Dead Spiritually as a Result of Adam's Sin?

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

Come on DHK, are you trying to tell me you have never read this verse before? Paul is speaking of when God spoke to Rebekah in Gen 25.

Gen 25:21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

Jacob and Esau were quite alive and struggling in Rebekah's womb when God spoke to her. This is what Paul is speaking of in Rom 9:11 and says neither Jacob or Esau had done any evil. Babies do not sin.

 

Oh, I should have included Rom 9:10 to show you Paul was speaking of Jacob and Esau AFTER they were conceived in verse 11.

Rom 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

 

Yes. Key words: according to election. And again "but of him that calleth." This was prophetic, talking of the purpose of God in these two individuals having nothing to do with their sin nature at all. For you to extrapolate any doctrine concerning original sin from these verses is to do injustice to the Word of God.

Infants have a sin nature. I didn't say they outright sinned within the womb. But they do have a sin nature. How do you get away from this, except by taking Scripture out of its context and trying to make it mean something it doesn't.

 

Avoiding context again:
according to election might stand.
Read carefully. The verse is about the purpose of God, not about the depravity of man.

 

They are conceived but yet still INSIDE the womb in verse 11. "being not yet born"

The issue is whether GOOD or EVIL works played any part in God choosing Jaocb over Esau. "not of works"

Because they are still in the womb HIDDEN from men it is impossible for them to DO any works good or evil.

The issue is not what they ARE by nature but rather what they could DO to deserve election (Jacob) or deserve non-election (Esau).

This text cannot determine what they ARE by nature, it can only deny they could DO anything negative or positive to merit or demerit election.

 

Now you remind me of others who must jump through hoops to make their view work. Fact is, Paul is speaking of Jacob and Esau after they were conceived in their mother's womb, and said neither had done any evil.

You don't get it, we are not judged because we are born in a corruptable body that tempts us, Jesus had this same kind of body and nature and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

We are judged for what we DO in this body.

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Babies die because they are born into a corrupt world. Animals die for the same reason. Even unliving things wear out, corrode, and fade away. Stars burn out and explode, mountains erode, metals rust and corrode... This corruption was passed on the world because of Adam's sin in the garden, God cursed the ground.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

But what is amazing is that the greatest curse of all (if your view is correct) is that God has cursed every man to be born dead in sin and utterly depraved morally but absolutely failed to mention it. He said not one word about this. Amazing!

Nowhere in all the scriptures does God say he changed man's moral nature so that he would be depraved. In fact, the scriptures say we are made in the image of God long after Adam's fall.

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Jam 3:9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

The scriptures DO NOT say we are born depraved and dead in Adam's sin. They say man is made upright, we are God's children, we are made in the likeness and similitude of God. It is when we knowingly and willingly sin that we spiritually die like Adam and Eve did.

Augustine was in error. He didn't know the scriptures and he didn't know what he was talking about. Others who followed him like Luther and Calvin were in the same error.

 

Have you ever looked at embroy in the womb just conceived? What do you think it can DO in that preborn body that can be judged either good or evil????

You do have something working above the shoulders don't you? It is hard to believe anyone has anything working above the shoulders that would argue that conceived embroy's in the womb are examples where we can judge good and bad WORKS in their body?

This is the very point of Paul - they can't DO anything that can be judged GOOD in their bodies in the womb much less EVIL! Think!

According to your logic we could use this text to prove infants by nature are not GOOD because they did nothing GOOD in their bodies in the womb! Pleeeeeeeeeeeease give me a break!!!

 

If you think a fetus can sin, it is you that has something wrong above the shoulders.

And it is YOU that has argued Psa 51:5 that says we are all sinners at conception. Now you are changing your tune because I have proven to you with Romans 9:11 that unborn children do not sin.

I was born at night, I really was. It was 12:50 A.M. according to my birth certificate. But it was not LAST NIGHT.

Go find a simpleton that you can fool, you are out of your league.

 

Let me clearly illustrate the absolute folly of using this text to support your false doctrine. The children could do nothing GOOD any more than they could do anything EVIL! hence, the text is MOOT in proving either "GOOD" or "EVIL" in regard to their nature.

Second, the text does not address their nature but their ACTIONS while IN THE WOMB! It denies they can do GOOD actions (whooops so much for your theory). It is folly to judge the nature of the WORKS of a fetus in the womb!

