The coupe de grace of deniers of original sin

[The Biblicist]

These fella's on this forum who keep denying that infants are born with a sinfual nature cannot answer a simple question but must CHANGE THE SUBJECT every time I ask it! Why? Because it exposes their foolish theology so clearly that their only option is to ignore the question and run as fast as their little feet can carry them.

Infants as soon as they are capable of expression from birth manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, etc., without being trained to do so, without being capable of rational understanding or willful decision to do so and parents must restrain them by discipline - FROM WHENCE DO THESE THINGS COME?

1. Do they come from the fruit of the Spirit?

2. Do they come from the fruit of the flesh?

3. Are these traits of the "image of God"??


At the very minimum they are sins by OMISSION since such traits surely "come short of the glory of God"?

So from whence do such attitudes and expressions come from if not from birth by nature???

If you don't like the label "original sin" then put any label you like on it but from whence do the attitudes naturally expressed in infants arise?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

These fella's on this forum who keep denying that infants are born with a sinfual nature cannot answer a simple question but must CHANGE THE SUBJECT every time I ask it! Why? Because it exposes their foolish theology so clearly that their only option is to ignore the question and run as fast as their little feet can carry them.

I did not ignore your points, much less run from them.

Infants as soon as they are capable of expression from birth manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, etc., without being trained to do so, without being capable of rational understanding or willful decision to do so and parents must restrain them by discipline - FROM WHENCE DO THESE THINGS COME?

I have already said that because of Adam's sin the whole creation groans:

"We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" (Ro.8:22).

You think that the behavior of children is caused by the fact that children are born dead spiritually and that is the sole reason for their behavior.

However, both Adam and Eve were created spiritually alive but they both sinned. So your point is worthless as it proves nothing. Your point also is contradicted by what the Lord Jesus Himself said about little children:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are born spiritually dead but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"?

Of course not! Children are also described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

Of course it would be ridiculous to say that children are the heritage of the lord if children are born spiritually dead. And we must throw our reason the the wind if we are to believe that spiritually dead children are the Lord's reward!

Babies are not born spiritually dead because they are "wonderfully made":

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

 

[The Biblicist]

I have already said that because of Adam's sin the whole creation groans:

"We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time" (Ro.8:22).

NO ANSWER HERE! groaning is not anger, selfishness, defiance, hate, etc.! The groaning of creation is not immoral attitudes and actions. NO ANSWER to the question of the SOURCE of these attitudes and actions!

You think that the behavior of children is caused by the fact that children are born dead spiritually and that is the sole reason for their behavior.

However, both Adam and Eve were created spiritually alive but they both sinned. So your point is worthless as it proves nothing.

NO ANSWER HERE! Adam and Eve acted as ADULTS by VOLITIONAL CHOICE. Infants do not make such a choice but nevertheless, exhibit ANGER, WRATH, SELFISHNESS, DEFINANCE, HATE all by NATURE from the womb proving they receive it from Adam's choice - "by one man's offence. BUT NO ANSWER HERE as to the source of ANGER, WRATH, SELFISHNESS, DEFINANCE, HATE that manifests itself without rational choice, training, and must be restrained by parents! NO ANSWER AGAIN!

Your point also is contradicted by what the Lord Jesus Himself said about little children:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are born spiritually dead but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"?

Of course not! Children are also described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

Of course it would be ridiculous to say that children are the heritage of the lord if children are born spiritually dead. And we must throw our reason the the wind if we are to believe that spiritually dead children are the Lord's reward!

Babies are not born spiritually dead because they are "wonderfully made":

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

NO ANSWER HERE He simply CHANGES THE DISCUSSION to scriptures that do not give ANY ANSWER to the souce of ANGER, DEFINANCE, SELFISHNESS, HATE that is manifest in infants without rational choice, but must be restrained by parents because it comes NATURALLY from birth. NO ANSWERS GIVEN!

Instead he uses scripture to DENY the obvious rather than to EXPLAIN why we see ANGER, WRATH, DECEIT, SELFISHNESS, DEFINANCE in all infants without personal rational choice - Hence, BY NATURE FROM BIRTH!

 

[The Biblicist]

These fella's on this forum who keep denying that infants are born with a sinfual nature cannot answer a simple question but must CHANGE THE SUBJECT every time I ask it! Why? Because it exposes their foolish theology so clearly that their only option is to ignore the question and run as fast as their little feet can carry them.

Infants as soon as they are capable of expression from birth manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, etc., without being trained to do so, without being capable of rational understanding or willful decision to do so and parents must restrain them by discipline - FROM WHENCE DO THESE THINGS COME?

