Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Now there is one using his head for something other than a hatrack of Augustinian dogma. :thumbs:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Nature of Man
- Thread starter JSM17
- Start date
HP: Now there is one using his head for something other than a hatrack of Augustinian dogma. :thumbs:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I can certainly see where you get your notions. Out of thin air. You manufacture the ends you attach to others beliefs. You do not carry them out to their logical conclusions. Let me illustrate.
HP: That is an outright falsehood. There is no salvation for innocents DHK. Salvation is for moral agents, not innocent individuals who never reach the age of accountability. I would agree that some may NEVER reach the age of accountability. That does not mean that they will get to heaven on their good works. Where in the world do you get from what I have said to this preposterous end?? Scripture simply does not tell us the place in heaven God has for infants and those that are mentally unable to reach the age of accountability. Mark it down once for all. If they are in heaven, it is NOT because of any works they did. God in His grace can do with them as He so desires, but they are just as incapable of moral uprightness as they are of sin. Good works is entirely out of the question. Nothing in my theology would in any way insinuate or state any such notion as you proclaim it does.
How about a little simple Christian fairness DHK?
If men are born with a sinful nature, who is to blame? Surely not the sinner, for he had no choice in being born with a sinful nature. The sinner is no more to blame for being born with his nature than he is for being born with blue eyes. But, who is the author of our nature? Who is our Creator? Who formed us in our mother's womb? Who gave us life and breath and all things? To talk of men being born with a sinful nature is to ascribe sin to God because God is the Author of our nature.
This doctrine is infinitely dishonorable to God. Men know it would be cruel and unjust to condemn them for the nature with which they are born. They know that they cannot justly be worthy of the wrath of God for being born with a nature which they did not choose and which they could not avoid. They know that God would be a tyrant and his government tyranny if this grotesque doctrine were true.
The sinner could not help but stumble over a doctrine that represents God as being cruel and unjust. According to this doctrine, God created us under such physical laws as would cause us all to be born sinners, and then condemns us for being born sinners! The sinner who really believes this doctrine is compelled to regard God as infinitely cruel and unjust. It is not a matter of whether he chooses to regard God as unjust. His irresistible convictions of justice, given to him in his nature by God, will compel him to regard God as unjust. He may not voice his convictions, but he will still hold them secretly nonetheless.
And as long as he feels that God's government is unjust and that he is not to blame for his sins, he cannot really repent. Repentance implies that the sinner blame himself for his sins. It implies that he admit that God and his government are righteous and that he has been all wrong. It implies that, in this spirit, the sinner turn from his sins and submit himself to God's government. But all of this is impossible while the sinner believes a doctrine that causes him to excuse his sins and to regard God's government as cruel and unjust.
This doctrine is infinitely dishonorable to God. Men know it would be cruel and unjust to condemn them for the nature with which they are born. They know that they cannot justly be worthy of the wrath of God for being born with a nature which they did not choose and which they could not avoid. They know that God would be a tyrant and his government tyranny if this grotesque doctrine were true.
The sinner could not help but stumble over a doctrine that represents God as being cruel and unjust. According to this doctrine, God created us under such physical laws as would cause us all to be born sinners, and then condemns us for being born sinners! The sinner who really believes this doctrine is compelled to regard God as infinitely cruel and unjust. It is not a matter of whether he chooses to regard God as unjust. His irresistible convictions of justice, given to him in his nature by God, will compel him to regard God as unjust. He may not voice his convictions, but he will still hold them secretly nonetheless.
And as long as he feels that God's government is unjust and that he is not to blame for his sins, he cannot really repent. Repentance implies that the sinner blame himself for his sins. It implies that he admit that God and his government are righteous and that he has been all wrong. It implies that, in this spirit, the sinner turn from his sins and submit himself to God's government. But all of this is impossible while the sinner believes a doctrine that causes him to excuse his sins and to regard God's government as cruel and unjust.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: My answer would be: All sin involves selfishness, but not all selfishness involves sin.
OK, Then that means, that either:
1. All those infants are morally depraved and are in need of salvation--thus no such thing as innocent, or:
2. All those "cute little 'innocent' infants" are condemned to an eternity in Hell, because:
--"There is no salvation for innocents according to HP.
Those are the only options I see that you have left open.
These so-called innocent individuals will go to hell then??
From your definition of sin and a sinner.
From your denial of a sin nature.
