“For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him” (Colossians 1:16).
Paul’s affirmation is abundantly clear. All things were created by him and for him. The “all things” in this passage must include all sources of evil including sinful angels (Satan) and sinful men. The difficulty lies in the words “for him”. Can we really affirm that Satan was created by Christ, FOR Christ? If God ordains everything which comes to pass, then has he ordained the very sin that angels and men commit? Is God the author of Evil? How do we maintain a doctrine affirming the sovereignty of God and at the same time absolve God of the responsibility for the sin and evil in the world?
Unfortunately, many are quick to attempt to absolve God by claiming that evil comes from our free choices and therefore God does not ordain evil. This position is unsatisfying because it places the so-called free choices of men and angels outside the sphere of the Sovereign will of God. In other words, God can control everything else but he can’t control my free-will choices. In effect, my choices–my will–trumps the will of God. This is contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture and is therefore unacceptable.
So is God the author of evil or not? He is NOT the author of evil in the sense that he is the chargeable cause of sin for the following reasons:
1. The testimony of scripture is that “God is light, in him is no darkness at all.”
2. God has decreed all things to come to pass according to the nature of “secondary causes”. Simply put, the moral quality of an act flows from the agent of the particular act. For example, when I make a conscious choice to commit an evil act, I am doing exactly what I WANT to do. I WANT to rebel against God. I WANT to hurt my fellow man. I am finite, and I only see the here and now. My choice to do evil is based on my desire to be independent of the restraints of the lawgiver and so I am guilty of sin. The act I commit is considered evil because of the nature of the one committing it. On the other hand, God in his infinite wisdom, decrees all things that occur so that he can bring about ultimate good. He is good by nature so all his acts are ultimately good. The moral quality of goodness flows from his nature so there is a sense in which we can say that everything that occurs is a “good” thing in that God will bring about good ultimately.
3. God has determined that men and angels are to be held responsible for their thoughts, words, and actions. As a created being, I have the capacity to make real choices for which I must stand accountable. But my freedom to choose is not the necessary condition for my responsibility. The reality of God as the lawgiver is the pre-condition for my responsibility. I stand responsible because God is holy, not because I am a free moral agent. In fact, I’m really not free at all. I’m not free to NOT sin. I’m not free to have been raised in a different family. I’m not free to be 6’4″ and weigh 250 lbs. (I’m 5’9″ and 155).
I’ll leave this post with the following question: Was the crucifixion of Christ a good thing or a bad thing?
I think it was Augustine that saw evil as the absence of good, not something created in and of itself like Satan (which had to be created by God). So, it seems logical that God is responsible for evil only in the same way that our sun is responsible for my shadow.
Jeff, I too find Augustine helpful in thinking about this. For those who are not familiar, here is an introduction to Augustine on evil.
A brief comment on a premise presented by the author:
Reading:
Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.
Hebrew 4:15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
If Chist having been made like us in “ALL THINGS” did not sin, or was free not to sin. How is it that we, if Christ was indeed like us in all things, “not free not to sin”?
Any other passage you may want to present that seemingly contradicts the Hebrew writer when examined in the context of its application will plainly show that it in fact does not contradict the Hebrew writer. The passages presented only contradict the misguided understanding of any who would place more emphasis on understanding the tenants of Calvinism than the light of God’s word in its entirety.
Just a word of caution as you study:
Keep in mind that many who believe themselves to be led by the spirit and arrive at the conclusions taught by John Calvin must examine each tenant in light of the Spirit revealed word of God. If there are glaring contradictions found then you may indeed be “spirt led”. But the spirit leading you may be the spirit of John Calvin.
In answer to the topic of discussion:
Obiviously the crucifixion of Christ was both a “good thing” and a “bad thing”. It was bad in that the act was committed by faithless me absent of good (see Augustine’s argument referenced above). And it was a good thing in that is was God’s plan since before the creation of the world to the saving of mankind. (God and all that he does, being the very essence of good.)
1… 2… 3… 4… 5… 6… 7… 8… 9…
10.
OK. Dennis: When you lead with “A brief comment on a premise presented by the author,” as if Ken’s not here and we’re not sure who the author is, it sounds like you have an axe to grind here.
Please take it offline. I don’t want to read it and I don’t think anybody else does, either. It’s a foul stench in an otherwise edifying forum.
Sorry if I’m out of line — Ken’s the host here, but let me make a suggestion:
If you have substantive matters that you would like to debate, by all means raise them. But…
1. Be honest. No pretenses, please.
2. Be polite. No venom, please.
3. Be brief. No treatises, please.
4. Please raise only one issue at a time. No steamrolling, please.
5. If you are asking for a response, please make it clear what the one thing is that you’d like a response to.
(Deep breath)
Thanks.
Don’t know you Hugh and you obviously don’t know me. Must have stepped on your toes though. I will try to step a little more carefully. I have made it a practice lately to avoid discussing things with people who respond out of anger. I don’t have an axe to grind. I am a man who is simply concerned with the truths expressed in God’s word and do not take them lightly.
1. I am honest. Don’t know the meaning of pretentiousness, hence the bluntness with which I express myself.
2. I am as polite as I can be when in expressng my concerns when error is being taught.
3. I have read some lenghty response here and felt that mine was certainly breif an to the point, hence the appearance maybe of rudeness. (For this I apologize)
4. I didn’t raise the issues. The issues were raised in the content of the original blog.
5. Didn’t expect a response. Just food for thought. (of Course, since this is a blog you are free to respond as you obviously did.)
Now take another deep breath and if you should meet me face to face. Either we will be friends or we will not. But in the event we are not it is not because I am unwilling to be your friend. (I will accept that I am somewhat tactless and I must say it is a difficult trait to overcome. Again for this I apologize.)
I am sorry that you misinterpreted my response. Read it again in view of one who is concerned for your soul, Ken’s soul and the souls of all mankind. Maybe you will see a man who loves you, even though he doesn’t personally know you. Even Jesus offended some by His words. I wonder if you would have chastised Him with the same vigor. Oh, If forgot you and I crucified Him, didn’t we. If this prompts more angry responses then I will not be posting again. I will leave that to those on this board who have already very eloquently defended the truths express in God’s word, but maybe a little less bluntly.
Dennis – I didn’t intend to imply that you ran foul of all those points. It’s just that these blogs have endured much in the last few months on account of all five of the points I raised.
So if my “here we go again” concerns were misplaced with specific respect to you, I’m sorry. At the same time, though, my suggestions stand.
1. I can’t accuse you of dishonesty per se. However, the passive-aggressive tone with which you opened, as if Ken were absent or his name ought not be mentioned (and yet clearly he is not absent and you are making direct reference to him) — I think it’s fair to raise the questions of pretense and honesty.
2. The perception of error does not exempt anyone from the demands of common courtesy, politeness, and decorum. When important matters are debated, the perception of error is guaranteed: each side must, of necessity, regard the other as being in error; otherwise, there would be no occasion for debate. If, as you suggest, error excused bad manners, there could be no such thing as civilized debate.
3. Indeed you were brief, and I thank you.
4. My point on plurality of issues was another one I wasn’t directing at you. However, you did introduce Calvinism by name. While Ken’s topic was certainly suggestive of a Calvinist position, the warnings you issued were non sequiturs in that you did not establish how your warnings against Calvinism were grounded in the ideas Ken advanced. From there, you flirted with the proverbial straw man in that you were making vague assertions about Calvin as if they applied to the matter at hand.
5. Me too.
Moving on…
Quote:”In fact, I am not free at all. I am not free, not to sin.”
ie.. Total Depravity… The very first tenant of Calvinism if I am not mistaken.
I may have misread that quote but that is certainly what I took it to mean. That’s why I referenced Heb 2:17 and 4:15. If Christ is like us in all things. Then Christ was also “not free, not to sin” and consequently a sinner. If this is the case then this would imply that a sinful man went to the cross and shed His blood for sinful man. That cannot be the case. If the position is that Christ was indeed not a sinful man and the tenants of Total Depravity are adhered, then He would not have been made like us in all things.?? Clearly these passages present great difficult for the doctrine of Total Depravity. But again if I read too much into the statement then I believe the statement needs clarification. Or at the very least the first tenant of Calvinism will have to be denied.
Each block of the building then begins to fall once examined in the light.
Dennis, this isn’t the best analogy but imagine you’re sitting in church and someone walks up to the microphone during the sermon and says,
“Keep in mind that many who believe themselves to be led by the spirit and arrive at the conclusions taught by the Church of Christ must examine each belief in light of the Spirit revealed word of God. If there are glaring contradictions found then you may indeed be ‘spirit led’. But the spirit leading you may be the spirit of man-made legalism.”
What would that accomplish toward getting the membership to change their mind on the role of baptism in salvation? I’d guess about as much as the last 4 comments.
This is WAY off topic from the original post, but I suggest that you listen to the last Grace Talk where Christ’s ability/inability to sin is discussed (1/1/06). You say Christ is like us in ALL things based on the literal symantics of two isolated sentences. But there is one small difference between us and Christ … He was the Son of God (fully God/fully man), we are not (just fully man). How far does “ALL things” go? He wasn’t like us in that He wasn’t in need of a savior.
Whoa! I’m sitting here in my hotel room in Minneapolis and reading this exchange for the first time.
Welcome Dennis. I didn’t know you were lurking. I’m truly glad you’ve chosen to weigh in. I will respond as much as I can given the volume of work God has blessed me with over the past few weeks.
I must heartily Amen David Ennis when he states: “He wasn’t like us in that He wasn’t (sic) in need of a savior.”
Paul makes it pretty clear that all sin and fall short of the glory of God yet Jesus lived his entire life “without sin”. Seems obvious that Paul saw a difference in the nature of Christ and the nature of fallen man.
If it were at all possible for even one person to live without sin then that person could be justified by the Law. Yet Paul says clearly that by law shall no flesh be justified.
You and I agree on the crucifixion being both good and bad. If you follow your own reasoning, you will find it will lead you to a view of the sovereignty of God that is consistent with the theology of Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Knox, etc.
This got me thinkin’. If you say Christ was born just like us then you are stating that humans are born into a state of perfection. But what is perfection?
It’s easy to think of perfection as “following the rules” – do’s and don’ts. But when you think about what sin is, it’s not just about “breaking the rules”. It’s doing anything out of the will of the Father. So what?
Think of Jesus as a two year old living in perfect communion with the Father. If you have children, then that’s a mind blowing thought. My two year old began serving the god of her stomach from the day she was born. (She has since created “the god of I want whatever my older sister has.”)
The perfection that God demands is far greater than just our behavior.
So Ken, what you are saying is that Christ could never have sinned in the first place due His divine nature. If that were the case Heb 4:15 is a lie. IF He could not sin, He could not be tempted to sin and would be tempted in all points as we are yet without sin. He would not have been made like us wholly in all ways. (check the greek, pas) But if Christ could hvae indeed sinned then He would also have been in need of a Savior. It was imperative upon Him to submit Himself in obedience that He be the perfect sacrifice.
Take another look at Heb 2:17 in view of the greek word Pas. Either Christ was made like us in everyway or he wasn’t. If he was made like us in everyway, then he would also have the “depraved nature” as identified by the doctrine of the “reformists”. He like us would have been without choice and unable to respond in obedience of His own will as reflected in Rom 5 and Heb 5. according to the doctrine of “irresitable grace” identified also as a basic tenant by the reformists. The “obedience of faith” is a misnomer when an individual is powerless to do other than what he is divinely led to do. Christ would have also been born of this same nature making him by nature a sinful man since he was indeed all man and all God. His divine nature would have rebelled against His fleshly nature and He would have been unable to remain in the fleshly state. Because God cannot dwell with sin. Or is it the case that you now beleive in the doctrine of immaculate conception? Surely you don’t want to go in that direction.
Now; can sinful flesh die for sinful man? Obviously not.
