Born Guilty???

[matthew7]

Rev K,

You are right! I should have used more scripture, Sorry! Anyway, this is a subject that will take much prayer and study, and the blessings of the Holy Spirit, to come up with an explaination that will convince most dedicated Bible students. I believe the scripture you quoted above Matthew ch.18,19 are the attitude we have to have. Meaning, we have to be humble and teachable like children. I do not see nature or the flesh in these verses, but we must be teachable!


Matthew

[Josh Parsley]

What are your views on everything Josh?

It depends on what day of the week it is.

My views are solidified yet. The only thing I am solid on is that babies are not born guilty.

I honestly can't give an answer right now as to if I believe we are born with any kind of inbred sin or not.

Just to prove the point I have been working on this post for about 20 minutes or more. I write up something using some scriptures then think. Hmm.. that may not be right.

On several topics I can tell how others interpret the scriptures, but I usually end up seeing some truth in both sides and from time to time it is hard to completely give myself over to one or the other.

[bullhornbob]

tbxi said:

To the subject of the argument: saying that original sin (I prefer to speak of total inability because that's really the result of being unregenerate and lost) is a doctrine of devils simply because there are some folks out there who might misapply the doctrine and twist it to their own sinful wants and passions, is fallacious. It is just like saying that eternal security is wrong because there is some foolish man out there who thinks he's "once saved always saved" and therefore is headed to the bars and nightclubs to get wasted, because after all, he's "eternally secure". It is utter fallacy to say that just because someone abuses a doctrine, that doctrine is false.

tbxi,

This is the reason we have forums such as this.

I appreciate the civil attitudes and humble responses thus far. I hope you in no way take offense to my comments, and I assure you, I have scriptural backing for them.

Pure doctrine is derived from scripture. II Tim. 3:16

James declares the difference between Godly wisdom, and earthly wisdom. James 3:13-18

If I teach a doctrine devoid of scriptural foundation, I am teaching my own doctrine, and ultimately the devil's doctrine.

Most people believe they inherit a sin nature just because they heard a preacher say it, or read it in a book, etc.

I say this with all sincerity......MOST PEOPLE ARE TOO LAZY TO STUDY THE SCRITURES FOR THEMSELVES. THEY WANT TO BE SP OON FED AN EAR-TICKLING DOCTRINE THAT WILL SATISFY THEIR LUSTS, AND GIVE THEM HEAVEN WITHOUT HAVING TO FORSAKE SIN.

I am very blessed to have been challenged by godly folk pertaining to some of my beliefs in the past, and have absolutely no regrets to this day for listening to them.

I asked God to help me understand His truth, searched the word for myself on this issue, and came out with virtually no backing for the OS doctrine, and lots of scriptures to refute it.

My advice - take off the filters of man's teaching, and search the word for yourself.

You will be truly blessed. Acts 3:26

[Kerrigan]

By the way, BullhornBob, just so you know, not ALL of us who have believed the OS doctrine in the past have believed it because we want to be spoon fed an ear-tickling doctrine that will satisfy our lust and give us Heaven without having to forsake sin. I thought it was Scriptural and not just because I believed what someone said. I looked into it, just not deeply enough. Plus the fact that early on in my Christian life, I really wasn't equipped enough to look into this deep enough. Anyway, just so you know...

[tbxi]

bullhornbob said:

tbxi said:

To the subject of the argument: saying that original sin (I prefer to speak of total inability because that's really the result of being unregenerate and lost) is a doctrine of devils simply because there are some folks out there who might misapply the doctrine and twist it to their own sinful wants and passions, is fallacious. It is just like saying that eternal security is wrong because there is some foolish man out there who thinks he's "once saved always saved" and therefore is headed to the bars and nightclubs to get wasted, because after all, he's "eternally secure". It is utter fallacy to say that just because someone abuses a doctrine, that doctrine is false.

tbxi,

This is the reason we have forums such as this.

I appreciate the civil attitudes and humble responses thus far. I hope you in no way take offense to my comments, and I assure you, I have scriptural backing for them.

Pure doctrine is derived from scripture. II Tim. 3:16

James declares the difference between Godly wisdom, and earthly wisdom. James 3:13-18

If I teach a doctrine devoid of scriptural foundation, I am teaching my own doctrine, and ultimately the devil's doctrine.

Most people believe they inherit a sin nature just because they heard a preacher say it, or read it in a book, etc.

