1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Origin of Sin--PART III

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Feb 8, 2011.

  1. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Read my post again winman, I never said God holds infant human babies responsible or accountable for what they are.

    They are responsible and incur guilt for personal sin when they are mature enough to discern good from evil.


    HankD
     
  2. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Again winman re-read my post, I said to satisfy our normal and natural appetites apart from the revealed will of God is sin.

    e.g. Marriage (one man, one woman) is the will of God for the gratifying of the desires involved. Outside of holy wedlock it is sin.

    No winman, you know I do not deny that Christ came in the flesh.

    I declare before heaven and earth that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
    He was born of a woman under the law. in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

    This passage you mention is in reference to those who were saying that Jesus Christ was not human but a theophany or a kind of phantom or the end product of a string of emanations from God and not human.

    Others were saying that Jesus was only a man and that "the Christ" descended upon Him at His baptism.

    Gnosticism in many forms abounded in John's day.

    The contemporaries of the apostles (Papias, Clement and others) wrote prolifically of these who denied the humanity and/or deity of Jesus Christ. These writings are important because they appealed to the apostles writings as Scripture proofs against them.

    Gnostics were also fond of mingling helenistic philosophical/mythical writings with the Scriptures.

    There were many variations of the errors above, some of which persist to this very day.

    For whatever it's worth to you, the writings of the early church fathers are now to be found online. For the most part it is a hard and weary read.

    HankD
     
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Yes, we were born with a conscience. God gave conscience to mankind so that he would have guilt when he sins. This is evidence of the depravity of mankind; evidence that he is born with a sin nature. All over the world mankind is born with a conscience to remind him of his sinfulness. Don't you see how the two go together?

    Secondly, they do by nature the things contained in the law.
    However, they also do by nature blame or accuse others when the break the law or things contained in the law. That is the sin nature that they are born with. They, like all men, cannot keep the law. No man can. They can't keep the law because we are born with a sin nature.
    Yes, all a result of our sin nature. We are born with it, and are born to do the very sins we are accustomed to do--accustomed to do from birth. A fig tree is accustomed to producing figs; an apple tree is accustomed to producing apples, and mankind (right from birth) is accustomed to doing evil. That is the teaching of Jer.13:23.
    I am not a Calvinist. I believe we are born with a sin nature. I believe in the depravity of man. But unlike the Calvinist I don't believe in the Total Depravity of man, not as a Calvinist would define it. Lusts and desires: Adam and Eve had them. But they didn't have the sin nature we do. Lusts and desires: Christ had them, but never gave into them. He was tempted as we are, but did not sin. We often are tempted but sin. Christ did not sin. That is the difference.
    You are the one not understanding the Scripture which states so plainly that we are born with a sin nature. Jer.13:23; Eph.2:1-3; Rom.2:14,15.
    This doesn't make any sense. One cannot develop a sin nature. You either have one (from birth) or you don't have on at all. How can you sit on the fence and be persuaded by evolutionists that man evolved from innocence to sinner. That is pure unadulterated evolution. We didn't come from tadpoles or monkeys either. Are they also innocent? Sin natures don't evolve. We either have one or we don't. If we do have one, it is from birth. If we don't have one, then we are simply responsible for our own sins, and entire sanctification is possible on this earth like Finney tells us. You must choose between one of the two systems. Sin natures don't evolve.
    The context is those who teach "doctrines of demons." Are you sure you want to pursue this line of reasoning when you have taken this verse so far out of its context?
    Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.[/quote]
    No you are clearly wrong, trying to wrest one part of that verse out of its context and twist its meaning to fit your unorthodox doctrine.
    Leopards are born with spots (not stripes). That is their nature. They cannot change. They will never be able to change. They are born that way.
    Ethiopians are born black, not white. They cannot change their skin. They are born that way. It is their nature. God made them that way. There is nothing that they can do about it.
    Man is born doing evil, born accustomed or used to doing evil, right from the womb. From the womb he has gone astray doing evil speaking lies. You don't want to accept that, but that is what the Bible says. Those are the words of God, not my words. Man is born with that nature, a sin nature. It is an undeniable truth. He is born with a nature that cannot do good, but only evil. This is what the Scriptures teach.
    You are not the only one that wants to fit one definition to one word to get your way. A fruit tree is accustomed to bringing forth fruit and not vegetables. A pear tree is accustomed to bringing forth pears and not peaches. This is the way the word is used.
    Your thinking has been corrupted by evolution. Sin natures do not evolve. Either we have one or we don't.
    Either you believe in the Oberlin Theology of Finney, or you believe man has a sin nature from birth. I don't see any other option. Frankly IMO, the person that denies the sin nature of man (man's depravity from birth) has not only attacked the doctrine of the nature of man, but has attacked (inadvertently perhaps) the virgin birth of Christ.
    As long as you do not believe that man has a sinful nature from the womb, or inherited from Adam, then you have much in common with Finney. The Bible doesn't teach evolution when it comes to sin natures.
     
