Original Sin and Imputed Sin

[skypair]

Some people just can't help themselves. Unless you can stop these calumnies I am going to assume its impossible to dialogue with you. I follow Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I affirm with the Scripture the Salvation is of the Lord. And let him who glories, glory in the Lord.[/quote] In order to find "common ground," we have to discard what isn't biblical truth. I'm sure you would agree.

Take, for instance, my explanation to PL which Npetrely tried to refute --- "chicken or egg?" How can God offer salvation to "whosoever will" if He knows most cannot "will?" That most "whosoevers" won't? The only way is for there to be a real but resistible choice that ALL are able to make. That leads us logically to "foreknow" in Rom 8:29 as "foresee."

Yeah, it all happened in eternity past (common ground for us). God chose believers to "election," His purpose for them.

I am not questioning your fervor, BTW. I'm questioning your foundation -- your premises. Your knowledge is incomplete as any discussion of soul-spirit or sin nature or sovereignty or ... quickly reveals. Your "expertise" frankly, is on Calvinism, not on scripture.

skypair

 

[skypair]

1. You again are displaying your lack of knowledge or concern to understand Reformed and Calvinistic theology. And its starting to get boring hearing you misunderstand it over and over again.

2. I don't follow Calvin. I don't follow his leadership. The doctrine did not originate from John Calvin. This is my last request of you. STOP this stupid and fruitless calumny. I have no interest in "debating" someone who seems to just want to prodcuce strawmen.

Sorry, I just posted another reply before seeing this.

So you really wish to find "common ground?" That'd be refreshing. Maybe start with the thesis I presented on the "chicken and the egg." Without changing the common meaning of words, please explain how God offers salvation to "whosoever will" under your theology. How did the apostles stand before crowds or individuals and say "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?" They had no right to make such an open offer of salvation according to Calvin, did they? Which is why you never see an invitation to salvation in a Reform church, isn't it? (Now I have heard this one: "Come give more of yourself to Christ." But that's an invitation to believers to receive more sanctification rather than salvation.)

skypair

 

[charles_creech78]

Ok, let's see here... you have:

1. Called us ignorant, and whoever else you intend to rail at.
2. You accused us of speaking evil.
3. You have insinuated and possible outright called us a liar.
4. You have called us, and others, "You people" which is belittleing

And, thus, you have lost my respect to honestly engage in any kind of dialogue with you.

RB

Yes if you are saying these things then you are what I said. You are calling little babies sinners and the law said . You cannot be a sinner till you SIN and sin is the transgresion of Gods law. 1 jo 3:4 Whosoever COMMITTETH SIN TRANSGRESSETH ALSO THE LAW: FOR SIN is the transgression of the LAW. Can a baby understand the law? No Therefore how can he transgress the law. You are a sinner because you transgress the law. That is like you telling me that I am guilty of sleeping with your wife and you KNOW I DID NOT and you CONDEM ME FOR IT AND I DID NOT DO IT. You are saying a babie sins. Well if they sin then they have transgressed Gods law and they are going to hell. Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the LAW there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: FOR BY THE LAW IS KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. We are not born sinners.

 

[lbaker]

Hey Les,

Well brother, based on what your saying here I would have to say your far closer to a calvinist theology than another. Now please understand I use the term calvinist as a tool of convienence. I don't care for the label. I agree 100% that God forordained a group of folks would be saved too. Believers! I can't imagine a group of folks not being made up of individuals. lol

And I agree that this truth in Scripture does not destroy choice. Man must repent and believe the Gospel. The OP of this thread was to simply show by Scripture and plain reason that man does not posses, after the fall, the innate ability to do so. But that it is the goodness of God that leads him to repentence and God's grace that gives him faith. He is dead in his sins. God quickens him and He sees Christ, Christ light shines in his darkness, and he turns and follows Jesus.

All glory to God.

Oh no! Now here you come with the calumny, calling ME a Calvinist - LOL!

I think the main thing we differ on (at least in this area) is the idea of God predestinating individuals rather than as a group or "class".

Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Sorry, I just posted another reply before seeing this.

So you really wish to find "common ground?" That'd be refreshing. Maybe start with the thesis I presented on the "chicken and the egg." Without changing the common meaning of words, please explain how God offers salvation to "whosoever will" under your theology. How did the apostles stand before crowds or individuals and say "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?" They had no right to make such an open offer of salvation according to Calvin, did they? Which is why you never see an invitation to salvation in a Reform church, isn't it? (Now I have heard this one: "Come give more of yourself to Christ." But that's an invitation to believers to receive more sanctification rather than salvation.)

skypair

Excuse me, but you have repeated a strawman argument twice, saying I follow John Calvin, and ignore the offence you give to all godly men, including me with this calumny, and then you expect me to engage you and answer your questions?

Friend, its best we just part ways at this point.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Oh no! Now here you come with the calumny, calling ME a Calvinist - LOL!

I think the main thing we differ on (at least in this area) is the idea of God predestinating individuals rather than as a group or "class".

