Original Sin and Romans 5

[evangelist6589]

How can anyone miss the teaching of original sin??? Critics have you read Romans 5? Those that reject original sin believe man is born neutral but still in need of a savior since he will sin. A definite flawed view of the Bible. Anyone on this board deny original sin?

 

[InTheLight]

How can anyone miss the teaching of original sin??? Critics have you read Romans 5? Those that reject original sin believe man is born neutral but still in need of a savior since he will sin. A definite flawed view of the Bible. Anyone on this board deny original sin?

As usual one must reject the opposition's definition of someone else's beliefs. In this case original sin.

In my view original sin does not mean man is born "neutral". Man is born corrupt, but sinless. A newborn does not sin, does not know the law, does not break the law. This newborn will surely die because it has inherited Adam's sin nature. This newborn will almost certainly sin, if it lives long enough.

Now why don't you explain your definition of original sin? Are babies born sinners? For example, are babies sinning in the womb?

 

[Deacon]

I'll deny that my sins are original.

Rob

 

[evangelist6589]

As usual one must reject the opposition's definition of someone else's beliefs. In this case original sin.



In my view original sin does not mean man is born "neutral". Man is born corrupt, but sinless. A newborn does not sin, does not know the law, does not break the law. This newborn will surely die because it has inherited Adam's sin nature. This newborn will almost certainly sin, if it lives long enough.



Now why don't you explain your definition of original sin? Are babies born sinners? For example, are babies sinning in the womb?

That's not what the Bible says. You need to read Romans 5 to get a more biblical definition.

 

[InTheLight]

That's not what the Bible says. You need to read Romans 5 to get a more biblical definition.

So, don't answer my questions--are babies in the womb sinners? Don't expand on the subject matter, simply tell me to read the Bible. Why don't you walk me through it?

Take a look at this verse:

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child

 

[The Biblicist]

As usual one must reject the opposition's definition of someone else's beliefs. In this case original sin.

In my view original sin does not mean man is born "neutral". Man is born corrupt, but sinless. A newborn does not sin, does not know the law, does not break the law. This newborn will surely die because it has inherited Adam's sin nature. This newborn will almost certainly sin, if it lives long enough.

Now why don't you explain your definition of original sin? Are babies born sinners? For example, are babies sinning in the womb?

There is a distinction between being a sinner by nature, (which all infants are or otherwise they could never suffer the condemnation of sin which is death) and being a sinner by personal choice which requires knowledge between right and wrong.

Romans 5:12-14 proves that "all have sinned" (aorist completed puntillar action" already when Adam sinned as that is the very basis for his argument in verses 15-19 "by ONE MAN's OFFENCE many" be dead...many be made sinners, rather than your position which would require Paul saying "by MANY MEN's OFFENCES many be dead.....be made sinners."

 

[The Biblicist]

How can anyone miss the teaching of original sin??? Critics have you read Romans 5? Those that reject original sin believe man is born neutral but still in need of a savior since he will sin. A definite flawed view of the Bible. Anyone on this board deny original sin?

Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-19 is very developmental and logically ordered. Every thing hinges and is a further development of the statement in verse 12.

He states how sin entered the material creation by one man later defined to be Adam. He states clearly that death originated with that one sin by that one man and that is the basis of his argument in verses 15-19. His statement that death passed on all men because all men have already sinned at one point in time (Aorist punctillar completed action) is then proven by the arguments he sets forth in verses 13-14 and then reinforced by the repetition that "BY ONE MAN'S OFFENCE" that many be dead....many be made sinners. This is crystal clear and simple to see if one simply follows the contextual flow of the argument without a bias to defend.

 

[webdog]

That's not what the Bible says. You need to read Romans 5 to get a more biblical definition.

Why just Romans 5? How about Ephesians 2 that states we are dead in our own sin? Or James 1:15 that proves an infant is not guilty? Romans 5 is dealing with the stain of the curse, not personal guilt.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why just Romans 5? How about Ephesians 2 that states we are dead in our own sin? Or James 1:15 that proves an infant is not guilty? Romans 5 is dealing with the stain of the curse, not personal guilt.

James 1:15 does not even address infants. Ephesians 2:1 deals with those capable of what describes their past in verse 2-3 and that is impossible for infants.

Romans 5 directly addresses the relationship between Adam and all of his offspring BEFORE they were born and what effects ONE SIN had on the whole human race.

Any parent knows by experience that you do not need to teach infants to be selfish, self-centered or do wrong - it comes naturally due to the nature they are born with. Death occurs IN THE WOMB and Romans 5:12 tells you plainly and explicitly how death entered this world especially in regard to humans - by one man's sin - NOT BY MANY MEN'S SINS.