  4. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    DHK, that is ridiculous, of course a sin nature can be developed. No one is born a bank robber, you have to actually rob a bank to be a bank robber. No one is born with a cigarette in his mouth, you have to choose to start smoking to become addicted to cigarettes. Your line of reasoning is nonsensical.

    And this has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever, I am a young earth creationist.

    In fact, it is evolutionists that hold your exact position, they argue that through some genetic defect (the fall) some men are born with a propensity to become criminals. They used to measure people's skulls or the gap between the eyes believeing they could determine who was born with these criminal tendencies. Today they say men are born to be alcoholics. The homosexuals claim they are born that way and it is not a choice.

    It is in fact liberals and evolutionists that hold your exact views and deny that men are responsible for their own actions, blaming God saying they are born that way

    We will have to agree to disagree.
     
    #84 Winman, Feb 14, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 14, 2011
  5. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are looking at individual sins which prove the what the bank robber IS. His choices prove his nature.

    Birds fly, it is their nature, but it takes time after coming into the world for their bird nature to realize their native ability.

    No one has to teach a child to do evil, it comes naturally. It is universal among children.

    Even before they can discern right from wrong they will harm each other with intent, lie, etc.

    As parents we teach them they have done wrong when they hurt another. We do not teach them how to do wrong, how to sock each other in the face, bite, pinch, etc. That ability and desire comes along with the little one.

    As their discerning ability develops, they incur guilt realizing right from wrong.

    Similarly with the analogy of trees.

    Trees take time to be able to blossom and bear fruit.
    One apple appearing on a tree proves the tree was an apple tree all along.

    The fruit proves the "kind" or nature of the tree which was passed on down from the first apple tree.

    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, 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:​


    HankD
     
    #85 HankD, Feb 14, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2011
  6. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi again winman.

    Neither the AV English or the original TR type koine language mss contains the word "because" in this entire passage.
    None of the koine words used for the word "because" in koine appears anywhere in this passage.

    The last part of this passage literally says:

    "and thus unto all men the death passed through, upon which they all sinned"

    You should also note that it does not say "will sin" (future) but "sinned" (aorist - simple past tense).

    I might also note that according to your rebutal, that our death is our own fault because of our sin then it seems to me that a newborn infant would not die which we know does indeed happen. Same scenario with a miscarriage or a still born.

    HankD
     
    #86 HankD, Feb 14, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2011
  7. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hank, babies die because the curse is upon all creation. Animals die, but they cannot sin, plants die, but they cannot sin. Even non-living entities are under the curse, mountains erode, stars burn out, metals corrode and rust away. This curse WAS brought through Adam's sin, and has been atoned for through Christ.
    I do not deny for one second that children do wrong. But like Paul they are alive until they mature enough to understand right from wrong. At this point they are accountable and come under condemnation, just as Paul said when the law came, sin revived and he died. This is exactly what I believe Paul is explaining to us.
     
  8. HankD

    HankD Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    26,977
    Likes Received:
    2,536
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, many years ago when I was in the service, I began to read the Bible. Genesis was interesting but when I got into Exodus, Leviticus, etc. I remember that feeling of death and condemnation (until I got to the Gospel of John).

    I'm willing to leave it at that brother winman.
    It has been a stimulating debate.


    HankD
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Infants are cursed.
     
Loading...