The Nature of Man

I will be praying for Matthew Black.

AJ

 

JSM17,

I disagree with their own resolved on that a person is born innocent (free of sin).

Biblle teaches us that we all already received sin within our mother's womb. Because when Adm sinned and he died, so death passed to all, because we all have sinned -Romans 5:12.

By the way, all infant babies do have sins, yet they are innocent, not know what is the right and wrong. Depend on their age, when they knowledge the between of wrong and right. Then, they are already sin. For me, I believe all infant babies who were aborted or died by sick, are in heaven, while they never have been baptized(infant baptism-Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.). They're innoncent. God loves all infant babies. Even, King David knew that his son baby died are now in the heaven, that he will see him up there.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

let me clarify this.

I will be praying for Matthew black because he is faced with some very strong opposition to biblical teachings.

To me, this is the first missionary command, to teach the folks in our own neighborhoods and towns, first, the true gospel. Yes, we need to spread the gospel throughout the whole world, but why should we bypass or ignore the local folks that are decieved?

Knowing the CoC doctrine, I fully support Mr Matthew's effort to show them the truth, and I do pray for his efforts to result in some changed hearts.

AJ

 

HP: DPT, may I simply reason together with you on this matter? Does Romans 5:12 say or imply that we have sin from our mother’s womb, or does it say we inherit a consequence of sin because ‘all have sinned?’ Certainly being a physical descendent of Adam we bear physical consequences, death being one of them, but still yet Scripture does not establish all as seeing death, Enoch and Elijah the exceptions. At the rapture, those that are alive and remain will also avoid physical death, will they not? As I see the verse, the very best that can be assumed from this verse is, all that see death do so, NOT because of Adam’s sin being tranmitted to us, but rather due to our physical connection to Adam, such as is the case with infants that die, or because of our own sin, which is the case of all those that die subsequent to moral accountability. It does not establish any Augustinian notion of original sin.

Something cannot be and be at the same time in the same sense. If there is sin, there is guilt. There is not one Scriptural definition of sin that does not involve personal guilt. There is not one Scripture that indicates that sin does not have a penalty. You cannot be sinful and innocent at the same time in the same sense. If babies are innocent, they are not sinful. If they are sinful, they cannot be innocent. I believe with you that they are innocent, therefore they cannot be sinful.

Babies are certainly are born with a proclivity to sin, or natural inclinations to sin, but that is not sin. Sin is only conceived as the will, subsequent to moral agency, chooses to form intents in agreement with those inclinations or proclivities.

The apostle James emphatically makes this point and warns us not to err concerning it. Jas 1:13 ¶ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

 

>totally depraved

Means exactly what? Does the goodness or evil of an act depend entirely upon the spiritual state of the actor or are some acts intrinsically good or evil?

Where does "common grace" fit into this topic?

 

I agree with Deaver on the first, Black on the second. A sinner is one who commit's sin, like a rapist is one who rapes, a murderer one who murders, etc.
Sin passed to all men through Adam, but that is due to the sin nature and not his guilt. It is part of the curse (physical death "appointed unto man once to die") not part of Adam's guilt.

 

Romans 7:9

 

...then please tell me what sin a child commits at conception, in the first trimester, the second, the third, and immediatly at birth? Is God's Law pumped to the child through the umbilical cord so the child can break it?

 

I think he means a sin nature. Or propensity to sin. Kind of like mixing an ingredient into clay that cracks the structure once its fired up but you can't tell until you fire it up.

 

I'll wait for him to clarify, but it sounded like they sin, just don't know it.

 

Yeah gotta watch out for those sinning babies.

 

HP: Your illustration is indeed intriguing although I believe flawed. God blames man for sin and vows to punish it with eternal separation from Himself in Hell for it. In your illustration, can one blame the pot for cracking as it does if in fact it of necessity cracks, let alone punish it for that which necessity dictates? Why or why not? What must be present for blame to be just?

 

I'm sticking with the Classical view first noted by St. Augustine. We are born in sin though we have not sinned yet. As in my example we are born without ability to be righteous. (or an ability to be an uncracked vessel) We will so to speak crack. Inevitable. However, our sin is what we are accountable for and will be punished for. Or when we actually crack. Adam put us in this position of being born in sin Jesus restores us. Now I'm certain my example is less than accurate but its the best one I could come up with. And the question out there is a good one: "can you blame the pot for cracking ast it does if in fact it of necessity cracks?" I look at it from a different perspective. Mankind deserved to end with Adam. Yet instead of throwing man away he allowed for man to continue on that those yet to come may still gain eternal life as God intended it though flawed at inception. It actually adds a greater glory to God than not.

 

HP: Whatever the perspective you look at it from, if it makes a mockery of well established immutable principles of justice, your perspective is flawed. In order to be blamed or praised, man must have choice. If man is cracked from birth, sinful from birth without any psossibility of doing anything other than what he does, justice demands that no blame be attached whatsoever. Scripture verifies this principle in many different ways.
"Sin is the transgression of the law." "Where there is no law, sin is not imputed." "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

 

What does Scripture say about the nature of fallen Man?

Psalms 53:3. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Isaiah 53:6. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 64:6, 7
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

Romans 3:11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Romans 3:23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 1:16-32

 

First of all: What immutable principles of justice are you talking about? Second its not a mockery of Justice but an affront! Fortunately, for us! Grace permited man to exist after sin. And Grace fulfills justice itself through Christ Jesus. Third the verse you quoted is not overlooking sin because of admission of blindness and it isn't imputting because the lack of it rather there is no admission to the truth the pharisees find themselves in. If a man will not admit he is blind there is no help for him (in other words). The Book of Romans says this:

There is no exuse for what can be known was enough. Then with respect to the law here

people are still condemned because they can't even obey the observable law not given by special revelation (like the Torah). So the law shows us our blindness not change our position

This is what I consider immutable

And this is what psalm 51:5 says

 

HP: When one attaches guilt and punishment where no choice exists, it violates this principle of immutable justice: In order to do anything praiseworthy or blameworthy, man must have choice. With the confusion over what the word ‘choice’ consists of, I must also add that ‘choice’ is not simply the results of ‘doing as one wills,’ (a purely Calvinistic notion) but rather man must have the ability to choose something other than he does under the very same set of circumstances in order for choice to be present. Man has to be the first cause of his moral intents for choice to actually exist and blame or praise attached to them.