Hey!! You with a Calvinist quiz - I wanna do it!

You contradicted yourself in this statement. First you say that man has a choice to either sin or not sin (which is in fact the pelagian heresy). Then you say that all men will sin because of their sin nature. Please choose one and let's have an intelligent and honest discussion.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Sularis, you keep saying it is unfair that Adam's sin makes us guilty. But isn't it equally "unfair" that we all receive the physical consequences of Adam's sin - i.e., death? How fair is that? We didn't sin - it was Adam - yet, even if we were to live perfectly we would still die. That's unfair!

By the way, you still haven't answered my question: Had God placed you in the Garden, would you have avoided the forbidden fruit?

 

Sularis, the point of the question was to show that in Adam we all sinned. That's what Rom. 5:12-19 teaches. We all stand in judgment. Any person in heaven will be there because of Christ's redemption on the cross, not because of any innocence on the part of the individual.

 

Sularis, my brother, you may or may not be aware of internet language, but using all caps to emphasize a point is the equivalent to shouting. If you already know this, I urge you to tone down your rhetoric. If you didn't know this, I'm gently making you aware of it.

Two ways to emphasize are in italics and in bold-face. They make your point without offending.

 

Sularis, you seem to be upset with me because I don't agree with you. And I don't. Do I have to? I apologize for the "unfair" statement. That is the only place in this discussion where I have been wrong in my treatment of you, and it was based on my perception of your reasoning. But you make it sound as though I've been treating you horribly. I believe that is inacurrate.

FWIW, I agree with you that every man is guilty for their own sin. Where we part company is that I believe (as does historic Evangelical/Baptist teaching) that Adam's sin is actually our own sin, per Rom. 5:12 and 18. Notice that in v. 18 condemnation came to all men. Why would someone be condemned if they weren't guilty? I find nowhere in Scripture where someone is innocent until they commit an outward act of rebellion. What I do see is Scripture like Psalm 51:5 that says we are even conceived in sin.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one for now. Is that o.k.?

 

Sularis, I thought I did address your post. I agree with part of your conclusion - that everyone is responsible for their own sin. So I have no problem with those verses you posted. Where we disagree comes down to our differeing interpretations of Rom. 5:12-19 (and some other passages). I believe we all sinned in Adam and therefore are guilty and stand condemned unless we are justified in Christ.

 

We all sinned in Adam (Rom 5:12), which means that Adam was our representative in this matter. But not an unfair representative (else we could charge God with injustice). He represented us in that what he did, we (everyone of us) also would have done the same. No one can say that if they were placed in the Garden they would have remained innocent. So in that regard Adam represented us - and we are all guilty, even at our conception. Psa. 51:5.

So I agree with you on your other point - that my parents' sins are not my sins, etc. But Adam's sin is definitely my sin, since to claim I would have done better than Adam is to charge God with injustice or stupidity.

 

Sularis, your quotation of Jer actually disproves your whole point... just simply look one verse prior... Jer 31:29-30 esv In those days they shall no longer say:
(30) But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge."

Gill says of this passage:
"Jer 31:29 - In those days they shall say no more,.... The following proverb or byword; they should have no occasion to use it, nor should they choose to use it; since they would understand themselves, and the dispensations of Providence towards them, better than to use it:

the fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge; that is, the fathers have sinned, and the children are punished for their sins. So the Targum,

"the fathers have sinned, and the children are smitten.''

This was in some sense true; they were punished for their fathers' sins in the captivity, particularly for Manasseh's; nor was it unusual with God to visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children; nor at all unjust, since they were a part of their parents, and especially since they were guilty of the same sins; nor is it thought unjust among men to punish children for the treason of their parents, as every sin is treason against God. But this was not all that was meant by this proverb; the sense of those that used it was, that they themselves were quite clear and innocent, and that they only suffered for their fathers' faults; which was false, of which they should be convinced, and use the proverb no more, as charging God with injustice."

