The Pleadings of God

To whoever Bro Bill is,

1. This is not about Salvation or Election. God is talking to His Elect.

2. Never have Calvinists said that a person could not make moral choices. (at least not any of the regular Calvinist posters on this board.)

3. God's people always have a choice to obey or not obey God's Word. If there was no choice there would be no need for teachers, preachers or churches, we'd just all get elected and never sin again.

You're gonna have to do better than this.

 

The correct answer is #1.

As to option #2:

Calvinists do not believe inability is imputed. We believe inability is INHERITED. It's a corruption that comes to us because we are born of corrupt parents, who were born of corrupt parents, who were born of corrupt parents, etc. etc, and on and on....until you come to Mr Adam and his wife who corrupted themselves by making a nasty food choice when they lived on Garden of Eden Boulevard.

 

Amen, amen, and amen! An excellent post.

Man's inability to perform anything purely spiritually good is his own fault. Anyone that tries to blame God for man's problems is way, way, way off the mark.

Sometimes the misunderstandings of the doctrines of God's amazing grace, even by those who claim to have once advocated them, is truly mind boggling.

 

AMEN!!!Hardsheller

Bro. Dallas

 

The Doctrine of Original Sin
by Steve Cowan, Pastor
Immanuel Baptist Church
Fayetteville, Arkansas


When one looks out into the world, one of the most startling observations is that of the universality of sin. There is not one culture, not even one person, that has gone without committing wrongful acts toward God and man. In history, of course, one is prone to notice the evil done by important figures such as Nero and Hitler. Yet these are merely extreme examples of what is obviously a common tendency among all people. Even the most virtuous persons have not acted virtuously in every instance. At some time, everyone has acted selfishly, maliciously, or impiously.

The Scriptures, too, attest to the universality of sin. The Apostle Paul writes that "there is no one righteous, not even one" (Rom. 3:10) and "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). I Kings 8:46 says that "there is no one who does not sin." There can be no doubt that experience and Scripture both teach that sin is a universal occurrence among human beings.

Why is it that sin is so prevalent? Why cannot we find even one exception, one person (besides Christ) who has not sinned? The answer to this question is found in the Church's doctrine of Original Sin. This brief essay will discuss the meaning of original sin as well as outline the various ways in which this doctrine has been understood in church history. One of these ways will be shown to be the best view in light of the biblical data.
The Meaning of "Original Sin"

Original Sin does not refer to the first (i.e., Adam's) sin. Rather, it refers to the result of that first sin. Adam was created righteous and in God's holy image (Gen. 1 and 2). He had, as Augustine explained long ago, a perfectly free will; he was able to choose either good or evil. Yet, Adam used his free choice to choose sin (Gen. 3:16). There is no explanation as to why he so chose. All one can know is that his choice was freely made. Neither God nor Satan forced him to sin.

As a result of Adam's sin, the whole human race has been plunged into darkness. Man's whole nature has been corrupted so that all men are predisposed toward, and guilty of, sin. This is what is meant by original sin. As Anthony Hoekema explains, original sin includes both guilt and pollution. The guilt aspect has to do with the fact that all of mankind somehow participates in the sin of Adam. How this happens will be discussed later, but suffice it to say now that all men stand condemned before God because of the guilt they share with Adam. Scripture makes this abundantly clear in Romans 5:14-19. Paul writes that "death reigned from the time of Adam...even over those who did not sin by breaking a command" (v. 14); "the judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation (on all)" (v. 16); "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (v. 18); and "through the disobedience of the one man, many were made sinners" (v. 19). Also in I Corinthians 15:22 Paul writes, "in Adam all die." All of this shows that the spiritual and physical death suffered as a consequence of sin has been applied to all men because of Adam's one sin. This does not mean that Adam's descendants are being unduly held accountable for his sin. What is being said is that in some way (which, again, will be discussed later) all men participated in Adam's sin so that all are actually guilty.

The pollution aspect of original sin concerns man's sinful nature. This is the aspect that accounts for the universality of sin. Because of the Fall, man is no longer both able to sin and able to not sin. He is only able to sin. The entire inclination of his being is toward sin and rebellion. Man, as Calvin claimed, is "totally depraved." Jeremiah asserts that "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt" (Jer. 17:9; see also Mk. 7:21-23). Paul declares: "All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is none good, not even one" (Rom. 3:12, Ps. 14:2-3). Unregenerate men are slaves to sin (Rom. 6:17, 20; John 8:34). By his very nature, man is an object of divine wrath (Eph. 2:3).

