Featured Why are We Totally Depraved?

Amy, The progression is the important part. I dont disagree with you about the crying when hungry. What kind of tree would they have been without Adams sin.....or what kind of tree would Adam have been if he had somehow been created an infant. Do you think they would have been different than other children?

 

Thanks for your response winman,

I juist wanted to give what I believe are evidences of our sinful nature passed on to us from Adam.

All your points are debatable (as you know) and a balance should be struck in a debate.

I do not follow the calvinistic line completely but that is another issue which would be lengthy and admitedly with difficulties.

Of course children without accountability do not have the same status as convicted sinners.

Yes, even the unregenerate can do good works, however these good works are not related to our spiritual status but as accountable to our God appointed government as all are required to be law abiding citizens through the common grace gifts of the convicting restraint of the Holy Spirit and the exercise of human filial love.

Luke 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.​

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,​

No, I have never robbed a bank but even yet as a redeemed citizen of heaven it is probably still possible but unlikely. You have focused in upon a sin (bankrobbing). Many unregenerate sinners have never robbed a bank but they are sinners nonetheless.

Those who have been reckoned righteous through the gospel no longer need to have the law hanging over them to keep them in restraint but have the love of God infused into their being through the regeneration and are good citizens because they love God their father and walk in the Spirit.

Once a child commits a sin of accountability having been convicted/reproved of that sin then he/she becomes a sinner in deed, until that point of accountability I believe God does not reckon their position in Adam to their spiritual account.

Again my studiy of Romans 5:12 causes me to disagree with the premise that only death was transmitted down from Adam but sin as well.

Personally I don't don't like the phrase "original sin". I'm not sure what to call it but every human being born of adamic woman (Christ excepted) is infected and sooner or later the symptoms of actual sins appear.


HankD

 

Well, this is pure speculation and can never prove a thing, however in a similar vein do you believe the infant Jesus cried as a baby when He was hungry?

BTW, crying is a language substitute for babies. It is not a sin to ask for nourishment, cleansing, etc no what the age.

Thanks for the thought provoking question though.

HankD

 

Or I got it, and reject Augustinianism The comparison is not accurate. If he had compared a human to a tree instead of a sinner to a tree it would have been accurate. A sinner is biblically defined as one who sins. Do you not get that...or are you just not admitting it?

*gasp* You are kidding!

 

The point is that kind generates kind.

After we moved into our first house here in WA I saw a tree blossoming on the property that spring. I wasn't sure what it was until it bore cherries, then I knew it was a cherry tree (and not another kind) and had been a cherry tree all along having descended from the first cherry tree though there had been no fruit yet.

Also giving a pejorative doctrinal title that is related to a human being (for good or for bad - i.e Augustinianism, Arminainism, Calvinism) and a supported dogma does not necessarily make all of his theology right or wrong.

Augustine, Arminius and Calvin were Trinitarian.
So am I and I am relatively certain that you are also.

Point: we all have something in common with Augustine. Not all Augustinianism is necessarily wrong.

HankD

 

I get that point, but if it were decreed that any tree that grew apples would be cut down and burned up the tree would not be cut down and burned up until it produced the apples. Same principle applies to sin. When one sins in like manner Adam did (by consciously violating God's law), they become a sinner

14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Sinners are spiritually dead. Spiritually dead people perish, yet the majority of people holding to augustinianism believe all infants do not perish, which contradicts Scripture.

 

"for ALL have sinned". We're all sinners simply by the fact that we're ALL born in sinful flesh and unfit to stand in the presence of a holy God.

James is speaking to believers, so he isn't talking about spiritual death in this verse.

No, it doesn't. God covers anyone He chooses in Christ's blood. We are not born again by our own will, but God's will.

 

Hey Web.. LONG time no see

I know what you are saying above, but you are speaking of one who is actively in sin or sinning.. but the question that stirs the proverbial pot is why DID they?

It is interesting that Paul calls all men (prior to salvation) as children of wrath, and yet he KNOWS that some of them are 'to be' children of God.

Why call them children of wrath now, if they will be children of God?

Because it regards their state of being or nature.

If I'm not mistaken you also hold that children have a sin nature. And it is that nature that has them bent toward sin. It is that nature that is bent against God and thus makes us act contrary to godliness from the day we act out consciously.

Therefore even if they haven't yet acted upon that nature to 'do' a sin, their very nature is already contrary to God because of what it is, not what it has done. Those actions reveal who we already are, not what we might become.

One last thing:
Just because we are by nature 'dead' or separated from God, does not mean they must perish because they have not yet believed.
God judges those who have acted 'willingly' or better, by their own choice 'knowing' the truth, acted contrary to it. These are judged according to scripture because they are culpable for their sins.

