|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 29, 2006 10:33:26 GMT -5
Just wondering if anyone has noticed the damage that this Calvinistic doctrine has done to the Church. We are not born guilty. It is illogical and perverts God's justice to say He puishes us for something adam did. I care not for the rediculous "we were all in adams loins" and what not, that is not scriptural. And NO, I am not a pelagian.
I beleive in the scriptural doctrine of Original Sin. This means we suffer the consequences of Adams sin - death, fallen creation, etc. We dont however suffer the guilt. This is not biblical.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Aug 29, 2006 11:29:01 GMT -5
AMEN!
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 29, 2006 11:57:59 GMT -5
Not only does it damage the church, it is false and discredits everything many Christians say (see the worldview section).
|
|
|
Post by jackjackson on Aug 29, 2006 15:47:06 GMT -5
It says that by one man, sin entered the world. I look at it this way. Before the ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they did not have that knowledge, therefore guilt could be impossible to feel. But once they ate and had their eyes opened (to the knowledge of good and evil) they felt guilt at their nakedness.
What I believe this means is that we are born into a knowledge of good and evil, which as we sin and gain understanding we too are capable of feeling guilt.
To be able to feel guilt brings accountability. Where there is no law, their is no sin. Understanding that the law is written on our heart, our conscience bearing witness, causes guilt when we break it; and thereby we are responsible, because we are able to respond.
Adam's sin, openned us all up to accountability to God's laws, because only those with knowledge of good and evil are without justification for their action. One who truly does not know better, like a mentally handicapped person, are guilty of wrongs in that they may commit them (say murder) but they are not convicted at judgment (trial) on grounds they really couldn't comprehend it was evil. The are thereby justified by their condition (mental handicapped)
Man though is guilty, and God made sure by giving us the law on our heart, a conscience, (Romans 2:14-15) and light to every man (John 1:9) so the introduction of the law by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were a deadly thing indeed.
Even though it is Adam that made that it possible for us to feel guilt, each man bears his own sin and guilt for his own transgressions againt God.
Jack Jackson
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 30, 2007 13:47:23 GMT -5
That's right. We do not inherit moral depravity. We cause that ourselves. But we do inherit physical depravity. Adam caused that.
We did not lose our free-will because of Adam's sin. But because of Adam's sin our will is more influenced towards sin.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 30, 2007 14:44:47 GMT -5
Isn't it wonderful that I can stand now as a living evidence that God can even take the most ignorant and uneducated of men, and lock them away and teach them what His word actually says. If we can humble ourselves, and not pride ourself in having to always come out at the top of the debate, God will convince us, if we be otherwise minded, of the truth.
I want to let these old threads that Jesse brings up to show the doctrines I used to propagate be a testimony of the faithfulness of God to mature us and guide us into all truth. There is yet a long way to go, and many more theological mountains to climb, but thanks be to God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ that He us faithful to teach us and guide us out of bad doctrine, as I could never, in my pride, have done it myself.
-- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 30, 2007 14:45:58 GMT -5
Do you believe now that we deserve hell because of Adam's sin? That we inherit Adam's guilt?
Have you successfully convinced any students or sinners of this doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 30, 2007 15:15:42 GMT -5
Do you believe now that we deserve hell because of Adam's sin? That we inherit Adam's guilt? Have you successfully convinced any students or sinners of this doctrine? Jesse, I have a hard time convincing students of any doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 30, 2007 15:23:22 GMT -5
So you believe we deserve hell because of Adam's sin?
You currently believe we inherit Adam's guilt?
Are you preaching to students that they deserve hell because of Adam?
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 30, 2007 15:30:18 GMT -5
So you believe we deserve hell because of Adam's sin? You currently believe we inherit Adam's guilt? Are you preaching to students that they deserve hell because of Adam? What are you doing? Is there a purpose behind these posts? This is intentional, or at least it seems to be. I do not even feel like debating this brother, as it won't lead anywhere but division, you know it as do I. I cannot understand the reasoning behind bringing up these posts, and then challenging so vehemently. God bless you brother, I will see you in Monatna. -- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Mar 30, 2007 15:41:49 GMT -5
Sorry brother. Didn't mean to come off that way. You have to understand my shock and grief as such a radical change in your views. Those questions were honest. I didn't know how much you actually changed.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 30, 2007 16:25:47 GMT -5
I don't want to debate this either, but DO you really believe that we are guilty for Adam's sin Evan? I would really like to know...
