The Doctrine of Original Sin

[Rippon]

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.

I can't be confident in something which is not clearly taught one way or the other in the Bible.

Many non-Cals reject clear, unambiguous truths found in the Scriptures scores, if not hundreds of times.Why one would latch onto this issue from any angle is beyond me.

Speaking of Justice. Many non-Cals think God is unjust if He hates anyone.Many think God is unjust if some are not given the opportunity to hear the Gospel. And on and on it goes.Bottom line : God is in the Heavens -- we are on the Earth. His ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts far beyond our own. Don't be so quick to indict the Lord for things you, from merely a worm's reasoning, think are unfair.

 

[Rippon]

Those of you who believe in election have to also believe in the flipside --reprobation. (They are not symetrical though.)

Babies are people, very young people, but people nevertheless. Esau was hated by God long before his birth, just as Jacob was loved long before his actual birth.Those in Hell have no set age.We think too sentimetally, not theologically enough.If a child, a baby even, can be elect, others can be reprobate.

Do you think that the little babies and children who died in the flood were elect?Were they automatically given a pass because of their earthy age?Did the young ones in Sodom, Gomorrah and surrounding towns get a reprieve by virtue of thei age?There were many plagues which God sent among the Israelites. Many infants were among those killed by God's wrath. Did they get a ticket to Heaven anyway?How about those very young ones who were destroyed by the Israelites along with their entire families when the Israelites set about to conquer the land of Canaan? Did they go directly to Heaven?

One can't make a hard and fast scriptural rule about this issue because it's not like the other doctrines which the entire Christian Church has held fast to for the last 2,000 or more years. If someone disbelieves in the Trinity -- they are not orthodox.They are heretical. That's plain and simple, because the teaching ( if not the word) is quite evident in Holy Writ.But I haven't read many Statements of Faith by Independent Baptists which even mention this subject under discussion-- Have you?

 

[skypair]

additionally "of such is the kingdom of Heaven" does not refer to their inherit innocence or spiritual condition, but of the lack of willful sin and blessed state that the elect will experience in Heaven.

1 Corinthians 14:20
Brothers, stop thinking like children. In regard to evil be infants, but in your thinking be adults.

You did some good research there, jdlongmire. :thumbs: Only objection I can see is that John Calvin didn't prove original sin guilt. He showed that those who were ignorant were not held responsible for sin but not that they had sin.

skypair

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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,

Can you provide some sources Bob?

 

[skypair]

Those of you who believe in election have to also believe in the flipside --reprobation. (They are not symetrical though.)

Babies are people, very young people, but people nevertheless. Esau was hated by God long before his birth, just as Jacob was loved long before his actual birth.Those in Hell have no set age.We think too sentimetally, not theologically enough.If a child, a baby even, can be elect, others can be reprobate.

So infants not going to hell anywhere in the Bible doesn't, for you, discredit Calvinism's teaching of double predestination.

See, that's exactly why this issue is of great concern to us -- regardless of what evidence we present, you believe hyper-Calvinism above the scriptures. For us who wield it, the "sword" or Heb 4:12 has "discerned the thoughts and intents of your heart." And they are not to discover the truth but to promote the teaching of election as you understand it.

skypair

 

[Brother Bob]

Can you provide some sources Bob?

You will have to come to my neighborhood. That is what I spoke. But there are sources, I provided them in the past. This is not the first time this argument has went around. I will see if I can find you some later, going to the gym now. :thumbs:

BBob,

 

[webdog]

Speaking of Justice. Many non-Cals think God is unjust if He hates anyone.Many think God is unjust if some are not given the opportunity to hear the Gospel. And on and on it goes.Bottom line : God is in the Heavens -- we are on the Earth. His ways are higher than our ways. His thoughts far beyond our own. Don't be so quick to indict the Lord for things you, from merely a worm's reasoning, think are unfair.

I haven't indicted God on anything...He is just and loves the world (consisting of the reprobate as well). Romans 1 is clear that all have had the truth about God, so there is nothing unjust in sending them to hell for rejecting that truth. Infants are "not guilty". "Not guilty" people are not sentenced.

The "Esau I hated" reference is so played out it's not worth responding to. To still maintain that means an absence of love is to veil your eyes to the context and meaning of that passage.

 

[Jarthur001]

Curious...if you claim physical death is a result of the "soul that sins"...why (and how) did Jesus die physically?

That's the point. Why did he, if he was not guilty?