Furthermore, man's mind has been corrupted (Eph. 4:18), and he cannot understand the things of God (I Cor. 2:14). This inherent corruption in man exists from the very first moment of his existence. David claimed he was "sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5), and Genesis 8:21 affirms that "man's heart is evil from his youth."

Of course, when it is said that man is totally depraved, this should not be taken to mean that people never do anything positive or good, or that one is always as bad as he could possibly be. All people occasionally do things that benefit others. What total depravity means is that even man's righteous deeds "are as filthy rags" (Is. 64:6). Nothing is done without some taint of sin; of what Jonathan Edwards called "enlightened self-interest." A person may do some outwardly good deed, but deep in his heart there is some motivating factor that serves the self. He does the good deed because it is expedient for himself at the time. Thus, for a deed to be truly good, in an ultimate sense, one's motives must also be good. Motivation is the crucial point at which everyone fails.

This problem of apparent "good" deeds can also be explained by the fact that man tends to describe goodness in relative rather than absolute terms. A man is said to be good relative to other men. For example, compared to Adolf Hitler, it would be fair to say that Winston Churchill was a good man. However, the Bible speaks of goodness relative to God. Compared to Him, no man, no matter how praise-worthy his actions, can be called good (c.f. Lk. 18:19).

So, the Biblical view of Fallen Man is that he exists in a state of moral corruption. His whole being is inclined toward sin so that he is unable, in his own power, to please or know God. He cannot even choose God of his own volition (John 6:44,65).

The Pelagian Heresy

The Doctrine of Original Sin, as outlined above, has not gone unchallenged, however. Perhaps the strongest opposing view (and one which often recurs today) was put forth by a British monk named Pelagius in the early fifth century. His view could be called the "imitation" or "sociological" theory of original sin. In actuality, this is not a theory of original sin at all, but simply an attempt to explain the universality of sin without involving Adam's descendants in their father's evil act. Pelagius held that Adam's fall did not pollute his descendants, nor were they guilty of his sin. Each person is born innocent just as Adam was, and is free to sin or not sin as he wills. The fact that all people do in fact sin is due to the bad example that Adam set for mankind. Every person inevitably imitates Adam's transgressions because he is born into an environment permeated by the sin of his predecessors. Pelagius was drawn to this view because he felt that original sin lead logically to the idea that mankind is unjustly punished for the sin of another. Therefore, he taught that each person started life in innocence and then sinned on his own before being condemned by God.

Nevertheless, the imitation theory must be rejected. There are several reasons for this:

1) It is contrary to Scripture. Nothing could be plainer in the Scriptures than the corporate solidarity of all mankind in the sin of Adam. The crux of the argument between Pelagius and Augustine on this matter revolved around the interpretation of the last phrase in Romans 5:12: "Because all sinned." Pelagius said that this phrase indicated that death came to all men because all men sinned on their own. Augustine believed it meant that all died because all sinned in Adam. Though there is nothing in the grammar of this phrase to preclude the Pelagian interpretation, the context clearly demands the Augustinian position. In verses 13 and 14 Paul states that death reigned over those "who had not sinned." On five occasions in verses 15 through 19, Paul asserts that condemnation comes to all men because of the one sin of the one man, Adam. Furthermore, throughout this passage, Paul is drawing an analogy between the righteousness imputed to believers because of the obedience of Christ and the death imputed to mankind because of Adam's disobedience. What is the point of this analogy if we do not really sin in Adam, but we are made righteous in Christ, the Second Adam?

2) It cannot account for the death of infants. If everyone is born innocent, and death is a punishment for sin, then there is no reason for infants (who have not sinned) to die. Yet, it is a fact that infants do die. This does not necessarily imply that deceased infants must go to Hell on the traditional view of original sin. It is possible that there is a special provision of God's grace for people who have not actually sinned. Nevertheless, the death of infants can only be explained if we assume they are not innocent of sin.

3) It begs the question. As R.C. Sproul points out, if everyone is born innocent, one ought to expect exceptions to the "universality" of sin. Why is it that no one ever chooses obedience if all are born with a neutral disposition? The appeal to societal influences (or imitation) is inadequate. How can society corrupt every individual until it becomes corrupt itself? And how can it become corrupt if there are some uncorrupt people who would choose not to corrupt it?

