ORIGINAL SIN---Exactly what is it according to CALVINISM?

On Original Sin and its transmission.

It is interesting to see this debate unfold. I have read some of the post and I have seen some good things and I have seen some not-so-good things. Honestly, I don’t think any of the post I’ve read (and I haven’t read them all) deal with the question. Therefore, I’ll throw my two cents in.

Original Sin is best understood in terms of two concepts: 1) The legal guilt we inherit from Adam and 2) The predisposition to commit sin.

Obviously, I think we can all agree the fall DID happen. (See Genesis 3). The Apostle Paul gives us the correct interpretation of this event in Romans 5:12. He writes Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.

This passage tells us that sin spread to all men because of Adam’s sin. This means that Adam’s sin has lasting consequences which are transmitted to us. This is due to Adam’s special role as a “Federal Head.” These consequences are as follows: 1) A legally guilt standing before God. Adam stood as our representative before God. Because of this, we are all guilty of his sin, in God’s eyes. This is evidenced by Romans 5:13-14: for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

The law was not given until Moses and Mt. Sinai. However, sin was in the world before this as evidenced by the fact that men still died. Even without the law, men still died. Why? Because they were held as sinners because of Adam’s sin.

There are some of you who will probably have great problems with this. Let me just say that if there is no “Imputation” of sin from the first Adam, how can you argue for an Imputation of righteousness from the Last Adam?

When we see people like Abraham, we can see that God had a special relationship with them—they performed sacrifices, etc. before the Law was given. Obviously they were the recipients of a “special” revelation from God. (This is not to say their “salvation” was based on their sacrifices.)

The ongoing problem that we now have, in addition to a legally guilty standing before God, is the problem of total depravity. When we say “total depravity” we mean that humans are totally tarnished by sin. This does not mean that we are as bad as we could be. It means that every part of us is, in some way, tarnished by sin.

These two things conspire against us because we are inherently unrighteous. Romans 3:10 says, as it is written: None is righteous, no, not one; The following verses (which you can look at for yourselves) paint the dim picture that we, because we are totally unrighteous, cannot seek after God. In fact, Romans says we are worthless.

This is why, as Calvinists, we believe that regeneration must come before redemption. If we cannot and do not seek after God, how can we find God unless He acts first? We can’t! He must replace our sin-destroyed heart of stone with a God-seeking heart of flesh.

I’m going to bed now. I hope I haven’t confused any of y’all. I’m sure that there will be a myriad of people who do not agree. I’ll try (no promises) to look back and answer any replies to either clarify or defend this position. If you’d like, feel free to private message me and we can discuss things behind the scenes. Until then, Take Care and God bless all of you!

The Archangel

 

Hi Archangle;
I agree that man is a sinner and that man dies. but You said;

This passage does not say that we cannot seek God that's just not there. It says there is none that seeks God. Huge difference don't you think. To say man cannot do something when we are told to do it, is ridiculous.
Why would God even suggest that we should seek or that we will seek Him. And for that matter there is so much scripture written that plainly states that men have and still can seek God. Why would you say such a thing.

Again totally unscriptural You've base your belief on a misreading of Scripture.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

Wes.

Then your contention that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world falls to the ground.

Limited atonement.

No atonement was made for the house of Eli therefore no atonement was made for every human being.
Where do you go from here Wes?

johnp.

 

JohnP;
Christ died for the whole world He did not die for hell.
Mike

 

Thank you for the information ILUVLIGHT would you care explaining what you mean?

johnp.

 

Then your contention that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world falls to the ground.

Limited atonement.

No atonement was made for the house of Eli therefore no atonement was made for every human being.
Where do you go from here Wes?

johnp. </font>[/QUOTE]Jesus' atonement was not for people, and that is where you fail! Jesus' atonement was for sin! Therefore SIN does not keep a person from having everlasting life through faith in God!

You will notice the reason Eli's house was excluded! YES! REJECTION OF GOD! </font>[/QUOTE]I really shouldn't get into this...but here goes!

The "theology" put forward by Wes in this post is nothing short of heresy.

The Bible never suggests that Jesus’ death was for any opaque notion of a universal or mystical “Sin.” 1 Corinthians 15:3 states exactly the opposite: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for OUR SINS in accordance with the scriptures (emphasis mine)

Notice that Christ’s death has a personal function. He died for the individual sins committed by individual people. The word “our” tells us this. The one-for-one substitution of Christ for my sin is taught in other passages of scripture as well. For Example:

Isaiah 53:6
-All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own
way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all

Isaiah 59:2
-but your iniquities have made a
separation
between you and your God,
and your sins have hidden his face from
you
so that he does not hear

Notice the use of personal language such as “We have gone astray…” (Clearly a reference to our sin) and “Your sins have hidden his face from you…”

Not even the Old Testament sacrificial system can support the claim made by Wes.

Let’s say, for sake of our discussion, that Wes is correct—all sin was paid for by Christ. Why would Eli’s house be rejected? For rejecting God, as was said? Isn’t the rejection of God a sin? Of course it is; the Bible teaches this clearly. What about the people today who, as was claimed, have had their sins forgiven by Christ but still reject God. Why will they be condemned? Will it be for their “Sin” of rejecting God? But how can someone be held liable for something that Christ paid for? Do you see the problem?

What about this statement: “Therefore SIN does not keep a person from having everlasting life through faith in God!” If this is the case why does Isaiah 59:2 say exactly the opposite?

I’m anticipating the answer will deal somewhat with the difference between Old and New Testaments. Unfortunately, that is almost a bogus argument. However, I’m sure that I’ll hear it and that’s OK. Until then, blessings to all!

The Archangel

 

Hi JohnP;

You said;

It's simple Eli's house was in Hell by the time Christ paid the atonement. To late for him for it to have done any good.

1Sa 3:14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering forever.
Now I suppose your thinking that maybe all of his descendants were included in this but you'd be wrong Samule was eli's son. and sins are not passed on.

1Sa 3:19 And Samuel grew, and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike