Human State at birth?

[webdog]

Hank, the above is a non seqitur. To dismiss the EO view of original sin due to false views they hold concerning other doctrines can be turned back on you as well. Roman Catholics (where augustinianism was hatched) hold to many heretical teachings, why not go all the way and believe all RC theology? Do you see how ridiculous that argument is?

 

[percho]

The short version of it all. I know none are buying but here it is. Whether one is one minute old or one hundred twenty years old, whether one sins or not; Upright or not for there are none righteous no not one.
For as in Adam all die. Die, as in, to be or not to be.

And if it wasn't for one other fact that would be the end of the matter.

The other fact; Even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Death came by a man.
Being made alive by resurrection came by a man.

after YET this JUDGing Greek interlinear scripture4all.org
and after this -- judgment, YLT

I wonder how much time will be allotted for judging/judgement?

Could there be a hint here. Isa 65:20?

 

[Winman]

Yes, I understand your point of view as well.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not agree with several doctrines of the Latin Churches or the mainstream Protestantant churches.

Baptists (IMO) are none of the above.

Just because they use the Greek text only does not gaurantee doctrinal purity.

Though they are Trinitarian they have an heritical view of the Holy Spirit.

Also they hold to a works salvation in which it is up to the believer to maintain a state of Sanctifying Grace though the receiving of the sacraments at the penalty of perdition.

They use a Greek term for the transformation of the "Eucharist" (metousiosis intead of transubstantio) in which they believe the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Why not go all the whole route and accept everything they teach?

Webdog answered this, just because the EOC is off in many areas does not mean they were off concerning the interpretation of Romans 5:12. I happen to believe they were correct here because your view contradicts the many scriptures I have presented in this thread, such as Ecc 7:29 or 1 Pet 2:25, or Rom 7:9. My view perfectly agrees with all these scriptures and many more.

I explained the use of the different verb tenses of sin so I won't repeat that part except to say that we are held accountable at the actual point in time in which we first sin with volition, until then we are not held accountable.

Taken in context Paul was only speaking of men who had already died, this is shown in verses 13 and 14. These had all died because they had all sinned.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The word "for" and "nevertheless" connects vss. 13 and 14 to the original thought expressed in vs. 12 that death had passed upon all men "for that" all have sinned. Paul is speaking of men who have come before, men from Adam to Moses. All had died, and all had sinned.

You also are calling upon human logic when you said the following


"If we inherit a sin nature from Adam though no choice or fault of our own, and if we are compelled to sin because of that nature, then we are not transgressors, but victims. You cannot hold someone repsonsible for doing the only t

 

[percho]

Webdog answered this, just because the EOC is off in many areas does not mean they were off concerning the interpretation of Romans 5:12. I happen to believe they were correct here because your view contradicts the many scriptures I have presented in this thread, such as Ecc 7:29 or 1 Pet 2:25, or Rom 7:9. My view perfectly agrees with all these scriptures and many more.



Taken in context Paul was only speaking of men who had already died, this is shown in verses 13 and 14. These had all died because they had all sinned.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The word "for" and "nevertheless" connects vss. 13 and 14 to the original thought expressed in vs. 12 that death had passed upon all men "for that" all have sinned. Paul is speaking of men who have come before, men from Adam to Moses. All had died, and all had sinned.

You also are calling upon human logic when you said the following


"If we inherit a sin nature from Adam though no choice or fault of our own, and if we are compelled to sin because of that nature, then we are not transgressors, but victims. You cannot hold someone repsonsible for doing the only t

Would you agree with me that the purpose of God from the foundation of the world, through the living soul man and there have been billions since Adam, yet only one counts, Jesus was this?

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
The last enemy shall be destroyed death.

Does this bring to question, is it about God and man or about God and Satan, man being the conduit for the purpose of God?

Also in the end will not God be glorified in millions maybe billions of these men
in the knees bowing and tongues confessing?

 

[Winman]

Would you agree with me that the purpose of God from the foundation of the world, through the living soul man and there have been billions since Adam, yet only one counts, Jesus was this?

Well, I think we matter, but there was only one ELECT and that is Jesus Christ. We are only elect because we are baptized into him.

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
The last enemy shall be destroyed death.

Does this bring to question, is it about God and man or about God and Satan, man being the conduit for the purpose of God?