But for those who do not know or understand, they are not culpable. Even Jesus makes this plain:

or this one:

Being bent toward sin does not negate the fact that judicially, one must understand that what they have done -is sin- in order for them to be culpable. We have many illustrations of this in scripture even going back to Moses, when the people of Israel did not wish to obey God and go into the promised land. All of them were banished to wander in the desert for 40 years except... their children who were under a certain age. The point was simple.. all those who voted (so-to-speak) or voiced their intention to disobey God and not proceed KNOWING His command.. these were those who were able to make the choice to go or not, for the people of Israel. (this was age related, but it went all the way down to all children, even those who were babies) The only two that voiced their accent to go, were the ONLY TWO of that group allowed to go into the promised land (Caleb and Joshua). Thus those who could not make a judgment to obey or disobey were removed from the punishment for disobedience to God and allowed entrance into the promised land.

 

You are welcome, I never mind debating with you, you are always a gentleman.

I understand completely. I believed in original sin for many years because that is what I was taught. I am no stranger to the concept. I rejected it because I saw (and still see) MANY scriptures that I believe refutes it.

That is not what Paul said in Rom 9:11. He did not say they had done evil but were not accountable, he said they had done no evil. He also said they had done no good. So a child that dies has no righteousness which can earn salvation and is still dependent upon the grace of God.

Good is good, and evil is evil. Calvinism has confused folks. It is not a sin when an unregenerate person tells the truth. If it is a sin to tell the truth because you are unregenerate, then all of God's commands are meaningless and completely unnecessary as well. Why command "Thou shalt not bear false witness" ? What difference does it make if you are unregenerate, it is a sin no matter what you do. This is utterly illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

If we are enslaved by a sin nature as Calvinism teaches, we could never choose to do good when we could choose to do evil. You can't say someone is enslaved to evil and in the next breath say they can choose to do good. That is a direct contradiction and cannot possibly be true.

What astounds me is that intelligent people can so easily be fooled by obvious contradictions.

Correct, Jesus said sinners can do good. Jesus knows what is good and what is evil, and he said sinners can do good. Men are not enslaved to sin.

As I said before, there would be no such thing as "good works" if everything man does is evil. How can anyone not see this?​

I am simply saying that having the potential and ability to commit a sin does not make you guilty of that sin. If so, the police could go around and arrest anyone they wished at any time for any charge, as all men are capable of committing any crime.

If the police arrested you for robbing a bank simply because you have the ability to rob a bank, would that be just? No man in the world would say that is just, but completely unjust. Likewise, God does not condemn a person for potential or ability, but for actual crimes and sins committed.

How can folks believe such nonsense?

I agree with this, but that does not make it a sin to tell the truth. It is not a sin to tell the truth whether you are saved or unsaved, and it is a sin to lie whether you are saved or unsaved.

I agree here, God does not hold a child accountable until they understand the difference between good and evil and their accountability before God.

What can I say? It says death passed upon all men, it does not say sin passed upon all men.

Calvinism contradicts scripture. The scriptures say sin brings forth death, but Calvinism teaches we are born dead and this brings forth sin. Calvinism teaches the exact opposite of what scripture says.

You shouldn't like it, because it is false doctrine. The Greek Orthodox Church who used only Greek texts completely disagreed with Augustine's interpretation of Rom 5:12 from a Latin text. They said that Rom 5:12 properly taught that death passed upon all men because all men have personally sinned. They have NEVER agreed with Augustine.

Ezekiel 18 says all men die for their own sin. It says the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father, nor shall the father bear the iniquity of the son.
Augustine must have failed to read this very simple and straightforward scripture, Calvin too.

 

You are correct. The Latin West got it completely wrong -- that goes for the RCC and the Magisterial Reformation.

 

Thats not what Scripture says, it says all have sinned...committed the very act of sin. Merely being conceived does not meet that qualification. Christ was 100% human, yet He doesn't fall under this "all".

I have never heard this interpretation before. Can you share a theologian that shares this view?

Based on the above, there might be unbelievers...atheists, muslims, mormons, etc. In Heaven? Faith is no longer a prerequisite?

 

Welcome back, I thought the turkeys did you in

I think that is answered in James 1 which stems from the curse.

The immediate context is dealing with the jews who thought they were safe due to their nationality, but it can be also viewed in a broader sense of the flesh being cursed contaminating even the newly conceived, hence all dying.

Agreed.

Agreed.

The nature ensures what they will become, spiritually dead (sinners)

This is our main point of disagreement. Scripture is clear that redemption to those spiritually dead must be accomplished by grace through faith which appears to contradict what you have said here.

Agreed...which makes your previous statement confusing.

Agreed.

