Bible Study Every Man's Battle: The Way to Win.

[Tenchi]

Sin IS the root cause, sinful behaviors are the symptoms.

No, spiritually unregenerate Self, what Paul called the "old man" (KJV), is the source of all of our sin.

Romans 6:6-7
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin.

How is the "body of sin done away with"? By the crucifixion of the "old Self." This clearly implies that the source of our sin is the "old Self," the self-willed and selfish person we are apart from God. Form this source arise all the sins we commit.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

No, spiritually unregenerate Self, what Paul called the "old man" (KJV), is the source of all of our sin.

That "old man" was the fleshly self, born in sin with a sinful nature, Spiritual birth gives a new spiritual nature. I think we're describing the same thing in different terms, what we may not agree on is the concept of original sin, and that means sin is inherent, it's in human nature, embedded in the genome, and it's NOT certain undesired behaviors. If you don't believe in that, just drop it and have a good day, God bless. I don't wanna any more silly frivilous arguments on that.

 

[Tenchi]

That "old man" was the fleshly self, born in sin with a sinful nature, Spiritual birth gives a new spiritual nature. I think we're describing the same thing in different terms, what we may not agree on is the concept of original sin, and that means sin is inherent, it's in human nature, embedded in the genome, and it's NOT certain undesired behaviors. If you don't believe in that, just drop it and have a good day, God bless. I don't wanna any more silly frivilous arguments on that.

I don't know what you mean by "born in sin," but, obviously, no one is born guilty of having committed sin. Nor does God make the son guilty of the sin of his father (or vice versa - Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6). Every person is, because of Adam's sin, separated from God spiritually and this leads to sin, but no one has committed sin in the womb and is, then, born a sinner deserving of God's wrath and punishment.

Yes, the "second birth" reconnects a person spiritually to God, restoring what was lost in Eden.

Sin isn't inherent, like eye color, or the shape of one's nose, or having two legs and two arms, but it is inevitable for a person who is unregulated by God in their desires, thinking and conduct. No one is made by God to live out from under His direct control. When we do, unable to properly regulate ourselves, we grow inordinately selfish, contravening our conscience (the law of God written on our heart) in various ways. This is what makes us guilty of sin.

So, yes, I agree are born with an unregulated nature that moves inevitably toward selfishness and sin - what you call the "sin nature" - but no infant is born guilty of having committed sin.

If you don't want "silly, frivolous arguments" on this matter, the simplest, best way to avoid them is not to make comments in threads that will lead to such arguments.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I don't know what you mean by "born in sin," but, obviously, no one is born guilty of having committed sin. Nor does God make the son guilty of the sin of his father (or vice versa - Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6). Every person is, because of Adam's sin, separated from God spiritually and this leads to sin, but no one has committed sin in the womb and is, then, born a sinner deserving of God's wrath and punishment.

Yes, the "second birth" reconnects a person spiritually to God, restoring what was lost in Eden.

Sin isn't inherent, like eye color, or the shape of one's nose, or having two legs and two arms, but it is inevitable for a person who is unregulated by God in their desires, thinking and conduct. No one is made by God to live out from under His direct control. When we do, unable to properly regulate ourselves, we grow inordinately selfish, contravening our conscience (the law of God written on our heart) in various ways. This is what makes us guilty of sin.

So, yes, I agree are born with an unregulated nature that moves inevitably toward selfishness and sin - what you call the "sin nature" - but no infant is born guilty of having committed sin.

If you don't want "silly, frivolous arguments" on this matter, the simplest, best way to avoid them is not to make comments in threads that will lead to such arguments.

Your unbelief in Rom. 5:12 is your own. You’re no different than the majority of preachers who never mention anything remotely associated with sin, and you’re under the influence of Nietzsche that human nature is good not evil, and everyone is born as a “blank canvas”. If there’s no original sin, then there’s no need for Jesus who died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Whatever “theological spin” you come up with to defend your view, keep it to yourself.

