Many Scriptural proofs of man’s inherited sin nature

[beforHim]

I must say that Ernest T. Bass gives many a good argument. He explains clearly and succinctly how God, not us, would be responsible for us sinning if indeed God formed us sinful, or made mankind in such a way as to automatically come out of the womb sinful- before ever sinning (does that even make sense? I'm sinful before I sin?).
== == ==

Perhaps at this point the assertion needs to be returned to -- that we are heirs of a sin nature, and naturally sin.

This seems, to me, to present some problems. Maybe we could sift through all this, and then I'll see more clearly. Either:
a) Sin sends us to hell/gains God's wrath, right? So God makes us heirs of what God hates.
b) Sin doesn't send us to hell/gain His wrath, rather it is "chosen" sin that does this. Thus babies who are sinful but have not "chosen" sin are OK. But wait: is choosing an inherent part of sin? Is there sin which one does not choose?

Thus, if we are heirs to sin- if this is the way God created the universe- then either a)we are heirs to wrath (which I think could be taken from a verse in Eph, right? "objects of His wrath"), or b)sin before choosing it, and sin after being able to choose it, must be two different things.


Just pointing out some implications, to maybe help enlighten the discussion.

 

[Digger]

Original Sin is a false doctrine introduced into Christian orthodoxy through Augustine the Bishop of Hippo in the 4th century.

It is rooted in gnostic dualism which taught that the flesh was evil but that the could be pure apart from the deeds of the body.

It is a dangerous doctrine that redefines the entire Gospel message because it redefines the nature of man.

Under Original Sin sinners become victims and their actual sin is necessitated by the state in which they were born.

A belief in inborn sin negates a true godly sorrow because the individual cannot feel truly convicted of their sin as at some point in their mind they blame it on their birth and not the choices they made.

Original Sin also deems man unable to repent and forsake his sin because one cannot forsake a nature. Thus the Gospel caters to this new understanding by being presented as confess, trust and receive.

Thus new converts come into the kingdom never having crucified the flesh in repentance and an attempt at reforming the carnal man by stages occurs. Most people in this state simply wait on God to change their nature instead of striving to enter in at the strait gate and narrow way. There is no deny self, pick up your cross and follow Jesus.

A very dangerous doctrine indeed. Satan's masterpiece in fact.

 

[Elijah674]

Some of you guy's postings are saying that God created [[anything]] that was not perfect? Adam was said to be Very Good, Lucifer was said to be perfecly created. And what on earth does Rom. 8:1's NO CONDEMNATION mean if not PERFECT?? [NO CONDEMATION, NONE!] (spiritually of course)

Perhaps the next thing we will be hearing is that Christ Himself was flawed. Some one needs to start up a Heb. 5 baby 'thread' section. Whatever? But the END OF TIME has just about run your course 'me' thinks.

--Elijah

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

A belief in inborn sin negates a true godly sorrow because the individual cannot feel truly convicted of their sin as at some point in their mind they blame it on their birth and not the choices they made.

Such as some might claim "I was born a homosexual". If that was the case, then whose fault is their homosexuality? Did God form them that way when He made them thereby tempting man to sin, James 1:13?

 

[heymikey80]

Individuals make up groups.

But treatment of groups is not the same as treatment of individuals.

Abel was righteous. Heb 11:4.

Christians are righteous. Romans 5. To believe that someone is righteous by not trusting in the Son of God would be a pretty serious problem for Christian theology.

John said sin is transgression of the law.

Paul said anything not of faith is sin.

Do the unborn/newly born trangress by lying, stealing, murdering? They are not able to transgress.

Both have wills and motivations that are not perfectly ordered. They want what they should not. Raising a child generally exposes adults to this fact fairly readily.

Action is not desire. Desire is desire.

Paul said in Rom 9 of Jacob and Esau that neither child being yet born had done NO WORKS good or evil.

Right. No justification by works here; and condemnation by will.

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.

