Children are innocent, not guilty of any sin

[FreeInChrist]

A person can choose differently. They have the natural ability to choose otherwise. The moral ability is where tge rub lies.

Within predestination, either by Calvin or basic belief to those who would deny Calvin your "They have the natural ability to choose otherwise. The moral ability is where tge rub lies." is not viable. The reason is it has been decided for you. (note..... I am not referring to common decisions such as what color socks should be worn on a given day, but the decision of where you will be in eternity.

From Wikipedia: Predestination, according to Calvin, is the doctrine that God has eternally decreed the fate of every individual, choosing some for salvation and others for damnation. This concept is rooted in God's sovereignty and is often referred to as "double predestination."

predestination /prē-dĕs″tə-nā′shən/

noun​

1. The act of predestining or the condition of being predestined.
2. The doctrine that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation.
3. The divine decree foreordaining all souls to either salvation or damnation.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Even in your timeless scenario, in order for God to know you must choose.

That is incorrect. It is incorrect because you do not understand what foreknowledge is.

Got? says...Foreknowledge is knowing things or events before they exist or happen. In Greek, the term for “foreknowledge” is prognosis, which expresses the idea of knowing reality before it is real and events before they occur. In Christian theology, foreknowledge refers to the all-knowing, omniscient nature of God whereby He knows reality before it is real, all things and events before they happen, and all people before they exist.

Bible Hub says... Foreknowledge and God's Omniscience Foreknowledge is a facet of God's omniscience-His total knowledge of all things. Scripture consistently presents God as existing outside the confines of time, making the future as real and knowable to Him as the past and present.

What is Foreknowledge? Definition and Bible Meaning

Foreknowledge means knowing something is going to happen before it actually does. God's foreknowledge relates to His omnipresence outside of time and space.

www.christianity.com

What is Foreknowledge? Definition and Bible Meaning​

Apr 8, 2024Foreknowledge is a term that often sparks intrigue and curiosity among theologians, philosophers, and the spiritually inclined. At its core, foreknowledge refers to the concept of knowing something before it happens.

Now I will stop with the links because you want to know what I say... yet you do not understand what I say.... so I posted these 3 concise explanations from 3 different sources that say it very understandable.

ONE QUESTION TO BE ASKED THAT YOU HAVE NOT BROACHED IS..... IS FOREKNOWLEDGE DIFFERENT THAN PREDESTINATION?

IOW, it is a given that if predestination is true, that God had the foreknowledge about the destination of people because He caused it and they could not vary from His specific decree. And He simply knew before He breathed into Adam life.

OR IS FOREKNOWLEDGE A STAND ALONE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD WHERE, WITHIN THE GRAND SCHEME OF DESIGN FROM CREATION UNTIL THE END DAY FINALLY ARRIVES, GOD KNOWS ALL THINGS THAT WILL FREELY OCCUR WITHOUT BEING THE CAUSE OF THEM?

Because these are not the same thing, and combining them creates a serious problem.

If foreknowledge equals causation, then calling it “knowledge” is misleading. It would mean God doesn’t foreknow choices ...He authors them. And if He authors them, then those choices are not truly human choices at all, but enacted outcomes of His decree.

At that point, saying a person can “change their mind” becomes meaningless, because no one can change what has already been unchangeably determined.

So the issue is simple and unavoidable:
Does God know what will happen because He determined it, or does He know what will happen because He is omniscient?

You can’t consistently hold both without redefining either “knowledge” or “choice.”

If knowledge is truly knowledge, then it does not force the outcome... it reflects it before it happens.
And if choices are real, then they cannot be exhaustively predetermined.

So which is it?

Then Judas was forced yet held responsible?

SMH.
Judas is actually a perfect example of the difference I’m pointing out.

He was not forced, he acted according to his own desires, motives, and choices. Scripture consistently presents Judas as responsible because what he did, he wanted to do.

At the same time, God had foreknowledge that Judas would do this and incorporated it into His redemptive plan.

But foreknowledge is not the same as coercion. Knowing an outcome ahead of time does not mean you caused the person to choose it.

If Judas was forced, then he is not morally responsible.
But if he is morally responsible, as Scripture clearly holds him to be, then his actions were not coerced by God.

So the real issue is this:
Was Judas acting out of his own will, or was he merely carrying out a script he had no ability to deviate from?

