Rockson
Well-known member
Well trust us RT what you say even when you haven't been using it is nothing but gibberish. Might be wise if you don't make it worse.
History 101- Augustines heresy of original sin, original guilt
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
You don't believe Christ metaphysically was transformed into sin, do you?
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Well trust us RT what you say even when you haven't been using it is nothing but gibberish. Might be wise if you don't make it worse.
My post was scripture. I'm not surprised you think it's gibberish.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Yes
Deuteronomy 30:11–19 (ESV) — 11 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it. 15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. 16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,
Romans 10:6–8 (ESV) — 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ ” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
Calvinists do not believe all scripture
1 Timothy 2:4–6
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Romans 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Isaiah 53:6
All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned every one to his own way; And the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
1 Timothy 4:10
For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
John 6:51
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
2 Corinthians 5:14–15
14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
John 11:51
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
1 John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
2 Corinthians 5:19
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Exported from Logos Bible Software, 4:32 AM April 4, 2024.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Why did Christ have to die for you. Show me one verse that insists that Christ MUST die for you. Just one. Jesus dealt with this many times throughout His earthly ministry. For example.
Jhn 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
Jhn 8:35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
Jhn 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
Your religion requires the death of Christ for you. You disannul Grace and REQUIRE that Christ serve your sin.
Yes. I agree. Calvinism requires LSD to understand. Just say no.
The children of Adam.are innocent until they sin. The parents of humanity teach children to sin and then deny their culpability and responsibility. Sinners serve sin. Christ never served sin.
Your playing dumb. Not interested.
Charles Finney was a Calvinist? Quote himCharles Finney..... He was a Calvinist who actually had a heart....
You might like him if you really knew what he believed.
civic
Well-known member
Tongues in written formWell trust us RT what you say even when you haven't been using it is nothing but gibberish. Might be wise if you don't make it worse.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Finney didn't cease to be a Calvinist because some Calvinists didn't like what he said. That is what all you Calvinists do to one another. You can't get any of them to get along with one another. Even Calvin and Knox great disagreed with one another until they had to work together.
Calvinists loved their slaves...... In fact, many of them argued that they were giving "God" to the heathens. I bet you'd have a slave if abolition hadn't been driven by Finney. The fact that Finney fought for abolition is really the issue that caused strife among many other Calvinists of his time.
Hit a Calvinist in his "pocket"... and you'll find an enemy.
I asked you to quote him claiming to be a Calvinist.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
You Calvinists are "slippery"...... You claim and deny Calvinism when it "suits you". You live in ambiguity.
Finney didn't have to claim he was a Calvinist to be a Calvinist. Spurgeon claimed he was a Calvinist early in his career and then denied the doctrine as he grew older. It is why Reformed Baptist have fought over him for many many years.
You keep showing how unlearned you are. You're trying to teach when you need to put that bottle back in your mouth.
That's what figured.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Define your flavor of Calvinism and I'll be glad to quote Finney. How much of the Westminster Confession or the Synod of Dort do you require?
You can't even define your own flavor. Go for it.
civic
Well-known member
Fence walking having their cake and eating it too. That’s what happens in a theological system filled with contradictions.
civic
Well-known member
Oh the irony coming from a screen name Presby.
Finney was a Presbyterian minister and leader of the great awakening. Chuch history is not your friend.
civic
Well-known member
Finneys conversion
lexloiz.wordpress.com
How a Reformed Pastor Converted the Arminian Charles Finney
Charles Finney was not destined to become a schoolteacher, even though he loved it and was loved by those he taught. It was suggested to him that a career in law might be the thing. At that time th…
lexloiz.wordpress.com
Sorry, Finney did not die a Calvinist. He died agreeing with you. Nice tryOh the irony coming from a screen name Presby.
Finney was a Presbyterian minister and leader of the great awakening. Chuch history is not your friend.
You are hiding
If you cannot show George Washington is relevant to the discussion admit it
Duane
Member
“Original Sin.” Is defined as “the innate tendency of all humans to sin, a condition inherited from Adam as a consequence of the Fall.” It is an attractive idea in one sense, because it allows us to put some of the blame for our sin on Adam.
Theologians who advocate “original sin” are also likely to advocate “original guilt,” the idea that we are all guilty in God’s eyes because of Adam’s sin. Adam’s guilt, allegedly, has been “imputed” to all of us.