As far as Deut 24:16, this is dealing with human statutes and laws, eg your proof text is found in a section speaking to how humans should conduct themselves in various situations that requires some type of moderation in regard to the litigation and punishment for certain activities, eg divorce and remarriage, newlyweds not going into battle, what to pledge or use as collateral for loans, theft, dealing with leprosy, dealing with the poor, fair wages, and finally, that the son shall not be punished for a crime committed by the father... I am not sure if you saw the film Gladiator, in the film the main character broke the law and as a result, he was incarcerated and his wife and son were brutally murdered, it was common custom in those days for the entire family to be killed for the crime of the head of the household, Keil and Delitzsch remark on Deut 24:16 "Warning against Injustice. - Deu_24:16. Fathers were not to be put to death upon (along with) their sons, nor sons upon (along with) their fathers, i.e., they were not to suffer the punishment of death with them for crimes in which they had no share; but every one was to be punished simply for his own sin. This command was important, to prevent an unwarrantable and abusive application of the law which is manifest in the movements of divine justice to the criminal jurisprudence of the lane (Exo_20:5), since it was a common thing among the heathen nations - e.g., the Persians, Macedonians, and others - for the children and families of criminals to be also put to death."

.... but it is evident that from God's perspective, children can end up being punished for the parents sin, a case in point being the death of David and Bathsheba's child, who was killed for their sin, or particularly, David's sin of adultery.

The following also explains that at times, children do suffer for their parents sins, dealing with the fact that Saul's extended family were punished as a result of Saul's sins....

"In the case of King Saul's grandchildren, no ordinary crime was involved. It was a matter of national guilt on a level that affected Israel as a whole. We are not given any information as to the time or the circumstances of Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites, but we are told that it was a grave breach of a covenant entered into back in the days of Joshua and enacted in the name of Yahweh (Josh. 9:3-15). All the nation was bound by this oath for all the days to come, even though it had been obtained under false pretenses. Therefore when Saul, as head of the Israelite government, committed this atrocity against the innocent Gibeonites, God saw to it that this covenant violation did not go unpunished. He sent a plague to decimate the population of all Israel, until the demands of justice could be met. God had delayed this visitation until it would do the least possible damage to the security of the nation, that is, until after the surrounding nations had been defeated and subdued to the rule of King David.

However, the high mortality resulting from the famine compelled David to inquire of the Lord what was the reason for this new calamity. God's answer came to him: "It is for Saul and his bloody house, because he put the Gibeonites to death" (2 Sam. 21:1, NASB). Saul himself and his sons had already fallen in battle, slain by the Philistines at the battle of Mount Gilboa; but the full measure of his guilt had yet to be paid for. This vengeance had to be visited on seven descendants of that king, for seven was a number symbolizing the complete work of God. Israel had to learn by this solemn object lesson that their covenants with foreign nations, sworn to in the name of Yahweh, had to be observed at all costs.

Under special circumstances, then, the general rule of safeguarding children against punishment for the sins of their parents was subject to exceptions, so far as God's administration of justice was concerned. In each of the above cases it is fair to conclude that if the children involved had been permitted to live out a normal lifespan, they would have chosen to follow in the evil example of their forebears and thus occasioned much suffering and woe to others. Only God could know that for a certainty, however, for only He can foreknow the potential of each new soul. For man to inflict such preventive penalty without express permission from God (as in the case of Joshua and the population of Jericho) would be the height of injustice and presumption." (The Ency. of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer)

As far as Eze 18 goes, this has to be kept alongside of Eze 21:4 esv Because I will cut off from you both righteous and wicked, therefore my sword shall be drawn from its sheath against all flesh from south to north."
Here we see the righteous "paying the price" for the sins of the unrighteous. The point is, is that there is a strong sense of corporate responsibility throughout the Bible, so we can see that, for instance, when Achan sins in Joshua 7:1-26, there is a sense in which all Israel sinned as well. Jos 7:1 esv But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel."

So in Ro 5:12 the principle is that Adam's sin plunged the whole world into sin, that in some sense, we bear the responsibility and the penalty for Adam's sin. This is universal, whereas the forgiveness of sins is not, it is particular and thus will be given only to those who are in Christ.

blessings,
Ken