The Origin of Sin--PART III

[HankD]

If we are born depraved without the ability to do good, how can we be responsible for failing to do good? Not only is this unjust, it is nonsensical. Can you expect a person born blind to see? Would it be just to punish this man for his inability which he had no part in?
I find it incredible that anyone could believe this!

Read my post again winman, I never said God holds infant human babies responsible or accountable for what they are.

They are responsible and incur guilt for personal sin when they are mature enough to discern good from evil.


HankD

 

[HankD]

That is easily proved wrong. It is very sinful to want to have sex outside marriage, and it is a sin to eat too much, that is called gluttony, and can result in severe health problems. However, it is not sinful to desire sex within marriage, and it is not sinful to eat reasonable amounts of food to maintain good health.

Do you deny that Jesus came in the flesh?

Again winman re-read my post, I said to satisfy our normal and natural appetites apart from the revealed will of God is sin.

e.g. Marriage (one man, one woman) is the will of God for the gratifying of the desires involved. Outside of holy wedlock it is sin.

No winman, you know I do not deny that Christ came in the flesh.

I declare before heaven and earth that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
He was born of a woman under the law. in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

This passage you mention is in reference to those who were saying that Jesus Christ was not human but a theophany or a kind of phantom or the end product of a string of emanations from God and not human.

Others were saying that Jesus was only a man and that "the Christ" descended upon Him at His baptism.

Gnosticism in many forms abounded in John's day.

The contemporaries of the apostles (Papias, Clement and others) wrote prolifically of these who denied the humanity and/or deity of Jesus Christ. These writings are important because they appealed to the apostles writings as Scripture proofs against them.

Gnostics were also fond of mingling helenistic philosophical/mythical writings with the Scriptures.

There were many variations of the errors above, some of which persist to this very day.

For whatever it's worth to you, the writings of the early church fathers are now to be found online. For the most part it is a hard and weary read.

HankD

 

[DHK]

The scriptures say we have a conscience.

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Yes, we were born with a conscience. God gave conscience to mankind so that he would have guilt when he sins. This is evidence of the depravity of mankind; evidence that he is born with a sin nature. All over the world mankind is born with a conscience to remind him of his sinfulness. Don't you see how the two go together?

Secondly, they do by nature the things contained in the law.
However, they also do by nature blame or accuse others when the break the law or things contained in the law. That is the sin nature that they are born with. They, like all men, cannot keep the law. No man can. They can't keep the law because we are born with a sin nature.

Paul said some Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law, which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness. Note how our thoughts can either accuse us of wrong, or excuse us (rationalize) from sin.

Yes, all a result of our sin nature. We are born with it, and are born to do the very sins we are accustomed to do--accustomed to do from birth. A fig tree is accustomed to producing figs; an apple tree is accustomed to producing apples, and mankind (right from birth) is accustomed to doing evil. That is the teaching of Jer.13:23.

This overthrows Total Depravity as Calvinsim understands it right there. Yes, man has lusts and desires that tempt him to do evil, but he also has the conscience and law written on his heart that pulls or tugs him to do good.

I am not a Calvinist. I believe we are born with a sin nature. I believe in the depravity of man. But unlike the Calvinist I don't believe in the Total Depravity of man, not as a Calvinist would define it. Lusts and desires: Adam and Eve had them. But they didn't have the sin nature we do. Lusts and desires: Christ had them, but never gave into them. He was tempted as we are, but did not sin. We often are tempted but sin. Christ did not sin. That is the difference.

If you do not like that, take it up with God, that is what Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the scriptures. And this is very straightforward and easy to understand, not some scripture I had need of wresting to make it say what I wish.

You are the one not understanding the Scripture which states so plainly that we are born with a sin nature. Jer.13:23; Eph.2:1-3; Rom.2:14,15.

Now, that said, I do believe man develops a sin nature. The more we sin, the easier it becomes to sin. The conscience can become scarred or seared, it can become calloused, or hardened.

