Many Scriptural proofs of man’s inherited sin nature

[John Zain]

Ernest, I would suggest one of your problems is that you don't understand this:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways”, says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways,
and My thoughts (higher) than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

This is what I present to people who say,
"God wouldn't be such and such, God wouldn't do such and such, etc."

This is tantamount to judging God, putting Him in a little box, etc.

All we can do is to make the best out of what Scripture says.
And try to follow the Spirit in understanding the whole deal.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest, I would suggest one of your problems is that you don't understand this:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My waysâ€, says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways,
and My thoughts (higher) than your thoughts.†(Isaiah 55:8-9)


This is what I present to people who say,
"God wouldn't be such and such, God wouldn't do such and such, etc."

This is tantamount to judging God, putting Him in a little box, etc.

All we can do is to make the best out of what Scripture says.
And try to follow the Spirit in understanding the whole deal.

This does not prove your point. Anyone can claim the bible teaches "x". And if someone disagrees with "x" just quoting Isa 55 does not prove "x" to be true.

Would you not be judging God if you claim God does or does not such and such?

God has no blame so any theology that puts blame on God should be rejected.



[aka Gomer]

 

[heymikey80]

Adam was not created totally depraved, he chose of his own will to sin. No one is born totally depraved people of their own will choose to sin.

Rom 3:12 "They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

"Gone out of the way" is far different from saying "born out of the way". And "become unprofitable" is far different from saying "born unprofitable".

Well, not quite. "gone out of the way" is essentially a representation of "having gone out of the way", that is, the result of going out of the way. And the grouping, not the individualization, points to the sons of Adam all having taken this path -- having been taken along that path by Adam.

The model of Scripture is the loss of an inheritance of righteousness. That loss is a disowning that occurred in the distant past. Introducing a verse and attempting to shoehorn each piece by piece neglects the statement of Scripture.

"just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men for that all sinned" Rom 5:12 ESV w/ variant

You have not yet rectified the problem of putting the blame on God for the lost.

The problem is a result of libertarian individualist philosophy. It never has been a problem outside libertarian philosophy. So it's not a problem with God, but a problem with the system that unduly restricts God to dealing with individuals.

God can make creations He later judges and ruins. He does so with the universe. It would be special pleading to demand that He not do so in the case of the sons of Adam.

 

[ivdavid]

If God created me an unregenerate depraved person and only God can regenerate me yet He does not, then it is ALL God's fault for me being lost.

Flesh gives birth to flesh - and if sin entered the world through the first man in the flesh, then such sin is in all flesh that this initially corrupted flesh gives birth to. "Flesh" here refers to the human self-nature. The Spirit is God's nature at work in us.

For it to be ALL God's fault then, you'll have to prove that God is the cause of sin entering the world - which we all know He isn't.

Adam was not created totally depraved, he chose of his own will to sin. No one is born totally depraved people of their own will choose to sin.

You're right, Adam was not created totally depraved. He was corrupted by sin and consequently rebelled against God's law. Such rebellion continues to be in our flesh/self-nature. We can be redeemed only if God's nature supersedes the works of our corrupted self-nature - which He does in regenerating us.

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 do you see the correlation between "one man's disobedience" and "many being made sinners" in the above verse? According to you, shouldn't that one man's disobedience have nothing to do with any other person?

How can you blame me for something I had not control over or say so about?

An ideal or a standard of perfection is always independent of the abilities of the people governed by that ideal. The governments of our nations frame road laws based on ideals of safety - they're not quite based on man's abilities. A person born with poor eyesight and hence a threat on the roads will not be permitted to drive on the roads based on the ideals of safety, which is completely independent of such a man's natural abilities. Similarly, if God has set certain ideals to enter His Kingdom, they are indeed independent of man's abilities or rather inabilities. What we must take note of here is that God is not the cause of man's inability - man's abilities are corrupted by sin in the flesh, which entered through one man and has been in the world ever since, passed on in the flesh - where God is not the author of sin.

In Gen 4:7 God shows Cain had a choice to do well or not do well for Cain was not totally depraved where he was only able to not do well.

You seem to have misunderstood what total depravity is here. Cain definitely had a choice to obey God's will or not - as does any man in the flesh - but total depravity describes the condition where sin in the flesh corrupts,deceives and inclines a man in the flesh to always CHOOSE against God's will. Total depravity does not imply the absence of "choice" - it merely describes the inclination of any choice to be always against God's will.

Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I[Paul] that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

In the above verse, what is this "sin" that dwelleth in Paul - which Paul seems to attribute his transgressions to?

Rom 9 in no way teaches that God causes man to be a sinner just so God can then punish him.

How have you derived "God causes man to be a sinner" from what I'd written? I don't believe Romans 9 teaches that either - it teaches that God's sovereignty is indeed righteous given that He has not caused any corruption Himself.

 

[ivdavid]

Interesting to notice that AFTER the fall in the garden... Adam and his wife HEARD THE VOICE of the LORD.. and not only that.. they understood it..

They even had a conversation for crying out loud.. lol

Much AFTER the fall in the garden, Paul heard the voice of the Lord, understood it and had a conversation. Regeneration does come after the fall.

Anyway, not all who do hear God and converse with Him externally are able to actually 'hear' and discern the Spiritual truth He teaches. There were many people who heard Jesus and His disciples preach, they must have understood the language that Jesus preached in - for they conversed and argued with Him- and yet Jesus says, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Those who, by God's grace and mercy, are blessed with ears to hear - will hear.

 

[Eventide]

This is tantamount to judging God, putting Him in a little box, etc.

Wow... And Calvinism isn't putting God in a box...?

That's one of the funniest things I've heard in a while..

 

[Eventide]

Much AFTER the fall in the garden, Paul heard the voice of the Lord, understood it and had a conversation. Regeneration does come after the fall.

Anyway, not all who do hear God and converse with Him externally are able to actually 'hear' and discern the Spiritual truth He teaches. There were many people who heard Jesus and His disciples preach, they must have understood the language that Jesus preached in - for they conversed and argued with Him- and yet Jesus says, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." Those who, by God's grace and mercy, are blessed with ears to hear - will hear.

The rich young ruler understood exactly what the LORD was saying... IMO it's nonsense to think that men can't understand the gospel call... The account in the garden is perfect example of that. There are countless others..

But Of course you got the special irresistible call, right.. Lol

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Well, not quite. "gone out of the way" is essentially a representation of "having gone out of the way", that is, the result of going out of the way. And the grouping, not the individualization, points to the sons of Adam all having taken this path -- having been taken along that path by Adam.

The model of Scripture is the loss of an inheritance of righteousness. That loss is a disowning that occurred in the distant past. Introducing a verse and attempting to shoehorn each piece by piece neglects the statement of Scripture.

"just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men for that all sinned" Rom 5:12 ESV w/ variant

The problem is a result of libertarian individualist philosophy. It never has been a problem outside libertarian philosophy. So it's not a problem with God, but a problem with the system that unduly restricts God to dealing with individuals.

God can make creations He later judges and ruins. He does so with the universe. It would be special pleading to demand that He not do so in the case of the sons of Adam.

If I was born out of the way then I was always out of the way, so out of the way is not a place I can go if I have always been out of the way. Can I go to New York if I have always been in New York...can I go out of the way if I have always been out of the way? No. Same is true if I was born unprofitable then I was always unprofitable it would then not be something I could become.

Much like David wrote "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" Psalms 58:3. He said they go astray not born astray. If I was born astray then I was always astray therefore I could not go astray. Going astray shows one's personal fault in choosing to go astray. If I was born astray then I have no personal choice or fault in the matter for it was forced upon me by God. So one goes astray from God not when they are born but some point after they are born by choosing of their own will in speaking lies.


Certain aspects of Calvinism puts the blame on God for the sins of man and Calvinism has no adequate response for that.

 

[heymikey80]

If I was born out of the way then I was always out of the way, so out of the way is not a place I can go if I have always been out of the way. Can I go to New York if I have always been in New York...can I go out of the way if I have always been out of the way? No. Same is true if I was born unprofitable then I was always unprofitable it would then not be something I could become.

Once more: assuming group statements individuistically characterizes a fallacy.

Perhaps at this point the assertion needs to be returned to -- that we are heirs of a sin nature, and naturally sin. No one I know asserts comprehensive depravity -- that we are as evil as we possibly could be. Sinful people can engage in some righteous actions, some good thoughts, some rightful desires. Unfortunately they're always mixed with some other thoughts that are sinful. Depravity is total -- it is not complete.

"There is no one righteous; not a one" prevents the idea that people are righteous at first and then go astray. That's actually in the context of the verse you're citing. It shouldn't be neglected for the sake of defending one particular view.

