Born Guilty???

[jackjackson]

Please consider that sin was in the world before the law, but was not counted against us!

This is critical to seeing this.

:(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

We became sinners, when the law was activated against us. This happened when Adam ate of the tree.

This is a matter of when each person comes under the law. Before the tree was eaten from, and if it hadn't been, none us would be subject to any law except don't eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Some times ignorance is bliss. A young child can get away with much more than an adult, because we expect more from an adult.

The eating of the fruit "opened their eyes", it didn't close them. They suddenly knew good and evil, and therefore were no accountable to doing evil. The only affect this has on us, is that we too are born under the law, because as we grow, we too will know good and evil, and be responsible for our choices also.

We are already condemned, because "all have sinned", not because we are sinner. The law and our conscience condemn us, as we get olde enough to start to realize and understand that guilt, bearing witness with the law on our hearts.

Adam's sin "eatinf the forbidden fruit" brought the consequence of the activation of the law upon all men. There is no trangression where there is no law; but we now have a law. Adam's sin, brought death not in itself, but by its consequence.

Jack

[evanschaible]

Before the question comes up about whether or not sin isphysical or spiritual let me ask this --

Can we not inherit a spiritual condition??

Just a question.

--Evan

[biblethumper]

Whether one believes we are born guilty or not, we do all agree that all have sinned; we do all agree that there is none righteous, no, not one; we do all agree that all we like sheep have gone astray; we do all agree that whatever is not of Faith is sin; we do all agree that the soul that sinneth, it shall die, and that all, as noted, have sinned; we do all agree that Jesus Christ is man's only Hope for Salvation and that we must be Born Again regardless of doctrinal persuasion; we do all agree that if any man say he has no sin that man is a liar and the truth is not in him and that all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimestone; we do all agree that if we teach a means of Salvation and Heaven apart from Jesus Christ then we have severed ourselves from Jesus Christ; we do all agree that the only One who never sinned was the Sinless One.

Glory to God!

[evanschaible]

I agree Dan, I am however wrestling with this doctrine.

Jesse, what do you think?
Steve what do you think?

[jackjackson]

Evan:

If we truly inherited a spiritual condition, we could say that inheriting it justifies our sinning!

We can however inherit a "law" that makes our sins, count as sin against us.

Jack

[sjn]

I haven't studied this enough to give my view with much conviction, but at the time I do believe we are born with a sinful nature. Does God condemn us for this sinful nature? I don't know right now. I believe the Wesleyan-Arminian view is that by God's free grace the guilt and condemnation of inherited depravity is removed from all men.

Steve

[Josh Parsley]

Jesse,

Since you don't believe that we have (or had...) a sinful nature, do you believe that sin is only a verb? Meaning it is only an action?

If so, how do you interpret Paul's statement below?

Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

[Jesse Morrell]

I am not talking about what sin is or what sin isn't.

All I am saying is that I do not find any verse that says we have inherited a sinful nature though Adam. Corruption is self inflicted. All the verses people try to use to prove original sin, I do not see as even hinting of anything of the sort.

Augustine, who cemented the doctrine of original sin, was highly influenced by Eastern thought, that the natural flesh was evil in and of itself. He adopted a pagan doctrine and made it Christian.

But I am bound to the bible. Scripturally, I do not see original sin.

[Josh Parsley]

admin said:

I am not talking about what sin is or what sin isn't.

All I am saying is that I do not find any verse that says we have inherited a sinful nature though Adam. Corruption is self inflicted. All the verses people try to use to prove original sin, I do not see as even hinting of anything of the sort.

Fair enough. I was just curious because I know some only see sin as an action (verb).

I believe the below truths are historical rather than theological.

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

What I mean by that is I don't believe it was God's desire or force that makes the above to be true, but none the less historically it is true.

I'm not completely settled in what I think about "original sin" other than the fact we will be judged according to our works.

[Kerrigan]

It is ironic to me that the things I am usually thinking about are the things that end up becoming topics to discuss on this message board. I have been looking at the idea of the "sinful nature" and I have to say that I DO seem to be finding it in Scripture. Here are some Scriptures that I believe back up this doctrine:

Romans 5:16: "And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgement which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification." Then Romans 5:18 seems to elaborate on this verse: "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgement came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

Then, of course there is Romans 7:17-18: "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find." Then down to verse 20: "Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." Then down to verse 23: "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

I don't know how there couldn't be a sinful nature with all of these verses that seem to be backing it up fully. Also, for those who think that a lost sinner can live a life without sin or a life of repentance without being Born Again, doesn't all the Scripture in Romans 7 that I listed go against that (even if you believe this is talking about Paul before he was a Christian).

[biblethumper]

revk said:

It is ironic to me that the things I am usually thinking about are the things that end up becoming topics to discuss on this message board. I have been looking at the idea of the "sinful nature" and I have to say that I DO seem to be finding it in Scripture. Here are some Scriptures that I believe back up this doctrine:

Romans 5:16: "And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgement which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification." Then Romans 5:18 seems to elaborate on this verse: "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgement came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life."