I say this with all sincerity......MOST PEOPLE ARE TOO LAZY TO STUDY THE SCRITURES FOR THEMSELVES. THEY WANT TO BE SP OON FED AN EAR-TICKLING DOCTRINE THAT WILL SATISFY THEIR LUSTS, AND GIVE THEM HEAVEN WITHOUT HAVING TO FORSAKE SIN.

I am very blessed to have been challenged by godly folk pertaining to some of my beliefs in the past, and have absolutely no regrets to this day for listening to them.

I agree with all of this
Yes, the forum seems to have been especially fruitful as of late. I hope and pray that it continues. I won't be offended by anything you show me in the Bible, unless it is a truth that the Lord uses to cut through me and change my beliefs (and I do doubt that this will happen on this subject). Then I'd probably struggle with it for a short time and submit to it, haha.

But anyway, this is not really my debate. Nor is it a priority study right now. I would probably come at it from a different angle than some who accept original sin (I prefer 'total depravity/inability'). I am honestly not sure at what point children become responsible. I do know that at least one child has gone to heaven (the David and Bathsheba story) and he was far too young to do anything but eat, sleep and produce human waste. Job 3 also implies that babies and young children will be saved, i.e. are among the elect.

[matthew7]

Bob,

Praise God for that brother! You are right. This new chat room has been a great blessing to me and I blessed to give a testimony about it in church. To God be the glory!

Matthew

[Jesse Morrell]

Revk, I agree with your post that we inherit death through Adam, as a child inherits physical deformities from it's parents, and we are victims of it, but our sin originates with us, sin is a moral deformity, and we are criminals for it.

For a man to be guilty of sin, it must be that specific man who committed the sin. "The soul that sins, IT shall die". For a soul to sin, it must be the soul that sinned.

Evan, yes I agree that Paul makes a distinction that the death from Adam is not like the justification in Christ.

But the problem is if you use the same means of interpretion for the one for the other, then you fall into universalism. You cannot use one means of interpretion for the first without also for the later, without being theologically biased and intellectually inconsistent. Proper interpretation is always proper interpretation. If you can interprete one a certain way, you must be able to use the same means of interpretation for the other.

Jack, the will to live is not selfish. In fact, it's godly. God wills that we should live. So we too should will that we should live.

Selfishness must be defined. Selfishness is not considering yourself. Selfishness is considering yourself above another.

We are to love our neighbor as ourselves. But some consider considering yourself at all as selfishness. But we are to consider ourselves, we are to love ourselves. And we are to consider ourselves, because we must consider ourselves and how we love ourselves to see how we are to love our neighbor.

God considers us. But why does God consider us? Because all humans have an intrinsic value. And we must value what God values because of it's intrinsic value.

But our intrinsic value does not override the intrinsic value of another. And if we ever do value ourselves against the value of another, it is selfishness.

SJN, you are correct. The doctrine of original sin is based heavily upon Romans 5 and it is very unstable, since a strict interpretation of certain parts of the passages to mean original sin and sinful nature, would require a strict interpretation of the other parts to mean universal justification and also a physical righteous nature.

Matthew, yes I was saved at 16. But that is not why I don't believe in original sin, because I hadn't had much opportunity for sin. Rather, I've had much sin in my life. I've been on house arrest 3 times. I've been to jail 4 times. I've used almost every known drug, except heroin, and I've been addicted to most of those drugs.

I had 16 long years of selfishness and I know very well the "fight", as you mentioned, to break selfishness.

It's not because of inexperience that I reject original sin, but because of intellectually honesty based upon the scriptures.

All I am saying is that my sin and all the worlds sin is the result of a bad will, not a bad nature. You do not need a bad nature to sin. Adam had no sinful nature but sinned. Eve had no sinful nature but sinned. Satan had no sinful nature but sinned. And all the fallen angels had no sinful nature but sinned. Sin is the result of a bad will, not a bad nature.

--------------------------------------------------

[glow=red,2,300]SINFUL FLESH?[/glow]

I also have been pondering the question which has been brought up, asking what the bible means by "sinful flesh".

In the King James Version the term "sinful flesh" is only found once - Romans 8:3.

The passage says Christ came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and He "condemned sin in the flesh".

WHAT THIS PASSAGE DOES NOT SAY

I'd like to point out that this passage does not say, "in the likeness of flesh of sin". It does not say "flesh of sin" but rather "sinful flesh". Sinful flesh is very simply flesh full of sin, but not flesh made out of sin.

It's one thing for your stomach to be "full of food" and a completely different thing for your stomach to be made out of food. And it's one thing to have a flesh full of sin and to have a flesh made out of sin, that is to say, a flesh that actually was sin.

