The Implications of Original Sin

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: This looks good to me..

 

Man has the same free choice now that he did before the fall. The problem is not their will but their heart and what their heart loves and hates (Jn. 3:18-20).

The gospel is preached and "whosoever will" may come! Their conscience convicts them of sin. The creation witnesses to them that there is a Creator God of power! Nothing prevents the worst of sinners from coming to Christ but their own refusal to do so! They can not come only because they will not come and they will not come because of what their heart loves and hates!

 

The problem stems from the view(s) of the Atonement. If the Atonement was for the elect only, then the non-elect are left out in the cold, or better yet, left to be cast in the fire. So man has no choice but to do their evil deeds, and God will leave them there, seeing that the Atonement never really was intended for them. The Gospel isn't for them, either, so they can't come.

 

The extent of the atonement is not why they willfully choose to love darkness and hate light and won't come to the light!

The extent of the atonement merey defines the extent of God's mercy and grace in saving those who always resist the Holy Spirit [Acts 7:51; Gal. 1:15-16) while leaving the rest to freely continue to resist the Holy Spirit and hate the light!

So it is God's mercy that saves and "not him that willeth or him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy"

 

Why all the (!!!!!!) in your posts? Are you ampped on cofee? Do you feel like preaching at/to us? The Atonement gives access to the Father. In your system, the non-elect do not have this access to the Father. It's not that they won't come, but rather, can't come. Therefore they don't really have a choice to believe or not, can they?

Correct. God so loved the world(John 3:16), Jesus died for the ungoldy(Romans 5:6), Jesus tasted death for every man(Hebrews 2:9).

 

I am just an expressive individual!!!!!!!!::laugh:

How many times must I repeat, that their will is just as free after the fall as before the fall! Nothing prevents them from choosing to come to the light but their own free hatred of the light and love for darkness (Jn. 3:19-20). The ONLY reason they cannot come is because they WILL NOT come and the only reason they WILL NOT come is becuase their heart loves darkness and hates the light!

Did you really understand what you are agreeing with?

Jesus certainly died for "the ungodly" and He died for sinners and he died for every man without distinction of race, gender or social status.

 

I used to be that way on here, and I think it might have aggitated some, so I stopped doing it. :laugh:

I agree with this as long as you'ree saying they won't come vs. they can't come. Now do you think that God will offer salvation to all?

Yep. You stated the Atonement was the extent of God's mercy, and that's why I used those verses.

Agreed!! :thumbs::thumbs:

 

Wow! You are unreal! You quote from the Westminister Confession a statement that clearly and explicitly states that the fallen nature in Adam's posterity originates "FROM THE ORIGINAL CORRUPTION" in Adam but then charge this statement with saying it originated from God and God's design. When you are corrected then you change the subject to the METHOD or MEANS of transmission and claim that is what you were talking about all the time BUT OF WHICH THE ORIGINAL QUOTE from Westminister NEVER ADDRESSED!

Wow! What extent will you actually go to justify your mistakes?????????

Any reader of my posts knows that I have NEVER denied the METHOD or MEANS of transmission designed by God was representation by one man or that it came through natural generation from Adam to his posterity and now you say: "Now you admit....." Wow!! What utter complete blindness and desperation to justify your own interpretational errors!

Now you are doing a switich and bait routine. Now you are changing the subject back from the means of transmission designed by God to charging God with the origin of sin instead of "FROM the original corruption" by Adam's sin!!!!!!! Do you have no honesty in you????

If you want to talk about the Designed means of transmission then do so but if you want to talk about the source or origin of the sin nature transmitted then do so BUT don't mix apples with oranges.

FROM where does Shaw trace the original corruption being passed down???? From God or from Adam?

FROM whom does Shaw trace the DESIGN OF TRANSMISSION of original sin from Adam to his posterity? He does not state who in this statement but it is obviously God who created the "after your own kind" of transmission of nature in man, animals and plant life!!!

HOwever, the transmission was designed by God BEFORE the Fall and so you cannot charge God with either sin or with designing sin to be transmitted through a MEANS created previous to the fall!!!!!

"HOW" we are disabled is not the same as FROM WHAT ORIGIN we are disabled! However you are intentionally attempting to make them one and the same and thus falsely accuse those who believe in original sin transmitted through birth as believing that God is responible for the origin of sin simply becuase He is responsible for the DESIGN of transmission of nature PREVIOUS to the Fall!!! What utter deception and deceit!

Who was involved in the "first transgression"???? ANSWER "they...mankind" God designed ONE MAN to represent many and that makes God the author of sin? No! It only makes God the author of designed REPRESENTATION by one man!

Does not Paul repeatedly state over and over

"BY ONE MAN's offence many be made dead....many were made sinners"?????

Did Paul invent this idea of MANY being represented by ONE MAN'S OFFENCE or did God?

Did Paul invent this idea of "MANY" being represented by "THE OBEDIENCE OF ONE MAN" or God?

God is no more responsible for "one man's offence" for many than he is "the obedience of one man" for many! If one is wrong so is the other!

 

Amazing ignorance or pure deceit which is it???!!! Are you really suggesting that since I began this debate with you and others that I have been hiding the fact that I believe the sin nature is passed down from father to children???????

