Human State at birth?

[Winman]

This preacher's article does not even address Romans 5 at all. Even the good point he does make are overshadowed by his straw-man argument that original sin leads to things like the following:

His arguments are primarily philisophical, saying that "if a is true the B is true". Several his B's are obviously not necessary results of original sin.

However, my primary concern here is not the different ways the fall has effected us and what we call it. Rather, was the effect ONLY on our environment, or was there some effect on us as well?

If you will do a little study you will find that Augustine is the one credited with making OS official church doctrine. He was not the first church father to suggest it, but he was the first to try to prove it from scripture. His argument was based almost exclusively on one verse, Romans 5:12.

But here is the problem, Augustine used a Latin text that translated this verse to say "in whom (Adam) all have sinned. The Eastern Orthodox Church which always used Greek texts disagreed with this interpretation and insisted the verse said "for that" or "because" all have sinned. They interpreted this verse to say that death passed on all men because every man has committed his own personal sin. This is historical fact and can easily be found online. The EOC has NEVER agreed with Augustine's theory of OS, and this was one of several reasons they split with Rome. Look it up.

Look up Albert Barnes commentary on Romans 5. Barnes was a Presby but he rejected some Presby doctrine such as Limited Atonement. It is also believed he may have rejected Original Sin.

I am not a person to use commentaries, but of all the well known commentaries I like Barnes the most. To me he seemed to be a very honest theologian. He seemed to try to learn the truth of scripture even if it was not orthodox. He ran into some real problems because of this, but at the same time his commentary sold more than any other in the 19th century.

Anyway, read Barnes commentary on Romans 5:12 and the following verses for a somewhat different view than you have probably been exposed to. He also discusses (briefly) Augustines use of a Latin text.

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=005

For that (\~ef w\~). This expression has been greatly controverted; and has been very variously translated. Elsner renders it, "on account of whom." Doddridge, "unto which all have sinned." The Latin Vulgate renders it, "in whom [Adam] all have sinned." The same rendering has been given by Augustine, Beza, etc. But it has never yet been shown that our translators have rendered the expression improperly. The old Syriac and the Arabic agree with the English translation fix this interpretation. With this agree Calvin, Vatablus, Erasmus, etc. And this rendering is sustained also by many other considerations.

Here Barnes says our English translation is correct, and the Latin text wrong, and then explaiins why. It is worth reading if you are truly interested.

Verses 12-21. This passage has been usually regarded as the most difficult part of the New Testament. It is not the design of these Notes to enter into a minute criticism of contested points like this. They who wish to see a full discussion of the passage, may find it in the professedly critical commentaries; and especially in the commentaries of Tholuck and of Professor Stuart on the Romans. The meaning of the passage in its general bearing is not difficult; and probably the whole passage would have been found far less difficult if it had not been attached to a philosophical theory on the subject of man's sin, and if a strenuous and indefatigable effort had not been made to prove that it teaches what it was never designed to teach. The plain and obvious design of the passage is this-- to show one of the benefits of the doctrine of justification by faith. The apostle had shown

Although Calvin accepted the translation our English scripture uses, he accepted Augustine's interpretation from the Latin text. But the EOC and many others argued Augustine was in error. I agree.

 

[HankD]

This has been a good thread, all should be this way.

Everyone has given their take without condemnation of others except to say that they believe the other views are in error of course.

That makes it much easier to ponder the different views.

It is a difficult dogma and personally I don't like the phrase "original sin" rather I would say the adamic origin of sin and death in the human race.

Kind of clumsy though.

I just can't get around Romans 5:12. It's like an anchor bringing me back to what I believe is the origin of human sin and our universal and unlearned ability to sin.

As I have said before Augustine knew the Greek and Hebrew texts and how to parse them.

KJV Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.​

Young's Literal Translation:

Romans 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin.​

Take the last word if you wish winman.

HankD​

 

[percho]

And as it is appointed unto men once to die,


Is there a precise moment when this appointment was made?

If yes, when was that moment?

 

[Winman]

This has been a good thread, all should be this way.

Everyone has given their take without condemnation of others except to say that they believe the other views are in error of course.

That makes it much easier to ponder the different views.

It is a difficult dogma and personally I don't like the phrase "original sin" rather I would say the adamic origin of sin and death in the human race.

Kind of clumsy though.