And notice how the scripture goes on to talk about "sin in the flesh". But never does this verse mention flesh made of sin, or flesh that was sin, but is always talking about "sin in the flesh" or "sin-filled flesh".

WHAT DOES THIS PHRASE MEAN?

So, how can the flesh be full of sin?

First, what is the nature of sin? Is sin a physical substance we are born with or is it a moral choice of the will?

IF SIN WERE PHYSICAL

If it were a physical substance, that all of us were born with, we could very simply have it surgically removed. Also, if this passage meant "flesh of sin" rather then "flesh full of sin", then the man with one arm is less sinful then the man with two arms. The man with one legg is less sinful then the man with two leggs. And the man with no arms or no leggs is less sinful then all of them!

Also, if sin were physical, then it could not be a moral choice, it could not be your own doing, therefore it could not be something you were guilty of or accountable for. It would be like a man who is born black. His skin color was entirely independant of his own choice and his own doing.

So sin being physical would make man the victim of sin rather then the criminal of sin. Sin being a physical deformity that all man is born with would make it impossible for one to "love" Christ and "keep His commandments" and would render "God's commandments" to be greivous, rather then "not burdensome". You would have to disregard what God says about sin and what God says about His commandments if you were to believe that sin was some physical deformity you were born with.

Sin would no longer be a "moral" choice, but rather a neccesity or causation. It would not be something that the scripture says he "yeilds" to. One cannot be guilty of choicing what he did not choose, nor can what be blamed for what was a nessecity or something he was caused to do.

The perspective of sin being a physical deformity strips man of responsibility as well as accountability for sin.

IF SIN WERE A MORAL CHOICE

If, however, sin is not a physical deformity but a moral choice, how can flesh be full of sin?

First, what is sin? 1 John 3:4 is a clear definition of sin. "sin is transgression of the Law."

Others may like to use Romans 3:23 which says "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". But I would contend that this is the universal application of sin, and the description of sin, but 1 John 3:4 is the actuall definition of sin.

Second, if sin is what 1 John 3:4 says it is, that sin is transgression of the law, the next question is what is the law?

Jesus answers the question for us in Mt 22:40 - where he says that to love God supremely and your neighbor equally is the essense of all of the law. God's law is very simply the law of love.

Ro 13:8 - "he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

Ro 13:10 - "love is the fulfilling of the law."

Ga 5:14 - "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love"

Jas 2:8 - "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love"

Thirdly, if sin is transgression of the law, and the law is the law of love, what then is love?

Joh 15:13 - "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Love is valuing others as they ought to be valued. Love is treating others as yourself, and when these two things happen, one would be willing to lay down himself for the sake of another, which is a selfless act.

Fourthly, if sin is transgression of the law, and the law is the law of love, and love is self-lessness, then sin can be concluded as the opposite of love, which is selfishness.

Having all this understood, as to what sin is, what law is, what love is, we can now answer how someone can have a flesh that is full of sin.

Very simply, a sinful flesh, or a flesh full of sin, would be a inward will for sin, but not a physical nature of sin. A flesh with inward sin would be an internal bad will, with bad intentions, but not an internal bad nature, with bad inclinations.

Ultimately, one who is inwardly sinful is one who is inwardly selfish in his will rather then being loving in his will. But scripture certainly does not teach anywhere that man has a sinful nature or that man has a flesh made of sin, but rather has a sinful flesh, a flesh full of sin, because of his moral choice to violate God's law.

[evanschaible]

Jesse,

I have been pondering this for a long time (since before Tucson). I like this quote - "Selfishness must be defined. Selfishness is not considering yourself. Selfishness is considering yourself above another." That is good. I have been listening to those Pratney sermons and they are good. Still praying and searching...

-Evan

[Jesse Morrell]

I too am pondering and searching for answers to these questions. I'm giving myself deligently to read through Finneys Systematic Theology. It's an entirely different paradigm.

I know that Theology is an entire system. One single doctrine affects other doctrines, which affect other doctrines. So Theology must be systematic. Right now, I'm trying to figure out what system of theology I fully believe.

Yes, selfishness must be defined.

Pride must also be defined. Often when you confess freedom from sin, someone accuses you of pride. But if we define pride as thinking of yourself higher then you really are, then professing freedom is not pride at all, it's honesty, so long as that is the way you really are.

So selfishness is considering yourself above another person.

Pride is considering yourself above yourself, above what you really are.