Much like David wrote "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" Psalms 58:3. He said they go astray not born astray.

Going astray implies action. Most people can't take action within the womb.

Going astray shows one's personal fault in choosing to go astray.

We agree there.

If I was born astray then I have no personal choice or fault in the matter for it was forced upon me by God.

No, that's not the case. You have every personal choice and fault in the matter if you can select between two options. The fact that a will is inherently evil does not relieve it from judgment.

And the fact that Adam was made upright means that the whole race of Adam has intentionally rejected the grace of God.

Certain aspects of Calvinism puts the blame on God for the sins of man and Calvinism has no adequate response for that.

Oh. I thought we were talking about God's omnipotence. Ultimately Calvinism has no greater problem with this issue than any view that truly asserts God's omnipotence.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Flesh gives birth to flesh - and if sin entered the world through the first man in the flesh, then such sin is in all flesh that this initially corrupted flesh gives birth to. "Flesh" here refers to the human self-nature. The Spirit is God's nature at work in us.

Sin does not give birth to sin "What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge?....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. ", Eze 33.

Sin is not inherited so i was not born a sinner but became a sinner when I sinned. I am not accountable for Adam's or anyone else's sins, I am only accountable for my sins.

For it to be ALL God's fault then, you'll have to prove that God is the cause of sin entering the world - which we all know He isn't.

The issue is that God forms the spirit within man, Zech 12:1. If God formed a depraved spirit within me then that is not my fault. If God formed me where I can only choose to do wrong that is God's fault for I had no choice in the way I was formed. I had no choice in being born depraved, it would be forced upon me. If only God can regenerate me out of this depraved condition that was forced upon me, but He does not, then whose fault is my lost, depraved condition? God's fault. Again, how I was born was not my fault and not being 'regenerated' is not my fault.

You're right, Adam was not created totally depraved. He was corrupted by sin and consequently rebelled against God's law. Such rebellion continues to be in our flesh/self-nature. We can be redeemed only if God's nature supersedes the works of our corrupted self-nature - which He does in regenerating us.

Adam was not created a sinner, he did not become a sinner till he of his own free will chose to sin. Likewise God did not form me a sinner nor was I born a sinner, i did not become a sinner till I choose to sin. 1 Jn 3:4 John defined sin as trangression of the law. It is impossible for the newlyconcieved/newly born to transgress God's law. What law have they trangressed? Lying? Stealing? Murder? Adultery? Therefore people are born innocent, neutral.."(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil," Rom 9:11. So one is not a sinner until he has done sin and one is not righteous until he has done righteousness.

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 do you see the correlation between "one man's disobedience" and "many being made sinners" in the above verse? According to you, shouldn't that one man's disobedience have nothing to do with any other person?

In this verse, "many" refers to the same people. So if many were all born sinners because of Adam, than that same many shall all be made righteous, meaning all would be saved. Do you believe in Universalism? But that is not what Paul is saying.

When Paul says many were made sinners, NOWHERE EVER does Paul say they were made sinners by inheriting Adam's sin. In v12 Paul said "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned."

Note Paul said "for all have sinned" not "all have inherited Adam's sin". So all have sinned for they choose to sin they were not sinners without choice by being forced sinners simply by being born.

An ideal or a standard of perfection is always independent of the abilities of the people governed by that ideal. The governments of our nations frame road laws based on ideals of safety - they're not quite based on man's abilities. A person born with poor eyesight and hence a threat on the roads will not be permitted to drive on the roads based on the ideals of safety, which is completely independent of such a man's natural abilities. Similarly, if God has set certain ideals to enter His Kingdom, they are indeed independent of man's abilities or rather inabilities. What we must take note of here is that God is not the cause of man's inability - man's abilities are corrupted by sin in the flesh, which entered through one man and has been in the world ever since, passed on in the flesh - where God is not the author of sin.

Again, if I was born totally depraved, whose fault is that? I had no choice in how I was born. If I am not "regenerated" from this depravity, whose fault is that, I would have no choice or control in this either.

You seem to have misunderstood what total depravity is here. Cain definitely had a choice to obey God's will or not - as does any man in the flesh - but total depravity describes the condition where sin in the flesh corrupts,deceives and inclines a man in the flesh to always CHOOSE against God's will. Total depravity does not imply the absence of "choice" - it merely describes the inclination of any choice to be always against God's will.

if total depravity were true, then Cain would have only been able to choose to not do well but God shows he could choose to do well. Now I have dealt with some Calvinists that back away from the word 'total' in total depravity and they claim that man can choose to do some good things but not when it comes to God and salvation. Of course this is a totally bogus, weak argument that is made just to try and get around problems they encounter.