This doesn't make any sense. One cannot develop a sin nature. You either have one (from birth) or you don't have on at all. How can you sit on the fence and be persuaded by evolutionists that man evolved from innocence to sinner. That is pure unadulterated evolution. We didn't come from tadpoles or monkeys either. Are they also innocent? Sin natures don't evolve. We either have one or we don't. If we do have one, it is from birth. If we don't have one, then we are simply responsible for our own sins, and entire sanctification is possible on this earth like Finney tells us. You must choose between one of the two systems. Sin natures don't evolve.

1 Tim 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

This is easily observed by everyone. The first time you commit a particular sin is the most difficult. The next time is a little easier, the third time easier still. A person will rationalize their behavior, or will put the conviction of the conscience out of their mind. After awhile, the conscience bothers a person no more at all, the conscience has become deadened like seared flesh that can no longer feel sensation.

The context is those who teach "doctrines of demons." Are you sure you want to pursue this line of reasoning when you have taken this verse so far out of its context?

And that is what Jeremiah is speaking of when he speaks about the leopard changing his spots, or an Ethiopian changing the color of his skin. These are persons who are so accustomed to sin that their conscience has become seared. These are persons who are obstinate in their rebellion toward God as Pharaoh was.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.[/quote]
No you are clearly wrong, trying to wrest one part of that verse out of its context and twist its meaning to fit your unorthodox doctrine.
Leopards are born with spots (not stripes). That is their nature. They cannot change. They will never be able to change. They are born that way.
Ethiopians are born black, not white. They cannot change their skin. They are born that way. It is their nature. God made them that way. There is nothing that they can do about it.
Man is born doing evil, born accustomed or used to doing evil, right from the womb. From the womb he has gone astray doing evil speaking lies. You don't want to accept that, but that is what the Bible says. Those are the words of God, not my words. Man is born with that nature, a sin nature. It is an undeniable truth. He is born with a nature that cannot do good, but only evil. This is what the Scriptures teach.

You have to read the whole verse, not just the part that agrees with your personal beliefs. Jeremiah is speaking of persons who are accustomed to do evil. Accustomed means to learn something, to be taught, to learn by habit, look it up in the dictionary.

You are not the only one that wants to fit one definition to one word to get your way. A fruit tree is accustomed to bringing forth fruit and not vegetables. A pear tree is accustomed to bringing forth pears and not peaches. This is the way the word is used.

So, I do believe we develop a sin nature, we all go astray, we all corrupt ourselves.

Your thinking has been corrupted by evolution. Sin natures do not evolve. Either we have one or we don't.
Either you believe in the Oberlin Theology of Finney, or you believe man has a sin nature from birth. I don't see any other option. Frankly IMO, the person that denies the sin nature of man (man's depravity from birth) has not only attacked the doctrine of the nature of man, but has attacked (inadvertently perhaps) the virgin birth of Christ.

I do not agree with Finney that a man can rehabilitate himself of his own power. I absolutely think man needs the grace of God. Man needs his sinful corrupt heart to be washed of it's sins and be given new desires.

So, do not compare me to these men, I do not believe as they do. I believe all of us need the grace of God to turn from evil and do good.

As long as you do not believe that man has a sinful nature from the womb, or inherited from Adam, then you have much in common with Finney. The Bible doesn't teach evolution when it comes to sin natures.

 

[Winman]

DHK, that is ridiculous, of course a sin nature can be developed. No one is born a bank robber, you have to actually rob a bank to be a bank robber. No one is born with a cigarette in his mouth, you have to choose to start smoking to become addicted to cigarettes. Your line of reasoning is nonsensical.

And this has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever, I am a young earth creationist.

In fact, it is evolutionists that hold your exact position, they argue that through some genetic defect (the fall) some men are born with a propensity to become criminals. They used to measure people's skulls or the gap between the eyes believeing they could determine who was born with these criminal tendencies. Today they say men are born to be alcoholics. The homosexuals claim they are born that way and it is not a choice.

It is in fact liberals and evolutionists that hold your exact views and deny that men are responsible for their own actions, blaming God saying they are born that way

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[HankD]

DHK, that is ridiculous, of course a sin nature can be developed. No one is born a bank robber, you have to actually rob a bank to be a bank robber. No one is born with a cigarette in his mouth, you have to choose to start smoking to become addicted to cigarettes. Your line of reasoning is nonsensical

You are looking at individual sins which prove the what the bank robber IS. His choices prove his nature.

Birds fly, it is their nature, but it takes time after coming into the world for their bird nature to realize their native ability.

No one has to teach a child to do evil, it comes naturally. It is universal among children.

Even before they can discern right from wrong they will harm each other with intent, lie, etc.

As parents we teach them they have done wrong when they hurt another. We do not teach them how to do wrong, how to sock each other in the face, bite, pinch, etc. That ability and desire comes along with the little one.

As their discerning ability develops, they incur guilt realizing right from wrong.

Similarly with the analogy of trees.

Trees take time to be able to blossom and bear fruit.
One apple appearing on a tree proves the tree was an apple tree all along.

The fruit proves the "kind" or nature of the tree which was passed on down from the first apple tree.

Romans 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:​

HankD

 

[HankD]

Hank, Romans 5:12 does not say that either sin or death are inherited. It says death passed upon all men BECAUSE all men have sinned.

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:

This verse does not teach that sin or death are inherited. It says sin passes upon all of us because all of us have sinned. Our death is our own fault, not Adam's.

Hi again winman.

Neither the AV English or the original TR type koine language mss contains the word "because" in this entire passage.
None of the koine words used for the word "because" in koine appears anywhere in this passage.

The last part of this passage literally says:

"and thus unto all men the death passed through, upon which they all sinned"​

You should also note that it does not say "will sin" (future) but "sinned" (aorist - simple past tense).

I might also note that according to your rebutal, that our death is our own fault because of our sin then it seems to me that a newborn infant would not die which we know does indeed happen. Same scenario with a miscarriage or a still born.

HankD

 

[Winman]

Hi again winman.

Neither the AV English or the original TR type koine language mss contains the word "because" in this entire passage.
None of the koine words used for the word "because" in koine appears anywhere in this passage.

The last part of this passage literally says:

"and thus unto all men the death passed through, upon which they all sinned"​

You should also note that it does not say "will sin" (future) but "sinned" (aorist - simple past tense).

I might also note that according to your rebutal, that our death is our own fault because of our sin then it seems to me that a newborn infant would not die which we know does indeed happen. Same scenario with a miscarriage or a still born.

HankD

Hank, babies die because the curse is upon all creation. Animals die, but they cannot sin, plants die, but they cannot sin. Even non-living entities are under the curse, mountains erode, stars burn out, metals corrode and rust away. This curse WAS brought through Adam's sin, and has been atoned for through Christ.
I do not deny for one second that children do wrong. But like Paul they are alive until they mature enough to understand right from wrong. At this point they are accountable and come under condemnation, just as Paul said when the law came, sin revived and he died. This is exactly what I believe Paul is explaining to us.

 

[HankD]

Hank, babies die because the curse is upon all creation. Animals die, but they cannot sin, plants die, but they cannot sin. Even non-living entities are under the curse, mountains erode, stars burn out, metals corrode and rust away. This curse WAS brought through Adam's sin, and has been atoned for through Christ.
I do not deny for one second that children do wrong. But like Paul they are alive until they mature enough to understand right from wrong. At this point they are accountable and come under condemnation, just as Paul said when the law came, sin revived and he died. This is exactly what I believe Paul is explaining to us.

Yes, many years ago when I was in the service, I began to read the Bible. Genesis was interesting but when I got into Exodus, Leviticus, etc. I remember that feeling of death and condemnation (until I got to the Gospel of John).

I'm willing to leave it at that brother winman.
It has been a stimulating debate.


HankD

 

[Aaron]

Hank, babies die because the curse is upon all creation.

Infants are cursed.