[Jesse Morrell]

The Age of Accountability

I've been thinking about the doctrine of the age of accountability and it's scriptural support.

There is a scriptural qualification for responsibility and accountability that must be considered.

James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Here the qualification or precondition for being responsible to peform good, or accountable for failure to perform, is dependant upon the knowledge of knowing not only what is right, but also knowing that right must be done.

Knowledge is the a prerequisite for responsibility and accountability, just as ability itself is a prerequisite. This verse also implies that there are some who do not "know to do good" and therefore if they "do it not" to them, it is not sin.

The question must be asked then, where is moral knowledge percieved and enforced? I would say in the conscience and emotion. In which faculty does man percieve this consciousness of right and wrong? The conscience is of the mind. And it's through the sensabilities that this knowledge, or rather violation of this knowledge, is enforced. Thus the emotion of conviction. (Unless someone views conviction as the mind being convinced of guilt, rather then the emotion of guilt. This very well may be. But either way, the mind must be first convinced of guilt.)

But all knowledge is known through the mind, especially the knowledge of responsibility and the knowledge of guilt.

So until the mind is developed to the point that it is receptive to the revelational knowledge of good and evil, the individual with the undeveloped mind cannot be held accountable. So the age of accountability can vary from child to child, and Christian children can reach it before non-Christian children do.

Anyone believes that a child does not grow in knowledge is sadly mistake. For even Christ as a child "increased in wisdom" Luke 2:52. A "child" must "grow" (Luke 1:80) both physically, but also mentally.

This is the basic principle that responsibility and accountability is dependant upon light. With increased light comes increased responsibility. Those who know much are accountable for much. And likewise, those who know little, or have little light, are responsible and accountable for little.

Only those who "KNOW to do right" but "do it not" are in sin. But those who do not know yet what is right, or how to do right, or that right must be done, cannot be in sin, since sin is dependant upon knowledge.

None the less, it must be the one who did not do it to be guilty of the sin of not doing it. You cannot be guilty of a sin that you yourself did not commit.

[matthew7]

Jesse,

Your views are appreciated. Praise the LORD! I hope to answer the "fallen nature," "sinful flesh," "carnal" questions as well later. Right now I am in defence of the BIble Sabbath. But I do wish to say the Law of God is love. If you love God you will obey the first four commandments of the decalogue. If you love your neighbor, you will not steal, lie, covet, fornicate with his wife, etc... In other word your will keep all ten commandments as a profession of the love. That is how Jesus CHrist summed up the law when asked by one of the Jewish teaches of the law.

Matt 22:36-40

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. KJV.

Jesse, no where does this lessen the obligation of the law. Rather, the opposite is so! We must strive to keep the law by the Power of Jesus CHrist. Thus, we will not sin (law break) against God or our fellow man. Jesus came to magnify the law, not spiritualize it away!

Isaiah 42:21 The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable. KJV.


Matthew

[alan4jc]

matthew7 said:

Jesse,

Your views are appreciated. Praise the LORD! I hope to answer the "fallen nature," "sinful flesh," "carnal" That is how Jesus CHrist summed up the law when asked by one of the Jewish teaches of the law.

.


Matthew

Don't you mean Michael the archangel (not Jesus)

[Brother Adiel]

admin said:

The Age of Accountability

I've been thinking about the doctrine of the age of accountability and it's scriptural support.

There is a scriptural qualification for responsibility and accountability that must be considered.

James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Here the qualification or precondition for being responsible to peform good, or accountable for failure to perform, is dependant upon the knowledge of knowing not only what is right, but also knowing that right must be done.

Knowledge is the a prerequisite for responsibility and accountability, just as ability itself is a prerequisite. This verse also implies that there are some who do not "know to do good" and therefore if they "do it not" to them, it is not sin.

The question must be asked then, where is moral knowledge percieved and enforced? I would say in the conscience and emotion. In which faculty does man percieve this consciousness of right and wrong? The conscience is of the mind. And it's through the sensabilities that this knowledge, or rather violation of this knowledge, is enforced. Thus the emotion of conviction. (Unless someone views conviction as the mind being convinced of guilt, rather then the emotion of guilt. This very well may be. But either way, the mind must be first convinced of guilt.)

But all knowledge is known through the mind, especially the knowledge of responsibility and the knowledge of guilt.

So until the mind is developed to the point that it is receptive to the revelational knowledge of good and evil, the individual with the undeveloped mind cannot be held accountable. So the age of accountability can vary from child to child, and Christian children can reach it before non-Christian children do.

