Original Sin and Imputed Sin

[ReformedBaptist]

You are right...we all sinned in the same manner as Adam...by disobeying God's Law as he did, not by being born.

This is just not what Romans 5 teaches. One man's disobiedence passed both death and condemnation to all men. That is what the Word says. And I did not say we all sinned as Adam sinned. The Scripture teaches otherwise.

 

[skypair]

By sinful nature I mean inherent sin in the fundamental nature of the being. To say this of Jesus would mean in Him consisted both darkness and light.

Where you and I are probably differing is whether on not Jesus had the ability to sin according to His free-will. I would say no. The reason being is that He is God and therefore immutable.

There's a conundrum for you --- can God choose to be immutable or not? :laugh:

Take for example -- can God choose to become a human instead of a mere Spirit? Can He choose to be a baby in a manger rather than the King that He is?

skypair

 

[lbaker]

Bro. RB,

I am trying to understand what "total depravity" means. Apparently I did have a wrong impression as I thought it meant that people really were just as evil as they could be.

Okay, if it doesn't mean that, exactly, how does it change our behavior?

If I understand you correctly, (and I may not) Adam and Eve start out with somehow a lesser propensity to sin than we do. They Fall anyway, and then boom, they now have a greater tendency toward sin and this tendency is passed along to their children? Does this new "sin nature" mean that man can never do anything that is righteous or that pleases God?

Where did the "sin nature" come from? How was it added to Adam's (and I assume Eve's) spiritual/mental/physical makeup? Is it something that God added to us? Did Satan add it to us?

Seems like there would be something in the Genesis account about it but I can't see anything there. God does talk about how they (Adam and Eve) now have a knowledge of good and evil, but nothing about them receiving a new nature that makes them more prone to sin.

As for Romans 5, that all seems to be referring to how we all physically die, and how we share in the consequences of Adam's sin in that we die just like he did.

I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but I just don't see where this idea of Total Depravity comes from.

As for Noah, and probably Enoch too, I agree that they were justified just as we are, by Grace through Faith. But, it certainly appears that their behavior was more Godly than that of the folks around them, and that God responded to that in how He dealt with them.

Good night, and "see" ya later,

Les

 

[skypair]

There are several "smoking gun" Scriptures about what happened during the fall. i.e. that when Adam sinned, we all sinned in Him. This is really highlighted when we get into Romans 5.

There are others, in the OP I pointed one out:

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

Upon the word youth used here Jonathan Edwards comments, "The word translated youth, signifies the whole of the former part of the age of man, which commences from the beginning of life. The word in its derivation, has reference to the birth or beginning of existence...so that the word here translated youth, comprehends not only what we in English most commonly call the time of youth, but also childhood and infancy."

The imagination of man's heart is evil from infancy (using Edwards explaination).

Meaning that this man's private thoughts are evil because his heart is corrupt and evil. Jesus taught us this, that it out of the heart that proceeds sins that defile the man, not what goes into the mouth and is eliminated (thus purifying all foods), but what comes out of the heart.

There is NO way Jesus' heart could have this sin nature. Otherwise out of it would spring sin, or else it would be true of Jesus "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jer 17:9

As we reason these things out, I bet we can agree upon this: Jesus did not have a heart that was deceitful above all things and desperately wicked!

The question we can now begin to address is how did these things come to be. God made man upright and that very good. What changed? And why are all men in the same condition?

Your study does, indeed, bring us to that question -- "What changed? And why are all men in the same condition?"

Have you reviewed the "blood poisoning" theory above?

Let me also suggest that Edwards was not talking about our infancy but humanity's infancy. As such, he really wasn't claiming any sin guilt laid upon infants but a proclivity for sin born of the "flesh."

So was Jesus born of the flesh? No. We know for a fact that He was born of the seed of the Spirit! If He had had to be "born again" as we arem, from corrupted bodies, then He may have sinned before being born again, right?