This doctrine is so full of holes it cannot stand up to the even a brief amount of scrutiny.
I replied to this earlier with a much longer response but due other matters that require my attention at work, the site timed out before it could be sent.
I will leave you to talk the youth of our family. You seem to have your hands quite full just answering the scriptural responses from Eric.
Please take these comments as having been presented out of love and concern for your soul.
Dennis
David, you need to consider the meanings of the words you are asking about. Go get your dictionary and look up the word perfection, then look up the word innocence.
Ask yourself, how is the state of innocence different from perfection and when and how is perfection attained?
I am shocked that there are still people who believe that an infant comes into this world absent its innocence and is immediately condemned to Hell if the infant never reaches a level of intellectual maturity such that it can “accept Jesus as its personal savior.”
The holy scriptures have never revealed this any more than they reveal the other tenants of the reformist’s doctrine.
Dennis – let me see if I understand you correctly. Is this your argument?
1. Christ was made like we are.
2. Christ was without sin.
3. Therefore, we are made without sin.
Thanks!
Innocence is quite different than perfection. To interpret Heb. 4:15 the way you do means that children are either born without sin (perfect), or Christ was born with sin (but innocent).
So can you show me where the holy scriptures reveal that a child is born without sin?
Yes, Hugh
Go get your dictionary David.
Thanks Dennis. Next:
1. You say we are made without sin.
2. Romans 5 says we are made sinners (e.g., 5.19: “…[By Adam’s] disobedience the many were made sinners…”)
It cannot be that both you and Paul are correct, can it?
Ok David, Hopefully you understand by now that innocence is a state of being brought about by the absence of sin.
Perfection is the act or process of perfecting. While it could be considered a state of innocence it requires a continous action of excellence to maintain a perfect state of being. Where as innocence could be the result of an inability to do anything either good or bad. Thus no error or sin has been commmitted. For example, the new born infant, a young child who has not attained a level of intellectual maturity that would allow an understanding of basic morality or individuals so limited in understanding or comprehension due to mental defects that the situation described for a young child would also hold true.
Now get your Bible and Read Ezekiel 18. Pay close attention to the context of the entire chapter and pay special attention to verse 20.
“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”
“sins” is not a noun. It does not indicate a state of being. It indicates an action that must occur.
Notice also that the passage does not say “The soul whom God did not elect or choose will die…”
I realize that if you find yourself locked into the reformist’s doctrine that will attempt to in someway explain how this passage somehow is irrelevant; unfortunately you cannot.
We could go into deeper study but this passage by itself absolutely destroys the doctrine of “Total Depravity,” not to mention the discourse we just had on Heb 2:17 and Heb 4:15.
David, please understand I mean no offense. I only want to aid you in your understanding of what the Bible teaches vs what the reformists teach.
I got my dictionary.
How is innocence different that perfection? Innocence can either mean “without fault” (see also perfection) or “freedom from fault through the lack of knowledge of evil.” The latter acknowledges the fault but is not accountable for it.
Perfection on the other hand is best summed up as “lacking nothing essential to the whole.” There is no fault to be freed from.
When and how is perfection obtained? It is obtained at the object’s inception. (Thank God for the concept of being “born again”.)
Since you answered Hugh’s question, if we are made without sin then why do babies die? Even late-term still births? Why can’t children work miracles in their sinlessness? (I wish I had something that tasted better than this nasty formula stuff. Poof!)
Got them scriptures coming?
Hugh,
Read Rom 5:19 again;
“For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.”
In light of what we have already learned from a study of God’s word, think about this passage for awhile and maybe you will understand what is being said in Rom 5:19
The reformist believe that the many that will be made righteous are only a select few chosen by God. These individuals are brought out of a depraved nature by divine intervention, which without these individuals would be completely, helplessly lost to that depraved nature to which they were born and absolutely unable to find redemption. Where as the one man’s disobedience affected all men.???
And yet God said that He was “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
Is is possible for God to lie?
Think about it Hugh. Now who is right. Paul is right and I agree with him, but not in the context of the reformist’s doctrine.
You’re funny David but that doesn’t make the argument valid. Read again Ezekiel 18
You’re changing the subject.
(Gotta go, will read Ezekiel tonight.)
The argument is still valid.
If death – the thing that Jesus conquered in His sinlessness as evidence of His resurrection – is the result of sin then why do “sinless” babies die?
I admit I am not really familiar with the context of what Ezekial is dealing with. But from a quick reading and review of the cliff notes, it seems that this is dealing more with the idea of personal responsibility, not original sin.
Look at it this way, sin isn’t just doing or not doing a particular action as we often think. (Can I get through the day without lying, stealing, cheating, lusting, etc…?) It is trusting in anything else besides God Himself. Consider Jesus in the desert. What would have been so sinful if He made the rocks into bread? He was hungry and tired and after 40 days, dang it, He needed some food. The only difference is that Jesus would have been acting outside of communion with the Father’s will. (I also imagine Jesus knowingly staying in the Temple while His parents had heart attacks wondering where He was looked a lot like dishonoring your parents but again, He was doing His Father’s will.)
When a child is born in a country. Are they any particular nationality because of some patriotic oath? No, it’s because the very second they are born they take on their nationality by living in that country. Similarly, the very second a child is created, by their very nature, they begin a life that is out of communion with God. Just like the very moment Eve took the first bite of forbidden fruit.
David, that’s an excellent point. If children are not alienated from God by the fall, then why don’t they have the same communion with God that Adam and Eve did before the fall?
Sidenote: By stating that “man is created without sin”, it seems that you have more in common with Islam and Pelagianism than Christianity. (Catholic or Protestant. Calvinist or Arminianist. And whatever else in between.)
Dennis, you asked Hugh to re-read Rom. 5:19. I’d ask you to read the entire thought structure that Paul is laying out in Romans 5:12-21. Why do you think Paul keeps referring to Adam and comparing him to Jesus? How is Adam a type of Christ as verse 14 states? Also, what does “as one trespass led to condemnation for all men” mean in verse 17?
Would you agree that it is at least as important to make sense out of a paragraph of thought as it is to make sense out of a single sentence or word?
Ken,
Here is an attempt at two birds with one stone.
Eliphaz the Temanite responded to Job, “What is man, that he should be pure, Or he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? (Job 15:14). So we see that Eliphaz, not Calvin, is the originator of “Total Depravity.” However, we know that:
There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.(Job 1:8)
The LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.” (Job 2:3)
Was what was done to Job evil? Maybe evil is in the eye of the beholder and not the doer or the recipient?
Job clearly stated in a number of places that his calamity was God’s doing, for which his “friends” derided him. However, even though Job charged God for what was done to him, “Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.” (Job 1:22) Job upheld God’s right to do anything He wanted with him.
… the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has. (Job 42:7)
Then …they consoled him and comforted him for all the adversities that the LORD had brought on him. And each one gave him one piece of money, and each a ring of gold. (Job 42:11)
Note the choice of “adversities.” So Job judged rightly. Even God defended Job’s integrity and Job’s statements, and indirectly, that God was responsible for what had befallen him. We have a saying at work, “it is what it is.”
So Ken, does this just muddy the waters around your original question about God authoring evil?. I think I am knda-sorta agreeing with some of what you said. On the other hand, I hope we are making progress in putting away the presupposition of original sin. I am still wondering if you are ever going to respond to my question about what role Satan plays in our sin?
Let me leave with one last thought. Do a search of the Old Testament in the NASB for “evil spirit” and see how often it is that God sends an evil spirit. Now look at 1 Kings 22:20-23, which reminds me of what we went through at Bridgeway.
Good or evil? It’s been good for me in the end. How did you like that middle part? 🙂
Jose
Eric,
I agree about reading the whole thing.
– Because of Adam’s disobedience, sin entered the world;
– Verse 12 does not indicate that we are born as fallen creatures; it says we are born into a world with sin;
– Verse 12 says that death spread to all men because all have sinned, not because they are born that way;
– Verses 13 and 14 establish Paul’s argument that all men sinned because everyone died even prior to the Law being established, thus the use of the past tense is clearly a reference to those that died prior to the Law;
– and verse 14 notes that Adam is a type of Jesus which clearly says to me that man cannot have a sin nature, since Jesus was fully man, not to mention that Adam was made in the likeness of God;
– Verse 19 says many were made sinners, not all;
– If you look at all of verse 19, it draws a parallel between many being made sinners because of Adam’s sin and many being made righteous through Christ’s obedience. You would not want to argue that all men are now righteous, would you? You might argue that all “born again” Christians are righteous, but remember that the Bible clearly teaches that even Christians must persevere to the end to be saved.
Jose
I don’t think this view of Paul’s meaning holds up. Adam was our representative in the garden. Jesus is our representative in the gospel.
Look at a simalar thought in 1 Cor. 15:42-49:
Notice that Jesus is the second Adam, not the 124,497,951st Adam (or whatever number man Jesus would have been).
Notice how we bear Adam’s image in verse 49. I’m persuaded that the corruption of the fall is the most straightforward way to understand that in light of the rest of Scripture.
Good morning Dennis.
In your last comment addressed to me, you made a concise, and I think reasonably fair, summary of the consequences of the doctrine of total depravity – men are powerless in and of themselves to effect their own redemption. Then you offered,
At the risk of stating the obvious, that verse you quoted (2 Peter 3:9) comes between 2 Peter 3:7 and 2 Peter 3:10. In context it reads (emphasis mine):
Peter offers God’s desire for none to perish as an explanation for the appearance of slowness with which his judgment comes; if God were content to expand the number of the perishing, he could just return in judgment immediately. If, as I think you are suggesting, that Peter is establishing a doctrine of universal redemption, why did Peter just say that the ungodly would be destroyed? Why does the next statement begin with “but…”?
Help me out here, Dennis; I’m confused. Paul says that we are all made sinners. How do you reconcile that with your position that we are made without sin? Forget Reformed/Pelagian/whatever school of thought… this is just simple logic. There is no way those statements are compatible without amendment.
Just trying to apply “a brief amount of scrutiny.” Thanks!
Dennis,
You said,
As far as I remember, I never said anything about Christ being “unable” to sin. I simply stated that fallen man is “unable to NOT sin”. The issue of the nature of the incarnated Christ is outside the limits of what I want to discuss on this particular thread.
I’m intrigued by the implications of your position, however. You state that Heb. 4:15 must be understood as teaching that Christ is like us in every (pas) way and therefore our natures are the same. So by your reasoning, the incarnate Christ was/is:
1. An unspiritual slave to sin (Rom. 7:14-25)
2. By nature an object of wrath, gratifying the flesh (Eph. 2:1-5)
3. Inclined, in every thought, on evil (Gen. 6:5-6; 8:21)
4. Wicked from his birth (Ps. 58:3)
5. Unable to stand before God as righteous (Ps. 130:3)
6. Like a sheep, gone astray (Is. 53:6)
7. Filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity (Rom. 1:29-32)
8. A prisoner of sin (Gal. 3:22)
9. Without the truth because he claimed to be without sin (1 Jn. 1:8)
10. (This is for Jose) In the power of the evil one (1 Jn. 5:19)
Dennis, let me also express my concern for your soul since you serve your church as an elder and teacher. The doctrinal direction you embrace is nothing more than justification by works of personal obedience. This doctrine is condemned by Paul in Galatians.
The claims which you openly make that only those who embrace your particular interpretations of the scriptures are saved, regardless of the clear evidence of the Holy Spirit in their lives, borders on blasphemy.
I also intend these comments with reverence and respect.
