Inherited Sin

[HeirofSalvation]

RsR shut down the thread dealing with this, but, I thought Jon needed and deserved a response:

I was thinking more of “cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them”. God said that. And God said that about man, not dirt. And Christ redeemed us from this curse by becoming a curse for us. God said that to, through the Apostle Paul. Add to that Romans 5 and we get a good picture where we seem to disagree. And yes, that IS Scripture. It is just not the Scripture to which you were referring.

O.K.

Calvinists insists ….]
What made you think that I represented Calvinists, or cared what they insist?

Forgive me then, if you are not a 5-point Calvinist....
I was under the impression that you were.

If you are, I think my critique holds...
If you are not, than I was making assumptions without warrant, and I apologize.

Really, though, the only question is the issue of "Original Sin".
If "Original Sin" is to be believed most of my critiques stand.

It's a horrific doctrine which makes no sense, and causes grieving parents no end of torture.

Yes, I agree. I have not said otherwise. Paul is clear that all are guilty but not guilty of Adam’s crime. And yes, I also agree that our natures do not mean that we have sinned.

We are on the same page.
I assumed that you agreed with "Original Sin" or "Original Guilt" or whatever....
That's what that entails...
I must have been wrong.

As I stated, Scripture does not deal with the salvation of infants who die.

I think it does, very simply and very cleanly...

Infants aren't sinners...full stop.
No Theological trappings, no questions, no dealing with un-baptized infants, no dealing with the sin of babies.

Babies don't know how to sin.

Babies don't sin.
Easy.

Scripture deals with the redemption of sinners. Our natures are inclined to the flesh (to meet our needs, our desires). And I do believe that Christ had a human nature.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and yes.

Jesus was tempted as a man. I suppose it could be that when Jesus was a teenager and Ahuva walked by wearing her yoga pants and sports bra, he may have been tempted in the flesh. But he did not sin.

Yes...
And interesting side note:
"Ahuva" means "blessed" and my wife uses that moniker on the sites she haunts!.

What made you think I believed Jesus didn’t have a human nature?

I don't think you believe that Jon....
I just don't think one can square a doctrine of "Original Sin" (Calvinist style) with the notion that Christ was truly a human with a full human nature....
Forgive me if I'm wrong.

You mean “then”.

Pointing out, and scoffing at, the grammatical errors of the illiterate is a powerful (if illegitimate) debate tactic.

But, I'm neither stupid, nor ignorant, nor uninformed.
It does not strengthen your case to point out the occasional error in my syntax.

That's weak tea.

And my theology is very consistent and logical. Men are under the condemnation of death (we die) because of Adam’s transgression.

True...
Physical death anyway.
Not Spiritual Death.
Which is the Calvinist assumption.
I was under the impression that you adhered to it.

Death entered the world through sin. God subjected Creation to futility.

Yes.

Unless you are suggesting those who died in infancy did not really die,

I suggest they are not sinful or partakers in Adam's sin, and therefore not evil in God's sight Jon...
That's what I suggest.

Physical Death is one thing.
Spiritual Death another.

You insist "Scripture" doesn't "address" infants who die....I say, it doesn't even NEED to, because the answer is already there.

Infants aren't "sinners".

I do not see your point. I am not saying that they are subject to the “second death”, as “death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire”. I am saying that death entered the world through sin. That creation groans for glorification. That God subjected the world to futility. That these babies died.

My only point was that Babies aren't "sinners" guilty of the sin of Adam.....transferred to them by nature of their very being.
If you are already in agreement....I laud that.
If not, I'd hope you consider it...because it's the only Scriptural way to see your child in heaven.

Scripture says otherwise.

This was in reply to my statement that God did not "curse" mankind...
My point was that at the FALL...Mankind was no more "cursed" in his constitution than anything...a robust doctrine of Original Sin or Guilt is usually couched in terms of mankind suffering the effects of Adam's sin and a Spiritual curse of death as partaker in Adam's iniquity...
Surely...
I don't have to explain that to you.

God cursed those who do not obey all things written in the law, to obey them.

Yeah, I know.

Paul is clear that this is all men.

Yeah, I know.

And Scripture is also very clear that Christ did, indeed, become a curse for us.

Yeah, I know.

One of those things written in the law is cursed is anyone who hangs from a tree.

I know.....I think I get that passage better than you do, actually.

That "curse" is a human-conceived one actually, not a Divine-One...
When Christ said he must be crucified....and the apostles denied it...it was an example of the "Messianic Secret".

They couldn't comprehend how the Messiah should suffer in that manner...

Humans, not God, curse those who hang on a tree.
But, that's an issue for another day, one I brought up before that you didn't appreciate that much.

What, brother, gives you the authority to state that I believe something contrary to what I just said I believed?

I have understood you to be an adherent of the doctrine of "Original Sin"...
If you are, then that is what I was referring to....
If you deny Original Sin...than, my apologies.

Do you not see the foolishness in this?

