The coupe de grace of deniers of original sin

[convicted1]

You have to pervert the Scriptures, jerk texts out of context (Ezek 18) and deny the obvious - I don't!

I have not perverted one verse or jerked anything out of context. Look, you took the word of two RCC's(Augustus of Hippo and Johnny Boy Calvin), and swallowed their sayings hook, line, and sinker. I don't deny the obvious. The obvious is this. The "in Adam" is the physical body that God makes from the ground which He cursed due to Adam's sin. Adam's sin was what brought death to the forefront, and we inherit that from being "in Adam", because our bodies are made in the same fashion as his was, the ground. Our soul comes from God, which if in an already condemned state, then God is the Author of sin, of which is heretical to the inth degree.

We have the plain statements of Scripture that literaly and clearly deny that infants are born pure and without sin but are born unclean and defiled by sin from the womb (Job. 14:4-5; 15:14).

What's formed in the womb, Brother? The physical body. That is unclean, and is defiled by sin. But to have someone condemned in the womb, is placing the cause on God.

We have plain and literal statements supported immediately by metaphorical expressions that teach the same thing (Psa. 53:4; 58:5)

Ah yes, the pet verses of the DoGs. Babies come forth speaking lies. Then I guess that "ga ga" "agoo" and "plllbbbpphhshh" is speaking lies?

We have it stated in plain doctrinal precepts (Rom. 5:12,15,18) where the grammar demands both death/sin in many occurred at the completed point when Adam sinned.



It is the father of his own immediate children not Adam and the children of Adam. It is the father who has not been placed in a position to represent ALL who are "IN Adam" (I Cor. 15:22) but the first and Second Adam have been placed in that position in regard to all that are in each respectively - the first and second Adam (1 Cor. 15:44-47). In other words, you are simply jerking a verse out of context and using it any way you please in direct contradiction to scriptures that are in context! You have no right to take Ezekiel 18:20 and apply it to Adam when in context it has no such application and you have no right to take Romans 5:12-19 and apply it to Ezek 18:20 when there is no such contextual application! But that is the kind of policitcs and eisgesis you play with! It is called DECEPTION, distortion but not exegetical honesty or integrity with God's Word!

U need to drop the OS or get your rosary beads one.

 

[Gup20]

I have been waiting for this for years and have never seen it.
Prove your position with Scripture.

To put it bluntly: You need to put up or shut up!

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.​

 

[Gup20]

Physical death is also separation:

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (James 2:26)
--When the spirit separates from the body, that is death.
This is a much better verse to us than the one in Ecclesiastes, as Ecclesiastes is a book where the author looks upon life from the outside, from man's point of view. That is why the cults like it so much. He searches for happiness in every area of life, and finds nothing but emptiness. Even the verse you quote is looking at life from man's point of view, for we know that "the spirit" (of all men) do not return to God. Only those that are saved will go to be with the Lord. What is written is from the point of view of a man, until you get to the last chapter, and Solomon says: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter..."

Sure, that sounds good to me.

 

[Gup20]

How on earth would you ever deduce that?
Did I ever say or even infer such a thing.
Life starts at conception. That is clear in Psalm 51:5, as well as the many verses relating to the birth of Christ. If you believe in your own rhetorical question you would have had no problem aborting Christ!!
And that is what you infer that I believe??
What garbage is this that you espouse, and for what reason?

You said they were not born innocent. If they were not born innocent, then they were born guilty and JUSTLY DESERVE DEATH. Under an "original sin" mindset, abortion would not be murder of an innocent life, it would be the just judgement exacted upon a guilty party (if the person who believed in original sin were being consistent).

 

[The Biblicist]

I have not perverted one verse or jerked anything out of context. Look, you took the word of two RCC's(Augustus of Hippo and Johnny Boy Calvin), and swallowed their sayings hook, line, and sinker. I don't deny the obvious. The obvious is this.

How can you make this accusation? Have I ever quoted them? Have I ever referred to them? It seems the only ones on this forum who have been reading them are you guys. We have been quoting scriptures in context and pointing out your contextual blunders.

The "in Adam" is the physical body that God makes from the ground which He cursed due to Adam's sin. Adam's sin was what brought death to the forefront, and we inherit that from being "in Adam", because our bodies are made in the same fashion as his was, the ground. Our soul comes from God, which if in an already condemned state, then God is the Author of sin, of which is heretical to the inth degree.