Also in the end will not God be glorified in millions maybe billions of these men
in the knees bowing and tongues confessing?

Well, death cannot harm God himself, but death is Satan's means to strike at God. He cannot destroy or harm God directly, but he can destroy and harm man whom God loves.

I do think God gets far more glory from those who love him than those that reject him. Yes, it shows God's sovereignty and power when those who hate him are cast in the lake of fire, but I still think it is far more glorious when a person loves and trusts God and worships him.

 

[HankD]

Webdog answered this, just because the EOC is off in many areas does not mean they were off concerning the interpretation of Romans 5:12. I happen to believe they were correct here because your view contradicts the many scriptures I have presented in this thread, such as Ecc 7:29 or 1 Pet 2:25, or Rom 7:9. My view perfectly agrees with all these scriptures and many more.

Actually they are off base in almost everything. Some of it minor, some major.

Taken in context Paul was only speaking of men who had already died, this is shown in verses 13 and 14. These had all died because they had all sinned.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

The word "for" and "nevertheless" connects vss. 13 and 14 to the original thought expressed in vs. 12 that death had passed upon all men "for that" all have sinned. Paul is speaking of men who have come before, men from Adam to Moses. All had died, and all had sinned.

As I said previously this does not completely answer to the "scope" of "all men" in verse 12. Paul is answering the question of those under the law as well as not under the law over which there is more evidence that it means "all men" (timeless and all inclusive) because of the use of the aorist tense.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Actually they are off base in almost everything. Some of it minor, some major.

As I said previously this does not completely answer to the "scope" of "all men" in verse 12. Paul is answering the question of those under the law as well as not under the law over which there is more evidence that it means "all men" (timeless and all inclusive) because of the use of the aorist tense.

HankD

Well Hank, you have made up your mind, what can I say? But not all scholars would agree with you. Here is what Albert Barnes wrote on this phrase;

All have sinned. To sin is to transgress the law of God; to do wrong. The apostle in this expression does not say that all have sinned in Adam, or that their nature has become corrupt, which is true, but which is not affirmed here; nor that the sin of Adam is imputed to them; but simply affirms that all men have sinned. He speaks evidently of the great universal fact that all men are sinners. He is not settling a metaphysical difficulty; nor does he speak of the condition of man as he comes into the world. He speaks as other men would; he addresses himself to the common sense of the world; and is discoursing of universal, well-known facts. Here is the fact--that all men experience calamity, condemnation, death. How is this to be accounted for? The answer is, "All have sinned." This is a sufficient answer; it meets the case. And as his design cannot be shown to be to discuss a metaphysical question about the nature of man, or about the character of infants, the passage should be interpreted according to his design, and should not be pressed to bear on that of which he says nothing, and to which the passage evidently has no reference. I understand it, therefore, as referring to the fact that men sin in their own persons, sin themselves--as, indeed, how can they sin in any other way?--and that therefore they die. If men maintain that it refers to any metaphysical properties of the nature of man, or to infants, they should not infer or suppose this, but should show distinctly that it is in the text. Where is there evidence of any such reference?

Now where do we go from here? You have some scholars who agree with your interpretation, and you have some scholars who agree with my interpretation.

For me, the only answer is to look at other scripture. Scripture cannot contradict itself, so if we can find scripture that addresses this very subject, we can see what it says to come up with the correct answer. And in my opinion, Ezekiel 18 answers this question, especially Eze 18:20;

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This verse settles it for me. God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. That flatly contradicts your view. In your view all men sinned in Adam and bear his iniquity. Besides contradicting Eze 18:20, all men recognize that it is unjust to punish a man for something another man did wrong.

Now, you will say, that is human logic. YES IT IS. That is exactly what it is, and we see that Jesus himself often appealed to people's common sense and logic.

Mat 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Jesus here, to teach how good our heavenly Father is, asks these people to consider themselves. As evil as men are, would a father give a stone to his hungry son? Or would a father give a serpent to his hungry son if he asked for a fish? NO, of course not. So, if we being evil know how to give good gifts to our children, how much more will God who is much better than us give good gifts to those who ask him?

So, here Jesus asked people to look to their own common sense, logic, and reason. There are many examples of this.

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Luk 14:3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
4 And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;
5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?


In all of these scriptures, Jesus appealed to man's common sense and logic.