A further look at Romans 5:12 with the help of Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology sheds a bit more light on the words, “…death spread to all men because all sinned.” Paul used the Greek work hemarton for the word sinned here. To quote:
“The aorist indicative verb hemarton in the historical narrative indicates a completed past action. Here Paul is saying that something happened and was completed in the past, namely, that “all men sinned.” But it was not true that all men had actually committed sinful actions at the time that Paul was writing, because some had not even been born yet, and many others had died in infancy before committing any conscious acts of sin. So Paul must be meaning that when Adam sinned, God considered it true that all men sinned in Adam.” (Systematic Theology, pg 494)
Dennis,
I must also comment on your statement below:
It is truly amazing that nearly two thousand years of debate could have been avoided if people would have simply read Ez. 18! The doctrine of Total Depravity is destroyed by this verse. End of discussion (I state this sarcastically).
Maybe a little more credit is due to those who have formulated this doctrine. Maybe they were quite aware of Ez. 18. I could toss out Ex. 20:5,
This would be kind of like putting a humidifier and a dehumidifier in a room and letting them fight it out. As far as a reasoned response to the doctrine of Total Depravity, we’d be no better off.
I’ve been unable to monitor this for several hours and quite frankly I don’t know how to respond to some of the “passive agressive attacks” since last reading this blog.
Ken The list of scriptural references you presented may describe you but would not describe a righteous man and I certainly would not apply to a sinless Christ who was sinless because he chose not to sin. In every instance that you will find in the scriptures in order for one to be in a sinful state, sin must be committed. The difference in the doctrine you teach and what the Bible teaches is simple word called choice. A choice to serve god obediently out of a loyal heart on the choice to reject God and His word. It’s not me your are arguing with it is the inspired Hebrew writer. Friends you are still not thinking. You are driven to twist every passage to fit a reformed apostate doctrine. I am only telling you what you have already told me.
I do not have time to respond to all that has been misapplied in the posts since my last post but I think Jose has done an excellent job and I will leave it in his hands until I can get back with you.
Jose (or Dennis), I will grant you that if you can identify even a single person in Adam’s line who is without sin, then there would be a problem with Paul’s teaching of total depravity. You hold Job up as this example. What, then, do you do with Romans 3:9 and following?
Certainly, the Pharisee of Pharisees was familiar with Job.
Also, notice that ‘all’ in verse 9 is the Greek word transliterated ‘pas’ that received so much attention in the Hebrews passage.
Eric,
Your comment on verse 14 clearly distorts the scripture. The verse from Corinthians refers to the last Adam not the second Adam. The reference to the second man in in the context of another statement and refers to the last Adam. And its clear we can have both images. I think you are distorting the scripture and you have not answered my argument.
Jose
Pat,
He is correct to say that all men sinned, past tense. We are all in agreement on this. Then I think he goes on to make stuff up based on his reasoning and his doctrine. He abuses the scripture to make a case for the doctrine we are arguin here. Look again at all my comments about the full context, including the one about verse 13 and 14 and how that relates to the use of the past tense in verse 12. Its plain and simple in my opinion, but help me parse it out if I am wrong.
Hey, it is so cool to be reminded of you! You are the best!
Jose
Eric,
Look at verse 12. All TURNED. All BECAME. That implies they were not in that state beforehand. By the scripture you have quoted, you make the case against original sin. That said, I think we all have a problem with sin based on all the verses that have been quoted, and so we all need a redeemer (at least the people I know). But I cannot accept that we are automatically sinners because Adam sinned. At least I have not been convinced the Bible teaches that. I need to go through those scriptures Ken listed but I am out of time.
I will leave you a couple more scriptures to ponder:
Gen 4:7 “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
Gen 8:21 The LORD smelled the soothing aroma; and the LORD said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. (Note that God says from his youth and not from his birth. Hmmm)
Jose
Dennis,
You claimed that we are made without sin. Romans 5 teaches that we are made in sin. You asserted that your claim and Paul’s teaching are not contradictory, but thus far, you have not offered a coherent, logical reconciliation.
You have expressed something akin to “shock and awe” at the privation of intellect required to reach a conclusion favorable to the doctrines of total depravity and original sin. This strikes me as profoundly uncharitable: even if you are untroubled by the prospect of insulting those with whom you are debating, you ought to consider the obvious accomplishments of the men who have taught these doctrines for centuries. Even if you disagree with their ideas, insulting their collective intellectual capacity is arrogant, unwarranted, and uncouth.
Furthermore, when you persistently play the prima donna, and at the same time, neither acknowledge the obvious problems posed by a logical contradiction in your position, nor demonstrate the willingness to amend the contradicting propositions–I submit that the proper place for “shock and awe” to repose is at the feet of your hypocrisy, not with the tenets you disparage.
Please, sir: make an argument, or make an exit. Mere rhetoric that is unacquainted with logic does not commend anyone’s position, and God is not honored when we contend for his glory by casting hollow aspersions on others who contend for his glory from a different–albeit defensible and reasonable–understanding of the truth.
Ok, I’ve got just a few minutes.
You ask about the about the death of a sinless child and yet you would claim to be sinless now as a result of God’s election and your predetermined salvation. Why are you going to die?
The answer obviously is in given in the passage you guys have been struggling with though out this thread. Rom 5:12 and following.
You seem to have trouble understanding some fairly basic language.
When did sin enter the world?
When did Adam become a sinner?
“By one man’s disobedience”
Adam became a sinner by choosing to disobey God.
Chirst became righteous by choosing to obey God.
After the manner of Adam all who disobey God are made sinners.
After the manner of Christ all who obey God are made righteous.
Now go back and consider the Kings of Judah, in particular Manasseh. Manasseh made Judah sin with his idols. 2 Kings 21:11
How did Manasseh make Judah sin? How did Adam make many sinners? Interesting isn’t it.
Satan in Genesis 3 tempted Eve to sin by changing one word in God’s law. Be careful when you substitute a word into a passage to force it to conform to the reformer’s doctrine. This is no different than what was done in Genesis 3 to seduce Eve to sin. How many today will be made to sin by doing the same thing?
John 3:
16″For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18″He that believeth in Him is not condemned; but He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19And this is the condemnation: that Light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
The light of God’s word will save you but the darkness of willful igorance will leave you floundering in the sea of darkness.
Dennis,
You seem to have trouble expressing some fairly basic ideas. I have no idea what you meant.
What is the “one word” the reformers have perverted?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the orthodox protestant view of grace. Followers of Christ are not sinless. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. It is His righteousness applied to our account. Romans 4:1-12 makes this clear.
It’s a given that each side believes that the other is supressing the truth and walking in darkness. So, I’m not sure what this adds.
As quoted above by Dennis, John 3:18 communicates if you do not believe in Christ, you are condemned already.
So if you are human and have the potential to never sin by way of choosing to be righteous (I believe this is the view Dennis is stating), you are condemned already if you don’t believe in Christ, no matter your deeds. And John 3:19 explains that man’s deeds are evil.
When do those evil deeds start is the big question? Considering the first commandment Jesus gave: 36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'(Matthew 22:367-38) From this command, what conclusion can you draw?
Given the all the discussion on this particular blog, it seems the argument comes down to one’s perception of the nature of man, again.
It appears that both sides are entrenched in their own doctrine, both feeling the other side is not providing adequate proof to either prove or refute, or at least not argeeing with it.
Christ said we would be know my our love for other believers. For those visiting this blog, I hope they can understand the passion put forth here is born out of that love.
Great point Kevin Schultz.
As I understand the argument put forth by Dennis:
1. We are born innocent, sharing the same nature as Jesus. We have the ability to not sin.
2. We *become* sinners when we choose to sin.
This seems logical but it smacks into major problems when held up to the light of scripture.
Scripture clearly states that ALL are under sin, all sin and fall short, all are made to be sinners, etc.
Even if Dennis’ contentions are true, the Bible writers clearly believe that men are powerless to choose to remain without sin.
Simple logic would guide you to the conclusion that if man were born with the ability to NOT sin, then there must be SOME percentage of people on the earth who successfully live their entire lives without sin.
So let’s abandon all this salvation and grace talk and let’s instead take our children to the altar of the goddess Nike… “Just do it!”
No. the reality we all experience is that all people who are able to choose, do choose to sin. The question is why? What is it about their make-up, their nature that guarantees that they will choose to sin?
Which brings me right back to the point which Dennis first attacked, we are not free to not sin. We are by nature (naturally/by birth) children of wrath.
This is so obvious that it almost goes without saying. As soon as we are able to make choices, we make bad ones. Why? Because we are doing what comes naturally. We are sinners by nature. Of course we are not born with the guilt of our own sin. But neither are we born neutral, able to NOT sin. This is the issue at hand when arguing the doctrine of original sin. What is the “origin” of sin in my life? Is it borne out of a neutral state of being–purely a matter of 50/50 choices? Or does sin originate in some deeper, corrupt influence that dominates my being and holds me enslaved to walk in the path of rebellion?
It is clear that the scriptures testify to the latter. And it is upon this testimony that we at Grace Fellowship form our doctrinal stand.
You’re almost there Ken. Keep trying.
Dennis,
I thought I made a clear, reasoned addition to the thread. Please contribute in a like manner so we can dialogue.
Okay, this is more of summary of what I am thinking because the whole point of discussion is to consider what the other has to offer. Right?
So far Dennis and Jose propose that mankind is born sinless in an attempt to discredit the idea of Total Depravity.
Currently I don’t buy it on many levels:
1. Naturally: We all agree that physical death is a result of sin – babies die everyday.
2. Historically: Denying the idea that man is inherently evil (original sin) has been deemed heresy since the beginning of Christianity.
3. Literarily: The scriptures presented have been sentence fragments applied to ideas that have nothing to do with the idea the author is conveying as a whole.
4. Theologically: It nullifies the uniqueness and purpose of Christ’s death on the cross. (Many children have been offered as pagan sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins.)
So that’s where I’m at. Dennis & Jose, if you all can address those high level issues then you may be able to convince me. But I also ask the same openness of you.
Carry on.
Jose, in regards to my item #3. If you are going to interpret scripture like that then all we have to do is google “Biblical Contradictions”. Then we can just declare the Bible to be errant and all go home.
Trying to get back a little to the original argument, Dennis (hello and welcome, by the way) said before,
This is very true. Why then do you argue that Christ could have sinned?
And Kevin (Schultzee), you were on to something when you said,
I will attempt to continue this line of thinking to its logical conclusion.
Proposition 1: From the womb, we do not believe in Christ.
Proposition 2: “Whatever is not from faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
Proposition 3: “Ye must be born again.” (John 3)
Conclusion: Every individual, from birth, does not fulfill the holy requirements of God (a basic one of which is belief in Christ), and therefore is justly condemned by God, and therefore-fore is in need of the second birth. The word-picture of birth makes it very clear that both fleshliness and spirituality are native conditions–one as a result of the first birth (not after), the other as a result of the second birth (not after). Why would regeneration occur at the moment of the second birth, but depravity not occur at the moment of the first birth? (cf. Psalm 51:5.)
Also, generalizing that a group of people believes that
is not only demolishing a straw man, it represents a refusal to honestly explore the consequences of the Reformed position by assuming that the worst conclusion is the only conclusion.
Doing my best to keep it brief…
Hey guys,
As in the words of the famous ragdoll, Chucky, “I’m back!!!” haha
I sorry to interpose on your discussion, but I cannot take it anymore. This discussion has gone around the barn and even into the attic. Why must we complicate Romans 5 so much? Why can’t we read it for what it says?
David Ennis,
So what if people have been called heretics because they denied original sin? Is the Catholic Church the ultimate authority? Is John Calvin God? Do we look to John Calvin, Martin Luther, or anyone else who would label someone a heretic for denying original sin? Call it reformed theology or whatever you want. No matter how you view it, you are assuming into the text of Romans 5.
The Bible clearly says that sin entered the world. Now, does that mean that sin entered all men when Adam sinned? NO, it means it entered the world. What happened? Death spread to all men because sin brings death (Rom. 6:23) and all have sinned. That does not mean that all sinned in Adam. It just means that all have sinned. I sin, you sin, that is why we need Jesus. YOu see, the problem is that with your argument, my choice is taken away. God has given us all a choice. But I could not stop Adam, I could not yell “no, stay away from that tree.”