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 30, 2007 17:16:05 GMT -5
I don't want to debate this either, but DO you really believe that we are guilty for Adam's sin Evan? I would really like to know... I dont know yet - but I struggle with the scriptures in Roman 5. They clearly teach that "judgment came upon all man to codemnation" and that "death passed upon all men for that all have sinned". I understand that we all face the consequences of Adam's sin (death, aggravated temptation, sinful nature, etc.) but what is it when the scripture says, "to condemnation"? I dont yet hold anything dogamtically, but no one has yet given me a convincing argument to the contrary. -- Evan [edit]: I wouldnt be alone in the interpretation either, I would stand with men like Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, Owen, Baxter, Spurgeon, etc.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Mar 30, 2007 17:44:08 GMT -5
Adam had the ability to obey God. He was not born in sin, we were born in sin. We have never been able to obey as Adam did for a time. We are under the curse from birth and simply sin by nature. When Christ comes in then we are given a new nature that now has the ability to obey. Howerver that obedience is only accomplished through the new nature which is Christ in us.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 30, 2007 19:01:06 GMT -5
I understand your struggles with those verses Evan. I definitely don't have everything figured out but there seem to be many verses that say that God will not hold people guilty for the sins of their fathers, etc. Here are my conclusions up to this point:
We have a sinful nature and it doesn't MAKE us sin. However, we are in sin from the day we are born because we aren't found IN CHRIST. You know something that dawned on me just recently? There never has been a person born on the face of the Earth who was born into a perfect world. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not babies and they sinned before they brought children into the world. Anyway, I don't think being born with a sinful nature makes us sin per say. I do believe that children and young people need to be taught the commands of God to know how they should live. I also believe that they have God's Law written on their hearts so that they know right from wrong. I don't know when children become accountable for their sins and therefore guilty before God, but I don't think that Scripture teaches anywhere that children will be in Hell. Neither does it teach on the age of accountability, etc. All I know is that I am to preach the message in a way that anyone could understand and then not hinder them from responding to the Holy Spirit. Anyway, all people are in sin until they come to repentance and faith in Christ even if they never fornicated, lied, stole, dishonored parents, etc. because they are not in Christ. They don't do things for His Glory. Not having faith in Christ IS SIN. So, even theoretically if someone never sinned in any other way, they ARE sinning in this way. I believe that people DO have the ability to Repent and Trust in Christ upon hearing the Gospel message. And when they do, God gives them a new heart and new desires...desires to walk in His Ways for HIS GLORY. Anyway, like I said, I don't know WHEN we become guilty, but I definitely don't believe that it is at birth...
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 30, 2007 19:38:38 GMT -5
I understand your struggles with those verses Evan. I definitely don't have everything figured out but there seem to be many verses that say that God will not hold people guilty for the sins of their fathers, etc. Here are my conclusions up to this point: We have a sinful nature and it doesn't MAKE us sin. However, we are in sin from the day we are born because we aren't found IN CHRIST. You know something that dawned on me just recently? There never has been a person born on the face of the Earth who was born into a perfect world. Adam and Eve were created as adults, not babies and they sinned before they brought children into the world. Anyway, I don't think being born with a sinful nature makes us sin per say. I do believe that children and young people need to be taught the commands of God to know how they should live. I also believe that they have God's Law written on their hearts so that they know right from wrong. I don't know when children become accountable for their sins and therefore guilty before God, but I don't think that Scripture teaches anywhere that children will be in Hell. Neither does it teach on the age of accountability, etc. All I know is that I am to preach the message in a way that anyone could understand and then not hinder them from responding to the Holy Spirit. Anyway, all people are in sin until they come to repentance and faith in Christ even if they never fornicated, lied, stole, dishonored parents, etc. because they are not in Christ. They don't do things for His Glory. Not having faith in Christ IS SIN. So, even theoretically if someone never sinned in any other way, they ARE sinning in this way. I believe that people DO have the ability to Repent and Trust in Christ upon hearing the Gospel message. And when they do, God gives them a new heart and new desires...desires to walk in His Ways for HIS GLORY. Anyway, like I said, I don't know WHEN we become guilty, but I definitely don't believe that it is at birth... I share you sentiments, but at the same time I see, even in your post, that you have stated not having faith in Christ is a sin - without debating that point, wouldn't then, since you see no age of accountability in scripture (and without debating that point) the little baby be in sin for not having faith in Christ? Again I have no dogmatic here, but I do know that every argument I have seen either has contradictions or is not scriptural. Anyhow, that still does not explain why Paul twice says, "to condemnation" in Romans 5. But thank you brother. -- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 30, 2007 19:46:35 GMT -5
I don't have Scripture that talks about the age of accountability. But there also is no Scripture (at least that I know of) that says that babies are guilty. There are also no Scriptures that I know of that say that we are guilty of Adam's sin and therefore condemned for it. Do babies or children know that there sin is against God? I don't think so...at least not by experience. Plus do babies have the ability to come to faith in Christ? I don't think so, just as mentally retarded people don't. Do babies and mentally retarded people go to Hell? I guess we don't know FOR SURE because there is no Scripture that I know of that backs up either side. BUT, from the God that I read about in Scripture, I believe He is a little more merciful...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Mar 30, 2007 19:52:11 GMT -5
Here are the verses that come to mind... Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Isa 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. I believe this verse teaches that children have an age where they don't know which to choose/refuse. 2Sa 12:22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? 2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. I don't think David planned on seeing his child in Hell.
