Without Me You Can Do Nothing

HP: Where is the connection between sin and ignorance in these verses? Scripture tells us that every violation of the law will receive a just recompense of reward, does it not? In the one passage you mentioned, God ‘winked’ not punished.

Certainly when God gives us light of our actions, even if before done in complete ignorance, they become sin as we look at them in retrospect. Just the same, where does it ever say that if total ignorance is truly the case that God judges such as ‘sin’ prior to receiving light? Did not the verse I quoted say specifically if they had no knowledge they would be without sin, at least in the areas they honestly had no knowledge?

Certainly in light of the Scripture you cited, in particular Acts 17:30, it would indicate to me that regardless of what they do not know and God does not judge as sin, all have indeed transgressed some law that they did understand enough at least to merit their intents and subsequent actions at least in some respect as being rightfully regarded as sin and as such held rightfully accountable to God for.

 

HP: You are doing a great job with the first five verses. Now continue on explaining the rest of the chapter and the comparison the author was establishing.

 

HP: You are picking one portion of that psalm and extrapolating it to mean something not in the least suggested by the psalmist. You are trying to find a proof text to support an Augustinian notion of original sin, when it is clear from the rest of that psalms such is far from the psalmist’s intentions.

Why do you not tell us where in the world the righteous come from if the psalmist is trying to tell us that all are born sinners? Why do you not show us anywhere proof that the Jews believed in original sin? There are many scholars to pick from out there. Show us one reputable scholar that can give us anything from Jewish writings in line with the original sin of Augustine.

The truth is that it simply is no so. Any scholar worth his salt will affirm without question that Augustine is the father of the doctrine of original sin. The psalmist you draw from was simply making a comparison between the wicked and the righteous in poetic terms. In a worse case scenario, one would have to conclude no more than some are born wicked while others are born righteous from this psalm alone.

 

HP: The Apostle Paul would indeed qualify, but he does not say what you are trying to make him say, just as David was not saying in Psalms 53 what you try and make him say. What I do not understand, I how you as, a pastor, a man I am certain has spoke to others about being careful to establish the context in passages of Scripture one approaches, seem to be oblivious to such council in your approach to the passage in question. Why do you avoid seeking the context of Psalms 53, being satisfied instead to just take an isolated verse and keep it isolated from the rest of the chapter so as to allow it to be seen by itself, outside of the context of the passage, walking on all four legs in support of original sin? How can any fair minded follower of our discussion not see the biased way you are approaching this passage? What would you say if I simply overlooked the first part of this passage and only dealt with the comments concerning the righteous, and then concluded all are born in original righteousness?

HP: Where is your proof that infants, or adults for that matter, would not have seen a cessation of existence on this temporal planet, being created as temporal beings, apart from original sin? That is sheer unfounded conjecture. They might not have seen death as we now experience it had sin not came into the picture, but we were created as finite physical mortals, subject to undergoing change if we were to live eternally. You cannot house eternal being, procreating for eternity, on a finite planet. God states clearly that everything we see is temporal and subject to being destroyed at some point in time. It would be obvious to me that it was created that way by design. Besides, all have not seen death as we know it and neither will all men according to Scripture. There is some obvious harmonization that must be done between these passages of Scripture rather than to simply take one in support of a dogmatic notion so as to create fodder for the Augustinian notion of original sin.

So original sin is to blame for the death of children? Well, that would certainly be a welcome thought in the abortionist circles. Even Cain would appreciate hearing that, although I remain unconvinced that God would see it that way. Your argument appears to be indicating that physical death is a direct result of original sin and that is why infants die because of original sin. Why don’t we take that reasoning a simple step further and conclude that all that die, in reality, deserve death due to the fact of them all being sinners? Such reasoning makes the abortionist to be some kind of right hand man of God, simply carrying out the just penalty for them being born sinners. Seriously, I think you need to rethink your statement Pastor. It is fraught with absurd conclusions resulting logically from your premise.

I would clearly admit that the timing of death, even in SOME cases of infants dying, is due to the ‘effects of sin.’ Sin has indeed affected the human race negatively, and has had a great negative impact on the sensibilities of the human race. We are born with depraved sensibilities and even deformity of the flesh. I believe we all could agree that all of the physical depavity can be directly associated with the effects of sin on the human race. Just the same, the Apostle Paul DID NOT SAY that we die because of Adam’s sin passed onto us in the form of original sin, but rather it states that we die because, “ALL HAVE SINNED.” Is that not exactly what the verse states? Where does the author imply original sin?