If the latter, then holding him accountable would be unjust.
If the former, then foreknowledge stands without requiring predestination.

“You simply can not call it both ‘forced’ and ‘sin’ at the same time as those categories cancel each other out.”

Who said a alternative must be possible? In any definition of free will.

Who said an alternative must be possible? Scripture does, repeatedly. Commands, warnings, invitations, and judgments all assume that a different response was genuinely available. Otherwise, they are not meaningful, only performative.

If no alternative is possible, then what you are describing is not choice in any meaningful sense it is inevitability. And if it is inevitability, then responsibility becomes difficult to justify, because the outcome could not have been otherwise.

Judas, like every person, acted מתוך his own desires and intentions. That is why he is held accountable. Not because he fulfilled a script he could not deviate from, but because he willingly did what he did.

God’s foreknowledge does not require that He determined Judas’ betrayal, it means He knew it would occur and wove it into His redemptive plan without violating Judas’ will.
Now tell me...................................! Please,
Why do you insist on complicating what is actually presented simply in the Heavenly Father’s plan from eternity past?

God knows all things completely and perfectly.
Man is responsible for his own response.

Those two truths are consistently held together in Scripture without requiring us to redefine knowledge as causation or choice as inevitability.

Just because we cannot fully comprehend how God knows does not give us license to redefine what He has revealed.

Learn this truth. Mystery does not invalidate truth, but forcing a system onto the text that removes real responsibility creates more problems than it solves.

 

[JesusFan]

Its appalling to condemn innocent children- Even the calvinst Gill agree's from Jer 2:34- they are INNOCENT not guilty of sin,

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents,.... Either of the innocent infants of poor persons, who were sacrificed to Moloch; or of the poor prophets of the Lord, whom they slew,

and here from Jeremiah

Jeremiah 19:2 and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you…4 Because the people have forsaken me and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with THE BLOOD OF INNOCENTS…6 therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.

God judged them by having the Babylonians doing to them what they did to their children. The Jews Slaughtering their innocent children and God had them slaughtered by the Babylonians.

Psalm 106:34 They (the Israelites) did not destroy the peoples (the Canaanites), as the Lord commanded them, 35 but they mixed with the nations and learned to do as they did. 36 They served their idols, which became a snare to them. 37 They SACRIFICED THEIR SONS AND THEIR DAUGHTERS TO THE DEMONS; 38 they poured out INNOCENT BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, and the land was polluted with blood.

conclusion: how many time does God/Jesus have to say children are INNOCENT not guilty before you will believe ?

Jesus affirms the above in the N.T. Woe to those who cause any little ones to stumble.

And more scripture from Jesus

Matthew 18:2-5
And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven

Matthew 18:10
“See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 18:14
So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.

Matthew 19:13-14
Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.

Mark 9:36-37
Taking a child, He set him before them, and taking him in His arms, He said to them, “Whoever receives one child like this in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me.”

Mark 10:13-16
And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.

Luke 9:47-48
But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side, and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in My name receives Me, and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me; for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great.”

Luke 18:15-17
And they were bringing even their babies to Him so that He would touch them, but when the disciples saw it, they began rebuking them. But Jesus called for them, saying, “Permit the children to come to Me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

conclusion :There is no transmission of a fallen nature, a sin nature that originated with augustine. Lets see what God declares about sin.

Ezekiel 18:4
For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die

Ezekiel 18:20
“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.”

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
Yet he did not put the sons of the murderers to death, but acted according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded: "Fathers must not be put to death for their children, and children must not be put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

Jeremiah 31:30
Instead, each will die for his own iniquity. If anyone eats the sour grapes, his own teeth will be set on edge.

And we have the wisdom of Job below who knew had he died as a child he would be at peace with the Lord as an innocent and not condemned in hell as guilty as some falsely teach/believe. Job knew there was no torment and suffering if he had died as a child.

Job 3:11 “Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire?…13 For then I would have lain DOWN AND BEEN QUIET; I WOULD HAVE SLEPT; THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN AT REST.

The Bible is in one accord on the innocence of children and that there is no guilt of sin.


hope this helps !!!

All who are born in Adam are found to now be guilty of his sin, receiving the judgement of being now sinners, and now having a sin nature

 

[civic]

All who are born in Adam are found to now be guilty of his sin, receiving the judgement of being now sinners, and now having a sin nature

sin nature inherited is not found in the bible

 

[Diserner]

Scripture does not teach a self-righteous theology, but clearly says all are born under sin and a law they cannot keep.

