The Doctrine of Original Sin

[Outsider]

For some reason, we only want to see what Adam done to all mankind and not focus on what Christ done for all mankind.
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
:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
: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.

Here we see that death entered into the world by the transgression of Adam. Even those that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, death reigned over them.

5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Here it is accepted by many, that the judgement came upon all men, as being without question a spiritual seperation from God. But in the same verse, the same words are described about justification of life. Why do we suppose that this justification is for a select few? Or why do we say it came to all men, but doesn't apply to all men when the judgement of condemnation does?

:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Many accept that through the transgression of Adam, we are all born in a deep hole with no way out. Only a life line can save us and it will only be given to a select few. Yet grace did much more than the offence. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" - Where did sin abound??? Wherever it did abound, grace did much more abound!!!

When looking at the origin of sin, we see that Adam was naked and was not ashamed. After he sinned, he was naked and ashamed. We see that death came because of that sin.
Doesn't anyone remember what God did for Adam? Didn't He provide a covering for his sin? This is grace. We are all guilty, but He provided for all of us. Surely if we accept the punishment (Because we are "in" Adam) surely we get the covering too.
Christ said "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins" - not Adam's original sin.

God bless and many blessings!!!

 

[jdlongmire]

Still speculative at best and dependent on human reasoning.

Human reason is not sinful, when guided by Scripture and Spirit.

None of the reasoning exhibited to support my position violates orthodoxy, as opposed to some other's.

The doctrine of Infant Salvation is intended to be a comfort to God's people and a rebuttal to the enemies of God.

 

[TCGreek]

Human reason is not sinful, when guided by Scripture and Spirit.

None of the reasoning exhibited to support my position violates orthodoxy, as opposed to some other's.

The doctrine of Infant Salvation is intended to be a comfort to God's people and a rebuttal to the enemies of God.

I understand, but what you and others have ventured, though logically argued for the most part, must be considered speculative.

The Bible says so little on the matter. How can we be so dogmatic when most of our conclusions are dependent on inferences we drawn from Scripture?

 

[Brother Bob]

Plenty of scriptural support over on the thread that deals with infants, dying in infancy.

BBob, do try and be an adult in all your thinking, instead of tossing sideways insults, ok?[/quote

I don't need your remarks and would appreciate it if you just keep them to yourself. Because I hit a nerve about not having scripture to support your position, is called debating.
Instead of remarks, just give scripture and things will go a lot better. I don't have time for your slurs.

BBob,

 

[jdlongmire]

I understand, but what you and others have ventured, though logically argued for the most part, must be considered speculative.

The Bible says so little on the matter. How can we be so dogmatic when most of our conclusions are dependent on inferences we drawn from Scripture?

Not being argumentative, but it's not dogma, since it is not an article of faith. It is what I said - comfort and rebuttal. Besides, doctrine is resolved from the inferences of Scripture - some is more substantial than others, but that is the reason and spirit behind semper reformanda.

 

[Brother Bob]

For some reason, we only want to see what Adam done to all mankind and not focus on what Christ done for all mankind.
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
:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
: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.

Here we see that death entered into the world by the transgression of Adam. Even those that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, death reigned over them.

5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Here it is accepted by many, that the judgement came upon all men, as being without question a spiritual seperation from God. But in the same verse, the same words are described about justification of life. Why do we suppose that this justification is for a select few? Or why do we say it came to all men, but doesn't apply to all men when the judgement of condemnation does?

:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

Many accept that through the transgression of Adam, we are all born in a deep hole with no way out. Only a life line can save us and it will only be given to a select few. Yet grace did much more than the offence. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" - Where did sin abound??? Wherever it did abound, grace did much more abound!!!

When looking at the origin of sin, we see that Adam was naked and was not ashamed. After he sinned, he was naked and ashamed. We see that death came because of that sin.
Doesn't anyone remember what God did for Adam? Didn't He provide a covering for his sin? This is grace. We are all guilty, but He provided for all of us. Surely if we accept the punishment (Because we are "in" Adam) surely we get the covering too.
Christ said "If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins" - not Adam's original sin.

God bless and many blessings!!!

About as good as we are going to get it Outsider. I like the way that I have posted about when the Law enters, it teaches that what was not sin, becomes sin. Therefore we don't go out in sin, but become accountable for our sins. Before that it is by the Grace of God for all infants, that they are without sin.

BBob,

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I understand, but what you and others have ventured, though logically argued for the most part, must be considered speculative.

The Bible says so little on the matter. How can we be so dogmatic when most of our conclusions are dependent on inferences we drawn from Scripture?

I think I have tried to make this point in the past on these boards saying that the Scripture is scant on the subject. And I agree, a dogmatism here is unwarranted. But I can state my conviction on the matter. I can give my view on the subject and base my views and conclusions on Scripture. I think this is exactly what Spurgeon did when he preached on the subject. The first part of his sermon deals with the how of infant salvation. The second part with the why. It is on the why that I quote him,

First, we ground our conviction very much upon the goodness of the nature of God. We say that the opposite doctrine that some infants perish and are lost, is altogether repugnant to the idea which we have of Him whose name is love.

 

[TCGreek]

Not being argumentative, but it's not dogma, since it is not an article of faith. It is what I said - comfort and rebuttal. Besides, doctrine is resolved from the inferences of Scripture - some is more substantial than others, but that is the reason and spirit behind semper reformanda.

