The Implications of Original Sin

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Jerry Shugart, Dec 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many of those who hold to "original sin" teach that our Maker makes us "wholly" inclined to all evil and opposite to all good:
     
    "From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).
     
    And then when man does exactly what he was designed by God to do he is punished severely:
     
    "...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

    The teaching of Original Sin portrays God to be a cruel taskmaker who makes a man "wholly" inclined to all evil and then punishes him for doing exactly what he was designed by God to do!

    Despite this, there are some who defend the statement which I provided from The Westminster Confession of Faith, including Ruiz:
    So evidently he thinks that it is just for God to make a person "wholly" inclined to all evil and then punish him for doing exactly what God designed him to do.
    Of course he gives us a reason for doing so:

    "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law" (Ro.2:12).
    Of course he believes that idea because that is the teaching of Calvinism but the Scriptures state that death comes as a result of a person's own sin:

    "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas.1:14-15).

    That is why Paul calls the Ten Commandents the "ministration of death":

    "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life...the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones" (2 Cor.3:6-8).

    here Paul is making a contrast between "life" and "death" and since the "life" is in regard to a "spiritual" life then the death is in regard to a "spiritual" death.

    If a person is born dead in Adam and Eve's sins then it is obvious that he cannot become dead as a result of his own sins. That is because a person must first be alive spiritually before he can die spiritually.
    No one said that Adam's sin only impacted him because the Scriptures make it plain that it did (Gen.3:17-24).

    But if the idea of Original Sin is right then we must believe that Abel bore the iniquity of his father Adam. However, the Scriptures declare in no uncertain terms that that will not happen:

    "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezek.18:20).
     
    #1 Jerry Shugart, Dec 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2011
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    It seems that this statement blames "orignial corruption" as the maker of "wholly inclined to all evil" rather than blaming God as making man wholly inclined to all evil?

    Are you honestly dealing with the actual words of this statement???? What right do you have to draw such a conclusion from the actual wording of this statement??????????

    If you can't draw your conclusion from the words of the statement you are quoting then isn't that a dishonest interpretation of that quote and those words by you?????

    If not, then please explain to us how that quotation and the words in that quotation attribute to God rather than to "original corruption" the source of sin??????????
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    Your words here are the conclusion you draw on the previous statement you quoted in the Westminister Confession that attitrubes all sin to "this original corruption" instead of from God or God's design as you interpret that statement!

    If the Westminister Confession of Faith statement you quoted is really charging sin to "this original corruption" (original sin) rather than to God or God's design than isn't it true that you have fabricated a straw man argument and now simply burning it???

    If not, then please demonstrate why that Westerminister statement does not attribute a nature wholly given to sin to "this original corruption" but rather to God and God's design???????





    Again, you are fabricating a straw man argument because the Westerminister confession of faith statement you quoted and have developed your argument from does not attribute man's fallen nature to God or God's design but clearly attributes it to "this original corruption." Hence, the righteous judgement of God is not severely punishing sinners for God's design at all as you portray the Westminister statement!!!
     
  4. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will give you the words of the Calvinists themselves as to the meaning of those words:

    "We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

    Isn't it dishonest to accuse me of being dishonest since you obviously do not even know what the Calvinist's teach?
    I said that the Calvinists teach that God made us wholly inclined to all evil and here is the proof:

    "We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness."

    Those words can be found on the following site:

    CRTA: Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

    So we can see that the Calvinits teach that a person comes out of the womb made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil and then God punishes man for doing the very thing for which He Himself bears the responsibility:

    "...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).

    You know that this causes a huge problem for Calvinism so you try to distort the teaching of Calvinism about God's responsibility in regard to their teaching that a person comes out of the womb wholly inclined to all evil.

    Frankly, I tire of being accused of telling 'lies" by you and of being accused of being dishonest. I really see no fruit of the Spirit in your behavior.
     
  5. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,963
    Likes Received:
    97
    Good Gravy, what are you babbling about now....Is this still another of your tirades against Calvinists? :laugh:
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    This is not the quotation you gave! I can read and understand English sufficient to know what the quotation actually said! Here is the quotation:


    "From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

    The other readers on this forum are equally capable of reading and understand English. The underlined, bold and enlarged printed portion above proves you are being dishonest with THIS QUOTATION!