It is true that the scriptures tell us the heart is deceitful, and tell us not to lean on our own understanding, but the scriptures are not telling us to mindlessly believe everything we hear. The scriptures tell us to "reason together" with God, just as Jesus demonstrated in these verses.

Every man on earth knows it is unjust to punish a person for another person's sin or crimes.

Besides this, the scriptures directly say the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father. So, I cannot agree with your interpretation of Romans 5:12.

 

[HankD]

Well Hank, you have made up your mind, what can I say? But not all scholars would agree with you. Here is what Albert Barnes wrote on this phrase;



Now where do we go from here? You have some scholars who agree with your interpretation, and you have some scholars who agree with my interpretation.

For me, the only answer is to look at other scripture. Scripture cannot contradict itself, so if we can find scripture that addresses this very subject, we can see what it says to come up with the correct answer. And in my opinion, Ezekiel 18 answers this question, especially Eze 18:20;

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This verse settles it for me. God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. That flatly contradicts your view. In your view all men sinned in Adam and bear his iniquity. Besides contradicting Eze 18:20, all men recognize that it is unjust to punish a man for something another man did wrong.

Now, you will say, that is human logic. YES IT IS. That is exactly what it is, and we see that Jesus himself often appealed to people's common sense and logic.

Mat 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?
11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Jesus here, to teach how good our heavenly Father is, asks these people to consider themselves. As evil as men are, would a father give a stone to his hungry son? Or would a father give a serpent to his hungry son if he asked for a fish? NO, of course not. So, if we being evil know how to give good gifts to our children, how much more will God who is much better than us give good gifts to those who ask him?

So, here Jesus asked people to look to their own common sense, logic, and reason. There are many examples of this.

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Luk 14:3 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?
4 And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go;
5 And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?


In all of these scriptures, Jesus appealed to man's common sense and logic.

It is true that the scriptures tell us the heart is deceitful, and tell us not to lean on our own understanding, but the scriptures are not telling us to mindlessly believe everything we hear. The scriptures tell us to "reason together" with God, just as Jesus demonstrated in these verses.

Every man on earth knows it is unjust to punish a person for another person's sin or crimes.

Besides this, the scriptures directly say the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father. So, I cannot agree with your interpretation of Romans 5:12.

Thanks Winman, I appreciate your point of view.

Actually, in my view human children do not bear the iniquity of Adam but that Adam has passed on the equipment and ability to sin to each one of us and I have said this before.

I have also said I do not like the term "original sin" precisely for the same reason you reject it.

The proof that I do not hold to the Augustinian view of original sin is that I don't believe that water baptism (paedo or believer's baptism) removes "original sin" which is the purpose of infant baptism i.e. to remove "original sin" according to the Church of Rome.

BTW, the Orthodox churches are sacramental and baptise infants without reference to "original sin" in their dogma but view it as a Covenant Sacrament (so-called) which shows their flawed thinking concerning salvation, how it is obtained and maintained.

True, they are not as bad off as the Latin Church but heretical nonetheless.

I believe that God does not hold us accountable for sin as children until we are able to discern right from wrong and subsequently use that inherited equipment and ability to commit our own sin(s).

HankD

 

[DHK]

No way, Jesus said he was both dead and lost, terms never used of a believer.

Dead faith, dead works, etc.
The Lord said to Adam: "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shat surely die. Adam ate and Adam died. And yet this dead Adam still communed with God afterward. Though he was dead he was able to talk with God. How? He had lost his fellowship as a son, not his salvation. God restored his fellowship when he made skins for them, and in the process an animal was killed and blood was shed. Death means separation, is applied to the believer as well. Sin separates the believer from God.

Psalms 66:18 If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me:

Well now you know.

Just because you say so? Hardly. Just because the elder son said so? I don't think so. The elder son said that he didn't transgress his father's command. See for yourself:

Luke 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:
--Was he telling the truth? Was he sinless? Do you really believe that? I don't. Now you have learned something new.

The father did not rebuke or correct his son when he said he had not transgressed at any time his commandments. In fact, the father confirmed this when he said, "Son, thou art EVER with me". He was NEVER separated from the father and NEVER would be. Look up the word "ever".

The statement was a gentle rebuke. Read carefully. He was pleading to an angry son to settle down and come to the feast and rejoice with his younger son. The father wasn't about to get angry with his elder son. This wasn't the time. Just because he didn't directly rebuke him in what is recorded doesn't mean he wasn't rebuked.

