The Implications of Original Sin

[Jerry Shugart]

There is a universal corruption, but your statement that God is responsible is not supported in this statement. Rather, your view that we believe God is responsible is truly a harsh misrepresentation of our belief.

You are wrong because the Calvinist teach that the so-called universal corruption of man came as a result of God punishing men for Adam's sin:

"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).

Shaw also wrote:

"The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit" (Ibid.).

If the Calvinists are right then who else except our Maker can "infuse" us with Adam's depravity? Who else except our Maker can "impute" Adam's demerit to us?

Since you have misrepresented even the reformed view of original sin, which is less than I have stated I wanted to discuss, I think you should read up on original sin in order to not bear false witness against us.

Of course I did not bear false witness against anyone. What I said about the teaching of Calvinism is fully supported by what Robert Shaw himself taught.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

When God is the cause of everything and man can create nothing as purported by Biblicist and I am certain others as well, something has to be the creator of evil....unless you want to tell us that evil has always existed. When one takes such a position that man is not the creator of anything nor can he be, and something exists like sin. what other cause can you place on sin but God himself?

 

[The Biblicist]

Of course I did not expect you to actually answer my question in regard to what Calvinism spokesman Robert Shaw said here:

"The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit" ((Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).


Now you go to a THIRD quote to defend your misintepretation of the first two quotes!

Now you introduce a completely new thought! We are no longer talking about the source from which the sinful nature is derived "FROM THIS ORIGINAL CORRUPTION" but now you have change the subject from SOURCE to METHOD of transferral or about HOW we get it!

There is simply no honesty in you in regard to this discussion! You totally misrepresented the first two quotations and now you are changing the subject to justify your deceitfulness!

However, I will play your little game of deceit.

From whom do we get the infusion of depravity??????????? Who is it that Shaw says we get it from?

ANSWER: "from him"

QUESTION: Who is this "him" in context? Does Shaw say it is "FROM GOD" or is the only antecedent for the pronouns "him" Adam??

Let us follow the pronoun back to the noun it modifies:

"The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit"

Look at the order:


1. "Adam"
2. "his guilt"
3. "from him"
4. "from him"
5. "his demerit"

He is teaching that through natural birth the sin nature is infused.

So what is your next plan for justification of pure deceit?

 

[Ruiz]

You are wrong because the Calvinist teach that the so-called universal corruption of man came as a result of God punishing men for Adam's sin:

"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).

Shaw also wrote:

"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).

If the Calvinists are right then who else except our Maker can "infuse" us with Adam's depravity? Who else except our Maker can "impute" Adam's demerit to us?

Of course I did not bear false witness against anyone. What I said about the teaching of Calvinism is fully supported by what Robert Shaw himself taught.

I love it when someone tries to tell me what we believe. How many books on original sin have you read? Did you actually read Robert Shaw's entire section that you are quoting. He is not saying, in any sense, that God made us that way. In his book "Confession of Faith" Shaw goes out of his way to explain that it was not God who made us sinners but, it was clearly Adam's disobedience. If you read the book, you may know his focus a little better. BTW, I do ask you for a clear citation and page number on these quotation

If you want to know what we believe, start with Edwards. If you have any questions on Edwards, please let me know.

Finally, you still never answered my question. Who is orthodox but disavows original sin? Why don't you want to answer a simple question? Are you just wanting to misrepresent me?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ruiz brings up Wesley. Wesley stated in at least two places as I recall, that he knew full well he was far too close to Calvinism. Wesley did believe in original sin but he did NOT attribute guilt on that account. That was a clear logical inconsistency, but oh those blessed inconsistencies!

It is clear to me that the reason why he knew he was so close to Calvinism was right under his nose. Original sin. No one believing in original sin can logically deny double predestination, irresistible grace, guilt directly associated with the nature they are born with, and God being the author of sin. Oh they can deny anything they want to but the logical connection still exists. They will never shake the necessitated logical ends of original sin, try as they may, no matter how many exclamation points they place after sentences, or how loud they beat on the pulpit, or the personal attacks on the messenger that remind them of those logical ends. Necessitated logical ends are exactly what they are, necessitated by God inspired logic.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

[Let us follow the pronoun back to the noun it modifies:

"The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit"

Look at the order:


1. "Adam"
2. "his guilt"
3. "from him"
4. "from him"
5. "his demerit"

He is teaching that through natural birth the sin nature is infused.