 

If you notice, the size is always applied to scripture, not my comments or statements to others.

Well, except for this illustrarion of course...lol.

It has nothing to do with trying to make myself look "correct" or, making others look wrong.

The scripture itself will do that for both of us. It is a matter of whether we are willing to admit it or not.

As I read your posts, it seems that your only complaint is the doctrine of original sin itself. You several times state that man does sin, you just will not admit that man has no other recourse. That is what original sin is all about.

Okay, I will address these individually.

Is it?

Romans 5

18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.


The judgment is condemnation. If man is condemned by Adam's sin...how is that different from saying that because of Adam's sin...all men are condemned.

I would just like to point out that by inserting a pause...I do not think this makes me right either.


Of the three uses of this word, twice in Romans 5, the third states that "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ."

You will not change the meaning of this verse to deny that men are born in a condition of condemnation which is a result of one man.

Agreed. However, it is the condition of death that is in question.

That is the heart of this debate, I believe. Death is a conscious condition that does not necessitate either cessation of existance nor a cessation of physical life.

We are told that man has "no life" outside of Christ. Men are said to be alienated from the life of God.

In short, life, and the life in view, comes only from God, and through Christ, specifically His death.

That is simply what these verses say. That will not change.


Romans 5

12Wherefore, 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:


Paul had already stated this truth here, yet, a few verses later, it is forgotten and written off.

Sin entered the world, making this statement:

...in error.


Continued...

 

Gen 25:22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.

Jacob and Esau were struggling together in Rebekah's womb. They were not a mass of cells. It is BECAUSE of this struggle that Rebekah inquired of God. And it is then that God gave his promise to Rebekah.

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

And this is what Paul is referring to in Rom 9:10-12

Rom 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

It is you that is demonstrating that you don't know the scriptures. You should put those Reformed writers down and read the Bible, then you won't make mistakes.

 

Receiving the gift does not relieve man of his condition already previously stated.

One man. All men. It's right there.

From the beginning, it has always been about God's will for man, whether that was in spoken, written, or Living Word.

Adam disobeyed what he was told.

Basically, Eve did too, however, being deceived, it is Adam that it is said brought condemnation upon all men.

But, I know what you are saying here, and I agree that apart from hearing the word of God, man cannot be saved.

Some of the Angels did not sin. So it could be argued that original sin...originates with Satan, though in view in this discussion is the focus upon Adam and man.

Also, man was created "good," however, his condition is said to be not good, in that he was alone. Is this sin? No, but it presents the idea that lack of sin, such as a sin nature in Adam, does not mean that all is good, such as his condition.

But when we look at his condition after he disobeyed God, it is called sin (his actions), and it is said to have entered the world.

But you really prove my point: if you say that Adam did not have a sin nature, then he must have been forced to disobey, right?

All that aside, it has to be admitted that because we are descended and like Adam, we have his nature.

Right?

So, if we have his nature through birth, we will act even as he did. Until he sinned, there was no previous sin in the world. We could look at Satan's actions, and certainly declare them sinful, in deceiving Eve, but again, that is not the focus of the discussion, man is. And Adam in particular.

So the bottom line is we inherit a sin nature twofold, 1-by the very fact that we are descended from Adam,; 2-because scripture declares it to be so. Sin entered the world by one mans offense, and the result was death, judgment, and condemnation.

The only means to escape that is belief in Christ, who died that He might give man life.

The implication of denying this has only one purpose, and that is to imply that man can have life by another means than Jesus Christ.

The law has been offered as the primary means of having life. Why is that? It is obvious: it is to establish bondage to the law, and that is the very heart of this issue.


Continued...

 

But SIN is distinguished in scripture from...sins.

Even those that have faith sin, but only those who have faith in Christ, have believed, responded in repentance, been converted through the new birth by which they are made NEW, now having the life of God, reconciled to Him, and guaranteed eternal life by the earnest of the Spirit...have been forgiven their sin.

In place of SIN is the righteousness of Christ.

Agreed.

I believe something very similar to this. Though I would not go so far as to make Adam a "type of Christ," except that he was the "first" of something.