I just can't get around Romans 5:12. It's like an anchor bringing me back to what I believe is the origin of human sin and our universal and unlearned ability to sin.

As I have said before Augustine knew the Greek and Hebrew texts and how to parse them.

KJV Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.​

Young's Literal Translation:

Romans 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin.​

Take the last word if you wish winman.

HankD​

Well Hank, I appreciate that you are always a gentleman, much more so than me. :tongue3:

I believed in Original Sin for years, because that is what I had been taught. I used to tell my kids that we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners. I regret telling them that now.

I was not turned away from OS by any other person, it was my own personal reading of scripture that caused me to study it. I noticed that scripture always spoke of man departing from God, which didn't make sense if we were born separated. We are compared to sheep that have gone astray. How can a sheep go astray unless it was first in the flock? How can you turn from God to sin if you are already away from God in sin?

And then there was Luke 15 where Jesus tells 3 stories that are one parable concerning sinners. In all three stories the lost person was not originally lost. The shepherd had 100 sheep, and then one was lost. The woman had 10 pieces of silver, and then one was lost. The father had two sons, then one departed home and became lost. When he was returned his father said he was alive "again". I could not reconcile these scriptures with OS. I also saw scripture like Ecc 7:29 that says God made man upright, and 1 Peter 2:25 that said we were like sheep going astray but are now RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls Jesus.

I could go on, there are many more scriptures that argue against Original Sin than for it, and those that are used to support OS are pulled completely out of context. Some are obvious hyperbole like Psa 58:3 that should never be used to form doctrine.

So, I came out of it and no longer accept Original Sin. I think it is gross error.

As for Young's Translation, look what it says, it says, "for that all did sin". This is saying people sinned, it does not say Adam's sin was imputed to us. If the scriptures wanted to say Adam's sin was imputed to us, it could easily have said so directly. God is not incapable of communicating exactly what he wants to say.

Having someone else's crime or sin imputed to another is unjust by any man's standard. It would be absolutely unjust to go to jail for a crime that another committed, yet folks think we must die for Adam's sin. It is not just unjust, but the scriptures clearly say that every man shall die for his own sin, and that the son shall not bear his father's sin.

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.

Augustine admitted to being promiscuous as a young man, I really believe he was making excuse for his behavior. If he was compelled to sin by a sinful nature, then his sinful behavior was not really his fault. He is basically blaming God for his sin.

But you have been a gentleman, Thanks!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If you will do a little study you will find that Augustine is the one credited with making OS official church doctrine. He was not the first church father to suggest it, but he was the first to try to prove it from scripture. His argument was based almost exclusively on one verse, Romans 5:12.

But here is the problem, Augustine used a Latin text that translated this verse to say "in whom (Adam) all have sinned. The Eastern Orthodox Church which always used Greek texts disagreed with this interpretation and insisted the verse said "for that" or "because" all have sinned. They interpreted this verse to say that death passed on all men because every man has committed his own personal sin. This is historical fact and can easily be found online. The EOC has NEVER agreed with Augustine's theory of OS, and this was one of several reasons they split with Rome. Look it up.

Look up Albert Barnes commentary on Romans 5. Barnes was a Presby but he rejected some Presby doctrine such as Limited Atonement. It is also believed he may have rejected Original Sin.

I am not a person to use commentaries, but of all the well known commentaries I like Barnes the most. To me he seemed to be a very honest theologian. He seemed to try to learn the truth of scripture even if it was not orthodox. He ran into some real problems because of this, but at the same time his commentary sold more than any other in the 19th century.

Anyway, read Barnes commentary on Romans 5:12 and the following verses for a somewhat different view than you have probably been exposed to. He also discusses (briefly) Augustines use of a Latin text.

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=ro&chapter=005



Here Barnes says our English translation is correct, and the Latin text wrong, and then explaiins why. It is worth reading if you are truly interested.


Although Calvin accepted the translation our English scripture uses, he accepted Augustine's interpretation from the Latin text. But the EOC and many others argued Augustine was in error. I agree.

