Born in Sins

[Jerry Shugart]

I have a degree in biology, as well as theology. If you would like to expound this entire passage and see how the psalmist is exclaiming how we are fearfully and wonderfully made, I would more than glad to oblige you.

Here is the verse again:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

But this verse in no way takes away from man's sin nature. God has given us a wonderful body, that in spite of all the harm we do to it, the body continues to function, the heart beats without our thinking, the blood circulates, the brain acts like a computer and is smarter than any computer that man has invented. We are fearfully and wonderfully made.

Being created by God involves much more that our "physical" body. The following verse speaks of much more than that:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" (1 Cor.11:7).

"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness" (Jas.3:9).

When James says that we have been made in God's likeness he is not saying that God is a physical being and that we are like him in that manner.

We can also see that it is said that the Lord Jesus is also "the image of God":

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor.4:4).

We can also see that The Lord Jesus was "fully human in every way":

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

It is beyond me how anyone can say that a person comes out of the womb dead spiritually since we are made in the image of God. It is beyond me how anyone can say that we are born with a corrupted nature since we are made in the image or likeness of God.

It is beyond me how anyone can say that we are born dead spirtually and with a corrupted nature since it is said that Christ was made like us in every way.

Again, Paul speaks of being "alive" until he broke a commandment and he says that the commandment slew him:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).

Surely Paul was not speaking of "physical" life and death since he was alive physically when he wrote those words. Therefore he was speaking about being alive spiritually before he broke the law. That means that he was not born dead spiritually because one has to be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marke: I'm not intending to be disrespectful, but I am not quite following you here. Salvation is freely offered to sinners so that "Whosoever will" may freely partake. .....

HP: Agreed.

Marke: All of the God-ordered sacrifices ......

HP: Agreed.

Marke: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even the Lord Jesus was lifted up so that all men have to do is 'Look and Live'.....

HP: I fully agree. I do not understand what you might take issue with. Sorry.

 

[marke]

HP: Agreed.



HP: Agreed.


HP: I fully agree. I do not understand what you might take issue with. Sorry.

I wasn't taking issue with anything, if I remember correctly, but was not following what you were saying. And I don't mean to imply that there is any fault in your delivery, I just have problems sometimes understanding difficult concepts, technical issues, deep theological issues, and the like. So I am not criticizing at all.

My wife used to get upset with me when I would tell her I couldn't hear or understand what she was saying (on a similar vein). She now knows, however, that the problem was not with her, but that I do have a hearing problem and that is that. She now very graciously makes accomodation for my growing handicap.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marke, I as well have problems understanding some issues. Learning is often a repetitious exercise. Issues can be addressed from so many angles it does get confusing at times. Feel free to ask questions at any time from any number of individuals. Often one may be able to explain things simpler or in a manner easier understood by another. We can learn by those that we disagree with as well as those we find in agreement. This whole exercise is a learning process on how to best get across your ideas and the things you believe are truth. Hang in there. :thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Here is the verse again:

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

Being created by God involves much more that our "physical" body.

Your theory is not based upon any clear and explicit statement found in scripture. You have to INFER it by every single text you use. That is not the case with our position. With our position the texts directly speak of man's sinfulness in conception and birth and you are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY the texts we use! Hence your position is one of INFERENCE to prove it and EXPLAINING AWAY clear and explicit scriptures that deny it!

The same is true with the above verse. This text says nothing about any righteous spiritual state of the the child. You must patch together INFERENCES from several scriptures. You must INFER that the "image of God" always from birth includes SPIRITUAL LIFE or MORAL UPRIGHTNESS when in fact it does not as clearly seen by the fact that the killing of any man regardless of his age or moral condition is forbidden because they have been created in "the image of God" (Gen. 9). The image of God includes more than moral righteousness which was lost in the fall. It includes rational and voltional ability. It includes a moral conscience regardless if it is flawed as animals do not have any kind of maral conscience. It includes the POSITION of man to RULE over creation.