If you deny the doctrine of "Original Sin" or (I tend to prefer to say) "Original GUILT"...
than...
Indeed it was presumptuous and foolish of me.


.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If I said, “you say that, but you are really a Calvinist because you believe in four of the five points”….wouldn’t you think me a fool?

Meh....
Yeah, but, there's already a word for that usually it's "Amyraldian"....
and so, your example doesn't hold together perfectly, but, I think I see your point

I said that we are condemned for our sins. Guess what? I mean that we are condemned for our sins. We are under condemnation in the sense that we will die. But Christ conquered death and we have hope in the resurrection.

I'd agree with this.

Maybe men are condemned because Light has come into the world and they prefer darkness because their deeds are evil

Here, you're losing me, because I don't think infants have a preference one way or the other.

The word is “IMPOSE”. You mean to say it’s critical to the Theological construct that you impose upon me. You do not know my “theological construct”.

Perhaps, and if I am confused than I apologize.
I thought I did....

I CERTAINLY understand Calvinism and the TULIP in nauseating detail....

I took you for, and thought you an adherent of "Calvinism"...
If that is NOT so.... and you do not adhere to the "TULIP" as it were, than I apologize.
But, I do know "Calvinism" and I know the schema.

No kidding, Sherlock. What makes you think that I believe those infants rebel against God?

My belief that you were a 5-point Calvinist.

What makes you believe I think they reject grace?

Infants DO reject grace, actually...

They can't even conceive of it....

They reject a clean diaper-change Jon.

Please be VERY careful here, brother. Much time has passed, but that does not mean I am willing to entertain the loss of my child being treated in such a trivial manner.

I also lost a child due to mis-carriage so I don't think it "trivial"....
But, I also believe that that means you don't have a moral authority to shut-down argumentation.

I know that may be harsh...

But, frankly, that's why I absolutely LOATHE the idea of "Original Guilt" or sinfulness.
It was the onus upon which infant Baptism was conceived.
It's a nasty heresy which tortures grieving parents who don't know their own children's fate.
I hate it with a passion because Godly parents often have no idea whether their child is safe in God's arms, or rightly suffering eternal righteous torment in hell because they were guilty of being a partaker in Adam's sin.

And....as you keep saying....they think the Scriptures..."Don't address it".
I think the Scriptures do.

Disabuse oneself of the notion that babies or infants are condemned through Adam's sin, and there's nothing to fear...infants are therefore safe:
But, if one accepts the Calvinist notion (or the Catholic idea) that sin is passed to all infants, than there is no hope, Jon.

There is hope:
Your young child was NOT A SINNER.
I am.
You are.
Your child was not.
Your child is safe.

Apparently we have different versions of the Bible. I typically use the NASB, so I believe that God loved us in that while we were still sinners (unregenerate rebellious sinners who disobey him) Christ died for us.

No, we don't, and I agree with this point.

Let me guess, your second major was melodrama .

I'm good at it, but, no, it was actually Philosophy.

Once again I will ignore that you are exploiting (or trying to) the death of my child to make an irrelevant and erroneous point.

I'm not "exploiting" the death of your child Jon, any more than I am the death of my own.....
I also have a dead child.
You aren't morally immune to criticism, I'm sorry.

I want you to know your child is safe, as is mine.
That's all.

 

[JonC]

RsR shut down the thread dealing with this, but, I thought Jon needed and deserved a response:

O.K.

Forgive me then, if you are not a 5-point Calvinist....
I was under the impression that you were.

If you are, I think my critique holds...
If you are not, than I was making assumptions without warrant, and I apologize.

Really, though, the only question is the issue of "Original Sin".
If "Original Sin" is to be believed most of my critiques stand.

It's a horrific doctrine which makes no sense, and causes grieving parents no end of torture.

We are on the same page.
I assumed that you agreed with "Original Sin" or "Original Guilt" or whatever....
That's what that entails...
I must have been wrong.

I think it does, very simply and very cleanly...

Infants aren't sinners...full stop.
No Theological trappings, no questions, no dealing with un-baptized infants, no dealing with the sin of babies.

Babies don't know how to sin.

Babies don't sin.
Easy.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and yes.

Yes...
And interesting side note:
"Ahuva" means "blessed" and my wife uses that moniker on the sites she haunts!.

I don't think you believe that Jon....
I just don't think one can square a doctrine of "Original Sin" (Calvinist style) with the notion that Christ was truly a human with a full human nature....
Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Pointing out, and scoffing at, the grammatical errors of the illiterate is a powerful (if illegitimate) debate tactic.

But, I'm neither stupid, nor ignorant, nor uninformed.
It does not strengthen your case to point out the occasional error in my syntax.

That's weak tea.

True...
Physical death anyway.
Not Spiritual Death.
Which is the Calvinist assumption.
I was under the impression that you adhered to it.

Yes.

I suggest they are not sinful or partakers in Adam's sin, and therefore not evil in God's sight Jon...
That's what I suggest.

