Original Sin

Jumping in here at the last minute to say, if that was true, then why did God banish A&E from the garden so they would no longer be able to partake of the Tree of Life? Explain that one away. Thanks.

 

I have them and bout 8 others (yes, full sets and it set me back quite a bit too)
Well, hold what you want as I said I was explaining my position on the scriptures according to the scriptures verse by verse and in context. Ones personal Thoelogy conglomerated with with it will cause one to see the explaination differently and I understand that.
I didn't expect you to agree because you theology would allow for it, but as I said it was what I have studied and found most true.

 

That's what I am trying to get at, Larry. YOU think. Why not accept the biblical pattern for salvation rather than making one up??

Perhaps. There is ambiguity in whether this "death" is physical or spiritual.

Ezek 18:20 says sin guilt in not inherited, Larry. You say it is -- from Adam.

Too bad you're not into literal in this case.

So sin is not inherited. OK, how is it imputed? Why does God make sinners through "imputation" out of innocent beings?

You mean David, Psa 51:5? "I was shapen in iniquity and in sin did my mother conceive me?" David is speaking about the corruption of the seed, not of the spirit. Again, David did not inherit sin and iniquity from his mother. He inherited the propensity to do what he is confessing in Psa 51:4 -- to sin on his own behalf against God.

What's the other verse you are having trouble with?

How is that not "another gospel?" How do they get saved (justified - sanctified - glorified if not "through Christ?"

Good.

skypair

 

Not that I agree with Skypair on us being only dead physically (but I believe also spiritually seperated).
However, knowing where he is coming from... They had already commited sinned and under Gods judgment. So in partaking of the Tree of Life would have sealed them in disobedience and their sin. And even in my view it is the same.

 

to all but especially Skypair

Skypair,

Your analogy does not follow perfectly…but I see your point and I don’t disagree—All die because of Adam’s sin.

You have contradicted the Scripture in this statement. You say “Each person died spiritually for his own sin.” However, Romans 5 says sin is not counted where there is no law. Your statement requires there to have been a law to break—there was none. People still did evil, as evidenced in God’s statements against man— “5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5 ESV)—but that verse is a discussion for another time. Not to mention, Romans 5:18 says, “one trespass led to condemnation for all men” .

You are constructing a false dichotomy in your position. The fact is Scripture, nowhere suggests two falls or two types of “original sin.”

So, are you saying Noah and his children/children-in-law were perfect?

Where do you find that God “gave commands by conscience.” It is possible to misconstrue the first chapter of Romans to suggest this, but it would be that—a misunderstanding of the passage.

If the dead between Adam and Moses had no sin counted against them (due to the absence of law), and as we all know the wages of sin is death, why would they have died?

They died, as Romans 5 clearly states— “one trespass led to condemnation for all men” . The trespass is Adam’s and the condemnation is ours.

In God’s way of doing things, we are all counted as legally guilty for Adam’s sin. If we die, which we do, it is because of his sin. Our own sin only serves to condemn us further—which makes God’s grace more amazing, I might add.

Unfortunately, your entire presupposition on this issue is based on something other than Scripture. Your position seeks to pacify some unfortunate and dark facts about the human condition. It would be much nicer and easier if your position were scriptural—I would actually prefer your dualistic position, if it were supported by anything in Scripture.

One of the things about the Scripture is it tells us things about ourselves and humanity in general that we do not like. For instance: I am a very reluctant Calvinist. I don’t like that Paul teaches what we call Calvinism—An all-pervasive depravity, Unconditional election, Particular atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

It is not up to me, or any of us, to change the point the authors were making on behalf of The Author Himself, no matter how distasteful they may be to our delicate, Americanized sensibilities.

I’m sure you’ll have something to say about this post and I’m sure I’ll have something to answer….Until then!


Blessings,

The Archangel

 

It actually isn't my theology that won't allow it. I think it is the text that won't allow it. And there is our problem. If you have those commentaries, make good use of them.

 

Of course he wrote in a way they would understand.

2000 years later we interpret the verse according to our understanding of the original languages and original context, and according to the way it has been interpreted by the majority of Christendom down through history. That our very nature itself--how we are born, what we are made up of, constitutionally--makes us objects of God's wrath is the historical interpretation of the church, from the early church fathers on throughout history right up to today. Saying it's a "2000 years later" thing shows absolute ignorance of church history.

