The Implications of Original Sin

[The Biblicist]

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.

You are attempting to change the subject from discussing the Biblical text Hebrews 2:17 to discussing the Calvinistic definition of original sin! Why? Because DHK nailed you by scriptural facts not by Calvinist definitions!

 

[glfredrick]

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.

This is perhaps your most disingenuous remark. You seem to already know (at least in your mind) what Calvinists believe, hence your line of questioning. But when you are called out on that line of questioning you backpeddle.

You are not being attacked for asking the question. You are being attacked for "begging the question" -- an intentional fallacy.

And, your question has been answered ad nauseum in this thread. You simply refuse to see the answers provided because they do not fit well with your particular doctrine.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This is perhaps your most disingenuous remark. You seem to already know (at least in your mind) what Calvinists believe, hence your line of questioning. But when you are called out on that line of questioning you backpeddle.

Show me where I backpeddled.

Just because you accuse me of doing that does not mean that I ever did such a thing.

You are not being attacked for asking the question. You are being attacked for "begging the question" -- an intentional fallacy.

Please quote me where I ever begged the question.

And, your question has been answered ad nauseum in this thread. You simply refuse to see the answers provided because they do not fit well with your particular doctrine.

Again, all you do is make accusations without providing any evidence that your accusations are true.

 

[The Biblicist]

Show me where I backpeddled.

Just because you accuse me of doing that does not mean that I ever did such a thing.

Please quote me where I ever begged the question.

Again, all you do is make accusations without providing any evidence that your accusations are true.

Just go back to the post before you introduced Calvin! Was DHK discussing Calvinism with you or hebrews 2:17 and proper interpretation with overall Biblical context with you?

It is so obvious, you were put in a corner and this was your way of escape!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You are attempting to change the subject from discussing the Biblical text Hebrews 2:17 to discussing the Calvinistic definition of original sin! Why? Because DHK nailed you by scriptural facts not by Calvinist definitions!

The discussion I am having with DHK about Hebrews 2:17 is on another thread, not this one.

So I am not chasnging the subject. All you can do is to m,ake up false accusations against me in your failed attempt to belittle me.

And DHK never nailed me on Scrtiptual facts because my view matches exactly what is said at Hebrews 2:17.

 

[The Biblicist]

The discussion I am having with DHK about Hebrews 2:17 is on another thread, not this one.

So I am not chasnging the subject. All you can do is to m,ake up false accusations against me in your failed attempt to belittle me.

And DHK never nailed me on Scrtiptual facts because my view matches exactly what is said at Hebrews 2:17.

You got me here! I am answering so many threads that I got this one and the other confused! My apologies!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just go back to the post before you introduced Calvin! Was DHK discussing Calvinism with you or hebrews 2:17 and proper interpretation with overall Biblical context with you?

That was not on this thread so if you want to discuss what was said between he and I go over to that thread.

You obviously are trying your best to derail this one in the hope that others will not see the implications of the Calvinistic teaching about "Original Sin." They say that mankind is deprived of "original righteousness" because of God's punishment.

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

They say that as a result of this punishment upon mankind inflicted by God that all men come out of the womb WHOLLY inclined to all evil:

"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).
　
And then when man does the very things which God caused when he punished them He turns around and punishes them again:
　
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who deprives men of "original righteousness" and then punishes them for being unrighteous!

 

[The Biblicist]

That was not on this thread so if you want to discuss what was said between he and I go over to that thread.

You obviously are trying your best to derail this one in the hope that others will not see the implications of the Calvinistic teaching about "Original Sin." They say that mankind is deprived of "original righteousness" because of God's punishment.

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

They say that as a result of this punishment upon mankind inflicted by God that all men come out of the womb WHOLLY inclined to all evil:

"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).
　
And then when man does the very things which God caused when he punished them He turns around and punishes them again:
　
"...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who deprives men of "original righteousness" and then punishes them for being unrighteous!

I admitted that I was wrong due to confusion over the different threads. That being said, your logic above is equally wrong!

God would be cruel taskmaster if death was "passed" down to infants if those infants were not acting in Adam as one unified human natuare.

Death is the condemnation for sin as Paul clearly says "the wages of sin is death" and "death BY sin" and "by one man's offence many be dead."