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" Rom 10:9 . The heart is righteous or it is not. Actions result from the heart, but they do not make the heart righteous or not; that already exists. "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." Mk 7:6

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.

It implies a choice between two feasible options: either of which a human is in a position to embrace, but for the corruption of his will. The choices reveal the evil existing throughout the human -- all the way to the heart.

Nobody's asserted people are passive sinners. They're active sinners: that's what a will is, it's desires for evil, and those desires are active and produce an inclination toward evil.

I had no choice in they way I was born, so if I was born with an evi will that was forced upon me.

Actually, it's entirely a part of your existence. So if you wish to justify your extinction, that's fine, but it's not forced upon you: it is you.

So you say I will be judged (and condemned) for something that was completely out of my control, something i had no choice in.

So you have a choice to go against your choices, to be rewarded for choices you did not make? It's not reasonable to assert you had no choice: you had both options present and available to you. You've chosen, from your own will.

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.

That problem exists regardless of the version of omnipotence you present. If we had libertarian will, God would be responsible because He gave us libertarian will, full well knowing we would be condemned for it. It's no different. God gave the will to us; God knew; God intended it; so God is responsible.

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.

Many verses say that no one is good; that no one is righteous; that everyone has gone astray (and that doesn't exclude newborns, in fact the Psalm does indeed exclude them). A dark heart is not light.

 

[reba]

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

No less Scripture than Mark 16:16

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

But treatment of groups is not the same as treatment of individuals.

I do not know where you are going with this argument but it does not change waht Paul said in Rom 3, he never said people are born astray or born unprofitable.

Christians are righteous. Romans 5. To believe that someone is righteous by not trusting in the Son of God would be a pretty serious problem for Christian theology.

You quoted a verse that said no one, none are righteous. This verse is suppose to be "proof text" for Calvinism that all are totally depraved, but it's not.

Paul said anything not of faith is sin.

Both have wills and motivations that are not perfectly ordered. They want what they should not. Raising a child generally exposes adults to this fact fairly readily.



Action is not desire. Desire is desire.

So exactly what trangression are you accusing a newly conceived person of committing?

Right. No justification by works here; and condemnation by will.

Paul said the children not being born had done no works good or evil. Above you say the newly concieved have committed some trangression when Paul said they have not done any evil work.

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" Rom 10:9 . The heart is righteous or it is not. Actions result from the heart, but they do not make the heart righteous or not; that already exists. "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." Mk 7:6

You once again go against what Paul said, he said they had done no good or evil. Therefore the newly concieved cannot be righteous or evil. Your trying to accuse the newly concieved of doing something they have not done.

It implies a choice between two feasible options: either of which a human is in a position to embrace, but for the corruption of his will. The choices reveal the evil existing throughout the human -- all the way to the heart.

Nobody's asserted people are passive sinners. They're active sinners: that's what a will is, it's desires for evil, and those desires are active and produce an inclination toward evil.

The whole idea of orginal sin means people are passively born sinners. If I was born a sinner that was not an active choice I made for myself but something passively forced upon me. The newly concieved are not active sinners, you have not show what transgression they have committed. From Rom 7: 7,8 Paul said where there is no law sin is dead then he said he was once without the law meaning when he was an infant he was WITHOUT LAW so there would be NO TRANGRESSION against law he could commit being WITHOUT LAW. If this country was WITHOUT civil laws then there is no trangression you could commit.

Actually, it's entirely a part of your existence. So if you wish to justify your extinction, that's fine, but it's not forced upon you: it is you.

I had no choice in how I was born, I did not choose for myself to be born with sin so it would be forced upon me no matter how much you deny that.
If it was not forced upon me, and I did not choose it,then how did i end up with it?

So you have a choice to go against your choices, to be rewarded for choices you did not make? It's not reasonable to assert you had no choice: you had both options present and available to you. You've chosen, from your own will.

This is getting more incredible as i go along. So now you say before i was conceived, before I even existed I had a choice in how I would be born. How could I make choices before I was conceived, how could I make choices when I had no thought processes at all?????