Les

You are following the doctrine of Les! How dare you!! I am genuinely curious, how does God choose a group or "class" that is not made up of individual persons?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Yes if you are saying these things then you are what I said. You are calling little babies sinners and the law said . You cannot be a sinner till you SIN and sin is the transgresion of Gods law. 1 jo 3:4 Whosoever COMMITTETH SIN TRANSGRESSETH ALSO THE LAW: FOR SIN is the transgression of the LAW. Can a baby understand the law? No Therefore how can he transgress the law. You are a sinner because you transgress the law. That is like you telling me that I am guilty of sleeping with your wife and you KNOW I DID NOT and you CONDEM ME FOR IT AND I DID NOT DO IT. You are saying a babie sins. Well if they sin then they have transgressed Gods law and they are going to hell. Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the LAW there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: FOR BY THE LAW IS KNOWLEDGE OF SIN. We are not born sinners.

glad you are honest about your railing against us. Such honesty is refreshing.... I think....

 

[lbaker]

I am genuinely curious, how does God choose a group or "class" that is not made up of individual persons?

God "chose" us in that He predestined, planned, purposed, chose, however we want to express it, that Jesus would come and die, and be raised, etc. and those who avail themselves of His Grace are the elect. We are elect in the sense that God chose, elected, etc. to send Jesus to die for us. He chose (by sending Jesus) that there would be people who will be saved, through the blood of Jesus Christ, but not who those specific individuals will be.

Les

 

[skypair]

Excuse me, but you have repeated a strawman argument twice, saying I follow John Calvin, and ignore the offence you give to all godly men, including me with this calumny, and then you expect me to engage you and answer your questions?

Friend, its best we just part ways at this point.

"Strawman" it is not. You got Calvisism down pat -- you just don't have scripture down as well. Probably it is easier to understand someone else telling you what it means. That's the normal case. Asuming the Holy Spirit spoke to someone else more than He speaks to you.

Here I ask you to engage in some "common ground"-seeking and you "bail." Is there some reason it is "your way or the highway?"

skypair

 

[skypair]

glad you are honest about your railing against us. Such honesty is refreshing.... I think....

How can you tell he's "honest" unless what he says is true? And if what he says is true, what does that say about your theology?

You know, finding GOOD common ground means giving up what is wrong to agree on what is right? Apparently if there is a hint of common ground that doesn't put your theology in a good light, you'd sooner "tip the hat" to the respondent than change your own perspective. Some of the Pharisees "tipped the hat" to Jesus, BTW. They couldn't answer to the truth and so went off to be with their own kind.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

"Strawman" it is not. You got Calvisism down pat -- you just don't have scripture down as well. Probably it is easier to understand someone else telling you what it means. That's the normal case. Asuming the Holy Spirit spoke to someone else more than He speaks to you.

Here I ask you to engage in some "common ground"-seeking and you "bail." Is there some reason it is "your way or the highway?"

skypair

More calumnies skypair? Really man, this is getting old. Re-read your post my friend. But in case your so used to belittling people, let me tell you what you are doing here:

1. You accuse me of teaching some man's theology and not the Scriptures.
2. You essentially said I am stupid, don't read the Scriptures, and can't think for myself.
3. You accuse me of bailing, I think so you can make yourself look superior.


Now, you judge: Should I engage in an honest discussion with such a man?

No thanks. I tell you what. If you would like to have a real discussion with me, first apologize for all these things and then we can talk.

Otherwise, I am not going to wrangle with you.

 

[skypair]

More calumnies skypair? Really man, this is getting old. Re-read your post my friend. But in case your so used to belittling people, let me tell you what you are doing here:

1. You accuse me of teaching some man's theology and not the Scriptures.
2. You essentially said I am stupid, don't read the Scriptures, and can't think for myself.
3. You accuse me of bailing, I think so you can make yourself look superior.


Now, you judge: Should I engage in an honest discussion with such a man?

No thanks. I tell you what. If you would like to have a real discussion with me, first apologize for all these things and then we can talk.

Otherwise, I am not going to wrangle with you.

1) Let's just assume for a moment that your monicker wasn't REFORMbeliever.

2) Let's next see what your explanation regarding the conundrum of how God offers salvation to ANY man if that is, indeed, not the case as you aver.

3) You were "bailing." Regardless of your stated reason, you were not willing to consider whether my offering of "common ground" was valid or not -- whether I might have offered something that you didn't know, that updates your thinking.

Now tell me -- what AM I to think?

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1) Let's just assume for a moment that your monicker wasn't REFORMbeliever.

2) Let's next see what your explanation regarding the conundrum of how God offers salvation to ANY man if that is, indeed, not the case as you aver.

3) You were "bailing." Regardless of your stated reason, you were not willing to consider whether my offering of "common ground" was valid or not -- whether I might have offered something that you didn't know, that updates your thinking.

Now tell me -- what AM I to think?

skypair

.............:sleeping_2:

 

[lbaker]

Hey RB,

I'm reposting some questions that I submitted earlier that seemed to have gotten lost in the general melee.

