-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Question
- Thread starter zaksmummy
- Start date
I have highlighted the parts in red ... and my response had everything to do with what you posted... see further comments in black...
Can't fall until you have the wedge that separates you from God...
We will always be given free choice, even with the propensity to sin....
What a defeatist attitude and understanding!!!! IT is like saying a baby is depraved.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2005
- 15,666
- 2,957
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No Vis...you misunderstand the doctrine here completely, and you are unwittingly Pelagian in your opinions. You are not recognizing the proper understanding of depravity, will etc.
Propensity is not the same as ability.
Man was created with free will, and the ability to do good or evil. When he chose evil, his will changed and he got the propensity to do evil. (He was not created with the propensity to do both good and evil- eg with two contradictory wills- as you may have mistakenly thought)
We do not have free will in all things without God's grace. In moral matters we are so depraved that we have a powerful and constant propensity to do evil, but God's grace frees us from that inclination. This is scripture, not opinion. Look it up.
This is not "defeatist", which is an emotive comment of yours and not a scriptural one. A human child is born in a state of depravity, according to scripture and common sense. They will not need to be taught how to sin. They will do it without your instruction, and against your guidance. It is natural. It is there from birth. The problem is that in the human mind we cannot bring ourselves to accept a cutesy little child as born in spiritual depravity (eg. with the inclination or propensity to do evil and sin, with a moral separation from God) even though in due course it will become apparent that they in fact have been. While the child is not condemned to Hell for the sin of his or her parents, it will in due course commit its own sins quite naturally. This is what we mean when we talk of human depravity or the "human condition" as some call it now.
Upvote
0
Never said propensity is ability.. propensity can do very well without any ability...
If tomorrow, we were in the Garden of Eden without knowledge of evil, and there was no evil thought given through any suggestions by the instigator.. would we have created our own? NO...
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2005
- 15,666
- 2,957
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
No it can't. It follows that propensity would be a redundancy without ability.
What on earth are you talking about Vis? Have you forgotten so much? Your hypothetical is not making any legit point. If this...if that...how what just sticking to the Bible on this?
Facts we should be able to agree on: Man was created in God's image, a free agent. Man fell, and the image of God within him is seriously and fatally damaged. He is inclined to sin, and that continually. He can't make himself holy or restore the image of God he lost by his own works or power. Without God's gracious intervention he can not change or be made holy or get rid of his inclination to sin, nor does he want to without God first drawing him.
Simple. Can we agree on that?
Upvote
0
Your facts i can pretty much agree with except the fatally damaged image of God... I don't buy into the original sin theory... I have enough of my own sins to deal with without some original sin I am to be guilty of also..The idea that babies are sinners, guilty, and condemned at birth is morally unthinkable.
It is a physical impossibility to be born a sinner because of the nature of sin. Sin is not a substance. It has no physical properties and cannot possibly be passed on physically from one person to another. What is sin? The Bible says, "Sin is the transgression of the law." I John 3:4.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2005
- 15,666
- 2,957
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Vis....that was what I have said all along: you are not guilty of Original sin. You suffer from its effects (as we all do), but you are not guilty before God any sins you did not commit.
"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son" Ezek. 18:20
If we don't inherit the physical effects of sin from the fall, why do we die? Even the whole creation suffers for it:
Gen 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Paul explains it this way:
Romans 5:12-19 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 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. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Here's a quote from ancient Jewish tradition, found in the LXX:
O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants. (2 Esdras aka 4 Ezra 7:118)
Sin is indeed the transgression of the Law, yet:
Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.Job 15:14-16 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Depravity is the source of sin. Original Sin is the source of depravity. All creation suffers physically ans spiritually from the fall of man.
Upvote
0
According to the Bible, sin is an act or a choice that transgresses the law of God, which we both agree. However, it cannot, therefore, be a substance because choice and substance are contradictories. Is a wicked act a substance? Is disobedience, transgressions, lawbreaking, or unrighteousness a substance? Is guilt a substance? No, they are all moral concepts or moral qualities. And it is impossible for them to be transmitted physically. When we speak of sin, we are describing the character of an act. The word sin describes the character of an act as being wicked or wrong. Therefore there is no original sin in us.
Yet learned theologians still maintain the impossible dogma that sin, like some malignant disease, has been passed on physically from Adam to all his descendants. How ridiculous it is to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. How foolish to speak of men being born sinners! Yeshua could never been born of Mary as sinless if this were true.
