No, little children are not sinners;
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )
See, your argument is that someone whom the Bible clearly says has done no evil is a sinner. That is a ridiculous argument.
Now, it is true that the scriptures say "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". This seems to be a direct contradiction, but we know the scriptures cannot contradict themselves.
So what is the answer? The answer is that Romans 3:23 is speaking of adults, or at least of persons old enough to understand right from wrong.
In a figure of speech, yes. Paul said he was chief among sinners. But technically, all his sins are forgiven and he was washed white as snow and has absolutely no sin.
It is not a foolish argument at all. It shows that sin does not result directly in physical death. Animals cannot sin, yet they die. Therefore, physical death does not prove one is a sinner. You may not like that, but it is absolutely true and perfectly logical.
Now, God said Adam and Eve would die in "the day" that they sinned. Did they physically die that day? Nope. So this was not the death God spoke of, he spoke of spiritual death, which is separation from God.
But scripture doesn't show we are born spiritually dead. Paul said he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He could not have been saying he physically died, so we know for a fact he is speaking of spiritual death. Therefore, when he said he was alive without the law once, he meant before he knew the law he was spiritually alive. He was not dead in sin or separated from God.
Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
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.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
This scripture is very straightforward and simple. It is clearly describing when Paul learned the law as a young Jewish man. He said he would have not known sin but by the law, he would have not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet.
Paul thought that the law would lead to life, but instead, knowledge of the law made him accountable before God and convicted him as a sinner, therefore he spiritually died.
That is what this passage is saying, plain as day. But because you hold the false doctrine of Original Sin you must wrest this scripture with all sorts of convoluted theories.
As I showed earlier, 1 Peter 2:25 shows we were not born dead or estranged from God. It shows we were Jesus's sheep until we went astray, but now we are RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. Any honest person easily sees this shows we were not born dead in sin separated from God.
But you just go on and believe that Catholic hack from the 5th century and see where it gets you.
Verses Misused to teach Original Sin
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Inspector Javert, Apr 12, 2014.
Page 8 of 11
-
Let's look at if more closely.
First, in context, it is speaking of the nation of Israel as all of Romans 9-11 is.
Second, it is speaking of God's foreknowledge.
Take another example, a parallel example.
Abraham had one child, a child of promise:
Genesis 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Genesis 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
--Even before Isaac was conceived, before he was in the womb, he was chosen to be the heir of all things. He was the chosen one, the one that Jehovah would make his covenant with. He could not do any good or evil before he was conceived, before he even existed, could he?
Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
--Abraham had many other children. Count them all. There are many.
But look at verse 5: All that he had he gave to Isaac!
Before Isaac was even conceived he knew this would happen.
This also is the meaning of Romans 9:11. It is speaking of the purpose of God, as it says it is. It is not speaking of the depravity of man. You are reading that into the Scripture--eisigesis. It is your proof text, but has nothing to do with your errant doctrine.
Do you have the same spiritual image as a rat?
God said: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And they did. And every person born thereafter died also. Adam was the federal head of the human race and passed that sin nature to every person born of man. That is why Seth was not made in the image of God, but rather in the image of Adam, to stress that point to us. The image of God had been marred.
There has never been a time in the existence of mankind where there has been no law. Thus he was dead from birth, and needed to be born again. Why do you think there is a necessity of the new birth?
I have explained this passage more than once to you. You refuse truth. Go back and read my explanations.
Paul had the law as a very young child. I was always in his heart, just as it is always in the heart of every Gentile. It is called "conscience" which God gives every man. He did not have to be taught guilt when he did wrong, even at the age of two and three or perhaps earlier.
The came "alive" when the Holy Spirit convicted him of his sin.
The cults are the ones that use the method of "one word-one meaning" interpretation of Scripture. But words have more than one meaning. Until you admit this you will never be able to interpret Scripture properly.
1Pet.2:25 is irrelevant to OS, and doesn't prove your case at all. You simply don't accept the definition of words. You try to redefine them by taking scripture out of context.
"Astray as soon as they be born" is a good example of how you can't change the meaning of this word in some cases.
-
This refutes Original Sin, especially those that claim Paul was teaching all mankind "sinned" at one moment with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, a favorite claim of Iconoclast and Hank.
Gen 21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.
Look, you can't have it both ways, you can't say Paul is teaching everyone sinned with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, and then this same Paul tells us Jacob and Esau had not sinned while they were in their mother's womb. It doesn't matter that the subject is election, Paul gives us a fact that refutes Original Sin here.
Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
I didn't make up this story about 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, Jesus did. Do you really believe Jesus spoke nonsense?
I have shown Deu 1:39 dozens of times. God did not punish the little children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness. Why? Because they had no KNOWLEDGE between good and evil.
Deu 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.
Why do you ignore plain scripture? Was there law in the world at this time? Sure, men knew right from wrong long before this. Did the little children know between good and evil? NO!
You are just being stubborn and resisting truth.
And this is what Paul is explaining in Romans 7. Like all young Jewish persons, he was required to study and learn the law. He believed that following the law would lead to life, but instead, the knowledge of the law made him accountable before God. He was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. Paul didn't say he "mistakenly thought" he was alive as some foolishly claim, he clearly says he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He could not possibly be saying he physically died, so we know he is saying he spiritually died. This shows that Paul was spiritually alive until he learned the law.
And I don't care what the church has taught for 2000 years if it is pure ERROR. That is why God gave us the scriptures, so we can study and know the truth, and not be deceived by the false doctrines of men. -
In fairness, by saying "THE CHURCH" has believed thus and such for about 2,000 yrs. means only that the ROMAN Catholic Church has believed thus and such for x amount of time....
They also believe in infant Baptism and the Immaculate conception of Mary (both deranged ideas rooted specifically in Original Sin).....
This not only ignores the fact that Orthodox Christianity, and there have been hundreds of millions of those throughout history (probably more in total than Roman Catholics) do not believe in Original Sin (at least not in the same since as Romanism does) and never have. They do not believe that man participated in Adam's sin in the garden as Romanism holds. So, that statement fails on that point alone....
But there are other groups who do not believe in Original Sin either.
So this claim that "THE CHURCH" has believed thus and such is myopic, ethno-centric, and short-sighted. On it's face...it means absolutely nothing.
Only someone who is incurably trapped in a uniquely Western mindset would ever make such a statement....
If someone who grew up in Romania, Greece or Russia taught Original Sin, they would be rebutted by the statement:
"You are ignoring 2,000 yrs. of the Church's belief".... -
Consider the history that baptism by immersion, given to adults upon profession of their faith was universally practiced for the first two centuries. In the third century infant baptism began to creep in. Why? Because they feared that their infants would die and go to hell. This was before the origin of the RCC. This teaching came from the belief of the depravity of man. Because they were born in sin, sinners at birth, they must be baptized at infancy to guard against going to hell. Hence, baptismal regeneration--one of the first errors to enter into the Christian church. -
-
This refutes Original Sin, especially those that claim Paul was teaching all mankind "sinned" at one moment with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, a favorite claim of Iconoclast and Hank.Click to expand...
There is a significant difference between Romans 9:11 and Romans 5:12.
Romans 9:11 uses the phrase "practice" evil while Romans 5:12 uses "all sinned".
IOW the sentence of sin was there in both Jacob and Esau in 9:11 it just hadn't borne its adamic fruit yet through the exercise of there individual wills and therefore neither had incurred guilt.
HankD -
Winman said: ↑No, we are not born estranged from God.
1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Peter said we are now RETURNED to Jesus, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. You cannot return someplace you have never been. This verse proves we are not born estranged from God, but go out later in sin and become separated. We we repent, we RETURN to God.
Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
Was the lost sheep originally lost? NOPE.
Luk 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
Was the lost silver piece originally lost? NOPE.
Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:
Was the prodigal son originally lost? NOPE.
Now, if you want to play stupid like you do not understand this scripture, that is your privilege.Click to expand... -
Yeshua1 said: ↑We have ALL ran away from God, that we are sinners who are away from God, at war with him, as our natural selves neither seek after Him, nor can even know Him in a saving sense !There is NOTHING in our flesh that can make peace with God, as we MUST be born again and have a new nature in order to make that happen!Click to expand...
-
Inspector Javert said: ↑It might floor you to realize that Winman would affirm every single one of those statements you just made.Click to expand...
-
Yeshua1 said: ↑Interesting, as he has stated that we are right with God until we actually choose to sin against Him!Click to expand...
They were general and non-disputed Theological platitudes, none of which are denied by anyone here. -
Also just for the record and something I have known for a long time is that "original sin" was taught in one form or another before Augustine.
One of the reasons I don't like the phrase "original sin" I have stated many times.
Another is that the early church fathers didn't use the phrase itself but yet taught sin passed on from Adam, here is a list and where you can find it.