Therefore, for you to take the above text and insist he must include moral righteousness from birth is pure INFERENCE and clearly unwarranted inference because the same writer both in literal and figurative expressions denies that about himself (Psa. 51:5; 58:4) where these texts explicitly address the moral character of infants at birth and your text does not!

You are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY the texts that literally and figuratively deny the righteous condition of infants (Psa. 51; 58) while INFERRING a righteous condition from a text that does not explicitly say any such thing (Psa. 139) and both from the same author!!!! That is a WEAK argument at minimum!

 

[The Biblicist]

The following verse speaks of much more than that:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" (1 Cor.11:7).

In context this is being applied to ADULTS and born again people in particular! In Genesis 1:26-27 it was applied to ADULTS and unfallen people in particular!

QUESTION: When Adam and Eve fell into sin did they cease being in the image and glory of God?

QUESTION: In Genesis 9 when God forbade killing of men because they were created in the image of God was he only forbidding killing of infants or righteus people but this law did not apply to the ungodly???????

Your problem is that you cannot possibly demand this statement always refers to those with a righteous or spirit born nature because it does not! However, that is precisely why you are using it to support your theory that infants are spiritual born in an upright condition. This text cannot support that.

 

[savedbymercy]

The Election of Grace are born sinners, but they are not born in their sins. Reason being that Christ has already died for them 1 Cor 15:3 and bore them away Jn 1:29..So when when I say they are not born in their sins, that means they are not born with their sins charged against them ! Reason why ? Because they were Charged to Christ !

 

[The Biblicist]

We can also see that it is said that the Lord Jesus is also "the image of God":

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them" (2 Cor.4:4).

We can also see that The Lord Jesus was "fully human in every way":

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

Of course Jesus was fully human in every way! He was fully human as the sinner was fully human but without indwelling sin! Hence, indwelling sin does not change a human to a non-human in nature. Adam was fully human before he fell and he was fully human after he fell. However, his human nature was not the same condition after the fall as prior to the fall. The sinful condition was something ADDED to the human nature by the fall that neither denied or asserted his humanity!

This addition to the human nature can be compared to the indwelling of the Divine nature in the human nature of Christ. The indwelling divine nature does not change the human nature of Christ into something more or less human in nature. However, no other human was like Christ in regard to this indwelling addition!

Likewise, between Christ and fallen man. Fallen man comes with indwelling sin by birth whereas Christ did not come into this world with indwelling sin. He was "made" differently from all other men in regard to the nature of his birth. He was "made" by the conception of the Holy Spirit whereas all other humans had paternal natural fallen father's involved in their conception in the womb.

All other human beings come into this world as sinners by nature from birth due to indwelling sin. Christ came into this world without indwelling sin. However, the lack of indwelling sin did not "make" him any less human in nature.

All other human bengs come into this world simply as human's but Christ came into this world with indwelling Deity but that did not "make" him any less human in nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is beyond me how anyone can say that a person comes out of the womb dead spiritually since we are made in the image of God. It is beyond me how anyone can say that we are born with a corrupted nature since we are made in the image or likeness of God.

It is beyond you because you MISINTERPRET the "image of God" to mean inseparability from spiritual life! Lost dead unregenerate humans are still in the "image of God" as Genesis 9 and the prohibition of murder proves! Unless, you can prove this law only forbids killing infants and born again adults????? However, if you admit the unregenerate are in the "image of God" then unregenerate spiritual dead infants can be in the image of God as well.

It is beyond me how anyone can say that we are born dead spirtually and with a corrupted nature since it is said that Christ was made like us in every way.

He was "made" like us in every way in regard to HUMAN NATURE. However, as I formerly pointed out indwelling sin is something ADDED to human nature as pre-fallen Adam was HUMAN NATURE as much as post-fallen Adam was HUMAN NATURE. However, pre-fallen Adam HUMAN NATURE had no indwelling sin but post-fallen Adam did have indwelling sin.