God created the body without sin and God created the soul of man without sin. Hence, God would be a cruel taskmaster to pass the condemnation down to infants since they commit no responsible act of willful sin.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So Jerry what do you believe about Original sin? I'll tell you what I believe:

Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance with God".

How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam "as one body of one man".293 By this "unity of the human race" all men are implicated in Adam's sin, as all are implicated in Christ's justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.

Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence".

The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.282 Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man.283 Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay".284 Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will "return to the ground",285 for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history.286

After that first sin, the world is virtually inundated by sin There is Cain's murder of his brother Abel and the universal corruption which follows in the wake of sin. Likewise, sin frequently manifests itself in the history of Israel, especially as infidelity to the God of the Covenant and as transgression of the Law of Moses. And even after Christ's atonement, sin raises its head in countless ways among Christians

Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.281

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

 

[DHK]

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?

Look at it carefully.

"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).

--"utterly indisposed, disabled, ...and wholly inclined to all evil."

I don't believe that.
That excludes man having the "free moral choice" (which is good) to choose between good and evil, to choose between receiving Christ and rejecting Christ. That statement infers that one does not have that choice.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: That excludes man having the "free moral choice" (which is good) to choose between good and evil, to choose between receiving Christ and rejecting Christ. That statement infers that one does not have that choice.

DHK: I believe that a man has a sin nature from birth, and yet at the same time he is responsible for his sins (when he comes to an age that he realizes that).

DHK: I believe that a man has a sin nature from birth, and yet at the same time he is responsible for his sins (when he comes to an age that he realizes that).

HP: We have been over this before but for the sake of others I will address it again.

Here is how I understand DHK and his beliefs.
1. DHK believes all are born as sinners.
2. DHK believes men have a free will to choose, but he can do nothing other than to sin apart from one solitary choice, to either accept or reject salvations offer.
3. DHK believes that all men have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel.


HP: If man is born in sins, there is absolutely no possibility of him being anything other than a necessitated sinner from birth. To say you believe this then tell us that one comes to the knowledge that he is responsible, is beyond comprehension. If one is necessitated as a sinner, there is no way one can justly condemn himself for actions and intents in a sinful manner that he could not have avoided in way shape or form. Such a position cannot be rationally defended.


The position of DHK destroys any logical notion of true remorse, and repentance is impossible apart from remorse. Without genuine repentance, all will perish.

Secondly, DHK assumes without proof that all me have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel. There is not a solitary commentator of man of God I have ever personally met in my life or read about that would hold to such an unreasonable position. That in and of itself is NOT proof that he is wrong, but is indeed indicates the strong impression that he has taken a position simply not held by the church or any reasonable person nor from Scripture. It makes a mockery out of the hard work missionaries do and turns a blind eye to the multitudes over the thousands of years that have lived and died apart from the gospel. It sets Scriptural truth that some have indeed lived apart from the law and will be judged apart from what they never received.


Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

 

[Rippon]

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

Document a single authority where it is claimed that Calvin plagiarized from Augustine. It can't be done. Please refrain from lying about Calvin. You do know,do you not,that quoting Augustine --giving him credit that the words are his, is in no conceivable way considered plagiarism?

By the way,Calvin,when citing Augustine, disagreed with him about a third of the time according to my estimates.

 

[DHK]

HP: We have been over this before but for the sake of others I will address it again.

Here is how I understand DHK and his beliefs.
1. DHK believes all are born as sinners.
2. DHK believes men have a free will to choose, but he can do nothing other than to sin apart from one solitary choice, to either accept or reject salvations offer.
3. DHK believes that all men have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel.

Points one and three may be right, but you are confused in point two. That is not what I believe.

HP: If man is born in sins, there is absolutely no possibility of him being anything other than a necessitated sinner from birth.

Of course. We are sinners by birth. We are born in sin, and thus inherit a sin nature. Basic Bible Doctrine 101. So far so good.

To say you believe this then tell us that one comes to the knowledge that he is responsible, is beyond comprehension.

To say that you are not responsible for your sins is incomprehensible. You are born a sinner, and still responsible for keeping the Ten Commandments, God's laws, man's laws. Nobody gave you permission to murder or commit adultery with or without a sin nature! Just who do you think you are that you can mock God by such sin because you can claim the excuse: "My sin nature made me do it, therefore I am innocent." I am sure you can do better than that HP. Such foolish reasoning will not stand at the Great White Throne Judgement. I hope you are not advising people to use it.

