The Implications of Original Sin

[The Biblicist]

HP:First Job 15:14

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

First, who is the author of this verse? Scripture informs us that Eliphaz stated this. Is he a reputable source of truth? Not according to God. He was using this argument to accuse a man that God said was “perfect and upright, and that feared God, and eschewed evil. Eliphaz is not hardly a reputable source for the establishment of Church doctrines. Beside this, this Scripture in no way indicates original sin, but rather is only making a statement as to the universality of sin in Eliphaz’s eyes. Enoch, Noah a preacher of righteousness, and Job are all examples that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that righteous men were indeed among the living, one staring him in the face. If Eliphaz could not recognize righteousness standing before him, is it any wonder he would have a such poor opinion of the rest of the world? Again, this was Eliphaz, the miserable comforter, confused in his thinking and wrong in his assertions, and judged by God as such, that made this statement. We would do well to formulate sound doctrine from different sources.

And, if we take this verse literally, why would it not apply to Christ? God forbid.


Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
All that can be made out of this passage, is that a physically depraved women could only bring forth physically depraved offspring. Job was not dealing with the notion or moral depravity in the least in this passage. He was dealing with the dying and frail state of humanity. His whole focus of this passage was upon the frail PHYSICAL state of humanity. What he says is simply, How could a frail dying women bring forth anything other than frail dying offspring? No one can.
Biblicist is clearly long on straining gnats and short on close attention to reasonable context in the passages he tries to support the false notion of original sin.

Love how you reversed the order in which these verses are found in Job! If you had dealt with Job 14:4 AND VERSE 5 (which you didn't mention for good reasons) you could not have made your argument against Eliphaz because Eliphaz only repeated in chapter 15 what Job already acknlowdeged in chapter 14.


However, it shows how devious your mind operates. Why didn't you interpret Job 14:4 with Job 14:5???? Oh, it would have exposed your smear job as a smear job instead of honest exegesis. I get it!

4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

Verse 5 demonstrates that Job is speaking of men in general and not merely PHYSICALLY depraved but MORALLY depraved as "clean" and "unclean" are used consistently by Job in reference to men as MORALLY RIGHTEOUS and MORALLY UNRIGHTEOUS! Oh but don't mind that little detail because then your false doctrine might suffer!!!

 

[Jerry Shugart]

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.

Let us look at the following statement from The Westminster Confession of Faith and then we will examine Shaw's remarks on it:

"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).

How do the Calvinists say that we are utterly disabled? Here Robert Shaw tells us exactly what the Calvinists teach in regard to 'how":

"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 says that 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.

Then he makes it plain that God is directly responsible for depriving man of original righteousness:

"...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."

So if the Calvinists are right and if God had not punished mankind then mankind would not have been deprived of "original righteousness." If the Calvinists are right then without God's punishment then the effect of Adam's sin would have been a fig fat ZERO! Without the punishment which the Calvinists claim was inflicted on mankind then mankind would not been deprived of original righteousness.

Now if you disagree with what I said about Shaw's words then tell me exactly how I am wrong.

Earlier I quoted the following passage and then commented on it:
"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.

To this you said:

Not quite, but I want you to point me out a commentary that agrees with your assessment on this issue. I personally have never read a commentary on 2 Cor that would agree with you.

In a commentary written by the Dallas Seminary faculty we read the following words about 2 Corinthians 3:6-8: "the letter kills (cf. Rom. 7:10-11)" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament [Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1983), 561).

Here are the verses which are referenced to find the meaning of the words "the letter kills" according to the Dallas Seminary faculty :

"I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death" (Ro.7:10-11).

Here is the commentary on those verses:

"As a result Paul died spiritually (cf. 6:23a) under the sentence of judgment by the Law he had broken" (Ibid., 467).

Of course the Law is described by Paul as the "ministration of death" and since the "life" spoken of in the same passage is in regard to "spiritual" life then it is evident that the "death" is likewise in reference to "spiritual" 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).

Now please tell us what the words of Paul are referring to at 2 Corinthians 3:6-8 and specifically what kind of "death" is he making reference to. And in what way did Paul "die" when he spoke of being put to "death" by the commandment at Romans 7:11.