That is the very question up for debate. Just because you say so doesn't make it so. You have not one verse of scripture that says we are born dead in sin, separated from God, while I have provided scripture that says God made man (plural) upright.

As I mentioned, you have provided a verse, out of its context. It does not teach that God made man upright. Cults love to use this verse because it is so easy to take it out of its context. Learn the context of Ecclesiastes and then get back to me. If you don't know the context of the book, you should not quote from it.

Paul didn't say he mistakenly believed himself to be alive at one time, which he could have easily said. No, he said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. You add to scripture when you say he "thought" he was alive, there is nothing of the sort said in this verse.

I didn't add to the Scripture; I simply explained to it. If you go to church and listen to the preacher expound a text you have heard it done many times over. The verse:

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
--What does it mean? Literally the law condemns. Thus with the law no man is spiritually alive. Therefore Paul has some other meaning in mind. Before he was saved, as a Pharisee, he believed he was carrying out the will of God. He was a Pharisee of the Pharisees, gave permission to the stoning of Stephen and oversaw it, believing it was God's will. It was the Christians that were going directly against the will of God in his mind.
--But when the commandment came (Christ revealed to him the true meaning of the law), sin revived and he died. He saw the enormity of sin that he had been committing and he died within himself (repenting of that great sin and turning to Christ). It is the law that shows us who sinful we are and points us to Christ.

You contradict yourself. If we are born separated from God (as you say), then we could not return to God. Words have meaning, the word "return" means to come back to some place you have been before. I cannot return to Utah, because I have never been to Utah. I CAN return to California, because I have been to California before.

Yes, born separated from God. The whole race is--born separated from God, but Adam was created and was not separated from God. Read what Barnes has to say on these two verses (Isa.53:6; 1Pet.2:25)

All we, like sheep, have gone astray - This is the penitent confession of those for whom he suffered. It is an acknowledgment that they were going astray from God; and the reason why the Redeemer suffered was, that the race had wandered away, and that Yahweh had laid on him the iniquity of all. Calvin says, 'In order that he might more deeply impress on the minds of people the benefits derived from the death of Christ, he shows how necessary was that healing of which he had just made mention. There is here an elegant antithesis. For in ourselves we were scattered; in Christ we are collected together; by nature we wander, and are driven headlong toward destruction; in Christ we find the way by which we are led to the gate of life.' The condition of the race without a Redeemer is here elegantly compared to a flock without a shepherd, which wanders where it chooses, and which is exposed to all dangers. This image is not unfrequently used to denote estrangement from God 1Pe 2:25 : 'For ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.' Compare Nu 27:17; 1Ki 22:17; Ps 119:176; Eze 34:5; Zec 10:2; Mt 9:36. Nothing could more strikingly represent the condition of human beings. They had wandered from God. They were following their own paths, and pursuing their own pleasures. They were without a protector, and they were exposed on every hand to danger.

 

[DHK]

And calling people with whom you disagree a cult is an old tactic as well. Solomon simply said that one thing he had found, that God hath made man upright, but they (plural- showing he is speaking of all men) have sought out many inventions.

As mentioned before, I said this is a book and verse the cults like to use. Please quote me where I said you were a member of a cult, or withdraw your comment. My statement stands true. If you continue to use this verse out of context without understanding the context of the book of Ecclesiastes it will just make you look foolish. You need to study the book first. There are many statements made in the Bible--statements made by Satan, by fools, by liars, by the unsaved, etc. They are inspired statements in that they are accurately recorded, but that doesn't mean they are truth.

All of these scriptures are very straightforward and simple to understand unless a person's mind is blinded by a false doctrine. They all agree. Solomon said man was made upright,

Yes he did, but from what point of view? He did not speak from God's point of view until the last chapter. Study the book!!

Paul said he was once alive,

We are all "once alive," and still alive. What is the context in which he is saying that?

Jesus told three stories, and in all three stories the subject was not originally lost. The shepherd originally had 100 sheep, one went astray and was lost. The woman originally had ten coins, one was lost. The father had two sons, one left home in sin, became dead and lost. 1 Pet 2:25 says we were as sheep going astray (just as Jesus described in Luke 15), but are now returned (which Jesus also showed when the lost sheep was recovered). Jesus twice said the boy was alive "again" which would be impossible if he were born dead in sin and separated from God as you believe. All of these scriptures agree easily and refute your view.