The analogy breaks down because Christ did not sin to show His love for man. Particularly specific is that both Christ are said to have done something that no-one else did. Adam: brought sin and judgment upon man, and Christ paid for that sin and took upon Himself the judgment that all men received due to Adam's sin.

I also "speculate" that Adam, knowing that despite the fact that Eve was deceived, would still be held accountable. Again, pure speculation, but I wonder if Adam did not decide to share the fate of his wife, and this made him decide to willingly disobey God.

Neither does a baby walk...but he will.

Neither does a baby talk...but he will.

A child's innocence can not be used to picture man to deny his nature, and that which he will ultimately do because of that nature.

Does a parent excuse a child from his guilt because he does not understand that he cannot tell his parents...no?

Is this child in fact guiltless? Can a child rebel against his parents wishes and this not be called disobedience? We see this in a very young age. Children "naturally" will do what they are told not to do.

Right? Somewhere their nature will result in disobedience, and this is true for all babies. So because they have not yet physically reached a point where they can physically rebel, that does not mean either they won't, or that they are guiltless when they do.


Continued...

 

You are not getting it, receiving the righteousness that Jesus provided is conditional, you must believe to receive it. In like manner, the judgment that Adam introduced is also conditional, you must sin to die. The wages of sin is death. Sin brings forth death. But some falsely teach you are born dead and this brings forth sin. This is the exact opposite of what all scripture teaches. If you can't see this, I can't help you, not that you need help, that is just a figure of speech.

Exactly. We are born with the nature of a man. Man cannot possibly conceive of being saved through Christ. Man will always seek to save himself through works. Go to the deepest jungle and you will see men praying and offering gifts to idols. This is how the natural mind thinks. But that does not mean natural man is unable to hear God's word and learn from it. Natural man can hear of Christ and believe it is the truth, and when he does he is born again of the Spirit.

Now, if you are a Calvinist, you do not believe natural man is able to hear God and believe, but Galatians 3:2 proves he can.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Calvinism teaches you are regenerated by the Spirit so you are able (or even willing) to believe. Paul shows different, this verse demands the answer that a man first hears the word of God and believes to receive the Spirit. Total Depravity is false doctrine.

I don't quite follow you here. Satan was perfect in the day he was created, he did not have a sin nature.

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Satan was perfect, yet he was able to sin. You don't have to have a sin nature to sin, only free will.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Adam and Eve were "very good" the day they were created. They did not have a sin nature. But, they had free will and decided to believe Satan's lie (Eve) and fell.

A sin nature is not necessary to sin.

Where do the scriptures say that? Eve chose to sin, and then Adam followed her. Satan has no power to compel, he can only suggest and tempt man.

Yes, we have the same nature as Adam, and Jesus had the same nature as the seed of Abraham (not Adam)

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Jesus came in the flesh and had the same exact nature as the seed of Abraham (the Jews). He was made like his brethren in ALL THINGS. He could be tempted, in fact, he "suffered" being tempted. It was a real struggle for him to fight off temptation.

Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

Jesus had to resist the temptation to sin, he resisted unto blood.

It is not our nature that makes us sin, all our nature can do is tempt us. It is our will that causes us to sin. Tell me, did you ever HAVE to sin? I didn't. I have sinned many, many times, but no one forced me, I chose to sin. And why? Lack of faith. If I had really believed God I would not have sinned. We think we can get away with sin, we think nothing bad will happen. Perhaps this is why Adam sinned, Eve did not immediately fall dead. But this is speculation about Adam.

We are born flesh with desires and lusts that tempt us, and a natural mind. We do have the law of God written on our hearts, but we have competing thoughts that arise from the flesh.

Agreed.

Agreed, there is no other name given among men under heaven whereby we might be saved.

The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The law points out our sin and makes it undeniable.

But if you are born dead in Adam's sin it is meaningless. It serves no purpose and was not necessary. The scriptures could simply tell us we are all dead because of Adam and need Christ.

What difference does it make if you lie or steal if you were dead the moment you were conceived? You can't be MORE dead.

 

Two things to consider:

1-this is most probably a reference to Esau's "despising of his birthright," not a reference to the sin nature;

2-Esau, and Edom, are used to picture a people that are sinful, such as Babylon, Egypt, and Sodom are. It pictures the world system, which is out of relationship with God.

So, not a good point, in my view.

Not sure what you mean here.


