is it Heresy to deny doctrine of original/Imputed Sin?

[Herald]

I liked this quote better, Brother Herald. But I would have said "ooooooooo", it's more to the point than your "........."




J/K with you, Brother Herald.....no offense intended.....trying to lighten the tone of this thread with a little levity.....that's all.....no maliciouness intended.

LOL I have a sense of humor (believe it or not)!

 

[DHK]

DHK, I will address Genesis when you adequately respond to the the discussion on Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2. You have this penchant for getting on rabbit trails. I am going to bring you back on topic.

Provide the URL and I will respond to it.
When I entered this discussion I saw you were mishandling the Scriptures because you were using a wrong definition. I gave a rather lengthy post of how "death" is used in the Bible (not dictionaries). There are five different primary ways. I gave Scripture for each one, plus additional Scripture. You haven't refuted that post yet. You simply dismissed it. The fact is that that post, without touching Eph.2 and Col 2 has already refuted it.

I did more than just mention Ephesians 2:1; I provide exegesis of the passage.

If you have been reading my posts, I did more than just mention it also. In one of my last posts I gave you a rebuttal of Eph.2:1.

Look at my opinion on being spiritually dead HERE , HERE, and HERE.

In your first post you respond to Convicted1 who already gave you the truth, but in doing so you say this:

Just because the soul is spiritually dead does not mean the physical body must die. Spiritually dead means the soul is dead to righteousness; to the things of God. Man was created a spiritual creature:

"Spiritually dead means the soul is dead to righteousness."
That means the soul is separated from God and separated from righteousness. Read my answer to Percho. Col.3:5 "Therefore put to death the members of your body..." IOW separate them from the sins, that Paul goes on to list in that verse. Death is separation.

Man was created a moral creature. His morality was without defect upon his creation. When Adam sinned his morality (i.e. his "nature") was corrupted. Adam, acting as our fair and just representative, handed down his corrupt nature to his posterity (us). As sinners we are guilty of a double blow; we are sinners because we are born in sin, and we are sinners because we sin. Sin places every man in a sorkt of living death. That is why Paul used the word nekros in Eph. 2:1 and Col. 2:13. Paul could have said, "you were fallen in your trespasses and sins", but he did not. He specifically used the word for physical death. Why is that? The answer is clear: the soul of man is dead to the things of God.

First, by your own admission the word "nekros" does not mean "a sort of living death."
God said Adam would die. He did not say "he would live "in a sort of a living death." There is no purgatory here--a sort of a living death.
There is no sitting on the fence; no "sort of a living death."
Either one is dead or they are not.
They are either separated from God or they are not.
Life comes from God. Christ said: "I am the way, the truth and the life.
To be separated from Christ is not to have life. It is to be dead. You can't be "sort of dead." Either you are or you are not.
"If the soul of man is dead to the things of God" it is because the soul of man is separated from the things of God by sin.

Even in hell man will still possess a soul. His soul will remain corrupt, evil, and unrepentant. In other words it will remain dead, along with a body that will be remain equally corrupt. Together they will experience an eternity separated from God's presence in eternal torment.

Hell is the ultimate separation of man from God. He is separated from God for all eternity. Death is separation. In the very end, "Death and hell will be cast into the Lake of fire which is the Second Death, final and complete separation from God. Death is separation no matter which way you look at it.

In summary, the sinner being spiritually dead does not mean the absence of a soul. It means his soul is dead to the things of God.

It means he is separated from God, not lifeless, not a corpse, simply separated and needing reconciliation as it tells us in 2Cor.5:18-20.

Here is your second "HERE" post, again directed to Convicted1

Well, Paul used nekros for a reason. If he simply meant to say that a sinner is spiritually fallen he could have used the word exepesate, but he did not.

dead = νεκρος (nekros) - def. one that has breathed his last. Lifeless. A corpse.

Friend, the word means what it means. The sinner is spiritually dead just like a corpse is physically dead. The sinner still has a soul, but it is wholly enslaved to sin and is incapable of any righteous act. This is just simple exegesis of the text.

I already refuted this post. Context defines the word. One word has many meanings not just one. Let's try this in English. Have you ever been "dead tired"?
How about "dead to the world"?
Or, "a dead man walking"? Perhaps you have come across some of these phrases in your life.
Paul uses similar phrases like "dead in sin and trespasses," "I die daily," etc. Obviously your definition does not fit Paul's definition. It is not used the same way Paul uses it.
Context is king! The word can only be understood in context.

Death means separation. In the way that Paul used it he meant that he was dead to the world and dead to sin. Every day he put his body to death (that is his carnal self), and yielded himself to the Holy Spirit instead. See Gal.2:20.