Based on what we agree on I think the inconsistency lies in the fact you are defining someone with a sin nature as a spiritually dead sinner. Fact is we still have this nature (along with a new)...yet we are not spiritually dead. The very fact of being created dead is an oxymoron as death is the ending of life. Paul is quite clear we are dead in OUR sins and trespasses that WE used to walk in. This alone refutes being dead in Adams sins

 

Ok.. but the very term 'nature' speaks to our state of being or spiritual disposition. Thus our 'sin nature' speaks directly not to what is a possibility but a present reality - a corrupted nature or literally a nature that misses the mark. That 'mark' is union with God.

Not if you continue reading my post. Faith is a cognitive action, just as sin is a cognitive action.. Though one is born or conceived separated from God by nature, that is not what we are judged for. Even John McArthur (an avid Calvinist who holds to the "T") states in a sermon of his regarding infants and hell, that no one in scripture is ever judged according to nor for their sin nature... because the judgment regards those who are culpable for their actions.

If you will note the passages I quoted from Scripture regarding Jesus statement. If they did not know they would have no sin, but since they do - their sin remains. What is interesting about the passage is that Jesus doesn't say they never sinned, but if they don't know it they are not help culpable for it, but since they do.. their sin 'remains' - illustrating the action done has a consequence they are now culpable for. It is the aspect of being 'culpable' where we find judgment against sin, for their works - not their birth.

No.. I never said they are a spiritually dead "sinner", I said they are spiritually dead. The term 'dead' in scripture when relating to spiritual things always means separated, not without existence. Jesus is Life.. and thus to be 'dead' is to be separated or not in Union with Him or what is most often called being a 'child or son of God'. Paul's usage of 'adoption' solidifies this as in order to be adopted, you were never one with or a part of the new family in question. And since adoption was not even a Jewish a aspect done in their culture but the Romans, we get our understanding from their renderings on it. Interestingly enough under Roman Law if one was adopted they could not separate themselves from the family. You were family no matter what and could not be legally removed once adoption had been made.

No, death is not the ending of life except in the physical plane of existence. The death scripture speaks to regarding spiritual things is always and only separation from or not in union or one with God. (relationship)

I agree, we have established this fact, not created it. It doesn't state we have become dead, but that we 'are' (state of being) dead/separated in our sins. We have acted out what our nature ensured would happen - sin. That act is simply the manifestation of our spiritual condition.

As believers we do not have a sin nature any more for we are freed from sin, all things are passed away (no longer exist) all things have become new (having no stain or taint). Our flesh still is corrupt but our spirit/soul is clean before God. While we can still sin, it does not dominate us nor control us as it is no longer our nature. This is what scripture means when it speaks of us being a new man/creation.. not another but a new one.

Anyhoo.. Good to see you again

 

But our faith is not a prerequisite to eternal life. 2 Tim 2:13, If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself. Amy is exactly right in her statements. Death is a seperation and does not every time is is used mean seperation from eternal life. There are a lot of scriptures using death as a seperation from God's fellowship and when we are seperated from God's fellowship we still have our promise of everlasting life.

 

No Christ never sinned, but He came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;

James 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

The verse in question falls between these two. It's seems clear to me that James is speaking to his "brethren".

Infants cannot have faith. So how do you supposed they are saved? I say God sovereignly saves them by His own will and the blood of Christ.

 

Faith is a prerequisite to eternal life

Faith is a prerequisite to eternal life
John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

John 3:14-18
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

It sure sounds like Jesus thought that faith was required for eternal life

 

John 3:18, condemned to what? It does not say condemned to eternal punishment. You are just assuming, because of your belief, that it means condemned to eternal punishment. It could mean condemned from a fellowship with God, not eternal punishment.

 

What does the context better support? We cannot simply say "well it could mean" and then dismiss the passage. We are to read Scripture as it has been intended to be read. What did John mean (and more specifically Jesus) when he said...

"whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

So we are speaking of eternal life.

"whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

will not perish but have eternal life. "but" comparison of opposites. eternal life vs eternal_______ (death)

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him"

Still in the context of eternal life. Still in the context of not perishing. so obviously "saved" here is being saved from perishing. Jesus didn't come to condemn the world to perish.

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

There's nothing about fellowship with God here in the context. The best and only contextually supported understanding of condemnation is condemned to eternal punishment.

 

Condemn (John 3:18)
krinw krino kree'-no
properly, to distinguish, i.e. decide (mentally or judicially); by implication, to try, condemn, punish:--avenge, conclude, condemn, damn, decree, determine, esteem, judge, go to (sue at the) law, ordain, call in question, sentence to, think.

Condemnation is a judgment of God, a punishment. There is no way this word is referring to a condemnation of fellowship with God ( I don't even know what that means.), especially considering the context.

 

A.W.Pink says this: