Original Sin and Imputed Sin

[charles_creech78]

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.

Did'nt he transgress his law by eating the fruit that he said not eat. Same thing that happen to us all. We came to know good and evil because we eat that fruit. He told us not to sin. We got that knowledge because he told us not to sin. But we did go out and sin. There for God said that soul that sinneth shall surely die. This is what happen to us all after we eat that fruit. Ro 7:9 FOR I WAS ALIVE WITHOUT THE LAW ONCE ( He was alive once. Must been before he eat that fruit.) But when the commandment came.( The soul that SINNETH AGAINST ME SHALL SHURELY DIE.) SIN REVIVED, AND I DIED. Ro 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. FOR WITHOUT THE LAW SIN IS DEAD.

 

[Brother Bob]

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

It exactly what it says it is. They did not know they were naked until they ate of the tree of Knowledge. Their sin was disobeidance of "not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge". Adam knew from that time forward what was sin before God. I don't think eating of the tree would of been sin, if it were not disobeidance of the command of God. It taught them what was the difference between "good and evil". IMO

 

[David Lamb]

You mean to tell me when you look at a male baby you see a man. That is just ignorant. How can you tell me a baby know how to sin. You all are ignorant read the scripture I given you again. I SIN AGAINST GOD BECAUSE I DID IT. I NEW I DID IT. A baby don't KNOW how to sin. You are speeking evil of something that is good in God eyes. How did you KNOW you sin against God. Be truthful about it and lie not. I am talking Spiritruly KNOW that you sin against God. When you know to do good and DO IT NOT then it is SIN. I do not know why you people are being so ignorant with the word of God. And you change it to fit your needs.

No, that is not what I said at all, Charles. Of course I don't see a man (in the sense of a human adult male) when I look at a baby. But I do see a human being when I look at that baby. And in the original Greek of the New Testament, the word in Romans 5.12 translated "man" in our English versions is "anthropos", which means "human being". It doesn't mean an adult human male. There is another Greek word ("aner") used in the New Testament for that meaning. If that were not so, it would lead to some ridiculous meanings to well known verses. For example:

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4.4)​

If "man" meant "adult male" there, it would have to imply that women don't need to feed on God's Word.

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 6.1) ​

Did Jesus mean it was fine to do alms before women and children, to be seen of them?

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1.4).​

Was Jesus Christ only the light of adult males?

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men (Romans 12.18).​

Are Christians to understand from this that the only need to live peaceably with adult males?

And going back to your comment about babies not being "men", there is John 16.21 (in the KJV):

A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.​

I said before that I do not know New Testament Greek. But if anyone who does know that language were to reply and tell me that I'm wrong, and that the Greek word "anthropos" does indeed mean "man in the sense of an adult male", I will have to think again on this. Young's Concordance and Strongs both say it means "human being". Are they mistaken?

 

[lbaker]

Good Morning RB,

Don't want to beat this to death but I want to be sure I understand you on this as it is an important point. Are you saying that God gave Adam and Even the sin nature, making them even more likely to sin than they were before?

Also, you mentioned Cornelius earlier. His account seems to contradict Total Depravity. The angel tells him that his prayers (and gifts to the poor) have come up as an offering before God. So, apparently God is hearing his prayers? But doesn't TD say that an unsaved man can't "do" anything to please God, or anything of a positive spiritual nature? In fact, doesn't TD say that an unsaved man can't even believe, or have faith? Now while the faith that Cornelius had wasn't a saving faith as he didn't know Who to put his faith in, his prayers do show that he had faith in the God of Israel and was able to spiritually reach out in a way that God responded to.

Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Good Morning RB,

Don't want to beat this to death but I want to be sure I understand you on this as it is an important point. Are you saying that God gave Adam and Even the sin nature, making them even more likely to sin than they were before?

Also, you mentioned Cornelius earlier. His account seems to contradict Total Depravity. The angel tells him that his prayers (and gifts to the poor) have come up as an offering before God. So, apparently God is hearing his prayers? But doesn't TD say that an unsaved man can't "do" anything to please God, or anything of a positive spiritual nature? In fact, doesn't TD say that an unsaved man can't even believe, or have faith? Now while the faith that Cornelius had wasn't a saving faith as he didn't know Who to put his faith in, his prayers do show that he had faith in the God of Israel and was able to spiritually reach out in a way that God responded to.