What many Protestants don't seem to realize, and are shocked when you tell them, is that Protestantism and Roman Catholicism have more in common than either would care to admit. Both are forms of Western Latinized Christianity, while the EOC is of course Eastern and Greek. The Eastern view of God, man, sin, and salvation is quite different from that of the West -- whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. The Anabaptists, early General Baptists, and Quakers share their views of God, man, sin, and salvation with the EOC, as well as did the ancient Celtic church. I prefer these views; there's not much of Western Christianity, in whatever form, that I am comfortable with; it is legalistic and doesn't view the life and work of Jesus wholistically. In fact, in important ways it perverts the Gospel.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, I am reluctant (don't know why) to know what the Quaker's think, but I would be interested in knowing the Eastern Orthodox postion. Thanks.

To be fair and balanced , I thought I would also post a statement of faith by the Lost Creek Friends Meeting in east Tennessee, a moderate-evangelical church with a pastor ("programmed" meeting), affiliated with Friends United Meeting. The relevant articles are" Human Nature" and "Sin": http://lostcreekfriends.net/beliefs.htm

 

[Amy.G]

To be fair and balanced , I thought I would also post a statement of faith by the Lost Creek Friends Meeting in east Tennessee, a moderate-evangelical church with a pastor ("programmed" meeting), affiliated with Friends United Meeting. The relevant articles are" Human Nature" and "Sin": http://lostcreekfriends.net/beliefs.htm

I noticed there are contradictory statements.

Humankind have been created by God, and in that creation are good and like Him. That likeness is diminished, distorted, and perverted by sin....

How can we be good and perverted by sin at the same time?

All of humanity has an inborn predisposition toward sin

Again, we cannot be good like God yet have a predisposition toward sin.

SIN
In its most basic form, sin is the willful decision to reject the presence and guidance of our Heavenly Father and to attempt to control our own destiny without relating to Him. All of humanity has an inborn predisposition toward sin, and only through Jesus Christ can this rebellious tendency be conquered, restoring us to a right relationship with God.

This is the most pathetic definition of sin I've ever seen.

Friends do not corporately practice the symbolic rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper, believing that the reality is more significant than any symbol. We do, however, allow for the individual believer to participate in these experiences if they are so led by the Spirit.

No corporate Lord's Supper? No public baptism?


This whole statement is just unorthodox.

 

[Van]

Reply to 12 strings

What exactly is the human state at birth? Lots of terms are used to describe it:
Sin nature, total depravity, innocence with a tendancy to sin...

My primary question is for those who seem to disagree with some aspect of the idea of sin nature:

"If we are not born with a sin nature inherited from Adam due to his original sin in the garden, Why is it that ALL humans sin?"

In reading some of the early posts in this thread, it seems we have some real disagreements.

Lets go over a few.

Sin nature is a translation choice, what scripture actually says is we have an 'Old Man' nature which most agree refers to having a nature like Adam's nature, i.e. an adamic nature.

It seems folks differ as to whether this nature mirrors Adam's before or after the fall, i.e. some disputing that Adam's nature was changed by the fall.

Scripture tells us "Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, and therefore something about their nature was altered after eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

My view is that the "Old man" nature is the fallen adamic nature, predisposed to sin. Before the fall, Adam had the capacity to choose to sin or not but he was not predisposed to sin. His eyes had not been opened yet.

I cannot follow the logic that asserts being in Adam means being in a physical body. We are still in a physical body when we are "in Christ." Thus being "in Adam" refers to us being in a fallen, separated from God state. The way I look at it is if we are in Christ we were made alive together with Christ. Thus not being in Christ, we have not been made alive. Therefore we are conceived outside of Christ, "in Adam" so to speak or in the realm of darkness, because when we are saved, we are transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God.

Therefore being spiritually dead means we are in a separated from God state, and that state is a consequence of Adam's fall. But, we are not being punished for Adam's sin. We have not sinned when conceived, so we are created upright, but if we live long enough we will sin as we carry out our schemes.

Now when we do sin, then our state of separation is established both by the consequence of Adam's sin, and because of our own individual sin.

The metaphor of being spiritually dead means we can do nothing to bridge the gap and reunite with God based on what we do. So our tresspasses and sins have not only cemented the separation, but have also made us unholy and therefore unable to unring the bell and become holy by our own efforts.

Yes, Calvinism claims being dead also means being unable to seek God and trust in Christ, but that is false doctrine, as demonstrated by many passages such as Matthew 13:1-30

In summary, we are conceived in a separated from God state, i.e. not in Christ, and we are innocent in that we have done nothing good or bad, but we have been made sinners, we are predisposed to sin because we have the children of wrath nature.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I noticed there are contradictory statements.