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 30, 2007 20:04:28 GMT -5
I dont think babies go to hell as they are not accountable - and thank you Josh for the scriptural support.
But nevertheless I have still hd no good argument against this interpretation.
-- Evan
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 30, 2007 20:11:33 GMT -5
Isaiah 7 seems to be talking about Jesus, but the other verses are good. The Bible also talks about being a sinner from "youth."
Scriptures: Genesis 8:21, 1 Samuel 12:2, 1 Kings 18:12, Job 13:26, Psalm 25:7, Isaiah 54:4, Jeremiah 22:21, Jeremiah 31:9, Jeremiah 32:30 to name a few...
The Hebrew word that is translated as "youth" is naw·oor and means "youth or early life."
|
|
|
Post by trustandobey on Mar 30, 2007 21:03:33 GMT -5
Thoughts to ponder:
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Here in the Womb of His mother, Jeremiah was already sanctified - and was ordained a prophet - As a baby in the Womb
How does God see us when we were in our mothers womb?
Was Jeremiah different because of His believing, praying Obedience Parents make a difference.
Are Children Difference because of the faith of their Parents while we are in the womb.
Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
John the Baptist as well was different - was is because of His faithful obedience - praying Parents?
This is a very concerning Passage to children of unbelieving Parents. The Bible does say the Children are unclean
And No unclean person will inherit the Kingdom.
1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but "now" are they holy.
Can a Child be In Heaven that dies without coming to the Age of Accountability with unbelieving parents?
TrustandObey
|
|
|
Post by danlirette on Mar 30, 2007 21:04:26 GMT -5
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 30, 2007 23:08:09 GMT -5
some great verses here... I think it calls for deeper word study. Btw, does anyone have info of what the traditional Jewish view was before NT regarding this subject? Perhaps it could help in understanding some of the verses better.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 30, 2007 23:20:41 GMT -5
Btw, does anyone have info of what the traditional Jewish view was before NT regarding this subject? Perhaps it could help in understanding some of the verses better.Great question. I'm not sure, but I will be looking into it...
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Mar 30, 2007 23:28:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bullhornbob on Mar 31, 2007 0:17:57 GMT -5
A couple of points to ponder:
If all are born sinners, then all have no choice but to sin. And how can one choose not to sin if all are born without a choice in the matter?
Also, how is God justified in sending man to the lake of fire? Man has no choice in the matter. No free will. This is unjust.
The soul that sins, it shall die.
What about the one who never hears the true gospel of repentance before death? Many would refer to "the law of God written on their hearts." Well, is the law written on the heart, or sin?
The scriptures that are always used to convince people of original sin are in Romans 5, but they do not come right out and say we inherit Adam's sin. Both sides of the argument can benefit from this chapter.
Paul, in my opinion, was refuting the "law-abiding" Jews of Rome who thought that they inherited righteousness just because they were of Abraham. This argument is commonly misinterpreted to fit the "original sin" doctrine of today.
Most people struggle with "original sin" because they are dabbling in sin, or they cannot comprehend God's ability to conquer sin. It is too overwhelming for them, so they take the easy path, and place the blame on Adam, and choose to continue in sin.
Adam is surely burning in hell now, and will go to the lake of fire, if he is responsible for everyone's sin!
I might point out that this same blame game (now, can anyone else possibly come up with 3 words in a row in the same sentence that rhyme?) took place in the garden, and the only one who was wise enough to keep his mouth shut when confronted by God was the devil. He knew he was a sinner, and he had no-one to blame but himself. He laughed, I am sure.
That stinkin' devil is a master deceiver. Keep your heart, mind, soul and strength focused on Christ and lovingly obeying Him, brothers.
And may the precious Holy Spirit reveal the truth of this matter once and for all to His dear SAINTS (not sinners)!