I'm all for "always reforming."

But I'm careful to follow Scripture and as much as I respect those of the Reformation tradition, I test everything in light of clear Scripture.

We can debate all day about the ambiguous stuff.

 

[jdlongmire]

Plenty of scriptural support over on the thread that deals with infants, dying in infancy.

BBob, do try and be an adult in all your thinking, instead of tossing sideways insults, ok?

I don't need your remarks and would appreciate it if you just keep them to yourself. Because I hit a nerve about not having scripture to support your position, is called debating.
Instead of remarks, just give scripture and things will go a lot better. I don't have time for your slurs.

BBob,

Quote:
My current status: in for a few post, then gone again

Can't say I blame you.

Was this not intended as a snide remark? If not I completely apologize for holding you accountable for it.

Again - I have given plenty of Scriptural support on the the thread referenced. Not going to reiterate here.

 

[jdlongmire]

I'm all for "always reforming."

good deal

But I'm careful to follow Scripture and as much as I respect those of the Reformation tradition, I test everything in light of clear Scripture.

Amen! panta dokimazete!

We can debate all day about the ambiguous stuff.

Isn't that we are doing concerning infant salvation?

Original Sin, however...

 

[Brother Bob]

Quote:
My current status: in for a few post, then gone again



Was this not intended as a snide remark? If not I completely apologize for holding you accountable for it.

Again - I have given plenty of Scriptural support on the the thread referenced. Not going to reiterate here.

NO! it was humor.

BBob,

 

[TCGreek]

I think I have tried to make this point in the past on these boards saying that the Scripture is scant on the subject. And I agree, a dogmatism here is unwarranted. But I can state my conviction on the matter. I can give my view on the subject and base my views and conclusions on Scripture. I think this is exactly what Spurgeon did when he preached on the subject. The first part of his sermon deals with the how of infant salvation. The second part with the why. It is on the why that I quote him,

Fair enough! Ol' Spurgeon seems to be reasoning from the biblical category of the nature of God.

 

[TCGreek]

good deal

I think so too. :thumbs:

Amen! panta dokimazete!

Even if it's John Calvin's commentaries and Institutes.

Isn't that we are doing concerning infant salvation?

Original Sin, however...

Pretty much!

 

[webdog]

The Bible has so little to say about the fate of dead infants, that I find it rather interesting that we have so much to say on the matter, whether we be Calvinists or not.

And frankly speaking, I find John Calvin to be speculative at best.

However, the Bible does have quite a bit to say about justice, and we can conclude that infants are judged justly being not guilty of Adam's sin. Using your reasoning, since the Bible has little to say about the Trinity, we shouldn't hold so strongly to that either. I disagree.

 

[TCGreek]

However, the Bible does have quite a bit to say about justice, and we can conclude that infants are judged justly being not guilty of Adam's sin. Using your reasoning, since the Bible has little to say about the Trinity, we shouldn't hold so strongly to that either. I disagree.

"Trinity" is a Latin derivative, but is the truth about it taught in Scripture? I don't think you'll find any disagreement in me.

The Scripture has a lot to say about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God. So I disagree that it doesn't say a whole lot about the Trinity.

But the fate about dead infants is another thing and is only arrived at by human reasoning.

 

[webdog]

"Trinity" is a Latin derivative, but is the truth about it taught in Scripture? I don't think you'll find any disagreement in me.

The Scripture has a lot to say about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as God. So I disagree that it doesn't say a whole lot about the Trinity.

But the fate about dead infants is another thing and is only arrived at by human reasoning.

Like I stated, God's justice, and justice in general is addressed throughout. We can be confident justice demands that infants are not condemned and are found not guilty.

 

[Brother Bob]

Like I stated, God's justice, and justice in general is addressed throughout. We can be confident justice demands that infants not condemned and are found not guilty.

The fact that "reformed" have had to change their doctrine over the years on infant in hell, should say something!

BBob,

 

[TCGreek]

Like I stated, God's justice, and justice in general is addressed throughout. We can be confident justice demands that infants are not condemned and are found not guilty.

Then you have established beyond all doubt that infants have no sin nature or something like that?

 

[TCGreek]

The fact that "reformed" have had to change their doctrine over the years on infant in hell, should say something!

BBob,

BBob, as God is my witness, I've never read any Reformed work on the fate of infants.

If it is not clearly stated in the Bible, it doesn't what Luther, Calvin, etc, have written on the matter.

 

[Brother Bob]

BBob, as God is my witness, I've never read any Reformed work on the fate of infants.

If it is not clearly stated in the Bible, it doesn't what Luther, Calvin, etc, have written on the matter.

There was a time when the reformed preached of infants in hell, it became so unpopular and hard for people to accept, that it has been watered down. In my neighborhood, it used to be preached of infants in hell, but not anymore. They may still believe it, I do not know, but they sure do not preach it anymore. I am not taking someone else's word for it either. I have heard with my own ears. The hard liners have died off, and the new generation just do not preach on it at all. But it seems the old timers just could not leave it alone. Almost every time they come to the stand, they would touch on it some way or another. They were a tough bunch and had a large membership also. But that doctrine began to hurt them, so the young just don't touch it.

BBob,