Original Sin

[chrismarc]

horizoneast said,

Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

According to your reasoning Jesus, who was conceived and born of a human mother,

must have inherited

[chrismarc]

tah said,

Yes..(we're born with original sin).

Rom 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.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How can you therefore not believe in infant baptism?

[EricH]

[Eric

[EricH]

tah said,

Yes..(we're born with original sin).

Rom 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.

Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

How can you therefore not believe in infant baptism?

Because the scripture do not teach that Baptism saves us. That is a Roman Catholic doctrine. Sonce scripture does not address infants specifically it is best to trust God, rather than developing a doctrine that is not biblical to "help God out"

[EricH]

horizoneast said,

Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

According to your reasoning Jesus, who was conceived and born of a human mother,

must have inherited

[EricH]

The sin of Adam impacts all of humanity in 2 different ways according to the scriptures:

1. We inherit guilt (we are considered guilty by God from birth because of Adam's sin)

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Romans 5:12 NASB

The context of this passage (Romans 5:12-21) indicates that this passage is not descxribing sins people commit during their lives.

A. The entire paragraph is a comparison between Adam and Christ. When Paul says "Therefore" in 5:12 (houtos - in this way), he means that sin spread to all men through the sin of Adam. It is through Adam's sin that "all sinned". It does not say all "have sinned", but all sinned.

B. The word for "sinned" (hemarton) in 5:12 when applied to the "all" is in the aorist tense. The aorsit tense speaks of completed action in the past with ongoing consequences. At the time of the writing of this letter it was not true that all men had sinned. Some had not been born. Some were infants and had not yet committed actual sins. So it must be that when Adam sinned, God viewed it that all humanity had "sinned" with him.

Paul expands on this idea:

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. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Romans 5:18-19 NASB

Paul explicity states (thus unpacking verse 12) that through the sin of one man all were made condemned and made sinners. The verb "were made" is once again in the aorist indicating completed action in the past with ongoing consequence. All were made sinners in the past (when Adam sinned).

2. We inherit a sin nature

Paul said this:

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

Ephesians 2:3 NASB

We were "by nature" children of wrath

[apothanein kerdos]

LOL...this is perhaps the lamest response I have EVER seen. You're content to hold to a belief that you can't justify biblically? Prove how his intepretation is wrong, show us with your counter-interpretation if you can do so. Remember, he's not using a concordance or reading the verses prima facie. Saying "you are wrong" does not constitute a valid reply in a discussion such as this. If you claim what you believe is true, then you need to provide evidence to prove it so. If you claim what someone else believes if false, then you need to provide evidence as to why you make such assertions.

Tess, I have proven my point on this. Why would I go through and reiterate it all over again just to have people say that it is wrong?

By the way, I admire anybody who would use a concordence to learn more of their bibles. I use one all the time for my studies so that I know the difference between truth and error even to the knowledge and understanding that "original sin" and infant baptism are scriptural.

I gave the answer I did because this thread is getting redundant. I know what is right and wrong by my bible. If you can't accept that then you only have God to answer to.

I didn't use a concordance. I read, speak, and write in Koine Greek (Hebrew is another story...). I looked at the Textus Receptus and Wescot-Horton and in both it's written in the aorist tense. This means that your interpretation is absolutely impossible. I brought up fresh points that NO ONE has even dealt with, specifically the aorist tense in Romans 5 and Romans 3:23. I think what it is, is that you simply cannot respond to what I said, and instead of being intellectually honest with us you are trying to find another excuse to get out of this discussion without facing an adequate challenge.

[Kabowd]

Tess, I have proven my point on this. Why would I go through and reiterate it all over again just to have people say that it is wrong?

You didn't prove anything. You threw out your usual rote response, which offers no interpretation, explanation or proper exegesis. If you honestly believe it to be true, then you should be able to defend it. I'm not asking you to "reiterate" or simply repeat what you've already stated over and over. I'm asking you to respond directly to AK's reply. Yes, this will require you to actually apply knowledge instead of just repeating yourself or throwing out something you've memorized.

If you can't defend what you believe on a Christian board, how do you expect to sway anyone in the world toward what you believe to be true? The admonition given in 1 Peter 3:15, is that we should be ready to explain and defend what we believe. The problem with alot of Christians today, is they'd rather use canned answers or throw out memorized verses and responses...but these things don't work in the real world. If you can't have a conversation someone and respond to their questions, you won't get anywhere. If you were having this discussion with someone on a subway, do you just repeat yourself when they ask you to explain further? If they say "well, what about this....in the Greek the word means this"...do you just repeat yourself, get angry and say "I've already proven my point!" I sure hope not. Why not see this topic as an opportunity for you to go deeper than the things you've memorized for discussion boards? My challenge to you is for you to attempt, legitimately attempt to respond to the points he made with an original, well-thought out reply. Look at context, the orginal text, the tense used, etc...and attempt to try to prove why your interpretation is correct. Can you do that?

By the way, I admire anybody who would use a concordence to learn more of their bibles. I use one all the time for my studies so that I know the difference between truth and error even to the knowledge and understanding that "original sin" and infant baptism are scriptural.

Using a concordance can be helpful sometimes (for certain things), but most of the time it still requires more than a basic knowledge of Greek or Hebrew in order to determine what is being said. With regards to Greek (and it may be the same with Hebrew), not only is the language MUCH more specific than English, the tenses being used are extremely important in determining whether or not what is being said is something that is progressive, instantaneous, etc. I haven't learned Greek myself yet, so I rely on those who have, but I know enough to realize that using a concordance can only confuse things more. For instance, in Greek, there are so many tenses and meanings, you'd have to know which one is being used in order to determine what is being conveyed. If it's "present tense", for instance, is it instantaneous, futuristic present, progressive, historical present? If it's "imperfect tense", is it progressive imperfect, ingressive imperfect, conative imperfect? If it's "future tense" is it predictive, deliberative, imperative? If it's "aorist tense" is it immediate, ingressive, proleptic, constative? That's not even an exhaustive list of the tenses, and yet each one has a very very specific meaning which is crucial to the message of the text. Since I don't know even half of what all those mean..lol...I try to learn from those who are wiser than myself. When they show me the text and explain the original meaning and tense used, I learn. It would be foolish for me to insist, "but my concordance says!" when they have studied it deeper and are showing me the deeper meaning. Likewise, this is why a concordance doesn't hold water compared to someone who reads, writes and speaks Koine Greek.

I gave the answer I did because this thread is getting redundant. I know what is right and wrong by my bible. If you can't accept that then you only have God to answer to.

It's only redundant when you refuse to respond with an original answer and just keep repeating yourself. Like I said, the way you've handled this discussion doesn't work on this board much less in a real life situation. Real wisdom comes from learning to apply what you know. When someone poses questions to you regarding what you believe, simply repeating yourself does not constitute a conversation. If you can't defend what you believe, you will ultimately fail at fulfilling both the great commission and the cultural mandate. In which case, you will only have to answer to God for that.

[EricH]

apothanein kerdos

I read, speak, and write in Koine Greek (Hebrew is another story...). I looked at the Textus Receptus and Wescot-Horton and in both it's written in the aorist tense.

apothanein kerdos

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.

Joel

[EricH]

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding what you posted but you appear to be saying that the spirit of man is material and something one acquires through the physical act of human reproduction. But Scripture says that at death the corporal part of man (his body) returns to the dust and the spirit of man returns to God who gave (or imparted) it to man