But the Scripture has confined all under sin (Gal. 3:22 NKJ)

 

[civic]

Scripture does not teach a self-righteous theology, but clearly says all are born under sin and a law they cannot keep.

But the Scripture has confined all under sin (Gal. 3:22 NKJ)

The Incarnation disprove the inherited sin nature theology.

πᾶσα σάρξ (in imitation of the Hebrew כָּל־בָּשָׂר (Winers Grammar, 33)), every lving creature, 1 Peter 1:24; with οὐ preceding (qualifying the verb (Winers Grammar, § 26, 1; Buttmann, 121 (106))), no living creature, Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20; specifically, a man (ἄνθρωπος for בָּשָׂר, Genesis 6:13), generally with a suggestion of weakness, frailty, mortality: Sir. 28:5; ἐν τῷ Θεῷ ἤλπισα, οὐ φοβηθήσομαι τί ποιήσει μοι σάρξ, Psalm 55:5 (); cf. Jeremiah 17:5; ἐμνήσθη, ὅτι σάρξ εἰσιν, Psalm 77:39 (); σάρξ καί αἷμα, Ephesians 6:12; γενεά σαρκός καί αἵματος, ἡ μέν τελευτᾷ, ἑτέρα δέ γεννᾶται, Sir. 14:18; ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, entered into participation in human nature, John 1:14 (the apostle used σάρξ, not ἄνθρωπος, apparently in order to indicate that he who possessed supreme majesty did not shrink from union with extreme weakness); εὑρίσκειν τί κατά σάρκα, to attain to anything after the manner of a (weak) man, i. e. by the use of merely human powers, Romans 4:1 (for substance equivalent to ἐξ ἔργων in Romans 4:2); Hebraistically (see above), πᾶσα σάρξ, all men, Luke 3:6; John 17:2 (Winer's Grammar, § 30, 1 a.); Acts 2:17; Sir. 45:4; with οὐ or μή preceding (qualifying the verb (Winers Grammar, and Buttmann, as referred to above)), no man, no mortal, Romans 3:20; 1 Corinthians 1:29; Galatians 2:16. man as he appears, such as he presents himself to view, man's external appearance and condition: κατά σάρκα κρίνειν, John 8:15 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 583 (542)) (equivalent to κρίνειν κατ' ὄψιν, John 7:24); γινώσκειν or εἰδέναι τινα κατά σάρκα, 2 Corinthians 5:16; οἱ κατά σάρκα κυρίου (see κατά, II. 3 b.), Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22. universally, human nature, the soul included: ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκός ἁμαρτίας, in a visible form, like human nature which is subject to sin, Romans 8:3 (cf. ὁμοίωμα, b.); ἐν σαρκί ἔρχεσθαι, to appear clothed in human nature, 1 John 4:2 and Rec. in 3; 2 John 1:7 (the Epistle of Barnabas 5, 10 [ET]); φανερουσθαι, 1 Timothy 3:16 (the Epistle of Barnabas 5, 6 [ET]; 6, 7 [ET]; 12, 10 [ET]); κεκοινωνηκεναι αἵματος καί σαρκός, Hebrews 2:14.

John 1:14- And the Word became flesh (sarx) and dwelled among us and we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten from the Father full of grace and truth.

Hebrews 2- Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17For this reason he had to be made like them, k fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

Above we see the Son through the Incarnation became sarx( flesh). Hebrews 2 says He shared that same flesh we have and was like us in every way.

So if Jesus came in the flesh ( John 1:1, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7) then His humanity disproves the sin nature misnomer many teach and believe or one must admit Jesus was born with a fallen corrupt sinful nature and thus born a sinner like all men are born sinners according to the doctrine of Original Sin and TD. ( Total Depravity )

You see man in not born a sinner just like Jesus was not born a sinner. Jesus never sinned yet was born innocent like all men. We become sinners when we sin and become guilty of sin. This is why babies are innocent , not guilty until they sin.

The History of the heresy known as the inherited sin nature

Augustine and Pelagius- the History of original sin.