Then, of course there is Romans 7:17-18: "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find." Then down to verse 20: "Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." Then down to verse 23: "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

I don't know how there couldn't be a sinful nature with all of these verses that seem to be backing it up fully. Also, for those who think that a lost sinner can live a life without sin or a life of repentance without being Born Again, doesn't all the Scripture in Romans 7 that I listed go against that (even if you believe this is talking about Paul before he was a Christian).

Amen Rev! The sinful nature of man is clearly and plainly laid out in Scripture as more than a verse here and a verse there; the Word of God shows a consistent doctrinal pattern....thus I choose to believe what Scripture teaches as doctrine.

Sin, as Brother Josh *related to Rod?* Parsley said, is more than an action.... I see sin as a nature sleading to an action because Scriipture clearly outlines such in Romans.

[tbxi]

Good points RevK. I myself find depravity all over the Scriptures.

Biblethumper, that is an interesting little dialogue you had with that person... I had not thought about those things before...

Romans 8:5-8:

5For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

6For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,

7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,

8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

If those whose minds are set on the flesh, those who are in the flesh, etc. are unable to please God, then they are unable to autonomously repent because that would please God. Hence if the "flesh" is talking about anything but the sinful nature, these verses basically become meaningless. If a born again Christian "goes back into the flesh" with every occasional sin and becomes enslaved again, which a non-Total-Depravity interpretation here would demand (as far as I know; correct me if I'm wrong) then not only according to the last paragraph would it be impossible for us to return to repentance (as this would please God and those in the flesh cannot please God), but the onus is entirely on us to defeat our own slavery and sinfulness by <insert either "submitting", "obeying", or some other positive action on our own part such as using the 1. universal, prevenient, "neutralizing" grace or 2. original ability we've been given to our own advantage, thus partially having credit in our own salvation due to the presence of faith, works, however you want to put it> in order to maintain salvation and stay in the state of "perfection", however you want to define that.

[Jesse Morrell]

Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

RevK,

Let's take this one verse.

If you are going to apply the first half of this verse universally, to say that judgment came upon all men to condemntation unconditionally, then don't you also have to apply the second half of the verse universally, and say that justification came upon all men unconditionally.

I see selective application in verses like these by people who want to teach unconditional sinful nature, and yet not teach universalism.

If you say that one part of the verse is applied universally, then the entire verse must be applied universally.

But what I'm saying is that both scriptures must be applied conditionally.

Those who sin partake of the judgment and condemnation of Adam. Sin is the condition. Just as one is "made" a deacon conditionally upon their own will, one is "made" a sinner conditionally upon their own will.

So if you look at this verse conditionally, man is made a sinner like Adam through rebellion, and man is justified in Christ upon the condition of repenting and believing.

When it says "condemnation came upon all men" and also "justification came upon all men" it does not mean that condemnation and justification were applied to all men, but are rather available to all men.

But do you see how you must apply both parts of this scripture either universally or conditionally, but you can't be inconsistent and say all inherit original sin but not all inherit eternal life.

Also, if a sinful nature can be transmitted through birth, can a holy nature be transmitted through birth?

If sinful parents can give birth to sinful kids. Can holy parents give birth to holy kids?

Of coarse, the answer is no. You cannot do either.

But of coarse this is again the inconsistency I see in peoples theology. They say sinful parents birth sinful kids. But holy parents do not birth holy kids. Why not be consistent and have it both ways? Because both are unbiblical.

[evanschaible]

Paul says there is a difference when it comes to salvation and sin. He says, "not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift..." , "But NOT as the offence, so is the free gift..." Romans 5:15,16.

In other words, Paul says that salvation through Christ is conditional on recieving, but not as the gift is the offence; ie. not merited upon condition but rather judgement came uppn all men TO CONDEMNATION through one man.

Like I said I am still wrestling with this one. I think I will be onehundred percent Arminian in not too long. What do you think of those points Jesse?

-Evan

[tbxi]

To borrow from the discussion of this passage in another thread,

Since reading conditional election into 5:18-19 leads to logical absurdity, and reading the word "all" too literally leads to universalist heresy, we must view the "all men" as only those who are united with Christ in His death. This works not only because it makes sense in view of other scriptures, but because Paul is clearly talking about all who are associated with Adam, as opposed to all who are associated with Christ. Verse 17 says, "For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ". The immediate context draws a line between the "all" who are in Adam, i.e. imputed sin from Adam, as opposed to the "all" who are in Christ.

Moreover: Verse 15 says, "15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!" It speaks of the "many" who died by the sin of Adam, even though verses 17 and 18 say "all" died by the sin of Adam... so if we are to read conditionalism into 17 and 18, wouldn't we also have to read it into verse 15 and conclude that only "many" people, not "all" people were affected by the sin of Adam, i.e. in your view, there are some who never sinned? This [kind of similarly rigid, inflexible hermeneutic] also leads to absurdity. We clearly have to look to the context to see what "many" and "all" mean, or else we get into trouble very quickly.