Jesus was "born again" and "born" at the same time. The OT saints will, likewise, be "born again" 100% of the Spirit when they are resurrected into Messiah's kingdom, the MK. Check out Dan 9:24 -- "bring in everlasting righteousness" of Israel.

skypair

 

[charles_creech78]

A reformed baptist why don't you get to the point and just tell us you believe a baby can go to hell. Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin ENTERED INTO THE WORLD, and so DEATH passed upon all MEN, for that all have SINNED. I hate to say this reformed a baby or a child is not a man. It said sin ENTERED INTO THE WORLD. ( For until the LAW SIN WAS IN THE WORLD: but sin is not IMPUTED when there is no LAW. Imputed: To set to the account of, Within,inside of, surrounded by; Need I say more. Ro 7:9 For I was ALIVE without the law ONCE: but when the commandment came SIN REVIVED, and I died.

 

[skypair]

God tells Adam regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.”

Or, as regarding us, "the soul that sinneth, it shall surely die." Same thing! Adam sinned -- he died spiritually as you note. BUT both Adam and we must actually commit sin before we die spiritually! Does an infant sin??

[

If infants are not sinners, if they are born without a sin nature, then why is it they die?

That's the reason this thread was started, eh? Note, Rom 5 says "where there is no law, sin is not imputed." Why do they die? On account of Adam. It says "all in Adam die" meaning PHYSICAL death. Yes, if one grows up one sins and dies spiritually. But an infant does not die spiritually -- they are innocent. So what happens to them? They will be resurrected into the MK as "just" and will choose (or not choose) Christ at that time.

skypair

 

[skypair]

Since it is plain that Adam could fall into sin, in that he fell, it is not wrong to say that God created Adam mutable,...

what you really mean to say here is "choose," right?"

...by His most wise and holy counsel, to permit having determined it thus to His own glory.

This is basically to say that God created sin, right? That is how Calvinists view it, correct?

Now here is the mystery. When Adam fell into transgression, the entire race fall IN ADAM. We do not each fall into sin severally, as Adam. But when Adam sinned, we sinned.

No, we were cast into corruption, out of the Garden, with Adam. That meant physical death, NOT necessarily spiritual death. Infants are the "case in point" -- no sin, they do die since we are not in the Garden, but they don't die spiritually.

When we get deeper into Romans 5 we learn that Adam is a figure, that one man's obedience HIS ACTION resulted in the death and condemnation to all (IN ADAM) and the obedience of one Man resulted in life and justification to all (who are IN CHRIST).

Good! By Adam we were cast out of the Garden -- by Christ we will be let back in spiritually! I like that!!

Adam was free to sin or not to sin. But we are not. Our inhereted nature causes us to will to do evil continually. Our hearts are wicked, and wickedness springs from it.

Perhaps we can restate that to be whole truth: Our inhereited nature causes our "hearts" (mind, emotions, and will) to be corrupted to where we would sin continually if there were no laws, no parents, no government, no God, etc. But we all DO keep one eye" on these authorities and that is the essence of God's witness to ALL men, Rom 1:20.

Jesus told us whoever commits sin is a slave of it. And a slave is not free. We have not lost our freedom to choose, but our freedom to do that which is spiritually good and right.

Slaves in Jesus and Paul's day were very different from what we consider them now. Under the Mosaic law, slaves were set free of their debt of slavery every 7 years. Yes, we are slaves to some extent as the Bible says, but to make that out as that a slave has no choices is half truth.

skypair

 

[skypair]

A reformed baptist why don't you get to the point and just tell us you believe a baby can go to hell.

There you go -- unless he/ she is baptised in the Reform church. That is the WHOLE "fabric" of the "cloth" right there, chas!

skypair

 

[lbaker]

They will be resurrected into the MK as "just" and will choose (or not choose) Christ at that time.skypair

Hey Skypair,

Do you have a passage for that?

Thanks,

Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

A reformed baptist why don't you get to the point and just tell us you believe a baby can go to hell. Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin ENTERED INTO THE WORLD, and so DEATH passed upon all MEN, for that all have SINNED. I hate to say this reformed a baby or a child is not a man. It said sin ENTERED INTO THE WORLD. ( For until the LAW SIN WAS IN THE WORLD: but sin is not IMPUTED when there is no LAW. Imputed: To set to the account of, Within,inside of, surrounded by; Need I say more. Ro 7:9 For I was ALIVE without the law ONCE: but when the commandment came SIN REVIVED, and I died.

