The Implications of Original Sin

[Rippon]

Again, I come to my conclusions through the Scriptures.
I have not studied or read Augustine. I have read very little of Calvin.
The Bible is far more important to me than to waste my time studying the tomes of other men. I refer to some other works when necessary. But Augustine? Never.

Yet you made the absurd claim, with no retraction, that Calvin plagiarized Augustine. You ought not say things about either until you read them for yourself.

And of course the Bible stands apart from the works of uninspired men. Yet who among us would deny that the Lord has raised up godly wise men in Church History to help us understand His Word better? No rational Christian,that's for sure.

 

[plain_n_simple]

So the God you believe in is simply hoping everything will work out? But he really doesn't know what's going to happen, so he waits, wondering what we will do?

Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....

God created Adam in His image and likeness. Can you see that Adam was in perfect relationship with his creator?



...and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

God gave Adam dominion over all the creatures of the earth. Are you getting the idea that God trusted Adam?
Can you see that God gave Adam the freedom to choose?


27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Again we see that Adam was created without any flaws, unless you think God cannot create in perfection.


28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Again it shows us that God trusted Adam, because His creation can have no flaws. He even blessed them.
Why would God give dominion over the earth, and bless His creation if He thought they would disobey and destroy themselves?
God knew what would happen to all mankind if Adam ate. The wars, heartaches, sufferings and death.
It would paint a picture of a very cruel God if He knew we would go through all that evil just to turn around to buy us back with His Son?
We don't intentionaly burn a house down so we can use the fire department.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

God did not say" Well I made Adam but I know he is going to disobey me, therefore I do not trust him."
If God thought Adam would fall, and it was inevitable, He would not of looked on everything He created and say it was very good. God cannot lie.


1 John 4

7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Do we think God was fearful that Adam would fall? No. God is the perfector of love. God trusted Adam. He was banking on Adams obedience. God was not just hoping Adam would obey. He gave Adam free will to choose. That shows how much God loved and trusted Adam.

 

[The Biblicist]

Genesis 1

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....

God created Adam in His image and likeness. Can you see that Adam was in perfect relationship with his creator?



...and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

God gave Adam dominion over all the creatures of the earth. Are you getting the idea that God trusted Adam?
Can you see that God gave Adam the freedom to choose?


27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Again we see that Adam was created without any flaws, unless you think God cannot create in perfection.


28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Again it shows us that God trusted Adam, because His creation can have no flaws. He even blessed them.
Why would God give dominion over the earth, and bless His creation if He thought they would disobey and destroy themselves?
God knew what would happen to all mankind if Adam ate. The wars, heartaches, sufferings and death.
It would paint a picture of a very cruel God if He knew we would go through all that evil just to turn around to buy us back with His Son?
We don't intentionaly burn a house down so we can use the fire department.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

God did not say" Well I made Adam but I know he is going to disobey me, therefore I do not trust him."
If God thought Adam would fall, and it was inevitable, He would not of looked on everything He created and say it was very good. God cannot lie.


1 John 4

7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

Do we think God was fearful that Adam would fall? No. God is the perfector of love. God trusted Adam. He was banking on Adams obedience. God was not just hoping Adam would obey. He gave Adam free will to choose. That shows how much God loved and trusted Adam.

This is all good and well my friend, but are you not mixing apples with oranges?

All these texts speak about a sinless prefallen Adam not sinners such as we! The new birth does not restore us to the sinless prefallen state of Adam! If it did then, we would not be subject to disease or death nor would we need to be commanded to walk in the Spirit as that would be our state all the time.

It seems that you think we are restored to the pre-fallen state of Adam by the new birth and are only subject to temptation as he was and without sin as he was????? Surely, you do not believe that?

 

[convicted1]

This is all good and well my friend, but are you not mixing apples with oranges?

All these texts speak about a sinless prefallen Adam not sinners such as we! The new birth does not restore us to the sinless prefallen state of Adam! If it did then, we would not be subject to disease or death nor would we need to be commanded to walk in the Spirit as that would be our state all the time.