Augustine’s doctrine of Original Sin was born from his attempt to combat the heresy of Pelagianism. The controversy began in Rome when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed Augustine’s prayer: “Grant what you command, and command what you desire”. Pelagius was opposing the idea that the divine gift of grace was necessary to perform the will of God. Pelagius believed that if we are responsible for obeying the commandments of God, then we must all also have the ability to do so without divine aid. He went on to deny the doctrine of Ancestral Sin, arguing that the consequences of Adam’s sin are not passed on to the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin affected Adam alone, and thus infants at birth are in the same state as Adam was before the Fall.

Augustine took a starkly different view of the Fall, arguing that mankind is utterly sinful and incapable of good. Augustine believed that the state of Original Sin leaves us in such a condition that we are unable to refrain from sin. The ‘image of God’ in man (i.e., free will) was destroyed by the Fall. As much as we may choose to do good, our evil impulses pervert our free will and compel us to do evil. Therefore we are totally dependent upon grace.

So far did Augustine take his grim view of the human condition, that he argued not only that the Original Sin effects all of Adam’s descendants, but that each person is guilty of the Original Sin from birth (Original Guilt). Infants are therefore guilty of sin and thus infants who die before baptism, in which (according to Augustine) the guilt of Original Sin is removed, are condemned to perdition and cannot be saved. As if that was not bad enough, Augustine went on to formulate the doctrine of Predestination, which affirms that God has foreordained who will be saved and who will not.

Augustine prevailed and Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome at the Council of Carthage in 418. It seemed that Pelagius’ views were more reprehensible to the Latin Church than the idea of predestination and babies burning in hell – views that the Latin Church was not only willing to tolerate, but even willing to champion as Orthodox doctrine!


St John Chrysostom

Between Augustine and Pelagius there appeared to be no middle-way in the West. A different view, however, was expressed in the East by Augustine’s contemporary, John Chrysostom. The dispute between Augustine and Pelagius had not reached the East, and so Chrysostom’s views were not so agitated by heated disputes and polemics. Were Chrysostom involved in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, perhaps his teaching on Ancestral Sin would have prevailed over both Pelagius and Augustine alike, but considering that the sole concern of the Latin Church seemed to be the condemnation of Pelagianism, it is probably more likely that he would have been condemned as semi-pelagian.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/#_edn1 Whatever the case, Chrysostom’s views on the subject have never enjoyed the attention they deserve, and the heated nature of the dispute in the West meant that the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’ as expounded by Augustine was regarded as the only safeguard against the heresy of Pelagianism.

Chrysostom, while claiming that all human beings are made in the image of God, believed that the Ancestral Sin brought corruptibility and death not only to Adam but to all his descendants, weakening his ability to grow into God’s likeness, but never destroying God’s image (free will). Chrysostom is a major voice within a consensus of Greek patristic writers who interpret the Fall as “an inheritance essentially of mortality rather than sinfulness, sinfulness being merely a consequence of mortality”.[ii] Chrysostom’s position is echoed, for example, by St Athanasius the Great and St Cyril of Alexandria, who claimed that we are not guilty of Adam’s sin, though we inherit a corrupted nature; but our free will remains intact. This Greek patristic interpretation is founded upon Romans 5:12: “As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men because all men have sinned”[iii]. John Meyendorff explains how the deficient Latin translation of the text may have contributed to such a stark difference in the Latin interpretation of the Ancestral Sin:

‘In this passage there is a major issue of translation. The last four Greek words were translated in Latin as in quo omnes peccaverunt (“in whom [i.e., in Adam] all men have sinned”), and this translation was used in the West to justify the guilt inherited from Adam and spread to his descendants. But such a meaning cannot be drawn from the original Greek’.[iv]

St Cyril of Alexandria explained the passage in this way:

“How did many become sinners because of Adam?… How could we, who were not yet born, all be condemned with him, even though God said, ‘Neither the fathers shall be put to death because of their children, nor the children because of their fathers, but the soul which sins shall be put to death’? (cf. Deut. 24:18) … we became sinners through Adam’s disobedience in such manner as this: he was created for incorruptibility and life, and the manner of existence he had in the garden of delight was proper to holiness. His whole mind was continually beholding God; his body was tranquil and calm with all base pleasures being still. For there was no tumult of alien disturbances in it. But because he fell under sin and slipped into corruptibility, pleasures and filthiness assaulted the nature of the flesh, and in our members was unveiled a savage law. Our nature, then, became diseased by sin through the disobedience of one, that is, of Adam. Thus, all were made sinners, not by being co-transgressors with Adam,… but by being of his nature and falling under the law of sin… Human nature fell ill in Adam and subject to corruptibility through disobedience, and, therefore, the passions entered in”.[v]