How, then, is Adam's sin imputed to all men? How is it that everyone is said to have participated in it? The two most prominent theories in this regard are the realist theory and the federal theory (sometimes called the "representative" or "direct imputation" theory).

The Realist Theory

Realism was held by Augustine and, perhaps, Calvin. It seeks to avoid, like Pelagius, the idea that someone can be held accountable for another's sin. Briefly stated, it claims that the guilt of Adam's sin is rightly charged to all men because all were actually present in Adam when he did it. Everyone, genetically speaking, was there in the loins of Adam. Therefore, since Adam physically encompassed all of his posterity, they are all guilty of his sin. Biblical support for this view is found in Hebrews 7:9-10, where Levi is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek because he was "in the body of his ancestor."

There are several problems with realism, however:

1) Hebrews 7:9-10 does not explicitly support this view. The author of the epistle qualifies his statement regarding Levi with the words "so to speak" (NASB), implying that his language is figurative rather than literal.

2) Realism does not really solve the problem of the relation between Adam's sin and his posterity. Even proponents of the view do not believe that everyone was present in Adam's body as individuals, nor do they participate in his sin personally. So, how can the whole human race really be guilty?

3) The analogy between Christ and Adam vitiates the realist theory. If there is no "realistic" or "genetic" connection between Christ and mankind, why must there be one between Adam and mankind? Everyone is not descended from Christ physically, yet his righteousness can be imputed to believers. Therefore, there need not be a realistic theory to account for the imputation of sin.

The Federal View

The federal theory is the only view that does true justice to the Biblical material. This view holds that when Adam sinned, he was acting as the legal representative of all mankind. He stands at the head of the human race as the prototype man. It is not without significance, therefore, that the name "Adam" is not only the first man's proper name, but can also denote "mankind" generally. Adam represents all men in the same way that an elected official is said to represent his constituents. He acts of their behalf, so that his "vote" in favor of sin was everyone's vote. Therefore, God imputes the consequences of Adam's sin--guilt and pollution--to all of his posterity. On this view, all of the Biblical statements about all sinning in Adam can be taken seriously, and without resorting to a realistic interpretation. We truly participated in Adam's sin, but in a representative rather that actual sense. The guilt mankind incurs is applied forensically and judicially.

The chief objection against this theory is that it is not fair. God would be unjust to let one man represent mankind on so serious an issue. Each person ought to stand on his own. This objection can be answered in two ways.

1) It assumes that God cannot choose a perfect representative. When voters choose someone to represent them the delegate may not accurately portray their views. When God chooses, however, one can be assured that He will choose someone who will perfectly represent his constituents. Adam acted as any man would have acted. To believe otherwise only reflects the extreme arrogance of fallen men.

2) It abrogates the analogy between Christ and Adam. Paul claims that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22). If it is wrong for Adam to represent mankind in the Garden, it is wrong for Christ to represent them on the cross. If each man must stand on his own in regard to the Fall, then each man must stand on his own in regard to salvation. That means that each man must work for his redemption--a clear repudiation of the Biblical teaching on salvation by grace alone.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Original Sin is an important aspect of Christian theology. It helps the believer understand the cause for the universality of sin and the way in which everyone inherits the guilt and sinful nature of Adam. It also shows man's need for redemption in Christ. Paul could not have said it better when he wrote: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:19).


For Further Reading:

Edwards, Jonathan. On the Freedom of the Will
Hoekema, Anthony. Created in God's Image
Sproul, R.C. Chosen by God

 

Well, since you did say please...

Why, in the Arminian scheme, would God plead and long for the salvation of those whom He already knows are going to end up in hell?

Arminianism has God in essence pleading for something that He knows will never happen, as well as making the fulfillment of God's longing dependent on man's fallen nature. It leaves the Creator subject to the whims of His creation, and the true God of the Bible is not subject to the whims of anyone or anything outside of Himself.

 

If God knows the end from the beginning, why would he plead for the salvation of those of whom He knows are not going to 'perservere'?

Bro. Dallas

 

1)We Calvinists are all the time arguing for the fact that God uses means.