 

[Tenchi]

Your unbelief in Rom. 5:12 is your own. You’re no different than the majority of preachers who never mention anything remotely associated with sin, and you’re under the influence of Nietzsche that human nature is good not evil, and everyone is born as a “blank canvas”.

Romans 5:12 (NASB)
12 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—

There's nothing in this verse that I don't believe. Through Adam, the human race has been separated spiritually from God such that each of us naturally acts in a God-unregulated way, a selfish way, that leads us inevitably into sin. Adam's sin also introduced death into the world - a death which we all deserve since we all of us, separated from God and His control, eventually sin, too. This is all basic Christian doctrine that Romans 5:12 describes with which I am entirely in agreement. What the verse doesn't say, though, is that there is something called "original sin" making every person guilty of sin right out of the womb.

Regarding your remark that I'm like the "majority of preachers who never mention anything remotely associated with sin," well, that's just silly. Read my posts in the Bible Study forum. Consider my posts on CF.net in general. Or check out my SubStack page (https://jonathanhay.substack.com/). All of these address the matter of sin frequently and directly.

As well, I've never subscribed to the humanistic idea that people are born morally good, nor am I under a Nietzschean influence. Again, anyone who reads my post on CF.net would see this very clearly.

If there’s no original sin, then there’s no need for Jesus who died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). Whatever “theological spin” you come up with to defend your view, keep it to yourself.

??? Your first statement in the quotation above is a giant non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all that, without the mistaken doctrine of original sin, Christ's atoning sacrifice was unnecessary. See above. Spiritually separated from God and His direct control because of Adam's sin, everybody acts selfishly such that they become guilty of sin (if they live long enough to do so). Since this is so, Christ's work at Calvary is entirely necessary.

It's a bit...peculiar for you to put forward your own "theological spin" while commanding others to keep their doctrinal views to themselves. Why should you be free to do the very thing you're forbidding others to do? Perhaps reading Romans 2 would be helpful to you, especially verses 18-24.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

There's nothing in this verse that I don't believe. Through Adam, the human race has been separated spiritually from God such that each of us naturally acts in a God-unregulated way, a selfish way, that leads us inevitably into sin.

That “unregulated way” doesn’t lead to sin, it IS sin. Envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth and wrath are all embedded in human nature, and those lead to all kinds of sinful behaviors. That’s why a sinner must be born again with a new spiritual nature, not just be regulated by law and starting to merely act in a “God regulated” way, you should’ve known this better than I do.

As well, I've never subscribed to the humanistic idea that people are born morally good, nor am I under a Nietzschean influence. Again, anyone who reads my post on CF.net would see this very clearly.

If people are not morally good at birth, then they’re morally evil at birth, hence the original sin. Evil is not of its own entity, it’s the ABSENCE of good, just as dark is the absence of light, cold the absence of heat, vacuum the absence of air. In Hebrew Satan simply means enemy or adversary, the sole purpose, his raison d’etre is to oppose everything that the Almighty God is, to steal, kill and destroy God’s creation. If you deny original sin, then you automatically subscribe to Nietschean teaching that we’re born morally good, because there’s nothing else to fill up the moral vacuum but evil.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

??? Your first statement in the quotation above is a giant non sequitur. It doesn't follow at all that, without the mistaken doctrine of original sin, Christ's atoning sacrifice was unnecessary. See above. Spiritually separated from God and His direct control because of Adam's sin, everybody acts selfishly such that they become guilty of sin (if they live long enough to do so). Since this is so, Christ's work at Calvary is entirely necessary.

You’ve got the wrong causation. Everybody is BORN guilty of Adam’s sin, which then leads to “act selfishly”, not the other way around. Without the sound teaching of original sin, of course Christ's atoning sacrifice was unnecessary, Christ himself said it - “the healthy don’t need a physician, but the sick.” Why would you seek salvation when you don’t know what you must be saved from? Just “selfish acts”? Then you’ve got a whole industry of self-help therapy and personal improvement, why would you need Christ? Oh wait, that’s what Christ has already been degraded to for decades - “moralistic therapeutic deism”, the de facto civil religion in North America! See, I didn’t make this up, no “theological spin” here, that’s the sad reality in most churches.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It's a bit...peculiar for you to put forward your own "theological spin" while commanding others to keep their doctrinal views to themselves. Why should you be free to do the very thing you're forbidding others to do? Perhaps reading Romans 2 would be helpful to you, especially verses 18-24.

Original sin is a well established biblical teaching concluded by renouned church fathers, it's never my own "theological spin". And I didn't call you out for no reason. You've just denied both original sin and Nietzsche's humanism, but what's the third option? "Unregulated self - that leads to sin" - instead of "in sin I was conceived in my mother's womb" and "cursed is the day I was born"? Is that what you come up with? And why does this sound so familiar? Where have I heard it before, hmmm? "If your right hand causes you to sin ..." "If your right eye causes you to sin ..."? And how does Lord Jesus reponded to those?

 

[Tenchi]

That “unregulated way” doesn’t lead to sin, it IS sin.

The Bible nowhere indicates this.

Envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth and wrath are all embedded in human nature, and those lead to all kinds of sinful behaviors.

No, these are all effects, expressions of, God-unregulated human self-interest. No person is guilty of any of these things "right out of the chute," so to speak, which seems entirely obvious to me. A newborn infant has not been envious, greedy, lustful, prideful, slothful or wrathful in the womb.

That’s why a sinner must be born again with a new spiritual nature, not just be regulated by law and starting to merely act in a “God regulated” way, you should’ve known this better than I do.

It seems I do know it better than you do. You just need to read my posts more carefully to see this.

But, since you seem more eager to "grind your axe" than consider what others are saying, let me repeat myself: Not being born a sinner but becoming a sinner does not dissolve the need for a person to be saved from their sin, spiritually-regenerated and empowered to live a godly life by the indwelling Holy Spirit (as opposed to God's law).

If people are not morally good at birth, then they’re morally evil at birth, hence the original sin.

No, this is a false dichotomy. There are more than the two options you present here. A third option is that a person is born innocent of sin but with a God-unregulated, self-interested nature that leads them inevitably into sin (i.e. the sin nature).

Evil is not of its own entity, it’s the ABSENCE of good, just as dark is the absence of light, cold the absence of heat, vacuum the absence of air.

Uh huh.

In Hebrew Satan simply means enemy or adversary, the sole purpose, his raison d’etre is to oppose everything that the Almighty God is, to steal, kill and destroy God’s creation. If you deny original sin, then you automatically subscribe to Nietschean teaching that we’re born morally good, because there’s nothing else to fill up the moral vacuum but evil.

??? This is another false dichotomy. There isn't just deny original sin and live according to Nietzschean/humanistic philosophy or accept original sin and avoid such a condition as one's only options. See above. I can deny your idea of original sin and still affirm (quite biblically) that people are incorrigibly inclined to sin and need a Savior. Doing so doesn't at all put me in the "moral vacuum" you assert.

You’ve got the wrong causation.

No, I don't. You've got a faulty (and unbiblical) idea about the condition in which people are born.

Everybody is BORN guilty of Adam’s sin,

Deuteronomy 24:16
16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.”

Why would you seek salvation when you don’t know what you must be saved from? Just “selfish acts”?

All sin is at its core just inordinate - which is to say, God-unregulated - self-interest. Every sin a person commits is just a manifestation of this selfishness, which is why God deals with the old Self (Romans 6:6-11), not merely various sins, in freeing His children from sin. And so, "selfish acts" ARE sin, or, better, all sin is God-disobedient selfishness.

Then you’ve got a whole industry of self-help therapy and personal improvement, why would you need Christ?