Physical Death is one thing.
Spiritual Death another.

You insist "Scripture" doesn't "address" infants who die....I say, it doesn't even NEED to, because the answer is already there.

Infants aren't "sinners".

My only point was that Babies aren't "sinners" guilty of the sin of Adam.....transferred to them by nature of their very being.
If you are already in agreement....I laud that.
If not, I'd hope you consider it...because it's the only Scriptural way to see your child in heaven.

This was in reply to my statement that God did not "curse" mankind...
My point was that at the FALL...Mankind was no more "cursed" in his constitution than anything...a robust doctrine of Original Sin or Guilt is usually couched in terms of mankind suffering the effects of Adam's sin and a Spiritual curse of death as partaker in Adam's iniquity...
Surely...
I don't have to explain that to you.

Yeah, I know.

Yeah, I know.

Yeah, I know.

I know.....I think I get that passage better than you do, actually.

That "curse" is a human-conceived one actually, not a Divine-One...
When Christ said he must be crucified....and the apostles denied it...it was an example of the "Messianic Secret".

They couldn't comprehend how the Messiah should suffer in that manner...

Humans, not God, curse those who hang on a tree.
But, that's an issue for another day, one I brought up before that you didn't appreciate that much.

I have understood you to be an adherent of the doctrine of "Original Sin"...
If you are, then that is what I was referring to....
If you deny Original Sin...than, my apologies.

If you deny the doctrine of "Original Sin" or (I tend to prefer to say) "Original GUILT"...
than...
Indeed it was presumptuous and foolish of me.


.

First and foremost, I apologize if you took offense at my pointing out the typing mistake. I did not think it a grammatical error, but instead a simple “type-o”, and mentioned it in passing rather than a “debate tactic”. I am the world’s worst speller, even though I know English real good.

I do not consider myself a Calvinist because my soteriology does not define my faith. If I were to choose one branch of study, I suppose it would be Christology and I would call myself a “Christian”. You may think that an obsolete comment, but there are people who define their faith along soteriological lines. To me, this means that how I got here is more important than the reason I am here. Another issue is that there is no one definition for Calvinism. If I say that I am a 5 point Calvinist then what I actually believe can very well be muted by the presuppositions of others. There are Calvinists with whom I strongly disagree, and others with whom I find commonality. I will give you this – I affirm the five points of Calvinism as presented within the Canons of Dort and defined by me. That said, I also believe that “traditional” theology has been overly influenced by ideas of the Reformation (a notion that has gotten me in trouble on this forum).

I refer to us as having a sin nature. By this, I do not mean that we are condemned as sinners by our nature and apart from sin. As I said before, Scripture presents sinners as sinning…these go together and the sinner is never separated from the sin. But this “sin nature” can simply be called “human nature”. The desires of the flesh are not in line with the desires of God.

You aren't morally immune to criticism, I'm sorry..

I don’t mind criticism at all. Just be straight forward and direct it at me.

I want you to know your child is safe, as is mine.. That's all.

As I said, I know. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind of the fact.

How are you defining “Original Sin”?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

[

QUOTE="JonC, post: 2278561, member: 12639"]First and foremost, I apologize if you took offense at my pointing out the typing mistake. I did not think it a grammatical error, but instead a simple “type-o”, and mentioned it in passing rather than a “debate tactic”. I am the world’s worst speller, even though I know English real good.

O.K....
I LITERALLY laughed out loud at that.....
That was funny

I do not consider myself a Calvinist because my soteriology does not define my faith. If I were to choose one branch of study, I suppose it would be Christology and I would call myself a “Christian”. You may think that an obsolete comment

,
I don't....It makes more sense to me than a Theology conceived by the Reformation....
I studied at the University of London.
To them....Christology and Trinitarian Theology super-ceded Soteriology to an extent that....
Frankly, it was a liner note.
CHRISTOLOGY....was the summum bonum of Christian Theology to them...
They didn't seem to think that man had a clue about the mechanics of Salvation....only that...belief in God and acceptance of his son makes it happen....
Here's a neat lecture from one of my professors on "Christology".

and

That's one of my Profs...

but there are people who define their faith along soteriological lines. To me, this means that how I got here is more important than the reason I am here.

I think.........
I'd agree....

Another issue is that there is no one definition for Calvinism.

I know...
But, there are those who seek to define it only upon "Compatibilist" lines...and frankly, it's a new version of it, it's disingenuous for them to pretend that it is the expression of it on all lines.
Frankly, there's been MANY a Calvinist Theologian who no more pretended that men have a "free will" than the man in the moon.

And often, people on this board pretend that ALL Calvinists at all times have understood their faith in Compatibilistic terms.
That's bull-hockey....
And most of them know it, they just aren't honest about it.

If I say that I am a 5 point Calvinist then what I actually believe can very well be muted by the presuppositions of others. There are Calvinists with whom I strongly disagree, and others with whom I find commonality. I will give you this – I affirm the five points of Calvinism as presented within the Canons of Dort and defined by me. That said, I also believe that “traditional” theology has been overly influenced by ideas of the Reformation (a notion that has gotten me in trouble on this forum).