No, you have just given your opinion, your interpretation of these parables. It doesn't make it right.

You are simply hanging on to Original Sin because that is what you were taught. I also once believed OS because that is what I was taught as well, until I realized the scriptures contradict it over and over again.

It wasn't what "I was taught," per se, but learned. I am not a Calvinist. And I don't hold to the Total Depravity of Man, as the Calvinists teach it.

What is one the favorite verse of Calvinists to prove Total Depravity?

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

I've seen Calvinists (and non-Cals) quote this verse dozens of times and say it proves we are born sinners. It does no such thing, it does not even mention our birth. To the contrary, it says we have "gone out" of the way. To "go out" of the way you must first be "in" the way. You cannot go "out" of your house unless you were first "in" your house. It says we are together "become" unprofitable. You cannot "become" unprofitable if you were born that way. If you were born rich, you would never tell anyone you "became" rich, you were ALWAYS rich. But if you were originally poor and worked hard until you were wealthy, then you would tell someone you were once poor, but "became" rich.

The same passage says:
There is none righteous no not one.
There is none good no not one.
You can't make one statement contradict the rest of the passage.

Words have meaning. You, like others try to twist scripture that is very straightforward and easy to understand. You must perform mental gymnastics to explain these scriptures away.

I am not the one performing the mental gymnastics.
Do you want to see mental gymnastics. Explain Psalm 58:3 without doing mental gymnastics.

I accept it as literal, and all of these scriptures agree without the least twisting or wrangling of scripture whatsoever.

Do you?
How literally do you accept this one?

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

 

[HankD]

Hank, the above is a non seqitur. To dismiss the EO view of original sin due to false views they hold concerning other doctrines can be turned back on you as well. Roman Catholics (where augustinianism was hatched) hold to many heretical teachings, why not go all the way and believe all RC theology? Do you see how ridiculous that argument is?

No, IMO it's not ridiculous. Look at their doctrine, almost every dogma is flawed to one degree or another. We mostly agree on the Trinity.

But even at that they (EOC) have an heretical view of the Holy Spirit as well as a disagreement with us concerning the nature of the humanity of Christ.

Not to mention baptising infants giviing them communion (which they consider the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ).

It would take a really long time to review their myriad of errors.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Thanks Winman, I appreciate your point of view.

Actually, in my view human children do not bear the iniquity of Adam but that Adam has passed on the equipment and ability to sin to each one of us and I have said this before.

I have also said I do not like the term "original sin" percisely for the same reason you reject it.

The proof that I do not hold to the Augustinian view of original sin is that I don't believe that water baptism (paedo or believer's baptism) removes "original sin" which is the purpose of infant baptism i.e. to remove "original sin" according to the Church of Rome.

BTW, the Orthodox churches are sacramental and baptise infants without reference to "original sin" in their dogma but view it as a Covenant Sacrament (so-called) which shows their flawed thinking concerning salvation, how it is obtained and maintained.

True, they are not as bad off as the Latin Church but heretical nonetheless.

I believe that God does not hold us accountable for sin as children until we are able to discern right from wrong and subsequently use that inherited equipment and ability to commit our own sin(s).

HankD

Well see Hank, we are closer than you thought. :thumbs:

Now, there may be a form of Original Sin I believe in, and it is that when Adam sinned the whole universe was plunged into corruption. God said thorns and thistles would spring up.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Now, these verses seem to imply that hardship was introduced into creation. You get the impression that vegtables and fruits were just springing up everywhere, and all a man had to do was pick them off the vine or tree without labor.

The scriptures also say the whole creation groans.

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

I've gotta be honest, I've never quite understood verse 20 yet. But we see here the whole creation (which would include us) is under the bondage of corruption. I personally believe this is when the 2nd law of thermodynamics was introduced into the world (Quantum can correct me if I'm off here). This introduced entropy into the world.

It may be that man's ability to reason and judgment were affected to a degree. It may be that originally man was "balanced" intellect/moral judgment versus sensibilities/lusts/passions, and that the sensibilities increased, or rather the intellect decreased in ratio.