Don't be silly. Go read my thread on Infant Salvation before you come trying to poke fingers.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Bro. RB,

I am trying to understand what "total depravity" means. Apparently I did have a wrong impression as I thought it meant that people really were just as evil as they could be.

Okay, if it doesn't mean that, exactly, how does it change our behavior?

If I understand you correctly, (and I may not) Adam and Eve start out with somehow a lesser propensity to sin than we do. They Fall anyway, and then boom, they now have a greater tendency toward sin and this tendency is passed along to their children? Does this new "sin nature" mean that man can never do anything that is righteous or that pleases God?

Where did the "sin nature" come from? How was it added to Adam's (and I assume Eve's) spiritual/mental/physical makeup? Is it something that God added to us? Did Satan add it to us?

Seems like there would be something in the Genesis account about it but I can't see anything there. God does talk about how they (Adam and Eve) now have a knowledge of good and evil, but nothing about them receiving a new nature that makes them more prone to sin.

As for Romans 5, that all seems to be referring to how we all physically die, and how we share in the consequences of Adam's sin in that we die just like he did.

I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but I just don't see where this idea of Total Depravity comes from.

As for Noah, and probably Enoch too, I agree that they were justified just as we are, by Grace through Faith. But, it certainly appears that their behavior was more Godly than that of the folks around them, and that God responded to that in how He dealt with them.

Good night, and "see" ya later,

Les

Hey Les,

Getting ready to go to Church but I wanted to make some comments regard the biblical doctrine of total depravity. I am continually amazed to find Christians denying this teaching or just not understanding it. I mean nothing against you in this regard, but I am just surprised by this. Douglas Wilson of the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics has several great statements on this. I like this one alot:

"Before regeneration, we are nothing but dry bones. Unregenerate man is dead in his transgression and sin (Eph. 2:1-2; Col. 23). He is not sick, he is not ailing; he is dead. Now to say that he is dead in this respect is not to assert that he is physically dead, or dead in every aspect of his being. It simply means that he is dead with regard to spiritual things. He has no connection with the life of the Spirit,which comes only as a gift from God. Because man is dead, he must be born again (John 3:5-7). Because he is dead in sin, he is hostile to God and will not submit to His laws. Even further, he cannot submit to His laws (Rom. 8:7-8). The natural man is incapable of understanding spiritual things, and since the gospel is in the front rank of spiritual things which require spiritual understanding, this means the natural man has no ability to comprehend the gospel ( I Cor. 2:14)."


And again,

"The doctrine of total depravity is this: man is totally unable to contribute to his own salvation in any way, because he is dead in his sins. For example, the resurrection of Lazarus was not a joint effort between Christ and Lazarus. Lazarus came forth because he was raised, not in order to be raised."

Some have called total depravity "total inability." Which I think communicates more what we are saying.

I like Wilson's cart before the horse reasoning. "God gives eyes, and then we see. God gives life, and then we live. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4:6)."

"Contrast this Biblical way of thinking with the alternative. I saw, and so God gave me eyes. I came alive, and so God gave me a resurrection. Light came forth from my heart, so God said, "Let there be light." This is obviously incorrect; it is God, Paul says, who commanded light to come out of darkness. It is God who commanded that it shine in our hearts."

And finally,

"The dilemma for evangelicals who want to deny total inability is this: either God must begin the resurrecting work of salvation because unsaved men are dead, or unsaved men are capable of beginning the process of their salvation on their own by means of saving faith. If the former, then we say welcome and shake hands. If the latter, then it follows that unsaved men can finish what they began, and we are confronted with a false gospel. In other words, there is no consistent stopping place between Reformed theology on the one hand, and a Pelagian theology on the other. Of course, plenty of evangelicals do not wind up in one camp or the other, but that is to be considered a triumph of inconsistency."

In my next post I will address the questions and points in your reply.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There's a conundrum for you --- can God choose to be immutable or not? :laugh:

Take for example -- can God choose to become a human instead of a mere Spirit? Can He choose to be a baby in a manger rather than the King that He is?

skypair

sky,

Surely you don't mean to rehearse the age old atheist argument, "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it."

God is immutable. That is His nature, as is holiness, perfection, righteousness, justice. Just as it is impossible for God to lie, as the Word teaches, it is impossible for Him to be mutable, unrighteous, et.