So....
You're killing me Smalls....
You have to give us a moniker to work with...
Sorta.

I refer to us as having a sin nature. By this, I do not mean that we are condemned as sinners by our nature and apart from sin. As I said before, Scripture presents sinners as sinning…these go together and the sinner is never separated from the sin. But this “sin nature” can simply be called “human nature”. The desires of the flesh are not in line with the desires of God.

I'd more or less agree with this...............
I actually think that as far as "systems" of Theology go...the Orthodox Doctrine of Sin is closest to truth, they explain it something like thus:
http://www.oncedeliveredfaith.com/2014/07/05/original-sin/

As far as "myself" is concerned.....
I'd loosely say something to the effect that:
All men (once given the chance) will sin.

Sin is a CERTAINTY....But it is not a NECCESITY
They all do it, but it is not neccesary that they MUST do it.

I believe that the ancient Theologians thought of the fall, and the sin of man in three ways:
1.) The fall of Adam
2.) The sin of the "Watchers" in Genesis 6
3.) The sin at Babel...

They conceived that the world was as wicked as it was...
because of all three of those things.
They may all be well and good, but the Post-Reformation Theology only conceives of wickedness as the fall of Adam.

I don't believe man was constitutionally changed in the garden with Adam...Adam was the prototype of the "sinner" in us all.
We all choose to sin eventually, and are therefore sinners.......
Given my Christology, I don't agree with Calvinist suppostition...
I think it's a denial of Christ's REAL humanity:

Here's why I think that:
Calvinism teaches:
Humans are irrreparably damaged and constitutionally destroyed by the fall.
Humans are sons of Adam...and Adam's sons are irreparably sinful by nature.

I think they deny that Christ was a real Son of Adam.....
He's....well, something else entirely in a form much like a man...but, he wasn't a nasty human tainted with the nastiness of "manness".

As my professor would put it....
The Christ of Calvinism comes from the planet Krypton.
He looks like a human...
But, he's Super-man...and he has no "sin-nature"...
He pretends to be Clark Kent, but that's where his real humanity begins and ends....
He's REALLY from Krypton, and he doesn't have a sin-nature like you nasty humans do...
He's not a real man.

Calvinism denies God's humanity in the flesh...
It's Docetism I.M.O.

I think that what we have is a WILL

We are VERY MUCH like God.
So much, in fact, that we have a "WILL"...a desire...a penchant for seeing and executing our own preferences and ruling ourselves and the world around us to our own desires. God made us that way...
God made us....like him really.

And our "WILLS" simply don't always align with his..It's the very similarity of mankind to God which makes sin or disobedience so very tempting....

We are like him.

We were made by him to rule this Earth.
God actually made man to rule this Earth.
He made us to be his "image-bearer" upon Earth.
Thus, we have strong wills.
But, we find ourselves in disobedience to him....Our wills don't align with his.

I actually think Calvinist Theologian R.C. Sproul best defined sin:
It is "Cosmic Treason".

That's what we do. And it's an act of a free will to obey or disobey.
It's a power he gave us, and it's one we routinely abuse....
That's sin.

How are you defining “Original Sin”?

"Original Guilt" is what I abhor.
If one wants to say that mankind is bent towards evil and does so with certainty....I'd go along with it...

What I CANNOT and do not accept...
and frankly, I hate the idea:
Is that all persons were partakers in, and are condemned Spiritually by .............Adam's sin.

I think it's un-biblical,

I think it wrongly defines what sin is (an act of the will)....
"Cosmic Treason" as Sproul put it.
It riddles us with problems, and twists our Anthropology into pretzels......

And...frankly, it causes grieving parents no end of torture not knowing the fate of their beloved infants.

 

[JonShaff]

I think that the when Adam ate the fruit and his eyes were opened, that changed the construct of man, a self awareness of your own "good" (which turns into pride) and evil (which becomes appealing to the selfish). Adam and Eve take their focus wholly off of God and each other, and place it directly on themselves: "I know, I'm shamefully naked." (And they do their best to cover up their evil with their own good )

We see that in Cain and Abel, don't we? Cain does what he thinks is Good, gets jealous of Abel's sacrifice, and removes the cause of what hinders his Good. "Well if Abel wouldn't have showed me up, God would have been pleased."

A knowledge of Good and evil isn't simple observation of it, it's actually more of a introspection and a self awareness that says, "I want the best for self, regardless of its cost." Therefore we rebel against God because we have taken our focus off of Him and placed it wholly on self.

So while "original sin/guilt" may not be biblical, the effects of eating the fruit are, namely the knowledge of Good and evil.

Also I see a shadow in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and evil..The substance being the Law...

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

And the tree of life finds its substance in Christ

John 6:56, 58 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Knowledge of Good and Evil is in essence a Curse, but it also reveals your need for a Savior.

