Original Sin

[robustheologian]

You can't just strike Romans 5:12-19 from the biblical canon. You have to deal fairly with the Word of God.

Amen...that's another part of Scripture Arminians like to gloss over.

 

[JonC]

Charles Spurgeon had no difficulty affirming original guilt/sin. He believed it was imputed to each person born a natural birth (save Christ).

I agree with Spurgeon about 99% of the time (maybe a little more). I don't see original sin as imputed as much as descriptive of natural man. In the Garden man was told that if he ate of the fruit he would surely die. I believe this speaks of a spiritual death and we are by nature spiritually stillborn.

Where I may disagree with Spurgeon is that I do not find enough biblical support to stand upon the ground that all babies who die in infancy are eternally punished in Hell (although in your quote Spurgeon seems to allow for the possibility of salvation, just not one from innocence...but perhaps not as that would be another way of salvation).

I say this for a couple of reasons. First, it is inconsistent to emphasize the need of cognitive functions in salvation (one must hear and understand the gospel message) and ignore this aspect in damnation. I am not saying that you emphasize our reasoning in salvation, but I do insofar as I believe one must cognitively apprehend the gospel to be saved (which is a work of God as we naturally reject the gospel).

Second, the idea of an age where children become accountable is a portion of Jewish culture and the environment through which God worked His redemptive plan. In that context, I do not believe Paul would have been understood as speaking of infants. I realize, however, that this is merely cultural tradition and not substantiated biblically and I am not arguing the point (it is, however, one of my reasons).

Third, when we apply passages regarding our inherited guilt to infants and conclude that this justifies a righteous damnation of these children we ignore that much of Paul's own writings regarding the reasons of guilt cannot be applied. An aborted child has not witnessed the Divine testimony Paul speaks of in Romans, for example. I find this inconsistent when dogmatically applied.

Lastly, there is a lack of biblical support to dogmatically conclude the state of children who have died in infancy (perhaps this is why Spurgeon left the possibility of infant salvation open in that quote).

 

[Rebel]

Babies die as a result of the fall, sin. That's true. It's imputed unto at conception. To say otherwise is akin to saying someone had flu without infestation of the flu virus...

I'm glad you're talking to me again. I hold no ill-will, and I hope you don't.

 

[Rebel]

You can't just strike Romans 5:12-19 from the biblical canon. You have to deal fairly with the Word of God.

You know, you and I might be able to have a discussion if you would respond like this -- respectful disagreement.

 

[Rippon]

You know, you and I might be able to have a discussion if you would respond like this -- respectful disagreement.

What you need to do is to grow up and stop using gutter-language. All those choice adjectives you use that are common among teenage delinquents have to be disgarded. Stop calling me an idol-worshipper and base things of that nature. Stop with your lies about the life of Calvin.

In other words you need to stop doing a lot of things before you can proceed in the "go" mode.

 

[Darrell C]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For a first post I rank this as one of the best I have seen, lol. Speaks volumes.

Welcome to the forum, JFish.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

The problem I see with the responses from some of you is that your interpretations come from an Augustinian, a Western, Latin view of sin, and maybe you don't realize that, and maybe you don't realize that there's another view, a much earlier view that is quite different.

Babies die for the same reason that other innnocents die: they are affected by the results of Adam's sin which brought death, suffering, sickness, loss, sorrow, etc., into the creation.

I would remind you that Jesus said that adults must be converted and become as little children in order to enter the kingdom, not the other way around. I'm not saying that children are born righteous; I'm saying they are born not guilty of Adam's sin. They are not guilty of any sin until they actually sin themselves. They suffer the effects of Adam's sin, as does all of creation.

I would also say, as with the General Baptists, that children are in the covenant of God's grace. They are not held accountable until they can be accountable.

That is why Paul makes the statement...


Romans 5:14-15

King James Version (KJV)

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


We still see the offense of Adam as being the cause. It would be impossible, seeing that man was cast out of the Garden, for man to replicate his transgression.

The conclusion that would have to be drawn, if babies hold a position of innocence and are thereby not subject to the condemnation all are said to be born under, is that condemnation results, not from Adam's offense by which sin and death entered the world, but by the individual actions of each person, who born "innocent" commit sin then falling under condemnation. This implies a righteousness on the part of the baby that Scripture does not allow for.