??? Read Romans 7:15-22. Or Galatians 5:17. Or Romans 8:5-14. Then read Philippians 2:13, 4:13, Ephesians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 3:18. It is, at bottom, from an inordinate interest in serving ourselves that we need to be rescued by God. Without His divine power, we can't help but be selfish such that we disobey His will and pursue our own way. No Self-help therapy can deal with the old Self, the source of all our sin, except the cross of Christ. Read Romans 6:1-6, or Galatians 2:20, or Colossians 2:11-15; 3:3, etc. In freeing us from sin, God didn't deal with each individual sin - greed, lust, wrath, murder, jealousy, etc. - but with our old Self which seeks its own before all else, bringing us into sin as it does.

Oh wait, that’s what Christ has already been degraded to for decades - “moralistic therapeutic deism”,

Ironically, this is, as far as I can tell, the very thing to which you subscribe. If a Christian doesn't know anything about the doctrine of identification, of their union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, of the "crucified life" and what this means to walking with God, then moralism is the typical default position.

Original sin is a well established biblical teaching concluded by renouned church fathers

It doesn't matter much to me what other men have thought about God's Truth. Their renown doesn't establish their views, of course, either (see: the fallacy of an appeal to authority). What matters is what God's word actually says. And when I consider His word, original sin is not present in it.

You've just denied both original sin and Nietzsche's humanism, but what's the third option?

See above.

"Unregulated self - that leads to sin" - instead of "in sin I was conceived in my mother's womb" and "cursed is the day I was born"? Is that what you come up with?

Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

The "in sin" part of this verse is referring to the condition of the Psalmist's MOTHER, not the Psalmist himself, as a newborn baby. The psalmist was "brought forth in iniquity" which is a description, not of the psalmist, but of the nature of his being "brought forth." I take this to mean he was brought forth into a sin-cursed world by sin-guilty people. In any case, this verse offers no ground that I can see for the doctrine of original sin as you've described it: The inheriting the sin-guilt of Adam.

 

[KV-44-v1]

No, this is a false dichotomy. There are more than the two options you present here. A third option is that a person is born innocent of sin but with a God-unregulated, self-interested nature that leads them inevitably into sin (i.e. the sin nature).

And I see this as a good reason to doubt the Privation Theory.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Original sin is a well established biblical teaching concluded by renouned church fathers, it's never my own "theological spin". And I didn't call you out for no reason. You've just denied both original sin and Nietzsche's humanism, but what's the third option? "Unregulated self - that leads to sin" - instead of "in sin I was conceived in my mother's womb" and "cursed is the day I was born"? Is that what you come up with? And why does this sound so familiar? Where have I heard it before, hmmm? "If your right hand causes you to sin ..." "If your right eye causes you to sin ..."? And how does Lord Jesus reponded to those?

Original sin is a false doctrine.
It is written..." The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezek 18:20)
Why would anyone bear Adam's sin ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The Bible nowhere indicates this.

The bible has plenty to say about sin, but nowhere indicates an "unregulated way" in those exact terms.

No, these are all effects, expressions of, God-unregulated human self-interest. No person is guilty of any of these things "right out of the chute," so to speak, which seems entirely obvious to me. A newborn infant has not been envious, greedy, lustful, prideful, slothful or wrathful in the womb.

Those are root causes, any "selfish acts" and "unregulated ways" are the results of those. Nobody is born sinless, all have sinned through Adam. As long as one person is subject to mortal death, he's a sinner. Those "seven deadly sins" are seven categories summaried by early church fathers for teaching and self-reflecting purposes similar to the Mosaic law:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. (Rom. 7:7-8)

It seems I do know it better than you do. You just need to read my posts more carefully to see this.

But, since you seem more eager to "grind your axe" than consider what others are saying, let me repeat myself: Not being born a sinner but becoming a sinner does not dissolve the need for a person to be saved from their sin, spiritually-regenerated and empowered to live a godly life by the indwelling Holy Spirit (as opposed to God's law).