Les

Les, your a gentleman and a scholar and someone who understands communication.

I am not saying that God gave Adam and Eve the sin nature in order that they may fall. This would be teaching that God infused a principle of evil in their hearts and inclined them to evil. I am saying that GOd created Adam in such a manner that he could fall, using the word mutable (able to change).

The second part of your question regarding Cornelius is a great subject when discussing the total inability of mankind. The doctrine itself does not deny that unregenerate men are capable of performing works, in a natural or civil sense that are good, but not before God in terms of justification. To try to affirm so would be to affirm that a man may be justified by the works of the law. But no flesh shall be justified by the works fo the law.

This does not mean that God does not regard or acknowledge a natural and civil righteousness in man, and even reward him for it. In the example of Cornelius this is evident, as we both agree. Yet God sends Peter to his house to preach the Gospel that he might be saved. This is plain that while God had regard to Cornelius, Cornelius was not justified before God. Conrelius was a sinner.

 

[lbaker]

I am not saying that God gave Adam and Eve the sin nature in order that they may fall. This would be teaching that God infused a principle of evil in their hearts and inclined them to evil. I am saying that GOd created Adam in such a manner that he could fall, using the word mutable (able to change).

[Les here - I understand about God creating Adam changeable and we are in agreement there. What I'm still trying to get a handle on, is where in your opinion the sin nature comes in? It seems that you maintain that something was added to Adam's character (or makeup) at, or shortly after, the Fall that made him and his descendants prone to sin. My question still is where did this come from? It would seem that if something was added to God's creation, only He could do the adding.

The second part of your question regarding Cornelius is a great subject when discussing the total inability of mankind. The doctrine itself does not deny that unregenerate men are capable of performing works, in a natural or civil sense that are good, but not before God in terms of justification. To try to affirm so would be to affirm that a man may be justified by the works of the law. But no flesh shall be justified by the works fo the law.

Les here - agreed!

This does not mean that God does not regard or acknowledge a natural and civil righteousness in man, and even reward him for it. In the example of Cornelius this is evident, as we both agree. Yet God sends Peter to his house to preach the Gospel that he might be saved. This is plain that while God had regard to Cornelius, Cornelius was not justified before God. Conrelius was a sinner.

Les here - I agree, Cornelius was still a lost sinner. Maybe my understanding of what you are advocating is flawed. I understood Calvinism to argue that an unregenerate person can't even desire to come to God. Did I misunderstand?

and it's been a pleasure on this end too,

Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

and it's been a pleasure on this end too,

Les

I am not sure I follow the understanding that God must add something into Adam when he fell so as to infuse a principle of sin into him. The fall of Adam into sin resulted in the loss of righteousness and communion with God. And mankind, being IN Adam, fell with him, Adam being a type of HIm was was to come.

In this manner the nature of Adam, being upright and in perfect communion with God, became corrupted. This corruption affected every faculty of his being. In other words, there wasn't a part of Adam that remain unstained by this corruption.

God did not make Adam a sinner. Adam, by his own free-will which God gave him, corrupted himeself. Yet, in the mystery of God's Providence, this too was not outside the control of the Almighty.

As far as an unregenerate sinner desiring to come to God, the statement could be said (by a calvinist) to be correct but I would say added understanding is needed. We know that the Scriptures teach that there is none who seek the Lord. We MUST agree with God on that point. But do we not see men of every nation being religious? Did not Paul say of those who he met at Mars Hill that they were very religious? Is this not seeking God?

Not the true God, no. And not in the manner prescribed by Him. And not by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore they seek false gods, and are idolators, and do not seek the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

Now, as to man's ability to come to Jesus, repent and believe on His Name and so find salvation in Him, we are not left with ambiguous Scripture on the matter. Jesus our Lord speaks directly and plainly about the ability of man to come to Him which we find in the Gospel of John. You have heard us quote John 6:44 many times, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This is John 6:44 and 45. Verse 45 is very important to the understanding of verse 44 because it defines what is involved in the process of one coming to Jesus.