1. Do they come from the fruit of the Spirit?

2. Do they come from the fruit of the flesh?

3. Are these traits of the "image of God"??


At the very minimum they are sins by OMISSION since such traits surely "come short of the glory of God"?

So from whence do such attitudes and expressions come from if not from birth by nature???

If you don't like the label "original sin" then put any label you like on it but from whence do the attitudes naturally expressed in infants arise?

Jerry's response gave NO ANSWERS from whence the source and why infants naturally without training, without volitional choice, exhibit ANGER, WRATH, SELFISHNESS, DECEIT, etc., that must be restrained by discipline of parents.

So again, we ask the question WHAT IS THE SOURCE of such sin and it is sin by OMISSION at the minimum because such attitudes and actions obviously COME SHORT of the glory of God?

Such attitudes and actions cannot be attributed to the "IMAGE OF GOD"

Such attitudes and actions cannot be attributed to anything other than the nature they are born with!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Such attitudes and actions cannot be attributed to anything other than the nature they are born with!

What about Christians who are born of God and thus are children of God?

Why do some of them manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, and stubborness?

Do you attribute those attitudes and actions to anything other than the new nature that they have acquired?

Adam and Eve acted as ADULTS by VOLITIONAL CHOICE.

Yes, but according to your false theory a person's nature determines their attitudes and actions. You do not even attmpt to explain how they could have possibly sinned since according to your discredited theory they were created in the image of God and were spiritually alive.

Your point also is contradicted by what the Lord Jesus Himself said about little children:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are born spiritually dead but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"?

Of course not! Children are also described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

Of course it would be ridiculous to say that children are the heritage of the lord if children are born spiritually dead. And we must throw our reason the the wind if we are to believe that spiritually dead children are the Lord's reward!

Babies are not born spiritually dead because they are "wonderfully made":

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

 

[The Biblicist]

What about Christians who are born of God and thus are children of God?

Why do some of them manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, and stubborness?

Do you attribute those attitudes and actions to anything other than the new nature that they have acquired?

Sin and its fruits are sin and its fruits regardless if they are found in infants, youth, adults or the aged.

Yes, but according to your false theory a person's nature determines their attitudes and actions. You do not even attmpt to explain how they could have possibly sinned since according to your discredited theory they were created in the image of God and were spiritually alive.

According to God's word the the heart is the source of all sin because it is sinful by nature and part of fallen human nature (Mt. 15; Rom. 7:14-20)

Your point also is contradicted by what the Lord Jesus Himself said about little children:

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven" (Mt.19:13-14).

Are we to believe that the Lord believed that infants are born spiritually dead but yet He would say of them that "such is the kingdom of heaven"?

Of course not! Children are also described as being "an heritage of the Lord":

"Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward" (Ps.127:3).

Of course it would be ridiculous to say that children are the heritage of the lord if children are born spiritually dead. And we must throw our reason the the wind if we are to believe that spiritually dead children are the Lord's reward!

Babies are not born spiritually dead because they are "wonderfully made":

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).

I have answered these scriptures at last five times and as yet NO RESPONSE from you but repetition of the texts.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Sin and its fruits are sin and its fruits regardless if they are found in infants, youth, adults or the aged.

Earlier you said the following:

Such attitudes and actions cannot be attributed to anything other than the nature they are born with!

To that I said:

What about Christians who are born of God and thus are children of God?

Why do some of them manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, and stubborness?

Do you attribute those attitudes and actions to anything other than the new nature that they have acquired?

Of course you did not answer.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: These fella's on this forum who keep denying that infants are born with a sinfual nature cannot answer a simple question but must CHANGE THE SUBJECT every time I ask it! Why? Because it exposes their foolish theology so clearly that their only option is to ignore the question and run as fast as their little feet can carry them.

HP: You live in a dream world of your own making Biblicist. No one has ignored or ran from any question you have asked. Your failure to have ears to hear does not necessitate the other as running from anything.

Your question has been answered numerous times in different manners. I will refresh your memory as to some of them.

Jerry has spoken for himself, and did a great job of it. As for me, I have never denied that men have a tendency to sin or a proclivity to sin and that from even infancy. The problem with you is that you cannot separate what is a tendency to sin, a proclivity to sin via depraved natural sensibilities as a direct result of the fall, and sin itself, resulting from the will of man viewed distinct from the sensibilities of man. You have repeatedly be shown the passage in James with the progression that must take place for sin to incur, but you simply ignore that passage or sweep it under the rug. I will ask you to read it yet again. Explain the progression of sin to us. Tell us when sin occurs. If what you say is correct and all are sinful from birth, no progression towards sin can occur fro sin is what we are. We are bound to sin . We can ONLY sin according to you. No progression from mere influence to sin there. All is sin, from the slightest tendency of the flesh to the worst formed intent. You do not see any separation between the sensibilities and the will itself. Therein lies most of your error.