The context of Romans 5 is faith. Faith is victorious, faith brings righteousness. Also, Paul addressed grace through Jesus Christ in His ultimate gift. Given the context, Paul then says that grace came through Jesus Christ. Sin entered the world through Adam, and grace entered the world through Jesus Christ. If we hold to the rest of the passage as you do to Romans 5:12, then Romans 5:18 says that all men are going to heaven. Is that going to be the case? Certainly not. Read Matt. 7:21-23.
And it does not say in verse 19 of Romans 5 that all were made sinners, but many. That is different. Many is not all. Notice the distinction. Also, many will be made righteous, not all. This is the purpose of the law, to show sin. But grace entered to cover the sin.
This idea of Original Sin is absolutely 100% false. I once read about a man that worked with metal, and he had on his sign above his shop “many twistings done here.” There has been nothing done here short of that. Quit twisting the simple truth. Why do you have to make it so complicated? We need Jesus, we all agree. God loved us enough to send Him to die for us. Adam sinned, and sin entered the world. I sinned because sin was in the world. I will die because of my sin, both physically and spiritually. Why must you insist on complicating the simple Word of God?
May God have mercy on us!
Eric Gray
I wasn’t talking just about the Catholic church. Man being inherently evil is one of the main distinctions that separates Christian world view from any of the other “credible” religions.
Catholic, protestant, reformed, evangelical, calvinist, arminian, whatever.
If you want to go “Rambo” that’s fine with me, but it would be wise to consider the wisdom and efforts of those that have gone before in devoting their lives to studying the very same scriptures.
Eric G.,
Good to see you’re still around.
I said something like this on a previous post, but I will say it again:
It’s an amazing game of probability that the Bible keeps on winning, if it says “all have sinned,” and it just so happens that (even though all can not sin) everyone does. God would be good at blackjack.
I also take issue with your characterization of the Scriptures as “simple,” but that’s a bit off-track.
If a phenomenon occurs frequently and reliably enough in any member of nature, a scientist will accept it as characteristic of that member (whether it be a planet, an animal, or an atom)–even if the source of the phenomenon is not understood, it is obviously the nature of the member in question. There is enough empirical evidence over thousands of years and billions of trials that mankind is characteristically sinful, I as a scientist cannot call a 100%-repeatable phenomenon a 50%/50% chance. Sorry, but you haven’t convinced me yet. And I’m not being facetious at all: please convince me. I’m here for truth.
Welcome back, Eric. In your view of ‘sin entering the world,’ what does that actually mean? Is it a substance that gets on us or something? Clearly not. It entered the world, corrupting the entire creation (see Romans 8:20-25). Can the corrupt world create uncorrupted human beings?
For all the talk of complicating and twisting, I recall words of wisdom from fifth grade… “I’m a mirror and you are glue. What you say bounces off me and sticks to you.” I think that adds about as much to the discussion as the original accusations.
EG:
You said, “This idea of Original Sin is absolutely 100% false.”
Thanks for clearing that up. I wondered why it was so hard getting my children to disobey.
An ancient Jew of Galicia, quoted by James W. Sire in Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling, p. 11
Welcome back Eric Gray.
You say:
Are you saying that there was some influence on your decision to sin other than your free will?
Does this mean that Adam’s sin was merely a bad example?
Why do you sin because sin is in the world?
Finally. Are you free (ever in your life) to NOT sin? What I mean is, are you free of any influence to sin? Can you choose to not sin and do you have the power in you (theoretically) to keep that commitment?
The argument that started this thread was your uncle Dennis’ contention that we are, in fact, free to NOT sin.
EG:
“…’Many twistings done here.’ There has been nothing done here short of that. Quit twisting the simple truth. Why do you have to make it so complicated?”
If you find the truth complicated, take it up with the Author.
If you find someone’s understanding of the truth complicated, take it up, debate it, strive to reconcile your understanding with theirs. If it happens that you have a diametrically opposed understanding, recognize that it cannot be that you are both correct–you might both be wrong, but certainly you can’t both be right.
And why do you think the truth is simple? The older I get (35 next month) the more complicated I find the truth is… it is a mystery to me how the truth is so simple that any child can understand it, and yet it is so deep and unsearchable that a life spent in its pursuit cannot find its bottom.
Hugh,
You have it right. The truth is simple. Jesus died for me. But God is so infinite in wisdom that He made the Bible in such a way as to keep us digging at it for lifetimes, and never touching the edge of it. God said it best, as He usually does, in Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts…” I do not understand everything that God does. I do not understand everything about the Bible. I DO NOT CLAIM TO! But I do know my God is loving, caring, and compassionate. He is the God of second, third, fourth, and many chances. He forgives me everyday because I am a sinner. But, just like He did with Adam, that tree is put in front of me everyday. Temptation is in my face everytime I wake up because Adam sinned and allowed Satan to keep pushing and pushing. But, just like Adam and Eve, I have a choice to stay away from that “forbidden fruit.” Through my actions, Satan knows what I am weak in. Therefore, he throws those things at me the most. But God knows me better, and has allowed a way of escape for me (1 Cor. 10:13). Now if I am born with sin, how can I resist it? How can I run from certain things that do not tempt me? Maybe because I am not born with it!
And yes, Ken, I do have the power to stay away from some sins. Alcohol has no influence over me, it never has and it never will. Other things have no influence over me because God gave me the choice to stay away from them.
If we are born with sin, then doesn’t it seem likely that we will never be able to resist any form of sin? Answer that.
Also, I want to say that I love you guys. You help me to study my Bible even more and deeper my understanding of the truth. It does not mean that I agree with you, it just means that I have to look at it even closer to find out what God’s word says.
Thanks for your responses. I appreciate your time and attention to the Bible.
E.G.
I believe that it is the Holy Spirit in us that gives us the ability to say “no” to sin, an ability the unregenerate man does not have. Essentially, no, you can’t resist it–until God gives you that ability at salvation.
One’s ability to stay away from a certain sin, even before salvation, is not indicative of that sin’s power over him. If he is not tempted to drink alcohol, I will place my money on him being guilty of the sin of excess in another form. The sin (excess) still has power over him.
And here’s your answer: you’re right. “If we are born with sin, …we will never be able to resist any form of sin” (removal mine). I have already established that resisting a form of a sin has no bearing on whether that core sin is committed. It’s true, we, absent the Holy Spirit, cannot resist sin. Do we need evidence for this other than our own nature (introspection), and the history of mankind?
Hugh,
I can’t help it…
Do you absolutely 100% agree with the sentiments of the ancient Jew from Galicia?
hehe
I am very grateful to be able to discuss items/issues such as these. It is vital that we hear and respond out of a desire to learn God’s Word in order to spread His fame. I hope that everyone reading these entries will not see harsh comments, but desiring hearts to know God.
With that being said, I would like to ask Dennis what he meant when he said,
Question: Are you saying the since the word “tempted” is used that it necessitates that Jesus must have had an inward desire to disobey God, but simply never acted on it?
Eric,
You say,
Eric you missed the gist of my question. I too have the power to stay away from some sins. The REAL question is do you have the power to stay away from all sin–from ever sinning ever again?
If you say “no” then you must agree with me that you are not free to not sin.
you say,
For the unregenerate man, I would say that he would have no interest in resisting sin as a means to please God. He may, through the limited self-control that God through His common grace empowers him to retain, be able to do some “good” deeds (even Hitler loved puppies). But these deeds are out of self-interest.
For the believer, he is empowered by the Holy Spirit to bear fruit pleasing to God. He will never be fully able to not sin until he receives a glorified body after this life. Of course, his ability to live without sin is no longer the standard by which he is judged. He has received eternal life.
You also say,
Eric, you are a joy to argue with and I’m glad you’re back. Now don’t neglect that fiance of yours.
As Eric G. says, we’ve “been around the barn” on the issue of original sin and total depravity.
May I challenge the naysayers out there to please re-read my original post on this thread dealing with the problem of evil.
I’d like to know how you deal with the problem of evil and how your explanation might differ from the one I laid out.
So much for dialog. Here’s a simple multiple choice question. 🙂
Eric G, you say: “Death spread to all men because sin brings death (Rom. 6:23) and all have sinned. … It just means that all have sinned. … I sin, you sin, that is why we need Jesus.”
Yet, Dennis says this in regards to infants/children: “…innocence could be the result of an inability to do anything either good or bad. Thus no error or sin has been commmitted.”
Which one is truth?
A) All have sinned
B) All have sinned except cute little babies
P.S. Before you answer, remember that you only look to the scriptures for your authority.
David,
Where did I contradict what Dennis said? All sinned, and all will sin. It is because sin entered the world. I never said that children sin because they do not understand what sin is. How can you call something blue when you are color blind? Make sense?
Ken,
I am free from sin. That does not mean that I do not sin, but I am free from it. When I was baptized into Christ, my body of sin was done away with because I was reenacting the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6, especially v. 6). Look at verse 7, “For he who has died has been freed from sin.” I am free! Thanks be to God because He has delivered me from this body of death through Jesus Christ my Lord, in whom there is no condemnation (Rom. 7:24-8:1). I know that you are aware of this, but that is how I answer your question.
John wrote in 1 John 1:7, “If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of His Son cleanses us from all sin.” If I am living in God’s light, He continually cleanses me from my sins, if I confess them because He is just to forgive. There is that abiding grace that is greater than all my sin.
But, still again, just because I will be tempted and sin the rest of my life, does not mean that I was born with it. I do not bear the guilt of Adam, which Ezekiel discussed in chapter 18 of bearing the guilt of the father, because I had nothing to do with it. But I do suffer the consequences, which Paul makes very clear in Romans 5.
Thanks.
Eric Gray
Eric,
You are free from sin if you are in Christ.
But are you free to never sin ever again?
THIS IS MY CONSTANT QUESTION. Oops, sorry for yelling.
Just answer the question. Either you or Dennis. I’m not talking about temptation either. I’m talking about the follow-through. Jesus was tempted but He was able to not sin and subsequently didn’t sin.
I am tempted but the outcome is altogether different. Why is that?
You also must have missed my response to Ez. 18 with Ex. 20:5…kind of like a piece of paper with the word “(over)” on both sides.
Eric G., you said
I’ll disregard the “because” clause for now…
As I said earlier, this statement plays a game of probability if it is, indeed, possible for a man not to sin (since he is born sinless). Odds are, we would have seen someone justified by “being sinless” by now. We haven’t, so I think the premise of man being born innocent is flawed.
Okay, now for the reason we sin. You say we sin because sin is in the world. I suppose you mean that we learn it, by example and by practice, since the world around us is corrupted by sin. If that supposition is incorrect, please tell me. I will assume that’s what you’re saying, and follow it to its logical conclusion.
Premise 1: Man is born sinless.
Premise 2: All men eventually sin because sin has corrupted the world they live in.
Premise 3: Sin entered the world (and did not enter man’s nature) because of Adam’s sin.
Conclusion: Adam’s sin corrupted the entire world, including himself, but left all his worldly descendants in a state of perfection, though born into a world of sin.
It strikes me as odd that this sin has such impact that “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together” (Romans 8:22) and the whole world is subjected to death and suffering (Romans 5:12—except the rest of mankind. Adam’s sin must have strangely universal yet paradoxically specific effects. What Scriptures support the fact that sin has corrupted the very nature of everything in the universe, except that of mankind?
Sorry Ken, one last post and I’m done.
Eric G, in one sentence you say, “Death spread to all men because sin brings death (Rom. 6:23) and all have sinned. … It just means that all have sinned. … I sin, you sin, that is why we need Jesus.” (Emphasis mine.) And, “All sinned and all will sin”.
And yet in the very next sentence you say, “I never said that children sin…”
That’s quite a contradiction. So, what is truth?