That problem exists regardless of the version of omnipotence you present. If we had libertarian will, God would be responsible because He gave us libertarian will, full well knowing we would be condemned for it. It's no different. God gave the will to us; God knew; God intended it; so God is responsible.

God is in no way responsible if man abuses the gift of free will He gave to man.

Really, how is God responsible for man's abuses? Where does the bible say God intended for man to abuse his free will?

If you worked for a car manufacturer making cars and someone bought one of the cars you worked on, went out and drank heavily, had a wreck and killed someone, you are responsible for their abuse of alcohol and subsequent wreck? even though you knew people would drink and drive, you still made cars so that makes you responsible? Above you say "God intended it" so do you intend people to drink and drive the cars you made?

Many verses say that no one is good; that no one is righteous; that everyone has gone astray (and that doesn't exclude newborns, in fact the Psalm does indeed exclude them). A dark heart is not light.

Above you said Christians are righteous. So is no one righteous or are some righteous? No where does the bible say new borns are born astray. Psa 58:3 "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." Go astray is not the same as born astray. How do new borns speak lies when they cannot talk or understand a language?

“All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way”, Isa. 53:6.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/793-does-psalm-58-teach-original-sin

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

No less Scripture than Mark 16:16

It's highly figurative language, how can they speak lies when they cannot talk or understand any language? Again, it says go astray not born astray. Go astray shows personal choice and responsibilty born astray shows no responsibilty.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/793-does-psalm-58-teach-original-sin

 

[Elijah674]

God said in Gen. 3...
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, [[God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die]]. (and satan said what?)

From that time on all mortal beings would have eternally died in time. Bar NO One!
(infant's, children, grown/ups or whatever?) God does not Lie. (Mal. 3:6-Heb. 13:8)

The only way back is His giving us the Conditional PLAN for escape. And then it is still up to us to Obey that CONDITIONAL PLAN, or we will still all be goner's. [ALL OF HUMANITY]. (and eternally to boot! Mal. 4:1-4)

And yes, from Adam on, NO ONE would have lived past this life. Death started at the point of Eve & Adam sin. For not only mankind, but for all of earths creatures.
All started dieing. It took the TREE OF LIFE to keep mankind conditionally immortal!
Gen. 3:22
[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
[23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


'i' for one here, find it beyond reasoning how that most of these Rev. 17:1-5 ones for all of these many years while calling their selves reformers, still teach that satan told the truth while Inspiration lied. (bottom/line)

And what are we having here in?.. 'Re: Many Scriptural proofs of man's inherited sin nature', with Christian's not being able to agree with Rom. 8:14 of being 'LED' of the Holy Spirit???

--Elijah

 

[beforHim]

Both have wills and motivations that are not perfectly ordered. They want what they should not. Raising a child generally exposes adults to this fact fairly readily.

Action is not desire. Desire is desire.



It implies a choice between two feasible options: either of which a human is in a position to embrace, but for the corruption of his will. The choices reveal the evil existing throughout the human -- all the way to the heart.



So you have a choice to go against your choices, to be rewarded for choices you did not make? It's not reasonable to assert you had no choice: you had both options present and available to you. You've chosen, from your own will.

Wait. You're saying that a newborn baby- someone with the capacity to reason about as well as a severely retarded adult- willfully commits sin? You'd never say that someone with for example, advance alzheimers "commits sin", would you?

The heart is righteous or it is not.

So you're saying there's no such a thing as neutral? Seems to em that the Bible assumes this, at least that God and Isaiah and king Ahaz (is it Ahaz?) did. "Before the child knows good or evil. . ." in Isaiah 7.

 

[beforHim]

God said in Gen. 3...
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, [[God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die]]. (and satan said what?)