Therefore, Christ was made like pre-fallen human nature without indwelling sin and the proof is that the same writer, Paul clearly and explicitly compares him to the "First Adam" and thus calls him the "Second Adam". He is referring to Adam BEFORE the fall in this comparison and NOT to the fallen Adam.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are forced to EXPLAIN AWAY the texts that literally and figuratively deny the righteous condition of infants (Psa. 51; 58) while INFERRING a righteous condition from a text that does not explicitly say any such thing (Psa. 139) and both from the same author!!!! That is a WEAK argument at minimum!

The weakest argument I have ever seen is your pitiful attempt to reconcile your view on the nature of little children with what the Lord Jesus said here about them:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are born dead in sin and with a corrupted nature but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"?

If anyone is forced to explain away anything it is you! And we can also see that children are described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

According to you the Lord's reward are infants born dead in sin and having a corrupt nature and such is also His heritange.

Your problem is that you cannot possibly demand this statement always refers to those with a righteous or spirit born nature because it does not! However, that is precisely why you are using it to support your theory that infants are spiritual born in an upright condition.

There is more evidence that you must explain away that supports the teaching of Scriptures that infants are born spirituallly alive. In the following verse the Apostle Paul describes how he was saved:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth--renewing of the Holy Spirit." If a person is "regenerated" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore we can be certain that the following words of Paul where he speaks of previously being "alive" that the reference was to being alive spiritually:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).

Your theory is not based upon any clear and explicit statement found in scripture.

You are wrong and when you answered what I said about Paul dying spiritually as a result of his breaking the law all you could say that it was his "knowledge" which died!

How can anyone take you seriously?

 

[The Biblicist]

Again, Paul speaks of being "alive" until he broke a commandment and he says that the commandment slew him:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" (Ro.7:9-11).

Surely Paul was not speaking of "physical" life and death since he was alive physically when he wrote those words. Therefore he was speaking about being alive spiritually before he broke the law. That means that he was not born dead spiritually because one has to be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually.

Since Paul was talking about SPIRITUAL LIFE then we are forced to one of two possible interpetations.

1. Paul was born spiritually alive from birth and then spiritually died when he sinned willfully.

2. Paul is describing his relationship to the law as he perceived it until knowledge of sin was actually imparted to him through the law by the Holy Spirit.

The first option has several problems:

1. Spiritual life APART FROM and OUTSIDE any knowledge of Jesus Christ.

2. Clear and explicit scriptures that teach infants are born sinners which must be EXPLAINED AWAY.

QUESTION: Does Paul indicate how he percevied himself touching the law in regard to his spiritual condition prior to becoming a believer in Christ????

QUESTION: Did his self-perception touching the law change by a proper knowledge of the law prior to becoming a believer in Christ??

QUESTION: Do we know the precise time Paul perceived himself to be a sinner of the law?

ANSWERS:

Philip 3:4 ¶ Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Notice that in his inclusion of what he calls "confidence in the flesh" he begins with his birth and concludes with his own perceived righteousness touching the law "blameless"!

Notice, he does not separate his infant "eighth day" condition from "in the flesh" category! From birth he was raised under the perception that he was a child of Abraham, thus a child of God from birth and under the law from birth.

This perception from a child did not change even unto when he was persecuting the church at Jerusalem. He regarded himself "blamless" as touching the righteousness of the Law. He did not see himself as a sinner from birth to persecution but "blameless" in righteousnes under the law and therefore not under the CONDEMNATION of the law but under the APPROVAL of the Law and the approval of the law is ETERNAL LIFE!

CONCLUSION: He included his childhood condition as "in the flesh" and something only the flesh could BOAST about as being "blameless" touching the law right up to his conversion to Christ on the road to Damascus as he was still persecuting Christians in this self-perception of "blameless" condition touching the righteousness of the Law!

The Law was given by God to reveal the knowlege of sin and thus bring a person under the CONDEMNATION of the Law as a sinner.