Like as thorns and thistles made farming more difficult, it may be that man's ability to make good choices was made more difficult, man became more susceptible to temptation, more easily fooled and deceived.

I say this because Adam named all the animals, an incredible feat. I think we have been going down intellectually since the garden.

So, Adam was Dumb, and we are Dumber. :laugh:

One thing is certain, in time man becomes more sinful and more temptation is introduced to every man. We are always on a downward spiral.

 

[HankD]

Well see Hank, we are closer than you thought. :thumbs:

Now, there may be a form of Original Sin I believe in, and it is that when Adam sinned the whole universe was plunged into corruption. God said thorns and thistles would spring up.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Now, these verses seem to imply that hardship was introduced into creation. You get the impression that vegtables and fruits were just springing up everywhere, and all a man had to do was pick them off the vine or tree without labor.

The scriptures also say the whole creation groans.

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

I've gotta be honest, I've never quite understood verse 20 yet. But we see here the whole creation (which would include us) is under the bondage of corruption. I personally believe this is when the 2nd law of thermodynamics was introduced into the world (Quantum can correct me if I'm off here). This introduced entropy into the world.

It may be that man's ability to reason and judgment were affected to a degree. It may be that originally man was "balanced" intellect/moral judgment versus sensibilities/lusts/passions, and that the sensibilities increased, or rather the intellect decreased in ratio.

Like as thorns and thistles made farming more difficult, it may be that man's ability to make good choices was made more difficult, man became more susceptible to temptation, more easily fooled and deceived.

I say this because Adam named all the animals, an incredible feat. I think we have been going down intellectually since the garden.

So, Adam was Dumb, and we are Dumber. :laugh:

One thing is certain, in time man becomes more sinful and more temptation is introduced to every man. We are always on a downward spiral.

We also have a lot more toys to take our minds away from God - cars, cameras, computers, televisions, ipads, etc, etc... (unless we use them for His glory of course).

HankD

 

[HankD]

Hank let me ask you something concerning the YLT of that verse.

In reality isn't the most important word in that translation the definite article preceding the words sin and death?

It appears to make those words more explicit.


I think we see the same thing when where in the Greek the definite article the precedes faith, the faith, which implies a faith beyond something that could come from sinful man.

BTW I know no Greek.


Van & Hank

What is the end result of all of this. We were guilty. Christ died for us. We have been forgiven and begotten again to a lively hope.

Yet we are still dying.

2 Cor 4:10-Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present [us] with you.

Is not our future resurrection in reality the salvation of our souls? Could there be a future for the soul outside of our resurrection? Thou will not leave my soul in Hades. Isn't the resurrection in reality the birth as new creations in the exact image of the risen Christ, then the firstborn of many brethren?

Does that spirit of faith come to us by the Holy Spirit and just what was that faith according as it is written?

Yes I believe you are correct, the definite article "the sin" and "the death" does effect the verse by widening the scope of both sin and death.

Sin and death are not just an inconvenience or a setback for humanity but they are an inseparable pair reigning over the human race as well as all of creation.

"We are still dying"
I think Winman does a good job pointing out in Romans 8 that full redemption awaits the manifestation of the sons of God to deliver creation from the bondage of corruption.

Everything in its proper order.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Do you want to see mental gymnastics. Explain Psalm 58:3 without doing mental gymnastics.
Do you?
How literally do you accept this one?

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

I have explained this several times now. First, it is speaking of especially wicked men, and not all men. This is shown in following verses.

Psa 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

David is not saying all men are wicked in verse 3, he is clearly distinguishing between wicked men and righteous men. So, you cannot apply verse 3 to all men as David himself is making a distinction.

It does not say the wicked were estranged IN the womb, it says they are estranged FROM the womb. That means they are estranged sometime AFTER being physically born. It also directly says the wicked GO ASTRAY as soon as they be BORN, again showing they go astray AFTER leaving their mother's womb. It does not say how long after, although it does strongly imply they are estranged and go astray very soon in life.

Now, this is easily observed by all. We see folks who decide upon a life of crime at a very early age. Men who are career criminals usually start in their early teens, or even a few years earlier. That is all this verse is saying, although it is hyperbole or exaggeration. Likewise, most people who get saved (the righteous) receive Jesus at a very early age. It is a statistical fact that the vast majority of Christians received Christ before they were 13 years old. After that age, the probability of receiving Christ as Saviour goes down significantly.

Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Note that God did not say the imaginations of man's heart is evil from conception, he said "from his youth". Now, there is no exact specific age mentioned here, but the word youth usually means a young man, a teenager.

Gesenius's Lexicon defines "youth" in Gen 8:21 as;

As you can see here, he defined it as ADOLESCENCE. This is not a newborn.

What you fail to admit, although I think you know this quite well, it that the Psalms often use exaggeration or hyperbole to emphasize a truth, and that is what Psa 58:3 is doing.

If you take verse 3 as literal, then you must take the following verses as literal;

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.


#1 David is speaking of the wicked only, as he distinguishes them from "the righteous" in verses 10 and 11 which I have already shown.

#2 He says they are estranged FROM the womb, that is, AFTER they are born.

#3 He says they GO ASTRAY as soon as they be BORN, again showing this occurs AFTER they are born and not in the womb.

#4 In verse 4 he says their poison is like the poison of a adder. If this is to be taken literally, then breastfeeding would be very dangerous indeed!

#5 In verse 6 he asks God to break their teeth, and compares their teeth to the teeth of young lions. Again, if this Psalm is to be taken literally, then these wicked men should be easy to identify, because they are born with a mouthful of huge teeth. Absurd to say the very least.

#6 In verse 7 and 8 David says let these wicked men melt away as snails. I have 8 children, and trust me, they did not melt like snails when they were born.

#7 In verse 8 David says, "let every one of them pass away". If David is speaking of all men as you say, and these verses are to be taken literally, then you would have to believe that David was praying to God for all children everywhere to perish.

And you have the gall to tell me I do not interpret the scriptures properly? It is you that needs to do some study, and a little common sense wouldn't hurt either. It is obvious all of these verses are extreme exaggeration and should not be taken literally, and even more so should not be used to form doctrine.

 

[Van]

This thread is becoming overburdened with strawman arguments.

Lets number them:

1. Adam's sin could not have consequences for mankind because that would violate Eze 18:20. Here God's word teaches the son shall not bear (carry the penalty of sin) of the father. So what this verse teaches is that the son will not be punished for the sins of the father. But sin has consequences for others, and the consequence of the sin of Adam is mankind's separation from God. Note God does "visit" the sin of the father on the generations who hate God, Exodus 20:5.

2. Next it is asserted that through the transgression of the one, the many were made sinners, condemned to a separated state at conception cannot be true because it makes no sense. But it does make sense. Remember how God reduced the size of Gideon's army in order to bring more glory to God? In the same way, when fallen men, separated from God, repent, it brings glory to God. So the fall is consistent with God's purpose of creation.

3. Romans 5:12 is claimed to say "sin entered all men" because "all men sinned" i.e. the reason for sin entering rather than the result is all men sinned. But the idea is actually the opposite, sinned entered all men and death through sin as a result of the consequence of Adam's sin, and this truth is shown because (1) death comes through sin, and (2) all men sinned.

4. Romans 8:20 is said to refer to creation in general, rather than specifically to mankind, but again this simply misreads the passage. However "the creation" is identified as mankind, because all the plants, animals, and earth will be destroyed, so "the creation" refers to mankind, and more specifically to those looking forward to being resurrected in glorified bodies. Only the "new creation" will be be brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Therefore this passage again clearly teaches mankind was subjected to futility not by choosing to sin, but because God visited the consequence of Adam's sin upon mankind.

 

[webdog]

It has been appointed unto men ONCE to die.

Enough said.

 

[12strings]

Well see Hank, we are closer than you thought. :thumbs:

Now, there may be a form of Original Sin I believe in, and it is that when Adam sinned the whole universe was plunged into corruption. God said thorns and thistles would spring up.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Now, these verses seem to imply that hardship was introduced into creation. You get the impression that vegtables and fruits were just springing up everywhere, and all a man had to do was pick them off the vine or tree without labor.

The scriptures also say the whole creation groans.

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

I've gotta be honest, I've never quite understood verse 20 yet. But we see here the whole creation (which would include us) is under the bondage of corruption. I personally believe this is when the 2nd law of thermodynamics was introduced into the world (Quantum can correct me if I'm off here). This introduced entropy into the world.