Roman 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Where does indwelling sin dwell? Where do you get the flesh? Seems you have sunk your own boat.

Ah yes, the pet verses of the DoGs. Babies come forth speaking lies. Then I guess that "ga ga" "agoo" and "plllbbbpphhshh" is speaking lies?

The literal teaching of Job that children are unclean from the womb you ignore but when David uses metaphorical language to teach the same thing you ridicule! Job defines "clean" to be "righteousness" and he denies that which is born is righteous.


Does Ezekiel 18:20 teach us how Adam affected many? No! Does Romans 5:12-19 teach us how a "father" is the "one man" in our life that brought death, condemnation, sin, judgement into the world on "many"? No!

You must pervert the Scriptures to defend your position and do it intentionally and thus dishonestly!

 

[The Biblicist]

Psa 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.​

Everyone knows this entire psalm is Messanic or must we demonstrate that too? So you are using Messanic prophecies about Christ who did not have Adam as his father or any human father but was concieved by the Holy Spirit to defend your position on other humans???????? This is it???

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

​

Did you ever respond to my post where I dealt with this text in detail and asked you certain questions????? If not, please do!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: Everyone knows this entire psalm is Messanic or must we demonstrate that too? So you are using Messanic prophecies about Christ who did not have Adam as his father or any human father but was concieved by the Holy Spirit to defend your position on other humans???????? This is it???

HP: So David writes a Psalm pouring out his heart to the Lord for help and you simply write it off as having nothing to do with any other than Christ? Because Christ uttered the same word in one place as in this Psalm, you are going to tell us that it only applies to Christ? You are fooling no one but yourself.

 

[Gup20]

We lost two children shortly after birth. Our children which survived birth and early childhood went through lots of troubles (sickness, accidental injuries, mistreatment by sibblines, etc.).

Do you bellieve that God was unjust in permitting such things to happen to little helpless infants? Didn't God give them life in conception and did not he knowlingly permit them to experience all the problems of being born and living as helpless infants?

Tell us, who is at fault for allowing such things to happen to infants? Is it the parents? Is it God? Who is to blame?

If your answer is "Adam" then tell us how could God be just by allowing infants to suffer for Adam's sin since Ezek. 18;20 says that God does not hold the sin of the fathers upon the children!! So does not that make your position blame God if we use the same rationale you have used?

Wow! Finally! I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for this post. Indeed it is the coup de grace!

Finally, we see the REASON for your mindless obsession with the Calvinistic worldview. You are trying to justify why a just and loving God would allow your children to experience such horrible tragedy.

The real and honest answer is this - death is in the world because of sin. The whole earth was cursed because of Adam's sin. But a loving God sent his son Jesus to die as one of us and rise again because of his righteousness and sinlessness. We know that all of those who are in Christ shall live with him. And we know that he does not impute sin when there is no law. We also know he says suffer the little children to come unto him for such is the kingdom of God. Have have an assurance from God that those who suffer and die as he did will also rise again as he did.

Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:​

Because of our death inherited by Adam, and because of the death we experience here on earth (prior to our individual judgement) we can NEVER AGAIN BE KILLED BY THE LAW!! We have already died... we are free from the law. Our new bodies will quite literally be uncorruptible.

1Cr 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?
56 The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
57 But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.​

We truly know that infants and young children are with God as he does not impute sin upon those who are unable to know the law.

And the scriptures say that ALL who call on him will be saved.

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.​

The lives of the innocent infants are sacred and will be protected because their innocence cries out to God.

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.​

You seek to lay sin to the charge of another - even God - and thereby justify why your children had to experience such things. You need to be able to say that they deserved that death for some legitimate reason. The truth is they inherited death, they did not earn it for themselves until they commit their own sin.

Yes, because of Adam, death came into the world. But that death is not God's "fault." That death is Adam's fault. And it's your fault. And it's my fault. All of us who sin and deserve death. It is our fault. Death is a righteous punishment for sin. All who sin deserve death. But an innocent infant (technically innocent as they would have no sin imputed until they were of age to understand the law) doesn't deserve death - they don't deserve to have their sin imputed. God's justice (which is applied after death - Heb 9:27) gives them life eternal - an incorruptible life that cannot be taken away. This goes for mentally incapable or handicapped as well.