"The soul is enslaved to sin" because the soul is separated from God, and needs to be reconciled to God. That is where repentance comes in.

"If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me."
Sin separates one from God.

Isaiah 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
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.

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:

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

James 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.

Sin results in death. Death is separation from God. This is the natural order of things in our universe, whether physical or spiritual. It is what the Scripture teaches.

 

[Herald]

I liked this quote better, Brother Herald. But I would have said "ooooooooo", it's more to the point than your "........."


:love2: :wavey: :flower:

J/K with you, Brother Herald.....no offense intended.....trying to lighten the tone of this thread with a little levity.....that's all.....no maliciouness intended.

BTW, I understand your wanting to inject some levity into the conversation. The problem is that the subject at hand is a very important one. Do you ever wonder why those on your side of the debate are almost always disagreeing with those on the Reformed/Calvinist/Doctrines of Grace side? It is not a matter of a slight disagreement over a word here or a word there. It is much more than that. We view scripture differently. Our entire hermeneutic is different. It is not a cosmetic difference, it is a material difference. This is why most of our discussions yield no apparent progress. The only reason I engage in these debates are for the lurkers or those who are undecided. I was one of them before I accepted Reformed theology. Please do not take that as an insult. It is not meant to be one. I am not trying to convince DHK, webdog, Winman, Van, Skandelon et. al of the Reformed position. Honestly, I am not. I know they do not agree with me, and nothing I say will change their mind. I am debating past them; to the one's who are asking questions (but seldom post). That is the only reason why I am here.

 

[convicted1]

BTW, I understand your wanting to inject some levity into the conversation. The problem is that the subject at hand is a very important one. Do you ever wonder why those on your side of the debate are almost always disagreeing with those on the Reformed/Calvinist/Doctrines of Grace side? It is not a matter of a slight disagreement over a word here or a word there. It is much more than that. We view scripture differently. Our entire hermeneutic is different. It is not a cosmetic difference, it is a material difference. This is why most of our discussions yield no apparent progress. The only reason I engage in these debates are for the lurkers or those who are undecided. I was one of them before I accepted Reformed theology. Please do not take that as an insult. It is not meant to be one. I am not trying to convince DHK, webdog, Winman, Van, Skandelon et. al of the Reformed position. Honestly, I am not. I know they do not agree with me, and nothing I say will change their mind. I am debating past them; to the one's who are asking questions (but seldom post). That is the only reason why I am here.

Too many times, good Christian Brothers, and to a lesser extent, Sisters, get in a heated debate, and get "banned". All I was trying to do was defuse the situation a little. I don't agree with my reformed Brethern's doctrine, but I agree with them in that we are both saved by grace through faith.

 

[percho]

Back to the OP.

If the answer is yes then I must be a heretic for I believe it was death that was imputed by the original sin.

We sin because of the lust of the flesh. That is the flesh with the blood thereof flowing through the flesh thereof distributing the breath of spirit of life from God.
That is what a living soul is.

For the soul of all flesh, the blood of it, for the soul thereof Lev 17:14

From Gen. 7:21,21 Scripture4all.org
And he is expiring all of flesh, all which breath of spirit of lives in nostrils of him.

Those souls were just separated from the eight souls that were just saved , alive, through water.

I will ask again. How soon after a baby is born, that is born of the flesh, does the lust thereof begin to be seen?

 

[DHK]

Back to the OP.

I will ask again. How soon after a baby is born, that is born of the flesh, does the lust thereof begin to be seen?

A new University of Toronto study published in this month’s edition of Developmental Psychology claims that our youngest humans can start telling untruths even before they’re able to string a full sentence together.

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/toddlers-capable-lying-claims-canadian-study-183346226.html

 

[Herald]

Too many times, good Christian Brothers, and to a lesser extent, Sisters, get in a heated debate, and get "banned". All I was trying to do was defuse the situation a little. I don't agree with my reformed Brethern's doctrine, but I agree with them in that we are both saved by grace through faith.

Please be assured that I do not consider the discussion with you or DHK to be heated. It is not personal for me.

 

[Winman]

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/toddlers-capable-lying-claims-canadian-study-183346226.html

Interesting study, but there is a big difference between a two year old and a newborn baby. Many two year olds are beginning to speak. They can certainly tell a lie. But that doesn't mean they are accountable, as they do not understand sin and eternal damnation before God.

Truth is, every child develops differently, some children are very mature at 3 or 4 years old, others are not. Only God would know when a child is mature enough to be accountable.

But I sincerely doubt a newborn baby or even a one year old would be accountable.