Death is a physical reality of being born into the human family, which are housed by design in a temporal body. This trait, being a physical one, is indeed passed on to ones posterity through physical generation, yet that still in no wise establishes the false concept of original sin. Original sin proposes that sin lies in the realm of the physical when in reality Scripture states sin is NOT physical, but rather is a ‘transgression of the law.’

Death is a result of sin, but sin is not a result of death as the dogma of original sin would have us to believe. Sin leads to death but death does not lead to sin. Death is the cessation of sin in the flesh, not the transmitter of sin in the flesh. The effect is not the cause, and the effect does not generate the cause. The cause of sin has always been and will always be a willful transgression against a known commandment of God.

Adam cannot be the cause of my sin anymore than we can be the cause of the sins of our children. We are indeed strong influence towards sin or righteousness in the lives of our offspring, but God states emphatically that He does not hold the child responsible for the sins of the father, but rather every man is held accountable for his own sins.

Listen well to Scripture on how sin is formed. “Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

Again, carefully understand that sin is NOT the results of death, but rather death is the results of sin. Sin is not transmitted by the punishment, nor is sin passed on by any physical means, neither can it be.

 

HP: I would beg to differ with your assessment of why Jesus needed to be born of a virgin. Those believing in original sin have to have it that way to keep the original sin away from Christ. Scripture asserts no such conclusion that I have found. Would you have a passage of Scripture that indicates your position is so?
Quote:

 

OK BR. Now tell us about the deaths of Enoch and Elijah and those that will live to see Christ's return. Have or will, according to Scripture, these seen or will see death as we know it?

 

BR has not set forth one Scriptural passage that refutes in any way that which I have stated about death or ‘cessation of existence’ on this temporal planet. I have not brought into question whether or not death as we know it, especially the timing of it at such an early age in comparison to the early days of this earth, is not a direct consequence of sin. BR misses the point entirely. My point is that we were created as temporal beings, in the flesh, and as such would have had to have been changed to live eternally. Scripture is clear. That which is seen is temporal. It does not say that which is seen ‘because of sin’ is temporal.

It is obvious to me that we were created as temporal beings by design on a temporal planet for a specific purpose.(s) If there had been no sin, God still would have had to translate or change these mortal bodies at some point in time in order for them to inherit eternity. Nothing physical as we know it is designed for eternal existence. It shall all be destroyed or undergo a neccesitated change, and that by design.

There is a clear distinction between being translated as Enoch and Elijah were and those that live to see the return of our Lord will experience on that day, and death as we know it. In death you have a body that decays, at least for a time period. In a translation, there is no body left to decay. It is simply changed in an instant.

Again, my point is NOT as BR seems to wrongly indicate, that I am claiming that physical death as we know it is not a consequence of sin. I have never said or implied any such thing. My point is that we were created as temporal beings on a temporal planet for reasons known to God. If anything physical would ever inherit eternity, it would have to undergo change from the physical existence it once knew, sin or no sin. There is no indication that human beings would not have seen death as we experience it apart from sin, but the physical cannot nor could it ever escape a change in order to inherit immortality. There is a clear distinction between death and being changed to inherit immortality. There is change in death, but there is a change apart from death as we know it. Some have and will experience such a ‘deathless’ change.

 

BR, is your response to my posts simply not to respond, or did you simply overlook them? Can you see any distinction betweeen physical death as we know it and being translated or raptured? If so, let me ask you once again. Have all or will all see death as we know it? Can you site one quote where I have ever stated or implied that death did not come as a direct result of sin? If you can, I certainly need to restate my position.

 

Ps 58:1 ¶ <<To the chief Musician, Altaschith, Michtam of David.>> Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?
2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
4 Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;
5 Which will not hearken to the voice of charmers, charming never so wisely.
6 ¶ Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
7 Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in pieces.
8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.
9 Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.
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.

HP: Is there one daring soul on this list that would be so kind as to tell us where in the world the righteous spoken of come from in this chapter, and why David would have desired his own teeth to be smashed in his mouth as an infant, and why he would have desired that he would have ‘passed away’ in a miscarriage due to the ‘original sin’ of himself as an infant? If all are born in original sin, and this passge is supporting that notion, where are the righteous hailing from that are rejoicing at the just desserts of every child ever born including themselves as God is called upon to smash their teeth in their mouths and destroy them??? Are we being careful and serious with the Word of God?

Pastor Bob, you owe this chapter a deeper study than that which you so far have given it. Tell me again that this chapter supports the notion of original sin. Show us one writing anywhere from any true Jew that holds to or held to any such Augustinian notion such as original sin.