So what is your next plan for justification of pure deceit?

You leave out what is said here in "bold":

"The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit"

Who is responsible for "recokning" Adam's sin to us according to the Calvinists?

Who is responsible for the "punishment" of Adam's sin in us according to the Calvinists?

It is God, as witnessed by their own words:

"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).

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Finally, you still never answered my question. Who is orthodox but disavows original sin? Why don't you want to answer a simple question? Are you just wanting to misrepresent me?

I never misrepresented you and you never answered my quetions. First of all, Sir Robert Anderson wrote the following commentary on Romans 8:8:

"This verse is used to support the dogma that, because of the Fall, man’s nature is so utterly depraved that he is incapable of leading a moral and upright life. As the Westminster Divines express it, 'We are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good.' This theology obviously impugns the righteousness of God in punishing men for their sins" (Anderson, Misunderstood Texts of the New Testament).

Charles Spurgeon said that Anderson's book Human Destiny is "the most valuable contribution on the subject I have seen." James M. Gray (1852-1935), who served for thirty years as President of Moody Bible Institute and was one of the seven editors of the original Scofield Reference Bible, said the following about Anderson:

"Sir Robert Anderson is in some respects the most remarkable of current writers on religious subjects, whether we consider his personal history or the range and character of his work…To sit at the feet of a man with such knowledge, mental power, courage and native wit, who is at the same time Spirit taught, is for the true Christian one of the greatest privileges."

Now please answer my questions in regard to this statement of Robert Shaw:

"The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit" ((Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

If the Calvinists are right then who else except our Maker can "infuse" us with Adam's depravity? Who else except our Maker can "impute" Adam's demerit to us?

If the Calvinists are right then who except our Maker can reckon the guilt of Adam unto us. Who except our Maker can punish us for Adam's sin?

Here we see Shaw's own answer to that question:

"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).

Now please answer my questions.

 

[Ruiz]

Ruiz brings up Wesley. Wesley stated in at least two places as I recall, that he knew full well he was far too close to Calvinism. Wesley did believe in original sin but he did NOT attribute guilt on that account. That was a clear logical inconsistency, but oh those blessed inconsistencies!

It is clear to me that the reason why he knew he was so close to Calvinism was right under his nose. Original sin. No one believing in original sin can logically deny double predestination, irresistible grace, guilt directly associated with the nature they are born with, and God being the author of sin. Oh they can deny anything they want to but the logical connection still exists. They will never shake the necessitated logical ends of original sin, try as they may, no matter how many exclamation points they place after sentences, or how loud they beat on the pulpit, or the personal attacks on the messenger that remind them of those logical ends. Necessitated logical ends are exactly what they are, necessitated by God inspired logic.

This is not entirely accurate according to Wesley (The Doctrine of Original Sin, 1757, The Works of John Wesley, 157 and 254) the doctrine of original sin includes guilt. In his explanation of why babies die, he says that they too sinned, but not actual. He attributed it to original sin. There are other places he attributes that the guilt of original sin is upon us.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: You may well be correct in your rendering. Wesley, as all other writers, (except myself and a few other rare birds:laugh have some inconsistencies in their writings as one might expect especially considering the volume of writings Wesley wrote in his life time, and the progression of thought all go through.

Take Augustine for instance. He went from believing in free will and denying anything close to original sin to establishing the dogma of original sin no less. Strange progressions of thought indeed.

 

[Ruiz]

HP: You may well be correct in your rendering. Wesley, as all other writers, (except myself and a few other rare birds:laugh have some inconsistencies in their writings as one might expect especially considering the volume of writings Wesley wrote in his life time, and the progression of thought all go through.

Take Augustine for instance. He went from believing in free will and denying anything close to original sin to establishing the dogma of original sin no less. Strange progressions of thought indeed.

I think I would need a citation of Augustine. Earlier this year I read much of Augustine and did not see his soteriological standings on this issue inconsistent from his other issues. Freewill is not a rejected doctrine, but it should not be defined properly.

Wesley, as well, was not inconsistent. If you read his writings he was very consistent in this aspect.

 

[The Biblicist]

You leave out what is said here in "bold":

"The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit"

Who is responsible for "recokning" Adam's sin to us according to the Calvinists?

Who is responsible for the "punishment" of Adam's sin in us according to the Calvinists?

It is God, as witnessed by their own words:

"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).