Judges 13:5

King James Version (KJV)

5For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.



Psalm 58:3

King James Version (KJV)

3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.


This would imply that the wicked are separated from God from the womb. The difference between these and such as Abraham for instance, is one obeys, the other does not.

As does this:



Isaiah 48:8

King James Version (KJV)

8Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

And one more...


Luke 1:15

King James Version (KJV)

15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.


Continued...

 

Agreed.

Does not deny man's natural proclivity to sin. If Adam sinned, how much more his children!

Again, neither can he walk. Will you deny also that men walk?

Just not true. A child's first thought when he comes into this world is that of pain, when the doctor slaps his behind to stimulate birth.

You really do not want to say that the aborted child does not feel pain either, do you?

We can understand that a child thinks...before birth.


Continued...

 

God's judgment is not ours to decide. Children "grow up" faster today than when I was a kid.

A 12 year old "child" can willingly in full knowledge of what he is doing take a shotgun into a classroom and kill his peers.

Is this "child" innocent of murder?

Now whether man or God finds him guilty and sentences him to the penalty for that crime, is not ours to determine, unless we are either a judge or jury member, or God.

I have studied scripture, and in every turn man is condemned.

They do not peform the righteousness of God, because they are bereft of a nature that would allow such. A divine nature. He has only a human nature, and a human spirit.

Glad to hear it, for that is what Christ taught.


Continued...

 

Giant font is not necessary!

Why do you try to wiggle around scripture? It says they had done neither good or evil.

Actually, Jacob represents Israel, Esau represents Edom, read Malachi 1:2-3. This is where Calvinists misrepresent scripture in Romans 9, Paul was speaking of nations, not Jacob and Esau as mere individuals.

You are entitled to believe whatever you choose to believe.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, this is concerning Samson.

No, it says they go astray. You can't go astray unless originally you were not astray. We are often compared to sheep who go astray, but a sheep that never belonged to a flock cannot go astray.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

How can you be RETURNED to Jesus if you were born dead in sins separated from him? Words have meaning, returned means to go again to a place you have been before. I can't return to Utah, because I have never been there. I can return to California, because I have been there.

You also have to interpret the rest of the verses literally in this Psalm.

Psa 58:
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.

First, there has never been a baby born with the ability to talk. And they do not have the mental faculties to tell a lie. Second, they are not poisonous like a snake, they do not have great teeth like a young lion, and they will not melt like snails if you sprinkle salt on them.

This Psalm is figurative language and hyperbole. It was not intended to be taken literally and should not be the foundation of doctrine.

Again, this is hyperbole, read vs. 4

Isa 48:4 Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass;

Again, this is hyperbole and should not be taken literally to form doctrine.

OK, not sure what you are trying to prove here, this is speaking of John the Baptist. If anything it refutes you view, he was not born depraved, dead in sin.

Hey, if you are going to keep writing, keep your posts short and use normal font.

 

It is really sad to see you avoid clear meanings in Scripture, twist the meanings of words (they have more than one meaning), and deny the clear teaching of Scripture just to defend YOUR doctrine of Pelagianism.

Taken by itself, what does Psalm 58:3 mean.

 

Now show me where it states that they are spiritually dead?

That will be a problem for you, because it will not be found.

That is the same problem I have in relaying that death does not constitute an absence of physical life, nor absence of conscience, nor cessation of existance.

You completely miss (and I know I shouldn't phrase it like that, but this is how I see it) two very important things in your "prooftext."

1-You overlook that they are dead, to begin with;

2-you overlook that they are still...dead. When they are judged, that is.

Do you see it?



Revelation 20:12

King James Version (KJV)

12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Believers, having life, are not judged to determine whether they will be separated from God for eternity or not. They are judged, true, but that determines their reward or lack thereof.

Romans 1 also points to man's sin nature. No matter where you go in scripture, you will find this doctrine:


Romans 1

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


Follow man's progression very closely, and we would both assume that this speaks of man from birth.

Here, God gave them up. As well as here:


26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:


28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;


If we believe the word of God, we can see here that God gives them over to that which they have decided to do.

He left them to their reprobate minds, which they already had.

And the fact that man was separated from God in the garden means nothing?

That a judgment of condemnation came upon all men means nothing?

Okay.

God bless.