If one is necessitated as a sinner, there is no way one can justly condemn himself for actions and intents in a sinful manner that he could not have avoided in way shape or form. Such a position cannot be rationally defended.

You are the one that is being irrational here as I just demonstrated here. You are responsible for your own sins. No one is forcing you to sin, just as no one forces you to receive or reject Christ. Satan doesn't force you to sin, and God doesn't force you to get saved. You have the moral free will to choose those things for yourself.

The position of DHK destroys any logical notion of true remorse, and repentance is impossible apart from remorse. Without genuine repentance, all will perish.

Remorse: Feeling sorry--Many people feel sorry, just like Judas did. He felt sorry for the crime he had done, and then went out and hung himself. He had remorse. Remorse does not save.
There is no mention in all the epistles of the necessity of repentance for salvation. Romans 5:1 says: "Being justified by faith we have peace with God."
Understand the proper definition of biblical faith in relation to salvation, and you will understand the biblical concept of repentance and why there is little to no emphasis in the NT epistles.
"Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved."
Why doesn't it say "believe and repent."
The answer is because believe includes repentance. They are two sides of one coin.

Secondly, DHK assumes without proof that all me have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel.

"For the grace of the God that brings salvation hath appeared to all men."
That is God's Word. God said it. You have a hard time believing it: I don't. To anyone that truly wants to be saved (as Cornelius did) God will reveal himself to that person in some way, usually by sending a missionary to him or his part of the country. I have seen many examples of this.

There is not a solitary commentator of man of God I have ever personally met in my life or read about that would hold to such an unreasonable position.

What exactly do you see as unreasonable? That God's grace cannot save?

That in and of itself is NOT proof that he is wrong, but is indeed indicates the strong impression that he has taken a position simply not held by the church or any reasonable person nor from Scripture.

My position is that a person is saved by grace through faith and not of works. It is the gift of God. It must be received not worked for. Christ paid the penalty that I could never pay. He paid it all in full, that my sins--past, present, and future would be forgiven. And they are, because I trusted Him as my Saviour.

It makes a mockery out of the hard work missionaries do and turns a blind eye to the multitudes over the thousands of years that have lived and died apart from the gospel. It sets Scriptural truth that some have indeed lived apart from the law and will be judged apart from what they never received.

I am a missionary. What I believe does not make a mockery out of the work I do. Perhaps it makes a mockery out of your philosophy.

 

[marke]

Almost sounds like you are arguing against Scripture... :tonofbricks:

Uncertain, faint sound, probably. Possibly amphlifiable with hearing aids?

 

[DHK]

Document a single authority where it is claimed that Calvin plagiarized from Augustine. It can't be done. Please refrain from lying about Calvin. You do know,do you not,that quoting Augustine --giving him credit that the words are his, is in no conceivable way considered plagiarism?

By the way,Calvin,when citing Augustine, disagreed with him about a third of the time according to my estimates.

Calvin took his ideas from Augustine. That is common knowledge, known facts. Why haven't you accepted this? Why dwell in ignorance?

Here are some things that Calvin said:

But since the authority of the ancient Church is, with much hatred, cast in my teeth, it will perhaps be worth our while to consider at the commencement how unjustly the truth of Christ is smothered under this enmity, the ground of which is, in one sense, false, and in another frivolous. This accusation, however, such as it is, I would rather wipe off with the words of Augustine than with my own; for the Pelagians of old annoyed him with the same accusation, saying, that he had all other writers of the Church against him.

Calvin states that he would rather use the words of Augustine than his own words!

In a word, Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings. But that I may not, on the present occasion be too prolix. I will be content with three or four instances of his testimony, from which it will be manifest that he does not differ from me one pin's point. And it would be more manifest still, could the whole line of his confession be adduced, how fully and solidly he agrees with me in every particular.

In this paragraph Calvin idolizes Augustine. Calvin needs not write anything. Augustine's writing are so superior and supreme that Calvin could build his confession of faith on Augustine himself. He pretty much worships this heretic we call Augustine. Is this not enough evidence for you?

