise surprise...lol.

Because we are told that man could not keep the law:


Romans 8

1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:


That is why we are told, over and over...that Christ had to die for man.

And in his commentary in Roman's 10, it is clear that it is Christ, not the letter, to which he refers. Which is understandable: men were blessed in life by keeping the word of God, which Paul states as faith in Christ.

God bless.

 

It is not theoretically possible! There are two reasons why it is it not theoretically possible!

1. No such righteous person has ever been born into this world but Christ

2. Theoretically it would have to be equally possible Jesus Christ is unnecessary.

 

HP, you have not addressed the point made: Romans 5 cleearly ascribes man's sin to ONE man, you said it was many, I posted and emphasized where it clearly says...one.

?

And I did, thank you.

God bless.

 

The position of HP and Jerry is that every human being born into this world is a potential Jesus Christ.

1. They come into the world already born of the Spirit
2. Unable to willfully sin throughout childhood
3. Potentially will never sin thus never need Jesus Christ
4. Potentially each human is a Jesus Christ

If this is true, then why doesn't Jesus or Paul allow for that potentially?

"There is NONE GOOD but one and that is God" - Jesus

"There is NONE that doeth good, no, NOT ONE" - Paul

There is "no flesh" justifiable by law - Paul

"All the world" condemned by law - Paul

"Every mouth" stopped by law - Paul


Where is the hint that there are millions of exceptions born every day and many millions more living without sin (children) every day??????

 

It is "theoretically possible that God can create a rock...He cannot lift. This is the same reasoning you are applying here, unfortunately.

Because man could not keep the Covenant of Law, the First Covenant, it was necessary for God to establish the New Covenant.


Romans 8

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

That verse alone shows both that man was incapable of escaping condemnation, due to his flesh, and that the Law could not do the very thing that Christ came to do...and that is to give man eternal life.



Hebrews 8

King James Version (KJV)

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:


Christ IS the mediator of a better Covenant, which is the New. God found fault with, not the First Covenant, but man.

And one more:



Galatians 3:21-22

King James Version (KJV)

21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.


Once again, we see that while it is certainly "theoretically possible that the law could bring eternal life, and here it is equated with righteousness, truly righteousness should have been by the law.


"But the scripture hath concluded ALL under sin."


The arguments presented over and over to deny that ALL MEN are under sin, which is the same concept as original sin can, over and over, be seen to be in error by the very scriptures that conclude that...ALL are under sin.

Which is why it was necessary to atone for the sins of the world, not just those that sinned after birth.


John 5

24Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

How many verses that state that man is condemned, that he is dead (bereft of life), that life is only through the accomplished work of Christ...will it take to make one to question the doctrine he teaches?

Men are not justified by death. In death they pay the wages of sin.

And man cannot atone for his own sin, which is why Christ died in his place.

So the unending condition of man apart from Christ's work is...death. That is the inevitable result.

That is a true statement: we have the entire word of God that emphasizes that man can not of his own works be justified. The attempt to ascribe the keeping of the law as a means of gaining eternal life will utterly fail, for it denies the necessity of the Cross.

You yourself keep repeating, it is "theoretically possible," but you cannot negate the truths from scripture that 1-the law allowed for anything but temporal life, which by keeping man escaped the penalties that the law brought; 2-that man due to the flesh, his unredeemed flesh (which points to the fact that it needed to be redeemed, and still does even after salvation and believers have through Christ gained eternal life) I might add, could not keep the law; and 3-...Christ need not have come if man could keep the law and gain eternal life.

The Lord...did not utter one word that would bring scripture in contradiction to itself.

The temporal application of the Law can be seen within the Ten Commandments themselves:



Exodus 20:12

King James Version (KJV)

12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


This is not to say there is not a spiritual application, there is. But, you have the burden of showing that the Law contradicts, negates, or makes void the more complete revelation of the New Testament which teaches that it was necessary for Christ to die, that man might have everlasting life, and to escape condemnation, sin, and the wages of sin.

God bless.

 

I don't know what the others believe, but I don't believe any of these.

#1 Men are born with a created spirit, the spirit of a man. It is upright, man is not born a sinner. But as soon as a man willfully and knowingly sins, this spirit dies, becomes separated from God. When we are saved, this spirit is washed clean of sin and is joined to the Holy Spirit producing a new creation.