A) All have sinned
B) All have sinned except cute little babies
Ken – Do I “absolutely 100% agree with the sentiments of the ancient Jew from Galicia?”
(It’s Friday, 1500 hours, and the wheels have clearly come off already… picture me raising one eyebrow and affecting a mischievous smirk.)
Absolutely, 100% no.
But I do absolutely, 100% think I could be wrong.
Of course, that means that if I am wrong, it means I was 100% right about the possibility of being wrong and wrong about the possibility of being 100% right.
So if I’m 100% certain that I could be wrong that asserting 100% certainty makes one a rascal, then what does that make me? 😉
It makes you a Gentile.
For those asking to be shown one verse, I will show you several.
“Then God said, Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thin that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
Then God saw everthing that He had made, and indeed it was very good.”
“I will praise You, for I am fearfully and WONDERFULLY made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well”
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statues and observed them, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son SHALL NOT bear the guilt of the father, not the father the guilt of the son The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
“So then EVERYONE shall give an account of HIMSELF to God.”
“In those days they shall say no more: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes; And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ But EVERYONE shall die for his OWN iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes. his teeth shall be set on edge.”
“And Enoch WALKED WITH GOD, and he was not, for God took him.”
“There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was BLAMELESS and UPRIGHT, and one who feared God and SHUNNED EVIL.”
“In all this Job DID NOT SIN nor charge God with wrong.”
“Then they brought little children ot Him, that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was greately displeased and said to them. ‘Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.'”
“Therefore IN ALL THINGS He HAD TO BE MADE LIKE HIS BRETHREN, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, To make propitiation for the sins of the people.”
“For we do not hav a High Priest WHO CANNOT SYMPHATHIZE WITH OUR WEAKNESSES, BUT WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED AS WE ARE, YET WITHOUT SIN.”
“Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of OBEDIENCE LEADING TO RIGHTEOUSNESS? But God be thanked that though you were teh slaves of sin, yet YOU OBEYED from the heart tht form of doctrine to which you were committed.”
“Thus says the Lord God: ‘Woe to the foolish prophets, who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing.”
“Son of man, you dwell in a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear: for they are a rebellious house.”
God’s word speaks loud and clear for any who desire to hear. It is clear that the scriptures testify the mind of God.
It is time to shake the dust off of my shoes and move on.
Thank you for allowing my to post and even if you did revile me at times there is a blessing that comes with that for the one reviled.
Dennis, I’m sorry that you feel you’ve been reviled here. I have done my best to keep my portion of this debate away from personal attacks, and I haven’t noticed any thus far. I hope that you don’t really feel anyone has abused you in this exchange of ideas.
All those Scriptures are too much to handle at once, trying to apply each one to this debate in turn. (Some “agree” with you, and some “agree” with me, even.) Look at it this way:I am claiming a universal positive (all men since Adam are born totally depraved). All you need is one example of a man born sinless to disprove that.You are claiming a universal negative (no man is born with a sin nature). All I need is one example of a man born depraved to disprove that.So, really, even if Scripture truly supports your position, all you need is one Scriptural example or verse to prove me (and Ken, Hugh, Eric, Dan, et alias) wrong. Perhaps that perspective will help us narrow the debate, instead of compiling lists of verses with little commentary or discussion.
Actually, now that I think of it, this debate was a side note. This will, then, be my last post here, in order to (attempt to) preserve Ken’s original topic. If you haven’t already, go back and read…there’s a lot of information here that it seems most have not read or glossed over.
Dennis,
If you believe you’ve been insulted, then accept my apology.
I thought the dialogue was pointed but reasonable. If you feel otherwise then I have failed to moderate the discussion such that no one was hurt. Forgive me.
We both must be held to a very high standard as elders and teachers.
Peace to you.
Jeff,
In your reply to Dennis, you said, “I am claiming a universal positive (all men since Adam are born totally depraved). All you need is one example of a man born sinless to disprove that.” Why wouldn’t you consider Jesus as that example? He was fully man. Add on all you want, He was fully man.
You said, “You are claiming a universal negative (no man is born with a sin nature).” I don’t think I ever saw Dennis make that claim although you might loosely interpret some of his statements that way. To be accurate, I believe that Dennis’s position is that your claim, that all men are born totally depraved, is false. If I am mistaken, please tell me the date and time of the post where you saw Dennis say what you claim he said.
You said, “So, really, even if Scripture truly supports your position, all you need is one Scriptural example or verse to prove me (and Ken, Hugh, Eric, Dan, et alias) wrong.” Dennis did provide numerous examples. You chose to discard them with comments like, “All those Scriptures are too much to handle at once, trying to apply each one to this debate in turn,” and, “Perhaps that perspective will help us narrow the debate, instead of compiling lists of verses with little commentary or discussion.” Dennis’ list of verses had a narrow context.
To clarify my own position, I don’t see where anyone there has established your universal postive from scripture. There was a lot of discussion around Romans 5, but I don’t think anyone has answered me besides Pat, and I responded to him on that. That is what I take issue with.
I am willing to discuss one scripture at a time. However, we can refocus on the discussion of evil in Ken’s original post. What did you think of my comments in the post about Job and God’s sending evil spirits? Also, what do you think is the role of evil or Satan in our sin?
Jose
Dennis, regarding your verses. I’m not quite sure what they prove in regards to the idea that man is born without sin – especially the last two.
But please don’t leave without addressing my very simple question.
You have made both of the following statements, which one is true?
A) All have sinned
B) All have sinned except cute little babies
David,
You said that I propose that mankind is born sinless in an attempt to discredit the idea of Total Depravity. I used to believe the doctrine of total depravity. Then I realized from looking at some of the discussions here that I had been taught some things that were false, and that this now appears to be a false doctrine to me. I have not seen where there is sufficient scriptural support for the idea that we are born guilty of sin. I have not put forth a new doctrine; I have questioned at least a portion of the old one.
I see that in a subsequent post, you assailed my interpretation of scripture. How about showing me my error instead of implying I am stupid. I do not understand your criticism. I believe the Bible is the truth and that it does not contradict itself.
When I examine the scriptures, I see that we are born in a fallen world but not necessarily that we are born already guilty of our own sin. I believe there is ample scriptural support that we all have a sin problem and that we need Jesus Christ to save us. I agree with you that we cannot nullify the uniqueness or purpose of Christ’s death on the cross. So maybe I am nit picking about the doctrine of total depravity, but I treasure the perfect gospel.
Here are my responses to your numbered points:
1. You said, “We all agree that physical death is a result of sin – babies die everyday.”
My response: Are you assuming that death is always the result of our own sin? Is it possible that someone dies because someone else sins? Could that explain why babies die? If i get a plague and die or a tower falls on me, did my sin cause it?
2. You said, “Denying the idea that man is inherently evil (original sin) has been deemed heresy since the beginning of Christianity.”
My response: There were elders and teachers in Paul’s time teaching that circumcision is needed for salvation, an obvious error. Historical Christianity is full of problems. I am not going to accept something just because someone said it a long time ago. Why can’t we just turn to the Bible now without adding or detracting?
3. You said, “The scriptures presented have been sentence fragments applied to ideas that have nothing to do with the idea the author is conveying as a whole.”
My response: show me what you are talking about.
4. You said, “It nullifies the uniqueness and purpose of Christ’s death on the cross. (Many children have been offered as pagan sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins.)”
My response: The Bible clearly teaches that we are born in a fallen world, that all men are sinners (at some point), and that we need a savior. That is not the same as a doctrine that says that we are born already condemned of our own sin because, say, Adam sinned for us. The Bible also teaches that some men were upright. I don’t believe in contradictions in the Bible. Some have argued rightly, I think, that while some supposedly upright men sinned, it was that God counted their faith as righteousness that made them upright. But I don’t think that explains all the relevant passages. I think Kevin and Jeff are probably right to say that with God’s help we may resist sin, and that may explain some of these other men.
I do not understand your accusation that I am not being open. I plan to go paintballlng tomorrow if you want to shoot it out 🙂
Jose
You just stated the doctrine of total depravity:
We all die because Adam sinned, not because we sin. We do sin, and are guilty of those sins as well, but we sin because we are sinners.
Can I painball too? 😉
Jose, sorry, I wasn’t trying to accuse. I just felt like the whole thing was turning into a “tinkling” match. :^) Thank you for your openness. I meant to say thanks to Eric G too for his kind words that he posted earlier.
Now I will proceed to address ALL of Dennis’ scripture references (and your question about my third issue) and present you all with a question. This is Ken’s blog but I kindly ask that no one post discussing another topic until the question is addressed.
Dennis’ scriptures prove that “man is born without sin” no more than:
… proves that we have wings. (And there are a lot more references I could use.)
Now, let’s look at your interpretation of Romans in regards to sin. From your own words, you propose that Paul is communicating:
And in Eric G’s words:
Let’s summarize that as: The Bible is the absolutely 100% word of God truth when it states that every human ever born will have a chance to and WILL CHOOSE TO commit sin. (Except for Christ of course.)
The question: When did the child that died 8 minutes after birth choose to commit sin?
Jeff,
If your elders will go along with the definition of total depravity that you ascribed to my statements:
You just stated the doctrine of total depravity:
someone dies because someone else sins
then we can all agree on that definition. But I think they will require what you added on to what I said, which is not what I said. So what you ascribed to me is not true. Sorry, but that is the truth. I aim straight.
You are not adequately supporting your definition from scripture. When this complaint was originally made on this blog, Romans 5 was thrown out as “the proof.” I have addressed the bogus arguments around Romans 5 as a basis for your doctrine.
I forgot my mom is in town, so no paintball for me today. Maybe another time. I love you and your family.
Jose
Jose,
I believe that I have addressed your questions several times (perhaps indirectly) but I will make another attempt.
You say,
This statement shows that you don’t understand the doctrine of Total Depravity (TD) as it has been set forth by systematic theologians for centuries. TD never teaches that man is born guilty of his own sin. Here, in a nutshell, is an outline of the doctrine so we can all work from the same position:
1. The Bible clearly states that fallen men are “by nature” objects of wrath (Eph. 2), that men are “sinful” from birth (Ps. 51), that man cannot “see” (comprehend) the kingdom of heaven until he is born again (Jn. 3). At this point we have a choice of directions:
a. “by nature” means naturally or by birth implying that men are born corrupted by sin, thus the NIV translates “sarx” as “sinful nature” instead of “flesh”.
or
b. “by nature” means that one’s nature is changed from “pristine/able to not sin” to “corrupt/unable to not sin” when one commits his first sin (i.e. he experiences a fall just like Adam did.)
or
c. “by nature” means something else entirely and that men don’t really have a corrupt nature at any time and remain “able to not sin.”
It is the position of the leaders at GF that “a” is the most biblically correct direction to take.
2. Man’s condition of TD is the result of Adam’s fall. Adam was created in the image of God–pristine/able to not sin. For reasons known only to God, Adam chose to rebel against God and plunged the created world into ruin. This rebellion brought death to all men–even those who never commit personal sin. This rebellion also made all of Adam’s offspring “sinners” by nature. If they weren’t sinners by nature then they would be born pristine/able to not sin. It’s sweet to think of innocent babies in this way but experience proves otherwise. Just as soon as they are able to make choices–they rebel! All of them do. There are none who remain sinless. This is why Paul could safely say, “All sin and fall short of the glory of God.”
3. We all see the effects of sin on the world. All men are susceptible to death. The creation “groans” for reconciliation. Every person rebels and is unable to remain sin-free. We also see that the Bible clearly states that by law-keeping, no person can stand justified. Paul makes it plain that it is this sinful nature that makes us unable to keep the Law (Rom. 7-8, Gal. 3).
It is the reality of TD that makes justification by grace through faith alone such good news. In my salvation, I can boast of nothing. Even the small grains of obedience that I offer God are due to the empowering presence of His Holy Spirit. God alone receives all the glory and honor and praise. As it should be.
