By One Man's Disobedience Many Were Made Sinners

Oh you poor soul!!
Soul is often used to mean person, as it is in Ezekiel 18. That is all it means--person. It is often used this way. All the people belong to the Lord. The context was the nation of Israel, of course. They were his chosen nation--they all belonged to him.

It was the child that should not be punished for the sins of the father. Often he is. Jephthah was. He was an outcast because he was born an illegitimate child. Was that his fault? Whose fault was it that he was born illegitimate? Not his, yet he was the one that was paying for his parents' sins. This often happens in every society. People are looked down upon because they are born "into the wrong family." This is what the passage is speaking of.

It is not speaking of depravity of man here; but rather of prejudice and bias.

This is what the Jews were doing and what God was correcting. He was telling them not to punish children for their parents sins. Why should children bear the scars and penalties of their parents. This the topic of the chapter. Why not try reading it?

 

Ezekiel 18 is speaking of eternal death, not physical, temporal death. Here is what Matthew Henry wrote concerning this chapter. It has been clipped for brevity only.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Matthew Henry agrees with my interpretation perfectly, and disagrees with yours.

Here is the link if you want to read for yourself.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/comm...tID=1472&commInfo=5&topic=Ezekiel&ar=Eze_18_1

 

Matthew Henry is a devotional commentary and he has a habit of spiritualizing many of the texts that he comes across.

 

That would be very sad if that is the case.

Hey Bill...I am here quite often...if you have some correction to offer step up like a man and say what is on your mind...if you feel you can.
Do not give some cheessy drive by post...making wimpy little comments.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You amaze me DHK. I knew you would not listen to me, that is why I quoted Matthew Henry. I thought you might see that scholars agreed with my interpretation. I did not get my interpretation from Henry, but from simply reading the scripture. It is clear it is speaking of eternal death if a person looks closely. It just so happened Henry interpreted it the same.

You have made up your mind. But don't falsely accuse me of misinterpreting the scriptures or pulling scripture out of context, I try never to do that. Matthew Henry actually shows I did a pretty good job, his interpretation agrees almost perfectly with what I got from the passage. So, I was not out in right field in my interpretation at all.

 

This is from Keil and Deilitsch.
Does it make it any clearer?

 

No, this is much clearer to me;

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

You don't have to have a degree in theology to understand this verse. God does not impute the father's sin to his son, everyone dies for their own sin and not another's. I really don't need to see mental gymnastics by scholars in an attempt to explain away such a simple verse.

It is you that needs to explain away a very simple and straightforward verse, not me.

 

I have a number of children. Suppose I commit murder. Should my children sit in jail because I committed such a crime?
I should pay the penalty (capital punishment) for my crime.
My children should not rot in jail or have any other punishment meted out to them because of my crime.
That is the meaning of the verse. It is quite clear.

Why read into it something that is not there?

 

It is amazing how folks can read, and yet not comprehend. The verse does not say the son shall not bear the punishment of his father. It does not say the son shall not die because of the father. It says the son shall not bear THE INIQUITY of his father. God does not impute anyone's sin to any other person, including Adam's siin. Every man is justly and fairly held responsible for only his own sin.

It is you that is reading into this verse what it does not say. It says the son shall not bear THE INIQUITY of his father, neither shall the father bear THE INIQUITY of the son. It is a very simple and straightforward verse, but you insist we all bear Adam's sin. It is you that believes we are born dead in sin, separated from God because of Adam's sin, and not our own sin.

I have showed you many scriptures that refute your view. When the prodigal son returned home after LEAVING his father of his own accord, twice Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. You cannot be alive again if you were never alive to begin with as you falsely believe. 1 Peter 2:25 says we were as sheep going ASTRAY, but now are RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of our SOULS. You cannot return someplace you have never been. God calls infants who were sacrificed to idols MY CHILDREN in Ezekiel 16:21. Paul said he was once ALIVE, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he DIED. He said sin SLEW him. You cannot kill something that is already dead.

If you did not believe the false doctrine of Augustine, all of these scriptures would make perfect sense to you. But because you hold to Augustine's Manichean and Gnostic beliefs, you must explain away these many scriptures. You must make up ridiculous and unscriptural theories that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to avoid a sin nature, when scriptures say it was a sign.

Believe whatever you wish to believe DHK.

 

Winman, whom, of Augustine's era, do you read and follow?

Just wondering the original source documents for your take that Augustine's doctrine is so incorrect.

You seem quite adamant that Augustine is at the heart of a major heretical view of Scripture. Just wondering whom else has spoken in that era that you would agree with?

Perhaps Origen, who fathered the concepts that led to Pelagius? Or perhaps Pelagius, of whom Augustine wrote against?

Or maybe you prefer Valentinus or one of the other writers that the early fathers wrote against?

If you will continue your tirade against Augustine -- likely derived from some web site you are reading somewhere -- at least understand what and whom you are arguing for and against.

And, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT COMES NEXT, no I do not support EVERY WORD that Augustine wrote. He, like EVERY theologian, including the amateurs on this board, makes a few errors in doctrine here and there when he extends Scripture beyond what God revealed and/or codifies tradition instead of scriptural exegesis as the base for doctrines of the church.

 

There are literally dozens of articles that can be found online concerning the development of the doctrine of Original Sin, and I have probably read most of them. I am quite aware there were ECFs before Augustine who suggested OS, but there were also many ECFs who did not hold to it. But it was Augustine that first sought to establish OS from scripture, and the scripture he primarily argued from was Romans 5:12. The problem was, Augustine used a Latin text that said, "in whom" all have sinned, which the Eastern church disagreed with. The Eastern church with Greek texts said the end of this verse should be rightly translated "for that" or "because that" all have sinned. This was one of the many reasons for the split between the Eastern and Western church. The Eastern church has never held to OS as Augustine defined it.

It is Augustine that is credited as making OS the official doctrine of the RCC.

This is part of just one article I have read, I have gone to Catholic sites that support OS and read on the subject. So, I am quite aware Augustine did not invent the idea of OS, but he was primarily responsible for making it the official doctrine of the RCC.

It really doesn't matter to me who thought of it first, Ezekiel 18:20 says the son shall not bear THE INIQUITY of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of his son. That is a very simple and straightforward verse of scripture that directly addresses the subject. Augustine and others argue from a verse that does not say Adam's sin was passed on to us. It says DEATH passed on us, not sin.

Rom 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:

Show me where Romans 5:12 says sin passed on all men. If you can show me that, perhaps I will change my mind and believe OS. But you can't possibly do that, because that is not what this verse says. You read it, but instead of comprehending it for what it truly says, your mind reads into this verse what you have been taught, and what the verse does not say. It does not say sin passed on us whatsoever.

 

Winman, it is indeed uplifting to see one such as yourself willing to do the hard work of open-minded study to arrive at your conclusions. An excellent post with much truth presented!:thumbs:

 

I believe the Bible, but you are so blinded by Augustinian doctrine that you can't see clearly the meaning of this passage.
1. Where is Augustine mentioned?
2. Where is original sin mentioned?
3. Where is the depravity of man mentioned?
4. Where is the sins of Adam mentioned or the Adamic nature mentioned?

There is not any reference to these things in Ezekiel 18, so why are you forcing it to say such things? Why can't you stay with the context? Are you accusing Calvinists (which I am not) of using this verse to prove something when it doesn't. I don't use this Scripture to prove the depravity of man, but I believe it. What is your motive? It doesn't seem right here.

 

So, you admit that the concept of original sin was one present in the very early church, and that the doctrine was under some development well before Augustine.

That is the main point I have been trying to make.

I am NOT arguing in this thread about other points of doctrine from the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers and have readily admitted that they made errors in their doctrine.

My point was HISTORICAL only.

Thanks for your help.

All well and good. I disagree with what you said about Augustine's misunderstanding of the text, but we can discuss that later. If he misunderstood it, so did virtually everyone else, except of course, Origien and Pelagius, and you have earlier disavowed yourself of Pelagius' thought on this matter, so I'm not sure where you stand (or with whom) after that. There must be some mystical Baptist in the history of the church that argues from silence in order to arrive at some other conclusion... :smilewinkgrin:

Again, thanks... That WAS my point.

And, you have not exegeted this Scripture IN CONTEXT as was suggested by DHK above.

WE KNOW and readily admit that the son does not pay the penalty for a father who was a murder.

What that passage DOES NOT SAY is that the son was not born in a state of separation from God because of his inherited sin nature. That SO MANY Anti-Nicene Church Fathers found original sin IN THE TEXT speaks loudly to the fact that you are misinterpreting this particular passage because of an a priori presupposition on your part that there is no original sin that a person is born carrying.

So, next you are faced with a larger problem... How to decide just when sin enters into the life/soul/spirit (whatever) of the youngster. At what point does the Cross become NECESSARY for them? The very earliest church decided from birth. The church ever since the writing of Scripture has said the same, EXCEPT persons declared heretical in their thought on this issue.

So (again) you are faced with the problem, do you side with those declared heretical or do you see original sin in the Text. There is no alternative choice, for that die has been cast. You either admit to Pelagianism or you do not, but if not, then original sin exists.

For the life of me, I cannot understand what is so difficult about Romans 5:12. Since it was written it has always been understood to read that because of Adam sin entered into all men.

Let's break it down in English:

-- Wherefore -- Because of the argument presented to this point by PaulAAAs
-- As by -- because of -- a comparison to
-- One -- singular
-- Man -- a human being (modified by the singluar above)
-- Sin -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God
-- Entered -- came into (existence or being)
-- The world -- "Kosmos" -- the universe inhabited by human beings, in context, people

Stopping so far to see what has been written:

Because of the argument presented so far, i.e., that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and that "all are without excuse, for God has been revealed to all," because of one, singular, human being -- a man -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God came into (existence) in the world, or in context, the people of the world.

Your argument is already defeated, for that IS what this passage says.