It may be that man's ability to reason and judgment were affected to a degree. It may be that originally man was "balanced" intellect/moral judgment versus sensibilities/lusts/passions, and that the sensibilities increased, or rather the intellect decreased in ratio.

Like as thorns and thistles made farming more difficult, it may be that man's ability to make good choices was made more difficult, man became more susceptible to temptation, more easily fooled and deceived.

I say this because Adam named all the animals, an incredible feat. I think we have been going down intellectually since the garden.

So, Adam was Dumb, and we are Dumber. :laugh:

One thing is certain, in time man becomes more sinful and more temptation is introduced to every man. We are always on a downward spiral.

So are you saying that although Got did not remove our free will after Adam's sin, he simply arranged both the circumstances of our lives and our inward decision-making ability so that every single one of us would definitely choose sin?

 

[webdog]

No, IMO it's not ridiculous. Look at their doctrine, almost every dogma is flawed to one degree or another. We mostly agree on the Trinity.

But even at that they (EOC) have an heretical view of the Holy Spirit as well as a disagreement with us concerning the nature of the humanity of Christ.

Not to mention baptising infants giviing them communion (which they consider the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ).

It would take a really long time to review their myriad of errors.

HankD

And that's different from the RCC?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes I believe you are correct, the definite article "the sin" and "the death" does effect the verse by widening the scope of both sin and death.

Sin and death are not just an inconvenience or a setback for humanity but they are an inseparable pair reigning over the human race as well as all of creation.

"We are still dying"
I think Winman does a good job pointing out in Romans 8 that full redemption awaits the manifestation of the sons of God to deliver creation from the bondage of corruption.

Everything in its proper order.

HankD

The particular sin Romans 5:12 refers to is the sin by Adam and "death by sin" must refer to that which was predicted in regard to that particular sin in Genesis 2:16 "dying thou shalt surely die.' That phrase "dying thou shalt surely die" describes "death" in its comprehensive form. He died spiritually in the day he ate, he is dying progressively which culminates in physical death and physical death in turn terminates in eternal death. Thus "death by sin" refers to death in its comprehensive nature is what is "passed" unto all men through reproductive generation.

Hence, "in the day" he sinned death in its comprehensive nature was immediately initiated by SPIRITUAL death which progressively led to PHYSICAL death which is terminated in ETERNAL death. This is death in its COMPREHENSIVE nature and Death in its comprehensive nature is the "wages of sin" (Rom. 6:23). Death in its comprehensive nature is PENAL or the penalty of sin. At minimum Christ PHYSICALLY died "for our sins." Thus physical death is penal in regard to sin. There can be no question that ETERNAL death is penal (Rev. 20). Spiritual death is the penal consequence of sin and thus death in its comprehensive nature is the penal consequence of sin "dying thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2:16)

Therefore, it is that "death" or comprehensive death which was "passed" on in Romans 5:12 unto all mankind because the SOURCE of human nature which is inherited by all his posterity was inherently altered by death in the fall and therefore what was "passed" down was comphrehensive death as the inherent fabric of human nature as the whole human nature suffered "death by" the Adamic sin when Adam sinned. Human nature in Adam was altered by inherent death at the point of sin and thus by one man's disobedience many be made "DEAD." It is comprehensive death that is "passed" down through reproductive cycle to all of his posterity. A child is born with "DEATH" as part of his inherent nature from Adam. The child is born SPIRITUALLY dead and the undeniable proof is that infants are subject to PHYSICAL death which has no other precedent than SPIRITUAL death initiated "in the day" Adam ate which progresses to physical death and terminates in eternal death. Thus in Romans 5:12 it is original sin and "death by sin" that is "passed" down to all his posterity.

Thus "death by sin" refers to death in its comprehensive nature which is "passed" unto all men through reproductive generation.

This is undeniable because:

1. Adam and his sin is the subject of Romans 5:12a

2. The "death" described in Genesis 2:16 in its comprehensive form "dying thou shalt surely die" is the "death" referred to in the words "death by sin."

3. This "death" is "PASSED" down to all his posterity and it is impossible for it be "PASSED" down unless it is inherent in the human nature which is being "passed" down through the generative birth cycle "after its own kind." Hence, through the "seed" of the man containing human nature.

4. Therefore infants are born SPIRITUAL DEAD and as a consequence are DYING PHYSICALLY and this death will terminate in eternal death if no redemption is provided.