Personally, I’ve never been able to find where those two ideas are taught in the Bible. Moreover, both raise a number of valid questions.
For example, do not the ideas of original sin and guilt seem fundamentally unjust? They advocate that all of us are guilty for a sin committed by someone who lived at least 5,000 years ago. Worse, God is punishing us for that person’s sin by cursing us with a propensity to sin, which not only means that we are more likely to sin, but we are also more likely to be punished! And here’s the real kicker: God, at least in part, is the author of our sin for which He will punish us.
That all seems quite perverse. If it is true, people who are condemned to hell at their judgment can point their finger at God and say, “You created me with a propensity to sin, so how can You now condemn me for doing what you gave me a propensity to do?”
And there are other questions that come to mind about the doctrines of original sin and guilt. Obviously, Adam and Eve did not inherit the propensity to sin from any of their predecessors (as they had no predecessors). Yet they still managed to commit sin. So why is there a need to tie our propensity to sin to Adam? If it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin without any inherited propensity, then it would seem reasonable to think that we could potentially do the same.
From where in the Bible do theologians derive the ideas of original sin and guilt? They often point to Romans 5:12:
The implication is that, had everyone after Adam not sinned, death would not have spread to everyone. Moreover, nowhere does Paul say that everyone after Adam had an innate propensity to sin because Adam sinned.
As Paul continues in Romans 5, he seems to begin a parenthetical thought:
That, however, is silly, and for several reasons. One of them is that Paul twice referred in the passage to the sins of all those who lived between Adam and Moses. We can, of course, read many examples of those sins in the first books of the Bible, and also read examples of God’s punishment of people who sinned prior to the Mosaic Law. He was obviously holding them accountable for their sins.
God even once destroyed almost the entire world’s population by a flood, and it wasn’t because He was imputing Adam’s sin to them and punishing them for it. No, God did give pre-flood people His laws, and Paul earlier wrote in the book of Romans that God wrote those laws on every person’s conscience:
All of this is to say, Paul was not arguing in Romans 5:13-14 that the death of people between Adam and the Mosaic Law proves that God imputed Adam’s sin and guilt to them. Rather, He was proving that God gave everyone laws to obey and that everyone disobeyed those laws, because everyone died, just like Adam died when He broke the single law God gave him. “Death spread to all men because all sinned,” which means that death didn’t spread to all men because Adam sinned.
Paul’s over-arching point in the passage is that Adam was “a type of Him who is to come” (Rom. 5:14). If you continue reading Romans 5, you will notice that Paul expends more effort actually showing the dissimilarities between Adam and Jesus’ accomplishments. The reason is because there is actually only one similarity between them: Both did something that ultimately affected the whole world. It seems that Paul was trying to answer a Jewish objection to his gospel, an objection that questioned how one person’s act could make multitudes righteous. And Paul’s rebuttal to that objection is that all Jews already believe that the act of one person, namely, Adam, negatively affected multitudes. Adam was the singular person in human history who opened the door to death for everyone. Jesus similarly was the singular person in human history who opened the door of eternal life for everyone.
“Original-sin theologians” read much, much more into Paul’s words, but anyone who reads the rest of Romans 5 honestly should know better, because it’s obvious that the entire passage could be used to construe many ideas that don’t harmonize with the rest of Paul’s writings. For example, they could be used (and they sometimes are) to prove universal salvation, since Paul wrote: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom. 5:18-19, emphasis added). So, we should be cautious. Wise interpreters never ignore the immediate or greater context.
Often, one bad doctrine serves to buttress another, and such is the case with the doctrines of original sin and guilt. Enthusiasts argue that, since God allegedly imputed Adam’s sin to others, we should not object to the idea of Him imputing Christ’s righteousness—a legal righteousness that has no relationship to actual, practical righteousness—to others. And thus, the idea of imputed legal righteousness finds some badly-needed support. Before long, we’re hearing that God can’t see the sins committed by Christians because their sins are all “under the blood,” and that ultimate salvation (at God’s judgment) has no relationship with continued faith or obedience. But accepting all of that requires us to ignore hundreds of scriptures that prove otherwise, including many penned by Paul.
Fundamentally, we should ask what gives any New Testament reader the right to arbitrarily interpret the word righteousness purely in a legal sense that has no relationship with practical righteousness. Because we hopefully all know that the word righteousness often refers to practical righteousness in the New Testament. And we hopefully all know that everyone who is born again is indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, who is the source of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22)—which can all be summed up with the word righteousness.
Where in the New Testament is it taught that believers receive a legal righteousness that has no relationship with actual, practical righteousness? I haven’t found it. John, however, wrote:
But back to original sin and guilt. Isn’t everyone born spiritually dead because they inherit Adam’s sinful nature? Personally, I’m persuaded otherwise. It seems much easier to prove from the Bible that children are born spiritually alive rather than spiritually dead. Jesus said, for example, “Unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3) and, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt. 19:14; see also 18:10; Rom. 7:9). It is certainly possible that children are born spiritually alive and that they don’t need to be born again until they are no longer children and are held accountable for their sin as adults.
But is not the common selfishness of children an indication of an inherited propensity to sin? Not necessarily, and not any more than the common affection or honesty of children is an indication of an inherited propensity to righteousness. To the degree that they understand right and wrong, children make moral decisions, and child behavior varies across a spectrum of sin and righteousness. Children are tiny free moral agents who can (and should) be trained to associate negative behavior with negative consequences.
There is much more that could be discussed on this topic, and there is much that is mysterious to me. This little teaching only serves to introduce some counterpoints at the request of a friend. Hope it offered some food for thought!
Theologians who advocate “original sin” are also likely to advocate “original guilt,” the idea that we are all guilty in God’s eyes because of Adam’s sin. Adam’s guilt, allegedly, has been “imputed” to all of us.
Personally, I’ve never been able to find where those two ideas are taught in the Bible. Moreover, both raise a number of valid questions.
For example, do not the ideas of original sin and guilt seem fundamentally unjust? They advocate that all of us are guilty for a sin committed by someone who lived at least 5,000 years ago. Worse, God is punishing us for that person’s sin by cursing us with a propensity to sin, which not only means that we are more likely to sin, but we are also more likely to be punished! And here’s the real kicker: God, at least in part, is the author of our sin for which He will punish us.
That all seems quite perverse. If it is true, people who are condemned to hell at their judgment can point their finger at God and say, “You created me with a propensity to sin, so how can You now condemn me for doing what you gave me a propensity to do?”
And there are other questions that come to mind about the doctrines of original sin and guilt. Obviously, Adam and Eve did not inherit the propensity to sin from any of their predecessors (as they had no predecessors). Yet they still managed to commit sin. So why is there a need to tie our propensity to sin to Adam? If it was possible for Adam and Eve to sin without any inherited propensity, then it would seem reasonable to think that we could potentially do the same.
From where in the Bible do theologians derive the ideas of original sin and guilt? They often point to Romans 5:12:
Paul plainly stated that sin entered the world through one man, and that death (I assume both spiritual and physical death) then entered the world through that man’s sin. Next, Paul said that death spread to everyone else because they, like Adam, also sinned. It doesn’t say that death spread to everyone because of Adam’s sin. Death spread to everyone because everyone sinned.
The implication is that, had everyone after Adam not sinned, death would not have spread to everyone. Moreover, nowhere does Paul say that everyone after Adam had an innate propensity to sin because Adam sinned.
As Paul continues in Romans 5, he seems to begin a parenthetical thought:
Those who advocate original sin and guilt claim this passage supports their doctrine. Because “sin is not imputed when there is no law” (that is, God can only justly hold people accountable for their sin if He has first given them some law to obey), and because people died between the time of Adam and the giving of the Mosaic law, that allegedly proves that God was not punishing, via death, those millions of people who lived within that time frame for their own sins, but rather for Adam’s sin.
That, however, is silly, and for several reasons. One of them is that Paul twice referred in the passage to the sins of all those who lived between Adam and Moses. We can, of course, read many examples of those sins in the first books of the Bible, and also read examples of God’s punishment of people who sinned prior to the Mosaic Law. He was obviously holding them accountable for their sins.
God even once destroyed almost the entire world’s population by a flood, and it wasn’t because He was imputing Adam’s sin to them and punishing them for it. No, God did give pre-flood people His laws, and Paul earlier wrote in the book of Romans that God wrote those laws on every person’s conscience:
God holds everyone accountable to the laws He has written on their consciences.