I'm not here to "grind my axe" or to argue, neither am I obligated to read any of your posts. If every sinner is made by "becoming a sinner", then whose fault is that? The society? The family? The street gang? Social media? I may not know better than you, but I know one thing for sure without a shred of doubt, that Jesus is for empowerment, Satan is for victimization. You're deceiving yourself with the buzzwords "spiritually-regenerated" and "empowered" as long as you believe that everyone is born innocent but made into sinners, that's a sympton of PRIDE, the sin of all sins. If a person is too prideful to acknowledge and repent his sin, he can't be saved from his sin, and he can't be spiritually-regenerated" or "empowered" neither.

No, this is a false dichotomy. There are more than the two options you present here. A third option is that a person is born innocent of sin but with a God-unregulated, self-interested nature that leads them inevitably into sin (i.e. the sin nature).

That "self-interested nature" doesn't lead into sin nature, it IS the sin nature. That's the false "theological spin" I'm pointing finger at, it's not a third option. There has been countless utopia social experiment where a group of idealistic and naive people settled in the wilderness faraway from the "evil society", look no further from the Israelites in Exodus. How were they faring and how did they end up? Was any of them brought up sinless? Not even Joshua's generation, their sin led them to a humiliating defeat at Ai (Joshua 7). Gee, I wonder why?

Again, this is where you've got the causation wrong. It is the sin nature that inevitably led into "God unregulated, self-interested" BEHAVIORS, not the other way around.

??? This is another false dichotomy. There isn't just deny original sin and live according to Nietzschean/humanistic philosophy or accept original sin and avoid such a condition as one's only options. See above. I can deny your idea of original sin and still affirm (quite biblically) that people are incorrigibly inclined to sin and need a Savior. Doing so doesn't at all put me in the "moral vacuum" you assert.

Indeed there're a lot of false dichotomies, but this one is not one of them. It's like 1s and 0s in computing, God's either present or absent, you're either born again with indwelling Holy spirit and a new nature - or you're still your carnal-minded self with indwelling evil spirits and the sin nature. There's no third option, as ALL are under sin - not "inclined to sin" or mere sinful behaviors, but already under sin, the sin that Jesus atoned for, Rom. 3:9-18.

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.

As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
“Their throat is an open [d]tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
Destruction and misery are in their ways;
And the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

No, I don't. You've got a faulty (and unbiblical) idea about the condition in which people are born.

The fault is yours. Your view of "innocent birth" is not even scientific, epigenetic studies have shown that past generations' traumatic experience and unhealthy lifestyle impact can alter genetic expression, and that can be inherited from BIRTH.

Case in point, in the Vietnam war the US military sprayed highly toxic "agent orange" for the dual purpose of defoliating the forest which concealed the enemy forces and destroying enemy's crops. Many soldiers and locals exposed to the toxin suffered a wide range of health disorders, some of their children were born with birth defects, most noticeably spina bifida, deformed spinal column, that's a real condition in which they were born, and that's a historic fact, not my "faulty idea" or anybody elses. You tell me why is that and whose sin it was - the Pentagon? The pilot who sprayed Agent Orange? The soldiers who got themselves exposed to it? The newborns themselves? Or maybe, the right response is not playing the blame game, but showing compassion and care to these poor souls so that "the works of God should be revealed in him," John 9:3?

Agent Orange | Definition, Effects, & Victims | Britannica

Agent Orange, mixture of herbicides that U.S. military forces sprayed in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 during the Vietnam War for the dual purpose of defoliating forest areas that might conceal Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces and destroying crops that might feed the enemy.

www.britannica.com

 

[KV-44-v1]

Nobody is born sinless, all have sinned through Adam.

Do you believe the same about babies?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Deuteronomy 24:16
16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 14:6
6 But he did not put to death the children of the murderers, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, where the LORD commanded, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. But each one shall die for his own sin.”