From that time on all mortal beings would have eternally died in time. Bar NO One!
(infant's, children, grown/ups or whatever?) God does not Lie. (Mal. 3:6-Heb. 13:8)

The only way back is His giving us the Conditional PLAN for escape. And then it is still up to us to Obey that CONDITIONAL PLAN, or we will still all be goner's. [ALL OF HUMANITY]. (and eternally to boot! Mal. 4:1-4)

And yes, from Adam on, NO ONE would have lived past this life. Death started at the point of Eve & Adam sin. For not only mankind, but for all of earths creatures.
All started dieing. It took the TREE OF LIFE to keep mankind conditionally immortal!
Gen. 3:22
[22] And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
[23] Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
[24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


'i' for one here, find it beyond reasoning how that most of these Rev. 17:1-5 ones for all of these many years while calling their selves reformers, still teach that satan told the truth while Inspiration lied. (bottom/line)

And what are we having here in?.. 'Re: Many Scriptural proofs of man's inherited sin nature', with Christian's not being able to agree with Rom. 8:14 of being 'LED' of the Holy Spirit???

--Elijah

This is a VERY confusing, disjointed post. I think you're saying that since all people die, total depravity/original sin is thus proven.

Isn't the case not that total depravity means we'll all die, but that it means we'll all go to Hell? All people dieing doesn't teach total depravity/original sin. We're born destined to die because Adam screwed up. Total Depravity/original sin, though, teaches we're all destined to hell because of His sin.

But I might be reading your post wrong. Forgive me if I am.

 

[Elijah674]

This is a VERY confusing, disjointed post. I think you're saying that since all people die, total depravity/original sin is thus proven.

Isn't the case not that total depravity means we'll all die, but that it means we'll all go to Hell? All people dieing doesn't teach total depravity/original sin. We're born destined to die because Adam screwed up. Total Depravity/original sin, though, teaches we're all destined to hell because of His sin.

But I might be reading your post wrong. Forgive me if I am.

Nothing personal meant by me here! I don't know what stage of growth any of the postors are in? But my posting here is a dandy! Most people who even profess to be Christians are the ones who cannot read to well. The message of the post is CLEAR even if the Rev. 17:1-5 ones have a whole 'sinking' raft full of so called educated ones, such as the ones of Jer. 17:5 who agree on nothing much! (such as man's inherited sin nature)

And why?? Inspiration tells us in 2 Peter 3...

[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do [[also the other scriptures]], unto their own destruction.

All one needs is to BELIEVE GOD'S WORD of Gen. 3:3!
Again, ALL MANKIND WOULD BE A DONE DEAL without the CONDITIONAL PLAN of Salvation being given! From Adam on!! That is a clearly stated FACT IN GODS OWN WORDS!!

(women's eggs + man's sperms would be D-E-A-D, ETERNALLY GONE!!)

And because folks don't believe God, but do believe satan, (bottom/line of Gen. 3:4) now they got to come back saying that the 'post' is distorted. Whatever?:robot See Eccl. 3:15 + Matt. 10:25 for some of these ones?

--Elijah

PS: What you are commenting on is after the FACT that the PLAN was put into effect.

 

[beforHim]

Nothing personal meant by me here!

Well thank you for that.

I don't know what stage of growth any of the postors are in? But my posting here is a dandy! Most people who even profess to be Christians are the ones who cannot read to well. The message of the post is CLEAR even if the Rev. 17:1-5 ones have a whole 'sinking' raft full of so called educated ones, such as the ones of Jer. 17:5 who agree on nothing much! (such as man's inherited sin nature)

And why?? Inspiration tells us in 2 Peter 3...

[15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do [[also the other scriptures]], unto their own destruction.

All one needs is to BELIEVE GOD'S WORD of Gen. 3:3!
Again, ALL MANKIND WOULD BE A DONE DEAL without the CONDITIONAL PLAN of Salvation being given! From Adam on!! That is a clearly stated FACT IN GODS OWN WORDS!!

(women's eggs + man's sperms would be D-E-A-D, ETERNALLY GONE!!)

And because folks don't believe God, but do believe satan, (bottom/line of Gen. 3:4) now they got to come back saying that the 'post' is distorted. Whatever?:robot See Eccl. 3:15 + Matt. 10:25 for some of these ones?