 

[DHK]

Interesting study, but there is a big difference between a two year old and a newborn baby. Many two year olds are beginning to speak. They can certainly tell a lie. But that doesn't mean they are accountable, as they do not understand sin and eternal damnation before God.

Truth is, every child develops differently, some children are very mature at 3 or 4 years old, others are not. Only God would know when a child is mature enough to be accountable.

But I sincerely doubt a newborn baby or even a one year old would be accountable.

You mean to say that, if they know they are lying, then they are not accountable for their lying?? Why wouldn't they be? We are all accountable for our sins.

But that is not the point is it? They sin at such an early age because they have a sin nature. It is in their nature to do wrong at two years old, before they can even speak full sentences. They lie. They are selfish. They sin. They sin because they have a sin nature. I shouldn't have to point to a secular study to prove the Bible. The Bible has been teaching this truth for thousands of years, now science is just starting to catch up.

(GW) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (God's Word Translation)

It is a loose translation but it gives the sense of the meaning of the verse.

 

[Winman]

You mean to say that, if they know they are lying, then they are not accountable for their lying?? Why wouldn't they be? We are all accountable for our sins.

But that is not the point is it? They sin at such an early age because they have a sin nature. It is in their nature to do wrong at two years old, before they can even speak full sentences. They lie. They are selfish. They sin. They sin because they have a sin nature. I shouldn't have to point to a secular study to prove the Bible. The Bible has been teaching this truth for thousands of years, now science is just starting to catch up.

(GW) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (God's Word Translation)

It is a loose translation but it gives the sense of the meaning of the verse.

Your argument is easily defeated. Adam and Eve were not created with a sin nature, they were "very good" and yet they were able to sin. Lucifer was "perfect" in the day he was created, yet he sinned. This PROVES that a sin nature is not required to sin. All that is required to sin is free will.

Edit-

And as for Psalm 51:5, substitute any other words and it becomes obvious that this verse is describing David's mother, not David.

Example

Behold, I was shapen in passion; and in lust did my mother conceive me.

The Jews knew this verse for 1500 years before Augustine and NEVER interpreted it to say a person is born a sinner. And even if it did (which it doesn't), it does not say ALL PERSONS are born sinners. You are reading into scripture what you want it to say.

 

[percho]

http://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/toddlers-capable-lying-claims-canadian-study-183346226.html

Interesting article. When you think of lying as being false pretense you could really see it in babies.

Also in the concept of to covet to be sin I think in babies it could be very young.

I guess the question would be does that make them sinners in the eyes of God subject to needing a savior?

I would think yes.

 

[Winman]

Interesting article. When you think of lying as being false pretense you could really see it in babies.

Also in the concept of to covet to be sin I think in babies it could be very young.

I guess the question would be does that make them sinners in the eyes of God subject to needing a savior?

I would think yes.

Then you must believe that little babies who die (and there are millions) without trusting Jesus all go to hell.

Welcome to the RCC. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Interesting article. When you think of lying as being false pretense you could really see it in babies.

Also in the concept of to covet to be sin I think in babies it could be very young.

I guess the question would be does that make them sinners in the eyes of God subject to needing a savior?

I would think yes.

Yes, babies can be deceptive as in pretending to cry for something that they don't need because they already have it. Or thy don't need it in the first place.

 

[Winman]

Yes, babies can be deceptive as in pretending to cry for something that they don't need because they already have it. Or thy don't need it in the first place.

Oh yeah, it's obvious

You guys are truly sick.

 

[percho]

You mean to say that, if they know they are lying, then they are not accountable for their lying?? Why wouldn't they be? We are all accountable for our sins.

But that is not the point is it? They sin at such an early age because they have a sin nature. It is in their nature to do wrong at two years old, before they can even speak full sentences. They lie. They are selfish. They sin. They sin because they have a sin nature. I shouldn't have to point to a secular study to prove the Bible. The Bible has been teaching this truth for thousands of years, now science is just starting to catch up.

(GW) Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (God's Word Translation)

It is a loose translation but it gives the sense of the meaning of the verse.

You ain't going to believe this! Ha! Ha! But I have to disagree.

I do not think they sin because they have a sin nature. Blue letter the word nature and it will come up in AV 12 times in eleven verses and the word it comes from φύσις will come up 14 times in 11 verses. In all but one they refer to the created of Genesis the other being referenced to the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4.

Now what is this nature of man before the one instance of him being able to partake of the divine nature.

It is in the word for natural found in the AV 6 times in 5 verses. which is from the words for soul and nature/kind. Soul nature or soul kind which babies are born with. This is in contrast to spiritual, that is spirit nature and or spirit kind. Which would be the divine nature of 2 Peter, that is spirit nature or spirit kind.