 

[convicted1]

Why just Romans 5? How about Ephesians 2 that states we are dead in our own sin? Or James 1:15 that proves an infant is not guilty? Romans 5 is dealing with the stain of the curse, not personal guilt.

Hmmmph....I did not know you was anti-missions....

 

[evangelist6589]

Why just Romans 5? How about Ephesians 2 that states we are dead in our own sin? Or James 1:15 that proves an infant is not guilty? Romans 5 is dealing with the stain of the curse, not personal guilt.

I missed those chapters.

 

[evangelist6589]

So, don't answer my questions--are babies in the womb sinners? Don't expand on the subject matter, simply tell me to read the Bible. Why don't you walk me through it?

Take a look at this verse:

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child

They are born with a sin nature but they have not committed their first sin. Regarding Ezekiel yes the child would not share the guilt of the parent regarding capital punishment because he did not commit any sins, however the verse never says they do not have a sin nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

So, don't answer my questions--are babies in the womb sinners? Don't expand on the subject matter, simply tell me to read the Bible. Why don't you walk me through it?

Take a look at this verse:

Ezekiel 18:20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child

Romans 5 deals with mankind under two divinely appointed representatives. To deny the representation of Adam is to deny the respresentation of Christ.

In contrast, Ezekiel 18 deals with already fallen mankind for responsibility for personal and individual sins in the context of national administration of civil law in the land of Israel.

Ezek. 18:2 What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge?
3 As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

So this is like mixing apples and oranges. Romans 5 deals with the subject of divinely chosen representatives for mankind in general, whereas, Ezek 18 deals with the just administration of civil law in the land of Israel based upon personal responsibility for personal and individual sins as fallen mankind.

In regard to God's ultimate judgement day, we are not judged representatively by Adam's sin, but "that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" or "according to THEIR works." Likewise, the saints are rewarded according to the same principle.

 

[Don]

In regard to God's ultimate judgement day, we are not judged representatively by Adam's sin, but "that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" or "according to THEIR works." Likewise, the saints are rewarded according to the same principle.

And thus, babies (judged according to what they've done), have a sin nature but no sins to speak of.

Not sure why y'all are disagreeing.

 

[InTheLight]

And thus, babies (judged according to what they've done), have a sin nature but no sins to speak of.

Not sure why y'all are disagreeing.

They're disagreeing because the so-and-so Calvinist Confession of Faith of 16xx says this is how you will believe and they place that in preeminence over scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

And thus, babies (judged according to what they've done), have a sin nature but no sins to speak of.

Not sure why y'all are disagreeing.

I am not quite sure what your point may be. Yes infants have a sin nature and any parent can attest to that even though the infants do not recognize how they behave is the essence of sin - self-centeredness. Yes, they are not capable of discerning truth from error and so cannot make a responsible choice and if they die in that state they have no sins plural to be judged, and all who go to hell are judged "according to THEIR works" instead of Adam's.

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

1. There are not two classification of infants, the wicked versus the righteous, as all are equally born with a sinful nature and that sinful nature is manifest "as soon as they be born".

2. You don't have to speak English or any language to lie. You can lie by your actions and tone of voice. Babies are quick to figure out that crying gets attention even when they are not hurting or hungry. Before they can speak they manifest selfish, angry, deceptivness and every parent who does not live in la la land knows that by experience.

 

[InTheLight]

Babies are quick to figure out that crying gets attention even when they are not hurting or hungry. Before they can speak they manifest selfish, angry, deceptivness and every parent who does not live in la la land knows that by experience.

Your interpretation of a baby's motivation is flawed just like your interpretation of scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your interpretation of a baby's motivation is flawed just like your interpretation of scripture.

And I guess you are omiscient and know better than God does as it is His word that contradicts your word! God's Word says "as soon as they be born" contrary to YOUR word. I is one thing to make an empty accusation but quite another thing to demonstrate your accusation is true by careful exposition of God's Word! I see nothing presented by you except YOU!

 

[InTheLight]

And I guess you are omiscient and know better than God does as it is His word that contradicts your word! God's Word says "as soon as they be born" contrary to YOUR word. I is one thing to make an empty accusation but quite another thing to demonstrate your accusation is true by careful exposition of God's Word! I see nothing presented by you except YOU!

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Obviously these wicked people are the non-elect babies that God is going to send to Hell for his glory. Eventually they would grow up to be wicked people. Nothing in this verse about elect babies.

 

[webdog]

I missed those chapters.

They are there. Not to mention the great white throne judgement that judges based not on the actions of Adam but personal guilt.