Anyone believes that a child does not grow in knowledge is sadly mistake. For even Christ as a child "increased in wisdom" Luke 2:52. A "child" must "grow" (Luke 1:80) both physically, but also mentally.

This is the basic principle that responsibility and accountability is dependant upon light. With increased light comes increased responsibility. Those who know much are accountable for much. And likewise, those who know little, or have little light, are responsible and accountable for little.

Only those who "KNOW to do right" but "do it not" are in sin. But those who do not know yet what is right, or how to do right, or that right must be done, cannot be in sin, since sin is dependant upon knowledge.

None the less, it must be the one who did not do it to be guilty of the sin of not doing it. You cannot be guilty of a sin that you yourself did not commit.

Hey Jesse, I got a few questions. According to what you are saying, there is a brief period of time between a child's first moment of accountability and his first sinful action? If there is a brief period of sinless accountability how does that fit into:

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

In other words, during this brief stint of sinless accountability, is the person in the Spirit? Without yet being born again?

[Josh Parsley]

In other words, during this brief stint of sinless accountability, is the person in the Spirit? Without yet being born again?

Why do people go to hell? Because of sin?

[Brother Adiel]

preachparsly said:

In other words, during this brief stint of sinless accountability, is the person in the Spirit? Without yet being born again?

Why do people go to hell? Because of sin?

Yeah.

[Josh Parsley]

Here is a verse I seem to quote often when the topic of children come up.

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 shows that there is a point in a child's life when the choose.

[Kerrigan]

Good verse Josh! I agree, there is a point in a child's life where he must choose. This doesn't mean that he is full of the Spirit or Born Again though. It just means that it is a matter of time before he will sin. The Bible makes it clear that EVERYONE will sin at some point in time, but it also makes it clear that sin is a choice, not something forced upon you. Also, remember this, that if a child has never broken any of the commandments of God and hears the Gospel and does not put his faith in Christ, he has now sinned...

[Brother Adiel]

revk said:

Good verse Josh! I agree, there is a point in a child's life where he must choose. This doesn't mean that he is full of the Spirit or Born Again though. It just means that it is a matter of time before he will sin. The Bible makes it clear that EVERYONE will sin at some point in time, but it also makes it clear that sin is a choice, not something forced upon you. Also, remember this, that if a child has never broken any of the commandments of God and hears the Gospel and does not put his faith in Christ, he has now sinned...

But doesnt that open up the possibility for a person who is accountable to die and go to heaven without need of the Savior? Tell me if this makes sense:

child A:

Up until he is 9 years old he is ignorant and sinless. At 10 he suddenly becomes knowledgeable of sin but has not yet sinned. At 10 and 1 month he sins and becomes hell-deserving. According to this view if the child dies at during that first month of sinless accountability, he will go to heaven based on his own rightenousess with
no need of a Savior.

child B:

Up until 9 years old the child is sinfully inclined since birth due to his Adamic nature. But because he has no personal knowledge he is unaccountable. As soon as he
commits his first knowledgable sin he becomes personally guilty and hell-deserving. But before then... he would be saved by the grace of God throught the merits of Christ.

Does this properly capture these two views or am I off?

[alan4jc]

Adiel said: At 10 he suddenly becomes knowledgeable of sin but has not yet sinned.

If this is where his conscience is aware of sin, then he would also through his memory be aware of his past actions that would be concidered sin and therefore be guilty of sin

[Josh Parsley]

Both of them could be refuted if you purposely take the other side.

One would say "but our righteouness is filthy rags! How could he go on his own righteouness?!"

Then the other would say "But you can't be saved by grace except it be through faith!"

This is why we are still debating it.

[Brother Adiel]

I believe it makes more sense for the mentally disabled and little children to go to heaven through the grace of God by the merits of Christ than by their own sinlessness/righteousness apart from Christ! Thats the basic difference in the two views in my opinion.

[sjn]

If we are born with a sinful nature and are "by nature objects of wrath", then how is it that children under the "age of accountability" go to heaven if they die? I don't see how anyone can hold to original sin without also holding to alien guilt imputed to all. Many say they believe in original sin but also believe that we our not born guilty. How can this be? If this is your position what is it based on?

Steve

[Kerrigan]

adiel said:

revk said:

Good verse Josh! I agree, there is a point in a child's life where he must choose. This doesn't mean that he is full of the Spirit or Born Again though. It just means that it is a matter of time before he will sin. The Bible makes it clear that EVERYONE will sin at some point in time, but it also makes it clear that sin is a choice, not something forced upon you. Also, remember this, that if a child has never broken any of the commandments of God and hears the Gospel and does not put his faith in Christ, he has now sinned...