How can we be good and perverted by sin at the same time?



Again, we cannot be good like God yet have a predisposition toward sin.




This is the most pathetic definition of sin I've ever seen.



No corporate Lord's Supper? No public baptism?


This whole statement is just unorthodox.

A few observations:

Nothing in this is contradictory, if you understand Quakerism, which you obviously don't.

The pathetic view of sin is that taught by the Magisterial Reformers, and by Augustine who was influence by his pre-Christian life.

I must say, you don't surprise or disappoint. All I have to do is wait for you to speak, and if I take the opposite position, I know it is the correct one.

 

[Winman]

In reading some of the early posts in this thread, it seems we have some real disagreements.

Lets go over a few.

Sin nature is a translation choice, what scripture actually says is we have an 'Old Man' nature which most agree refers to having a nature like Adam's nature, i.e. an adamic nature.

It seems folks differ as to whether this nature mirrors Adam's before or after the fall, i.e. some disputing that Adam's nature was changed by the fall.

Scripture tells us "Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, and therefore something about their nature was altered after eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

My view is that the "Old man" nature is the fallen adamic nature, predisposed to sin. Before the fall, Adam had the capacity to choose to sin or not but he was not predisposed to sin. His eyes had not been opened yet.

I cannot follow the logic that asserts being in Adam means being in a physical body. We are still in a physical body when we are "in Christ." Thus being "in Adam" refers to us being in a fallen, separated from God state. The way I look at it is if we are in Christ we were made alive together with Christ. Thus not being in Christ, we have not been made alive. Therefore we are conceived outside of Christ, "in Adam" so to speak or in the realm of darkness, because when we are saved, we are transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God.

Therefore being spiritually dead means we are in a separated from God state, and that state is a consequence of Adam's fall. But, we are not being punished for Adam's sin. We have not sinned when conceived, so we are created upright, but if we live long enough we will sin as we carry out our schemes.

Now when we do sin, then our state of separation is established both by the consequence of Adam's sin, and because of our own individual sin.

The metaphor of being spiritually dead means we can do nothing to bridge the gap and reunite with God based on what we do. So our tresspasses and sins have not only cemented the separation, but have also made us unholy and therefore unable to unring the bell and become holy by our own efforts.

Yes, Calvinism claims being dead also means being unable to seek God and trust in Christ, but that is false doctrine, as demonstrated by many passages such as Matthew 13:1-30

In summary, we are conceived in a separated from God state, i.e. not in Christ, and we are innocent in that we have done nothing good or bad, but we have been made sinners, we are predisposed to sin because we have the children of wrath nature.

Sorry Van, got to disagree with your conclusions here. The scriptures do not show us born children of wrath, and the scriptures do not show us born separated from God at birth.

Eze 16:20 Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter,
21 That thou hast slain my children, and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them?

God here, speaking to Israel, speaks of their children being "borne unto me". In other words, children belong to God, not the devil at birth. God was condemning Israel for sacrificing their children to idols here. And notice God called these infants "my children". So the scriptures do not show we are born the children of wrath. We become children of wrath when we willingly and knowingly follow Satan in rebellion and sin.

And the scriptures show we are not born separated from God.

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

Peter describes us as sheep going astray, just as Jesus described sinners in Luke 15, saying a shepherd had 100 sheep but one went astray and became lost. He left the 99 and searched for the one lost sheep until he found it and it was "returned" to him.

Words have meaning, Peter says we are now RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. You cannot return to God if you were born separated from him. And that is not what the scriptures say or show.

As far as the term "in Adam", this term is used only once in all of scripture and is speaking of our physical bodies.

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

This is the only time the words "in Adam" are found in all of scriptures. This chapter is speaking of the physical resurrection of our bodies, not spiritual death. And notice it does not say "in Adam all are dead", it says "in Adam all die". If we are born dead we cannot die.

And this is the proof that Original Sin is false, the scriptures say that if we sin we shall die, but if we are born dead we cannot die, we are dead already. The dead cannot die.

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

These verses are speaking of all individual men (every man) and not the sin of Adam. These verses say that when lust hath conceived it brings forth sin, and sin, when it is finished brings forth death.