1. The man must hear.
2. The man must have learned of the Father.
3. The man has been taught by the Father.

We can then ask our Lord, "Who are the ones that you will draw, teach, and who will hear, that they will come to you?"

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

Herein is the doctrine of election preached by the Son of God.

1. The Father gives to the Son a people, all who come to Him.
2. The Father will draw them to Jesus.
3. The Son will redeem them and save them.

In this is the full Trinity displayed in the salvation of souls. This is also contained in the Pslams speaking of Christ the Father says,

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Psalm 2:7-8

And we have by the grace of God the Son doing this thing:

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John 17:20-21

The Son does not pray for unbelievers, that is, intercede for them, but for believers only because they are the ones elected by the Father and given to the Son. "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." John 17:9


Therefore we teach, for a man to come savingly to Jesus Christ and believe on Him, He must:

1. Be given by the Father to the Son and so taught of the Father.
2. Must be drawn by the Father which in such a way, as the Son of God says, "Shall come..."
3. Must come. Because, "He who comes I will in no wise cast out." Therefore, they must come in repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, no one is saved without coming and believing on Jesus.

 

[lbaker]

I am not sure I follow the understanding that God must add something into Adam when he fell so as to infuse a principle of sin into him. The fall of Adam into sin resulted in the loss of righteousness and communion with God. And mankind, being IN Adam, fell with him, Adam being a type of HIm was was to come.

Les here - As I understand it, you say that the "sin nature" is something Adam didn't start out with, but something that he acquired at the Fall and passed along to us. In other words, you say Adam had a different "nature" before he fell, one that is different from our nature. My point is that if God created Adam with a certain nature it would take an action by God to change that nature. Adam can't just grow a new nature on his own.

In this manner the nature of Adam, being upright and in perfect communion with God, became corrupted. This corruption affected every faculty of his being. In other words, there wasn't a part of Adam that remain unstained by this corruption.

Les here - do you have a passage that states that Adam became totally corrupted in "every faculty of his being"?

God did not make Adam a sinner. Adam, by his own free-will which God gave him, corrupted himeself. Yet, in the mystery of God's Providence, this too was not outside the control of the Almighty.

Les here - this sounds like you are saying that Adam changed his very nature himself. How could he do that?

RB,

Don't mean to be belaboring the point here, but I think it is important that we hash out just what is meant by the "sin nature" and how we got one.

Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

RB,

Don't mean to be belaboring the point here, but I think it is important that we hash out just what is meant by the "sin nature" and how we got one.

Les

As I understand it, you say that the "sin nature" is something Adam didn't start out with, but something that he acquired at the Fall and passed along to us. In other words, you say Adam had a different "nature" before he fell, one that is different from our nature. My point is that if God created Adam with a certain nature it would take an action by God to change that nature. Adam can't just grow a new nature on his own.

I think that my explaination makes sense in that Adam fell from his righteous estate and communion with God. And I showed this by Scripture. I dont think I can say more.

do you have a passage that states that Adam became totally corrupted in "every faculty of his being"?

Do you have a Scripture that has Jesus saying He is a prophet? My point being, is the question is invalid. Much like asking, where does God say "I am a Trinity." The question should be, does the Scripture teach that all mankind is corrupt, there is none that does good, and this was passed to us from Adam. Yes.

this sounds like you are saying that Adam changed his very nature himself. How could he do that?

All I can say is that the Scripture teaches Adam fell. Fell from what? From righteousness and communion with God. What did this "do" to Adam? It corrupted his being. How do we know? Fruit.

 

[lbaker]

As far as an unregenerate sinner desiring to come to God, the statement could be said (by a calvinist) to be correct but I would say added understanding is needed. We know that the Scriptures teach that there is none who seek the Lord. We MUST agree with God on that point. But do we not see men of every nation being religious? Did not Paul say of those who he met at Mars Hill that they were very religious? Is this not seeking God?

Not the true God, no. And not in the manner prescribed by Him. And not by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore they seek false gods, and are idolators, and do not seek the one true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

Les here - But, in Acts 10 we still have Cornelius, an unregenerate sinner, praying to the true God and seeking salvation, which it is supposedly impossible for him to do. I don't see any way around that.