Question; if total depravity were true, then Pharoah would have naturally chosen to disobey God. So why would God have to harden Pharoah's heart to get him to not let the people go when Pharoah was already born inclined to disobey God and would have not let the people even without God hardening his heart?

Did God force Pharaoh to disobey just so God could punish him? If so, then is not God to blame for the sin He forced Pharoah to commit?

Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I[Paul] that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

In the above verse, what is this "sin" that dwelleth in Paul - which Paul seems to attribute his transgressions to?



How have you derived "God causes man to be a sinner" from what I'd written? I don't believe Romans 9 teaches that either - it teaches that God's sovereignty is indeed righteous given that He has not caused any corruption Himself.

Paul NEVER said he was born with sin dwelling in him. In fact Paul said "For without the law sin [was] dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."


Paul said without law sin is dead, it has no effect, but Paul said he was once without law. That means at one point in his life sin was dead to him, it had no power over him. That would have been when Paul was a child and not accountable to God's law. But as he intellectually mature, he learned right from wrong, Isa 7:15,16, became accountable to God's law THEN sin sprang up in him. Sin was not in him at birth for he was without law but sin was something that sprang up in him later in his life.

 

[heymikey80]

were made sinners by inheriting Adam's sin. In v12 Paul said "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned."

Note Paul said "for all have sinned" not "all have inherited Adam's sin". So all have sinned for they choose to sin they were not sinners without choice by being forced sinners simply by being born.

I appreciate that you've quoted it very particularly. Y'can take this verse two different ways -- either "for that" is the reason why death passed to all men, or that all sinned because of the one man. Either view is plausible.

But 5:18 has a much more definite statement: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" Either judgment came upon everyone by the offense of the one man, or it didn't. It did. And so there is such a sin.

 

[John Zain]

Certain aspects of Calvinism puts the blame on God for the sins of man
and Calvinism has no adequate response for that.

I've spent considerable time trying to explain to people ...
WHY God allowed (i.e. did not prevent) His chosen people to suffer the Holocaust.

He did not prevent it because he warned that STUFF like that ...
would come upon them and their descendants, it they weren't good little boys and gals.

But, you couldn't care less about that ... All people like you want to do is complain about God.

It's all cause and effect ...
Man causes the screw-ups, and God effects the promised results.
Neat, huh? Glad you enjoy it.

 

[Eventide]

Infant baptism...

Ernest,

I have a simple question...

If your argument is that we are not born with sin, then why does the RCC baptize infants ?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Once more: assuming group statements individuistically characterizes a fallacy.

Perhaps at this point the assertion needs to be returned to -- that we are heirs of a sin nature, and naturally sin. No one I know asserts comprehensive depravity -- that we are as evil as we possibly could be. Sinful people can engage in some righteous actions, some good thoughts, some rightful desires. Unfortunately they're always mixed with some other thoughts that are sinful. Depravity is total -- it is not complete.

"There is no one righteous; not a one" prevents the idea that people are righteous at first and then go astray. That's actually in the context of the verse you're citing. It shouldn't be neglected for the sake of defending one particular view.

Individuals make up groups.

Abel was righteous. Heb 11:4. John said sin is transgression of the law. Do the unborn/newly born trangress by lying, stealing, murdering? They are not able to transgress. Paul said in Rom 9 of Jacob and Esau that neither child being yet born had done NO WORKS good or evil. So children are conceived/born innocent/neutral and are not sinners till they are accountable to God's word and sin. Likewise they are righteous until they are able to do righteousness. It therefore is not possible for one to be a sinner before they have even sinned.

Going astray implies action. Most people can't take action within the womb.

Going astray implies a choice on part of the person therefore people are sinners for they have chosen of their own will to go astray they are not passively born sinners against their will.

We agree there.

No, that's not the case. You have every personal choice and fault in the matter if you can select between two options. The fact that a will is inherently evil does not relieve it from judgment.

I had no choice in they way I was born, so if I was born with an evi will that was forced upon me. So you say I will be judged (and condemned) for something that was completely out of my control, something i had no choice in. God formed the spirit within me, Zech 12:1, that means if I have a depraved will God made me that way now He will punish me for the way He formed me? If so, we are not dealing with a loving, merciful, graceful, just God.

And the fact that Adam was made upright means that the whole race of Adam has intentionally rejected the grace of God.

Oh. I thought we were talking about God's omnipotence. Ultimately Calvinism has no greater problem with this issue than any view that truly asserts God's omnipotence.

No verse say man is born rejecting God's grace. Rejecting grace is a choice made by man's free will not something forced upon one at birth.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I appreciate that you've quoted it very particularly. Y'can take this verse two different ways -- either "for that" is the reason why death passed to all men, or that all sinned because of the one man. Either view is plausible.

But 5:18 has a much more definite statement: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation" Either judgment came upon everyone by the offense of the one man, or it didn't. It did. And so there is such a sin.

For all have sinned shows personal choice, personal accountability and responsibilty in sinning not something forced upon one at birth unconditionally against their will.

Verse 18 finishes by saying "even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life."

So if 'all men' are born sinners because of Adam, then these same 'all men' will all be saved. You have this verse teaching Universalism.

What Paul is showing in v18 is that all men are on the receiving end of both condmenation and Christ's free gift of grace, cf Tts 2:11. But NOWHERE does Paul say men are condenmend unconditonally (by being born sinners) or receive the free gift of grace unconditonally. Rom 5:1 one has to meet the condition of having faith to be justified and receive the gift of grace. Verse 12 one chooses of his own will to sin and is therefore condemned. he is not forced unconditionally to be born a sinner without ever having sinned.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I've spent considerable time trying to explain to people ...
WHY God allowed (i.e. did not prevent) His chosen people to suffer the Holocaust.

He did not prevent it because he warned that STUFF like that ...
would come upon them and their descendants, it they weren't good little boys and gals.

But, you couldn't care less about that ... All people like you want to do is complain about God.

It's all cause and effect ...
Man causes the screw-ups, and God effects the promised results.
Neat, huh? Glad you enjoy it.

God long ago rejected the Jews as His chosen people and made Christians His chosen people, Rom 11.

Nowhere have I "complained about God". I am complaining about Calvinism and the way it attacks the character of God.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Re: Infant baptism...

Ernest,

I have a simple question...

If your argument is that we are not born with sin, then why does the RCC baptize infants ?

I would assume they think infants are born with original sin (original sin came from man, Augustine, and not the bible) and so they think infants need to be baptized to have this original sin remitted.

Yet infants are not born with any sin therefore have no need to be baptized to remit sins which they do not have. Furthermore in Mk 16:16 Jesus made beleif a prerequsite to baptism and infants do not have the intellectual ability to have biblcal faith....."But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.", Heb 11:6. Infants are not able to have a biblical faith, they are not able to come to God or diligently seek God. Seeking God and being baptized are choices you have to make yourself by faith, it is not something that can be forced upon you by another while you remain faithless.

 

[Eventide]

Re: Infant baptism...

I would assume they think infants are born with original sin (original sin came from man, Augustine, and not the bible) and so they think infants need to be baptized to have this original sin remitted.

Yet infants are not born with any sin therefore have no need to be baptized to remit sins which they do not have. Furthermore in Mk 16:16 Jesus made beleif a prerequsite to baptism and infants do not have the intellectual ability to have biblcal faith....."But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.", Heb 11:6. Infants are not able to have a biblical faith, they are not able to come to God or diligently seek God. Seeking God and being baptized are choices you have to make yourself by faith, it is not something that can forced upon you by another while you remain faithless.

Well, I completely agree. A hearty AMEN from me Sir !

I would add the miraculous verses which speak of Christ holding children in His loving arms.. saying let the children come to Me.

 

[Eventide]

To me it's as if children are a living and powerful picture of Adam before the fall.. but I wouldn't be dogmatic about it..

Certainly amazing to say the least..

 

[Eventide]

DECEPTION... and DISOBEDIENCE...

Another interesting aspect to this topic might be the two primary things which seemed to take place in the garden..

Deception, and Disobedience..

Paul teaches that the woman was deceived, but that the man was NOT deceived.. there's a significant difference between sinning because of deception versus sinning out of disobedience.

We can see both of these things as we grow.. Deception seems to be more prevailing when younger, and as we get older the problem seems to be more with disobedience.. knowing right from wrong and doing it anyway..

Just another way which these things might be applied in a living and powerful way, every moment of every day it seems.