To deny the doctrine of TD is to rob God of the glory in salvation, to turn a blind eye to the testimony of scripture, and to completely deny the reality of our experience on this earth that “all sin and fall short of the glory of God…”
Thank you for that lovely review Ken.
Now will someone (Jose, Eric G, or Dennis) PLEASE ANSWER MY SIMPLE QUESTION about the worldview/theology that you are wanting me to accept.
You’ve already stated that Rom. 3:23 is true and you have no problem with it, so when did the child that died 8 minutes after birth choose to commit sin?
David,
From my experience, I would guess that their response would be that children who die before the “age of accountability” have not had a chance to commit sin and therefore die “safe” as opposed to those who grow old enough to choose sin and thus need to be “saved”.
At least this is what I was taught at a Church of Christ College.
Well that makes it difficult when one side accuses the other of misinterpreting scripture (remember back in Hebrews that ALL means ALL right?) but then turns around and does the VERY same thing to prove a theory that is never mentioned or eluded to in scripture (age of accountability), all the while claiming the Holy scripture as their authority.
Sidenote: The theory of the age of accountability (officially known as prevenient grace) was introduced by Arminius (one of those fallible Christian fathers) only to account for the sins of children – not to say they never existed.
In this thread the statement has been made that Reformist are complicating the Gospel.
To me it makes much more sense that Romans means every human is born into a state of sin. And looking at the context of what the author was communicating, Hebrews means that Christ was God but also 100% human – a representative priest.
Otherwise, you have to introduce theories about extra layers of grace (created centuries later) to account for dead infants not being able to choose in an attempt to reconcile the interpretation of Romans to the idea that “man is born without sin.”
I’ve got another one:
What was God looking for? Ten righteous people. It’s easy enough to consider that there weren’t even ten righteous adults in Sodom. The city deserved its destruction. But why were only Lot and his family spared? Why were the children (who curiously didn’t count among the needed ten) killed?
It appears to me that the whole controversy over TD and Original Sin is that it makes God unfair to hold “innocent” children accountable to the sins of their parents. However the Bible is loaded with examples of children receiving punishment for the sins of their parents. You can call it consequences if you want but it doesn’t make it any less “fair”. Isn’t God able to prevent “innocent” children from suffering consequences? Why is it such a stretch to accept the fact that in Adam “all” sinned–that Adam represents all humanity as our federal head?
It seems to me, that if God were interested in fairness, as some are prone to define it, then all children would be born into the Garden of Eden with access to the Tree of Life until (if and when) they choose to sin.
As far as Dennis’ contention that Enoch and Job were without sin (I assume for their whole lives), then why weren’t they suitable sacrifices for the cross?
Also, if the “let the little children come to me” passage is intended to prove that children are sinless and innocent, what does this say about our chances of ever being a part of the kingdom? Can anyone (adult) ever really be as a child in that way? Don’t you think Jesus had something else in mind when he instructed his disciples to be childlike–perhaps trusting?
I have been reading this discussion, but I must ask a couple of questions.
I also find the title of this blog interesting in reference to my first question.
Ken, it seems to me you are suggesting that God has issued a law unto man that He knew was impossible for man to keep. I am stating this under the impression that we both understand sin as being transgression of God’s law. When you say that you (and I assume you also mean ever man who ever lived except Christ) are “unable to NOT sin” then you are saying it is impossible to keep the law God has given. He made us and He made the law. Why would a just and loving God issue such a law and then be willing to punish man for transgressing a law He knew was impossible to keep?
Are we under a new law today? “…sin is not imputed when there is no law” – Romans 5:13. If so, what must we do to keep this new law? If there is no new law or if there is nothing that we must do to keep this new law, then how is it that we are constantly sinning?
One other thing, keep in mind that when you deny that Christ was made like us in every way, you are arguing with the inspired writer of the Hebrews letter.
Oh, one other thing.
In reference to all of your Old Testament examples of punishment (even though no evidence was given of children being punished in Sodom) you have still yet to respond to Jeremiah’s prophecy of a new covenant. In Jeremiah 31 he said, “In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Hebrews chapter 8 tells us that this prophecy is fulfilled in the new covenant under which we now live.
Seems Paul taught consistently with this new covenant, “For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” – 2 Cor. 5:10
David,
You said, “Now I will proceed to address ALL of Dennis’ scripture references (and your question about my third issue) and present you all with a question.” And then you did not address anything. You brought out some other scriptures that had nothing to do with the discussion in order to accuse Dennis of using scriptures out of context, but you never said a word to make your case about the scriptures Dennis listed. You did not show a thing. You only claim you address them.
Your question in relation to Romans is a straw man and I don’t plan to play your game unless you first tell me when you stopped robbing liquor stores. If what you really meant to ask is do I think that a baby that died 8 minutes after birth died because it sinned, I don’t know the answer. The Bible is not clear in this regard. It is no clearer than it is regarding whether or not that baby is going to go to hell (you may want to go back and listen to Hosner’s discussion during either the Christmas or New Year’s grace talk). One possible answer is that someone dies because someone else sins. Could that explain why babies die? This is consistent with the idea of a fallen world, which is something the Bible clearly teaches (Romans 5). If a baby is aborted before it is born, is it due to the baby’s sin or someone else’s? Is it possible that Satan has something to do with the baby’s death?
Jose
Jason! Welcome!
Good to hear from you. I will gladly attempt to answer your questions.
You say,
Jason, I’m just echoing the teachings of Paul.
Here Paul makes it clear that one purpose of the Law was to show man’s inability to measure up. It is like a mirror which reflects man’s sinfulness.
If the Law were “keepable” then Paul would not have described the Law as that which brings wrath.
Paul plainly teaches here that the Law made him aware of his sin. If he were able to keep the Law, then the Law would bring life. Instead the Law brought death.
Again, Paul points out the purpose of the Law in excluding anyone from claiming self-righteousness.
Certainly if Paul were able to keep the Law, he wouldn’t use such language as “I cannot” and “prisoner” and “slave” and “who will rescue me?” I’m at a loss to understand how you can read the book of Romans (and I remember that you are a teacher of this book) and still think that sinful men are able to keep the Law.
You also state:
Jason, I don’t deny what the author of Hebrews writes. I simply deny what your Dad claims his writings imply. I’m sure you can see the difference. Dennis claims that we have the same ability to not sin that Jesus had. Yet Paul claims that all have sinned. Even if I were to grant to you that babies are born completely morally neutral, they all eventually commit sin. ALL OF THEM. If that weren’t true then how could Paul say “all have sinned”? If they were morally neutral, however, then we should see evidence of at least some people living sin-free lives (and there is no evidence that Enoch or Job lived sinless lives or else Paul’s arguments in Romans would be invalid–since even those without the Law are a law unto themselves and stand condemned under sin).
You say:
Please clarify how this backs your claim that men are born able to not sin. I’m just not tracking with you here.
Also, you say:
In context, it is clear that this judgment, the “bema” seat is for believers and not the same as that which awaits those who are not in Christ. Do you really think you have an icecube’s chance in Hell of standing before a holy God unless the righteousness of Christ is imputed to you?
Jose, by saying I would address all of Dennis’ scriptures, I was indirectly saying that using single sentences (or even whole paragraphs), dissecting single words, and ignoring the intent/over all message of the author is a dangerous way to interpret scripture. Sure, you can justify ideas (where are your wings?) with scripture but do they fit into the WHOLE of scripture (a system of theology)?
The scriptures are a picture of the way God is and how we relate to Him. Clearly we are interpreting the same picture differently but I think we can agree that the artist, God, has a single truth that is intended to be communicated.
The reason you can’t get rid of the idea of original sin is because the general idea of Romans is that everyone has broken the law and is accountable to God. One can interpret the play on words of “many were made sinners” to mean “some” but there is no getting around “for all have sinned” and “there is none righteous, no not one.” Romans says the law is written on the heart of everyone. Everyone has broken it and we are accountable to a Holy God. Once children (8 minutes old, 4 years, or whatever) are declared sinless out of ignorance then a good portion of the world is sinless by plead of ignorance. Therefore it doesn’t fit into the whole of scripture. Not to mention it makes Jesus’ death a “Plan B.”
In regards to my question, it is not a strawman and was not meant to be a trick question. It is a logical question in regards to the purposed application of scripture and real life experience. I think your challenge question is very appropriate and I will answer it if you will allow me to change the offense of robbing liquor stores to something far more serious. (John Lee articulates this much better here.)
When did I stop robbing God of glory that was due Him? Chronologically speaking, when my heart realized that everything I had done since I was born was done out of my own strength in rebellion against a Holy God and nothing I could do would satisfy the debt owed and asked Christ to save me by having His perfect righteousness cover my sinfullness in the eyes of God.
So when did you start having no other gods before Him, then when did you stop, and then when did you start again?
I said I’d stop posting here, and I have, but I just had to say…welcome, Jason! It’s good to know there are others out there that care about the finer points of theology. Too many would be put off by this discussion, or just leave it to the “intellectual big-wigs,” ignoring our responsibility as fellow saints and co-heirs to search the Scriptures. Thanks for your boldness in contributing.
Ken,
Hi, I have been following these proceedings with interest from the side lines until I read and thought about your 2/4/06 posting.
Here , if I may paraphrase, I understand the position of the leadership of GF to be in lock step with the doctrine of total depravity (TD)which asserts that men are sinful from birth for which Psalms 51 among others is noted as proof text?
My question/comment is this: Men are not born but babies are. So you are asserting that newborn babies, unable to utter anything beyond ooh and ahh are sinful?
In light of the great commision given by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 where he commands Go, Teach, and Baptize should we be going to teach children from infancy if in fact they are to be held guilty and accountable for their sin? Would not every neighborhood kindercare and day care be a mission field ripe unto harvest. Furthermore wouldn’t their be Bible examples of the apostles preaching and teaching newborn babies trying to convert them? Where is this found?
Finally, on Pentecost day Peter in Acts 2:38 told the men present to repent. To repent means to turn from sin which should mean that one would have to have an understanding of what they were turning from and what they were turning to right? How could a newborn baby have any such recognition. I look at my own daughter who at age 3 1/2 is only now beginning to read and understand simple childrens books being no where near capable to comprehend right from wrong in the sense of needing to repent as those on Petecost day who gladly received the word. I wonder how any one could fathom her or any other child as sinful and in danger of eternal punishment?
This doctrine of total depravity is perplexing to me in light of clear Bible teaching?
Thanks for the forum, I agree with Eric Gray it does cause me to study harder.
Joe
Joe! I was just thinking this morning that I might expect to hear from Brian, Chad and JOE!!!! Welcome aboard.
With pleasantries aside, I ask you to please go back and read some of my earlier posts on this thread. I have been quite clear in my presentation of my theology. I believe I cover most of your questions in my discussion on “nature” i.e. we are “by nature” objects of wrath (Eph. 2).
If you want to read an article defining TD by a theologian whom I trust to explain it in a clear, concise way, then go here:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html
This is written by John Piper, one of my favorite teachers. I usually agree with most everything he writes.
Welcome, Joe. Ken can certainly answer for himself, but I’d like to offer a few thoughts…
Why would we not teach our children the gospel from their infancy? Does Deuteronomy 6 not apply as much today as it did in Moses’ time?
Also, as a father of two children myself, I have to ask… Do you really not think that your child needs a savior? From the time that my children began to make willful choices (well before one year in age), I could see that their natural state was one of rebellion. We didn’t need to teach them that.
Have you ever had to chastise or discipline your daughter? If yes, then why? Would it not be because she knowingly rebelled against your authority?
Welcome all new commenters!
Joe E, says,
I whole-heartedly admit that it’s not a very settling, cozy, warm and fuzzy thought. I denied it for years thinking that it wasn’t “fair” until I asked myself these questions:
What does the almighty God, creator of all the universe, owe me? Would He be any less Holy if after Adam and Eve rebelled in the garden He said, “That’s it, you blew it” then turned His back on us, never sent Jesus, and left us all condemned? Is it possible that I’m elevating myself to the position of judge over God?