Dahhhh! Of course we do not deny that Adam acted as the Representative of mankind - "by one offence many be dead.....by one offence many were made sinners" so obviousy we believe God imputed sin to all He represented and sin is infused through generation from father to children. Is that your point??????

If that was your original point then why make the charge that Calvinists believe our sin nature originates from God or God's design by quoting the Westminister statement which identified the ORIGIN of our sin nature "FROM THE ORIGINAL CORRUPTION" but never said a word about it originated from God or God's design?

If that was your original point then why change the subject from from ORIGIN to MEANS OF TRANSMISSION? Isn't it self-evident that our view of TRANSMISSION is by imputation and physical birth?

Is the readers supposed to be shocked and awed that we believe the fallen human nature is what is passed down from father to children? Or that we beleive God by design placed Adam in a representative capacity for all of mankind in the test in the garden?????????

If that was your point, may I ask why you needed to quote the westminister confession or Shaw since we have been repeating that was our position over and over and over and over and over and over again???????????

Obviously that was not your point. You stuck your foot in your mouth and then tried to extract it gracefully by simply switch and bait routine.

If that was your original point then why quote

However, that is not what the Westminister statement was talk

 

[convicted1]

Many of those who hold to "original sin" teach that our Maker makes us "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).
　
And then when man does exactly what he was designed by God to do he is punished severely:
　
"...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 makes a man "wholly" inclined to all evil and then punishes him for doing exactly what he was designed by God to do!

Despite this, there are some who defend the statement which I provided from The Westminster Confession of Faith, including Ruiz:

So evidently he thinks that it is just for God to make a person "wholly" inclined to all evil and then punish him for doing exactly what God designed him to do.

Of course he gives us a reason for doing so:

"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" (Ro.2:12).

Of course he believes that idea because that is the teaching of Calvinism but the Scriptures state that death comes as a result of a person's own sin:

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).

That is why Paul calls the Ten Commandents the "ministration of death":

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life...the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Cor.3:6-8).

here Paul is making a contrast between "life" and "death" and since the "life" is in regard to a "spiritual" life then the death is in regard to a "spiritual" death.

If a person is born dead in Adam and Eve's sins then it is obvious that he cannot become dead as a result of his own sins. That is because a person must first be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually.

No one said that Adam's sin only impacted him because the Scriptures make it plain that it did (Gen.3:17-24).

But if the idea of Original Sin is right then we must believe that Abel bore the iniquity of his father Adam. However, the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that that will not happen:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezek.18:20).

Why Bro. Jerry, didn't you know that God loves to place the non-elect on a skewer and roast them in the flames, over their evil deeds that they had no other choice to do but commit them?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Read concerning Augustine in "Earlier Writings", in LCC,k 6:102........and "ON Free Will." III, 46 ibid., p.199

That is the reference given in "The History of Christian Ethics Vol I by George Wolfgang Forell

 

[convicted1]

Well, if we are born sinners, seperated from God, then what sin did we commit to make us this way? In original sin(as the DoGer's hold it), God places Adam's guilt on us.

 

[The Biblicist]

Why Bro. Jerry, didn't you know that God loves to place the non-elect on a skewer and roast them in the flames, over their evil deeds that they had no other choice to do but commit them?

I don't know of anyone that believes that theory do you?

 

[The Biblicist]

Well, if we are born sinners, seperated from God, then what sin did we commit to make us this way? In original sin(as the DoGer's hold it), God places Adam's guilt on us.

"BY one man's offence MANY WERE MADE sinners" - Rom. 5:19

"BY one man's offence MANY BE DEAD" - Rom. 5:15

"For as IN Adam ALL DIE."
" - 1 Cor. 15:22

All had to be "IN" Adam because that is where DEATH is.

 

[plain_n_simple]

God is love. God created Adam in love. Adam was God's perfect creation. Adam had a sinless nature as he walked with God.

God loved and trusted Adam so much, He let him name the animals whatever he wished. God gave Adam the freedom to choose.

God knew that Adam would be tempted, but He still loved and trusted Adam to choose to listen to Him. Love always thinks the best.

When Adam chose to listen to and believe Satan, then ate the fruit, he took on the nature of Satan and lost his true identity.
All of Adam's children took on this sinful nature, separated from God.

Jesus came to buy us back, to shed the sinful nature and become a new creation. Born again.
If we believe we are born again, we no longer have the sinful nature but are now sons and daughters of God.