You will find these quotes and much more in Calvin's own treatise:

A TREATISE OF THE ETERNAL PREDESTINATION OF GOD

http://www.the-highway.com/Calvin_sectionI.html

By some, Augustine has been referred to as the "Father of the Inquisition." He persecuted true believers. He was one of the founders of the RCC. He believed that those who opposed infant baptism were accursed. He believed Mary was sinless and should be worshipped; that the only true church was the RCC.
In a word, Augustine was a RCC heretic. This is who Calvin was so taken up with--Augustine, the heretic. If I am blunt, I fully intend to be. I have no mercy for those who disseminate such heresy and then for those who want to call them saints. They are sinners who have condemned themselves by their actions and by their teachings.

 

[Rippon]

Calvin took his ideas from Augustine. That is common knowledge, known facts. Why haven't you accepted this? Why dwell in ignorance?

Calvin did not plagiarize Augustine.One doesn't credit a source and then someone charge that person with stealing.

This is from Longman Dictionary Of American English under the the word plagiarize: "to take someone else's words,ideas, etc. and copy them,pretending that they are your own."

Is that clear enough for you? Calvin fully admitted that he was indebted to the works of Augustine. He does hide the fact when he cites him so often. Drop the slander.

Calvin states that he would rather use the words of Augustine than his own words!

In this paragraph Calvin idolizes Augustine.

How do you come up with such strange interpretations? Calvin admired and respected Augustine. It didn't go beyond that. As I said before,Calvin disagreed with Augustine about one third of the time according to my estimates.

In a word, Augustine was a RCC heretic.

Augustine lived in a time when a fully-formed Roman Catholic Church was yet to be.

This is who Calvin was so taken up with--Augustine, the heretic. If I am blunt, I fully intend to be. I have no mercy for those who disseminate such heresy and then for those who want to call them saints. They are sinners who have condemned themselves by their actions and by their teachings.

Calling him a heretic the way you have is disgraceful. The way you have characterized him he is in the misery of hell. Instead,Augustine had a number of sub-biblical views. However,we as the Church owe him a great deal for his works. He brought many sound biblical doctrines out with great clarity.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Biblicist: 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!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?

Yes I do ! When I believe, I am declared righteous! Thank you Jesus!

All sin is wiped away, forgotten and does no longer exist in His eyes, through the blood of Jesus.

Before the fall, Adam was righteous. This is what we are bought back to.


Romans 3

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 4
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 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.

Romans 6

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

I am no longer considered a sinner, but a son of God.

If I sin, it is not unto death, I have a mediator in Jesus.

There is no longer the condemnation of the sin nature I had.

I am a new creation in Jesus, who bought me back to my original value, the same as Adam before the fall.

No longer separated from God, but communing with Him. Him in me, me in Him.

If I believe.....

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist: 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!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?

Yes I do ! When I believe, I am declared righteous! Thank you Jesus!

All sin is wiped away, forgotten and does no longer exist in His eyes, through the blood of Jesus.

Before the fall, Adam was righteous. This is what we are bought back to.


Romans 3

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Romans 4
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 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.

Romans 6

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

I am no longer considered a sinner, but a son of God.

If I sin, it is not unto death, I have a mediator in Jesus.

There is no longer the condemnation of the sin nature I had.

I am a new creation in Jesus, who bought me back to my original value, the same as Adam before the fall.

No longer separated from God, but communing with Him. Him in me, me in Him.

If I believe.....

You are confused! These texts refer to the sinless personal rightousness of Jesus Christ IMPUTED to us by faith whose righteousness justify us in the sight of God. This is our POSITION as we are "seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"!

These scriptures have absolutely nothing to do with your own personal righteousness or own personal condition on earth. If they did you would not need to "grow" in grace or Paul would not deny he had not obtained already but needs to press toward the mark (Philip. 3:10-12).

You are deceived if you think you are personally sinless like Adam or like Christ (1 Jn. 1:8-10). Not only are you deceived but you are a theif because you are claiming to possess now a righteousness in regard to your own person that no human will possess until glorification.

John denies that we are like Christ in our own person now but will be like him only when we see him when we will be made like him (1 Jn. 3:1-2).

Sanctification is progressive but justification is immediate. Sanctification has to do with your own person but justification has to do with Christ's own person in your place and you in his place POSITIONALLY.

You are on the road of deception which will lead to serious errors.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
Secondly, DHK assumes without proof that all me have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

DHK: That is God's Word. God said it. You have a hard time believing it: I don't. To anyone that truly wants to be saved (as Cornelius did) God will reveal himself to that person in some way, usually by sending a missionary to him or his part of the country. I have seen many examples of this.