Someone born a Jew is not contitutionally Jewish? Jewishness is not part of who they are, but just an outcome of what they do?

If by nature means by race, as you are suggesting here, then Paul is saying that they are all, by race, objects of God's wrath. But that still leaves you with people being objects of God's wrath because of the way they were born rather than merely because of what they do, does it not?

One half of original sin is inherited sin nature. I'm working on this half right now.

They are glorified.

But that doesn't answer my question. Do you believe babies who die are glorified?

 

To All

To All:

Let me say clearly that I understand the issue of the death of babies and the death of the mentally incompetent is a difficult issue. Let me also say that we tend to cloud the issue with our own baggage and desires.

If someone in my church came to me with the question related to the salvation of infants or the mentally incompetent I would not invent things; I would point them to the Scripture.

For the most part, Scripture is deafeningly silent on the matter. At no place is it explicitly stated that infants or the mentally incompetent will be saved. However, there are a precious few places where we can see the possibility that infants are somehow saved.

2 Samuel 12:22-23 shows a heartbreaking scene. David’s child, with Bathsheba—as a result of their sin, has just died. The Scripture says, “22 He [David] said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ 23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Now, there is not much to go on here. But David seems to think he will, perhaps, see this child again. It may be that David is speaking of his impending death and he is going to the grave and will be in the grave as the child is in the grave. Most people take this to be saying that David is expecting to see the child when he dies, but, ultimately, this passage is inconclusive.

We should not be focusing on explaining what Scripture is mostly silent about. Rather, we should be focusing on God, His perfect goodness, and His perfect justice. We should tell people that God will always do right.

So, rather than inventing a ridiculous idea of an “Age of Accountability” or trying to explain how it might be possible for infants or the mentally incompetent to be saved, we should be saying this: Since God is totally righteous and perfect, we trust Him to make the correct decision in all circumstances. To put it another way, we may not know for sure what happens to infants and the mentally incompetent when they die, but we do know the One who holds their eternal destiny in His hands and we know that in every decision He makes, He makes the right one.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Different than what is laid out in Scripture? My point is drawn from Scripture, from what it seems that God said he does. So it isn't different than what is "laid out in Scripture" because it is laid out in Scripture.

Think of your position. If he saves infants who die simply because they were not able to sin, then he is a respecter of those who have not sinned.

Sovereign election of individuals based only in God's good pleasure seems the only way to avoid respect of persons.

 

Oh brother!
The respecter of person clause found in the scripture refers to God giving something to one group without equally offering the same to the other. God said a person is saved if they BELIEVE. Can a person be saved if they do not Believe?? Not even in Calvinism! (And God NEVER states their is some other dispensation towards Children nor impared) This doesn't make God a respecter of person because He saved the one who beleived for that salvation verses the one who didn't for is offered to ALL men.

 

Allan:

Allan,

You said:

Oh really? Then explain why Israel was chosen out of all the nations of the world. Were all nations offered the special status of Israel? No.

Please try to explain your above statement.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

That my friend is quite easy.
They were chosen not to salvation but for a purpose.
They were chosen to be a people from whom the Messiah would come and fulfill the promise of hope and redemption.
Everyone could be apart of Israel but not everyone could come FROM Israel - Jacob and be blood decendents. But we find they were partakers in everything else other than the specific land and temple duties.

The clause with regard to God not being a respector of persons is in relation to salvation.

Were all the world offered such a status? You bet! ALL the world could become Jewish and we find many people(s) did and therein shared that blessed status of being Gods people.

 

t 19:14But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Not going to be but already is!! Sure glad Jesus had a better understanding of little children than you do.

 

Who, Bob?
Who are you speaking to??

 

In other words use God as your excuse for your ignorance.

We are to give an account of what scripture does say.

But the question laid out - Why would children or impared NOT be sent straight to hell since all are guilty in sin?
So if you don't have any information to actaully add it might behoove you to sit back and either listen to learn or just not participate.

 

I am on your side Allan.

1Cr 14:20 ¶ Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.


My Bible is filled with scriptures to adults and not little children.

 

I figured, I just didn't know to whom you were addressing.

 

Does anyone know of any scriptures to children?

I would like to know.