But doesnt that open up the possibility for a person who is accountable to die and go to heaven without need of the Savior? Tell me if this makes sense:

child A:

Up until he is 9 years old he is ignorant and sinless. At 10 he suddenly becomes knowledgeable of sin but has not yet sinned. At 10 and 1 month he sins and becomes hell-deserving. According to this view if the child dies at during that first month of sinless accountability, he will go to heaven based on his own rightenousess with
no need of a Savior.

child B:

Up until 9 years old the child is sinfully inclined since birth due to his Adamic nature. But because he has no personal knowledge he is unaccountable. As soon as he
commits his first knowledgable sin he becomes personally guilty and hell-deserving. But before then... he would be saved by the grace of God throught the merits of Christ.

Does this properly capture these two views or am I off?

I see what you are saying Adiel. The only problem with thinking that someone can get to Heaven by their own sinlessness is that the Bible makes clear that EVERYONE will sin. Therefore hypothetical situation of Child A could never and would never happen. At least that is what I see in Scripture...

[Brother Adiel]

revk said:

adiel said:

But doesnt that open up the possibility for a person who is accountable to die and go to heaven without need of the Savior? Tell me if this makes sense:

child A:

Up until he is 9 years old he is ignorant and sinless. At 10 he suddenly becomes knowledgeable of sin but has not yet sinned. At 10 and 1 month he sins and becomes hell-deserving. According to this view if the child dies at during that first month of sinless accountability, he will go to heaven based on his own rightenousess with
no need of a Savior.

child B:

Up until 9 years old the child is sinfully inclined since birth due to his Adamic nature. But because he has no personal knowledge he is unaccountable. As soon as he
commits his first knowledgable sin he becomes personally guilty and hell-deserving. But before then... he would be saved by the grace of God throught the merits of Christ.

Does this properly capture these two views or am I off?

I see what you are saying Adiel. The only problem with thinking that someone can get to Heaven by their own sinlessness is that the Bible makes clear that EVERYONE will sin. Therefore hypothetical situation of Child A could never and would never happen. At least that is what I see in Scripture...

Does that mean that Child B's scenario is more biblical?

[Brother Adiel]

sjn said:

If we are born with a sinful nature and are "by nature objects of wrath", then how is it that children under the "age of accountability" go to heaven if they die? I don't see how anyone can hold to original sin without also holding to alien guilt imputed to all. Many say they believe in original sin but also believe that we our not born guilty. How can this be? If this is your position what is it based on?

Steve

Hey SJN,

*IF* these two statements are true:

Children being born absolutely sinless = when they die they can technically go to heaven without the need of the Savior.

Children being born with a sinful nature minus the guilt = when they die they would technically only be able to go to heaven by the grace of God through the merits of Christ by the cleansing of His spilled blood.

Then:

The next logical question becomes, what does "sinful nature minus the guilt" look like? Sin without the law. Death reigns over the person but since the person has NO knowledge of good and evil WHATSOEVER he isnt held accountable. As soon as the person commits his first sin knowingly, he becomes Hellbound. This only applies to little children and the mentally disabled; not the heathen. The heathen have their consciences telling them the difference between right and wrong. They know its wrong to lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape etc.

Disclaimer: For fear of leading anyone astray, let it be known that this is ALL speculation. (obviously) I'm just trying to make sense of what has been said thus far.

[Kerrigan]

No, I don't think Child B is more Biblical because I don't find it in the Bible and because of what Steve said:

sjn said:

If we are born with a sinful nature and are "by nature objects of wrath", then how is it that children under the "age of accountability" go to heaven if they die? I don't see how anyone can hold to original sin without also holding to alien guilt imputed to all. Many say they believe in original sin but also believe that we our not born guilty. How can this be? If this is your position what is it based on?

Steve

[sjn]

Adiel,

My post isn't intended to be a part of the specific discussion between you and Rev K. As part of my wading through this issue I've come across a Reformed theologian who basically says that you must swallow alien guilt if you hold to original sin. He says there are all kinds of attempts to get around this, but in order to do so you must forsake consistency. I think he's right. That doesn't mean I reject original sin however. At this point I do not reject it. I'm just curious to understand how someone can cosistently hold to original sin and not alien guilt.

Steve

[matthew7]

A brief study on Mark 7;


Mark 7:1-3 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. KJV.

Okay! Why did they find fault??? What did the disciples do wrong? Nothing! They were not following the requirements of the elders. It did not say the Law of Moses! Even if it did, which it did not, the Jewish Rabbi's were not following the Word of God, they has erred hundreds of years ago and replaced many of the requirements of the "CEREMONIAL" law of moses, NOT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, but the "Ceremonial law of Moses," with thier own rigid rules. These rigid rules of man, were in direct conflict with the Law of God. They were traditions of man, and were not inspired by God. These elders were motivated by Satan, for they accused the disciples and that is the work of the devil. See Rev 12:7-11.

Look at what Jesus CHrist had to say about the wicked rules that were implemented by these stubborn pharaisees.

Matt 23:4-5

4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, KJV.


Well there you have it! From the Words of Jesus CHrist. THe Jewish leaders had apostized and were just doing things for attention and to be seen of man. Wow! What a lesson for us today. The Bible makes clear that we need to follow the Word of God and not the traditions and commandments of man. Is Sunday worship in the commandments of God? And if so which one? My point exactly! Look at what Jesus CHrist had to say on this issue, to no less than my enemy and yours, the devil!


Matthew 4:3-7

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. KJV.

How many words are we to follow from the "Mouth" of God? Would the answer be ALL! All the Words from the Holy Mouth of our Creator God!! How many words did the Creator speak to man? Well from Mount Sinai, I count Ten! Ten Commandments! Wow! So what Jesus stated to the devil, just before Christ dealt a blow to the enemies temptations, was to obey all the words of God!!!!

Ps 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. KJV.


Deut 9:10-11

10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

11 And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant. KJV.

Mark chapter 7 is so important! Here Jesus Christ, points out not only the error of man made traditions, but shows what man made rules lead to... sin! Jesus listened to the filth coming from the unconverted apostates, and then turns it around on them. The apostates had gone overboard and actually changed the ETERNAL MORAL LAW OF GOD. THey had tampered with the sacred Ten COmmandments! Here Jesus points out thier sin. Remember this is one of the strongest condemning statements made by Jesus CHrist in the entire New Testament, or by any of the New Testament prophets!!!! Jesus condemned them for breaking the Law of GOd with their wicked tradition!

Mark 7:6-8 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. KJV.

Jesus laid them out with a rebuke for breaking the commandments of God.

Matt 4:4

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. KJV.

The Jewish leaders, (apostates) were transgressing the Ten COmmandment law of God, and it drew from Jesus CHrist the strongest rebuke, in the entire Bible!!!!!!!!!! WOW! Keeping the Commandments must be very important to Jesus CHrist. In fact, here Jesus CHrist states that we will not eat from the tree of life if we do not keep the Ten Commandments of God.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. KJV.

SO if you are blessed if you keep the commandments than, you must be cursed if you break them!!!!!!! Well who are the ones that break the Commandments???

Rev 22:15

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and sleepermongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. KJV.

"Whosoever loveth and maketh a lie!" Is telling a lie breaking one of the Ten COmmandments? If so which one? Can anyone help me here? If you tell a lie it is wrong, meaning it is a no, no! Or better put "the lie" is SIN!!! Sin is a transgression of the LAW!
1 John 3:4. SIn is Commandment breaking, and the Bible says that sinners are "dogs, sorcerers, and sleepermongers." Sounds like lawless people to me. I am glad I read the Bible and see in about ten thousand nine hundred and ninty nine place where we are to obey the law of God. In fact, obedience to the Law of God is in every chapter of every book of the entire Bible. I am glad GOd left us such strong clues, or maybe some sincere CHristians might miss the point!

Anyway, back to MARK CHAPTER 7. Next, Jesus fingered one of the most horrible abuses the apostates had come up with. The had pronounced or implemented the practice of "CORBAN." Corban was a method where the ministers did not have to financially support their parents, all they had to do was claim "CORBAN" and all of their assets were thiers to use and then at death the money would go to the temple treasury. THis was a wicked abomination, that Satan influenced the ministers and religious authorities to do. It was just plain sick. Many of them left their parents to starve and die and kept the money to themselves. This brought the strongest rebuke recorded in the Word of God, and from Jesus CHrist, the Word of God, (John 1:1-4). The rabbi's had made a requirement to break the 5th commandment of God. It was not to be tolerated by Jesus CHrist, and He rebuke them for their "traditions of man" and setting aside the HOLY Ten Commandments of GOd.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. KJV.

