Without Me You Can Do Nothing

HP: You know the drill.

Where is your Scriptural proof of this assertion?

 

HP: Could it be that we need to retake or rethink 'Cause and Effect 101?'

 

With the different definitions of sin afloat, we need to listen once again to Wesley. Here is Wesley presenting his definition of sin.

"nothing is sin, strictly speaking, but a voluntary transgression of the known will of God.”

 

HP: The issues you raise are of the physical nature. The death of babies involves physical depravity. No one denies such is a result of sin that I know of. The question is whether or not ‘sin’ is passed on to babies. Tell me TCG, is 'sin' passed on to babies from Adam? Can you give us one single verse of Scripture that would substantiate that position?

 

HP: Do you have any idea why only some babies die?

 

HP: Fair enough. Let me just say this. Original sin mandates a universal principle. If something is NOT universally observed, it is clearly not directly tied to a universal principle. It may be an effect of something universal, but again not directly part of it.

Scripture states that sin is a transgression of the law. ‘Where there is no transgression, sin is NOT imputed.’ It is simply contrary to Scripture to ascribe sin to the lives of innocent infants or small children.

 

HP: Yes they are indeed different things. Due to the confusion as to what constitutes a ‘sin nature,’ I personally prefer to articulate the state we are born in is with a proclivity or tendency to sin. That should distinguish between actual transgression and subsequent guilt which original sin implies, and being born with a natural influence or tendency to sin which I believe is the truth. No one is a sinner until they first reach an age of accountability and yield their will in accordance to selfish influences as to obedience and benevolence. One has to first transgress the law individually in order to be a sinner, for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

HP: Yes they are indeed different things. Due to the confusion as to what constitutes a ‘sin nature,’ I personally prefer to articulate the state we are born in is with a proclivity or tendency to sin. That should distinguish between actual transgression and subsequent guilt which original sin implies, and being born with a natural influence or tendency to sin which I believe is the truth. No one is a sinner until they first reach an age of accountability and yield their will in accordance to selfish influences as to obedience and benevolence. One has to first transgress the law individually in order to be a sinner, for sin is the transgression of the law.

 

HP: Sin is not a thing. It is only a sin as it is an action that merits a judgment of God against a willful act of disobedience against a known commandment. If sin is not imputed, there is no sin. God does not classify whatever it is as sin for whatever reasons. Sin is not a mere mistake, or an action done in absolute ignorance. Sin is willful rebellion against God.

Can you give us one single Biblical definition of sin that classifies any act done in true ignorance as sin? Listen carefully to this passage.
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.
He did not say that you still had sin it just was not imputed. He said that if ye were really blind ye would have “NO” sin.

I Can hardly believe you would use Ps. 58:3 It does not establish original sin in the least. Read it carefully in the context it was written in. My next post will deal with that text.

 

Ps 58:3: If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Original sin was simply foreign to them.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates two groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of them pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘all’ of them and wash His feet in their blood.

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the wicked appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate and many wrongly assume.