Just some thoughts

 

[rsr]

Since you bring this up by name ...

I shut down the thread because you were being abusive and calling people liars. You don't like their theology; I get that. It doesn't make them liars.

I have nothing but sympathy for those who have lost a child. I cannot imagine the grief that involves. I lost my wife of 35 years and I will never get over it. Ever.

That said, you seem to be hell-bent on insisting that original sin equates damnation of infants. I don't know of anyone here who believes that. Sure, some old-time Catholics may hold to that (or at least a deplorable Limbo), but you won't find any here.

I didn't attend the University of London, but I also believe that Christology is the heart of the faith. Without a correct Christology, what we call Christianity is just another moral philosophy. The General Baptists, unfortunately, did not develop a firm Christology and wandered into Unitarianism and virtual extinction.

You are fighting the wrong battle. You think "Calvinists" are your enemy. They aren't. They an informed opinion of soteriology, but those who are thoughtful know that their understanding of such things is fallible and trust God in His mercy to judge rightly and we have no reason make claims on God to yield to our flawed perceptions of his sovereignty.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Since you bring this up by name ...

Oh, my God...
No, I didn't...
You were merely the material agent who, in fact....

Shut the discussion down.

Now, it's just bully for you that you did, and I neither care nor does Jon, I think, that you shut it down...but you were the one who did it, that's all.

But you were the one who did it,
And I wanted to continue a discussion with a decent man on a topic we both are having perfectly edifying conversation exploring.

You actually shut it down...
I didn't say that because I wanted to rattle your little cage...
It was a rote statement of fact.

I shut down the thread because you were being abusive and calling people liars. You don't like their theology; I get that. It doesn't make them liars.

Fine...that's great...
I don't care why you shut it down..
You shut it down because of the greatest and most awesome-sauce of reasons because you are awesome-sauce.

I just wanted to talk to Jon...and he is perfectly happy to engage actually...
It has nothing to do with you.

Again......

You are totally awesome-sauce.

I have nothing but sympathy for those who have lost a child. I cannot imagine the grief that involves. I lost my wife of 35 years and I will never get over it. Ever.

I'm sorry for your loss.
This thread wasn't about you though....
And you're still totally awesome-sauce...and this thread is so totally not about you or anything you did...
but, you are totally awesome-sauce.

That said, you seem to be hell-bent on insisting that original sin equates damnation of infants. I don't know of anyone here who believes that.

I do.

Sure, some old-time Catholics may hold to that (or at least a deplorable Limbo)

,
And people here actually.

but you won't find any here.

I have.........................


But, anyway.... this whole discussion was totally about RSR...
and why he shut down the other discussion.....

Yes, this was all about you, because you are awesome-sauce.

 

[Agent47]

I shut down the thread because you were being abusive and calling people liars. You don't like their theology; I get that. It doesn't make them liars.

Someone trolled me and called me a troll severally. I found it strangely convenient that you missed it.

That said, you seem to be hell-bent on insisting that original sin equates damnation of infants. I don't know of anyone here who believes that. Sure, some old-time Catholics may hold to that (or at least a deplorable Limbo), but you won't find any here.

Please don't speak for the entire board. Go through that thread and you will find them.

You are fighting the wrong battle. You think "Calvinists" are your enemy. They aren't. They an informed opinion of soteriology, but those who are thoughtful know that their understanding of such things is fallible and trust God in His mercy to judge rightly and we have no reason make claims on God to yield to our flawed perceptions of his sovereignty.

Exactly what is the purpose of a Calvinism/Arminian section? I may be wrong but it is to discuss both,critical,refine,refute....

Their 'informed soteriology' is not above reproach nor is it critiqued because it is an enemy.

Calvinism is not a proposition,but rather a continuum of beliefs. I'm quite sure that even among Calvinists, there are points of difference they find worthy debating over.

So please admin, let this section be.....or shut it

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Really, though, the only question is the issue of "Original Sin".

I made a case for this most important and comforting doctrine on the other thread, but no one interacted with it, so I will make it again with a little more detail.

We see the doctrine first when we compare two verses in Genesis:
Genesis 1:27. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.' But after the Fall, we read:
Genesis 5:3. 'And Adam lived 130 years , and begot a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and named him Seth.'

It is clear that the image of God has not been wholly effaced (1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9), but as we read on, we shall see that it is the moral and spiritual aspect of that image which have been defaced. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh' (John 3:6). Sinful man can do no other than beget sinful children. Seth was begotten in the image of his sinful father. So we read in Genesis 5:1, 'This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.' It is (with the exception of Enoch) the genealogy of death, for the wages of sin is death. But in the very first verse of the first book of the NT we read, 'The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ.' It is the book of life. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 49. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive...........And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.'

Next we come to the witness of David:
Psalm 51:5. 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.' That does not mean that the act of conception was a sin, but that that which was conceived was a sinner. David also declares:
Psalm 58:3. 'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' As I showed in the other thread, children need to be taught how to be clean, how to hold a spoon, how to say 'please' and 'thank you,' but they do not need to be taught to be naughty, to be selfish, to be untruthful. They come to this things just as soon as they can think for themselves. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' We need to be born anew before we can even begin to live lives that are pleasing to God.

Now we turn to Romans 5:12-21. I will concentrate on just one verse out of several:
Romans 5:19. 'For if by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.' It was that one act of disobedience that did it. Adam was our representative, our 'covenant head.' What he did, we have done. If the President of the USA declares war on Mexico, all Americans are at war with Mexico, whether they like it or not, and if they meet a Mexican with a gun, he may well feel justified in shooting them. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.' To achieve salvation for His people, the Lord Jesus not only had to die, but also to live that life of perfect righteousness and obedience that we cannot live, so that on the cross, not only were our sins laid upon His sinless shoulders, but His perfect obedience and righteous is credited to those who are 'in Him.' 2 Corinthians 5:21. 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'

I said at the start that this doctrine is comforting, and so it is. It magnifies three things: the holiness of God, the sovereignty of God, and the free effectual grace of God. When one understands these three things, they are a wonderful anchor for our blessed hope. 'Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?' Of course He will!

This thread is not about infant salvation, so I do not address it. I have said, that although the Biblical evidence is not great, I have no doubt at all from what there is, and what we know of the character of God, that all those who die in the womb are saved. We have in our church no fewer than four recently saved couples or single ladies who have lost children in infancy. It was their anguish that brought them to our church; they are now comforted and trusting in Christ for their own salvation and that of their deceased children.

 

[Yeshua1]

I made a case for this most important and comforting doctrine on the other thread, but no one interacted with it, so I will make it again with a little more detail.

We see the doctrine first when we compare two verses in Genesis:
Genesis 1:27. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.' But after the Fall, we read:
Genesis 5:3. 'And Adam lived 130 years , and begot a son in his own likeness, after his own image, and named him Seth.'

It is clear that the image of God has not been wholly effaced (1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9), but as we read on, we shall see that it is the moral and spiritual aspect of that image which have been defaced. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh' (John 3:6). Sinful man can do no other than beget sinful children. Seth was begotten in the image of his sinful father. So we read in Genesis 5:1, 'This is the book of the genealogy of Adam.' It is (with the exception of Enoch) the genealogy of death, for the wages of sin is death. But in the very first verse of the first book of the NT we read, 'The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ.' It is the book of life. 1 Corinthians 15:22, 49. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive...........And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.'

Next we come to the witness of David:
Psalm 51:5. 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.' That does not mean that the act of conception was a sin, but that that which was conceived was a sinner. David also declares:
Psalm 58:3. 'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.' As I showed in the other thread, children need to be taught how to be clean, how to hold a spoon, how to say 'please' and 'thank you,' but they do not need to be taught to be naughty, to be selfish, to be untruthful. They come to this things just as soon as they can think for themselves. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' We need to be born anew before we can even begin to live lives that are pleasing to God.

Now we turn to Romans 5:12-21. I will concentrate on just one verse out of several:
Romans 5:19. 'For if by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.' It was that one act of disobedience that did it. Adam was our representative, our 'covenant head.' What he did, we have done. If the President of the USA declares war on Mexico, all Americans are at war with Mexico, whether they like it or not, and if they meet a Mexican with a gun, he may well feel justified in shooting them. 'For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.' To achieve salvation for His people, the Lord Jesus not only had to die, but also to live that life of perfect righteousness and obedience that we cannot live, so that on the cross, not only were our sins laid upon His sinless shoulders, but His perfect obedience and righteous is credited to those who are 'in Him.' 2 Corinthians 5:21. 'For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.'

I said at the start that this doctrine is comforting, and so it is. It magnifies three things: the holiness of God, the sovereignty of God, and the free effectual grace of God. When one understands these three things, they are a wonderful anchor for our blessed hope. 'Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?' Of course He will!

This thread is not about infant salvation, so I do not address it. I have said, that although the Biblical evidence is not great, I have no doubt at all from what there is, and what we know of the character of God, that all those who die in the womb are saved. We have in our church no fewer than four recently saved couples or single ladies who have lost children in infancy. It was their anguish that brought them to our church; they are now comforted and trusting in Christ for their own salvation and that of their deceased children.

We begat going forward after the Fall what we now are, as sinners, under the condemnation/judgement of God due to being now in Adam, so sinners begar sinners... Sinners by botth birth as to our natures and then by choice.
IF no Original Sin, then Pauls understanding of Grace and the Gospel pretty much falls apart..

 

[Yeshua1]

Since you bring this up by name ...

I shut down the thread because you were being abusive and calling people liars. You don't like their theology; I get that. It doesn't make them liars.

I have nothing but sympathy for those who have lost a child. I cannot imagine the grief that involves. I lost my wife of 35 years and I will never get over it. Ever.