If we are born dead, then this verse cannot possibly be true. It was not your personal sin that brought forth death, no sin could possibly make you die because you were already dead! You could sin all you want and it will not make you any more dead than the moment you were conceived if OS is true. All the warnings about sin would be meaningless. There is no need for law to convict you of sin, you are already dead before you could possibly know a law.

So, Original Sin is absurd when a person truly thinks about it, it contradicts multitudes of scripture. It doesn't even make rational sense, how can you be born dead? You have to have life to die, but according to OS you were always dead and never alive. This is illogical to say the least. Yet intelligent folks fall for this false doctrine. I once believed it myself until I noticed it contradicted scripture. But before that I knew there was something wrong about the concept of being born dead. It doesn't make sense. Yes, we say babies are born dead or "stillborn", but when we say that we all understand that baby was alive for a period of time. You cannot die if you were never alive.

 

[Amy.G]

I must say, you don't surprise or disappoint. All I have to do is wait for you to speak, and if I take the opposite position, I know it is the correct one.

Well that's very flattering that you base your theology off what I say, but it's really not a good way to go about it. You should base it off the scriptures and then your theology will be sound. :thumbs:

 

[percho]

In reading some of the early posts in this thread, it seems we have some real disagreements.

Lets go over a few.

Sin nature is a translation choice, what scripture actually says is we have an 'Old Man' nature which most agree refers to having a nature like Adam's nature, i.e. an adamic nature.

It seems folks differ as to whether this nature mirrors Adam's before or after the fall, i.e. some disputing that Adam's nature was changed by the fall.

Scripture tells us "Adam and Eve's eyes were opened, and therefore something about their nature was altered after eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

My view is that the "Old man" nature is the fallen adamic nature, predisposed to sin. Before the fall, Adam had the capacity to choose to sin or not but he was not predisposed to sin. His eyes had not been opened yet.

I cannot follow the logic that asserts being in Adam means being in a physical body. We are still in a physical body when we are "in Christ." Thus being "in Adam" refers to us being in a fallen, separated from God state. The way I look at it is if we are in Christ we were made alive together with Christ. Thus not being in Christ, we have not been made alive. Therefore we are conceived outside of Christ, "in Adam" so to speak or in the realm of darkness, because when we are saved, we are transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God.

Therefore being spiritually dead means we are in a separated from God state, and that state is a consequence of Adam's fall. But, we are not being punished for Adam's sin. We have not sinned when conceived, so we are created upright, but if we live long enough we will sin as we carry out our schemes.

Now when we do sin, then our state of separation is established both by the consequence of Adam's sin, and because of our own individual sin.

The metaphor of being spiritually dead means we can do nothing to bridge the gap and reunite with God based on what we do. So our tresspasses and sins have not only cemented the separation, but have also made us unholy and therefore unable to unring the bell and become holy by our own efforts.

Yes, Calvinism claims being dead also means being unable to seek God and trust in Christ, but that is false doctrine, as demonstrated by many passages such as Matthew 13:1-30

In summary, we are conceived in a separated from God state, i.e. not in Christ, and we are innocent in that we have done nothing good or bad, but we have been made sinners, we are predisposed to sin because we have the children of wrath nature.

Prior to Jesus the Christ.

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.

That was the status of all mankind, all mankind were dead in trespass and sin, even though the only people God knew or had any kind of a relationship with of all the families of the earth were the house of Israel and the house of Judah and it was about the time the verse above was written God gave a bill of divorce to the house of Israel.

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

However, does the word teach that God at this present time is reconciling whosoever will or is he at this present time taking out of the nations a people for his name? That is by his, God's election?

After he is done taking out a people for his name he says he will return.

He will close the breeches in the tabernacle of David. What are the breeches in the tabernacle of David? What does that mean? I am going to check the commentaries.

So that the residue of man (mankind) might seek the Lord and the people called by his name.

Calvin wasn't correct about everything but even election but the works of God are by election.

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well that's very flattering that you base your theology off what I say, but it's really not a good way to go about it. You should base it off the scriptures and then your theology will be sound. :thumbs:

Oh, but I do base it on the scriptures. And I like the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral": Scripture the primary or final authority, supported and confirmed by reason, experience, and tradition. And I'll add a fifth -- the conclusions opposite of Amy's.

 

[Van]

Hi Winman, yes I think you have presented your views before. But you seem to have sidestepped my argument.