But of coarse this is again the inconsistency I see in peoples theology. They say sinful parents birth sinful kids. But holy parents do not birth holy kids. Why not be consistent and have it both ways? Because both are unbiblical.

I do not see how the idea of a sinful nature or total depravity demands that "holy parents" bear naturally holy children. If it were true that all of us have always had sinful natures, then that would preclude the possibility of having a "holy child" or even being an entirely holy adult.

What is your view of the Fall, Jesse? In what way did it affect Adam himself (and what does Gen. 5:3 mean)? In what way does it affect the rest of us? It is your view that the only reason young children sin is due to the examples set by others?

[Kerrigan]

Fair enough Jesse, I might agree with you on that verse. However, the logic you are using isn't Scriptural, because there is no such thing as a "Holy" parent in the purest sense since ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, even if it be only in the past. So we all still need the righteousness of Christ to become Born Again. Therefore Holy Parents can give birth to Holy Children. God the Father is the Only Holy Parent and He does give birth to Holy Children...they are Holy by Faith in the Son of God...the only human to ever live a totally Holy life while on Earth. This is the same kind of logic I believe you were using when saying that once someone is a child of Satan they aren't unconditionally a child of Satan, so why is one always a Child of God once they become a Child of God. Simply put, I think Scripture overcomes the logic in both of these situations. I think Scripture backs up someone having a sinful nature (even though you may be right about Romans 5:18) and I think Scripture backs up someone not losing their salvation. Not trying to start a new topic, just pointing something out. What do you think about what Paul said in Romans 7 then?

Also, for those of you who do believe in Depravity or in the Sinful Nature, if there are other verses that you believe back it up or may back it up, by all means let's see them! I want this to be a complete study!

[Jesse Morrell]

Evan,

In the verse we are discussing, Paul did not say "NOT as" but rather Paul said "even so".

[evanschaible]

TBXI,
Coditional security works PERFECTLY with those verses; but that is another thread.

[Kerrigan]

evanschaible said:

Paul says there is a difference when it comes to salvation and sin. He says, "not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift..." , "But NOT as the offence, so is the free gift..." Romans 5:15,16.

In other words, Paul says that salvation through Christ is conditional on recieving, but not as the gift is the offence; ie. not merited upon condition but rather judgement came uppn all men TO CONDEMNATION through one man.

Like I said I am still wrestling with this one. I think I will be onehundred percent Arminian in not too long. What do you think of those points Jesse?

-Evan

That's good hermeneutics right there Evan. I was just about to go back and look at that very thing. You saved me the time...

[Jesse Morrell]

RevK,

As a Christian, I have become a "partaker of the divine nature" says Peter.

If we can partake of a sinful nature through Adam, and give it to our kids, can we partake of the divine nature, and give it to our kids?

[evanschaible]

I quoted verses 15 and 16.

[biblethumper]

Jesse, the very fact that you cannot give the Divine Nature to your children shows they do have it initially.

[Kerrigan]

admin said:

RevK,

As a Christian, I have become a "partaker of the divine nature" says Peter.

If we can partake of a sinful nature through Adam, and give it to our kids, can we partake of the divine nature, and give it to our kids?

No, like I said, that logic goes against and supersedes what I believe Scripture says. I believe that one can be born with a sinful nature (according to what I see in Scripture) and that one must be Born Again to partake of the divine nature. As I said, logic doesn't always work when it comes to Theology. Scripture supersedes it at times...

[evanschaible]

I will always believe in perfection, because as you said Jesse, we are ideed partakers of the divine nature. Welsey believed this doctrine and he is the one to popularise the holiness doctrine in mainstream christendom.

[Kerrigan]

evanschaible said:

I will always believe in perfection, because as you said Jesse, we are ideed partakers of the divine nature.

Let's not get off track. Let's keep it to the sinful nature and get this done...

[evanschaible]

AMEN.

[evanschaible]

My interpretation fits well with Psalm 51:5 as well. I cannot find anything that shows david being the product of adultery.

[Jesse Morrell]

What is another scripture you think proves transmitting a sinful nature?

The quotes from Paul, he was speaking of himself.

I believe in corruption. But I believe it is self inflicted, and not inflected, or infected, by Adam. And Paul spoke of his own corruption.

[Kerrigan]

Here is the other Scripture I put in my former post:

Romans 7:17-18: "But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find." Then down to verse 20: "Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me." Then down to verse 23: "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."

Now this doesn't talk about transmission of the sinful nature, but it does talk about the sinful nature and how it is the sin that dwells in him that causes him to sin. What is Paul referring to here? And if he didn't get it from Adam, then how did he get it? Through willful sin from the past. Also, I don't see how else Psalm 51:5 can be interpreted...

[biblethumper]

John Wesley on Rom 7:18 - In my flesh - The flesh here signifies the whole man as he is by nature

John Wesley on Rom 7:21 - I find then a law - An inward constraining power, flowing from the dictate of corrupt nature