--Elijah

PS: What you are commenting on is after the FACT that the PLAN was put into effect.

I still don't get what you're saying (nothing personal by me either, promise). But let me see if I get this right:

Your previous post seemed to say that sin caused physical death, and that physical death is the problem. But THIS post seems to say you're speaking of eternal death, aka Hell, separation from God. If this is so, then cool.

Hope I'm reading you right now. :

 

[ivdavid]

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.

Of course, you are accountable only for your sins. Kindly differentiate between the usage of sin(1) [Rom 7:11,17] and sin(2) [1John 3:4]. Sin(1) carries the meaning of a "nature of rebellion" and Sin(2) carries the meaning of an act that transgresses the law of God. When I say man is born in Sin(1), I still in the same breath can say that man is condemned only for his Sins(2). The correlation here is that Sin(2) is an expression of Sin(1).

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?

See how apt your reference to this passage is - when I spoke of inherited sin(1), you immediately quoted this. This verse is meant to counter the erroneous inference that sin(2) is inherited or that guilt is inherited. This is the process of "rightly dividing the word of truth". Each man is rendered according to his own deeds - and not the deeds of any other man - and yet I could simultaneously hold that man indeed is born with sin(1) in the flesh. How have you understood Psalms 51:5 ?

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.

The spirit is not depraved. The flesh is. And even so, God didn't create the flesh depraved - He created it without corruption. The flesh was corrupted by sin(1) and must pass away. All flesh must die - there is no redeeming the flesh. But those who have the Spirit of God are no longer in the flesh - they are in the spirit. And so they die in the flesh - in order to live in the spirit. While sin is condemned in the flesh through Jesus Christ's sacrifice, we in the spirit are raised by God's Spirit just as Jesus was raised to life.

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.

I did ask this before - I guess you missed it. Do you believe it is a theoretical possibility for you to have been in the Garden of Eden and NOT have chosen to transgress God's law? Do you see Adam as just another individual who perhaps was weaker than another stronger-willed man or do you see Adam as the representative of all mankind where if he in such circumstances sinned, so would any other man in like circumstances?

So one is not a sinner until he has done sin and one is not righteous until he has done righteousness.

You are referring to sin(2) here - a person is condemned for his acts of transgressing the law - sin(2), yes. But tell me where a man is who is righteous apart from Christ - does not such a possibility frustrate the grace of God? Has not every man transgressed the law ie sinned(2) continuously until He is in Christ?

 

[ivdavid]

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.

I guess you missed my question and have responded with your own questions - which I shall answer below. I only asked what the correlation was between "one man's disobedience" and "many being made sinners"? According to you, one man's disobedience must not have any influence on anyone else - and yet they are strung together in the same clause where the "one man's disobedience" is cited as the preceding cause of "many being made sinners". How do you see this verse here?

As to your questions, how do you suppose "many" to be referring to the same group of people here? By that interpretation, I should be reading Rom 5:15 to imply that the "many being dead" are the same as the "many receiving the gift of grace" - which I hope you can see makes no sense. So no, I don't believe in universalism.

When Paul says many were made sinners, NOWHERE EVER does Paul say they were made sinners by inheriting Adam's sin.

They were deemed sinners when they sinned(2), yes - but must not corruption precede the transgression as in the garden of eden? That corruption is explained by sin(1) in the flesh.

Again, if I was born totally depraved, whose fault is that?

Implicit in your question is the underlying assumption that one cannot be held accountable for transgressing something he is incapable of refraining from. As I illustrated before, ideals are not dependent on the abilities of man. I don't believe it's unrighteous for a holy and perfect God to expect all others to be like Him even though none can be like Him except Himself. Therein, His nature is formed in us, mortifying the deeds of the corruptible and corrupt self-nature that we died to.