QUESTION: When did this transition from "blameless" to Condemnation by the KNOWLEDGE of the Law occur in the life of Paul?????

1. Not as an infant
2. Not from infant to persecuting the church at Jerusalem

ANSWER: On the road to Damascus as an adult Jew.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He was "made" like us in every way in regard to HUMAN NATURE. However, as I formerly pointed out indwelling sin is something ADDED to human nature as pre-fallen Adam was HUMAN NATURE as much as post-fallen Adam was HUMAN NATURE. However, pre-fallen Adam HUMAN NATURE had no indwelling sin but post-fallen Adam did have indwelling sin.

So you actually think that "sin" is a substance that can indwell a person?

That is ridiculous and you prove that you cannot understand that Paul uses that expression in a figurative sense. There is no such thing as a "sin" that is a substance that indwells a body.

Your understanding of "sin" is on the level of those in the pagan religions who imagined that sins could be washed away from the soul with water.

Therefore, Christ was made like pre-fallen human nature without indwelling sin...

Of course what you say is directly contadicted here where it says that He was made like his "brothers" in every way. This is in regard to people living after the fall:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Since Paul was talking about SPIRITUAL LIFE then we are forced to one of two possible interpetations.

Actually, there is just "one" possible interpretation, and this is it:

Paul was born spiritually alive from birth and then spiritually died when he sinned willfully.

In the following passage Paul compares that which brings "life" and that which brings "death":

"Who 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...the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Cor.3:6-8).

It is the new Testament that results in "life" and the reference is obviously in regard to "spiritual" life--"the spirit giveth life."

It is the Ten Commanments which bring death, and since the life is speaking of "spiritual" life then the death must likewise be referring to "spiritual" death.

And this fits perfectly with what Paul says about the way that he died physically. And that fits perfectly in regard to what James says here:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).

What "death" is being spoken of in that verse?

Question: What evidence can you give from the Scriptures which demonstrate that a person dies spiritually in any other way than by breaking God's law?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jerry: Your understanding of "sin" is on the level of those in the pagan religions who imagined that sins could be washed away from the soul with water.

HP: Or even as some did in times past, believing that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will who evidently thought that by mutilating the flesh or by some rigid notions placed upon the flesh that somehow sin would either leave or subside. I believe such was the practice of some called Ascetics as I recall reading about them once.

 

[The Biblicist]

So you actually think that "sin" is a substance that can indwell a person?

That is ridiculous and you prove that you cannot understand that Paul uses that expression in a figurative sense. There is no such thing as a "sin" that is a substance that indwells a body.

Rom. 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Of course what you say is directly contadicted here where it says that He was made like his "brothers" in every way. This is in regard to people living after the fall:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

His "brothers" had the HUMAN NATURE which existed both before and after the fall! Hence, that is what he was made like unto them in every way - human nature. However, the human nature after the fall had an ADDED element which does not make a person more or less human in nature and it is the virgin birth that "made" Christ like the Prefallen Adam human nature rather than the post-fallen Adam with this additional element to human nature.

In regard to what was added by the fall, Christ was "made" like unto pre-fallen Adam and Romans 5:15 and 1 Cor. 15:44-48 prove it! He was not "made" like post fallen Adam with indwelling sin and for you to say so contradicts both Romans 5:15 and 1 Corinthians 15:44-48 as the "SECOND Adam."

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Or even as some did in times past, believing that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will who evidently thought that by mutilating the flesh or by some rigid notions placed upon the flesh that somehow sin would either leave or subside. I believe such was the practice of some called Ascetics as I recall reading about them once.

Yes, and it is this thinking that led to Augustine's ideas in regard to Original Sin. He was a disciple of the Manichaeans who were a Gnostic sect who taught that all matter is inherently evil. To them the soul was matter, as well as the body. Only the soul was matter in a more subtle form. To them it was perfectly logical to think that the soul could be washed with water.