Job 40:6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?​

 

[The Biblicist]

You didn't back up your claims with scripture, but your proof was anecdotal evidence. You frequently use the refrain of "anyone with a child knows..." or "if you ever had children..." Had you used scripture, I could have easily shown you how you wrongly interpreted it... but you didn't use scripture as your evidence, you used your own failures as a parent to demonstrate your point. Since your point is wrong, the only way I can demonstrate that to you is by showing you where you went wrong.

You have not showed one single text that I have used is wrong - not one! You simply have made unsubstantiated dismissive remarks - no exegetical response at all - none! zilch! nada! I have backed up the ancedotal remarks with scriptures countless of times (Job 14:4-5; 15:14; etc.).

Yet, you cannot show us....

You cannot show a person anything who has already determined they will not accept anything regardless of the evidence!

a scriptural basis for sin being passed.

I have demonstrated that "sinned" Romans 5:12 is the Aorist tense verb not a future tense verb as YOU INTERPRET IT and MUST INTERPET IT to make it mean individual sins in the future by individuals! I have pointed out that Paul connects the SINGULAR offence of Adam to the Aorist tense "be dead" of Many demonstrating when Adam sinned all in Adam "sinned" and all are "in Adam" because Paul says they are and must be becuase that is where death is "In Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22).

What has been your response - NOTHING but ridicule and igorance on display!

Romans 5 clearly says death, not sin, is passed ... and Ezekial 18 makes it clear....

The two contexts HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON with each other.

1. There is no singular sin by the "father" in Ezk 18 that affects the whole human race!

2. Roman 5:12-19 is not about the relationship of a "father" to his immediate children but about the relationship of only TWO men to all other men in the world.

You cannot take a text that deals with a "father" and put that father in the place of either the first or second Adam but that is exactly the context of Romans 5 and that is exactly what you have forced upon both these contexts!

"Opened to what" is irrelevant.

Only if you are spiritually blind, deaf and dumb is it irrelevant!! His eyes were opened to the knowledge of sin BY EXPERIENCE under the condemnation of his conscience! That is why he went and hid himself because he was for the first time in his life CONSCIOUSLY and EXPERIENTIALLY EXPOSED to what sin actually was! His conscience convicted him AFTER he sinned.

Sin is sin. The law is not concerned with thoughts, beliefs, but only with actions or behavior.

If the readers cannot see by this statement you simply do not know what you are talking about then nothing will convince them.

Paul said the law was "spiritual" (Rom. 7:12) and it was the tenth commandment that deals with internal LUSTS that God used to show him that he was not "blameless" in regard to the law but condemned as a sinner!

Don't you even accept what Jesus defined as sin "EVIL THOUGHTS" (Mt. 15) or that God judges the intent and thoughts of the heart???

Have you not read Christ's definiton of sin in Matthew 5? He said that you violate the law of adultery by simply the LOOK OF LUST! He said that mere UNJUST ANGER violated the command not to kill!

Adam was not a sinner until he broke the law by action. Otherwise, his eyes would have been opened as soon as he lusted. But his eyes were not opened until he had sinned.

His conscience laid his ALREADY PAST SIN bare! Have you not convinced yourself of something wrong and did it but then afterwards your conscience took you to the wood shed? Apparently not!

 

[The Biblicist]

Wow! Finally! I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for this post. Indeed it is the coup de grace!

Finally, we see the REASON for your mindless obsession with the Calvinistic worldview. You are trying to justify why a just and loving God would allow your children to experience such horrible tragedy.

It is really sad to see someone stoop this low to win an argument. I held this position before I had any children. We did not have children until several years into marriage. Why do you choose to get so personal in your attacks? Are you that desparate to win this argument????

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: Biblicist, I am indeed saddened to hear about your two precious children. My heart honestly goes out to you over your loss. I cannot even imagine how that must literally tear out ones heart. One thing I know, God does the very best He can for us, knowing the beginning from the end.

I have a good missionary friend that lost a daughter at around the age of 10 in a tragic car accident. With tears running down his face several months later, he told me that he might not have even been a Christian today had that not happened. He could have dried up spiritually or fell away. Instead he ran towards God for comfort and help in his time of need and God supplied his every need.