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Ex. 20:4-6)

So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son (Ham) had done to him. Then he said:

“Cursed be Canaan (Ham's son);
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brethren.” (Gen. 9:24-25)

Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Because you have done this, and have not kept My covenant and My statutes, which I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. Nevertheless I will not do it in your days, for the sake of your father David; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. (1 Kings 11:11-12)

All sin is at its core just inordinate - which is to say, God-unregulated - self-interest. Every sin a person commits is just a manifestation of this selfishness, which is why God deals with the old Self (Romans 6:6-11), not merely various sins, in freeing His children from sin. And so, "selfish acts" ARE sin, or, better, all sin is God-disobedient selfishness.

That doesn't answer the question - what's the need for salvation? To be saved from what? "Selfishness" is also self-preservation, without which in your ancestors you wouldn't have existed today. Jesus didn't die for "self-interest", he even subliminally expressed his own "self-interest" - "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." (Matt. 26:39) The only thing he died for and atoned for is sin which Paul traced all the way back to Adam - through whom sin entered the world.

??? Read Romans 7:15-22. Or Galatians 5:17. Or Romans 8:5-14. Then read Philippians 2:13, 4:13, Ephesians 3:16, 2 Corinthians 3:18. It is, at bottom, from an inordinate interest in serving ourselves that we need to be rescued by God. Without His divine power, we can't help but be selfish such that we disobey His will and pursue our own way. No Self-help therapy can deal with the old Self, the source of all our sin, except the cross of Christ. Read Romans 6:1-6, or Galatians 2:20, or Colossians 2:11-15; 3:3, etc. In freeing us from sin, God didn't deal with each individual sin - greed, lust, wrath, murder, jealousy, etc. - but with our old Self which seeks its own before all else, bringing us into sin as it does.

That "old self" is the carnal minded sinful self, no self-help therapy can deal with it because they can only migitage the "manifestations" in forms of sinful behaviors, not the sinful nature itself. As I said, those "seven deadly sins" are seven categories of sins summarized by early church fathers for teaching purposes, what God did deal with is the original sin - disobedience against God, not mere "selfishness".

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. (Rom. 5:19)

Ironically, this is, as far as I can tell, the very thing to which you subscribe. If a Christian doesn't know anything about the doctrine of identification, of their union with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection, of the "crucified life" and what this means to walking with God, then moralism is the typical default position.

It is you whose mind is corrupted by their influence, which is showing in your choice of words - "escape", "regenerated", "unregulated", all of these reek of TMD. I was merely reporting an alarming reality, and you're shooting the messenger. I can tell you that I identify with Christ as I fully understand how grevious was my sin that cost the Almighty God, the creator of the universe his only beloved son to have died for me, a holy sacrifice which I could never repay with any amount of "moralism".

It doesn't matter much to me what other men have thought about God's Truth. Their renown doesn't establish their views, of course, either (see: the fallacy of an appeal to authority). What matters is what God's word actually says. And when I consider His word, original sin is not present in it.

God's truth interprets itself, it doesn't allow any private interpretation, 2 Pt. 1:20. God's word demands us to humble ourselves and listen to his ordained teachers (Deut. 6:6-7, Prob. 1:8-9, Acts 8:30-31), which you malign as "appeal to authority". Even Jesus himself listened and discussed with the rabbis in the temple (Lk. 2:41-50), was he "appealing to aurhotity"? Ironically, your denial of original sin has only exhibited your own pride, you disregard the wisdom from older generations that have passed the test of time and lean on your own understanding, as though you've discovered something which nobody else ever did, you're smarter than all of them, you alone are right and they were all wrong.

Psalm 51:5
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.

The "in sin" part of this verse is referring to the condition of the Psalmist's MOTHER, not the Psalmist himself, as a newborn baby. The psalmist was "brought forth in iniquity" which is a description, not of the psalmist, but of the nature of his being "brought forth." I take this to mean he was brought forth into a sin-cursed world by sin-guilty people. In any case, this verse offers no ground that I can see for the doctrine of original sin as you've described it: The inheriting the sin-guilt of Adam.