And this same thinking invaded the early church with the practice of exorcising or blessing the water from evil that attached itself to things corporeal.

Augustine's doctrine of sin, with his belief in the inherent sinfulness of the physical body, is wholly Manichaean. And his ideas were adopted by many in the church and refined in certain aspects.

We can see that this ignorance continues, as the Biblicist continues to insist that "sin" can actually dwell in the body!

 

[The Biblicist]

Actually, there is just "one" possible interpretation, and this is it:

Come on deal with the evidence instead of dismissing it!

The first option has several problems:

1. Spiritual life APART FROM and OUTSIDE any knowledge of Jesus Christ.

2. Clear and explicit scriptures that teach infants are born sinners which must be EXPLAINED AWAY.

QUESTION: Does Paul indicate how he percevied himself touching the law in regard to his spiritual condition prior to becoming a believer in Christ????

QUESTION: Did his self-perception touching the law change by a proper knowledge of the law prior to becoming a believer in Christ??

QUESTION: Do we know the precise time Paul perceived himself to be a sinner of the law?

ANSWERS:

Philip 3:4 ¶ Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Notice that in his inclusion of what he calls "confidence in the flesh" he begins with his birth and concludes with his own perceived righteousness touching the law "blameless"!

Notice, he does not separate his infant "eighth day" condition from "in the flesh" category! From birth he was raised under the perception that he was a child of Abraham, thus a child of God from birth and under the law from birth.

This perception from a child did not change even unto when he was persecuting the church at Jerusalem. He regarded himself "blamless" as touching the righteousness of the Law. He did not see himself as a sinner from birth to persecution but "blameless" in righteousnes under the law and therefore not under the CONDEMNATION of the law but under the APPROVAL of the Law and the approval of the law is ETERNAL LIFE!

CONCLUSION: He included his childhood condition as "in the flesh" and something only the flesh could BOAST about as being "blameless" touching the law right up to his conversion to Christ on the road to Damascus as he was still persecuting Christians in this self-perception of "blameless" condition touching the righteousness of the Law!

 

[The Biblicist]

We can see that this ignorance continues, as the Biblicist continues to insist that "sin" can actually dwell in the body!

Wrong! I simply quoted Paul's words and he says sin indwells the flesh:

Rom. 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

You say it does not, Paul says it does! I will take Paul's view!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Excellent post Jerry as always.:thumbs:

What gets me is that Augustine, early on under the tutelage of Ambrose, stated clearly his beliefs in clear contradiction to any notion of original sin and in accordance to a solid understanding of a free will, but then turned his back on those solid truths and resorted to his heathen heritage in establishing the dogma of original sin. Speaking of going in reverse osmosis.

Then look at Pelagius and how he was then treated by Augustine, when I find nothing in the beliefs that survived the fires of Augustine, that would have contradicted the teaching Augustine originally received via Ambrose early on in his Christian life. Pelagius clearly refuted the notion of original sin and infant baptism etc. that Augustine introduced into the Church, and believed in a free will from every thing I can gather.

It certainly teaches me one thing. When one calls another a heretic, study and check the source.

 

[The Biblicist]

Excellent post Jerry as always.:thumbs:

What gets me is that Augustine, early on under the tutelage of Ambrose, stated clearly his beliefs in clear contradiction to any notion of original sin and in accordance to a solid understanding of a free will, but then turned his back on those solid truths and resorted to his heathen heritage in establishing the dogma of original sin. Speaking of going in reverse osmosis.

Then look at Pelagius and how he was then treated by Augustine, when I find nothing in the beliefs that survived the fires of Augustine, that would have contradicted the teaching Augustine originally received via Ambrose early on in his Christian life. Pelagius clearly refuted the notion of original sin and infant baptism etc. that Augustine introduced into the Church, and believed in a free will from every thing I can gather.

It certainly teaches me one thing. When one calls another a heretic, study and check the source.

:laugh: You both are Biblically bankrupt and so take pleasure in your fellowship over error!