Be sure to read them all (there are others as well) because it might be denied, so read and decide for yourselves as it seems that at least one opponent assigns all the credit to Augustine.
I don't like citing the ECF but to clear up a point of church history concerning what is commonly called "original sin" is that it goes far back beyond Augustine.
IRENAEUS - 180AD
TERTULLIAN – 200AD
ORIGEN – 244AD (yes, not a good guy)
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE – 250AD
METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI – 300AD
APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE - 340AD
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ch...h-fathers.html
HankD -
Inspector Javert said: ↑Yes.
A belief in Baptismal Regeneration (itself a heresy) combined with Original Sin (and high infant mortality rates) to bring about infant Baptisms.
What you are calling "THE CHURCH" in support of your belief in Original Sin....
Is the very "CHURCH" (Romanism) which has continued that line of thinking for the last 2,000 years...
That's not a convincing argument.Click to expand...
One can trace the doctrine of such separated movements outside of the RCC and find whether or not they believed in the depravity of man.
Orchard, in his "A Concise History of the Baptists" quotes Ireneus:
Irenaeus, pastor of a church at Lyons. He was a Greek by birth, and liberally educated. Before he accepted the pastorate of Lyons, he lived at Smyrna, under the religious instruction of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples. During his residence at Lyons, the Christians were called to realize death in every form. A creed is still extant bearing his name, and much of early simplicity. [Le Clerc’s Ecc. Hist. and Jortin’s Rem. on Ecc. Hist. v. ii., b. 2, p. 2, p. 25] The following passage from his writings is supposed by some to allude to the ordinance: "Christ passed through all ages of man, that he might save all by himself: all, I say, who by him are regenerated to God infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and persons advanced in years:" [Facts Opposed to Fiction, p. 17] but these words refer to salvation, not baptism. The word regeneration cannot, in this passage, be understood to signify baptism, without attaching too much importance to that ordinance. The same pious father regrets the conduct of some "who thought it needless to bring the person to the water at all; but mixing oil and water together, they pour it on the candidate’s head." [Wall’s Hist. part 1, p. 406] How deeply would Irenaeus grieve, did he live now!Click to expand...
Irenaeus lived ca. 125-202 A.D. He is one of the earliest of the church fathers.
Contrary to what Winman keeps on asserting, the "innocent" infant must be regenerated by Christ. Christ died for the sins, and atoned for the sins of the infants, and the little ones, and the children..."
These words refer to salvation not baptism the author rightly asserts.
It is obvious that Irenaeus taught the depravity of man, that man had a sin nature from birth onward.
Click to expand... -
Inspector Javert said: ↑Yes, and none of the statements you made contradict that.
They were general and non-disputed Theological platitudes, none of which are denied by anyone here.Click to expand... -
Winman said: ↑Again, your interpretation of Romans 5:19 fails because you are inconsistent with Paul's form of argument. You are imputing sin to all men unconditionally, but you impute righteousness to only those who conditionally believe. This is inconsistent, you are not treating each half of this verse equally as Paul's form of argument demands.Click to expand...
There are only two "consistent" interpretations. The first would be that if sin is unconditionally imputed to all men, then righteousness would likewise be imputed unconditionally to all men. This would lead to universalism, which we know is not true.Click to expand...
Well, if you ignore verse 3 you could wrest verse 2 to fit your view, but in context with verse 3 it absolutely shows we become sinners when we personally sin with our own hands, fingers, lips, and mouth. It could not be any clearer.
Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.
If you think this scripture supports your view you are out of your mind.I see you cannot grasp the argument. Let me try again and I will type slowly. :) The verse says sins (more than the first one) cause a separation. Thus if we are separated to some degree as a consequence of Adam's sin, then our iniquities would continue to separate or enlarge the gap. This is not rocket science.
Yes he was, he was made or "imputed" righteous when he believed.
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
To "impute" righteous can rightly be said to "make" righteous. It means to place on one's account. So one who has been imputed righteous could rightly be said to have been "made" righteous.Click to expand...
Wrong. The term "in Adam" is found only once in scripture in 1 Cor 15:22 and speaks of physical death only, not spiritual. And even in this case it would not support your view, because it says "in Adam all die" which is FUTURE TENSE, showing we are born alive. Busted.Click to expand...
All of creation is under the curse, but that doesn't prove little children are sinners. Animals die, and they are not sinners.Click to expand...
And neither did saints whose sins were completely forgiven. Abraham had no sin when he died, yet he had to wait in Abraham's Bosom until Christ ascended and gave gifts to men. There is no reason to believe little children who died without sin would be any different.Click to expand...