 

[Jarthur001]

The "Esau I hated" reference is so played out it's not worth responding to. To still maintain that means an absence of love is to veil your eyes to the context and meaning of that passage.

What is the absence of love?

 

[webdog]

That's the point. Why did he, if he was not guilty?

...because the "soul that sins will die" is in reference to spiritual death...what Christ did not partake of.

 

[webdog]

What is the absence of love?

Just that...an absence of love, which is an impossibility with God. Ironic this phrase, or meaning, is not used in the definition of hate.

 

[Jarthur001]

...because the "soul that sins will die" is in reference to spiritual death...what Christ did not partake of.

Christ died for my guilt, not because of his sin.

 

[webdog]

Christ died for my guilt, not because of his sin.

Agreed...meaning the "soul that sins will die" is in regards to spiritual death, not physical death as you maintain. It is appointed unto man once to die regardless of our sin as part of the curse on humanity. If this meant physical death, that is a redundant statement, as personal sin is unnecessary to bring about physical death.

 

[Jarthur001]

Agreed...meaning the "soul that sins will die" is in regards to spiritual death, not physical death as you maintain. It is appointed unto man once to die regardless of our sin as part of the curse on humanity. If this meant physical death, that is a redundant statement, as personal sin is unnecessary to bring about physical death.

It is physical death.

why do all men die? All men sin. Why do all mean sin...because they are spiritual dead.

Can Christ take the guilt of me? YES
Is he not 100% man? YES
Did he take the guilt? YES
Did he die Spiritual? NO
Do his body die a physical death? YES

If you have no guilt web, you live for ever and not die physically

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
If Christ takes my place in physical, because as this passage says we all must DIE for our guilt, if Christ takes my place in death..physical death...I live forever in heaven. Christ does not die in the Spirit.

The wages of sin is DEATH..physical death.

But the gift of God is...LIFE.

Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting

 

[webdog]

It is physical death.

why do all men die? All men sin. Why do all mean sin...because they are spiritual dead

All men die because it has been appointed by God that this would be the case. Everything alive is tainted by sin. Animals die becuase of sin...yet they do not sin. Plants die because of sin...yet they do not sin. Neither are spiritually dead. Spiritual death occurs BECAUSE of sin...sin doens't occur because of spiritual death. We all have a nature that will sin. It is part of humanity. Infants are born not being able to walk and talk, yet it is in their nature to do so. The sin nature is the same...given time, sin WILL come to fruition.

If you have no guilt web, you live for ever and not die physically

That is not true. If it were, Christ would be guilty of personal sin. Death is part of humanity after the fall, and all living things. Spiritual death is a result of sin...our sin. The wages (payment) of sin is death...spiritual death. The soul (spirit) that sins will die.

 

[TCGreek]

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,

Well, I hope there decision was not based on practicality but of what Scripture says, but in this case Scripture says so little.

 

[Brother Bob]

Christ died for my guilt, not because of his sin.

His soul did not die. The soul was in hell, but not where the rich man is. Hell is confinement and Jesus was confined to the cross, and it sure was a hell for him.

BBob,

 

[Brother Bob]

Well, I hope there decision was not based on practicality but of what Scripture says, but in this case Scripture says so little.

I need to withdraw this TC; It really happened around here and I also can find some on google, but not by some good historians. So, I withdraw using the word "reformed". It is how it is. I know it was preached and even according to a lot of writings, but I can't defend it very good and will withdraw the statement and apoligize to all of you reformed brethren. I don't feel like doing any more research on it.

BBob,

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I need to withdraw this TC; It really happened around here and I also can find some on google, but not by some good historians. So, I withdraw using the word "reformed". It is how it is. I know it was preached and even according to a lot of writings, but I can't defend it very good and will withdraw the statement and apoligize to all of you reformed brethren. I don't feel like doing any more research on it.

BBob,

No prob Bob. Apology accepted brother. I did some of my own research and couldnt find anything. I read something written in the 1800s that was very hostile to calvinsim. So I figured if someone had the sources he might, but didn't. Most of it is just speculation without citing really any divine or eminate Reformer.

 

[TCGreek]

I need to withdraw this TC; It really happened around here and I also can find some on google, but not by some good historians. So, I withdraw using the word "reformed". It is how it is. I know it was preached and even according to a lot of writings, but I can't defend it very good and will withdraw the statement and apoligize to all of you reformed brethren. I don't feel like doing any more research on it.

BBob,

Apology accepted, my brother.