Now, as to man's ability to come to Jesus, repent and believe on His Name and so find salvation in Him, we are not left with ambiguous Scripture on the matter. Jesus our Lord speaks directly and plainly about the ability of man to come to Him which we find in the Gospel of John. You have heard us quote John 6:44 many times, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." This is John 6:44 and 45. Verse 45 is very important to the understanding of verse 44 because it defines what is involved in the process of one coming to Jesus.

1. The man must hear.
2. The man must have learned of the Father.
3. The man has been taught by the Father.

We can then ask our Lord, "Who are the ones that you will draw, teach, and who will hear, that they will come to you?"

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." John 6:37

Herein is the doctrine of election preached by the Son of God.

1. The Father gives to the Son a people, all who come to Him.
2. The Father will draw them to Jesus.
3. The Son will redeem them and save them.

Therefore we teach, for a man to come savingly to Jesus Christ and believe on Him, He must:

1. Be given by the Father to the Son and so taught of the Father.
2. Must be drawn by the Father which in such a way, as the Son of God says, "Shall come..."
3. Must come. Because, "He who comes I will in no wise cast out." Therefore, they must come in repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. In other words, no one is saved without coming and believing on Jesus.

Les here - But, we have left a very important verse out of this mix, and it is right in the middle of what Jesus is saying - 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." Right there Jesus defines just which ones God is giving to Him - the ones who look to the Son and believe.

I think it's also important to note that the whole point of what Jesus is saying in this exchange is that He came from the Father. That is the overall point He is making to those who are grumbling.

Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I think it's also important to note that the whole point of what Jesus is saying in this exchange is that He came from the Father. That is the overall point He is making to those who are grumbling.

Les

I agree that whole of Scripture is about Christ. Yet we must not diminish the teaching in this chapter concerning those who come to Jesus and believe on Him.

"But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not." John 6:36

Is this not Jesus saying, you see Me (who is the Son of God who came from the Father) but you do not BELIEVE. Why? This was the portion of what I wrote above. And so if people want to call this soteriology "calvinism" so be it. It is the teaching of our God.

Also consider brother, man's innate inability to savingly come to Jesus and believe on Christ does not remove God's right and authority to demand repentance and faith of them. Just because man cannot keep the Law of God does not nullify His authority to command us to obey it.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[lbaker]

I think that my explaination makes sense in that Adam fell from his righteous estate and communion with God. And I showed this by Scripture. I dont think I can say more.

Les here - Yes, I can see that. But as far as I can tell that is the same process we all go through. We may just have to agree to disagree about the imputed sin nature.

Do you have a Scripture that has Jesus saying He is a prophet? My point being, is the question is invalid. Much like asking, where does God say "I am a Trinity." The question should be, does the Scripture teach that all mankind is corrupt, there is none that does good, and this was passed to us from Adam. Yes.

Les here - Um, actually yes - Mark 6:4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor."


All I can say is that the Scripture teaches Adam fell. Fell from what? From righteousness and communion with God. What did this "do" to Adam? It corrupted his being. How do we know? Fruit.

Les here - Again, this sounds like the same thing that happens to us.

I just don't see the evidence for an inherited sin nature and the accompanying imputed guilt. So, I guess we will just have to disagree on that point. This has been a good discussion and it has helped me to better understand the Reformed point of view.

Bro. Les

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I just don't see the evidence for an inherited sin nature and the accompanying imputed guilt. So, I guess we will just have to disagree on that point. This has been a good discussion and it has helped me to better understand the Reformed point of view.

Bro. Les

Just for the record, the point was, Jesus never said the words, "I am a prophet." Which proves nothing. Same is true of saying, where does it say total depravity, or Adam has a sin nature. These are theological words like the word Trinity.

I emphatically deny that man is born innocent like Adam. And I think such theology is contributing to the downfall of Christianity in America. But that's a whole other can of worms. It is, truly, pelagianism re-hashed. But we can both rejoice that God's truth will prevail and the inventions of men will perish. May the Lord make a quick work of it.