It seems that you think we are restored to the pre-fallen state of Adam by the new birth and are only subject to temptation as he was and without sin as he was????? Surely, you do not believe that?

When God saves the soul, that soul is made into a "pristine" condition, no?

The flesh remains in the fallen state, but the soul is made perfect via the shed blood of Jesus. Do you agree with this?

 

[glfredrick]

When God saves the soul, that soul is made into a "pristine" condition, no?

The flesh remains in the fallen state, but the soul is made perfect via the shed blood of Jesus. Do you agree with this?

Not until the final part of what it means to be saved is accomplished -- our glorification. Until then, we struggle. The soul (person, we are not disembodied souls!) is regenerated, justified, adopted, and in the process of sanctification with perseverence, awaiting final glorification when our salvation will be made complete.

Essentially, our "souls" are not made into a pristine condition. All that we ever were is there. But God imputes Christ's righteousness to us and He sees Christ not us, hence we are not under condemnation.

 

[convicted1]

Not until the final part of what it means to be saved is accomplished -- our glorification. Until then, we struggle. The soul (person, we are not disembodied souls!) is regenerated, justified, adopted, and in the process of sanctification with perseverence, awaiting final glorification when our salvation will be made complete.

Essentially, our "souls" are not made into a pristine condition. All that we ever were is there. But God imputes Christ's righteousness to us and He sees Christ not us, hence we are not under condemnation.

Well, the soul has been cleansed, and given the wedding garment, and made ready when God calls. The soul, upon receiving salvation, is made perfect in God's righteousness via the blood.

 

[The Biblicist]

When God saves the soul, that soul is made into a "pristine" condition, no?

The flesh remains in the fallen state, but the soul is made perfect via the shed blood of Jesus. Do you agree with this?

No, I don't agree with that! The Word of God states explicitly it is the "spirit" of man that is born again (Jn. 3:6) and the Word of God states explicitly clear that there is a difference between the human "soul" and the human "spirit" (Heb. 4:12; 1 Thes. 5:23).

 

[DHK]

Yet you made the absurd claim, with no retraction, that Calvin plagiarized Augustine. You ought not say things about either until you read them for yourself.

You are absolutely wrong. I have never read "Romeo and Juliette," yet I have it on good authority that the words "Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?" come from that play, and I also have it on good authority that that play is written by a man called Shakespeare. Will you accept my information as being valid? I don't have to go to the very source to obtain my information. Your accusation is absurd.

And of course the Bible stands apart from the works of uninspired men. Yet who among us would deny that the Lord has raised up godly wise men in Church History to help us understand His Word better? No rational Christian,that's for sure.

It is your opinion.
I never considered Calvin a Godly man, after reading history.
I certainly don't consider Augustine a Godly man.
But, that is my opinion, and I am entitled to it.

 

[convicted1]

No, I don't agree with that! The Word of God states explicitly it is the "spirit" of man that is born again (Jn. 3:6) and the Word of God states explicitly clear that there is a difference between the human "soul" and the human "spirit" (Heb. 4:12; 1 Thes. 5:23).

Well, I see man as being two parts, soul and body. The soul is made ready and is waiting for the call.

 

[Rippon]

You are absolutely wrong.
Your accusation is absurd.

Still refusing to retract your slander? Calvin did not plagiarize anything from Augustine. It is as much of a lie from your keystrokes as when you said that John Gill denied the Great Commission.

I never considered Calvin a Godly man, after reading history.

You need to read some of his commentaries/sermons/letters. You would then have a different story.

I certainly don't consider Augustine a Godly man.

Based upon what?

 

[DHK]

Still refusing to retract your slander? Calvin did not plagiarize anything from Augustine. It is as much of a lie from your keystrokes as when you said that John Gill denied the Great Commission.

When others can prove I can accept their proof. Especially when it is documented.

You need to read some of his commentaries/sermons/letters. You would then have a different story.