The truth is God can take on flesh, the Word became flesh, and hence fully human while being God, the Son of God, and not dimishing the Divine nature. You essentially asking if God can cease to be God. The answer is no. Jesus was both God and Man, 100% in each aspect.

 

[Mr.M]

Where did the "sin nature" come from? How was it added to Adam's (and I assume Eve's) spiritual/mental/physical makeup? Is it something that God added to us? Did Satan add it to us?

Never minding the total depravity, the question about the "sin nature" is valid and often unanswered. Obviously one cannot find a verse that says "the sin nature is located in the _____". It can only be deduced from Scripture.

Being conceived in sin, as the Bible states gives a good idea how it is passed on, that being seminally. We know it isn't from the woman but the man, Adam, that we receive this nature and since it occurs at conception (conceived in sin) then we know it is seminally. So it can be assign a locality, that being the physical part of a human, namely the flesh. I understand my response is quite brief and not a treatise so as to answer every possible objection or question but it is a starting point for that isolated question in your post.

 

[skypair]

God is immutable. That is His nature, as is holiness, perfection, righteousness, justice. Just as it is impossible for God to lie, as the Word teaches, it is impossible for Him to be mutable, unrighteous, et.

The truth is God can take on flesh, the Word became flesh, and hence fully human while being God, the Son of God, and not dimishing the Divine nature. You essentially asking if God can cease to be God. The answer is no. Jesus was both God and Man, 100% in each aspect.

Well, I hope God can sin. I hope He can take upon Himself all the sin of the world such that He could say, "My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me!" Like they say, "HE chose the nails." He chose sin --- after taking our chastisement in His body, He took our spiritual punishment in His Own Spirit. "He who knew no sin became sin for us."

I think all your mutability beliefs are in regard to the Father, sir.

skypair

 

[charles_creech78]

I do not believe we was born with sin. I believe we was born in a world of sin. If you say we was born a sinner then you are saying God is of sin. God made us to be rightess and just and to give him the glory. You cannot sin till you transgress the law. Other words break the law. A baby and a child cannot break it because they have not the knowledge of the law. The knowledge of the law is when you know to do good and do it not. Then it becomes sin and sin brings for death. Reformed baptist I read your post wrong it was late last night when I read it and I did read it wrong brother. I am sorry about that and I pray that you forgive me.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well, I hope God can sin. I hope He can take upon Himself all the sin of the world such that He could say, "My God! My God! Why hast Thou forsaken Me!" Like they say, "HE chose the nails." He chose sin --- after taking our chastisement in His body, He took our spiritual punishment in His Own Spirit. "He who knew no sin became sin for us."

I think all your mutability beliefs are in regard to the Father, sir.

skypair

I am sorry you wish God can sin. I will not, nor will the Scripture, separate the Godhead as you have done in your reply. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the One true God, are equal in deity and essence, and all share the same Divine attributes. Jesus took upon the sin of the world, but Jesus never sinned.

I believe you speak on things you do not know.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I do not believe we was born with sin. I believe we was born in a world of sin. If you say we was born a sinner then you are saying God is of sin. God made us to be rightess and just and to give him the glory. You cannot sin till you transgress the law. Other words break the law. A baby and a child cannot break it because they have not the knowledge of the law. The knowledge of the law is when you know to do good and do it not. Then it becomes sin and sin brings for death. Reformed baptist I read your post wrong it was late last night when I read it and I did read it wrong brother. I am sorry about that and I pray that you forgive me.

I forgive you brother. We disagree on this point, and I believe the Scripture do indeed teach we are born in sin. May the Lord guide His elect to all the truth.

 

[lbaker]

Because he is dead in sin, he is hostile to God and will not submit to His laws. Even further, he cannot submit to His laws (Rom. 8:7-8).

Les here - Paul appears to be writing about someone who has totally given themselves over to their sinful nature and is consciously hostile to God

The natural man is incapable of understanding spiritual things, and since the gospel is in the front rank of spiritual things which require spiritual understanding, this means the natural man has no ability to comprehend the gospel ( I Cor. 2:14)."