So babies are born of a soul nature, A nature that carries with it lust. See

Jude 1:18,19 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, (natural, soul nature, ψυχικός ) having not the Spirit.

Adam was a living soul before he sinned. Babies are born with soul nature.

Heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.

 

[percho]

Oh yeah, it's obvious

You guys are truly sick.

Sick?

With your theology how many have been saved by Roe vs Wade?

Well not do fast Percho. By the same token how many have been lost by choice and the participation in that choice?

Coins have two sides and will generally land on one of the other.

It is truly a sad world we live in.

 

[Luke2427]

Oh yeah, it's obvious

You guys are truly sick.

Babies are sinners for the same reason that puppies are dogs.

Babies were born OF sinners.

The Bible could not be more clear on this.

Now I think God saves all babies who die. I think God can do this because God does not NEED human participation to save anyone.

But you, you believe one has to make a profession of faith.

So, really, you are the one who believes all babies who die go to hell.

 

[DHK]

You ain't going to believe this! Ha! Ha! But I have to disagree.

I do not think they sin because they have a sin nature. Blue letter the word nature and it will come up in AV 12 times in eleven verses and the word it comes from φύσις will come up 14 times in 11 verses. In all but one they refer to the created of Genesis the other being referenced to the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4.

Now what is this nature of man before the one instance of him being able to partake of the divine nature.

I am not sure but I think you may be playing a game of semantics.
To be as accurate as I can, then, they are born with a "carnal nature."
Their nature is "of the flesh." That is why they are selfish and prone to lie, as soon as they are born. No one has to teach them those "qualities." No one has to teach a baby to lie; but we do have to teach our children to tell the truth, and then we have to keep on reinforcing it throughout their whole lives. We constantly fight against the carnal nature that they are born with. We fight against our carnal nature that we keep even after we are born again. We never get rid of it.

2 Corinthians 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Note:
1. We do walk in the flesh; but our battle is on a spiritual plane.
2. Our weapons are not carnal; but spiritual.
3. We use spiritual weapons to bring carnal thoughts into captivity; every thought to the obedience of Christ.

Our spiritual battle is always against the carnal--our carnal selves, our carnal natures, our carnal imaginations and thoughts, and of course, the entire carnal world.

 

[Herald]

When I entered this discussion I saw you were mishandling the Scriptures because you were using a wrong definition. I gave a rather lengthy post of how "death" is used in the Bible (not dictionaries).

I skipped your "rather lengthy post" because it was inane and was representative of someone who mishandles scripture. Proof of that is your obsession with writing about "death" as found in the Bible. I was not writing about the state of death (thanatos). I was writing about spiritual death in the context of Ephesians 2:1 and Colossians 2:13. Your "five different primary ways" was an exercise in not knowing how to exegete a passage.

Nekros' meaning, as used in the passages in question, is without dispute. You can continue on with your "through the Bible tour" and try to disprove it all you want. I have already cited the definitions for nekros HERE. Your response? Ignore it. That is why I tune out your relentless drone.

convicted1 is afraid this will all turn personal and I will be banned. He has nothing to worry about. If I am banned it will be because I have pointed out the truth and it has hit a nerve. This is not personal. It is a matter of truth. I am honest enough to state I do not have a lock on the truth. There is much I do not know. I am still learning. But there are some things I know well enough to take a confident stand on. This is one of them, and pointing out your error is a duty.

 

[Yeshua1]

NO, "it is not what it is." You fail miserably in this area.
It is what the context says it is.

James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead,
When the spirit is separated from the body it is dead.
That is the Biblical definition, not mine. One word/one meaning definitions don't work.

Let's look at your example more closely, but using a different word.

"Sunday" Sun + Day = "day to worship the Sun."
It is what it is. That is the denotative meaning, the direct translation of the word. Thus you must this day go and worship the Sun. Correct?
Etymologies don't define words, which you are doing with the word "nekros". It gives the origin and helps in a definition. But it doesn't define it. The context defines it.

To you "Sunday" may mean a day of worship.
To another it may mean the last day of a week-end.
To yet another it means the first day of the week.
To another it is the last day of the week, because their week (work week) starts on Monday.

Context. What context is it being used in? That is how the word is defined. Etymologically it means the day one goes to worship the sun.
Etymologically "death" or nekros may mean corpse or lifelessness, but that is not how it is used in the Bible.

Spiritual death in the Bible is not physical death, for those who remain in their sinful state/condition will be unable to relateto god, be reconciled to him, be in a saving relationship with him...

That is spiritual death, being alive in a physical sense, yet deaf and dumb to the person of God!