We cannot see the beginning from the end. We cannot know the mind of God or answer the longing questions as to why, but we can trust God through it all. God says He is Love and He is Just. We can rest in that assurance that time will heal all wounds and God in the end will be justified before everyone, from the smallest to the greatest. God makes no mistakes. He knows and sympathizes with our human frailty, for he Himself tasted of human agony, suffering, and yes even the death on a cross. He tasted separation from His own family, and even from His own Father. He alone knows and He cares! He alone will right every wrong, He alone will dry every tear, and He alone will sustain us even through the fires of this life with all of its horrors, sorrows, and grief we bear.

I am reminded of the grief Horatio G, Stafford must have felt as he sailed over the place where his precious four children went home to be with Lord as they were swept away from a sinking ship in icy waters. As he lay in his cabin unable to sleep, he penned the words to that old familiar hymn, It Is Well With My Soul. "Oh Lord hast the Day when my faith shall be sight, The clouds rolled back as a scroll, The trump shall resound And the Lord shall descend, Even so, it is well with my soul!"

Oh Lord, may it be well with our soul! Let not adversity turn us to the right hand or the left, may we fully trust and rest in Thy Unchanging Love!

 

[savedbymercy]

Then the elect are never sinners??

I never said that. You have a problem reading I see !

 

[DHK]

You said they were not born innocent. If they were not born innocent, then they were born guilty and JUSTLY DESERVE DEATH. Under an "original sin" mindset, abortion would not be murder of an innocent life, it would be the just judgement exacted upon a guilty party (if the person who believed in original sin were being consistent).

No person is innocent God's sight. It is God that takes justice where necessary, not man. It is God that shows mercy; it is God that shows his grace. Those traits belong to God.

Again, David threw himself at the mercy of God. God exacted judgment. His baby died. He could have answered David's prayer and allowed the infant to live. Why didn't he? Was God unjust, cruel, unforgiving, etc.?
Will he be the same way with infants that die in their infancy? David didn't think so.

For you to think that you can take a man's life (infant or adult) and commit the act of murder is unthinkable. We are all guilty because we are all under the curse. The logical end to your thinking is to drop a nuke big enough to destroy every human on the earth, because we are all sinners. No one escapes having a depraved nature! No one. If your next door neighbor has not broken the law of the land, but we know he has broken God's law (The Ten Commandments), do you believe you have the right to go and take his life, just as you would to abort a baby because they are both "depraved"?
From whence cometh this depraved thinking?
I think from a depraved nature.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Again, David threw himself at the mercy of God. God exacted judgment. His baby died. He could have answered David's prayer and allowed the infant to live. Why didn't he? Was God unjust, cruel, unforgiving, etc.?
Will he be the same way with infants that die in their infancy? David didn't think so.

HP: Well that is a no brainer as to why David felt that way DHK. Jews did not believe that infants and young children were sinners to start with as you, Biblicist, and others obviously do. David did not have to manufacture a philosophy that somehow gets unrepented sinners into a holy heaven as you and others that believe in original sin have to manufacture out of thin air. David knew they were sinless and proper subjects of the kingdom of heaven. How hard is that to understand?

 

[convicted1]

How can you make this accusation? Have I ever quoted them? Have I ever referred to them? It seems the only ones on this forum who have been reading them are you guys. We have been quoting scriptures in context and pointing out your contextual blunders.




Roman 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Where does indwelling sin dwell? Where do you get the flesh? Seems you have sunk your own boat.






The literal teaching of Job that children are unclean from the womb you ignore but when David uses metaphorical language to teach the same thing you ridicule! Job defines "clean" to be "righteousness" and he denies that which is born is righteous.


Does Ezekiel 18:20 teach us how Adam affected many? No! Does Romans 5:12-19 teach us how a "father" is the "one man" in our life that brought death, condemnation, sin, judgement into the world on "many"? No!

You must pervert the Scriptures to defend your position and do it intentionally and thus dishonestly!

Name calling and insults prove you are out of ammo.....

 

[convicted1]

I never said that. You have a problem reading I see !

I can read fine, you just have poor conprehension skills.

 

[savedbymercy]

I can read fine, you just have poor conprehension skills.

Insults will get you no where, I never stated the elect were not sinners, or never were sinners, you brought that claim, so its your comprehension that is awry !

I made this statement:

Well that all depends. If they are elect, though they are born sinners, they are not cursed, because Christ became a curse for them. No one Christ died for has their sin imputed to their Charge.