So far, we find that sin has entered the world by one man. So, sin is present in the "world" and because we (rightly) understand that "the world" does not actively "sin" -- it having no capacity to do so -- we also (rightly) understand that in context Paul is writing about sin inhabiting PEOPLE who live in the world, that being his context for the first 5 chapters of this book.

Let's look at the next clause:

-- And -- a continuation of the former clause, speaking (in context) of the sin that entered the world
-- Death -- complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul
-- By -- with, because of, on account of, through
-- Sin -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God

So, in continuation of the former clause, i.e., that by one man sin entered the world, a complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul occur because of, on account of, through,
an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God.

Sin entered the world (people) by a man, and death came as a result of that sin (not the death of the one man, but in reference to all the ones in the world to whom sin entered).

Your case is further weakened, for now not only sin but death is in all the world.

Next clause:

-- And -- a continuation of the former clause
-- So -- because of, on account of
-- Death -- complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul
-- Passed -- to travel the road that leads to, to go the way of, to walk or journey, to travel
-- On -- preposition, into, onto, towards
-- All -- literally, every
-- Men -- "anthropos" -- human beings

So, because of what came before, i.e., "that by one man sin entered the world, a complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul occur because of, on account of, through, an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God sin entered the world (people) by a man, and death came as a result of that sin (not the death of the one man, but in reference to all the ones in the world to whom sin entered)," complete loss of life, ceasing of the body to live, separation of body and soul traveled or went the way of, passed into or towards every human being.

Still haven't helped your cause...

And finally, the conclusion of the matter:

-- For -- on, becasue, to, by
-- That -- pronoun -- whom, who, which, that
-- All -- literally, every
-- Have -- action -- past, accomplished
-- Sinned -- an individual act of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God

Because of (everything that came before), whom is all, every one, in an accomplished past action, have sinned, plural, indivual acts of disobedience or want of conformity to the law of God.

Your case is closed.

One cannot grasp the later clause and use it as a lever to make the first clause inconsequential. The ordering of the Greek does not allow that and in this case the ordering of the English is identical.

:12 διὰ τοῦτο ὥσπερ δι’ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ θάνατος καὶ οὕτως εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Eze 18:20 refutes Original Sin that says we are born in sin. Eze 18:20 clearly and simply says God does not impute the sins of the father to the son or vice versa.

The scriptures say God has made man upright, not a sinner, but they have sought out (an act of the will) many inventions.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

To seek out something is an act of the will. A newborn baby cannot even comprehend what sin is, much less seek or devise sin. The word of God itself shows little children do not understand the difference between good and evil.

Deut 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

You can tell a newborn baby all day long it is a sin to lie, and that baby will not understand a word you are saying. Deut 1:39 shows that little children do not know the difference between good and evil. A child must mature, probably at least 2 years old before they can grasp what a lie is.

So obviously, Ecc 7:29 is speaking of persons who have matured enough to understand between good and evil, and have willingly sought to do wrong. But that is not how men come into the world, the scriptures say God has made man upright. And the word "they" shows this verse is speaking of all men, and not Adam only.

 

For the life of me why do you take Scripture out of context which not even the typical Calvinist uses to prove the opposite. You don't make sense.
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. Stop. Period.
There is absolutely nothing there about original sin. Read the context. Why are you reading into this passage something that is not there. It is speaking of murder and cruelty.

You quote from the favorite book the cults like to use. Why is that? You ignore context. "They have sought out many inventions." Doesn't that give you a clue? Solomon, through his wisdom, is seeking out various avenues of life where to find happiness. The theme is "vanity of vanities; all is vanity." He is looking at life from an unsaved point of view. The conclusion is not given until the last chapter. This is an unsaved man's point of view; for we know God did not make man upright except it be for Adam. "There is none good, no not one." God doesn't contradict himself.

To say such is to ignore much scripture especially that which is taught in Romans 5:12-19.

Wrong again. The little ones here are those that are 20 and younger, well able to make decisions on their own. The older generation would not inherit the land because of their obstinacy to the testimony of Joshua and Caleb. You are ignoring context.

When you ignore context you can make the Bible say anything you want it to:
"There is no God" Psalm 14:1

 

HP: To the list: Pardon me for the following remark. I am only using the reference to a cult with DHK to illustrate a point.:thumbsup:

DHK, you sometimes deny the plain simple truth of Scripture, as you do with the passage in Ezek 18, just as cults deny the plain truths of Scripture.

Seriously, your reference to the cults and their misuse of Scripture, and your association between a believers remarks and those of a cult, gets rather old. Possibly you might consider trying a different approach, more in keeping with language coined for use between fellow believers. :thumbs:

Maybe like....YOU IDIOT! (JUST KIDDING!) or some other kind remark you seem to feel is OK or allow as being in keeping with Christian charity.

 

Some people, including yourself, are slow at learning.
The essential truth is this: When you ignore context all meaning is lost.
You and others do this again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again,
and you get the idea.

 

Ohhh. I get it. Like the context of Psalms 14, 53 and 58 according to DHK that is.

 

There is context there too.