Great, instead of relating to this genuine repentance, now you're slut shaming the psalmist's mother? That what his mother did in the sheets with his father, which had "brought forth him in inquity" is a great sin in your eyes? And using his mother's "condition" to justify your own rejection of the original sin? You need milk, not solid food, you who teach needs to be taught.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Original sin is a false doctrine.
It is written..." The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." (Ezek 18:20)
Why would anyone bear Adam's sin ?

Second commandment, third to fourth generation, Ex. 20:4-6.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Do you believe the same about babies?

Do you believe Jesus died for our SINS (1 Cor. 15:3)? Do you believe "ye must be born again" (Jn. 3:3)? Do you believe that flesh and blood - which every baby is born in - cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50)?

 

[Hopeful 2]

Second commandment, third to fourth generation, Ex. 20:4-6.

Your scripture is superceded by later scripture.
Babies are a gift from God, but you want to call them sinners.
God doesn't give sinners to parents of babies.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Your scripture is superceded by later scripture.
Babies are a gift from God, but you want to call them sinners.
God doesn't give sinners to parents of babies.

No it's not, Scripture is God's, not mine or yours. And Scripture doesn't contradict itself.

 

[Tenchi]

The bible has plenty to say about sin, but nowhere indicates an "unregulated way" in those exact terms.

This is a deflection from my point. A sort of tu quoque retort that avoids addressing what was said to you.

Those are root causes, any "selfish acts" and "unregulated ways" are the results of those. Nobody is born sinless, all have sinned through Adam.

I'm not sure what the "those" are in you remark above. It is true that "all have sinned through Adam," but not in the way you think. He broke our spiritual connection with God in Eden, separating us from God such that we migrate inevitably into inordinate selfishness and thus into sin. But none of us bear guilt for the sin of Adam, though we do endure the effects of his sin. Adam's sin is his own and alone is guilty for it, as Scripture plainly and repeatedly states (see my earlier posts).

As long as one person is subject to mortal death, he's a sinner.

Yes. Physical death is one of the effects, the consequences, of Adam's sin - and of our own.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. (Rom. 7:7-8)

Uh huh. And so? I see nothing in the above about being guilty of Adam's sin, of inheriting his guilt, or of having committed sin in the womb.

I'm not here to "grind my axe" or to argue, neither am I obligated to read any of your posts.

This isn't how it appears to me. You do seem very eager to "axe grind" about your mistaken doctrine of original sin because you don't actually seriously engage with the points made to you, but simply dismiss them out-of-hand and then repeat you own view.

In any case, you're quite correct that you don't have to read any of my posts - though, no one has said, as far as I'm aware, that you are obligated to read them.

If every sinner is made by "becoming a sinner", then whose fault is that? The society? The family? The street gang? Social media?

Their own. Every person bears the guilt and punishment for their own sin. There won't be any blaming of one's sin on others at the Final Judgment.

Ezekiel 18:20
20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

Deuteronomy 24:16
16 “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

I know one thing for sure without a shred of doubt, that Jesus is for empowerment, Satan is for victimization.

Sort of.

You're deceiving yourself with the buzzwords "spiritually-regenerated" and "empowered" as long as you believe that everyone is born innocent but made into sinners, that's a sympton of PRIDE, the sin of all sins. If a person is too prideful to acknowledge and repent his sin, he can't be saved from his sin, and he can't be spiritually-regenerated" or "empowered" neither.

Do you know what a "buzzword" actually is? It seems to me, if you did, you wouldn't apply the term to the words and phrases I've used in explaining what I see in God's word concerning our sin-guiltiness before Him.

Anyway, I don't believe, nor have I indicated, that people are "made into sinners" by dint of some external force or agency against their will, as the original sin doctrine proposes. Though various influences and circumstances may come to bear upon the individual, fostering a certain sinful course of action in them, they are, nonetheless, initially free to choose to sin (though, not in a compatibilistic sense, which is just theistic determinism pushed back a step), or not, and are therefore fully responsible for the choice they make.