1 Cor 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Now we are partakers of the divine nature. (2 Pet 1:4)

#2 Children can and do sin, but because they are not able to fully understand the consequences of their sins before God they are not held accountable. Just as if a 3 old picked up his father's gun and shot his sister, we would not prosecute the child because he does not realize what he is doing.

Deut 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.

#3 If a child dies before reaching the age of accountability, he is judged innocent. He still needs Christ who died for his corrupt body to be resurrected.

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,
38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

#4 This claim is absurd, there is only one begotten Son of God.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

 

Regardless of what it is you believe, at least one person has affirmed that men have been "born of God" and that when they are regenerated, it is a repetition of this same process, meaning, just as Biblicist stated...

That man has a spirit is not in question, but whether that spirit is of God...that is the question.

There have been many verses already posted that deny this.

Okay, where is the scripture for this statement?

Why distinguish in the first part that they are one flesh, but when joined to God, they are one spirit?

Clearly this is a reference to temporal, physical actions contrasted with the spiritual union between believers and God. Nowhere is an unbeliever said to be born of God, a necessity for all men.

2 Peter 1

1Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Clearly a reference to believers, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. This does not negate that man as a whole is condemned...already.

Why is that? Do parents teach their children to sin?

No, it is not necessary.

I agree with the thought, but it has nothing to do with original sin, nor does it negate what was said in #2.

It is an impossibility that a child might grow up...never to sin. Children are no different than adults. In the life of a child, because he is unaware of God, meaning, he cannot grasp sin, righteousness, and judgment, he is unable to obey God.

However, every parent (that is a good parent, at least) teaches their child right from wrong, and imposes "commandments" for the child to follow.

Children will, all of them, disobey their parents in the course of growing up. Because they were taught by someone to? No...it is the inevitable outcome for those that dwell in unredeemed flesh, both before, and after, salvation.

Again, irrelevant. It does not speak of man's condition, but refers to the children of the wilderness wandering Israelites, who would possess the land...and sin, just like their fathers.

This is not general teaching on the "innocence" of children.

And why is that? Because he has the very nature that Christ came to liberate man from.

Christ died for the sins of all, not just those that failed to keep the law.

Again, clearly a temporal focus is found here.

Sacrifice was established to give man a reprieve, that he might gain temporary forgiveness, which is why sacrifices were offered over and over.

When a child was sacrificed to demons, he was not dying for his own sin, as an animal sacrifice under the law did for the offerer, but was dying to appease false gods on the part of the offerer.

Hope that makes sense.

Not so absurd as you might think. The only complete offering for sin is the body of Christ.

To say that a man can pay the penalty of sin, the wages of death which is the due recompense for every man, himself, is to say that one can accomplish that which Christ came specifically to do.

This is why the law, a temporary Covenant designed and instituted to show man his sin and to bring him to Christ, was made obsolete.

The sacrifices of the law were incomplete, and because man is born in flesh in need of redemption, it could not...take away sins.

Only Christ was able to reconcile man to God through His death. We are told this over and over in scripture.

Agreed. But how does that deny the statements made. There is but one work in which man can trust for righteousness, and that is the work of the Cross.

When a man determines that he must contribute to this, he is in effect saying, contrary to scripture, that the sacrifice of Christ could not, and did not...take away sins.

The offense is doubly compounded when man returns to the First Covenant, despite the fact the word of God is clear that the First Covenant was a failure in the lives of men because of their flesh.

How can it be said that man has not a sinful nature, when it is clear that the very bodies men dwell in here...are in need of redemption? Can we separate that from the equation, and say that man is born of God twice, that he is upright?

He is upright in spirit, just not in body? This is an ancient heresy that scripture deals with.

Okay, have to get going,

God bless.

 

You are asking the wrong question. The question which you run away from is was the Lord Jesus serious when He said the following?:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

The Lord Jesus Christ, who is a Man and who was made like us in every way, kept the law. His being able to keep it is proof that it is at least theoretically possible for a person to keep the law.

And that was affirmed by the lord Jesus Himself. When asked how a person can inherit eternal life, He said that a person can obtain that life by keeping the law. To make sure there was no doubt in what He was teaching, He said:

"This do, and thou shalt live."

If keeping the commandments cannot bring eternal life then why did Paul write the following?:

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:10).