    Quoting some other man does not change what the quotation actually says just as quoting some commentator does not actually change what a given text of scripture says.

    However, even the new quotation you give attributes universal depravity to original sin not to God or God's design:

    "We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith). [/QUOTE]

    It is obvious you do not understand either quotation at all! Shaw is simply saying that universal depravity stems for the original sin. Neither quotation says anything about attributing universal depravity to God or God's design but that is your charge and interpretation!!!!!

    The second half Shaw argues that universal depravity must be caused by "some sin" which would deprive all mankind of original righteousness or righteousness that preceded the fall! What would that "some sin" be? Shaw goes on to state exactly what that sin was - "that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" or original sin. He does not charge universal depravity to God or God's design but to Adam and his sin!




    Stop doing it then! Can you honestly demonstrate that I have misinterpreted either statement according to THEIR WORDS??????? If so, please do!
     
  7. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see this all the time when someone cannot answer the message. They feel like their only response is to attack the messenger.

    First my honesty is questioned then I am accused of babbling. Let this be a warning to those who would dare question the beliefs of the Calvinists!
     
  8. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,963
    Likes Received:
    97
    "Horsefeathers".......Folks.... same old, same old & frankly laughable...:laugh:

    Amusing but not worth the time:tongue3:
     
  9. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    I told you what the Calvinists teach about the "original corruption" and you still continue to question my honesty!
    The Calvinists themselves approve of the commentary which I quoted or else they would never have put it on their own site. You can call them dishonest if you want to.
    If man is made totally inclined to all evil due to God's punishment (as the Calvinists teach) then according to the Calvinists God is responsible for man being made totally inclined to all evil.

    But you say that it was not to God's design! Let us look at the statement from The Westminster Confession of Faith again:
     
    "From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

    Who else can MAKE us opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil but our MAKER:

    "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all" (Prov.22:2).
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    You have been shown that your interpretation of these quotations are complete distortions and perversion of what both quotations explicilty state. Ever reader on this forum can easily see you have distorted these quotations.

    So, what do you do? Change the subject rather than honestly admit you were wrong and are wrong!



    We can see how YOUR mind operates but those two quotations said no such thing and YOU KNOW IT and that is why you are changing the subject! Why not be honest for a change!
     
  11. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jerry, are there any actual Calvinists who say what you suppose they must in your OP or is all that a figment of your imagination?

    My question is not friolous. And, I would like an answer, please.

    It makes a difference if some doctrine or theology actually states something, or if someone "decides" that it must.

    Oh, and about your OP question concerning the implications of original sin... We are lost and damned to hell without Christ. End of story, save that God, in His infinite mercy sent Christ, not to condemn the world, for the world was condemned already, but to save.
     
    #11 glfredrick, Dec 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2011
  12. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: Every reader?:laugh:
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    My apologies, I forgot about one other poor blind soul!
     
  14. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    You make an accusation against me and then you fail to provide any evidence to back up your accusation. And then you question my honesty!
    I have given quotes from a well respected man within the Calvinist community and those quotes PROVE that my assertions about what Calvinism teaches is correct. Of course you accuse me of distortng what he said but you fail to give any evidence that I did distort what he said.

    Let us look how you responded to what I said here:

    Let us look at the statement from The Westminster Confession of Faith again:
     
    "From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions" (The Westminster Confession of Faith; VI/4).

    Who else can MAKE us opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil but our MAKER:

    "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all" (Prov.22:2).

    You said:
    What do you mean that it says no such thing? The quote from The Westminster Confession of Faith states in no uncertian terms that a man is MADE opposite to all good and wholly inclined to all evil. Who else "makes" us but our Maker? Calvinist spokesman Robert Shaw says the following:

    "The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit" ((Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

    If the Calvinists are right then who else except our Maker can "infuse" us with Adam's depravity? Who else except our Maker can "impute" Adam's demerit to us?

    Of course if the Calvinists are right then God is responsible for a person coming out of the womb "totally inclined to all evil."

    Therefore the Calvinists teach that God punishes men for doing things which of which He Himself is responsible:

    "...the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds...unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil" (Ro.2:5-6,8-9).
    Why not open your eyes to the truth for a change?
     
    #14 Jerry Shugart, Dec 19, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 19, 2011
  15. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Almost sounds like you are arguing against Scripture... :tonofbricks:
     
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,188
    Likes Received:
    207
    Either you cannot read or you cannot understand what you read or you are an outright deceiver!