St John Cassian

The East paid little attention to Augustine, and this was largely due to language barriers. For the Eastern Christians, serious theologians wrote in Greek, and they paid little heed to Latin writers. What opposition did come from the East came from some Eastern Orthodox theologians who, for one reason or another, found themselves living in the West. Amongst the most prominent was St John Cassian. St John opposed Augustine on four major points:

1) There were clearly instances where people had come to God of their own volition, who, while called by Christ and aided by divine grace, chose to change their ways (e.g. Matthew, Paul, Zacchaeus). Therefore, it is not grace alone that saves us, but also man’s willingness to repent.

2) After the Fall, Adam and his descendants retained a knowledge of good, and an impulse, however weakened, to pursue good. Man was not, as Augustine claimed, utterly depraved and incapable of good after the Fall.

3) The ‘Image’ of God in man is sick, but not dead. The divine image is in need of healing, but this healing requires synergy (the co-operation of man’s will with divine grace).

4) God wishes all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, so those who are not saved reject salvation against His will. Predestination should be understood as foreknowledge and not as foreordination.

The West condemned St John Cassian’s views as semi-pelagian, but for the Orthodox, Cassian is one of the foremost exponents of the Orthodox doctrine of theosis.[vi] His views were supported also by Theodoret of Antioch:

“There is need of both our efforts and divine aid. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without grace our efforts can not collect the prize of virtue”.


The Ancestral Sin and Baptism


Augustine’s view of Original Sin was the reason also for his justification of infant baptism. Believing that babies are born guilty of sin, he argued that baptism was necessary for the babies’ salvation. He saw the innocence of infants purely in terms of their being physically too weak to commit sin, but equally guilty as adults of Adam’s sin.

The Greek Fathers, having a different view of the Fall and the Ancestral Sin, interpreted the purpose of infant baptism in another way, different in important respects from the familiar Augustinian and Reformed interpretations of the West. The Greek Fathers believed that newborn infants are innocents, wholly without sin. While infants inherit a human nature which, in its wholeness, is wounded by the Ancestral Sin, weakening the will and making each person prone to sin, they are innocent of sin nonetheless. In the fourth of his catechetical homilies on baptism, St John Chrysostom states, “We do baptise infants, although they are not guilty of any sins”. For the Greek Fathers, baptism, above all else, is an acceptance by the Church and entrance of the baptised person into the redeemed and sanctified Body of Christ, the beginning of a life spent in spiritual combat and instruction in holiness on the deepening journey to the Kingdom of God.

Considering the stark contrast between the Orthodox doctrine of the Ancestral Sin and the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin, and the different understanding of baptism that these doctrines lead to, is it not surprising that some Orthodox speak of baptism in Augustinian terms – of the forgiveness of Original Sin – especially considering that the Orthodox service for baptism makes not a single reference to it? The closest we come to mention of the Ancestral Sin (Πρωπατρορικό ἁμάρτημα) in baptism is in the first prayer of the Service for the Making of a Catechumen (which was originally completely separate from the service of Baptism): “Remove far from him/her that ancient error” (παλαιά πλάνη). If one of the main purposes of baptism was the forgiveness of Original Sin, surely it would be worth mentioning in the baptism service! But the idea of ‘Original Sin’ being “forgiven” is nowhere to be found in the Greek Fathers or in the hymns and prayers of the Orthodox Church. For it is an idea which is alien to Greek Patristic thought. The Ancestral Sin is a condition, primarily of mortality and corruptibility, which needs healing, an inherited ‘illness’ which means that free will – or ‘the Image of God’ as the Greek Fathers preferred to put it – though kept intact, is in need of divine grace in order to progress along the path to attaining God’s ‘likeness’, the path to theosis or ‘deification’.