As for us, we will preach the Gospel of Christ and all the doctrines of God.

 

[skypair]

The second part of your question regarding Cornelius is a great subject when discussing the total inability of mankind. The doctrine itself does not deny that unregenerate men are capable of performing works, in a natural or civil sense that are good, but not before God in terms of justification. To try to affirm so would be to affirm that a man may be justified by the works of the law. But no flesh shall be justified by the works fo the law.

This does not mean that God does not regard or acknowledge a natural and civil righteousness in man, and even reward him for it. In the example of Cornelius this is evident, as we both agree. Yet God sends Peter to his house to preach the Gospel that he might be saved. This is plain that while God had regard to Cornelius, Cornelius was not justified before God. Conrelius was a sinner.

Les --- I think you are on to something so don't drop the ball in all the "smoke and mirrors" you're getting. :laugh:

The real danger for Calvinism is if God could hear the "sinner's prayer" from an actual "totally depraved" person such as Cornelius. If free will insists we must pray God to be JUSTIFIED before Him, then in no way will a Calvinist allow this!

So watch out for those "special terms" like "natural and civil righteousness!" Just pretend you didn't smell that "red herring" on the trail and pursue the truth, bro!!

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Les --- I think you are on to something so don't drop the ball in all the "smoke and mirrors" you're getting. :laugh:

The real danger for Calvinism is if God could hear the "sinner's prayer" from an actual "totally depraved" person such as Cornelius. If free will insists we must pray God to be JUSTIFIED before Him, then in no way will a Calvinist allow this!

So watch out for those "special terms" like "natural and civil righteousness!" Just pretend you didn't smell that "red herring" on the trail and pursue the truth, bro!!

skypair

May the Lord be kind and gracious to you.

 

[skypair]

May the Lord be kind and gracious to you.

You as well, my friend. raying: I only wish we had the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace spoken of in Eph 4:3, but I'm afraid our respective "knowledges and faiths of Christ" are a "war." Sardis is supposed to evolve into Philadelphia but, alas, those that "have a name that liveth but art dead" have not all become those who "keep the word of Him patience."

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You as well, my friend. raying: I only wish we had the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace spoken of in Eph 4:3, but I'm afraid our respective "knowledges and faiths of Christ" are a "war." Sardis is supposed to evolve into Philadelphia but, alas, those that "have a name that liveth but art dead" have not all become those who "keep the word of Him patience."

skypair

There will be no unity with error.

As I grow in my understanding of the errors in the churches I am finding myself more and more in agreement with the men of God of old. This Arminian error, and the ugly head of Pelagianism, and other rational schemes contrary to divine revelation, should have by God grace the axe laid to the root of the tree.

You are reahearsing arguments and errors that have been thrust down many, many times. And God willing, will be thrust down again. I see in your most recent writings that when you cannot refute the truth given you have resorted to attacks and belittleing. Something quite unbecoming of a son of God.

Perhaps I might be more persuded of your view if it were coupled with a true Christian spirit. And I see others are quickly following this same path.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Les --- I think you are on to something so don't drop the ball in all the "smoke and mirrors" you're getting. :laugh:

The real danger for Calvinism is if God could hear the "sinner's prayer" from an actual "totally depraved" person such as Cornelius. If free will insists we must pray God to be JUSTIFIED before Him, then in no way will a Calvinist allow this!

So watch out for those "special terms" like "natural and civil righteousness!" Just pretend you didn't smell that "red herring" on the trail and pursue the truth, bro!!

skypair

Yes Les, don't get distracted by a well-reasoned argument that may actually contain something of intellect. lol

 

[webdog]

Yes Les, don't get distracted by a well-reasoned argument that may actually contain something of intellect. lol

May I remind you of what you just posted a few minutes back?

I see in your most recent writings that when you cannot refute the truth given you have resorted to attacks and belittleing. Something quite unbecoming of a son of God.

Perhaps I might be more persuded of your view if it were coupled with a true Christian spirit. And I see others are quickly following this same path.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

May I remind you of what you just posted a few minutes back?

I wasn't belittling skypair, and if that is the impression I have given, I apologize. I was simply poking fun. :saint: