The coupe de grace of deniers of original sin

HP: The 'sin that dwelleth in me' comes directly by the process of sinning repeatedly. It is directly asssociated with habits that are formed by yielding to selfishness until we have a clear inward developed desire to follow the influence of sin.

On thing indwelling sin in no way supports is the notion of original sin. There is not the slightest indication in the words, 'sin that dwelleth in me' to suggest Augustinian original sin. The only way you can get original sin from this verse is to place it there yourself, or read it into the text by way of a presupposition.

No boat sunk in the least by Convicted1. You might check your own Augustinian raft for leaks.

 

HP: The other texts abused by Biblicist I have already addressed IN CONTEXT by the way. (something he continually ignores or abuses)

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

In order to arrive at a conclusion that this text indicates original guilt or sin from birth, and that men are exposed to the wrath of God on the account of the state they are born in, I would have to ignore and or place in question every notion of natural justice God has enlightened man with, as well as to contradict the many clear passages in Scripture that place the guilt of sin directly upon the sinner for his personal acts of disobedience to known laws of God. I believe it to be a wicked notion to assert from this or any other Scripture that a Holy an Just God would be angry with a sinner for the state of nature he was born in without a single intent and or action of sin being the cause of such anger. The Scriptures clearly present God as angry with the sinner for his personal deeds of wickedness, and never angry for the nature he was born with.
Men, prior to regeneration, are said to be in their natural state, as opposed to a changed or regenerated nature, a state of grace. All that is implied in this is that they have a sinful nature, developed just as the verse in question indicates, by fulfilling the desires and lusts of the flesh and mind. James also makes this clear by stating that sin is not conceived UNTIL we yield our wills in relationship to temptation. “Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” It is the “natural” path of all men in our dispensation to succumb to the temptations that are presented to the mind through the inherited natural physical propensities of the flesh, as well as from example from others as they develop through childhood. We often speak of men having “natural talent. This is not to mean that they are born with proclivity so strongly developed in one direction or path that they were coerced to be what they have developed, but rather that from a very young age they utilized their natural abilities by yielding their wills in relationship to the proclivities they possessed and developed those inclinations into the talent that then becomes so evident. To infer that their wills have not played a role in the fruition of those propensities, or that self discipline and ones will was not utilized to at least some degree to see such talent materialize, is simply not the case.

Such is it with sin in our lives. Truly we are born with a natural proclivity to sin via temptations from many angles, the flesh and natural propensities, the devil, as well as from temptations from the world. This is not to say that we are in any way forced to sin, but that we willingly yield our wills from our “youth up” in relationship to theses temptations and proclivities, and all sin and become guilty before God. In this sense does the Scripture in question state that we are by “nature the children of wrath.”

 

Aorist:
The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

Whether it is past, present, or future tense is inconsequential. For example, if I said "we know that everyone has committed sin" or whether I said "we know that everyone will have committed sin" makes no difference on the punticular action itself - that everyone is a sinner.

For example, in Romans 3 we see:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;​

Have sinned is aorist and come short is present passive indicative. However, these are linked by AND making them both simultaneously related to the subject-predicate of all have. The tense is inconsequential to the action, and the focus is on the action.

Note it does't repeatedly say "by one's mans offense, many be sinners." It says "many be DEAD." Death is what is passed, not sin.

I wish Paul had said something to further clarify this so you wouldn't get the wrong idea. Oh silly me... he did:

Rom 5:16 And not as [it was] by one that sinned, [so is] the gift: for the judgment [was] by one to condemnation, but the free gift [is] of many offences unto justification.​

Not surprisingly, your interpretation is demonstrably incorrect. Nowhere in verse 15 does it say "immediate". Remember, the words "be dead" in Romans 5:15 is the Greek word apothnēskō which is used to describe natural death. Furthermore, that if the text were to be saying this, then it would also be saying that life in Christ is immediate in which case, Christians wouldn't experience natural death. You are way off base here.

This is the one verse in all of Romans 5 that seemingly supports your claim. But upon closer inspection, we find that it actually refutes it. Because when we continue on to verse 20 we find out HOW many were made sinners:

Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:​

Many were made sinners because the law entered and made them sinners, greatly increasing (abounding) the sin that was in the earth.

This is why Paul says:

Rom 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.​

Without the law, sin was dead. So between Adam and Moses, sin was dead. It had no power to kill anyone. Yet, they still died. Why? Because death was passed, not sin.

 

HP: Yes we can read, but that in no wise states or implies the nature of that nature or from whence it came or how it was developed. For you to read original sin into the text every time the word 'nature' is spoken of is sheer folly on your part. You have set forth no evidence whatsoever that the word nature must be used to denote original sin in the least. I illustrated clearly how the word nature is used in common parlance. Scripture is no different.

 

On the contrary; I have exegetically shown you from scripture how each of your ideas is wrong, and have soundly and with a great deal of scripture backed up everything I've said. Your position is hermeneutically unsound and often lacks any scriptural support whatsoever. You frequently rely on anecdotal evidence to support your claims (such as "everyone knows" or "if you have ever had kids").

You have yet to show any evidence from scripture that couldn't be easily refuted. Any of your false beliefs that you have tried to proof text with scripture has been woefully inadequate. Your interpretations of scripture are unsound. Your whole doctrinal basis is completely bankrupt of any actual Biblical truth.

I easily showed you that you were wrong.

And I pointed out the error in both your interpretation and logic (atoning for the 1 sin would eradicate the sin nature and none would be born with a sin nature). Then I showed you from scripture why you were wrong (1. "Be dead" is apothnēskō which is physical death & 2. because the context in verses 12, 16, & 20 show that it was "many offenses")

Ezekiel 18 establishes that the law says that the sin of the father is not passed. Certainly I can see why you don't like it because it destroys your entire argument. Ezekiel isn't specific about "which fathers" but speaks to the greater point of law - that it is legally inappropriate for sin to be passed in heredity. It says that we are all judged individually for OUR OWN sin or righteousness.

How easily you give away the sovereignty of God. Do you believe that Adam had the power of his own death? You believe that Adam could decide for himself whether he lived or died? Or are you going to acknowledge that Adam hid himself because he was afraid of being punished for his sin (indicating that he had not yet experienced punishment).

Exd 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.

1Cr 12:29 [Are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

1Cr 14:39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.​

Do you think that coveting is a sin or does the object of your lust make it a sin?

Absolutely I do... this is exactly why righteousness can come based on what you believe (faith).

His eyes were opened after he sinned because he knew he deserved punishment, just as John 3 describes:

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.​

Had his eyes been opened before he sinned, HE WOULD NOT HAVE SINNED.

 

It was YOU who stated in another thread where you stated that God's elect are never in a state of condemnation. Dr. Walter and you debated this.

 

HP: I have always wondered why I hear so many say they sin every day in thought word and deed having been given a new 'self.' Could you find out for me just what 'self' they are following in leading such a lifestyle, and yet calling themselves Christians?

Even if one says they are a believer and only sins on occasion, tell us what 'self' is in control when they do? How can they, if their 'new self' 'dictates' their intents and actions, violate with impunity such a new God given 'self?'

 

If you consider this a personal attack, then I genuinely apologize. My intention is not to attack you but to get to the root of your inconsistent theology. What drives someone like you to hang on so tightly to such an obviously untruthful belief system? You clearly have a deep-seated emotional attachment to this belief system, and I want to know why.

 

Pure opinion. Document it.

David repented for his sin; something you apparently don't believe it. In doing so he admitted he was a sinner all of his life. He was like Mary, admitting her sinfulness and in need of a Savior. She was a Jew also.

Prove it. Show from the Bible they were without a sin nature.

 

The distinction I make is that I believe you become a sinner when you sin, and it sounds like you believe you sin because you were created a sinner.

