calvinists - just this one thing

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Aki, Apr 29, 2003.

  1. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    i think i understand most, if not at all, of the Calvinist doctrines, together with the small differences among calvinists as i've read here.

    this is not to argue in the usual way to say that you are biblically wrong, but just to clarify a matter.

    here it is:

    when a child is born, he is imputed of the sin of Adam, and therefore was condemned without any respect of his volition. God sovereignly imputed the child with Adam's sin.

    being condemned, the child also acquired the sin nature, which, to you, makes him incapable of receiving Christ, and gets him to sin more. so then he has acquired this nature to sin without his choice of it.

    therefore, nowhere does an individual's volition enter when it comes to his condemnation, nor in being incapable of accepting God's salvation. and if he happens to be a non-elect, he never has a chance to get saved. worse, he was helplessly condemned by means which is not his own, nor due to his volition.

    with this, i will not ask you whether it is love, just, nor righteous for God. i already know what you will say here.

    but i just want to clear this up with you: is a non-elect responsible for his own condemnation? or was he made responsible? i know he is guilty, but is he guilty because of what he did? or because of what another one did? did his volition played a role for him to get condemned? or was he sovereignly designed by God to get condemned without any respect for his volition?

    if you say you are a double predestinarian, then that explains everything. but if you are not, then my question stands.
     
  2. aa0310

    aa0310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would just like to add an important fact which is for the most part misunderstood.

    It is claer from Scripture, that NO ONE is BORN a sinner, but with a sinful human nature. This can be seen from passages like Isaiah 7:16, "for before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good...". Likewish in Romans 9:11, "for being no yet born, neither having done any good or evil..." There must therefore been a time of innocence for a baby/young child, where they have not been able to commit any wrong. For to be able to commit wrong, there must be the ability in the choice to commit right. But, here we read that there is a time (only God know when in ones life) where the young child has not comitted any good or bad, and therefore cannot be condemed for doing nothing! By definition, a "sinner" is someone who has "committed" a sinful act! So, it must follow that ALL who die before this "age of understanding", regardless if they are elect or non-elect, will be saved!
     
  3. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't agree with this, if men possess the sin nature, how can they truly "know" what is right?

    Again, the scripture does not say that.

    'To know to do good and do it not is sin.' In the above "definition" sins of ommission are dismissed, perhaps you didn't mean to do this, but I disagree with the statement as it stands.

    This is true of the elect, but certainly we cannot assume to say that God has 'increased' the number of his elect; on what basis would God change?

    Bro. Dallas
     
  4. aa0310

    aa0310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Were you then born-again at birth? If not, then no doubt like the rest of us, you sinned BEFORE you were born-again! Unless you believe that an elect person has the nature of God in them before they are actually saved! Just because one has a sinful nature (by the way, even all born-again believers still have the old sinful nature in them!), does not mean that they are not capable of doing right. Are you trying to say that an unsaved person cannot do ANY right? Can they not speak the truth at all? Even an unsaved Roman Catholic, who bellieves in the Trinity, Deity of Jesus Christ, etc, is going so in their unsaved state! I think that Calvinists have got it so wrong to take this Total Depravity doctrine to the extreme. With this teaching it makes the unsaved (non-elact) not responsible for their actions, and therefore their sins, since, according to Calvinism, they are no capable of doing right! This makes the Scripture teaching of human responsibility, null and void!!!
     
  5. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you think of Heb. 12.23:

    '...and to the spirits of just men made perfect,'

    is this not to teach us that we can follow after justice even in our lost condition, but that we are not 'made perfect' in this way, for if being 'just men' is to be taken as what has now rendered any 'perfect' why is the apostle presenting these two ideas in opposition to one another?

    I believe that all are born sinners because of the sin nature, I do not accept the theory that any are to become sinners only after they first commit a personal sin either by commission or ommission, but that the sin nature is ours, I believe this is why some are seen to die in infancy, if death is the wages of sin, then for what reason are they visited by the angel of death, except that they are partakers of that nature and by that nature they are made sinners? this is what I believe.