I would suggest that we also have to factor in the truth that babies are born in unredeemed flesh. By nature man is born separated from God and only through the provision of God can reconciliation result. Union and relationship with God was lost in Adam and not one person apart from Christ has ever been born with that relationship restored. We do not focus on a temporal perspective of what we view as righteous or "innocent," because all of us would agree, from a temporal perspective there is no more innocent a being on this earth than the infant, who cannot temporally be charged with sin. However, Scripture presents both an eternal and a temporal perspective that we have to be aware of. When we see someone called "righteous, such as Zecharias, for example, we do not equate that with the righteousness of Christ.

It's definitely an issue that causes consternation for many, so it's understandable when people object to man's condition of separation from God. But isn't that a basic premise of Redemptive Revelation? That man must be made to see the difference between his own perceived righteousness and the righteousness of a Holy God? It is "natural," literally, for all of us to judge based upon our own perception, D. James Kennedy calling this the "I Religion:" I don't beat my wife, I keep a roof over my family's head, I don't kick the dog when I'm angry...

But when we present man in the eternal perspective, the greatest righteousness he can attain to falls short, as you know, of the glory of God. To the point where eternally speaking, there is none righteous, no...not one.

Apart from Christ, that is. And again, that is the point and purpose of Christ coming, because man was helpless to bridge the gap between God and man. He did what no man could do. Our greatest innocence does not reconcile us to God, because it still leaves us with a penalty that has to be paid, that man might be brought into union with God.


God bless.

 

[Reformed]

I agree with Spurgeon about 99% of the time (maybe a little more). I don't see original sin as imputed as much as descriptive of natural man. In the Garden man was told that if he ate of the fruit he would surely die. I believe this speaks of a spiritual death and we are by nature spiritually stillborn.

Where I may disagree with Spurgeon is that I do not find enough biblical support to stand upon the ground that all babies who die in infancy are eternally punished in Hell (although in your quote Spurgeon seems to allow for the possibility of salvation, just not one from innocence...but perhaps not as that would be another way of salvation).

I say this for a couple of reasons. First, it is inconsistent to emphasize the need of cognitive functions in salvation (one must hear and understand the gospel message) and ignore this aspect in damnation. I am not saying that you emphasize our reasoning in salvation, but I do insofar as I believe one must cognitively apprehend the gospel to be saved (which is a work of God as we naturally reject the gospel).

Second, the idea of an age where children become accountable is a portion of Jewish culture and the environment through which God worked His redemptive plan. In that context, I do not believe Paul would have been understood as speaking of infants. I realize, however, that this is merely cultural tradition and not substantiated biblically and I am not arguing the point (it is, however, one of my reasons).

Third, when we apply passages regarding our inherited guilt to infants and conclude that this justifies a righteous damnation of these children we ignore that much of Paul's own writings regarding the reasons of guilt cannot be applied. An aborted child has not witnessed the Divine testimony Paul speaks of in Romans, for example. I find this inconsistent when dogmatically applied.

Lastly, there is a lack of biblical support to dogmatically conclude the state of children who have died in infancy (perhaps this is why Spurgeon left the possibility of infant salvation open in that quote).

Spurgeon believed that infants who die in infancy go to heaven. He seems to indicate that his belief is covenant based - infants who are born to believing families. In this sense he was very close to the Presbyterianism. The 1689 London Baptist Confession calls them "elect children".

The truth is that there is no clear, unambiguous passage in scripture to support the view that all infants who die in infancy go to heaven. Some appeal to the Old Covenant age of accountability for support of a New Covenant counterpart, but that is a weak argument. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. The only appeal we can make is to the mercy of God. What we know about God's nature leads many of us to believe that God is gracious and merciful to infants who die in infancy. And it must be because of God's grace and mercy because there is, indeed, inherited sin because of Adam choice. Infants are not born tabula rasa. They are not blank slates. They are sinners who are in just as need of a savior as the most hardened sinner.