Bearing in mind the significant differences between the Orthodox and the Augustinian views of ‘Original Sin’, it surprises me that some Orthodox Christians are so quick to employ the term, claiming that the Orthodox Church holds to the doctrine of ‘Original Sin’, and qualifying this simply by saying that it does not embrace the doctrine of ‘Original Guilt’. I do not think that this is adequate for expounding the Orthodox position on Original Sin. Although Augustine was recognised as a saint by the Orthodox Church,[vii] it has never accepted his teaching on Original Sin. If what I have written above is correct, then the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin is wholly un-Orthodox, and it led, I believe, to a whole series of heresies in the Latin Church, such as Predestination, Purgatory, Limbo and the Immaculate Conception. We Orthodox would do well to distance ourselves from the well-known Augustinian position on Original Sin by employing a less familiar term: Ancestral Sin. It is not merely a case of semantics. For an erroneous understanding of this doctrine has serious repercussions for our understanding of sin and the Fall, for grace and free will, for baptism, the human condition and man’s deification. In short, how we understand the Ancestral Sin has direct implications for our whole soteriology – our understanding of the salvation of man and the world.https://pemptousia.com/2017/02/original-sin-orthodox-doctrine-or-heresy/

hope this helps !!!

 

[Diserner]

Thread 'FOUR reasons I believe in the sinful nature. (original sin/ancestral sin/total depravity)'

Aug 17, 2023

PREFACE.

For those whom I have come across, who deny that humans have a sinful nature, that is a nature that is incapable of performing a righteously meritorious thought or action without supernatural undeserved grace from God, it all seems to stem back to the idea that, if God allows such a thing, it makes people victims instead of criminals, since no one can help sinning. And underneath that is the appeal to the idea that we can improve ourselves and polish up our genuinely good and pure nature underneath, a kind of self-esteem and self-improvement program to discover the...

• Diserner
• Replies: 302
• Forum: Original Sin

 

[Diserner]

Above we see the Son through the Incarnation became sarx( flesh). Hebrews 2 says He shared that same flesh we have and was like us in every way.

It does not say he became like us in every way, that is being read in. It says apart from sin, that is a big exception.

Jesus was not female, not mentally impaired, not abused as a child, not missing limbs, and not susceptible to sickness.

But more than that, Jesus was God Almighty with the Spirit without limit and legions of angels.

There is no way any human being had those things, or was comparable to them.

His sharing in a created human nature does not entail him sharing the sinful aspect of Adam.

 

[civic]

It does not say he became like us in every way, that is being read in. It says apart from sin, that is a big exception.

Jesus was not female, not mentally impaired, not abused as a child, not missing limbs, and not susceptible to sickness.

But more than that, Jesus was God Almighty with the Spirit without limit and legions of angels.

There is no way any human being had those things, or was comparable to them.

His sharing in a created human nature does not entail him sharing the sinful aspect of Adam.

So you finally gave up Kenosis

 

[Presby02]

Welcome to Arminianism.

Yes, what God foreknew could have been different, it's secondary in a logical order.

If He had determined differently, sure.

Can it still be different? How does this view work with Gods omniscience??

 

[Presby02]

Within predestination, either by Calvin or basic belief to those who would deny Calvin your "They have the natural ability to choose otherwise. The moral ability is where tge rub lies." is not viable. The reason is it has been decided for you. (note..... I am not referring to common decisions such as what color socks should be worn on a given day, but the decision of where you will be in eternity.

From Wikipedia: Predestination, according to Calvin, is the doctrine that God has eternally decreed the fate of every individual, choosing some for salvation and others for damnation. This concept is rooted in God's sovereignty and is often referred to as "double predestination."

predestination /prē-dĕs″tə-nā′shən/

noun​

1. The act of predestining or the condition of being predestined.
2. The doctrine that God has foreordained all things, especially that God has elected certain souls to eternal salvation.
3. The divine decree foreordaining all souls to either salvation or damnation.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition


That is incorrect. It is incorrect because you do not understand what foreknowledge is.

Got? says...Foreknowledge is knowing things or events before they exist or happen. In Greek, the term for “foreknowledge” is prognosis, which expresses the idea of knowing reality before it is real and events before they occur. In Christian theology, foreknowledge refers to the all-knowing, omniscient nature of God whereby He knows reality before it is real, all things and events before they happen, and all people before they exist.

Bible Hub says... Foreknowledge and God's Omniscience Foreknowledge is a facet of God's omniscience-His total knowledge of all things. Scripture consistently presents God as existing outside the confines of time, making the future as real and knowable to Him as the past and present.