You responded:

Then the elect are never sinners??

Now show us where I stated that the elect were never sinners ?

 

[marke]

No one denied that this is ONE Biblical definition of ONE type of sin - willful transgression.
However, that is not the only Bibical definition and that is not the only type of sin recognized and defined by Scriptures.
You restrict sin to one definition when the Bible does not!

Willful, knowing rejection of the truth is differentiated from sins of ignorance in Numbers 15. Jesus atoned for sins of ignorance on the cross, but not willful rejection of the truth. Look at what the NT shows about that:

"... but sin is not imputed when there is no law..." (Rom. 5:13)
"... Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do..." (Luke 23:34)
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent." Acts 17:30
"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin..." (John 15:22)
"If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin..." (John 15:24)
"... If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth." (John 9:41)

Jesus 'paid' for the sins of the whole world in order that He might be able to save "whosoever will" ask Him to be saved. If Jesus had not become the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, God could not have, in righteousness, forgiven anyone of sin. We don't just say to the murderer, "I like you, so I'm going to let you off the hook this time." That would be an unrighteous thing to do. Jesus bore the sins of the whole world, reconciling the world unto Himself, and now sends us out to preach the gospel to every creature that God is no longer holding them accountable for their sins if only they would be willing to come to Him for forgiveness (2 Cor. 5).

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marke, this might give you some fodder to consider on "Sins of Ignorance.

Sin, as it was made plain at the time of the giving of the law, was divided into two categories, sins of ignorance, and what was denoted as presumptuous sin, that done with a "high hand", as defined in rabbinical writings. It is noteworthy to notice that ONLY "sins of ignorance" were provided the opportunity of forgiveness through the sacrificial system of sacrifices. There were NO sacrifices to be offered for sins that were denoted as being presumptuously committed, or with a "high-hand", according to the law, but rather only the fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation from God in such cases.

Alfred Edersheim, in the book "The Temple", points this out on pp. 128. "Sins of ignorance" were not just sins that were committed through a want of knowledge as one might think, but included sins that one might have perceived as unintentional or by way of some weakness, or when the offender had not realized his guilt at the time of the infraction. It is also noted by rabbinical sources, that if one voluntarily confessed his sins, that the sin or sins would be classified as "sins of ignorance" as well. (Pp. 133) Some brought sacrifices every day to cover for their "sins of ignorance"! One can readily perceive that what the Jew understood as being "ignorance" is not synonymous with our notions of it today. Further more, God stated in Ac 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:" What God once "winked at" as being the results of what might be denoted as "ignorance", He obviously looks at in a different light in this enlightened age. Of a truth, we conceive more clearly the law than those who lived at the time of the giving of the law. "To whom much is given, much is required."

Another notion that cannot be overlooked is the use of words when training the unenlightened or children. We see a cold stove and point to the burner and say to the young child “HOT!” The burner is not literally hot, but will be on occasion, and if one desires to see the child keep from serious injury, we might tell them it is hot, even when in reality it is not. Such is the case with the word sin in the OT. When God told them, in this training period, that something was sin, I do not believe that the action in and of itself incurred the full penalty of the law, for they were in large part ignorant of the truth. God was training them to recognize the things He approved of. Not until they understood the intrinsic element of the command apart from rewards or punishment was sin actually imputed to their actions. Only God knows when that happens. Hence the words from God, “Ac 17:30 "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:"

No where in the NT addressed to this enlightened generation, do we find any mention of sins of ignorance to my knowledge. Although in common parlance one might speak of sin committed in ignorance, it in no wise undermines the clear teaching of Scripture that honest ignorance is seen as sin by God. Sin is the willful transgression of a known commandment of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Name calling and insults prove you are out of ammo.....

Ah! What about the rest of the post? Or was that your way of avoiding it?

Roman 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Where does indwelling sin dwell? Where do you get the flesh? Seems you have sunk your own boat.


The literal teaching of Job that children are unclean from the womb you ignore but when David uses metaphorical language to teach the same thing you ridicule! Job defines "clean" to be "righteousness" and he denies that which is born is righteous.


Does Ezekiel 18:20 teach us how Adam affected many? No! Does Romans 5:12-19 teach us how a "father" is the "one man" in our life that brought death, condemnation, sin, judgement into the world on "many"? No!