First, you did not address whether we are conceived in a united with God state, or a separated from God state. If, by the sin of the one (Adam) the many (everyone but Jesus) were made sinners, that should have resulted in separation, based on the consequence of the Fall.

We are condemned for unbelief, and we are conceived in unbelief. Faith comes from hearing the gospel, and therefore we are conceived in a condemned separated from God state.

Since God is the creator and the giver of life, in that sense we are all children of God. Then we have the corporate election of the children of the promise, and therefore those descendants of Abraham start out as children of God, but they can be cut off. Thus children born to God are not united with God, i.e. in Christ. One, they are condemned at conception because of unbelief and two, they were made sinners, i.e. they were created as sinners in a separated from God state.

I definitely remember presenting the word meaning of "returning" as actually meaning turning around. So that verse does not actually say what you are claiming.

Next, you are right in stating the phrase in Adam only appears once, but the concept is found in other passages.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (A)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](B)type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of (C)the one (D)the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by (E)the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand (F)the judgment arose from one transgression [c]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions [d]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (G)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (H)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through (I)one transgression [e]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (J)act of righteousness [f]there resulted (K)justification of life to all men.

Next, let me address the argument that if we are born spiritually dead, meaning separated from God, we cannot die, meaning remain separated separated from God forever. Hence, just because we are separated at the beginning of our life, we have the opportunity to accept the gift of life. If we were alive already, we could not be made alive. No, the only reasonable view is we are conceived spiritually dead, and the future is not fixed. But when our opportunity to accept the free gift is ended, either when we physically die or we harden our hearts such that we cannot understand the gospel, we face the second death.

I addressed the affect of volitional sin bringing forth death, i.e cementing the separation. We are born in a separated from God state, i.e. not in Christ, and no verse suggests if we sin we will be somehow separated from Christ, i.e. snatched out of His hand. Your view does not make any sense to me.

The affect of the Fall, the consequence of Adam's sin is clearly taught and to deny it makes no sense.

 

[Winman]

Hi Winman, yes I think you have presented your views before. But you seem to have sidestepped my argument.

First, you did not address whether we are conceived in a united with God state, or a separated from God state. If, by the sin of the one (Adam) the many (everyone but Jesus) were made sinners, that should have resulted in separation, based on the consequence of the Fall.

I do not appreciate your "sidestepped" remark. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are being deceitful.

I do not interpret being "made sinners" as you do. I believe that it was Adam's example and influence that makes others sinners, just as the writings of Karl Marx made many socialists, and the writings of Charles Darwin made many evolutionists. When we follow the example of Adam we are made sinners just as he was, just as a person who follows Marx becomes a socialist. It does not mean Marx's actual thoughts are imputed to those who believe his ideas.

We are condemned for unbelief, and we are conceived in unbelief. Faith comes from hearing the gospel, and therefore we are conceived in a condemned separated from God state.

How can a newborn baby be condemned for unbelief? This is nonsensical. A newborn baby cannot even form thoughts at first, they certainly cannot understand spiritual matters. Total nonsense.

Since God is the creator and the giver of life, in that sense we are all children of God. Then we have the corporate election of the children of the promise, and therefore those descendants of Abraham start out as children of God, but they can be cut off. Thus children born to God are not united with God, i.e. in Christ. One, they are condemned at conception because of unbelief and two, they were made sinners, i.e. they were created as sinners in a separated from God state.

God himself called these infants "my children", I believe what God says, not what men say. If we are truly born children of wrath or children of the devil as you believe I hardly believe God would make the mistake of calling infants "my children".

I definitely remember presenting the word meaning of "returning" as actually meaning turning around. So that verse does not actually say what you are claiming.

I disagree, it means exactly what it says, that we have "returned" to God, just as the prodigal son returned to his father. When he did, Jesus twice said he was "alive again" which would be absolutely impossible if we are born dead in sin as you and others believe. In the three stories of sinners that are one parable in Luke 15, Jesus showed sinners not originally lost. The shepherd had 100 sheep, one was afterward lost, the women had 10 pieces of silver, one was afterward lost, and the father had two sons, one was afterward lost. This parable and all other scripture agrees with my view and refutes yours.

Next, you are right in stating the phrase in Adam only appears once, but the concept is found in other passages.

I don't care about your concepts, I care about what the scriptures actually say. This term is used only once in all of scripture and is speaking of the physical resurrection of our bodies, not spiritual death.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (A)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](B)type of Him who was to come.