Just to be clear: "Born innocent" is not the same as saying "born morally perfect." I don't think a baby, unaware of moral distinctions, of God and His commands, and of his/her own conscience can ever be said to be morally perfect since such perfection would, I believe, necessitate an understanding of these things. But the very things that would prevent me from saying a newborn baby is morally perfect at birth, are the things that do permit me to say s/he is innocent.

I would say that a man who is selfish, who desires to serve himself above and before others, living independently of God's will and way, grows prideful (among other sinful things) and hardens, over time, into his selfishness (manifesting in his pride, etc.) becoming increasingly unable to be otherwise. The writer of Hebrews warned of this:

Hebrews 3:13
13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.

But many are the stories of God's intervening in the lives of such people, redeeming them from their own sinfulness. Our hardness is not an impossible barrier to God's work of redemption and reconciliation, though He does, generally, respect the freedom He's given us to choose our own course either toward, or away, from Him.

Continued below.

 

[Tenchi]

That "self-interested nature" doesn't lead into sin nature, it IS the sin nature. That's the false "theological spin" I'm pointing finger at, it's not a third option.

We have to be self-interested or we will die. If I don't attend to my need for rest, nourishment, water, protection from the elements, etc., I will quickly expire. So, there is a natural and right interest in myself that is necessary. But because human beings are born spiritually separated from God due to the Fall, they don't benefit from God's control over them in the way a born-again believer may benefit who has the Holy Spirit residing within them. And so, inevitably, they grow inordinate in their self-interest, violating their conscience and the command of God, as a result.

I get you don't accept that this is the case, but, so far, merely denying my view doesn't actually defeat it. And so, I am perfectly able to hold my view as a legitimate third option to the only two you want to assert that there are, which makes your dichotomy of choice false.

There has been countless utopia social experiment where a group of idealistic and naive people settled in the wilderness faraway from the "evil society", look no further from the Israelites in Exodus. How were they faring and how did they end up? Was any of them brought up sinless? Not even Joshua's generation, their sin led them to a humiliating defeat at Ai (Joshua 7). Gee, I wonder why?

I don't understand how this does anything to defeat, or even properly address, the third option I've indicated. I've described a circumstance concerning human sinfulness, drawn from Scripture, that precludes the possibility of a person being brought up sinless, so I don't know why you mention such a person in your remarks above. It seems to me that you're just Strawmanning here...

Again, this is where you've got the causation wrong. It is the sin nature that inevitably led into "God unregulated, self-interested" BEHAVIORS, not the other way around.

You're not understanding what I'm writing. The "behaviors" you've all-capped in the quotation above are the result of God-unregulated self interest; they are not the sin nature itself. To be as clear as I can be: The sin nature is a state in which you and I, and all of humanity, are spiritually separated from God such that our natural and necessary self-interest is not under God's direct control, which inevitably leads to the sinful behaviors of which we become guilty. Sins - pride, wrath, lust, sloth, etc. - are just symptoms, or the result, of this God-unregulated state.

Indeed there're a lot of false dichotomies, but this one is not one of them.

I'm afraid it is. See above.

It's like 1s and 0s in computing, God's either present or absent, you're either born again with indwelling Holy spirit and a new nature - or you're still your carnal-minded self with indwelling evil spirits and the sin nature. There's no third option, as ALL are under sin - not "inclined to sin" or mere sinful behaviors, but already under sin, the sin that Jesus atoned for, Rom. 3:9-18.

This all addresses a circumstance against which I have not argued, nor offered an alternative. Really, this seems like you're shifting the goalposts of the matter in question. I have never suggested that there is a third option to God being either present or absent. I've not proposed that there is an option beside either being born again or not. I've not contended that all of humanity is not under the separating-from-God effect of Adam's sin and thus possessed of a nature that is, from birth, not under His control (i.e. the sin nature). So the quotation above is arguing against nothing that I've actually put forward.

I must leave off writing more for now. I'll try to get back to your posts in a few hours.