The necessary conclusion of such a belief system is that God did create some vessels of dishonour and wrath, fitted to destruction. And you seem to want to counter that. But how can you evade such a conclusion in your own belief system? Even if the omnipotent omniscient God chose to permit people your understanding of freewill - did not God know from before the foundation of the world that some will reject Him of their own "freewill"? Then why create these people whom God foreknows will reject Him - why not create only those who will choose to believe into Him?

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.

Obviously he COULD choose to do well, since it was another option available to him - and the one, God exhorted of him. But what is man in the flesh inclined to choose - always the option that is against the will of God.

 

[ivdavid]

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.

I hold no such claims.

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?

Total depravity refers to every act of man in the flesh being against God's will. Given this, the Pharoah would still have sinned in his act of setting the Israelites free, if he had so chosen. Of course, you must not misconstrue God's will to only be limited to end results - He wills the entire path that each man must travel in accordance with His nature. So, just as the pharisees were deemed hypocrites even in their giving alms, the pharoah would be likewise found with an intent that transgresses God's law even if he had set the Israelites free [kindly differentiate between a good(beneficial) act being done to the recipient and a good(moral) act being done by the doer.]

So, God set the stage for Pharoah to be inclined not to set the Israelites free - He did not cause him to sin. Pharoah was hardened against freeing the Israelites - He wasn't hardened to sin, which he could and would do by himself. God orchestrated the circumstances without refraining evil(not causing it though) - quite similar to 1Kings 22.

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?

No, pharoah's disobedience wasn't caused by God - the manner of disobedience was influenced. Anyway, how have you interpreted this and what are your answers to these same questions that you've raised?

Paul said without law sin is dead, it has no effect, but Paul said he was once without law.

Given that sin(1) refers to a "nature of rebellion", it does need a law to rebel against. So, without the law, the "nature of rebellion" is without expression and hence dead in its effect. This does not mean it wasn't present in the flesh - just because there was no law does not conclude sin wasn't there. We see likewise in Rom 5:13.

 

[Elijah674]

[/B]Well thank you for that.



I still don't get what you're saying (nothing personal by me either, promise). But let me see if I get this right:

Your previous post seemed to say that sin caused physical death, and that physical death is the problem. But THIS post seems to say you're speaking of eternal death, aka Hell, separation from God. If this is so, then cool.

Hope I'm reading you right now. :

What 'i' am QUOTING is the Inspiration of God!! Can you BELIEVE that ONLY THE GODHEAD are Immortal??????

Which is it that you believe in this verse?
Gen. 3 was told to a perfectly Created (non/immortal Adam + Eve)
pair before sin. (it does not matter where dis/obedience was located at! James 2:10)

Gen. 3
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, [God hath said], Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.

[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Hey, 'i' lovingly suggest that you forget all of the rest of God's WORD until you can BELIEVE HIM! After all, neither Adam nor Eve were needing to be given a choice to be Born Again until after they had not lost the Garment of Christ Rightousness.

The folks of today remind me of my Jewish Bible. (old Testiment's two volum's going from back to front!) They want to claim the after facts (Promises of God) before HIS CONDITIONS are met!:crazy

So, once again, without God giving the Eternally Lost pair, a PLAN THAT HE HAD NOT PUT IN EFFECT YET, they, would in time CEASE TO EXIST! Like the ones of Obad. 1:16 who void out the opportunity!

Obad. 1
[16] '.... and they 'shall be' [[as though they had not been.]]

---Elijah

 

[beforHim]

What 'i' am QUOTING is the Inspiration of God!! Can you BELIEVE that ONLY THE GODHEAD are Immortal??????

Which is it that you believe in this verse?
Gen. 3 was told to a perfectly Created (non/immortal Adam + Eve)
pair before sin. (it does not matter where dis/obedience was located at! James 2:10)

Gen. 3
[3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, [God hath said], Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it,lest ye die.

[4] And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Hey, 'i' lovingly suggest that you forget all of the rest of God's WORD until you can BELIEVE HIM! After all, neither Adam nor Eve were needing to be given a choice to be Born Again until after they had not lost the Garment of Christ Rightousness.