If the commandments were never intended to bring eternal life then why did Paul say that they did? If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say that "Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes"?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?

 

False. There is not a single verse in all of scripture that says we are born dead in sin. But there is a verse that says 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.

This verse directly says God has made man upright. This word is yashar and is translated "righteous" 9 times in the OT. And the word "they" shows this verse is speaking of all men, not just Adam.

Show me any verse that says men are born sinners, dead in sin. I want something that directly addresses whether we are sinful or righteous at birth, and applies to all men as Ecc 7:29 does.

 

To support my view I do not need to negate any truths from the Scriptures. It is those who deny that it is theoretically possible for a person to obtain eternal life by keeping the law who must negate the following verses:

If keeping the commandments cannot bring eternal life then why did Paul write the following?:

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death" (Ro.7:10).

If the commandments were never intended to bring eternal life then why did Paul say that they did? If "law" was never a way whereby a man could theoretically obtain righteousness then why would Paul say the following?:

"For Christ is the end of law for righteousness to every one that believes" (Ro.10:4; DBY).

If law was never intended as a means for a person to obtain rightepusness then how could Paul say that it has come to an end?

Paul also speaks of the believing remnant out of national Israel and says that their election is of grace and therefore "it is no more of works":

"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace" (Ro.11:5-6).

If no one could theoretically be saved by "works" then why would Paul say that "it is no longer of works"?

 

First, vs. 17 is clearly speaking of the spirit, not flesh.

I will explain this to you, but you may not receive it. God said a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

Does this happen? YES. How? Children. When a husband and wife have a child, that child consists of part of the father, and part of the mother. This is obvious and we all know this. But the child is a new creature, he is not his father, and he is not his mother. He is an individual.

One of the objections Calvinists give to being born again, is that they say none of us chose to be born. They are correct, our parents made that decision.

Paul is showing our spirit is joined to the Holy Spirit in vs. 17, but it is comparable to the flesh. We we trust Christ, our nature (of man) is joined with the Holy Spirit. The scriptures even say we are married to Christ. This results in a child, a child who is made of our human spirit combined with the Holy Spirit. It is a new creation, we are individuals just like our children are. But now we partake in the divine nature.

2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

So, just as children are born to two willing parents, we are born again to two willing parents, our spirit and the Holy Spirit. This produces a new child who is one spirit. That is what Paul is saying in vs. 17.

 

True. Just read the thread. In fact, just read the one post this comes from.

Start with this one, one of many to which a response is as of yet not forthcoming:

Romans 8

3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Here it is plain that the law was weak through the flesh: can you tell me when we receive the flesh which the law cannot make righteous?


I would also like to see a response concerning every other point raised in the post.

Perhaps the phrase itself, maybe not, but how much does it take to put together that all men were condemned in Adam to understand that Adam's sin affected all of his descendants?


Genesis 5

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:


Appeals to James, which is normal for those that fail to see that he is speaking of relationship between men in the temporal sense, might be made, but we would have to disown this verse here.

Adam was created in the likeness of God...Seth was created in the likeness of Adam.

As I said, many verses have been offered to show man's sinful condition, or what we call the sin nature, which began with Adam, and has affected man ever since.

If man could gain righteousness then the Lord could have simply used a man, rather than take on the flesh of man and die in his place.

Then, we would have had no need for the New Covenant, or, for that matter, the First Covenant.

Nevertheless, since an appeal to the limited revelation of the Old Testament concerning man's condition is made, let's see what is overlooked in this passage also:



Ecclesiastes 7:20

King James Version (KJV)

20For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.


What? But doesn't he also say...



Ecclesiastes 7:29

King James Version (KJV)

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


The apparent contradiction which the proposed doctrine brings is understanding that God did make man upright...and he fell into sin. That was just one man. The flood itself shows the inability for man to do other than what a sinful nature leads him to.

What about Noah? He found grace in the eyes of the Lord. And why did Noah, a righteous man need grace for?

Because...


Ecclesiastes 7:20

King James Version (KJV)

20For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

As I said, there have been many verse to point out man's condition, which is one that is sinful, separated from God, and requiring the grace of God.

If you don't mind, please answer the response I gave in more detail, rather than it seems the custom is, to pick out one or two...because it makes one feel better.

God bless.