Are you really suggesting that since I began this debate with you and others that I have been denying HOW the sin nature is transmitted from Adam to his posterity by birth?????

Are you really that ignorant of what I have repeatedly not merely admitted but stated and demanded over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and............??????????????

Are you really admitting that you have finally woke up to the fact that is "HOW" I have been describing it, defending it, teaching it repeatedly over and over and over and over and over and........????

If you are that ignorant of what we have been saying then what good will it do to say another word to you???????????????

No, you are not that ignorant! You were caught being flat dishonest with a text and interpreting it incorrectly and then changed the topic to "HOW" of transmission instead of the "FROM" the origin of sin by Adam; and now you want everyone to believe the the Westerminister Confession and statements by Shaw were really trying to make the point that since the sin nature is passed down by birth, due to God's design that everything living reproduce after its own kind, that God is the author of sin and not Adam. They were not making that point at all. Their logic does not make that point at all. They never charge God with sin simply because the mechanism of passing it down was created by God in regard to ALL LIVING THINGS before the fall. Totally deceiful!

 

I have never denied what Shaw is teaching here! I have only denied that God is the author of original sin!!! The method of transition was designe by God BEFORE the fall! BEFORE the fall God decreed that every living thing would reproduced AFTER ITS OWN KIND!


However, what I have been denying is pure lying deceitful accusation you make when you say the following:

God is responsible for the method of transition of REPRODUCTION AFTER THEIR OWN KIND but Adam is responsible for what is "PASSED" down though this reproductive method NOT GOD! Here is the outright lying deceit that you attempt to put in the mouth of Shaw and others!

This is simply a lie! A complete distortion! A complete lack of discerning things that differ and calling apples organges!!!

God is responsible ONLY for the Pinciple of reproduction after its own kind and that is equally true in every other living thing as it is true of Man.

God is not responsible for original sin because "by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin....by one man's offence many BE DEAD....by one man's offence many were MADE SINNERS."

What is repulsive is your intentional perversion of Shaw, our position and the Word of God.

 

Simply because God designed that all living things pass down their nature by REPRODUCING AFTER THEIR OWN KIND does not make God the author of "death" which even you agree is "passed" unto all men!

However, that is the aburd kind of logic you are implementing in this discussion!

So if that is you line of logic is God responsible for the death of all men because death is "passed" unto them because "by one man's offence MANY BE DEAD"???

Note, the text does not read "by MANY MEN'S OFFENCES many be dead" but that is what you make it mean AND that will be the substance of your response!

 

We are often at odds. So I took this opportunity to support your position. I find that "hyper Calvinist" who hold the supralapsarianism perspective must hold God accountable for evil in that he decreed those who would be reprobate before the fall. This view I find deplorable and has no end in that God in the same way decreed that Satan would fall. He could not be good and be the author of evil.

Throw in the Genesis account Chp 1 good idea! However, are you saying corruption breeds corruption? And to what point are we responsible for our own corruption?

 

I am not well acquainted with the theological terms. I believe infralapsinarianism would be closer to the truth, but I am not sure.

Basically, in your above quote:
We sin because we are sinner (i.e., have a sin nature).
We sin because we are sinners and we enjoy it, and therefore are responsible for our actions. We are guilty for our own actions.
Both are true.
Thus you must be born again.

 

Agreed!

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. 5 Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;......

Job 15: What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Both of these texts are found in connection with human birth. Job 14 denies it is possible for anthing unclean to bring forth anything clean. Hence, if this is the condition of the parents (sinful) then it is impossible to bring a sinless baby out of them!

Job 15 denies the infant from the womb is clean/righteous.

 

I knew it was not intentional. I just wanted to clear the air. Everything is cool beans.

 

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.
All that can be made out of this passage, is that a physically depraved women could only bring forth physically depraved offspring. Job was not dealing with the notion or moral depravity in the least in this passage. He was dealing with the dying and frail state of humanity. His whole focus of this passage was upon the frail PHYSICAL state of humanity. What he says is simply, How could a frail dying women bring forth anything other than frail dying offspring? No one can.
Biblicist is clearly long on straining gnats and short on close attention to reasonable context in the passages he tries to support the false notion of original sin.


HP:Job 15:14

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

First, who is the author of this verse? Scripture informs us that Eliphaz stated this. Is he a reputable source of truth? Not according to God. He was using this argument to accuse a man that God said was “perfect and upright, and that feared God, and eschewed evil. Eliphaz is not hardly a reputable source for the establishment of Church doctrines. Beside this, this Scripture in no way indicates original sin, but rather is only making a statement as to the universality of sin in Eliphaz’s eyes. Enoch, Noah a preacher of righteousness, and Job are all examples that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that righteous men were indeed among the living, one staring him in the face. If Eliphaz could not recognize righteousness standing before him, is it any wonder he would have a such poor opinion of the rest of the world? Again, this was Eliphaz, the miserable comforter, confused in his thinking and wrong in his assertions, and judged by God as such, that made this statement. We would do well to formulate sound doctrine from different sources.

And, if we take this verse literally, why would it not apply to Christ? God forbid.