Sin is certainly imputed to us when we sin as Adam did, but righteousness is imputed to us when we believe on Jesus.Click to expand...
False, Romans 5:12 says death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". That is conditional, men are imputed sinners when they personally sin as Adam did.Click to expand...
Romans 5 is showing a legal precedent. As in all law, persons who commit a crime first become the precedent for those who commit like crimes in the future. Adam was judged "a sinner". Likewise, when we sin, we are judged or made a sinner.Click to expand...
1) We are made sinners by the transgress of the one, not the many.
2) We were subjected to futility.
3) Abraham was not made righteous, his faith was.
4) We are not imputed with sin, we are conceived in a separated from God sinful state, thus made sinners.
5) Little children (babies, etc) did not go to heaven when they died before the age of accountability even though they had done nothing wrong. So the theory of being alive in Christ at conception, or in limbo (neither dead nor alive) at conception is bogus. They were conceived in Adam as are the rest.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
DHK said: ↑When I used the word "church," it was a mistake. I should of used "Christianity." The RCC did not exist until Constantine arrived on the scene and made a "state-church" for his own political gain. That "church" I consider the beginning of the RCC. Before that time there were "churches." When Montanus saw the corruption in Christianity or in the churches in general, he separated himself. He wanted purity of life and purity in doctrine and thus began the Montanist movement.
One can trace the doctrine of such separated movements outside of the RCC and find whether or not they believed in the depravity of man.Click to expand...
If indeed that is what you mean, than that is an important statement....
Admittedly, I've never attempted to exactly trace how they view Original Sin, but it's a worthy under-taking....
On some level, I think we all believe in something we could call "Original Sin" (you are using the term Depravity of Man)....
I think what I object to is the literal inherited guilt/ co-participant with Adam in the garden style.
I know many of the ancient Church fathers believed in what many called "Ancestral Sin"...which is more of a condition and a pre-disposition towards sin....
but it's not necessarily inheriting the GUILT itself.
That's what I mainly object to, GUILT being passed from father (specifically) to child....
The Augustinian version.Click to expand... -
Van said:1) We are made sinners by the transgress of the one, not the many.Click to expand...
2) We were subjected to futility.Click to expand...
3) Abraham was not made righteous, his faith was.Click to expand...
His faith was made righteous?? What does that even mean? Nonsense.
4) We are not imputed with sin, we are conceived in a separated from God sinful state, thus made sinners.Click to expand...
Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Sin is not imputed when there is no law, but sin IS imputed when there is law.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
5) Little children (babies, etc) did not go to heaven when they died before the age of accountability even though they had done nothing wrong. So the theory of being alive in Christ at conception, or in limbo (neither dead nor alive) at conception is bogus. They were conceived in Adam as are the rest.Click to expand...
It's pretty hard to debate with someone who completely redefines practically everything in scripture as you do. -
Inspector Javert said: ↑Now, that's a meaningful argument :thumbs:
If indeed that is what you mean, than that is an important statement....
Admittedly, I've never attempted to exactly trace how they view Original Sin, but it's a worthy under-taking....
On some level, I think we all believe in something we could call "Original Sin" (you are using the term Depravity of Man)....
I think what I object to is the literal inherited guilt/ co-participant with Adam in the garden style.
I know many of the ancient Church fathers believed in what many called "Ancestral Sin"...which is more of a condition and a pre-disposition towards sin....
but it's not necessarily inheriting the GUILT itself.
That's what I mainly object to, GUILT being passed from father (specifically) to child....
The Augustinian version.Click to expand...
My view is very similar to what the Eastern church believed.
The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[62] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[63] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[64]Click to expand...
Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
We do receive our physical bodies from our parents, which is affected by the corruption that passed on all creation, but we receive our soul and spirit directly from God. To teach that we have evil spirits and souls is to directly blame God and make him the author of sin. -
Winman said: ↑My view is very similar to what the Eastern church believed.Click to expand...
-
Inspector Javert said: ↑As far as I know....mine is quite similar to the Eastern Orthodox version as well.Click to expand...
Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[65] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[66]
The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[67] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[68]Click to expand...
But again, the scriptures are clear we receive our soul and spirit from God. God does not make evil spirits and souls. We become evil when we make a willful and knowing choice to violate one of God's laws.
Jesus said the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Compare this verse to the end of Romans chapter 7 and I think you will have a scriptural view of the state of man.
Page 8 of 11