I said in my original post, I don't have the time to wade through the tomes of literature that the man wrote.

Based upon what?

Based upon the words of Jesus.
Beware of the leaven (false doctrine) of the Pharisees (or any other false teacher).
His teaching was full of false doctrine. He taught the doctrine of purgatory. He was a recognized "father" of the RCC. He popularized the allegorical method of interpretation of the Bible. He held to many ungodly and anti-Biblical doctrines.

But this has nothing to do with Original Sin. We need to get back to the OP.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

We need to get back to the OP.

Since you are not a Calvinist perhaps you would tell me how your view about a man being born in sin differs from that of the Calvinists here:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith, VI/3).

The Calvinists who hold to "original sin" teach that we come out of the womb "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:
　
"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
　
Do you agree with that? If not, then in what way is it wrong?

Is there a place I can go to that expresses your views on Original Sin?

 

[glfredrick]

Since you are not a Calvinist perhaps you would tell me how your view about a man being born in sin differs from that of the Calvinists here:

"They (Adam & Eve) being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by original generation" [emphasis added] (The Westminster Confession of Faith, VI/3).

The Calvinists who hold to "original sin" teach that we come out of the womb "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:
　
"From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
　
Do you agree with that? If not, then in what way is it wrong?

Is there a place I can go to that expresses your views on Original Sin?

Jerry, why is this all about being or not being a Calvinist? What do the SCRIPTURES say?

 

[The Biblicist]

Since you are not a Calvinist perhaps you would tell me how your view about a man being born in sin differs from that of the Calvinists here:

If you could defend your interpretations of scriptures you wouldn't be fleeing to their words but you would be fleeing to God's Word!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

If you could defend your interpretations of scriptures you wouldn't be fleeing to their words but you would be fleeing to God's Word!

I cannot answer his assertions unless I know the basis of those assertions. So I am asking so I will not mis-represent his beliefs.

You are so desperate to somehow belittle me and since you cannot do it by showing that my interpretation of the Scriptures are in error you revert to this petty accusation!

 

[The Biblicist]

I cannot answer his assertions unless I know the basis of those assertions. So I am asking so I will not mis-represent his beliefs.

You are so desperate to somehow belittle me and since you cannot do it by showing that my interpretation of the Scriptures are in error you revert to this petty accusation!

You are asking us to beleive that you do not understand what he has clearly and explicitly spelled out over and over and over again to you?????????

If you understood the true intent of Hebrews 2:17 you could respond to him! But you don't and you prove you don't by running to some commentator and wanting to wrangle over that commentator's words rather than deal with God's Word.

It is obvious to all what you are doing! You can't defend your interpretation and so you are changing the subject.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, why is this all about being or not being a Calvinist? What do the SCRIPTURES say?

The subject of this thread concerns the teaching in regard to "Original Sin" and the implications of that idea.


Since DHK is not a Calvinist but he still believes in Original Sin I thought that it would only be fair to have his views on the subject aired since it is possible that his views may be different on this subject than the Calvinist view.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The subject of this thread concerns the teaching in regard to "Original Sin" and the implications of that idea.


Since DHK is not a Calvinist but he still believes in Original Sin I thought that it would only be fair to have his views on the subject aired since it is possible that his views may be different on this subject than the Calvinist view.

Luther believed in original sin. You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe in original sin. In fact I'm Catholic and I believe in original sin.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Luther believed in original sin. You don't have to be a Calvinist to believe in original sin.

I never said that you have to be a Calvinist to believe in Original Sin.

I am merely attempting to get the non-Calvinist's view on the same subject and am being attacked for doing that.

When people cannot answer the message they attack the messenger.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I never said that you have to be a Calvinist to believe in Original Sin.

I am merely attempting to get the non-Calvinist's view on the same subject and am being attacked for doing that.

When people cannot answer the message they attack the messenger.

I'm not attacking you but you seem to imply that believing in Original sin makes one a Calvinist. What do you believe about Original sin?