What is Foreknowledge? Definition and Bible Meaning

Foreknowledge means knowing something is going to happen before it actually does. God's foreknowledge relates to His omnipresence outside of time and space.

www.christianity.com

What is Foreknowledge? Definition and Bible Meaning​

Apr 8, 2024Foreknowledge is a term that often sparks intrigue and curiosity among theologians, philosophers, and the spiritually inclined. At its core, foreknowledge refers to the concept of knowing something before it happens.

Now I will stop with the links because you want to know what I say... yet you do not understand what I say.... so I posted these 3 concise explanations from 3 different sources that say it very understandable.

ONE QUESTION TO BE ASKED THAT YOU HAVE NOT BROACHED IS..... IS FOREKNOWLEDGE DIFFERENT THAN PREDESTINATION?

IOW, it is a given that if predestination is true, that God had the foreknowledge about the destination of people because He caused it and they could not vary from His specific decree. And He simply knew before He breathed into Adam life.

OR IS FOREKNOWLEDGE A STAND ALONE ATTRIBUTE OF GOD WHERE, WITHIN THE GRAND SCHEME OF DESIGN FROM CREATION UNTIL THE END DAY FINALLY ARRIVES, GOD KNOWS ALL THINGS THAT WILL FREELY OCCUR WITHOUT BEING THE CAUSE OF THEM?

Because these are not the same thing, and combining them creates a serious problem.

If foreknowledge equals causation, then calling it “knowledge” is misleading. It would mean God doesn’t foreknow choices ...He authors them. And if He authors them, then those choices are not truly human choices at all, but enacted outcomes of His decree.

At that point, saying a person can “change their mind” becomes meaningless, because no one can change what has already been unchangeably determined.

So the issue is simple and unavoidable:
Does God know what will happen because He determined it, or does He know what will happen because He is omniscient?

You can’t consistently hold both without redefining either “knowledge” or “choice.”

If knowledge is truly knowledge, then it does not force the outcome... it reflects it before it happens.
And if choices are real, then they cannot be exhaustively predetermined.

So which is it?





SMH.
Judas is actually a perfect example of the difference I’m pointing out.

He was not forced, he acted according to his own desires, motives, and choices. Scripture consistently presents Judas as responsible because what he did, he wanted to do.

At the same time, God had foreknowledge that Judas would do this and incorporated it into His redemptive plan.

But foreknowledge is not the same as coercion. Knowing an outcome ahead of time does not mean you caused the person to choose it.

If Judas was forced, then he is not morally responsible.
But if he is morally responsible, as Scripture clearly holds him to be, then his actions were not coerced by God.

So the real issue is this:
Was Judas acting out of his own will, or was he merely carrying out a script he had no ability to deviate from?

If the latter, then holding him accountable would be unjust.
If the former, then foreknowledge stands without requiring predestination.

“You simply can not call it both ‘forced’ and ‘sin’ at the same time as those categories cancel each other out.”

Who said an alternative must be possible? Scripture does, repeatedly. Commands, warnings, invitations, and judgments all assume that a different response was genuinely available. Otherwise, they are not meaningful, only performative.

If no alternative is possible, then what you are describing is not choice in any meaningful sense it is inevitability. And if it is inevitability, then responsibility becomes difficult to justify, because the outcome could not have been otherwise.

Judas, like every person, acted מתוך his own desires and intentions. That is why he is held accountable. Not because he fulfilled a script he could not deviate from, but because he willingly did what he did.

God’s foreknowledge does not require that He determined Judas’ betrayal, it means He knew it would occur and wove it into His redemptive plan without violating Judas’ will.
Now tell me...................................! Please,
Why do you insist on complicating what is actually presented simply in the Heavenly Father’s plan from eternity past?

God knows all things completely and perfectly.
Man is responsible for his own response.

Those two truths are consistently held together in Scripture without requiring us to redefine knowledge as causation or choice as inevitability.

Just because we cannot fully comprehend how God knows does not give us license to redefine what He has revealed.

Learn this truth. Mystery does not invalidate truth, but forcing a system onto the text that removes real responsibility creates more problems than it solves.

Again, I am not responding to cut and pasted. I am talking to you not a website.

Judah acted the way He acted the way Acts 4 explains it. It was planned, determined and BROUGHT ABOUT BY HIS HAND. Scripture you have yet to address other than inserting words that are not there.