To piggyback on Eric’s question, what’s the difference between my 2 year old daughter that willfully lies (one of those 10 commandments) when I ask her if she hit her sister and a 30 year old man in the Congo that willfully lies when asked how many bananas he harvested in the field today?
I have to ask myself, at what point do my children cease to love the Lord their God with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength…..
The answer is that they never started doing that in the first place. If that is God’s requirement, then indeed we are condemned by our sin from birth.
In regards to the very literal translation of this verse that is being offered, Jesus’ human experience was different than anyone else’s from the very beginning. He had no human father – something universal to the human experience. Or do you deny the virgin birth as well, because “every way” means “every way” right?
At what point did Jesus realize that He was the Son of God and begin to act like it? From the way my two year old acts, I know it had to be pretty early on.
Another problem with this interpretation of Heb. 2:17 would be related with what the writer considered the purpose for Christ being “made like his brothers in every way…that he might make atonement…”
If I am therefore able to not sin because Jesus and I are made in “like” manner (Dennis and Jason’s contention), then wouldn’t it follow that there are others out there who are able to make atonement ? I pointed out earlier that if Job and Enoch were sinless, as Dennis contends, then they should have been able to make atonement.
Yet the Bible is clear that only Jesus was a suitable sacrifice for sins because only Jesus was sinless.
Ken, and others of your beliefs,
How does it feel to serve a ruthless, uncompassionate, personal favorite God who, according to your theology, laughs at anyone who tries to come to the Bible with a simple, contrite heart? What has happened to distort the view of our beautiful, innocent children who are so helpless, that they rely on their parents for everything they do? Yes they lie, and they should be disciplined for it, but if they do not understand the idea that sin has separated them from God, and come to a slight appreciation for the atoning sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf, how in the world can we lay on them a burden that they themselves do not understand?
In what Bible do you find that god? Not mine. Mine says that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son to die for the world, so that the world through Him might be saved. Mine says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Mine says that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. That is how God showed His love for us. Mine says that God loved us first, before we ever loved Him. Mine says that we know love because God is love. Mine says that God skilfully wrought me in my mother’s womb. Mine says that God knew me before my birth. Mine says that Jesus has gone to prepare a place for me, and that he would return for me to take me home.
That is the God of the Bible. Where in that do you find a god who has, with no regard to man, laid on him sin that he has not committed. Why should I bear the guilt of Adam? NO one has yet to show me that.
But yet Jesus died for us, so that through Him, we might have life.
It is interesting in Romans 12 that Paul tells the Romans to “present your bodies a living sacrifice” and to “not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” What happens if I do not renew my mind? I am like those in Galatians 5 in which Paul says will not inherit the kingdom of God. Can a baby renew his/her mind? No. Their mind is still forming. Therefore, if you hold this view, then if a child dies before it can even speak, it is going to hell. You cannot say that some miraculous thing will take place in which God saves the baby because He never said that was the case. Otherwise, there is no comfort for our mothers who lose their children. Their is no comfort for fathers who lose their children. But here is the comfort: our children are innocent, pure, not tainted by the sins of the world. And therefore, they are closer to heaven than we because of their innocence. Jesus said, “do not hinder the children from coming to me.”
Hey guys, stop doing the same thing that Jesus warned against. Are children are innocent until proven, or being understood to be, guilty. Makes sense when it is put in line with God’s word.
Eric Gray
Now I’m really confused:
Who’s sin? Their sin? Adam’s sin? I thought you said they had no sin. If ignorance of sin separating us from God declares one “sinless” (an issue of understanding, not age) then a good portion of the world is in the clear. We should just stop preaching the Gospel all together in order to save more.
And by the way, it feels great serving the God that I do because I know that I could never have satisfied the law that He demands of me and yet He sent His Son to die on my behalf to save me – such amazing grace. My comfort is not in knowing that my family is safe but my comfort is in the Lord.
I notice how your “God” sounds more like the American legal system.
Eric,
Please don’t muddy the waters with your “shock and awe” statements. Deal with all the dozens of scripture references I’ve posted over the last few days that refute your contention that children are born “able to not sin.” THAT is the point of this thread. Dennis began this whole thing by attempting to refute my statemtent that we are not free to NOT sin.
If you want to convince me, show me, from the scriptures, that children are born with the ability to live their lives sin-free. Show me where Paul teaches that the Law of Moses is keepable by sinful men.
And please, stop misapplying the “do not hinder the children” passage. There is nothing there to refute the doctrine of Total Depravity. Really, if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, then you would have to become (in your words) “innocent, pure, not tainted by the sins of the world” in order to be a part of the kingdom of heaven!!!
Eric, why should the fish watching the birds fly overhead be bound to life underwater? (No evolution cracks please.)
Don’t think of it as “being held responsible for someone’s sin” but “because of someone’s sin we are born sinning.”
Adam and Eve were no longer in good standing with God and then they started having children that weren’t in good standing with God.
Fair or not, it’s the ultimate expression of “blame your parents.” ;^)
So, if we are talking about a native American (i.e. Indian) circa. 400 A.D. living in modern day South Dakota, told a lie, then would we make the same argument…
Are they guilty before God or are they innocent, because they surely don’t have a slight appreciation for the atoning sacrifice of Christ. In fact, they’ve never heard of Christ.
Unless, of course, they are some of the ones that the Mormon Jesus came and preached to.
David has a good point… Why is one child born with Downs Syndrome, while the next is born completely healthy? Why is one child born into a Muslim country where he is taught from grade-school that killing himself in the cause of Jihad is the way to secure eternal life, while the next child is born into a country where the gospel is freely preached? Is God not sovereign over those circumstances? Did he not, by grace, allow you to be born in this country? Does He owe the Downs child an apology? Is God unjust because He doesn’t give each child an equal shot at good health or salvation?
One may not like a God who is not fair by our standards, but we don’t get to fashion him according to our liking.
And John, too! 🙂
John,
Good point. Oh, and that would be the Mormon jesus (little “j”).
Eric,
Well said.
Before I begin my response I would like to say that you did not answer my questions. Was the statement I based my first question on inaccurate? If not, then I will ask again. Why would God willingly punish man for something he has NO control over.
I must whole-heartedly disagree with that statement. You have not echoed what Paul is saying. I feel I’m experiencing deja vu in writing this response. In the context of this scripture, Paul is explaining the inability of the old law to redeem, justify or forgive sin in direct contrast to the covenant we have today. OF COURSE the law would not declare anyone righteous who HAS ALREADY COMMITTED SIN. That old law contained within it no means to redeem sin.
The old law was not just a mirror to show man how sinful he was.
“What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator.” – Gal. 3:19
Because of the choices God’s people had made, He had to send the law. It was to keep His people [as] close to Him [as possible] until Christ could come to the earth as God had promised.
This was written to people attempting to have their sins justified by that old law.
If Paul were able to keep the law at that point in his life then it would not bring life, but it was because Paul had already committed sin. There was no means of justification in that law.
I’m not sure what translation you are using, but I do not read Paul saying “I cannot” in that passage. I see him saying “I do not”. BIG difference. As a matter of fact, in reading your previous writings it seems that you are often willing to substitute CAN NOT in the place of WILL NOT, DO NOT or HAVE NOT.
It does not matter if a person CAN or CAN NOT keep the old law. There would be no point as you would fall from grace as Paul told the Galatians. Grace being needed because of the sins already committed.
This is exactly what the Bible teaches. ALL COULD live sinlessly, but NONE DO (except for Christ). What is the point of those Hebrews passages if Christ was not MADE exactly like us and was not tempted exactly like us? Just because the Hebrews writer says that Christ and I were of the same nature when we were born does not mean that we are of the same nature today. He always made the right decisions; I have not.
You continued…
Was Christ not that evidence?
In reference to the passages I mentioned in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 you asked…
This was in response to your claim that God was willing to kill children because they are born of a sinful nature. You claim that it is the sinful nature we are born with (the sin we inherited from Adam) that causes our nature to be different from the nature of which Christ was born. Perhaps we are mixing the discussions of total depravity and original sin, but are they not related?
In any case, I would still like to see your response to that question.
Your last statement seems to suggest there will be different types of judgement. I have never seen evidence of such a thing written in the scriptures. I would be happy to study any passages you can provide that teach this.
I know you have a lot going on in this blog. This is not my favorite means of discussion. The different points, questions and topics seem to multiply almost exponentially. However, I do want to mention that you overlooked my question about a law today.
To keep you from searching, I will re-paste it here.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason, your question suggests an understanding of sin that I wouldn’t accept so quickly. When you ask “how is it that we are constantly sinning,” as if the law were chiefly about the discrete acts of sin, I think you miss the point that Jesus called attention to in the Sermon on the Mount.
In his series of pronouncements about the law (“you have heard it said… but I say…”) he shows that the law convicts us as to our nature. Fussing about one particular sin or another is rather like fussing about a broken window on the Titanic as if the hull hadn’t been ripped wide open.
Jason, you said:
If I understand you correctly, that’s quite a claim. Let me see if this is what you mean:
Men created by God have the power to force their creator into “plan B”?
If that’s the case, what’s to say we can’t do it again?
Furthermore, what’s to say Satan might not win in the end?
Eric Gray, this is priceless:
How does it feel to serve a ruthless, uncompassionate, personal favorite God who, according to your theology, laughs at anyone who tries to come to the Bible with a simple, contrite heart?
You crack me up, chief. How does it feel? You’re arguing to emotion now? There’s a place for that sort of thing, but if you’re going to lead the charge with a box of Kleenex I’d say you’re running out of ideas.
I think what you’re trying to do is called “taking the roof off,” or reductio ad absurdum — you’re attempting to show that the consequences of believing in original sin are so preposterous as to make the whole thing collapse. It’s a great tactic. Unfortunately, you can’t just say “roof, come off!” … you actually have to take it off. You forgot to do that. All you ended up doing is falling into the common logical fallacy called “affirming the consequent;” you simply said that what you are arguing for is true. That doesn’t make it false; it just means you said nothing.
In what Bible do you find that god? Not mine.
The unabridged version. What version are you reading? If the picture you painted is the only one you have, I wonder: did it come through Oprah’s book club?
Sorry, I’m just kidding. The unabridged version does not have a “ruthless, uncompassionate, personal favorite God” who laughs at those who earnestly seek him with a pure heart. It reveals a God who is, first and foremost, passionate for his own glory. He created mankind — for his own glory. He punishes their transgressions — for his own glory. He buys them back with the blood of his son — for his own glory.
I need to turn in for tonight, so I’ll wrap up here. But I’ll jump on the “innocent babies” bandwagon before I go…
If babies are born without sin, how come Adam and Eve couldn’t (or at least, didn’t) send Cain and Abel back into the Garden?
Jason,
You write:
But what about all those pure, innocent, untainted-by-sin babies who were born to good Jewish parents? You claim that the Law was keepable. Why couldn’t these innocent babies, who according to your theology, are able to live sin-free lives follow this “keepable” law and therefore stand JUSTIFIED…declared righteous in his sight by observing the Law?
Don’t you see how your theology caves in on itself? If what you keep implying is true then Paul was completely deluded.
Look again at Rom. 7:10, “I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.” You make the claim (what systematic theologies have you been reading?) that Paul was unable to find life in the Law because he had already committed sin. But he says “the very commandment that was INTENDED to bring life…” Your interpretation would have him saying, “the very commandment that I THOUGHT MIGHT bring life…” Very different indeed.
You say,
Here it is in several versions and I’d be happy to bring on the Greek if I could type it on my keyboard:
This is like saying, “I look and look and look and I don’t find my keys”. It’s the same as saying, “I can’t find my keys”.
I’m sure this is sufficient.