It does not teach that God breaks our bones when we sin (Psalm 51:8). It does not teach that broken bones rejoice (Psalm 51:8). It does not teach that our sins are purged with hyssop (Psalm 51:7). It does not teach that babies speak and tell lies as soon as they are born (Psalm 58:3). It does not teach that men go back into their mother's womb (Job 1:21). And it does not teach that the substance of unborn babies is sinful (Psalm 51:5). These are all figurative expressions, and to interpret them in their literal sense is to teach nonsense and what every man knows to be impossible and contrary to reality.
Yet learned theologians still maintain the impossible dogma that sin, like some malignant disease, has been passed on physically from Adam to all his descendants. How ridiculous it is to make sin a physical virus, instead of a voluntary and responsible choice. How foolish to speak of men being born sinners! Yeshua could never been born of Mary as sinless if this were true.
It does not teach that God breaks our bones when we sin (Psalm 51:8). It does not teach that broken bones rejoice (Psalm 51:8). It does not teach that our sins are purged with hyssop (Psalm 51:7). It does not teach that babies speak and tell lies as soon as they are born (Psalm 58:3). It does not teach that men go back into their mother's womb (Job 1:21). And it does not teach that the substance of unborn babies is sinful (Psalm 51:5). These are all figurative expressions, and to interpret them in their literal sense is to teach nonsense and what every man knows to be impossible and contrary to reality.
Upvote
0
Sounds like a topic worthy of more careful contemplation, but .....there are clear examples of moral qualities getting transmitted.Not traits that run in a family/ are learned behaivor, like gluttony, but moral or immoral traits that clearly resemble ones of parents of great-grand parents and pop up in a child. They often show up in adopted to totally different environment kids, so its clearly inherited.
I was always interested in this to understand the nature of sin. What about the anecdotal evidence of babies that can't speak yet but are skillful in manipulating to obtain mother's attention ? Sure, it can be argued that baby learns what produces good result and acts on on -but doing it by deceit , when he cries, pretending to be hurt?Why is baby already a liar?
Multitude of sins that tiny kids show, like hate, anger, refusal to share their toys,envy,manipulation, I cant believe all those are so quicky learned.
Even secular psychologists an psychiatrists admit that some inclinations to evil are part of character, not something that can possibly be acquired. Again, i am not talking about not understanding that mother needs to change diapers on your twin brother, so you shouldnt scream for attention, I am talking about clearly *choosing* sin.
And ,as CM mentioned, how to explain why some newborns die, if they are sinless..
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It is one thing to suffer in a world of sin... and quite another to be declared sinful from Adam's mistake.
Upvote
0
I do not understand your argument. I do not think you have quite grasped the logic of the arguments on this subject.
Upvote
0
They have corrupted themselves. Deut. 32:5 or "knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good." Isaiah 7:16, and
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The moral traits of the parents are inherited by the children must answer the questions: Why is it that many children "inherit" traits that are the exact opposite of their parents? Why is it that brothers and sisters in the same family will have moral traits the exact opposite of each other? Is the "inheritance" of sinful traits a hit or miss thing? The answer is that there is no such thing as inheritance of sinful traits.
Upvote
0
I have to agree, here. Mostly we're a product of our environment, but not always. We don't inherit sin from previous generations for if the original sin existed how could it not apply to Noah, for example?
Upvote
0
It has always been easier to sin than to do good. Adam and Eve did not have a sinful nature, but they sinned just as easily as any of their descendants. What was it that caused them to sin so easily? It was not a sinful nature, it was temptation. Adam and Eve were tempted and they sinned so easily, so naturally, so spontaneously that it would almost seem that they had a "sinful nature" before they sinned.
Upvote
0
yedida
Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
I don't buy into all that sinful nature thing either. It's either always been there or it wasn't. But if the bible says we are responsible for our own sins, then I won't accept that I got someway from someone else. I'm either responsible or I'm not.
I think we are inclined to do what seems to be the better thing for us each individually.
Upvote
0
exactly... It has always been easier to sin than to resist temptation. James 1:12 says, "Blessed is he that endureth temptation." Heb. 2:18 says, "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted," and Heb. 12:4 says, he "resisted unto blood, striving against sin."
Upvote
0
It is not heresy to not believe the original sin had any more influence on the rest of mankind than any other sin committed since then.
Christ "suffered" under temptation, not because of a sinful nature, but because resisting and overcoming temptation involves suffering. Adam and Eve did not resist temptation. That is why they sinned so easily. They took the easy way of pleasure and self-indulgence, which is always easier than the path of obedience to God.
But if the fact that it is easier to sin than to do right implies that men are born with a sinful nature, we would be left with the unscriptural conclusion that both Adam and Christ had sinful natures Adam, because he sinned so easily, naturally, and spontaneously; and Christ, because it was necessary for him to "endure," "suffer," "resist," and "strive" to overcome sin.