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Mar 31, 2007 1:03:17 GMT -5
A couple of points to ponder: If all are born sinners, then all have no choice but to sin. And how can one choose not to sin if all are born without a choice in the matter? Also, how is God justified in sending man to the lake of fire? Man has no choice in the matter. No free will. This is unjust. Not true at all. I have gotten the same argument from atheists on this board, and interestingly, I have never seen anybody here who was actually able to defend their theological positions against the tangles you get into with trying to maintain free will and sovereignty at the same time. Paul speaks to this issue in Romans 9 (and he is not talking about nations, but individuals - such as not only Jacob and Esau, but Rebekah... what was her allegorical interpretation there if 'jacob' and 'esau' are nations?): 14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? Are you talking about the Romans 7 verse that Dan Lirette quoted? I do not believe that verse can be applied to infants, but I still have other good reasons to believe in infant election. Anyway, the basic aspects of the law are written on the hearts of all men by God, and they are held to this standard (which is their conscience). (On a side note, Shetani wanted to dispute this once by bringing up the existence of psychopaths, who supposedly have no consciences - aside from the fact that science can furnish us with no true knowledge in order to contradict a revelational theology, this is still no proof because the Bible speaks of a seared conscience). How do you know this? This is a logical fallacy - accusing the person who holds a doctrine and blaming it on some supposed "sin" as opposed to refuting the doctrine itself. They have sound theological reasons for believing in original sin, some of which were covered in the 1 John 1:8 thread which I still have not finished looking over No no, he is not responsible for everyone else's sin. Adam was the first federal head, or representative, of the human race - just as Christ is the second federal head. The Scripture uses this terminology - the "first" and "second" Adam - the first Adam, the second Jesus Christ. This is the whole foundation for belief in original sin - the trouble in interpreting the romans 5 passages is that we tend to get confused with the meaning of the "many"'s and the "all"'s, especially the "all means all, and that's all all means" people.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Mar 31, 2007 1:03:58 GMT -5
I believe that we are all born in sin and as we get older sinning comes naturaly. I have 4 boys and never taught them how to sin. As they grow I reinforce that their sin is against God and Him alone. That one day they will face Him on judgment day. The issue isn't whether they will keep sinning, the question is will they turn from sin to God and be born again. Should we just give our children a set of laws ie. 10 commandments and say "you must obey".
|
|
|
Post by evanandliz on Mar 31, 2007 1:32:56 GMT -5
I have heard this argument before, and on the surface it seems as though it were valid, but one must keep in mind that I do not deny actual sin, I only, in addition, affirm original sin (unless proven otherwise from scripture, I am not dogmatic on this one...yet).
Now tis true that original sin and actual sin work in a, you could say, cause and effect relationship. So many are deceived into thinking they have righteousness before they are saved - but according to the bible even our so-called righteousness is sin, "all your righteousnesses are as filthy rags". Why? Let me illustrate...
Imagine a leper walks into you room, he has the worst type of leprosy that there is, and you smell him before you see him he is so corrupt. When you finally see him you see gaping sores allo ver his body oozing puss and blood and say to yourself, "we have to do something". So you go to the store and buy the finest white linen and bring it back to clothe him. You wrap him up from head to toe and step back to admire your work. As you watch however you begin to notice the corruption underneath seeping through, and then, before long, the snow white linen is just as corrupt as the man underneath.
So you see, that even your good works are filthy, as the man underneath is corrupt. The man must be cleansed, and this is the work of Jesus and Him alone upon repentance and faith - He cleanses the leper.
But we do not sin simply because we are crooked by nature, but rather we choose to sin. But even that choice is aggravated by the corruption that lies within - "the heart of man is desperately wicked".
I hope that answers your objection satisfactorily.
-- Evan
PS: Something else to consider --
"And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him" (Heb. 7:9,10)
Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec simply because he was in the loins of faithful Abraham. The entire human race was in the loins of Adam, so it is not a "son bearing the iniquity of the father" type of scenario, but rather a headship issue. Jesus however would be exempt from tis as He was born of a virgin and not of the seed of man - could this be the reason why Jesus was to be born of a virgin? And if original sin were not true, why did Jesus need to be born of a virgin? This may throw a new spin on this discussion.
Also I like the way this thread is going, good discussion and very civil, just the way it should be.
|
|
|
Post by ebrayley on Mar 31, 2007 1:58:30 GMT -5
Yes, it is very interesting that Jesus was born of a virgin. Medical study has shown that the chromosome that carries the blood for a new baby is only the male (XY) and not the female (XX). When I first heard this it opened up a whole new light to Scripture.
This means that the blood that runs through all men's veins has it's starting place with Adam, and so our blood, Adam's blood, is tainted with sin. But since Jesus was born of a virgin, He did not inherit Adam's blood, but His blood, His holy, precious, wonderful, divine blood, is truly the blood of the only begotten Son of God! That is why the blood is so special. It's so much different than the blood of animals and men. I fear there is great heresy when we lower the blood of Jesus to be the same as man's. He is the second Adam, not made of the first. His blood is the blood of the sinless Lamb of God! Think about it...
Oh the blood of Jesus! It washes white as snow.
Praise God!
|
|