2)The result for the person is still the same. We Calvinists are constantly arguing for the fact that people are unwilling. No one is stopping a person from coming to Christ Jesus in repentance and faith except the person himself. If he can come, Jesus will receive him without question.

 

Here is what Jesus said:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out."

This is not the only Scripture, but it is the scripture that even Paul draws upon to teach that 'he cannot deny himself...' I know this is not the full statement here, but the statement is referring to 'beleive and believe not' now if Paul is speaking only restricted to the Apostles, then he messed up, or someone edited his words and pasted them from another sermon or letter, because this is in vs. 13 of II Tim. 2.13, just three below vs. 10 where he speaks of the elect's sakes, So then Paul must not have known of the election of the Apostles, prophets, etc. and the need for the free will choice of all subsequent believers, upon this is hung the doctrines called Calvinistic, but more properly are the Doctrines of Grace.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

So basically Eternal life is not a true representation of what we have in Jesus, at least not until we die...is this what your teaching would lead to?

So, why did Jesus, or the Holy Spirit through inspiration not peck the author on the shoulder and say, BTW, you need to be sure and let everyone know that as soon as the church is established and the Apostolic Age is ended, then it is everyman for himself.

I can't buy this brother. I know you won't like what I am about to say; but I don't think you do either.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

To Whoever Bro Bill is,

To whoever Hardsheller is,

1. God's "elect" rebelled against him and were hardened. Read Ezek. 20 for just one example.

To be elect means that God chose to reveal himself to you. The nation of Israel was elect because God chose to reveal himself to them and through them to the world.

"Choosing life" has nothing to do with salvation? That's funny.

"I have commanded you today to love the LORD your God." I thought loving God had something to do with salvation?

Is it possible to be saved and not love God? No. Loving God will give them life, but choosing not to love God will lead to death.

You think this passage merely has to do with the moral choices of those who already have life? That's not what the text says, it is their choice to love God that will lead to their getting of life or death. You propose that they already have life as God's "elect" but that makes this passage nonsense.

Plus, Paul disagrees with you. He quotes directly from the this passage in Romans 10:6-8 in regard to faith leading to salvation.

Sorry, YOU are going to have to do better than that. </font>[/QUOTE]Here it is. Go back to the beginning of the passage of scripture that you lifted your "proof text" from and you will see in Deut 29:4 that Moses said to the people (Deu 29:4 NIV) But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind that understands or eyes that see or ears that hear.

He (Moses) then proceeds to reveal to the people the terms of the Covenant. These are the People of God (The Elect - The Chosen Ones)

In Verse 18 of chapter 29 he (Moses) instructs the leaders of the tribes to root out any unbelievers from their midst before this covenant is entered into by the Elect.

You say that to be Elect means that God chose to reveal himself to you. I say you're dead wrong.
To Be Elect means that God has chosen you for his Own and made you his own by his Saving Grace.

 

Well, maybe.....but I probably don't agree with your exact interpretation of that verse.

Well, sort of, maybe, kind of....I believe that our sin nature causes us to sin and it causes us to be totally depraved. That sin nature is inherited from our father Adam.

I have no clue how you come to this conclusion from the premise. It just doesn't follow.

Well, God is certainly the one who set up that system whereby children inherit the characteristics of their parents. So total depravity is the natural consequence of sinners procreating under that system.

Well, do you believe that Adam's sin (or actually, the sin nature inherited from Adam) made people unable to keep God's law perfectly? Because that's what it's talking about when it says "Choose life" in the verses you quoted in your opening post.

God IS having mercy on them all---working among Jews and Gentiles in turn as He unfolds His plan for human history.

BTW, "imputed" means that something is counted towards someone or put in their account. So when a Calvinist says Adam's sin is imputed to us, they mean that the disobedience of Adam in the garden is put on our account, so that we are born with that sin already written on the roster of our sin. So before we actually start committing our own sins, and adding to the list, we already have that naughty boo-boo written on our slate. This is because Adam represented us and so his disobedience is counted as our own.

Imputation of Adam's sin, then, really has nothing to do with the sin nature or total depravity.

What happens to us through Adam, and what happens to us through Christ work in the same way, but in opposite directions. So it is having Adam's disobedient act written on our slate that sets it up so that Christ's perfect obedience can be written on our slate. It is because Adam represents us in that first disobedient act that Christ can represent us in His obedience.