 

[Darrell C]

Spurgeon believed that infants who die in infancy go to heaven. He seems to indicate that his belief is covenant based - infants who are born to believing families. In this sense he was very close to the Presbyterianism. The 1689 London Baptist Confession calls them "elect children".

The truth is that there is no clear, unambiguous passage in scripture to support the view that all infants who die in infancy go to heaven. Some appeal to the Old Covenant age of accountability for support of a New Covenant counterpart, but that is a weak argument. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. The only appeal we can make is to the mercy of God. What we know about God's nature leads many of us to believe that God is gracious and merciful to infants who die in infancy. And it must be because of God's grace and mercy because there is, indeed, inherited sin because of Adam choice. Infants are not born tabula rasa. They are not blank slates. They are sinners who are in just as need of a savior as the most hardened sinner.

I think if we take an overview of Scripture we can see that it becomes clear that God justly judges all men according to the response of the revelation provided them. The writer of Hebrews makes it clear that judgment for thoe rejecting Christ will be more severe than those rejecting the Covenant of Law:


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


Christ speaks of varying degrees of judgment between Ages as well:


Matthew 10:14-15

King James Version (KJV)

14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.


I see this as a basic principle that threads it's way through Scripture. I will have to duck King David in glory because he makes such a good example of God's grace: a murderer and adulterer, fully in violation of the Law, still David died at peace, because he understood God's grace and understanding in regards to our infirmities.

If we take that general principle and apply it to that guy in deepest darkest Africa, who like the unborn or even born infant or child, has not had revealed to him the Gospel of Christ, then we are forced to look to the revelation provided every man and woman, such as the internal witness of God and the testimony of God written into Creation. According to the understanding of each...God will judge. And for the infant, there is no accountability because there is no comprehension. So it is not unreasonable to see children that die fall under the same grace that even a notable murderer and adulterer rested in.

God is just, and judges justly.

The last example I would present would be...


James 3:1

King James Version (KJV)

3 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.


Even among the Body of Christ there is going to be a varying degree of judgment, and that judgment will be based on the understanding of the individual. The more we know, the greater the accountability we have to God.


James 4:17

King James Version (KJV)

17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.


That is how we will all, saved and unsaved alike...be judged.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Spurgeon believed that infants who die in infancy go to heaven. He seems to indicate that his belief is covenant based - infants who are born to believing families. In this sense he was very close to the Presbyterianism. The 1689 London Baptist Confession calls them "elect children".

The truth is that there is no clear, unambiguous passage in scripture to support the view that all infants who die in infancy go to heaven. Some appeal to the Old Covenant age of accountability for support of a New Covenant counterpart, but that is a weak argument. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. The only appeal we can make is to the mercy of God. What we know about God's nature leads many of us to believe that God is gracious and merciful to infants who die in infancy. And it must be because of God's grace and mercy because there is, indeed, inherited sin because of Adam choice. Infants are not born tabula rasa. They are not blank slates. They are sinners who are in just as need of a savior as the most hardened sinner.

This is an issue where the scriptures are silent on in most regards, and would not be surprised if God had decreed that in and by the death of Jesus that God Himself would apply effectual grace towards those such as infants who were unable to receive Him thru faith, but would say that in the end, we appeal to the Judge of the whole earth to do right thing...

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, he seemed to hold to the position that at least saved parents infants would get saved and into heaven, due to him electing them to eternal life, but he also held out for possibility that Gods election expended towards all infants!

 

[Darrell C]

This is an issue where the scriptures are silent on in most regards, and would not be surprised if God had decreed that in and by the death of Jesus that God Himself would apply effectual grace towards those such as infants who were unable to receive Him thru faith, but would say that in the end, we appeal to the Judge of the whole earth to do right thing...

I think that implies, when taking a position of foreknowledge of man's actions, that man is credited with "doing the right thing."

That is contrary, I believe, to the general principle that man cannot do the right thing, thus is his dependence upon the grace of God more notably recognized.

It lends to a meritorious allotment of salvation, rather than grace, in other words.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that implies, when taking a position of foreknowledge of man's actions, that man is credited with "doing the right thing."

That is contrary, I believe, to the general principle that man cannot do the right thing, thus is his dependence upon the grace of God more notably recognized.