    God Bless.
    Bro.Dallas
     
  6. aa0310

    aa0310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    What theory? This is FACT! How can someone be said to be a "sinner", when they have done nothing wrong? Are you saying that the sins of Adam were passed on to the whole of mankind? Are we to be judged by our own sins, or is it on the basis of Adam's sin? How could David in the Old Testament say for sure that he would join his baby that died in heaven, unless of course he believed at all babies go to heaven if they were to die! There was no way that he could have known that his child was one of the elect, anymore than a Pastor who believes in your "theory", know for sure that all his childern will be saved! The Lord Jesus says that the Holy Spirit, when He would come, "would reprove the world of sin...because they believe not on Me" (John 16:8-9). How can a baby "believe" or "reject" Jesus?
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    What theory? This is FACT! How can someone be said to be a "sinner", when they have done nothing wrong? Are you saying that the sins of Adam were passed on to the whole of mankind? Are we to be judged by our own sins, or is it on the basis of Adam's sin? How could David in the Old Testament say for sure that he would join his baby that died in heaven, unless of course he believed at all babies go to heaven if they were to die! There was no way that he could have known that his child was one of the elect, anymore than a Pastor who believes in your "theory", know for sure that all his childern will be saved! The Lord Jesus says that the Holy Spirit, when He would come, "would reprove the world of sin...because they believe not on Me" (John 16:8-9). How can a baby "believe" or "reject" Jesus? </font>[/QUOTE]We have no means of 'knowing' of the salvation of others, our children included, in either system. Can we know as another individual knows?

    Do you suppose that to 'sin' is always an active verb? So, if I will refrain from being a drunkard, refrain from murder, refrain from engaging in adultery, then I have successfully 'not sinned', so what need do I have of your saviour? your system continues to leave the lost world lost because they can produce such lists and walk off to leave you speaking in "your self-righteousness" because it is evident they do not partake of this active sins. The Christian religion is not a means to reform 'society' in the way it was promulgated during the 1800's; it is meant to regenerate the heart, is this the heart of a morally capable man that is in need of regeneration? This is double talk brother.

    God Bless.
    Bro. Dallas
     
  8. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Bible is clear that the sins of Adam have been passed down to all of mankind. We sin because we are natural born sinners from conception. One of the unfortunate things that Adam left us with. :(
     
  9. aa0310

    aa0310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please give me the Scripture reference(s) where it says that the sins of Adam have been transferred to us

    Regards
     
  10. aa0310

    aa0310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes.

    From: www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0239.htm

    If any of you want to know what I preach every day, and any stranger should say, "Give me a summary of his doctrine," say this, "He preaches salvation all of grace, and damnation all of sin. He gives God all the glory for every soul that is saved, but he won't have it that God is to blame for any man that is damned." That teaching I cannot understand. My soul revolts at the idea of a doctrine that lays the blood of man's soul at God's door. I cannot conceive how any human mind, at least any Christian mind, can hold any such blasphemy as that. I delight to preach this blessed truth—salvation of God, from first to last—the Alpha and the Omega; but when I come to preach damnation, I say, damnation of man, not of God; and if you perish, at your own hands must your blood be required. There is another passage. At the last great day, when all the world shall come before Jesus to be judged, have you noticed, when the righteous go on the right side, Jesus says, "Come, ye blessed of my father,"—("of my father," mark,)—"inherit the kingdom prepared"—(mark the next word)—"for you, from before the foundation of the world." What does he say to those on the left? "Depart, ye cursed." He does not say, "ye cursed of my father, but, ye cursed. "And what else does he say?" into everlasting fire, prepared"—(not for you, but)—"for the devil and his angels." Do you see how it is guarded, here is the salvation side of the question. It is all of God. "Come, ye blessed of my father." It is a kingdom prepared for them. There you have election, free grace in all its length and breadth. But, on the other hand, you have nothing said about the father—nothing about that at all. "Depart, ye cursed." Even the flames are said not to be prepared for sinners, but for the devil and his angels. There is no language that I can possibly conceive that could more forcibly express this idea, supposing it to be the mind of the Holy Spirit, that the glory should be to God, and that the blame should be laid at man's door.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Romans 5:15(NASB)
    15 ...For if by the transgression of the one the many died...

    Romans 5:16(NASB)
    16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation...

    Romans 5:17(NASB)
    17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one...

    Romans 5:18(NASB)
    18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men...

    Romans 5:19(NASB)
    19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners...
     
  14. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken,

    i see your name many times here, but i don't think we've "met". anyways, you seem to be the only one who replied with my question, as it is quite inapplicable to others.

    anyways, with your response, the same question remains. that is, man is condemned at birth because he was sovereignly imputed of Adam's sin with no consideration of his volition. added to that is the sin nature, which again, man does not gain out of his own will but seminally. and such nature is the one that causes man to sin.

    with all due respect to you, your reply did not suffice. it made some assertions, but it did not touch the meat of the issue. i went to the site you linked, but it touched personal sins, and based man's condemnation there, and that each man would not receive God's salvation. and yet the question is why is that? why is it that men sin? why is it that man would not accept God's salvation? it's because of the sin nature, which no man desired to acquire at birth. man cannot accept salvation because he was born with no ability to. and he was in that state of inability not because of his own will.

    a non-elect was not tried for his volition when he is imputed of Adam's sin. neither is his volition became an issue when he receives the sin nature. come birth, he automatically gets spiritually dead. so, once again, is he to be blamed? you may say that it is not God who is to be blamed. ok, taken. but should the non-elect be the one to blame? if so, how?