Biblicist: Infants as soon as they are capable of expression from birth manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, etc., without being trained to do so, without being capable of rational understanding or willful decision to do so and parents must restrain them by discipline - FROM WHENCE DO THESE THINGS COME?

HP: If and when such expressions might be seen as those things you mention, it is a direct result of the influence of depraved natural sensibilities in infants. Why are such outbursts when they occur in infants not sin? Because they have no concept of the intrinsic nature of a command, they have no concept of God's law, and as such are not directly held morally accountable for their actions. It would defy any semblance of reason to suggest that infants should be punished for their actions, and doubly wicked to suggest that God would punish such innocence as found in infants as you suggest is just and proper.

 

[Gup20]

These fella's on this forum who keep denying that infants are born with a sinfual nature cannot answer a simple question but must CHANGE THE SUBJECT every time I ask it! Why? Because it exposes their foolish theology so clearly that their only option is to ignore the question and run as fast as their little feet can carry them.

Infants as soon as they are capable of expression from birth manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, etc., without being trained to do so, without being capable of rational understanding or willful decision to do so and parents must restrain them by discipline - FROM WHENCE DO THESE THINGS COME?

Anger, wrath, selfishness, stubbornness -- sounds like a Calvinist describing his idea of the character of God to me. Which of these is a sin, btw? Can you show me the chapter and verse?

Do you cognitively recognize how desperate you sound when you talk about your own experiences as a father? It sounds like you utterly failed as a father and are now trying to justify yourself. Trying to blame God for failing at a responsibility He gave you to train up your children in the way they should go.

When Adam sinned, do you believe he had a sin nature that forced him to do so? Since you are a committed Calvinist, you must believe that God forced him to sin, just as he forced you to sin, and forced your children to sin as well, eh?

1. Do they come from the fruit of the Spirit?

Anger
Num 11:1 And [when] the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard [it]; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed [them that were] in the uttermost parts of the camp.

Wrath
Exd 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it [is] a stiffnecked people:
10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

Selfishness
Exd 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Stubbornness
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Answer me this - was Adam's eyes opened when he lusted or after he bit into the fruit?

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons​

Lust leads to sin, and sin, when it is finished, leads to death. Lust doesn't result in death. Lust results in sin, and sin results in death.

Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.​

The Bible is very clear who is to blame for lust and sin. It did NOT come from God.

2. Do they come from the fruit of the flesh?

Yes. The desire for one's own good was part of us from the beginning. Is the sin nature required for a person to sin? Did Adam have a sin nature when he sinned? But consider that God created us to want good, even for ourselves. After all we were created in the image of God and we want to please God and be a reflection of Him. And we want God to be pleased with us as well.

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

God uses our desire for reward as a requirement for redemption. We must have faith that God will save us. God saving us is in our best interest. So is faith selfish?

3. Are these traits of the "image of God"??

What do you think? I showed you scripture that shows how God exhibits these traits.

At the very minimum they are sins by OMISSION since such traits surely "come short of the glory of God"?

You should learn the distinction between a sin and a motive that leads to sin. As you can see from Hebrews 11:6, the same motive can lead to life and obedience to God. One could even say that believing the lie that sin would lead to one's greater good was the motive for Adam's first sin. But it was a lie because believing God over the devil would truly lead to our greatest good.

So from whence do such attitudes and expressions come from if not from birth by nature???

Like it did for Adam, right?

If you don't like the label "original sin" then put any label you like on it

Thanks, I will. I'll call it "original death" since the scripture plainly and clearly indicates death was passed, not sin.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.​

...but from whence do the attitudes naturally expressed in infants arise?

Jhn 8:44 Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Simply a classic post Gup with a fresh way to illustrate truth. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

Thanks, I will. I'll call it "original death" since the scripture plainly and clearly indicates death was passed, not sin.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:​

​

If death is that which was passed on, then define (Biblically) "death."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: If death is that which was passed on, then define (Biblically) "death."

HP: What do you mean by "IF DEATH?" That is precisely what Scripture states. Will you share, from the passage itself, what death it is speaking of? Thanks.