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.

Thanks,

Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Hey RB,

I'm reposting some questions that I submitted earlier that seemed to have gotten lost in the general melee.

Yeah, melee is over now though. I will only engage that stuff for so long. Then its fruitless.

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?

What we know from Scripture is that God created Adam and Eve upright, and very good. There was no sin in them. They were not immutable creatures, unable to change, like God. But they were created mutable, able to change, i.e. fall from their estate into sin.

I believe Romans 5 (which we didn't get into yet) teaches that when Adam sinned, we sinned in Adam. We have no problem saying that Jesus died in our place. But it is unusal in modern churches to hear that Adam sinned in our place. This is by the appointment of God. Notice how the Levites paid tithes to Melchizadek in Abraham found in Hebrews. This is the biblical concept of what we theologically call federal headship, that is, how one man and his action(s) can represent an entire group and that action be accounted (imputed) to that group.

If you look back at Romans 5 it says that Adam's action resulted in condemnation to all. Why should I be condemned for Adam's disobedience? I could answer that with a question, "Why should you be justified for Christ's obedience?"

To say that mankind, by falling in Adam, has become totally depraved, simply means that he cannot do anythign SPIRITUALLY good and acceptable before God, but it does not mean he is as evil as he can be, or that God would not recognize just and righteous actions.

I perferct biblical example of this was Cornelius. The Holy Spirit says he was a just man in the book of Acts, yet God sends salvation to him for the forgiveness of his sins. God remembered his alms and good work he did, but these things did not justify him before 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?

I believe it was included in the fall of man as the judgment of God. He died both spiritually and began dying phsyically when he ate. Corruption began to be at work in them to die physically. And spiritually they lost their innocence, being ashamed of being naked.

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.

I am not sure this is necessary. Line upon line, precept upon precept. And it may have been somewhat a mystery until the full revelation of Christ Jesus. In my simple understanding, its clear in the New Testament, and drawn from the old.

 

[lbaker]

What we know from Scripture is that God created Adam and Eve upright, and very good. There was no sin in them. They were not immutable creatures, unable to change, like God. But they were created mutable, able to change, i.e. fall from their estate into sin.

Les here - but they did apparently have this tendency to sin, same as us, only one command to keep and they blew it.

I believe it was included in the fall of man as the judgment of God. He died both spiritually and began dying phsyically when he ate. Corruption began to be at work in them to die physically. And spiritually they lost their innocence, being ashamed of being naked.

Les here - let me be sure I understand you. Are you saying that God gave Adam and Even the sin nature, making them more likely to sin than they were before?

I am not sure this is necessary. Line upon line, precept upon precept. And it may have been somewhat a mystery until the full revelation of Christ Jesus. In my simple understanding, its clear in the New Testament, and drawn from the old.

Les again - I've been pouring over Romans 5 a good bit lately and what I see there is the physical death penalty being passed down from Adam. That is well established in Genesis 3 and makes perfect sense. I find it hard to grasp that God would implant something that makes us more likely to sin, and hold us accountable for it, and then keep totally silent about it for thousands of years. Then boom, all of a sudden Paul comes out with an "Oh, by the way..." kind of thing.

 

[Brother Bob]

We are born to die because of Adam. We also are the same as Adam in creation. We are made subject to vanity, and until we commit that vanity, we have no sin.

Rom 1:21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (if it already had sin, it would already be darkened)

If their heart was not darkened until they grew to know God, then it must of been lighten. Also, the Creature was made subject to vanity, but not God's will that we would, but if we did, He made a way for our escape, when He subjected the same in Hope. (Jesus Christ)

Rom 8:20For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected [the same] in hope,

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Les again - I've been pouring over Romans 5 a good bit lately and what I see there is the physical death penalty being passed down from Adam. That is well established in Genesis 3 and makes perfect sense. I find it hard to grasp that God would implant something that makes us more likely to sin, and hold us accountable for it, and then keep totally silent about it for thousands of years. Then boom, all of a sudden Paul comes out with an "Oh, by the way..." kind of thing.

I understand that reasoning. But I don't think its unbiblical for God to keep significant revelation hidden from mankind for thousands of years.

"If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:" Eph 3:2-6

Now this just serves as an example that God hid from the people of God (Jews) that the Gentiles would be fellowheirs and partakers of His promise by the Gospel. This thing we see in Acts as the church wrestled with it and God worked miracles and gave visions to testify of it.

So, not necessarily an unusal thing for God to hide a thing. "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." Prov 25:2

 

[charles_creech78]

A reformed baptist what do you think the fruit of knowledge of Good and evil is.? Do you thank it might be sin?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

A reformed baptist what do you think the fruit of knowledge of Good and evil is.? Do you thank it might be sin?

1 John 3:4 seems pretty definitive as to what sin is. "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

Adam sinned because he transgressed the Law of God.

As for the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, its nature and what it is, I am not certain. I know that by their partaking of it they became sensible to the difference between good and evil, knowing only good before, but afterword disobedience and shame.