We will always be tempted. Being tempted is not a sin.
Being tempted does not change us back to the sinful nature.

We have the potenial to sin, just like Adam had the potential to sin before the fall. The saved and the unsaved both have the same potenial to sin, because all are tempted. God trusts His children to choose not to sin.

Even if we do sin, we are not returned to the sinful nature, but are counted as God's children who He will chasten and teach and forgive because of the work of Christ, if you believe. Mercy and Grace.


Satan does not want us to believe that we can be born again and return to God as sons and daughters. He does not want us to renew our minds.

Satan wants us to believe we will always have a sinful nature, so the playing field is set up in our minds to his advantage. It fits with his plan, and he always bringing doubt. "Surely you will not die if you eat the fruit..."

To hold on to the belief that we will always have a sinful nature, is a lack of understanding of what born again into a new creation is. It's that simple.

 

[The Biblicist]

God is love.

Yes, and love hates darkness! Do you know that?

Yes, and love is defined within the boundaries of holiness and righteousness! Do you know that?

Love is not this sloppy agape being taught and thrown around today about some jolly Saint Nick sitting on the throne in heaven who just loves everyone and everythin! God is HOLY and His love IS HOLY and any kind of love that lacks holiness is simply not the love of God.

When Adam chose to listen to and believe Satan, then ate the fruit, he took on the nature of Satan and lost his true identity.
All of Adam's children took on this sinful nature, separated from God.

All of Adam's children did not take on this sinful nature by their own individual act of choice but were born with this sinful nature. They acted IN ADAM when Adam acted because the whole human nature existed in Adam when Adam acted and therefore "BY on man's offence MANY be dead.......MANY were made sinners."

What you are teaching is that "by MANY MEN'S OFFENCES many be dead....many were made sinners." Thus directly contradicting the Word of God!

If we believe we are born again, we no longer have the sinful nature but are now sons and daughters of God.

Another false doctrine! Galatians 5:17 is addressed to SAVED person not lost persons:

Gal. 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

He is speaking in the present tense ("do") not the past tense! He is talking about christians "ye" not the lost.

Those who deny this fundemental truth have no concept of the basics of salvation or the basics of the Christian life or have any real understanding of the nature of sin or any basic understanding of progressive sanctification.

We have the potenial to sin, just like Adam had the potential to sin before the fall. The saved and the unsaved both have the same potenial to sin, because all are tempted. God trusts His children to choose not to sin.

Even if we do sin, we are not returned to the sinful nature, but are counted as God's children who He will chasten and teach and forgive because of the work of Christ, if you believe. Mercy and Grace.

The sinful nature EXISTS within every saved man and that is why Paul could say in the PRESENT TENSE "I AM" cheif of sinners not I WAS!

In fact, your very teaching demonstratess you are walking in the flesh as what you write is the product of the flesh not the Spirit of God (1 Jn. 4:6).

Satan wants us to believe we will always have a sinful nature, so the playing field is set up in our minds to his advantage. It fits with his plan, and he always bringing doubt. "Surely you will not die if you eat the fruit..."

To hold on to the belief that we will always have a sinful nature, is a lack of understanding of what born again into a new creation is. It's that simple.

Satan had control of your mind when you wrote the above! You are contradicting the Word of God and the Word of God has for its Author the Holy Spirit and He is not the Author of confusion. He will not write one thing and lead you to contradict what he says and you are contradicting the Word of God.

If you believe that temptation comes simply from WITHOUT you, you are deceived! There is something INSIDE you that has not been redeemed, that you must by the Spirit "mortify" put to death repeatedly in your experience but your polyanna doctrine of denial pretends it does not existence INSIDE you and thus you live in deception and not in reality.

 

[convicted1]

I don't know of anyone that believes that theory do you?

No. However, w/o God giving them a chance(choice), then they were born/created for hell.

 

[convicted1]

"BY one man's offence MANY WERE MADE sinners" - Rom. 5:19

"BY one man's offence MANY BE DEAD" - Rom. 5:15

"For as IN Adam ALL DIE."
" - 1 Cor. 15:22

All had to be "IN" Adam because that is where DEATH is.

Correct. "In Adam" we all die. What's "in Adam"? Our flesh. The soul comes from God. "In Adam" dies, meaning the flesh WILL die, regardless being saved or not. Only the soul dies(seperated from God) when sin is accounted to it(Ezek. 18:4,20).