Thanks!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Jobs comment in 14:4-5 state absolutely nothing in like manner as were Eliphaz's comment in Job 15: 14. Job, in chapter 14, was speaking directly to the physical state of man. Neither verse 4 or verse 5 address moral depravity in the least.

On the other hand, Eliphaz's comments were indeed aimed at the moral state of Job as he viewed it. He was accusing Job in chapter 15 of sin. No way had Job accused himself or even suggested that sin lied at the heart of his demise. Eliphaz would have gave Job a high five if Job would have been speaking of moral depravity in Chapter 14, but instead he tried to convince Job in chapter 15 that it was indeed a moral fault from which his troubles came. He was accusing Job in that chapter of moral impurity, as the other miserable comforters had done as well. That is far from what Job was doing in chapter 14. Eliphaz obviously was incensed at Job's testimony of being upright in heart and retaining his integrity and refusing to say his problem was a product of sin.
To say, as Biblicist has, that Eliphaz's remarks had been stated by Job is to completely misread Job's remarks in 14 and Eliphaz remarks in 15. One dealt with the frailty of the flesh and the other was a clear accusation against Job of sin. Eliphaz and his remarks of sin being at the heart of Jobs problem were false and proven that way in the end by God.

Neither Job 14 or Job 15 in any way support any such notion as original sin, regardless of the personal accusations against me as a person by Biblicist, impugning my motives and accusing me of having a 'devious mind."

One can certainly tell when another's arguments are skating on broken ice. Out come the personal attacks.

 

[The Biblicist]

Jobs comment in 14:4-5 state absolutely nothing in like manner as were Eliphaz's comment in Job 15: 14.

You think you can just make a comment without providing one scintilla of evidence and thus dismiss the text:laugh::laugh:

Both speak of birth of man! Both use the same moral language "clean" and/or "unclean" in description of the nature giving birth and being birthed.

Job 14:1 1 ¶ Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble... 4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;......

Job 15: What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

The "trouble" which occurs after his birth in the world (14:1) is attributed to his unclean source "bring a clean a clean out of an unclean" and his nature when "born of a woman" (Job 15:12).

Job, in chapter 14, was speaking directly to the physical state of man. Neither verse 4 or verse 5 address moral depravity in the least.

That is only because you refuse to accept the definition of "clean" and "unclean" found in the book of Job!

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 33:9 I am clean without transgression, I am innocent; neither is there iniquity in me.

Job 11:4 For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

Your whole perverted commentary is put to rest by simply reading every text in the book of Job where the terms clean and unclean are found which shows that Eliphaz presented the condition of man at birth in perfected harmony with God's view:

Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

Job 9:30 If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean;
Job 11:4 For thou hast said, My doctrine is pure, and I am clean in thine eyes.
Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. {can…: Heb. will give}
Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
Job 17:9 The righteous also shall hold on his way, and he that hath clean hands shall be stronger and stronger.

Job 36:14 They die in youth, and their life is among the unclean

How much clearer can it get??? However, God has not given you the ability to understand or receive this truth no matter how clear and how much evidence is placed before you, Jerry and Gup (Mt. 13;10-11)!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

I believe my comments were sufficient for an unbiased reader to see your comments above are not in accordance to reality, so I will leave it there.

My grandfather duties are calling me.:thumbs:

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe my comments were sufficient :

To condemn your position thoroughly to unbiased readers. Another excuse to simply dismiss Biblical evidence rather than confront and deal with it honestly and objectively!

 

[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.

 

[12strings]

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.

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

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.

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.

1. I don't think we can compare God's "trust" of someone with our trust of someone. God KNEW Adam would not only be tempted, but WOULD SIN! If I know for certain someone is going to betray me, I don't trust them. I don't see how we can say God trusted Adam when he knew he would turn from him.

2. Are you saying that once saved, a believer is just as likely to sin or not sin as adam was? If so, why is it that we sin so much?

 

[plain_n_simple]

Are you saying that once saved, a believer is just as likely to sin or not sin as adam was? If so, why is it that we sin so much?

Read slowly, I said we have the potential, or ability, to sin. Not the likelyhood. Jesus was tempted and had the potential to sin, not the likelyhood, but chose God instead.
This is how He showed us as a man we can resist the temptations.

 

[plain_n_simple]

1. I don't think we can compare God's "trust" of someone with our trust of someone. God KNEW Adam would not only be tempted, but WOULD SIN! If I know for certain someone is going to betray me, I don't trust them. I don't see how we can say God trusted Adam when he knew he would turn from him.