But mostly from this statement of your theology:
"Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."
This is a false theology that the Bible does not teach. It implies that one could die without sin, and thus go to heaven without sin. That describes a religion based on works. Can't you see that? Christ died for sinners, not for those who are inherently righteous, as you describe.
Sin is not "acquired." One is born with a sin nature, and because of that nature he sins. He is born into the devil's family and must therefore be born into God's family. He needs to be born again.
We are not Catholics. We do not believe in Purgatory or Limbo. A person will either go to Heaven or Hell (eventually the Lake of Fire). There are no other options.
As long as your theology is:
"Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."
It implies a theology of salvation by works.
It implies that an individual could live for ten or twenty years and not sin. Thus if sin is not acquired and the person dies, why would he not go to heaven? If he does go to heaven, it would be by his works wouldn't it? Christ paid the penalty for our sins. But if an individual lived without sin as you contend is possible, then that person doesn't need the work of Christ. He can make it on his own, by his own works w/o Christ. That is what your theology is saying as long as you contend:
"Sin is not acquired until one is drawn away with his own lust and enticed."
However, if man is a sinner from birth, as the Bible teaches, then Christ must die for the sins of all mankind from his birth to his death. All his sins are atoned for once he accepts Christ as Saviour, and you need not worry about the age of accountability because all of his sins are under the blood--even the sins committed at the age of one.
Are you sure of that? Do you know their hearts?
There is plenty in your theology that infers a theology based on works.
Last edited by a moderator:
HP: My dog knows as much about crossing a line as your one year old. I suppose “all” includes him as a sinner as well? (Just kidding)
In order to sin one has to understand the intrinsic value of a command. Your one year old is responding to punishments and rewards. Such a toddler has not concept of the intrinsic value of crossing the line, and is far from moral accountability. If morality is to be predicated of an intent, one has to understand the intrinsic value of the command apart from punishment or rewards. Small children have no such developed moral understanding.
Since you neither know me, my wife, nor my children, you can make no such judgment. You are completely ignorant of this situation. You neither observed or were capable of the least little tidbit of information while this learning process was going on. You cannot judge or make any informative judgment as you have just attempted to do.
Thus what you have said is simply wrong.
The small children I am speaking of were totally able to have a certain amount of moral understanding, especially at the age of one. To say that they cannot, is a very condescending remark. Go into the Women's public forum and make that kind of statement and see the kind of reaction you will get.
You have never been around one-year olds???
Curious what you do with the verse stating by nature we are at enmity with God...
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Define nature. Why does it have to be something inherited? Why not something developed? We see a wicked man and say it is in his nature to be wicked. Are we mandating that the individual has been that way from birth? We see a man that is great at baseball. We say that it is natural for him or that baseball is simply in his nature, being a natural born ball player. Are we saying that he was in reality born a ball player, or that he simply developed those skills at an early age?
Certainly all that come to the age of accountability and sin have developed a nature to do so. That again is a far cry from the Augustinian notion that sin lies in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will where it rightfully belongs.
I don't think I should define nature, I think Scripture should. How does it? Why does my 14 month old try to hit my 3 year old when he takes her toy? When did she "develop" this? It started months ago, btw...as soon as she could consciously realize what he was doing. It wasn't a learned behavior. Also, if we have no sin nature, it must be conceivably true that another human being besides Christ can live a sinless life, and that person's death could also atone for sin.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Did you just forget to give us the Scriptural definition of the word ‘nature’ or did I miss it?
No, if you read my post you will see I asked you to give the scriptural definition of nature. You have defined it as something learned, and I would like you to suppor that with ScriptureHP: Did you just forget to give us the Scriptural definition of the word ‘nature’ or did I miss it?
I will give my thoughts after I see yours...
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: How long have I been with you Webdog? :smilewinkgrin:
Seriously I see no direct definition of nature in Scripture. What I will not do is confine the word ‘nature’ only to mean that which one is born with as part of their physical constitution. To do so is to place restraints upon the word that common parlance and reason simply do not.
So...you don't see a definition of nature in Scripture...yet you want me to believe your definition of it :laugh:
Let's start with the definition of "nature"
na·ture
Pronunciation:\ˈnā-chər\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born — more at nationDate:14th century1 a: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b: disposition , temperament2 a: a creative and controlling force in the universe b: an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual3: a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics <documents of a confidential nature> <acts of a ceremonial nature>4: the physical constitution or drives of an organism ; especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature5: a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity)6: the external world in its entirety7 a: humankind's original or natural condition b: a simplified mode of life resembling this condition8: the genetically controlled qualities of an organism9: natural scenery synonyms see typeWhat from this alludes to something learned, and not inherent?
Now from Scripture. I think Romans 11 gives us a good understanding of what nature is...
Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
God is showing His power in doing what is contrary to a natural process, not a learned process. He put the wild olive (gentile) in with the natural branches (Israel). Another way to view this is God gives us a new nature that is not natural and is also contrary to a natural process (sin nature).
It is in our nature to stand upright, talk, form relationships, etc. While it is a learned behaviour to do these things, it is in our nature from birth to arrive at this. Being a sinner is the same principal...we are not born sinners, but it is in our nature to do so when the time arrives.
Gup20
Active Member
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
The scripture doesn't say David was conceived by a sin, it says "in" sin; his mother being an unredeemed sinner when she conceived.
In Pslam 51, the word "shapen" - the Hebrew word chuwl - means to "travail in pain and bring forth". The word "iniquity" is the Hebrew word avon which means "punishment of iniquity".
So the literal translation would be: "Behold I was brought forth in pain under the punishment for sin (which is death)." The whole verse is probably a reference to Genesis 3:16, as it artisticly echos the verse:
Gen 3:16a Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
Odd... you used evidence supporting my argument to prove yours. Yes... the whole chapter IS in fact a personal psalm denoting his own sins - not those passed to him by his mother. Actually, the Bible says that sin had no power over us until The Law came.
Rom 7:8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.
9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.
Indeed, did enter by Adam. But death reigned over those who didn't have the same sin as Adam, meaning Adam's sin was not passed on, but Adam's death sure was.
Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
You present a lot of conceptual data regarding "sin nature", but no scripture supporting that concept. Is it possible that the purpose of the virgin birth was because God was the father?
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [wilt].
Yeah... he sweat blood because he was really looking forward to it.
I agree with this... but it doesn't help to make your case. How was Jesus able to die if death is the punishment for sin, and Jesus had never sinned? How was Jesus able to feel pain and suffer prior to his death? These are all the curse - a punishment for sin. Since Jesus had no sin, he would not have been able to die unless death had been passed onto him biologically. He certainly didn't get death from "Dad's side of the family".
Romans 5:12 is clear:
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Don't degrade the justice of our Saviour so much.
Are they sinners? Then they deserve hell.
Scripture?
I would modify this to say "a person is not a sinner until he sins". Obviously he is accountable, but innocent people account to righteousness. The question of whether "age of accountability" exists is a separate question from "are they a sinner". I'll remain black and white in this area until someone can show me where scripture supports a shade of gray. If you have committed a sin, you are a sinner and deserve death and hell... regardless of your age.
We are in 100% agreement here. I think we differ only on when 'accountability' kicks in.
The KJV is weak in its translation here, and does not support your stand.
That is not what the verse means.
Look at a couple of other translations that give a more accurate rendering of the verse:
Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me. (God's Word Translation)
--This is quite literal and gives a very accurate rendering. David knew he was a sinner, even from birth. He was born a guilty sinner, and that is what he was confessing. His mother is not in the picture, at least not concerning sin.
Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,
a sinner the moment my mother conceived me. (The NET Bible)
--Again it is clear that David knew that he was "a sinner the moment his mother conceived him." The words are plain; couldn't be any clearer.
No, a sinful nature passed to him by his father. For good reason it is called "the Adamic nature."
You are taking Scripture out of its context. This is Paul's personal testimony, as he describes his fight, his battle with sin. It is a battle with his own sin nature pitted against the new nature he received from Christ. This chapter in itself shows how each of us have a sin nature. Paul describes it.
Your statement is absolutely wrong. Did Adam and Eve have law? Absolutely. They had the law of not eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. All men have law. All men have sin natures--natures that make us prone to sin, prone to break God's law. Even the Gentiles which have never heard of God's law break his law, for they have God's law written on their hearts, and their conscience bear testimony to it. (Romans 2:14,15)
Not Adam's specific sin; but Adam's sin nature. Adam was part of a curse, and that curse fell upon all mankind, not just upon Adam. Adam means man. All mankind was cursed, just as the earth forever would be cursed, not just the earth of Adam's time.
Death reigned because sin reigned. The wages of sin is death. All have sinned. All die. All have a sin nature, and therefore all sin.
Of course. If man was the father he would have a sin nature. If Joseph was the father he would inherit the cursed line of Jehoiachim, and not be eligible to sit on the throne of David. Paul in Gal.4:4 states that He was "made" of a woman, and came in the fulness of time. It was also the fulfillment of prophecy. The virgin birth fulfilled many purposes. Sir Robert Dick Wilson wrote an entire volume on the Virgin Birth. You ought to read it.
These verses show Christ's humanity. He was fully man and fully God at the same time. He came to die. He left his throne in heaven because of his love for mankind.
God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son....
That God was Christ. Christ is deity. God, manifest in the flesh died for our sins. The verses that you quoted demonstrate his humanity. Do you believe that Christ is God?
No, if he was not virgin born he could not have been fully man. He was fully man because he, as a man, (or human) began life right from conception. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. In another place--conceived by Mary. Because of Mary he was totally man. Because of the Holy Spirit he was totally God. He was the God-man. He died a painful death, because he was man. Because he was God, he didn't have to die; he could have avoided it, but out of love he didn't.
Yes, it is quite clear. It is clear in that it teaches that all mankind has a sin nature; a sin nature that brings death. If man was born innocent without sin, there would be no need for death. It is sin that produces death. The wages of sin is death.
Yes, all mankind deserves hell, including infants. It is only because of the mercy and grace of God that any of us will make it into heaven--infants included.
2 Samuel 12:22-23 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
--David was assured that he would see his child in heaven. The dead infant could not return back to David, but someday David would die and be with the child.
I was quoting HP's theology. Check the GW's translation of Psalm 51:5 and note that that is an obvious mistaken theology.
There is no such thing as an "innocent person." Again check Psalm 51:5. We are born sinners. We are not innocent. We are all sinners.
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
"There is none righteous, no not one."
If you are born you are a sinner. (Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Rom.3:9-12; 3:23)
All have sinned; all are born sinners; all are born into Satan's family.
Can a man really be guilty for possessing the nature with which he is born? Can God show him mercy, and pardon his guilt if it is true that he has suffered the misfortune of being born into this world a sinner?
What kind of grace would it be that would save a man from the misfortune of being born into this world a sinner?
It would not be grace that would save him; it would be justice. And how could a man sincerely repent and condemn himself for his sins if he believed that he was born a sinner and could not avoid sin because of an inborn sin nature?
All the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are emptied of their meaning and become contradictory and confusing if the doctrine of original sin is accepted.
What kind of grace would it be that would save a man from the misfortune of being born into this world a sinner?
It would not be grace that would save him; it would be justice. And how could a man sincerely repent and condemn himself for his sins if he believed that he was born a sinner and could not avoid sin because of an inborn sin nature?
All the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are emptied of their meaning and become contradictory and confusing if the doctrine of original sin is accepted.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: If in fact God is going to punish man for a fate he had nothing to do with and no way to escape on his own, to offer him an escape would indeed be justice and not grace. Only as man is seen as a sinner due to his own intents, and that voluntarily without force or coercion from anything including his nature, is salvations offer seen as the grace it is. Having granted to man the opportunity to do right, but man refusing to choose in accordance to benevolence, to offer such a willing rebel an opportunity of escape is indeed grace and not justice. Certainly original sin does change the opportunity of salvation from grace to mere justice.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: No one disagrees that all have sinned. The question surrounds the nature Christ and ourselves, the natures we are born with, and if in fact that nature is rightfully denoted as sinful. I do not desire to labor over semantics, but if we are not sinners then our nature is not sinful. It may have a proclivity to sin, a desire to sin, but a proclivity and a desire is not sinful in and of itself. Sin is birthed as we yield ourselves to that selfishness not before. James points this out and tells us not to err in regard to this point. Temptation to sin and sin itself are not synonymous. We indeed are born will depraved natural sensibilities, but they serve as temptation or drawing to sin, and are not properly denoted as sinful. Sin lies in the will, not in the natural propensities, the natural proclivities. Sin is not conceived until the will forms intents in agreement to the influences of the propensities, and that subsequent to moral agency.
Marcia
Active Member
Do you deny that man is born with a sin nature? A sin nature is the consequence of Adam's sin that causes us to be born with not only a tendency to sin, but a desire to sin and go against God.
Man is born in rebellion against God - he only wants to serve himself.