It lends to a meritorious allotment of salvation, rather than grace, in other words.


God bless.

I am not saying here that somehow God would know how each infant would respond if God granted them means to hear the Gospel, if they would have grown to being adults, but that die to them not being even able to respond to Him, that God would chose to save them based upon Him stepping in and doing for them what they could not do on their own...

Is that not really what he had chosen to do for any of us here now saved?

Is that not what he had decided to do for any of

 

[convicted1]

I'm glad you're talking to me again. I hold no ill-will, and I hope you don't.

Well, to be brutally honest, I instigated it. We've had a spell where multiple accounts have been started. I should have done more due diligence. Again, I apologize.


The Instigator. :tear:

 

[Darrell C]

I am not saying here that somehow God would know how each infant would respond if God granted them means to hear the Gospel, if they would have grown to being adults, but that die to them not being even able to respond to Him, that God would chose to save them based upon Him stepping in and doing for them what they could not do on their own...

Is that not really what he had chosen to do for any of us here now saved?

Is that not what he had decided to do for any of

And I agree with that: we understand that God did what we could not. We could not be the Mediator of Reconciliation. We could not live and answer for the penalty sin laid upon us. That is still true in our walk with Him: if there be any good thing which we might accomplish, there is nothing that could not first be traced back and credited to God, the change of our nature whereby we discern good and evil (rather than, as a natural person...define it) being foremost which we are grateful to the Lord for.


God bless.

 

[Rebel]

Well, to be brutally honest, I instigated it. We've had a spell where multiple accounts have been started. I should have done more due diligence. Again, I apologize.


The Instigator. :tear:

You mean you're not perfect? Well, I'll be doggone.

All is forgiven and swept into the past.

 

[Rebel]

What you need to do is to grow up and stop using gutter-language. All those choice adjectives you use that are common among teenage delinquents have to be disgarded. Stop calling me an idol-worshipper and base things of that nature. Stop with your lies about the life of Calvin.

In other words you need to stop doing a lot of things before you can proceed in the "go" mode.

You are the one who is guilty of everything you falsely charge me with. YOU are and have been the instigator. YOU should act your age, not your shoe size.

[Please tone down the rhetoric]

 

[convicted1]

--Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.2 Sam. 12:14-18a)


Here's an example where original sin is answered biblically. David's child, God killed him. Through no fault of it's own, the baby died due to his father's sin. Our earthly father Adam sinned, and we're paying for them by dying the natural death through no fault of our own...and if Christ hasn't paid for them, we'll die eternally in torment...

 

[Darrell C]

--Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.2 Sam. 12:14-18a)


Here's an example where original sin is answered biblically. David's child, God killed him. Through no fault of it's own, the baby died due to his father's sin. Our earthly father Adam sinned, and we're paying for them by dying the natural death through no fault of our own...and if Christ hasn't paid for them, we'll die eternally in torment...

I think it best to remember that this is a physical context and while it does give an example of an "innocent" bearing the consequences of sin regardless of their own actions, Original Sin deals specifically in a spiritual and eternal context.

Despite physical death, the infant's eternal destiny is not explicitly mentioned apart from David's declaration...


2 Samuel 12:22-23

King James Version (KJV)

22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether God will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.


In an Old Testament context, those like myself who take the view that men could not enter into God's presence prior to their sin being atoned for understand David's statement to mean he will join the child one day in Sheol. Based on Luke 16 we would not assume that David, a man of God and a Prophet (despite his sin), expected to join the child in torment, so, we could reasonably conclude that David was assured of an eternal habitation with God and the child, meaning, David implies the child was not going to the place of torment either.

The passage does what the poster implies, I believe, but, given the fact that physical death has always been, and still is, even for the Christian, a possible consequence for sin, I would not make this a proof-text for Original Sin based on the child's death for David's sin. While physical death is a consequence of sin, even for the innocent, one thing we know from Scripture it that from an eternal perspective, every man, woman, and child has only one Person that can suitably stand in the place of death for them. The child's death, therefore, cannot be likened to an atoning death, but as a consequence of sin only, even as all physical death is traced back to Adam.


God bless.