James tells us how all men are tempted. "But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, and sin when it is finished bringeth forth death." James 1:14, 15. James explains here that all men are tempted through the desires of their sensibility. These constitutional desires and appetites are not sinful in themselves. They are merely the occasion to temptation, and it is only when they are gratified contrary to the law of God and reason that they become sinful. Adam and Eve had them before they sinned, or they could not have been tempted. Christ had them, or he was not a man and could not have been tempted as other men. But the Bible affirms that Christ was a man and that he was tempted in all points as other men, and yet without sin: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Heb. 4:15.
Sin is universal, not because of an inherited sin nature, but because temptation is universal, and, because when men are tempted, they choose to indulge their own desires, rather than obey the law of God written in their hearts.
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
I think where there can be misunderstanding on the subject of original sin affecting others is that just because one is deemed "sinful" doesn't mean that the Lord considers what may be "sinful" to be on the same level as others who WILLFULLY sin against him...
On ORIGINAL Sin, as others have noted, many have discussed that the effects of what Adam did impact all of us from the moment we're born---and this can be seen in the fact that all must face the pain of death itself/sickness and suffering that came from a world now in bondage to the Enemy/Devil because of Adam being committing treason toward the Lord....and all men dealing with it.
It is always interesting to note how many of the debates on children/the state their born in go directly in line with the views others may have on why God brought judgement on certain people groups..children included. According to Michael Heiser, the reason God ordered the destruction of every living creature was because the people of Jericho were the descendents of Nephelim and Anakim (the giants created by the union of the Sons of God and human women) and were an abomination in his eyes. I've also read the theory that God commanded the destruction of everyone in Canaan because the Amalekites were a war-like tribe of people who practiced barbaric acts. Their moral and hygienic practices were atrocious. There were no dietary restrictions and eating blood, cannibalism, and every conceivable sexual practice including bestiality and pedophilia were commonplace. The natural product of such behavior is always an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases and other food and blood carried maladies. These diseases would not have been confined to the adult male population, and would have even been proliferated in the animals.
But on the issue, I do think it was more than on point to recognize the culture that the children grew up in---with even things such as BEastiality being condoned and exposed. And as the Holy Spirit could not indwell children at that point, it makes a difference concerning the thing of redemption. To some, it can be seen as an act of Mercy for the children to be taken out.....and ultimately, for those who are children, they get to go to Heaven regardless. But of the Lord condoning the extermination of young life
...
1. What happened to all the babies in the flood, Genesis 6:3 ?
2. What happened to the babies in Sodom and Gomarrah (Abraham couldnt find one righteous), Genesis 18:3 ?
3. What happened to the babies that were judged with their parents during the Joshua Conquest of the promised land--Joshua 11:11-13 /Joshua 10:29-31/Joshua 10 Joshua 11 (?
4. What happened to the babies when the Lord sent the death angel in Exodus---Exodus 12:28-30 /Exodus 12 ?
2. What happened to the babies in Sodom and Gomarrah (Abraham couldnt find one righteous), Genesis 18:3 ?
3. What happened to the babies that were judged with their parents during the Joshua Conquest of the promised land--Joshua 11:11-13 /Joshua 10:29-31/Joshua 10 Joshua 11 (?
4. What happened to the babies when the Lord sent the death angel in Exodus---Exodus 12:28-30 /Exodus 12 ?
1 Samuel 15:3
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaimtwo hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah.1 Samuel 15:2-4 (in Context) 1 Samuel 15
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
4 So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaimtwo hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men from Judah.1 Samuel 15:2-4 (in Context) 1 Samuel 15
Deuteronomy 3:6
Defeat of Og King of Bashan
1 Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. 2 The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon."
3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from themthe whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed [a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying [b] every citymen, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.
Defeat of Og King of Bashan
1 Next we turned and went up along the road toward Bashan, and Og king of Bashan with his whole army marched out to meet us in battle at Edrei. 2 The LORD said to me, "Do not be afraid of him, for I have handed him over to you with his whole army and his land. Do to him what you did to Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon."
3 So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. 4 At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from themthe whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. 6 We completely destroyed [a] them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying [b] every citymen, women and children. 7 But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves.
Some things will have to be left for discussion on Judgment Day. But on the issue, for those people who perished at the sword, I don't think it has to automatically be a view that the children were as bad as the people in Sodom and Gommorah raping men. And it may've been mercy since they lacked the Lord's laws and did not have the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit to transform them.