That said, you seem to be hell-bent on insisting that original sin equates damnation of infants. I don't know of anyone here who believes that. Sure, some old-time Catholics may hold to that (or at least a deplorable Limbo), but you won't find any here.

I didn't attend the University of London, but I also believe that Christology is the heart of the faith. Without a correct Christology, what we call Christianity is just another moral philosophy. The General Baptists, unfortunately, did not develop a firm Christology and wandered into Unitarianism and virtual extinction.

You are fighting the wrong battle. You think "Calvinists" are your enemy. They aren't. They an informed opinion of soteriology, but those who are thoughtful know that their understanding of such things is fallible and trust God in His mercy to judge rightly and we have no reason make claims on God to yield to our flawed perceptions of his sovereignty.

As you bring out here, 2 distinct and seperate notions here. All ofus indeed tainted by Original Sin, all now dead in Adam, but als that the God of Mercy and Grae can forgive and reddem infants di to Grace of the Cross!

 

[JonC]

As I reply, I want to acknowledge that we probably will not agree, but at the same time I do not think that our views are as distant as I once considered them to be. As people argue they tend to blind themselves to legitimate observations of their “opponent”. I am guilty of this error, and it is because of pride. Such is human nature. But you do bring out several good points. I have been considering for a couple of weeks the implication of a sinful or fallen nature on that nature that Christ took upon himself, and I appreciate your insights into this topic.

I agree with you that “original sin” is a myth, depending on how it is defined. I fear that a segment of evangelical Christianity and Reformed theology (what many would call a “traditional”, but perhaps not original, understanding) leans heavily on the systematic views of the 16th and 17th centuries. Having majored in philosophy, I suppose that you have an appreciation of how ideas and developments of the past may superimpose themselves on the thoughts of the present (or perhaps it is vise versa).

So, do I believe in “original sin”? Yes, I believe that it was through one man that sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

God created Adam, and then God created a garden towards the east in Eden and placed man there. In the Garden Adam was created in a state of complete belief and reliance in God. But they trusted the word of the serpent, who played to their desires (their nature). Their belief was turned from God. When Adam transgressed God’s command his eyes were opened to sin. And God drove man out, again, to the east. The core of sin is unbelief – belief not being a cognitive acceptance or appreciation, but a trust or faith (a reliance upon). Sin is not merely an act against God, it is also a state of alienation from God.

I'd more or less agree with this...I actually think that as far as "systems" of Theology go...the Orthodox Doctrine of Sin is closest to truth, they explain it something like thus: http://www.oncedeliveredfaith.com/2014/07/05/original-sin/

The view presented here makes several good observations. First, we do often minimalize the effect “original sin” had on Creation. Second, when we speak of death as a consequence of sin we often tend towards the spiritual and not the physical when so often it is a physical death and the hope of physical resurrection when all things are made new. I believe that we are “born in iniquity” not because we are guilty of sin at birth but because we have a nature that will (if given the opportunity) turn our faith from God. Adam was created in God’s presence (experiencing the fullness of God). Using the analogy of Eden and the Temple - we are born into a fallen world, facing the east. We seek Eden, but are unwilling of our own accord to turn west and enter into the Temple.

This “orthodox view” views the Fall as essentially altering locations. Adam was created perfect and innocent in a perfect world with one external evil influencer. We are born exactly the same but in a world of evil and decay. Sin enters man, according to this view of “original sin” externally (through external influences). Scripture, however, views sin as something arising from within, not without. So I am not completely satisfied with the “Orthodox Doctrine of Sin”, but I do appreciate that it brings out what is sometimes ignored.

To them....Christology and Trinitarian Theology super-ceded Soteriology to an extent that....

While I believe that Reformed theology in general and Calvinism specifically magnifies the truth of God’s work and purpose in salvation, and I believe that soteriology is a worthwhile study, I also agree that some have erroneously elevated the branch of theology above what is most important. What we refer to as “Calvinism” are the “doctrines of grace” which apply to soteriology because that was what the Canons of Dort address. I suppose that there is a sense that we extract Calvinistic soteriology and place it in our own broader theological understanding. And I suppose some run the risk of using this understanding as a lens through which to view theology as a whole, presupposing ideas upon Scripture. That is possible, and perhaps it is more possible because of Beza’s placement of divine sovereignty rather than Calvin’s view of predestination.

And often, people on this board pretend that ALL Calvinists at all times have understood their faith in Compatibilistic terms.

Yes, it is just as much an error to pretend that all Calvinists have understood their faith in compatibilistic terms as it is to pretend none have.

 

[Yeshua1]

As I reply, I want to acknowledge that we probably will not agree, but at the same time I do not think that our views are as distant as I once considered them to be. As people argue they tend to blind themselves to legitimate observations of their “opponent”. I am guilty of this error, and it is because of pride. Such is human nature. But you do bring out several good points. I have been considering for a couple of weeks the implication of a sinful or fallen nature on that nature that Christ took upon himself, and I appreciate your insights into this topic.