Paul is simply showing all have sinned, even though there was no written law. How? They violated their God given conscience and the laws written on their hearts. Paul explains this clearly in Romans 2.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Men between Adam and Moses had their own law written on their hearts. They quite clearly knew what sin is. Pharaoh knew it was wrong to have Abraham's wife when he found out. God called the Sodomites wicked and sinners.

This is why men between Adam and Moses spiritually died, they violated their own law written on their hearts.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of (C)the one (D)the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by (E)the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand (F)the judgment arose from one transgression [c]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions [d]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (G)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (H)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through (I)one transgression [e]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (J)act of righteousness [f]there resulted (K)justification of life to all men.

If you believe Adam's sin is unconditionally imputed to all men, then you must believe that justification unto life by Jesus Christ is unconditionally imputed to all men. To do otherwise is to be completely inconsistent to what these scriptures are directly saying.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

You can't say that identical statements made in the same verse and context have different meanings. If the judgment is unconditionally imputed to us, then the free gift must be unconditionally imputed to all men in the same way. You are inconsistent, you believe the judgment is unconditionally imputed to all men, but the free gift is conditionally imputed to all men.

I believe the judgment is conditionally imputed to us when we sin just as Adam did, and the free gift is conditionally imputed to us when we believe as Jesus diid. There is no inconsistency in my view.

Next, let me address the argument that if we are born spiritually dead, meaning separated from God, we cannot die, meaning remain separated separated from God forever. Hence, just because we are separated at the beginning of our life, we have the opportunity to accept the gift of life. If we were alive already, we could not be made alive. No, the only reasonable view is we are conceived spiritually dead, and the future is not fixed. But when our opportunity to accept the free gift is ended, either when we physically die or we harden our hearts such that we cannot understand the gospel, we face the second death.

We start out alive, therefore we can die when we sin. We can be "alive again" when we trust Christ. This is exactly what Jesus said concerning the prodigal son in Luke 15. It is not complicated.

I addressed the affect of volitional sin bringing forth death, i.e cementing the separation. We are born in a separated from God state, i.e. not in Christ, and no verse suggests if we sin we will be somehow separated from Christ, i.e. snatched out of His hand. Your view does not make any sense to me.

No sin could bring forth death as James 1 says if you are already dead. The wages of sin would not be death, the wages of being conceived would be death. You cannot kill someone who is already dead. Nonsense.

The affect of the Fall, the consequence of Adam's sin is clearly taught and to deny it makes no sense.

There is not one mention of Adam's descendants spiritually dying at the fall. God did not tell Adam his children would be cursed and born spiritually dead. This would be far worse than any curse upon the ground which made bringing forth food more difficult, yet God did not mention it whatsoever. This would be the most important doctrine in the Bible besides the gospel, yet God forgot to mention it? Absurd.

God clearly says the son shall not bear the inquity of his father in Eze 18:20. If Adam's sin is imputed to us, God would be breaking his own law.

 

[percho]

Hi Winman, yes I think you have presented your views before. But you seem to have sidestepped my argument.

First, you did not address whether we are conceived in a united with God state, or a separated from God state. If, by the sin of the one (Adam) the many (everyone but Jesus) were made sinners, that should have resulted in separation, based on the consequence of the Fall.

We are condemned for unbelief, and we are conceived in unbelief. Faith comes from hearing the gospel, and therefore we are conceived in a condemned separated from God state.

Since God is the creator and the giver of life, in that sense we are all children of God. Then we have the corporate election of the children of the promise, and therefore those descendants of Abraham start out as children of God, but they can be cut off. Thus children born to God are not united with God, i.e. in Christ. One, they are condemned at conception because of unbelief and two, they were made sinners, i.e. they were created as sinners in a separated from God state.

I definitely remember presenting the word meaning of "returning" as actually meaning turning around. So that verse does not actually say what you are claiming.

Next, you are right in stating the phrase in Adam only appears once, but the concept is found in other passages.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned (A)in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a [a](B)type of Him who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of (C)the one (D)the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by (E)the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand (F)the judgment arose from one transgression [c]resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions [d]resulting in justification. 17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned (G)through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will (H)reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then as through (I)one transgression [e]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one (J)act of righteousness [f]there resulted (K)justification of life to all men.