HP: To extrapolate the rendering of this verse to suggest that every living human being has had the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel message, is beyond all reason. It has not happened. Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I see your position as simply unreasonable and unbelievable violating common sense, the testimony of missionaries across the globe,obviously yourself excluded, and not reasonably supported by the one solitary proof text you set forth to support such a notion. Show us your support for such a notion by any Bible scholar. Look back to the OT and apply such a notion as you suggest to the fact that salvation was given to the Jews. The words of Christ Himself clearly refute your position.

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

I completely understand why DHK insists on suggesting that having the opportunity to respond to the gospel, because he knows intuitively that if men are born in sin and have not such an opportunity, it would prove God unjust if He condemned all men when they had no other choice but to be the sinners original sin makes them. DHK's notion is convenient cover for an unscriptural notion of OS.

DHK indicate that I am not correct on the following comment I made:

HP: 2. DHK believes men have a free will to choose, but he can do nothing other than to sin apart from one solitary choice, to either accept or reject salvations offer.

If original sin is correct, one does in fact have the driving force of sin and coercion in ones life, which makes it impossible to choose the right. If the will itself is so affected by sin that it can only sin and that continually, no morality can be predicated of it period, for morality necessitates the clear possibility of contrary choice. OS necessitates that contrary choice is not available. I believe I am completely correct in my assessment above concerning DHK's philosophy. If DHK thinks I am wrong, I say it is a direct result of a clear inconsistency in his belief system that he needs to address. Again, if OS is accepted as fact, one has no choice but to sin. If one has a choice to accept or reject, that would in reality be the only moral choice a sinner could every make, all other ends being necessitated by ones sinful nature.

Of a truth, words have meanings. If one uses the word moral, or morality, certain facts apply. Morality always denotes clear choice. Not choice to simply 'do as one wills' for the 'doing' sustains to the will the notion of necessity, not freedom or choice. One can ONLY do as they will. If one acts differently than the will chooses, it is a clear indication that the will has chosen a different end.

One other related issue DHK brings to the forefront in his beliefs, is a long held Calvinistic notion that the damning sin is 'not accepting the gospel.' Certain there is one solitary proof text those that hold to such a notion go, but that in no wise makes the case for them. Scripture is clear. It is ones sins that separate one from God. Legion are the passages that set that fact in clear plain light. For brevity alone I mention just one.

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.

The rejection of the offer of salvation will certainly seal ones fate IF they have the opportunity to hear and respond to the gospel, but that is not their damning sin. Disobedience to any known commandment of God is a damning sin, even if that simply involves eating a forbidden fruit and for that they deserve eternal separation from God, and for their sins will they stand condemned before a Holy and Just God.

 

[plain_n_simple]

These scriptures have absolutely nothing to do with your own personal righteousness or own personal condition on earth.
1 John 3:7
Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.

If I can be counted as righteous only in heaven, a man could not decieve me, for there are no deceivers in heaven.
If I do righteousness, I am counted righteous, right now on earth, growing in Christ from faith to faith and grace to grace.

Abraham was counted as righteous while on earth, because he believed.

Noah was counted as righteous while on earth, because he believed.

My faith is counted as righteousness. Faith is the substance of things not seen.

On earth I cannot see. Blessed are those that believe without seeing.

Once I am in heaven, I will see. I will need no faith, I will be with Him forever.

Romans 6

17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

18 does not say I will be free from sin, only when I get to heaven. I can be free from sin right now.

18 does not say "ye became servants of righteousness when you get to heaven."

Paul is speaking to people on earth, to yeild themselves servants to righteousness. If I do righteousness, I am counted righteous.

These texts refer to the sinless personal rightousness of Jesus Christ IMPUTED to us by faith whose righteousness justify us in the sight of God.

I am in the sight of God right now.

You are deceived if you think you are personally sinless like Adam or like Christ. (1 John: 8-10)

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If I am cleansed, I have no sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
This refers to people that say they have no sin before they believe in Him.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
I confessed and was forgiven, I am now cleanesed of unrighteousness, therefore am righteous.

10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.Again, this refers to people that say they have no sin before they believe in Him.



When I repent and ask Him for forgiveness of my sins, He forgives me, and forgets.

If my sins are forgiven and forgotten, I am sinless.

You must think that God keeps a record of my sins, even after He forgave and forgot. And you say I'm deceived lol.