Les here - I'm sorry but this just sounds ridiculous to me and conflicts with all my experience. I know I understood the gospel long before I ever responded in faith and that is what appeared to happen in every other conversion I'm aware of.

And again,

"The doctrine of total depravity is this: man is totally unable to contribute to his own salvation in any way, because he is dead in his sins. For example, the resurrection of Lazarus was not a joint effort between Christ and Lazarus. Lazarus came forth because he was raised, not in order to be raised."

Les here - I think this is apples and oranges, Lazarus was physically dead, not spiritually dead.

Some have called total depravity "total inability." Which I think communicates more what we are saying.

I like Wilson's cart before the horse reasoning. "God gives eyes, and then we see. God gives life, and then we live. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4:6)."

"Contrast this Biblical way of thinking with the alternative. I saw, and so God gave me eyes. I came alive, and so God gave me a resurrection. Light came forth from my heart, so God said, "Let there be light." This is obviously incorrect; it is God, Paul says, who commanded light to come out of darkness. It is God who commanded that it shine in our hearts."

Les here - About this, I just have to say God gave us a mind and reason and the ability to understand and respond to the Gospel in faith, or not.

And finally,

"The dilemma for evangelicals who want to deny total inability is this: either God must begin the resurrecting work of salvation because unsaved men are dead, or unsaved men are capable of beginning the process of their salvation on their own by means of saving faith. If the former, then we say welcome and shake hands. If the latter, then it follows that unsaved men can finish what they began, and we are confronted with a false gospel. In other words, there is no consistent stopping place between Reformed theology on the one hand, and a Pelagian theology on the other. Of course, plenty of evangelicals do not wind up in one camp or the other, but that is to be considered a triumph of inconsistency."

Les here - sorry but I just don't buy into this either/or scenario. It seems very simple to me, God offers us the gift of salvation and it is then ours to accept or reject. Our accepting the gift doesn't take away from it being a gift, something we could not have given ourselves. God doesn't force salvation down our throats.

In my next post I will address the questions and points in your reply.

Les here

From Acts 2:

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

Sounds like these folks have a choice, and Peter is trying to convince them to respond to the Gospel message. If Reformed theology is correct, why did Peter need to try to convince these folks, even plead with them, to choose the Good News? Either God will save them, regardless of what Peter says or doesn't say, or God won't give them the ability to understand and respond, so Peter is really just wasting his breath here, if these folks are unable to respond. It sure reads like Peter is putting the onus on the crowd, to make a decision themselves and that he expects them to understand what he is saying.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Les here

From Acts 2:

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation."

Sounds like these folks have a choice, and Peter is trying to convince them to respond to the Gospel message. If Reformed theology is correct, why did Peter need to try to convince these folks, even plead with them, to choose the Good News? Either God will save them, regardless of what Peter says or doesn't say, or God won't give them the ability to understand and respond, so Peter is really just wasting his breath here, if these folks are unable to respond. It sure reads like Peter is putting the onus on the crowd, to make a decision themselves and that he expects them to understand what he is saying.

Well, the sad part about this statement Les is it shows a misunderstanding of Reformed theology. And this subject has been answered so many times I lost count. Perhaps its just all new to you.

Concerning what you called ridiculous because it goes against your expeirence, what is ridiculous to me is that someone as dedicated to Christ as you are would judge the Scripture by your own experiences. The Scripture declares that the natural man CANNOT understand the things of God because they are spiritual. Unless God has worked in you Les, the absolute miracle of being born again, which you have no power, no ability, and no chance to do on your own, you are still in your sins.

Now do not interpret this as me saying you are lost. I am not. I am saying that a man is born again by the will of God, NOT by the will of man, or the will of the flesh. The wind blows where IT wishes. And you hear the sound of it, but you don't know where it comes from or where it goes. So is EVERYONE who is born again.

And I say, unless a man is born again in this manner, he is not born again at all.

RB

 

[skypair]

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the One true God, are equal in deity and essence, and all share the same Divine attributes.

Well, right off you contradict scripture, RB. Paul said that in Christ, God made Himself a little lower than the angels. In deity, is the Father lower than the angels? Never! You are merely confused on the doctrine of the trinity. That is why I say you are applying God's attribute of immutability irrationally.

skypair