Though God's Word does not explicitly state anything on the matter, there's evidence of God's mercy when working with children/babies who automatically go to Heaven when they die (2 Samuel 12:23) due to how they're covered by the Grace of God for salvation
.. Even if they were born into something that can be considered by many to be a very harsh reality that they didn't ask for, I think it'd be error to say that they're now destined to suffer for it as well when the ability seems to be outside of them to do as the Lord requires for others....
God is a Merciful Lord...and some of the issues have of course been brought up in other discussions on the boards before. But on the issue, David knew he'd someday rejoin his son after his own death in 2 Samuel 12:23--as it's confidence that there is a future reunion adter death--which includes infants who have died being reunited with saints.
The other scripture that most seem to have in response in Psalm 51, where David said that he was filthy from his mother's womb....but people forget that when it comes to certain forms of writing in scripture, there is a poetic outburst,
As a poet, the Psalmist frequently bursts into hyperbole, especially when hot with righteous indignation. David often spoke in extravagant Hebrew idiom to get the point across powerfully. Ad This is a common poetic device. Consider Psalm 14, where in verse 4, he says evildoers devour my people as men eat bread. That, of course, is not literal. David is not laying down a metaphysical doctrine that all men enter this world with a propensity for cannibalism. This is poetic exaggeration, a common figure of speech not to be read with a slavish literalism. The same thing where David says to cleanse him with hyssop and he'll be cleansed---as seen in Psalm 51:6-8 Psalm 51. Of course hyssop cannot cleanse away the spiritual reality of sin....and likewise is it with saying he was being born into sin, as the man had reached rock bottom after sinning with Bathsehba. His comments must be taken in context with the rest of the Word. Other Scriptures tell us there are righteous men who do good (contrary to a literal reading of Rom. 3:10). Job is a perfect example: This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil (Job 1:1).
The Bible also tells us of men who sought after God and found Him. In 2 Chronicles 11:16, we read:
Those from every tribe of Israel who set their hearts on seeking the Lord, the God of Israel, followed the Levites to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices to the Lord, the God of their fathers.
2 Chronicles 20:4
The people of Judah came together to seek help from the LORD; indeed, they came from every town in Judah to seek him.
2 Chronicles 20:4
The people of Judah came together to seek help from the LORD; indeed, they came from every town in Judah to seek him.
Deuteronomy 4:29
But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.
But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.
As John Macarther made clear, most (if not all) of these children would have been too young to exercise personal faith...and for more info, his words in The "Age of Accountability" :: Grace to You. Jesus's Words imply that God graciously extends salvation to those too young or too mentally impaired to exercise faith...and with children, their attitudes are the standard as Christ made clear for entering the kingdom (i.e. humble, trusting dependence, and recognition of having achieved nothing of value or virture). Of course, the issue is far reaching and touches a myriad of other issues---such as the concept of accountability and what it means to be innocent....alongside other issues that've often come up, like baptising children from birth and believing as other camps do that the action means the little ones are going to Heaven Regardless/apart of their parents salvation.
I Know one of the other scriptures that often comes to mind---in regards to children being santicified by the parents alone----is the following scripture
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. (1 Cor 7:14)
__________________
To me, I think this is a powerful scripture, though the text cannot be used to apply to salvation, otherwise the spouse in 1 Corinthians 7:1 would not be spoken of as unbelieving. The santification is matrimonial and famimal, not personal or spiritual and means that the unsaved partner is set apart for a TEMPORARY Blessing because the other belongs to God. And for the believers fearing that the unsaved partner may ruin the children, God promises in that passage the opposite, giving incentive for the saved to remained married since the prescence of the saved spouse will protect children from undue harm and they will recieve many blessings---with salvation often being one of them. __________________
This is something we see all the time in street ministry when working extensively with children involved in horrible parental situations (i.e. one parent being involved in drug abuse/domestic violence and the other being a woman of God trying to keep her home in order). Many of those children never turned to the Lord---and others did so, though later fell away. Others, however, stayed strong and benefited.
Upvote
0
as i said,Visie, i dont know as much on the subject as CM or Heber,so I am just asking for clarification of your position- you believe that babies are born innocent, without a sinful nature, correct? So when they first sin, which is fairly quicky, those babies become sinners, but not until then.
But wouldnt that make them born in a "saved" state, so to speak, or not being separated from God and without the need for salvation, until their first sin ? that presents some theological inconsistanses, at least to me.
But wouldnt that make them born in a "saved" state, so to speak, or not being separated from God and without the need for salvation, until their first sin ? that presents some theological inconsistanses, at least to me.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