Since Biblicist is unable to answer, where in scripture do you believe it says that "sin is passed" rather than death is passed (if you believe we inherit a sin nature)?

What would be unjust would be judging us guilty of Adam's sin. If we inherit sin, and the death we experience is in response to that sin, then we are being individually judged for someone else's sin. However the Bible gives us NO MECHANISM whereby sin can be passed. It does, however, give us a mechanism whereby death can be passed - the curse of Genesis 3.

A scripturally supported view is one where death is passed, not sin. After we experience that death, we experience individual judgement;

Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:​

So the death we experience is part of the global curse, it isn't an individual judgement. That individual judgement comes after death.

Just to be clear, I don't think this because I don't adhere to the dogma of "original sin." Those who do believe in Original Sin must either believe that all (even infants) deserve death, or their beliefs are inconsistent Original Sin.

I disagree. We are each only "guilty" of our own sin or righteousness (according to Ezekiel 18). We all suffer the consequences of Adam's guilt in that his sin brought death into the world (the universe was separated from God, and is therefore corrupted and dying).

Consider the flaw in logic - In order to be redeemed, we must be made righteous. There are two ways to be righteous - either follow the law perfectly never offending, or by faith in believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. If we are made righteous, then our sin is overcome or forgiven. Since we didn't individually commit Adam's sin, that sin cannot be individually applied. Since Adam represented the whole human race, and had authority over all of the earth, his sin and punishment were global. However, if that sin were part of the array of sin that convicts us, then it would need to be forgiven for us to have eternal life and be made righteous. Since it was only committed once, by one person and effected the entire creation, to forgive that sin would have a universal effect. By the act of one person being made righteous, it would for all eternity forgive the original sin, and no one would ever inherit a sin nature again because that one sin would have already been forgiven.

That isn't logical. That is the logical end according to your thinking, yes. Not according to mine. In my way of thinking, people have a choice - life or death. If you kill them you disrupt their choice. In your way of thinking, people don't have a choice, therefore, the responsibility for life and death is not their own. They are already dead (depraved) and have no opportunity for redemption unless God decides to do it for them (again, making sin and redemption both God's fault, not a human choice).

 

By nature (so not spiritual, but natural) they were children of wrath. Which is to say they were children who experienced wrath. This is perfectly consistent with death being passed, and not sin. They inherited natural death.

 

This is part of the new testament - the covenant of faith. God looks at the heart to judge as it pertains to faith which is the only way someone who has failed even one point of the law can be saved.

Of course the covenant of faith was established with Abraham and predates the law by 430 years. We would expect to find references to it in the law because the law cannot disannul faith.

But it is interesting that all of the scriptures you used are passages where the speaker is addressing those who would be saved by faith, and not under the law.

The person who builds their theology on Job and Eliphaz makes a foolish mistake. God severely rebukes both for wrong theology.

Job 42:7 And it was [so], that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me [the thing that is] right, as my servant Job [hath].​

Job 40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said,
2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct [him]? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.
6 Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,
7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.
8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?​

 

This is simply incorrect. I'll show you why.

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:​

The phrase by one man relates to sin entered and death entered. However, death passed relates to all men and all sinned.

Sin and death entering is singular. However, death passing and sinning is plural relating to all men.

They are connected by "and so" indicating that the latter is the result of the former, not a description or reiteration of the former.

It would be like saying "The snow came down and so all the streets were slippery." You can't universally equate snow with slippery streets to say "the streets are slippery, it must have snowed." This is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. Similarly, it is unsound logically to say that because sin entered the world through on man, that sin is passed because all became sinners in the action of that one man.

Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.​

It doesn't say "through the offense of one many be SINNERS" ... it says "through the offense of one, many be DEAD." Furthermore here is the pattern:

by 1 sinful man, 1 offense, many condemned.
by 1 sinless man, many offenses, many justified.

It wasn't just humanity -

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;

Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.​

So it's not just humanity that was cursed... but animals, plants, and the very earth itself. In essence - all of creation. This logically makes sense because Adam had dominion over all of creation.