The folks of today remind me of my Jewish Bible. (old Testiment's two volum's going from back to front!) They want to claim the after facts (Promises of God) before HIS CONDITIONS are met!:crazy

So, once again, without God giving the Eternally Lost pair, a PLAN THAT HE HAD NOT PUT IN EFFECT YET, they, would in time CEASE TO EXIST! Like the ones of Obad. 1:16 who void out the opportunity!

Obad. 1
[16] '.... and they 'shall be' [[as though they had not been.]]

---Elijah

I truly see you as a brother in Christ, but I'm sorry I just can't understand what your saying (your posts seem so grammatically flawed, thus the line of argumentation isn't cogent). So as you said nothing personal, but I guess here we're just gonna not be able to discuss this anymore. I mean, we're human and therefore not perfect, right?

 

[beforHim]

Of course, you are accountable only for your sins. Kindly differentiate between the usage of sin(1) [Rom 7:11,17] and sin(2) [1John 3:4]. Sin(1) carries the meaning of a "nature of rebellion" and Sin(2) carries the meaning of an act that transgresses the law of God. When I say man is born in Sin(1), I still in the same breath can say that man is condemned only for his Sins(2). The correlation here is that Sin(2) is an expression of Sin(1).

I admit I have not read the rest of your post (it's late, I need to get to bed), so forgive me if you answered this already:

Are you then saying that someone who has never committed sin(2) has not the effects that original sin supposedly has (ie, we are condemned by virtue of God creating our souls/letting us be conceived)?


Again, sorry if you already answered this.:

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

I hold no such claims.


Total depravity refers to every act of man in the flesh being against God's will. Given this, the Pharoah would still have sinned in his act of setting the Israelites free, if he had so chosen. Of course, you must not misconstrue God's will to only be limited to end results - He wills the entire path that each man must travel in accordance with His nature. So, just as the pharisees were deemed hypocrites even in their giving alms, the pharoah would be likewise found with an intent that transgresses God's law even if he had set the Israelites free [kindly differentiate between a good(beneficial) act being done to the recipient and a good(moral) act being done by the doer.]

So, God set the stage for Pharoah to be inclined not to set the Israelites free - He did not cause him to sin. Pharoah was hardened against freeing the Israelites - He wasn't hardened to sin, which he could and would do by himself. God orchestrated the circumstances without refraining evil(not causing it though) - quite similar to 1Kings 22.


No, pharoah's disobedience wasn't caused by God - the manner of disobedience was influenced. Anyway, how have you interpreted this and what are your answers to these same questions that you've raised?


Given that sin(1) refers to a "nature of rebellion", it does need a law to rebel against. So, without the law, the "nature of rebellion" is without expression and hence dead in its effect. This does not mean it wasn't present in the flesh - just because there was no law does not conclude sin wasn't there. We see likewise in Rom 5:13.

If you have no problem with the word total in total depravity, then Cain would have only been able to choose to not do well. God would have been mistaken in giving Cain the option of doing well or telling Cain to 'rule over him (sin)' when that would have been impossible for Cain to do.

Of Pharoah you say he "would still have sinned in his act of setting the Israelites free, if he had so chosen."

If he had let the people go, that would have been obedience to God, something that is not possible for the totally depraved. As for as what Pharaoh would have chosen, totally depraved people have no choice, they can only do what is against God.

You posted "God set the stage for Pharoah to be inclined..." Are you saying God caused Pharaoh's inclination?

Moses simply told Pharaoh to let the people go giving Pharaoh the option to obey and let them go or disobey and not let them go. Since he was totally depraved, he never had an option, he could only disobey.

My point in this was that some Calvinists (I don't know if your Calvinistic or not) claim God hardened Pharaoh's heart directly against his will causing Pharaoh to disobey. If this was the case, then God need not do it for Pharaoh would have chosen to dsobey on his own with no help from God. This is why I need to know what you mean by "God set the stage for Pharoah to be inclined..." . Did God cause Pharaoh to be inclined to not let the people go?