I agree with you that “original sin” is a myth, depending on how it is defined. I fear that a segment of evangelical Christianity and Reformed theology (what many would call a “traditional”, but perhaps not original, understanding) leans heavily on the systematic views of the 16th and 17th centuries. Having majored in philosophy, I suppose that you have an appreciation of how ideas and developments of the past may superimpose themselves on the thoughts of the present (or perhaps it is vise versa).

So, do I believe in “original sin”? Yes, I believe that it was through one man that sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

God created Adam, and then God created a garden towards the east in Eden and placed man there. In the Garden Adam was created in a state of complete belief and reliance in God. But they trusted the word of the serpent, who played to their desires (their nature). Their belief was turned from God. When Adam transgressed God’s command his eyes were opened to sin. And God drove man out, again, to the east. The core of sin is unbelief – belief not being a cognitive acceptance or appreciation, but a trust or faith (a reliance upon). Sin is not merely an act against God, it is also a state of alienation from God.The view presented here makes several good observations. First, we do often minimalize the effect “original sin” had on Creation. Second, when we speak of death as a consequence of sin we often tend towards the spiritual and not the physical when so often it is a physical death and the hope of physical resurrection when all things are made new. I believe that we are “born in iniquity” not because we are guilty of sin at birth but because we have a nature that will (if given the opportunity) turn our faith from God. Adam was created in God’s presence (experiencing the fullness of God). Using the analogy of Eden and the Temple - we are born into a fallen world, facing the east. We seek Eden, but are unwilling of our own accord to turn west and enter into the Temple.

This “orthodox view” views the Fall as essentially altering locations. Adam was created perfect and innocent in a perfect world with one external evil influencer. We are born exactly the same but in a world of evil and decay. Sin enters man, according to this view of “original sin” externally (through external influences). Scripture, however, views sin as something arising from within, not without. So I am not completely satisfied with the “Orthodox Doctrine of Sin”, but I do appreciate that it brings out what is sometimes ignored.



While I believe that Reformed theology in general and Calvinism specifically magnifies the truth of God’s work and purpose in salvation, and I believe that soteriology is a worthwhile study, I also agree that some have erroneously elevated the branch of theology above what is most important. What we refer to as “Calvinism” are the “doctrines of grace” which apply to soteriology because that was what the Canons of Dort address. I suppose that there is a sense that we extract Calvinistic soteriology and place it in our own broader theological understanding. And I suppose some run the risk of using this understanding as a lens through which to view theology as a whole, presupposing ideas upon Scripture. That is possible, and perhaps it is more possible because of Beza’s placement of divine sovereignty rather than Calvin’s view of predestination.Yes, it is just as much an error to pretend that all Calvinists have understood their faith in compatibilistic terms as it is to pretend none have.

To deny Original Sin thouh seems to be undermining the full xtent of the Fall of Adam, becaue due to tat event , going forward, "something" affected humanity to such an extent that we can no longer obey God, nor desire to cometoHim on His own terms, and needed something as drastic as GodHimself dying in our tead to reddem us back!

 

[JonC]

To deny Original Sin thouh seems to be undermining the full xtent of the Fall of Adam, becaue due to tat event , going forward, "something" affected humanity to such an extent that we can no longer obey God, nor desire to cometoHim on His own terms, and needed something as drastic as GodHimself dying in our tead to reddem us back!

I suppose that depends on how you define original sin. Scripture says their eyes were opened, not that they became something else. This is an awareness or realization through experience. They realized a freedom of the will to disobedience and the bondage of sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

I suppose that depends on how you define original sin. Scripture says their eyes were opened, not that they became something else. This is an awareness or realization through experience. They realized a freedom of the will to disobedience and the bondage of sin.

Theirnature changed from being morally perfect to being now a sin nature, bent on obeying us and not Gody more. Thre was something really happening to them, caused spiritual death and seperation from God, and we all get that as aresult of th Fall...

 

[JonC]

Theirnature changed from being morally perfect to being now a sin nature, bent on obeying us and not Gody more. Thre was something really happening to them, caused spiritual death and seperation from God, and we all get that as aresult of th Fall...

The problem is that your response is a combination of Scripture and theory, and not everyone works out that the same. Scripture says their eyes were opened.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is that your response is a combination of Scripture and theory, and not everyone works out that the same. Scripture says their eyes were opened.

Also states that they experienced both physical and spiritual died!

 

[JonC]

Also states that they experienced both physical and spiritual died!

Which verse?

 

[JonShaff]

The problem is that your response is a combination of Scripture and theory, and not everyone works out that the same. Scripture says their eyes were opened.

This is just my opinion, but maybe God intended them to eat from the Tree of Life first, then the Tree of Knowledge...That would have been True Worship...Life/Spirit first, then Truth. But they rebelled and took it upon themselves to "do the right thing" and took on knowledge WITHOUT life, Which leads to self centered sin and death. Knowledge according to man "are the ways of death".

 

[Yeshua1]

Which verse?

If you eat this , then you shall surely die!