 

[DHK]

HP: What do you by "IF DEATH?" That is precisely what Scripture states. Will you share, from the passage itself, what death it is speaking of? Thanks.

Consider Adam.

"In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."

Adam ate.

Did Adam die that day? If so how? What is death?
In fact, Adam kept up a conversation with God, an audible conversation though he was dead. How do you explain that?

 

[Gup20]

[/INDENT]If death is that which was passed on, then define (Biblically) "death."

Romans 5:12 uses the Greek word thanatos which is the all encompassing term... meaning physical death, spiritual death, suffering, etc (any and all forms of death).

We can see that death itself means "separation."

Physical death is separation between the body and spirit

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.​

Spiritual death is separation between God and man.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.​

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

DHK, I asked you to tell us from the text what death it is speaking about. Can you?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I would agree with Gup in that there are several aspects of death it can be refering to.

We inherit physical death by simply being a member of the human race subsequent to Adam. We inherit spiritual death, only if we persist in sin apart from repentance until we die physically and stand before God at the judgment.

Certainly 'in a sense' every non-believer is spiritually dead now, for they are not responding to God's influences, but that death is NOT because they are unable to respond, but rather that they are unwilling to respond, up until that point anyway. If one has not heard the gospel message, they 'in a sense' are not able to respond to a message they simply have not heard.

​

 

[DHK]

Romans 5:12 uses the Greek word thanatos which is the all encompassing term... meaning physical death, spiritual death, suffering, etc (any and all forms of death).

We can see that death itself means "separation."

Physical death is separation between the body and spirit

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.​

Spiritual death is separation between God and man.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.​

I agree with you. Most don't see that. Death means separation. So if "death passed upon all men," then it is separation from God, such as Adam was separated from God. An infant is separated from God just as much as an adult is: one because of its sin nature and the other because of his sinful actions which arise out of his nature. The only cure for this is a second birth. The first birth, a physical birth, was also a birth in the family of Satan. We are not naturally born into the family of God. That is the spiritual birth that we need.

We were children of wrath.
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. (Ephesians 2:2-3)

Children of wrath by nature. God's nature does not make us children of wrath, neither does innocence. Only a sinful nature does.

 

[webdog]

These fella's on this forum who keep denying that infants are born with a sinfual nature cannot answer a simple question but must CHANGE THE SUBJECT every time I ask it! Why? Because it exposes their foolish theology so clearly that their only option is to ignore the question and run as fast as their little feet can carry them.

Infants as soon as they are capable of expression from birth manifest attitudes of anger, wrath, selfishness, stubborness, etc., without being trained to do so, without being capable of rational understanding or willful decision to do so and parents must restrain them by discipline - FROM WHENCE DO THESE THINGS COME?

1. Do they come from the fruit of the Spirit?

2. Do they come from the fruit of the flesh?

3. Are these traits of the "image of God"??


At the very minimum they are sins by OMISSION since such traits surely "come short of the glory of God"?

So from whence do such attitudes and expressions come from if not from birth by nature???

If you don't like the label "original sin" then put any label you like on it but from whence do the attitudes naturally expressed in infants arise?

Well, anger and wrath in themselves are not sin, these are attributes of God. Causes in an infant? Many, hunger, thirst, pain, lonliness, frustration, etc. Not spiritual related. Stuborness? How does an infant exhibit this trait, and how would you know it when you see it? Cross this one off completely. Selfishness? Hunger, lonliness, pain, etc are "selfish" in a sinful manner? What are your "etc" besides these?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hey, now that sounds like the thinking Webdog I have in the past spoken to. :thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, anger and wrath in themselves are not sin, these are attributes of God.

Justified anger is, but not anger. Justified wrath is, but not wrath! Little children respond in anger, wrath, definance simply for no other reason MANY TIMES than not getting their own way or in definance to a parent saying "no"! Small children may not understand WHY something is right or wrong but they understand WHAT is right and wrong and react defiantly in spite of knowing it is wrong!

Stuborness? How does an infant exhibit this trait, and how would you know it when you see it?

Apparently you have not been a father very long or do not have children or do not have children over two or three years of age or you wouldn't even ask this question! I have raised five children and they are grown and married and now help raise nine grandchildren.

Selfishness? Hunger, lonliness, pain, etc are "selfish" in a sinful manner?

Write back when you either have raised children past the age of five and see if you still restrict "selfishness" to merely "hunger, lonliness, pain, etc."!!! How about hitting their siblings while forcefully taking away their toy when they were told no, and they understand WHAT no means at very early age even though they don't understand the WHY of no!