Total love is also total trust. You have it backwards, we cannot compare our trust in someone like Gods trust in someone. God did not know Adam would sin, only that he had the opportunity to. He trusted him.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

You simply cannot divorce HOLINESS from God's Love and that is precisely what you are doing! There is no such thing as Godly love without holiness (1 Cor. 13:5-8).

All of Adam's children took on this sinful nature, separated from God.

Prove it! Where is your scripture that says they had to take it on rather than born sinners by nature????? Prove Job 14:1,4-5 and Job 14:12; Psa. 51:4-5; 58:3 are erroneous???

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

That is absolutely and completely false! (Rom. 7:14-25; 8:12-13; 1 Jn. 1:8-10; Gal. 5:16-25).

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.

In order to spout such nonsense you cannot have any clue to what sin is, what righteousness is or what salvation is.

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.

No one suggest that we will "ALWAYS" have a sinful nature! Ever hear of "glorification"??? You are deceived!

1 Jn. 1:8 ¶ If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Stop yelling. Are you a Calvin follower sir? I think that would explain this.

 

[The Biblicist]

Stop yelling. Are you a Calvin follower sir? I think that would explain this.

I am a follower of Jesus sir! And that does explain it! I don't explain away scripture or pit scripture against scripture or revise it to suit my own theology! That is precisely what you must do to teach what you are teaching!

I am not yelling, I am emphasizing!

 

[plain_n_simple]

Do you agree more or less with the teachings of John Calvin! If so, which teachings to you agree with! And which do you not agree with!!

 

[plain_n_simple]

I understand you when you say that you follow Jesus.

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you agree more or less with the teachings of John Calvin! If so, which teachings to you agree with! And which do you not agree with!!

Frankly, I have never read John Calvins Institutes or Augustine's works on grace.

I know I would disagree with much of his soteriology if Presbyterianism represents him correctly.

I beleive that every aspect of human nature has been corrupted by sin but no man has reached full corruption by sin which is progressive and distinctly different between men.

I believe that election is to salvation not because of foreseen faith but that it is wholly of grace and therefore although conversion is conditioned upon repentance and faith, election is not conditioned upon anything by man. I believe the means of salvation is chosen by God as much as the persons of salvation.

I believe that election is God's mery toward otherwise unwilling and resistant God hating sinners in spite of themselves while merely allowing others to continue according to their own free choice to continue in their resistance and rejection of the light. Apart from the elective mercy of God none would come to Christ freely by choice.

I believe that the atonment of Christ is universal for all mankind in that it redeems all men from the "sin" of the world so that no human being will stand condemned before God for any other sin but their own and thus securing the salvation of dying infants who have no personal indivdiual responsible sins. I believe that Christ in regard to all the Father gave him to redeem laid down his life for his friends, for his sheep, for the elect and every single last one will be saved eternally.

I believe that no man is coerced to choose anything contrary to their own will but salvation occurs when God gives a new heart with a new will that freely responds to new loves and new hates which are opposite to what is found in the unregenerate heart of man.

I believe that every single solitary person the Father has given to the Son for the purpose of redemption (not for perdition) comes to the Son in faith and is kept by the Son in faith until judgment day and only false professors fall from their profession of faith. Saved people can fall from the doctrine/understanding of grace due to false teachers but not from their position of grace before God.

I hope this answers your question. I did not waste space or time in giving supporting scriptures as it would do no good anyone.

 

[The Biblicist]

Are you saying that once saved, a believer is just as likely to sin or not sin as adam was? If so, why is it that we sin so much?

Read slowly, I said we have the potential, or ability, to sin. Not the likelyhood. Jesus was tempted and had the potential to sin, not the likelyhood, but chose God instead.
This is how He showed us as a man we can resist the temptations.

May I ask what scripture makes you think that Christ had the potential to sin?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: No theoretical possibility of sin? No theoretical possibility of being tempted.


Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

 

[plain_n_simple]

He lay down His godly authority to become like us, and was tempted 40 days. If he could not of possibly sinned because God would not let Him, then He had no choice. He chose to obey and became our example. Potenial meaning opportunity, or choice. Thank you HP for verse.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Excellent point Plain n simple:thumbs: