Original Sin

[Oh No Melon]

In human courtrooms, sometimes the guilty are judged innocent and sometimes the innocent are found guilty. Justice is imperfect. In God's courtroom, however, there is perfect justice. All sin is punished. No one gets a free pass.

That's not what I asked you. A small child would never be mistakenly found guilty or not guilty because a small child would never be tried in court. Parents are held responsible for the actions of their children. Now one could argue the same for the mentally disabled. Do you believe a merciful God would condemn a severely retarded person to everlasting torment?

Unfortunately secular humanism and human wisdom has become the judge of God's Word and I fear that is the source of your question. When you equate a human court to God's justice you are already off track.

I realize you're an arch-Calvinist and it comes naturally to you, but please, at least make an effort not to patronize everyone you disagree with.

[apothanein kerdos]

Dad Ernie is correct. Your underestanding on Rom 5:12-21 are completely incorrect. All Paul is trying to do is cause an understanding that by way of Adam sin came into the world because he sinned and was kicked out of the Garden of Eden and now we are susceptible to sin.

This really is an absurd translation. For one, to say we are susceptible to sin does not address the issue of man's fallen nature. Romans 5 is saying that man has fallen into sin and is guilty of sin from the moment he is born; to ignore this is to ignore the entirety of the first eight chapters of Romans. Paul is dealing with converted Hebrews and converted Pagans to Christianity. The Hebrew believers were acting and teaching that they did not need as much forgiveness, grace, or good works because, being Jewish, they were not "as fallen" as the pagan believers. In other words, it would take the pagan believers much more effort to achieve Heaven than the Jewish believers. The first eight chapters deal with the fact we are all equally created, equally fallen, equally without Christ, and equal once we have Christ. To assert something different in Chapter 5, as you have done, is to take it out of its overall context. Secondly, chapter 5 itself does not allow for the interpretation you are holding to. You are ignoring the Greek aorist tense on this verb. Paul states that through Adam, death came into the world. Following context we know that death is in reference to both physical AND spiritual death (reference 6:23, 7:13). However, the Greek word dielthen ("came") means that sin "spread." The first clause of the verse eiselthen ("entered") means that it entered through the front door. To put all this together, Adam's act brought sin into the world (entered) and caused it to spread to all of creation (came). The significance is this is in the aorist, which means that this is all viewed as a past action. This means that the passage views all humans as sinning at the point Adam sinned. We are just as responsible as he is. Now, before you bust out your concordance, I want to let you know I am looking at this in the Textus Receptus and looking at it in its actual structure. A concordance will not do you any good in this discussion.

The simple fact is, according to Romans 3:23 (which is also in an aorist tense) and Romans 5, all men sinned at the point Adam ate the forbidden fruit...thus we are born having already comitted one trespass. That is how the Greek is structured and there is no escaping it. Your interpretation is highly inadequate. By stating that we are susceptible to sin, you word it as if though we can avoid it, or live a period of our life without sinning. We are not susceptible to sin, we are inherently sinful.

You are going to have to ask God on that one. What you need to be asking yourself is what sin did the infant committ to have sin. Remember the scripture - The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The wages of sin is death - to those that committ the sin. This backs up Ezekiel.

Another gross misinterpretation of scripture. "The wages of sin is death" is not a warning but a statement. It is written in a declarative manner because the words after it is, "but the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord." In other words, Paul is stating that all of our souls are dead, but they are revived in Jesus. Notice that all of Romans 5 talks about how lost we are and Romans 6 discusses how we are to be restored to Christ's image. You are attempting to use Ezekiel to justify something it doesn't even apply to because the problem raised in Ezekiel is answered in Romans 6:23.

Once again, this does not in any stretch of the imagination imply that infants are born with sin. When you try to make these verses support "original sin" they contradict the other verses that state we were created perfect UNTIL sin was found in us and scripture dictates that a sin is a transgression of the law.

No one is arguing that we were not created perfect. However, since the fall, we are not perfect, nor are we born perfect. The idea of original sin comes from the fact we are fallen creatures that live in a fallen world. THis is why children, when born, are not born without sin. They may not be accountable and if they die go to heaven, but this does nto counter the fact they are born with the inherent nature to sin.

If the wages of sin is death and people were still dying then that would imply that there was a law at that time. You cannot sin when there is no law because sin is a transgression of whatever law is in effect at that time.

Therefore infants cannot be born with sin because they did not transgress any laws so sin cannot be imputed on them like is stated in Ezekiel.

This is absurd because it makes morality subjective to the times. Law is law; either God has always had a holy standard to live by or He hasn't. Either what He tells us is moral or it isn't. This isn't Kierkegaardian morality where it only applies so long as God allows it to apply. What Paul is stating in this passage is that these people still sinned, still violated the law, but it was not known to them that they violated the law.

You are completely wrong.

That's the best you can come up with? I rely on the Greek translation to show that humans are inherently sinful and inherently guilty for what Adam did, I go from scripture to scripture, and the best you can possibly muster is, "Nu uh?" That's insulting. What your belief does is take all of the guilt off of the person and places it on society. Even Horizoneast states:

Original sin is taught nowhere in Holy Writ. Infants are born innocent and when they mature (in a sinful world) they will reach an age when they will understand God's word and what He wills for their life.

This shows conditioning. In other words, the only reason we end up sinning is because we are raised in a sinful world. This takes the guilt off of the person and instead places it on the society that person is raised in.

By admitting we are naturally fallen and guilty, and inherently sinners, we are simply following the Biblical concept of the fall.

[apothanein kerdos]

apothanein kerdos

This shows conditioning. In other words, the only reason we end up sinning is because we are raised in a sinful world. This takes the guilt off of the person and instead places it on the society that person is raised in.

By admitting we are naturally fallen and guilty, and inherently sinners, we are simply following the Biblical concept of the fall.

Your reading comprehension seems a little faulty tonight Joel. I said we are all responsible for our own sins before God. "Sin is the transgression of the law." What law could an infant possible transgress?

I am fine in my reading comprehension. I am merely looking to the logical conclusion of what you are teaching. Your conclusion is contrary to your premise and does not follow in logical order. That is why I said what I said. For instance, if being raised in a sinful society is what makes us sinful, then we are essentially doing something that we don't know better about. Society has conditioned us to act this way and therefore we cannot change it. If I have been conditioned to do something then I cannot ultimately be at fault for it. If, however, I am held responsible for what Adam did and have an inheret sin nature so that, even if I was raised as an autonomous person, I would still sin without any conditioning. This is what original sin is, that man will, no matter what, sin.

Infants transgressed the law by being born, it is as simple as that. At the point we are concieved we have joined in the suffering of Adam. Once again, I point to my previous post which shows that Paul looked at this in the past tense, meaning that when Adam sinned, in God's eyes, the entirety of the human race had sinned. We are therefore accountable for Adam's sin. This does not mean we are automatically responsible, however. Babies, in my opinion, will still go to Heaven if they die. The reason for this is that even though they are fallen and guilty, God extends His grace and allows them to enter into Heaven because they coudl not choose to eradicate this sin nature. However, unless we wish to assert that babies are somehow exempt from Romans 3:23, we must accept that Babies too are not righteous, are inherently sinful, but cannot be held accountable because they cannot make a conscience choice to be free from this sin nature or moral guilt.

[Dad Ernie]

However I was wondering what your view is of Romans Chaper 2 where Paul explains why both Jew and Gentile are under sin and condemned. He states that even though Gentiles did not have the written law, they were just as condemned under the law as the Jews, since the law of God was written on their heart. The point by Paul is that no one is excluded and that all mankind has come under the condemnation of God. He offers no exception or exclusion, not even for infants. For it is not consciousness of breaking the law that makes one a law breaker or even having the written code presented to them in a scheme of decision. We stand condemned because of our nature as sinners, a nature and condemnaton inherited from our father Adam.

Greetings SW,

Will you please exegete this verse for me?

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Please define "perish" for me. Is this a physical or spiritual death? Is it applied at death and the judgment or when the Books are opened and those whose names are not written in it are cast into the Lake of Fire?

Thank you,

Dad Ernie

[Dad Ernie]

Have there been cases of sinless human beings, meaning do some infants end up not sinning since they all started out as sinless? If 100% of all infants are sinless, and then 100% of all infants sin at some magic age of reasoning, that would mean that a person without the right level of reasoning would of course be sinless for their life. How could that be? This is a totally human concept, the scriptures quoted are very clear.

The whole concept of denying original sin denies the power of Christ and what He was sent to do and what He did for us it also leads one down bizarre paths of reasoning as shown above. Do babies need Christ?

Greetings Smalcald,

Please show us in Genesis where God cursed man AND his progeny with SIN. You will only find that the curse involves death. Babies are born into a death filled life. Dead to God! They have no concept of right or wrong, only what they want whether good or bad. Until trained, a child is guiltless according to the "law". And as has been pointed out, where there is no law, there is no condemnation. But we are born as Adam was (created), frail, because of the flesh and until we learn differently we attempt to fulfill the desires of the flesh. But God wishes that none should perish and when a child learns of the "commandment" then they become responsible for it, just as Adam learned of the commandment and was then held accountable. Because we do not live in the Garden of Eden, walking and talking with God, we are in Adam's boat. Only when the child/adult is born again and receives the Holy Spirit, (which Adam was/did not), there is no power in the flesh to overcome temptation.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

[st. Worm]

Dad Ernie says:

Greetings SW,

Will you please exegete this verse for me?

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

Please define "perish" for me. Is this a physical or spiritual death? Is it applied at death and the judgment or when the Books are opened and those whose names are not written in it are cast into the Lake of Fire?

SW says:

The verse sums up what Paul was previously saying, that all are condemned whether they have been exposed to the revelation of the Law of Moses or not. Those who have not received the law through Moses are still guilty since they have the law written on their hearts. The consequences of sin are death, both spiritual and physical. That was previously established when Adam sinned. Gentiles will perish because of sin even though they do not have the law. The point is that ignorance of the Law will not be an excuse on the day of God's judgement for Gentiles. Jews will perish because they have sinned not only against the law written on their hearts but they also be judged by their sin against the law given by Moses at the day of judgement.

Infants are born alive physically but dead spiritually and stand condemned because of the sin inherited from their father Adam. "Born again", God's gift of regeneration to His people, refers to spiritual rebirth.

Paul goes to an unusual amount of trouble in these early chapters of Romans to describe why ALL humankind stands condemned by sin, both sin inherited from Adam and the acts of sin that flow from it. If infants are not included in this condemnation, then Romans is a complete failure in terms of conveying its message because nowhere does Paul say all are sinners and condemned, except for infants.

As I have noted before the Pelagian heresy said sin only equals act. The truth of sin is found in Romans and not the words of Pelagius. The new heresy today seems to say sin is only sin if we can comprehend we are sinning which lets not only infants off the hook but also devalues sin for adults. Even the heretic Pelagius was not that far off track. Can it get any worse? As Luther noted, the theologian of the cross calls a thing what it is. The theologian of glory says we aren't all that bad and that our sin is just a behavior problem. The theology of glory is alive and well it seems.

sw

[Smalcald]

Have there been cases of sinless human beings, meaning do some infants end up not sinning since they all started out as sinless? If 100% of all infants are sinless, and then 100% of all infants sin at some magic age of reasoning, that would mean that a person without the right level of reasoning would of course be sinless for their life. How could that be? This is a totally human concept, the scriptures quoted are very clear.

The whole concept of denying original sin denies the power of Christ and what He was sent to do and what He did for us it also leads one down bizarre paths of reasoning as shown above. Do babies need Christ?

Greetings Smalcald,

Please show us in Genesis where God cursed man AND his progeny with SIN. You will only find that the curse involves death. Babies are born into a death filled life. Dead to God! They have no concept of right or wrong, only what they want whether good or bad. Until trained, a child is guiltless according to the "law". And as has been pointed out, where there is no law, there is no condemnation. But we are born as Adam was (created), frail, because of the flesh and until we learn differently we attempt to fulfill the desires of the flesh. But God wishes that none should perish and when a child learns of the "commandment" then they become responsible for it, just as Adam learned of the commandment and was then held accountable. Because we do not live in the Garden of Eden, walking and talking with God, we are in Adam's boat. Only when the child/adult is born again and receives the Holy Spirit, (which Adam was/did not), there is no power in the flesh to overcome temptation.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

Hi Dad Ernie,

But as SW has shown, having no concept of right or wrong has nothing to do with being a sinner. Many a sinner honestly have no concept of right or wrong, the worst sins I have committed are probably ones I am totally unaware of, sins of my desires, my thoughts. In fact the worst sinners in the world are usually totally oblivious to right or wrong, they simply want what they want, as you say. Obviously babies are beautiful gifts from God to us, they have the faith that Christ tells us we should have, but they are born into sin, it is completely obvious from any reading of any of Paul's epistles. Unless we are making a case, that babies or the unborn are not really human, which some of the pro-choicers will advocate, but I know you, are not saying that.

I don

[apothanein kerdos]

apothanein kerdos

Infants transgressed the law by being born, it is as simple as that.

LOL - it is your logic that is flawed my friend. Can you please provide chapter-verse that refers to this most unusual law of God that one breaks by being born

[Smalcald]

If infants are sinless then there should be a certain percentage of them that never sin, you can't be sinless then 100% of the time become sinful at some magical point, without the seeds of sin already existing. When Paul says ALL he means all. He was strident for a reason, all mouths must be stopped, there is NONE righteous, not ONE, it is pretty straightforward, no exceptions were given, and he made a particular point that there we absolutely no exceptions.

[Smalcald]

But Horizon God says all human beings have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, it is not up to us to say who has committed what sin or not, God has already said that all human beings are sinful. Besides that, sin is thoughts, sin is our basic nature, and sin is who we are, and it is not only some outward acts. Indeed outward acts are probably the least sins that we commit.