THese wicked apostates would not obey the Law of God and Jesus CHrist condemned them! THey were "under the law" condemned by the Law of God, "Thus saith the LORD." They had transgressed the LAW by thier tradition of man. Corban was a wicked sin! It completely eliminated the 5th commandment of God.

Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. KJV.

To leave your mother or father pennyless in their old age is still sin!!!!! Some may not think so because they love the "CORBAN" idea, but for me that is sick and abominable! I love the Law of God, and help my parents even now! What about you?? Is that part of the law nailed to the cross? Are we free to abuse and starve our partent to death and call ourselves CHristians? If you did you would be breaking the 3rd Commandment as well:

Ex 20:7

7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. KJV.

Well whatever, if you break one commandment you break them all!

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. KJV.

Many people are taking the Name of CHrist or Christian in vain! They are breaking the Law and calling themselves "CHristian." But the rebuke of COrban, stands for all the Commandments, not just one. Is thier a traditon of man that makes void the 4th commandment??? Is Sunday the first day or the 7th day? Could someone get a calender and check it out please?

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. KJV.

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. KJV.

Not done with Mark 7 yet! There is more!


Mark 7:21-23

21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. KJV.


All the above are the things in a carnal heart that does not have the LAW OF GOD in it! The New Covenant is to have the law in the heart, not sin, not do what you want! Not traditions of man. No matter how many people are doing it, it is wrong, we must obey the Law! Not man!

Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil ; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: KJV.

Sadly many will continue to follow wicked traditions of man, because it is popular! Everybody is doing it so it must be okay. But wait! What sayeth the LORD. What saith the BIble?
Matt 4:4

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. KJV.

What will GOd say to those that follow man and not GOd?

Acts 19:9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude , he departed from them, and separated the disciples...


Matthew

[Josh Parsley]

Matthew,

Please, please, don't go around posting the same post on several threads. If you want to create a thread, go for it. And try to keep it on topic. There is no reason to post something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. How about you make a thread all to yourself and "teach us" everything you know about the sabbath and eating meats. That way you won't cause havok to every thread.

----------------


I've been thinking some about this topic and wondering what is does to being born again, regeneration, conversion, ect. If nature merely means a habitual action, then there is no need for a change of heart. All that is needed is a change of will. I think Finney believed that the heart was the same as the will. That is the only way you could really put it to make it consistant if there is no corrupted nature- and you interpret nature to NOT be what is naturally inclined, but only your habitual action.

Below is what John Wesley said about this topic. My thoughts arn't nearly as strong as his, but it does share some of the same concerns I have (mainly what is in bold.)

Also, could anyone ever call sin a disease and Jesus the cure? How can something be a disease if it is always a mere action? How could being born again be anything other than a 'decision?' What does it mean to "have a change of nature?" Is it mere self-reformation to the "moral law" of God?

2. Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are put Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, “We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation.” But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? or, to come back to the text, is “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?” Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still.

3. We may learn from hence, in the Third place, what is the proper nature of religion, of the religion of Jesus Christ. It is therapeia psyches, God’s method of healing a soul which is thus diseased. Hereby the great Physician of souls applies medicines to heal this sickness; to restore human nature, totally corrupted in all its faculties. God heals all our Atheism by the knowledge of Himself, and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent; by giving us faith, a divine evidence and conviction of God, and of the things of God, — in particular, of this important truth, “Christ loved me” — and gave himself for me.” By repentance and lowliness of heart, the deadly disease of pride is healed; that of self-will by resignation, a meek and thankful submission to the will of God; and for the love of the world in all its branches, the love of God is the sovereign remedy. Now, this is properly religion, “faith” thus “working by love;” working the genuine meek humility, entire deadness to the world, with a loving, thankful acquiescence in, and conformity to, the whole will and word of God.

4. Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind. The superfluity of godliness would then be a more proper expression than the “superfluity of naughtiness.” For an outside religion, without any godliness at all, would suffice to all rational intents and purposes. It does, accordingly, suffice, in the judgment of those who deny this corruption of our nature. They make very little more of religion than the famous Mr. Hobbes did of reason. According to him, reason is only “a well-ordered train of words:” According to them, religion is only a well-ordered train of words and actions. And they speak consistently with themselves; for if the inside be not full of wickedness, if this be clean already, what remains, but to “cleanse the outside of the cup?” Outward reformation, if their supposition be just, is indeed the one thing needful.

Just some questions that have been coming to mind lately....

[Josh Parsley]

In case anyone was wondering why I am pressing the point about the word "nature." These verses comes to mind:

Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

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.

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.