    [ April 30, 2003, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Aki ]
     
  15. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    OK, We know what Paul said on the subject, but what did Jesus say about sin and its origin?
     
  16. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Folks, do you realize that sin is not a factor in the God's Judgment of all mankind? Sin is not even a primary consideration yet we waste a tremendous amount of time discussing sin and its origin. It simply does not matter in the end.

    The word of God says:
    Atonement (expiation) pays for, reconciles the responsibility for, or takes away the sins of the world, believers and unbelievers alike, elect or not.

    For that reason, sin cannot be a factor at the judgment! With sin removed as a factor for Judgement, that leaves only the faith condition of the "defendant" before the Judge. The Judge's verdict we are told goes like this: Unbelievers are sentenced to be cast into the lake of fire; believers receive pardon and are given over to Jesus the Christ for Eternity.

    The Word also says that man's works will be tested as if by fire. That which is good will come through the fire like refined gold, silver, or like precious stones; and that which is bad will be consumed in the manner of wood, hay, and stubble leaving only ash. But the person who's works are tested will be saved as if from a fire. Saved to what? The judgment of God. With sins paid for, and works tested, that leaves only the faith condition of the "defendant" to be judged. Therefore Salvation is through faith alone.

    It is not rescuing the sinner that is important, it is making believers that is important. Just as all mankind face that judgment, all mankind can become believers. All can come to Jesus of their own free will, seeking Him of their own desire and power. When you are at bottom of a well, what power does it take to look up seeking rescue? When you are hanging at the end of your rope, what can you do but seek rescue? No, you don't have the power to save yourself, but you can certainly seek salvation from the one who saves. Christian redemption is not a trek to Mecca!

    The faith condition of the person determines his destiny at the judgment.
     
  17. aa0310

    aa0310
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey Yelsew, Would you consider yourself a born-again Christian? The reason I ask, is because your last post says:

    What is the whole purpose of salvation, if it is not God providing atonement for mankind from sin and its consequences? What was the death of Jesus for? What did He shed Hid blood for? Scripture has concluded that all are in sin, that the wages of sin is death, both spiritual, and physical, especially the second death. Jesus clearly says that the Holy Spirit would judge the world of SIN, because they refuse to believe (accept) Him as the ONLY Saviour! The wole of salvation is to restore the pre-fall relationship between God and man, which was the consequence of sin! If sin is not a "factor" in God's judgement of mankind, then ALL of mankind will be saved! I think that you are in very serious danger with your views, which are clearly heretical, and which could lead others who read this stuff, fall into grave error!
     
  18. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    sin is not a factor in God's judgment? well, that depends. there are those who believe that sins of the unbelievers will be recalled come judgment. on the other hand, there are those believe that no sin will be recalled come judgment, since Christ paid for the sins of the whole world already.

    this topic was designed to clarify one thing with the calvinists according to their teaching. therefore, it is imperative to first consider their teaching and then ask them what they teach regarding a condition given their belief. with that, it is important to give time in dicussing sin and its origin, as the design imposes.

    it is important to consider sin and its origin because this plays a large role come judgment when one considers the calvinist doctrines. and one of its role is to clarify: is a non-elect responsible for his own condemnation, given the imputed sin/guilt and the seminally passed sin nature?

    some have answered in other posts: "why do we question God?" but it is not the question here. the issue here is "what do calvinists have to say regarding the question?" however, such a reply can also be considered an answer. that is, double predestination.

    however, as Ken's reply and the link he posted states, it isn't double predestination, though the link did not deal with the imputed sin and sin nature, only personally committed sins, to say that it is man's fault he is condemned. herein then does the question remain to be answered, since even before a man's personal sin he is already condemned due to something which is not of his own volition, and that he actually commits sins because of the sin nature that he did not choose to have.
     
  19. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki,

    I found the following the following article to be extremely helpful to me a few years ago. Perhaps will help to answer your question as well. [​IMG]

    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
     
  20. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I don't think you guys read my post. You took the opening paragraph only. Look at the rest of it. If Christ paid the penalty for sin, sin is removed from the criteria for which man is judged, leaving only the faith condition of man for judgment! Thus, each "defendant" before the Judge is judged fairly against God's standard, which is belief in him and even the name of His only begotten Son. Therefore Salvation is by faith alone and nothing else.

    I challenge you to consider the ramifications of Atonement. If you are honest you will see that my post is correct.

    And Yes I am born again! I thought the moderators made it quite clear that a poster's salvation is not a matter for debate here.
     

Share This Page

Loading...