ORIGINAL SIN

[BobTriez]

In time, as we know, Original Sin became the primary basis for the baptizing of infants and small children. 

Not true - unless you believe in Baptismal Regeneration

[stevehut]

Not true - unless you believe in Baptismal Regeneration

Again, Bob, I did not say this is what I believe in. I only said this is the history of the doctrine. In many churches, this is the basis for baptizing babies.

[BobTriez]

Not true - unless you believe in Baptismal Regeneration

Again, Bob, I did not say this is what I believe in. I only said this is the history of the doctrine. In many churches, this is the basis for baptizing babies.

Gottcha Steve.....thanks for clarifying. And for what it's worth ? I don't believe in it either ( regardless of what some churches may believe ).

God bless,

Bob

[truthnluv]

I certainly believe that we are born with a tendency to sin, but we are innocent of such sin because we don't know good from evil.

SO, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT CHILDREN ARE BORN WITH A SIN NATURE?  YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE BORN WITH AN INNOCENT NATURE THAT BECOMES A SIN NATURE GRADUALLY OVER TIME?  IS THERE ANY SCRIPTURE FOR THAT? WHAT ABOUT "BORN IN SIN, SHAPEN IN INIQUITY", "MAN IS WICKED FROM HIS YOUTH", ETC?

Ezekiel made it clear (was it 18, 33?) that a child will not be punished for the sins of his father.

I said-ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE INTERPRETING THAT VERSE CORRECTLY AND IN CONTEXT?  SO, YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE BECOME SINNERS WHEN THEY SIN, NOT BECAUSE WE WERE IN ADAM WHEN HE SINNED?  WELL, I GUESS THAT MEANS YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ORIGINAL SIN.

THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ALL PEOPLE EITHER HAVE AN OLD NATURE(UNSAVED) OR AN OLD NATURE AND A NEW NATURE(SAVED).  THE ONLY INNOCENT NATURES WERE HAD BY ADAM AND EVE BEFORE THE FALL ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.  THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS IS THAT ALL MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN DIE(ROM.5:12,14,17,18,19).

You said-Deuteronomy (2) says that the children who have no knowledge of good or evil would inherit the land

I said-FIRSTLY, YOU'RE TAKING THE VERSE OUT OF CONTEXT.  SECONDLY, IT'S NOT SAYING THE CHILDREN HAVE INNOCENT NATURES.  THE ADULTS WHO DISOBEYED GOD ARE THE ONES BEING PUNISHED NOT THE CHILDREN WHO DIDN'T DISOBEY GOD(THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MENTAL OR PHYSICAL CAPACITY TO DO SO)... THAT'S THE POINT.

WHEN DO CHILDREN BEGIN TO SIN IN YOUR OPINION?  IT SEEMS TO ME THAT CHILDREN BEGIN LYING AS SOON AS THEIR VOCAL CORDS DEVELOP ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SPEAK.  IT ALSO SEEMS THAT THEY DISOBEY AS SOON AS THEY ARE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO DO SO, STEAL AS SOON AS THEY HAVE THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO LIFT THEIR HAND TO THE COOKIE JAR, DECIEVE AS SOON AS THEIR BRAINS LEARN TO OBSERVE THAT YOU'RE NOT WATCHING, ETC. 

You said-Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to children.

I said-JESUS SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE HUMBLE "LIKE" LITTLE CHILDREN OF THAT DAY.  "LIKE" IS A SIMILE AND JESUS USED IT TO MAKE A COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE. MATT.18:1-6

TRUTHNLUV

you said-I certainly believe that we are born with a tendency to sin, but we are innocent of such sin because we don't know good from evil.

I said-SO, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT CHILDREN ARE BORN WITH A SIN NATURE? YOU BELIEVE THEY ARE BORN WITH AN INNOCENT NATURE THAT BECOMES A SIN NATURE GRADUALLY OVER TIME? IS THERE ANY SCRIPTURE FOR THAT? WHAT ABOUT "BORN IN SIN, SHAPEN IN INIQUITY", "MAN IS WICKED FROM HIS YOUTH", ETC?

You said-Ezekiel made it clear (was it 18, 33?) that a child will not be punished for the sins of his father.

I said-ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE INTERPRETING THAT VERSE CORRECTLY AND IN CONTEXT? SO, YOU BELIEVE PEOPLE BECOME SINNERS WHEN THEY SIN, NOT BECAUSE WE WERE IN ADAM WHEN HE SINNED? WELL, I GUESS THAT MEANS YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ORIGINAL SIN.

THE BIBLE SAYS THAT ALL PEOPLE EITHER HAVE AN OLD NATURE(UNSAVED) OR AN OLD NATURE AND A NEW NATURE(SAVED). THE ONLY INNOCENT NATURES WERE HAD BY ADAM AND EVE BEFORE THE FALL ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE. THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS IS THAT ALL MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN DIE(ROM.5:12,14,17,18,19).

You said-Deuteronomy (2) says that the children who have no knowledge of good or evil would inherit the land

I said-FIRSTLY, YOU'RE TAKING THE VERSE OUT OF CONTEXT. SECONDLY, IT'S NOT SAYING THE CHILDREN HAVE INNOCENT NATURES. THE ADULTS WHO DISOBEYED GOD ARE THE ONES BEING PUNISHED NOT THE CHILDREN WHO DIDN'T DISOBEY GOD(THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MENTAL OR PHYSICAL CAPACITY TO DO SO)... THAT'S THE POINT.

WHEN DO CHILDREN BEGIN TO SIN IN YOUR OPINION? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT CHILDREN BEGIN LYING AS SOON AS THEIR VOCAL CORDS DEVELOP ENOUGH FOR THEM TO SPEAK. IT ALSO SEEMS THAT THEY DISOBEY AS SOON AS THEY ARE PHYSICALLY ABLE TO DO SO, STEAL AS SOON AS THEY HAVE THE PHYSICAL ABILITY TO LIFT THEIR HAND TO THE COOKIE JAR, DECIEVE AS SOON AS THEIR BRAINS LEARN TO OBSERVE THAT YOU'RE NOT WATCHING, ETC.

You said-Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to children.

I said-JESUS SAID THAT WE SHOULD BE HUMBLE "LIKE" LITTLE CHILDREN OF THAT DAY. "LIKE" IS A SIMILE AND JESUS USED IT TO MAKE A COMPARISON OF ATTITUDE. MATT.18:1-6

TRUTHNLUV

Edited October 22, 2004 by truthnluv

[truthnluv]

Just as through one man's disobedience mane people were made sinners

Not sure I understand...

What is your understanding of the definition of a sinner? This might sound like a stupid q, but I have a reason for it...

First that was a mispelling, sorry; "mane" should be many. In simplest terms, a sinner is "one who sins". Do I believe that from the moment of conception we are burdened with the guilt of Adam's choice? Yes and no . In the strictest definition of guilt, no, I do not believe that God holds us personally accountable for that one particular sin. But in the broader sense, yes we are guilty from the moment of conception since, because of Adam's choice, we are created with a propensity to sin. I am more comfortable with the idea of "sin nature" than with "original sin", but that sin nature is a direct result of the original sin. We cannot help but sin. Do infants who die go to hell because they have not asked for forgiveness of the "original sin"? No. Does this all make sense?

Herein, lies the problem; people do not like the idea of original sin because it seems unfair to them. Taken to its full extent it implies that children, mentally-retarded, and people who have never heard the gospel all go to hell when they die. How can we believe in a God who would do such a thing, right? That's so mean, right? It can't mean that because it seems wrong, right? WRONG!

Fair is a human concept that God is not required to adhere to. It was not fair that Jesus Christ had his soul made an offering for sin and tasted death for all men. He bore the penalty of eternity in hell(the punishment for sin) for every man and every sin ever committed past present and future. Sounds unfair to me.

Also, all of God's elect come to repentance. When you understand total depravity and original sin, you will then see the need for Election. If you are elect you WILL live until you hear the gospel, you WILL be exposed to God's word, you WILL have the mental capacity to understand it, and you WILL believe it at some point.

A non-elect child will never come to repentance. They will live 50-70 years in rebellion against God, then they will die, and go to hell anyway. What difference will it make if they live for 30 years, 20 years, 10 years, or 1 year? I know this seems insensitive, but it is the truth of God's word and we shouldn't try to make excuses for God or be embarrassed about His ways. We are wrong and He is right, ALWAYS. Who cares if the world or our culture doesn't like it?

The misconception is that we can somehow come to God on our own if only given the chance. This is a lie. People do not seek God(Rom.3:10-11). The old nature is not capable of producing faith or obeying God(Rom.8:7-8). God is the one who must rebirth you and only then will you have a nature that can produce faith(Jn.3:3-8). We have no more control over this than we do over the direction the wind blows(v.8).

So, a non-elect child is not going to come to Christ even if he lives to be 1000 years old. Neither is a non-elect person who has never heard the gospel even if the apostle Paul himself explains the gospel to him in detail. Billions of people over thousands of years never had any exposure to the God of Isreal. They didn't know anything about the true God or His will and they still died and went to hell because they were not elect. If they were elect then God made sure they got exposed through an Isrealite and that gentile became a prostleyte or God came to them personally, but this was not the norm. If a non-elect person is not given the mental capacity to understand the gospel, well they still wouldn't believe it even if you could heal their mind and give them a genius i.q.

Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and he who comes to Me I will by no means cast out" and "This is the will of My Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me, I shall lose nothing, but I will raise him up on the last day" John 6:37,39. All of God's elect will come to Him.... every single one.

So, the issue of original sin is easily reconciled if you also accept the Biblical truths of total depravity and election.

truthnluv

Edited August 23, 2004 by truthnluv

[serotta]

And I will humbly disagree with your interpretation of election.

[truthnluv]

And I will humbly disagree with your interpretation of election.

Based on scripture or based on your feelings? If you have a different view that is based on scripture please feel free to share it along with the verses that support your view.

Actually, my interpretation of "election" is the classical and only interpretation that there is. There are not several versions of the the doctrine of Election;

1.If you believe that God chooses men 100% this is called "Election".

2.If you believe that man has something to do with choosing God this is called "Wrong"...smile. This view is what leads to misunderstandings about children, mentally-retarded, and people who never heard the gospel.

So there are really only two interpretations of how salvation occurs;

1.God chooses

2.Man chooses.

truthnluv

Edited August 24, 2004 by truthnluv

[Guest Orthodox Christian]

Steve, Orthodoxy is very different from Catholicism, that is a simple mistake many people make (especially Protestants). Protestanism is built upon Catholic base (they are both called Western Christianity), it absorbed Catholic religious philosophy and developed it into its own system. Orthodoxy is Eastern Christianity, and it was developing separately from Catholicism beginning from about the 3-4 centuries, and then the differences grew even bigger untill one Church separated into two confessions (the Church was called Orthodox before the split, so you can guess who separated from whom). So, Protestanism is even closer to Catholicism than Orthodoxy (although C. and O. might have similar worshipping rules, but that's due to their ancient origines, their theologies though are very different).

So, did you read the book of Catholic history, or Orthodox? It looks like it's Catholic. Didn't you try to read something Orthodox?

And let me restate my (and Orthodox) position: guilt cannot be inherited because a sin is an action of a personal free will. The sinner is guilty of his own sins, not his children. But what is inherited, is sinfulness, the wicked state of the spirit when it is able to sin and it cannot avoid sin. Infants are born with that damaged nature, and they are not pure. It's simply because a pure nature cannot be born from an impure one. And as soon as they are born, they start to sin. And they are guilty of thier own sins, but because they cannot know that their doing is "bad", God has mercy upon them.

If people here dislike this thought because they say that unbaptised infants go to hell if they die, well, that is wrong. They do not necessarily go to Hell. We cannot say that, because we don't know God's will. In fact, God pities all people, old or young, who didn't come to Christ. And not all of them go to Hell. (Remember: God is a person, a loving father, and not a machine that counts sins.)

And children are certainly more pure than adults, because they are naturally humble and loving, that's what Christ ment. Children do not do evil to anyone, they don't have many weaknesses that we, adults, have, and thus they are more simple and innocent (or it is widely accepted in the world society that children are generally better than adults). But they are not without sins. In Mathew 19:14 Christ says: "... for of such is the Kindgom of Heavens" -- not "those", but "such", meaning, of people who are like children.

[stevehut]

1- Didn't you try to read something Orthodox?

2 -And let me restate my (and Orthodox) position: guilt cannot be inherited because a sin is an action of a personal free will.

1- Yup, sure did.

2- Are you familiar with what the Orthodox Confession has to say about it?

[Born2BFree]

THERE IS NOTHING 'ORIGINAL' ABOUT SIN AT ALL...

ITS ALL JUST ANOTHER CHEAP COUNTERFIET.