 

Oh - so you have list of the specific things where they "did not speak of God the thing that is right." I'm sure you could show me to the chapter and verse where this list is.

The fact is, we aren't told each thing that was good and bad about the 3 friends, we are just told that God was angry with all of them for misrepresenting him.

Job 42:7 And it was [so], that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me [the thing that is] right, as my servant Job [hath].​

 

I believe in both. Psalm 51:5; 58;3; Jer.13:23; Eph.2:1-3.
These are some of the verses that teach that we are sinners from birth, and there are many others. I can support my position Scripturally. I don't believe you can support yours.

Note the above Scriptures given. Also John 8:44 (children of your father, the devil), hence the need to be born again; born into God's family.
We are children of wrath; children by nature (sinful nature), according to the prince of the power of this world (Satan).

Whenever death is mentioned there is sin. Death is a result of sin. Sin always comes first. Adam sinned; then death came. Because Adam sinned, his nature was marred. He no longer had the image of God.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; (Genesis 5:1)
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Genesis 5:3)
--Seth was not made in the image and likeness of God, but rather after the image of Adam, which had been marred by the curse. His nature was cursed. It was a sin nature unable to live forever which it once had the capability of doing had he remained in the Garden of Eden and eaten of the fruit of the Tree of Life. The image was marred. It is only slightly restored when one is born again, and will be fully restored at the rapture, or when we receive or resurrection bodies. For now we are made in the image of Adam not in the image of God. We have a sin nature that is passed on from Adam.
--Thus the necessity of the virgin birth. Had Jesus not been born of a virgin he would have inherited a sin nature and been a sinner like us.

Death is passed because sin is passed. Without sin there is no death.

All men will be judged. The saved at the Judgment seat of Christ, and the unsaved at the Great White Throne Judgment. Death is applicable to all, as is judgment.

That is a fallacy in your own thinking.

Ezekiel 18 has nothing to do with this and is a badly misunderstood passage. Remember, the serpent was also cursed. So was the ground. The woman received a different curse than the man. But it was the specific curse given to Adam that all the human race would be under the condemnation of sin. It was also the specific promise given to Eve that all the human race would be offered a Messiah.

If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things, (Ezekiel 18:10)
--What is the penalty for murder? It is death. This is context.
Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, (Ezekiel 18:14)
--What happens to the son of a father who is a murderer, who does not follow in his father's footsteps?
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. (Ezekiel 18:19)
--This is a rebuke to the nation. This son is not counted as a murderer just because his father was a murderer. Why should he inherit the label of his father when he has done no such sin?
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. (Ezekiel 18:20)
--In context it is speaking of murder. He that murders shall die according to law of capital punishment. The son shall not bear that kind of punishment that his father received. Why should he? He committed no such sin!

This misunderstood passage has nothing to do with original sin. It has to do with application of justice in a court of law, and how the Jews were treating the children of parents who lived wicked lives.

Adam lived 930 years after he sinned. We suffer the consequences of his sin, not his death. His death was a consequence of his sin. The death that is referred to is his spiritual death.
"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
When did Adam die? At age 930, or when he ate of the fruit?
He died when he ate of the fruit, and still carried on a conversation with God, though he was dead!

One sin was committed. One nature was corrupted. One sin nature was passed on to all future generations. To forgive the sins of all mankind One Person had to die, that person being perfect man, and God at the same time: perfect for only the sinless could die for the sinner, God, for only God could die for all generations. But God gives the choice. It is efficacious only to those that believe. It is universal in that it is for all. It is efficacious only to those that believe. Whosoever may come.

You are the one that wanted to take the law into your own hands and suggested to kill or abort all infants simply because they would have a sin nature. If that be true go on a full crusade and kill all. That is logical. Why would you suggest such? Man has the image of Adam, not of God. It is corrupted. He has the choice of trusting Christ and restoring that image even if it is only partially. Your concept of "dead (depraved) giving no opportunity for redemption" is not true. I am not a Calvinist, BTW.