    The quotation does not say any such thing! Therefore the quotation does not justify your use of the following scripture:


    "The rich and poor meet together: the LORD is the maker of them all" (Prov.22:2).

    If the quotation had said, "FROM GOD" instead of "FROM THIS ORIGINAL SIN" you would have a case for your INFERENCE and for the text you employ to burn your straw man falsification!

    Your false inference then becomes your foundation for attack of original sin!

    You are either blind or willfully blind!
     
  17. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    i will repeat the teaching of Calvinism that demonstrates that they believe that God is responsible for the so-called universal corruption of mankind. Robert Shaw wrote:

    "We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

    According to Shaw the universal corruption of mankind results when God punishes mankind. He also said:

    "We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

    If the Calvinists are right then who else except our Maker can "infuse" us with Adam's depravity? Who else except our Maker can "impute" Adam's demerit to us?
     
  18. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is clearly a misrepresentation of the theology of original sin. To say God made us this way is irresponsible and clearly shows a misunderstanding of our belief. See my later quote.

    J.I Packer explains the historic and reformed view of Original Sin. Again, my statements you show are in context of the universality of original sin by orthodox Christians.

    Yet, to dispel the very ignorant myths of our beliefs on original sin from a reformed and a traditional Christian viewpoint, I will cite a few scholars. Packer notes on Original sin.

    Thus, Packer outlines clearly the viewpoint agreed upon by those who embrace original sin. The contrast are the Pelagians who believe we were born innocent and without any influence towards sin, but it was possible to remain sinless as we were not tainted by Adam's original sin. The Pelagian heresy is just that, heretical.

    For the Biblical evidence for original sin here.

    Again, you misrepresent the belief, I once again cite J.I. Packer. Your are distorting original sin, making a strawman, in order to show you are right. However, misrepresenting our belief is either out of pure ignorance, which is why I am trying to give evidence and scholars who advance our thought, or because you just wish to slander the belief.


    Again, your misunderstanding of our belief trends itself to you arguing against, not the doctrine of original sin, but the doctrine you made up. The question is why we sin. My quote from Packer explains the right understanding.

    Original sin, as well, is not purely a reformed doctrine. I have corrected you on this issue before by citing Wesley. While there are reformed elements that we hold to, original sin is not merely a reformed doctrine. To stereotype this is not only ignorant, it is not really an honest appraisal. As I noted with Wesley, in his sermon on Original Sin, he combated the idea of the Reformed view, but he still held to original sin as Packer outlines.

    Not quite, but I want you to point me out a commentary that agrees with your assessment on this issue. I personally have never read a commentary on 2 Cor that would agree with you. As well, this is written to those who are Christians. Who are killed? Is it non-Christians? No! He is referring to Christians and those in the church.

    There are huge misrepresentations of the doctrine, so unless you accurately can convey my belief, I will be glad to discuss further. As well, if you can give me orthodox men who rejected original sin (which I have asked a number of times) then I am really not for debating conjecture.

    Original sin is a Biblical idea.

    Since you have misrepresented even the reformed view of original sin, which is less than I have stated I wanted to discuss, I think you should read up on original sin in order to not bear false witness against us. Here is a great article by Edwards.
     
  19. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is a universal corruption, but your statement that God is responsible is not supported in this statement. Rather, your view that we believe God is responsible is truly a harsh misrepresentation of our belief. Again, Wesley believed in Original Sin, thus it is more than a reformed view. He rejected the idea from a reformed perspective, but still held to original sin.
     
  20. Jerry Shugart

    Jerry Shugart
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course I did not expect you to actually answer my question in regard to what Calvinism spokesman Robert Shaw said here:

    "The something which corresponds to this in Adam, is his guilt reckoned unto us and punished in us—so that, to complete the analogy, as from him we get the infusion of his depravity, so from him also do we get the imputation of his demerit" ((Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

    If the Calvinists are right then who else except our Maker can "infuse" us with Adam's depravity? Who else except our Maker can "impute" Adam's demerit to us?

    Do you think that it just happens out of the blue and God has nothing at all about the infusion of Adam's depravity upon people? How can anyone take you seriously?

    You refuse to even address that and then you attack the messenger since you cannot answer the message:
    Again, you make accusations against me and then you fail to say anything which supports your accusation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...