All of this is to say, Paul was not arguing in Romans 5:13-14 that the death of people between Adam and the Mosaic Law proves that God imputed Adam’s sin and guilt to them. Rather, He was proving that God gave everyone laws to obey and that everyone disobeyed those laws, because everyone died, just like Adam died when He broke the single law God gave him. “Death spread to all men because all sinned,” which means that death didn’t spread to all men because Adam sinned.
Paul’s over-arching point in the passage is that Adam was “a type of Him who is to come” (Rom. 5:14). If you continue reading Romans 5, you will notice that Paul expends more effort actually showing the dissimilarities between Adam and Jesus’ accomplishments. The reason is because there is actually only one similarity between them: Both did something that ultimately affected the whole world. It seems that Paul was trying to answer a Jewish objection to his gospel, an objection that questioned how one person’s act could make multitudes righteous. And Paul’s rebuttal to that objection is that all Jews already believe that the act of one person, namely, Adam, negatively affected multitudes. Adam was the singular person in human history who opened the door to death for everyone. Jesus similarly was the singular person in human history who opened the door of eternal life for everyone.
“Original-sin theologians” read much, much more into Paul’s words, but anyone who reads the rest of Romans 5 honestly should know better, because it’s obvious that the entire passage could be used to construe many ideas that don’t harmonize with the rest of Paul’s writings. For example, they could be used (and they sometimes are) to prove universal salvation, since Paul wrote: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men” (Rom. 5:18-19, emphasis added). So, we should be cautious. Wise interpreters never ignore the immediate or greater context.
Often, one bad doctrine serves to buttress another, and such is the case with the doctrines of original sin and guilt. Enthusiasts argue that, since God allegedly imputed Adam’s sin to others, we should not object to the idea of Him imputing Christ’s righteousness—a legal righteousness that has no relationship to actual, practical righteousness—to others. And thus, the idea of imputed legal righteousness finds some badly-needed support. Before long, we’re hearing that God can’t see the sins committed by Christians because their sins are all “under the blood,” and that ultimate salvation (at God’s judgment) has no relationship with continued faith or obedience. But accepting all of that requires us to ignore hundreds of scriptures that prove otherwise, including many penned by Paul.
Fundamentally, we should ask what gives any New Testament reader the right to arbitrarily interpret the word righteousness purely in a legal sense that has no relationship with practical righteousness. Because we hopefully all know that the word righteousness often refers to practical righteousness in the New Testament. And we hopefully all know that everyone who is born again is indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit, who is the source of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22)—which can all be summed up with the word righteousness.
Where in the New Testament is it taught that believers receive a legal righteousness that has no relationship with actual, practical righteousness? I haven’t found it. John, however, wrote:
If we take every relevant New Testament passage into consideration, we can only conclude that the “gift of righteousness” (Rom. 5:17) is not a license to sin. Rather, it includes the Spirit’s conviction of sin and His drawing us to repentance, His helping the humble to repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, His forgiveness of every past sin, His breaking the power of sin over believers, His gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit who empowers believers to live righteously, His protection from inescapable sin, and Jesus’ advocacy for us when we sin as believers and make confession. Those are all components of God’s grace that help us to be righteous before God. But the idea that God grants believers a legal righteousness while they live in an unrighteous manner is not a component of any grace that God has ever offered.
But back to original sin and guilt. Isn’t everyone born spiritually dead because they inherit Adam’s sinful nature? Personally, I’m persuaded otherwise. It seems much easier to prove from the Bible that children are born spiritually alive rather than spiritually dead. Jesus said, for example, “Unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 18:3) and, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt. 19:14; see also 18:10; Rom. 7:9). It is certainly possible that children are born spiritually alive and that they don’t need to be born again until they are no longer children and are held accountable for their sin as adults.
But is not the common selfishness of children an indication of an inherited propensity to sin? Not necessarily, and not any more than the common affection or honesty of children is an indication of an inherited propensity to righteousness. To the degree that they understand right and wrong, children make moral decisions, and child behavior varies across a spectrum of sin and righteousness. Children are tiny free moral agents who can (and should) be trained to associate negative behavior with negative consequences.
There is much more that could be discussed on this topic, and there is much that is mysterious to me. This little teaching only serves to introduce some counterpoints at the request of a friend. Hope it offered some food for thought!