Next, let me address the argument that if we are born spiritually dead, meaning separated from God, we cannot die, meaning remain separated separated from God forever. Hence, just because we are separated at the beginning of our life, we have the opportunity to accept the gift of life. If we were alive already, we could not be made alive. No, the only reasonable view is we are conceived spiritually dead, and the future is not fixed. But when our opportunity to accept the free gift is ended, either when we physically die or we harden our hearts such that we cannot understand the gospel, we face the second death.

I addressed the affect of volitional sin bringing forth death, i.e cementing the separation. We are born in a separated from God state, i.e. not in Christ, and no verse suggests if we sin we will be somehow separated from Christ, i.e. snatched out of His hand. Your view does not make any sense to me.

The affect of the Fall, the consequence of Adam's sin is clearly taught and to deny it makes no sense.

Is it not correct to say because of the sin of Adam all are born dead in trespass and sin meaning they are going to die even if they did not sin which I do nor believe will happen. As it says, even those to whom sin was not imputed for there was no law, died. Why? Is it not because it was appointed unto man once, to die?

I asked in post 43. Is there a precise moment when this appointment was made?

If yes, when was that moment?

No one responded. I do not separate spiritual death and physical death, for I can not find them so in the word, just, dying you shall surely die.

All are spiritual dead meaning dying thou shall surly die. Christ changed that in that those who have been given the Holy Spirit have been made alive in the resurrected Christ. Not that they have been already resurrected but that being in Christ they by the Holy Spirit have the assurance of being resurrected just as Jesus was resurrected/regenerated.

Is this right or wrong.

Whenever it was that it was determined that the Lamb of God would be slain it was appointed for man to die.

And I do believe that was before the first man Adam was made. In all likely hood maybe around the moment it was said let there be light.

 

[Forest]

What exactly is the human state at birth? Lots of terms are used to describe it:
Sin nature, total depravity, innocence with a tendancy to sin...

My primary question is for those who seem to disagree with some aspect of the idea of sin nature:

"If we are not born with a sin nature inherited from Adam due to his original sin in the garden, Why is it that ALL humans sin?"

All mankind are born int this world as natural beings without any righteousness.

 

[Forest]

Isaiah 59:1 Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.


Okay, if we are born spiritually dead(seperated from God) @ birth, then why would our sins seperate us from God. If we are already seperated from God @ birth, then this three verse passage is just a "moot point", eh?

Those who have been quickened to a spiritual life, their destination will be everlasting life, however they do commit sin at times and that sin will seperate them from a fellowship with their God, but will not negate their eternal life. Death is a seperation and it is used in scripture as a seperation from fellowship with God.

 

[convicted1]

Those who have been quickened to a spiritual life, their destination will be everlasting life, however they do commit sin at times and that sin will seperate them from a fellowship with their God, but will not negate their eternal life. Death is a seperation and it is used in scripture as a seperation from fellowship with God.

Again, for the umpteenth time, a child of God never losses fellowship with the Father in heaven. When dad whipped me when I did wrong, I was still his son, even when I displeased him. Same way with God and His children. He whips us to correct us, and put us back in line, but we never lost that fellowship for even one nanosecond.

 

[Winman]

Is it not correct to say because of the sin of Adam all are born dead in trespass and sin meaning they are going to die even if they did not sin which I do nor believe will happen. As it says, even those to whom sin was not imputed for there was no law, died. Why? Is it not because it was appointed unto man once, to die?

I asked in post 43. Is there a precise moment when this appointment was made?

If yes, when was that moment?

No one responded. I do not separate spiritual death and physical death, for I can not find them so in the word, just, dying you shall surely die.

All are spiritual dead meaning dying thou shall surly die. Christ changed that in that those who have been given the Holy Spirit have been made alive in the resurrected Christ. Not that they have been already resurrected but that being in Christ they by the Holy Spirit have the assurance of being resurrected just as Jesus was resurrected/regenerated.

Is this right or wrong.

Whenever it was that it was determined that the Lamb of God would be slain it was appointed for man to die.

And I do believe that was before the first man Adam was made. In all likely hood maybe around the moment it was said let there be light.

It is appointed for man to die because the tree of life was taken away when Adam sinned. All men die as a consequence of Adam's sin physically. This does not mean however that Adam's sin was imputed to his descendants, God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father in Eze 18:20.