I asked you,
Your response…
Cheese Doodles, man!!!!! This is exactly what I’m trying to say. Christ is THE ONLY ONE. No one else could keep the Law. No one else could live sin free. NO ONE BUT CHRIST IS ABLE TO NOT SIN! We do not share the same nature as Christ at our birth.
Which brings me back to my original point which none of you have been able to disprove. We (fallen men) are not free to not sin. Period.
Finally you ask,
First, Rom. 5:13 affirms that there is always law which embodies the holiness of God to which man falls short. So I would say “yes” in that sense. I would say “no” in the sense in which I heard it preached in the Church of Christ for years, that the Law of Moses (with its regulations) was replaced by a new law (with its regulations) and justification is found only in obedience to the letter of this new law. In this system, you have people falling in and out of justification so many times that no one is really sure they’re saved.
Jason, do you know for a fact that you have been completely obedient to all the regulations necessary for you to receive enough forgiveness to go the Heaven if, God forbid, you were to die right now? Just how much sin is Jesus going to overlook in your life? Are you sure? What if you aren’t able to get that last “please forgive me” out before you lose consciousness?
I’m not mocking you. I’m seriously questioning the validity of your theological position and your interpretation of the scriptures. The love of Christ compels me to no less.
(Aside… if you’re looking for Greek you can get it here: http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible.
You can dig into (for example) Romans 8:8:
Ho (This, that, these)
de (but, moreover, and, etc.)
en (in, by, with, etc.)
sarx (flesh, the body, a living creature, fallen nature)
ontes (being, etc.)
theo (God)
aresai (please)
ou (not)
dunantai (able)
Which I reassemble like this:
…these but in [the] flesh being, God pleasing they are not able.
Sounds like Yoda when you render it that way, but it shows the Greek definitely speaks to inability as a function of the sinful nature.
Ken,
So, if I can’t find my keys after searching for a while; that means it is impossible to ever find my keys and I should just give up trying?
Ken, it only takes ONE sin to make a person sinful, yes? At that point, describing someone as fleshly or unable to please God is not unreasonable. In this case Romans 8:8 would be applicable.
I’m NOT arguing that a man can justify himself by his works. YOU KNOW THIS. What I am saying is that God would not expect something of us that He KNOWS is impossible.
Ken, if I did live sinlessly from this day forward it would not justify me. I still have the sins of my past that need forgiveness.
Now I can say to you with confidence that I will most likely not live sinlessly from this day forward. But I WILL TRY. And the blood of Christ will take care of everything else (1 Jn. 1:7).
If God does not expect us to strive for sinlessness then why does He inspire men to say things such as this?
“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” 1Co 10:13
Your teachings tell me that it is not possible to live righteously and I should just give up trying (as with my keys). Whatever happened to the old adage, “If at first you don’t succed…try, try again.”
Again, I do not believe living sinlessly from this day forward would save me or anyone else who is already sinful. That is why we need grace and the blood of Christ.
By the way, you mentioned earlier that our fleshly nature is what makes us “slaves to sin”. I guess you would say whosoever is born of woman is the servant of sin.
But Jesus said, “…Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” John 8:34
Why not? If He is omniscient then shouldn’t He be able to KNOW that He would be sending His only Son to be the one that would fullfill the law, die on a cross and bare the judgement for the sins of those who believe in Him?
Or did He get tired of waiting to see if someone down here could do it?
Jason,
We (me, Hugh, Eric F., David, et al) continue to exegete the text yet you continue to pull proof texts out in order to bolster your bad theology.
You ask:
Keeping in mind that it’s just an illustration, I can safely say “Yes” if, in fact, the keys have been vaporized in a nuclear explosion and therefore do not exist. The same is true for personal righteousness. Whether before or after a person commits their first sin, the Bible clearly describes fallen man (not Jesus!!!) as unable to not sin. You still haven’t shown me how the whole of the Bible teaches otherwise.
You say:
The problem is that it’s just not what the text says. It’s what you WANT it to say. My point, which you can’t refute, is that all people WILL sin. It’s inevitable. All are in bondage to this “destiny” if you will. Therefore it is a condition of being a fallen human. It is a condition of one’s birth.
Also, in your theology, does a person’s nature change from one state to another after they commit their “first” sin? Is there some kind of systemic change that corrupts them? And here’s the most important question, DOES IT HAPPEN TO EVERYONE? If not, then are there adults (people past the “age of accountability) out there who are not sinners?
You say:
To your first statement, you are kidding yourself. You DO believe in justification by works–works of obedience to get justified (hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized), and works of obedience to stay justified (remain “faithful”, don’t use instruments in worship, don’t drink alcohol, go to church every time the doors open, etc.).
To your second statement, didn’t Jesus say something about what is impossible with man is possible with God? This is the whole point of resting on the grace of a Sovereign God for justification.
Just look at the Ten Commandments. Can you honestly say that you can possibly keep even the first (have no other gods before me)? The rich young ruler deluded himself in this way and Jesus set him straight. Back to my question of last night, why can’t any of these “innocent, able-to-not-sin babies” who grew up in good Jewish homes keep the Law? Paul says Jew and Gentile alike are all “under” sin.
You say:
Precisely, Jason. Give up your efforts at self-righteousness. Give up your efforts to stand justified before God by works of obedience. Trust Jesus to be your righteousness. Trust God to impute the perfect obedience of Christ to your account. Trust him and you will be justified. Trust him and God will fill you with His Holy Spirit to empower you to live a life with resurrection power. Trust Him to free you from condemnation and release you to obey out of gratitude and worship. This is the good news.
Jason,
I wanted to add this too.
You say:
If a Referee says to his crew, “Whoever wears red plays for Alabama. Whoever wears white plays for Miss. State” doesn’t it go without saying that the player was on his respective team BEFORE he put on the uniform?
Jason, we sin because we are sinners by nature.
Jason, addressing your verses of question directly:
As far as 1 Cor. 10, who is Paul speaking to? Believers who have already sinned but have been forgiven.
Now that we have the Holy Spirit in us we in fact DO have the same potential as Christ to resist temptation in this life. But most of the time we don’t, and thus Paul’s caution. (Galatians 5:16-18 and Romans 8:1)
John 8:34 is in response to someone who didn’t understand Christ’s metaphore about freedom. They thought they were righteous because of their heritage. In line with Ken’s example, look lower in the text where Christ identifies what team He is on. See verse 46.
And just to show that we aren’t a bunch of “Ken puppets” here at GF ;^), Ken you asked:
Because Enoch and Job would not have been able to pay for the sins of others. Only God can forgive sins and Jesus fits the bill.
Well I guess I now have a little better understanding of where you’re coming from, Ken.
If you will not accept what I say as the honest, humble truth of my beliefs and feelings then I cannot expect to make any sort of impression on you. You apparently know what I believe better than I do. You have now done to me what you have been doing to the inspired writers. You discarded what was plainly stated and replaced it with what you wanted me to say.
I do want to say this to all who are reading this. I believe God loves man. I believe He wants us to do His will, and I believe He is powerful enough to write His will in a way that any can understand. Please take a moment to ponder why it would be necessary for every plainly spoken scripture to require an explaination by someone “more knowledgable”. God’s will is plain and clear if we are willing to accept it as such (Ephesians 3:3-4).
I appreciate the patient and sincere comments by those who have participated in this discussion, but I will take my leave. My hope is that each of us will turn to God’s word for a better understanding of His will, that we would be unified in our faith as Christ prayed for, and that ultimately each of us can stand before God on the judgment day as men cleansed by the blood of Christ.
Ken,
I want to take a second and respond to a comment you made to Jason.
You were talking about justification coming through works, and you accused Jason, as well as me in the previous post, of basing my justification upon “works of obedience.”
Have you ever read the book of Genesis? Much more, have you ever read the book of Hebrews? I distinctly remember you saying that you came to these beliefs by much study of Romans and Galatians. Even better.
What is faith? “The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb. 11:1. But much more, what is faith? Hebrews 11 gives the perfect example of faith. Going to a widely misused passage, “By grace you have been saved through faith…” How are we saved by grace through faith? Hebrews 11 describes faith as being obedient. “By faith Abraham obeyed…” “By faith Abel offered…” “By faith Noah built…” The examples go on an on. But it also says that without faith it is impossible to please God. How can I have faith without showing it through obedience? Didn’t James talk about that? You seem to think that faith requires no action on the part of man.
I know that you think that nothing good comes from man, and that God creates this faith. That’s not in the Bible. Faith is man’s reaction to God’s grace. That’s the Bible.
You need to check your Bible and really study to find out what the word “faith” means. Take away the Calvinistic blinders and find out what true faith is. Faith is working, faith is obeying. That is faith.
Eric Gray
Jason,
I pasted your comments verbatim into the body of my responses.
Where have I misquoted you?
If you’re upset about my claim that you do, indeed believe in justification by works of obedience simply repudiate what I said.
To explore the implications of one’s arguments often unearths conclusions perhaps unintended by the one making the argument. This is what debate is all about.
Eric G,
You can rail on Calvin all you want. The finer points of theology which I share with him and which you reject offer the only reasonable understanding of the Bible in light of the sovereignty of God.
It’s as simple as that. Ultimately this is where you have the greatest difficulty with my beliefs.
You say:
Too bad Jesus didn’t know that when he told Nicodemus “unless you are born again, you cannot see (oidos=comprehend) the kingdom of heaven”.
Too bad he didn’t know that when he told his disciples “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Eric, faith works, faith obeys. But faith is NOT working and obeying. As I have been laboring over and over with Jason, if working and obeying was what justified man to God, then the Law would have led to life and faith would be irrelevant.
Hey let’s get back to the original question, are babies born free to not sin? Let’s say you make up your mind to never sin again. Can you possibly accomplish this?
Ken,
You stated it exactly as Jesus so sweetly worded it: Unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. What does it mean to be born again? How is someone born again? Please explain!
You see, the Hebrew writer made it plain and clear that Faith is working and obeying. Paul made it very clear. James made it very clear. Why can Ken not understand it as clear?
Back to the babies: Show me where they are not born innocent. I think that is where we are all having the most problems. Why should I have to prove to you why they are not born with sin when you have yet to prove how they are born with sin?
I can make up my mind to never sin again, but I cannot stop sinning. That is the point of grace and mercy.
But could the law be kept fully? What about when Paul said in Phil. 3:6 that “concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” Did he keep the law blameless? Please answer.
Eric Gray
Ken,
Per your request I will respond once more.
I did not say anything to imply justification by works. If anything, you inferred it, but I’m not even sure how you did that. I boldy denied justification by works.
The only things I mentioned as a requirement for justification were the grace of God and the blood of Christ.
But since you find the need to ridicule the importance of obedience in the life of a Christian, I’ll part with some passages for you and others to consider.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Mat 7:21-24
“If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.” Joh 14:15
“…and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation.” Heb 5:9
“And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1Jo 2:3
“And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” Act 5:32
“Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Rom 6:16 (What, Paul, we have a choice?)
“…rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus.” 2Th 1:8
“For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God: and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God?” 1Pe 4:17
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” 1Jo 5:3
“This is the end of the matter; all hath been heard: fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Ecc 12:13
Jason,
I think we are generating more heat than light right now. Sorry for not respecting your desire to bow out.
Please be assured, I have no “need to ridicule the importance of obedience”. I hope you can see that by the life of obedience which I strive to lead every day. You know me. I’ll leave it at that.
Eric G., you wrote:
We have two choices:
1. Paul completely contradicts himself when he says in Romans, “no one shall be declared righteous in his sight by observing the Law”.
2. Paul is referring to the “appearance” of righteousness which characterized Phariseeism–kind of a “dumbed-down”, “keepable” form of piety which allowed them to consider themselves righteous.
I prefer the latter since it harmonizes Paul’s clear teachings elsewhere.
Eric G. asks how someone is born again. I’m sure the question is designed to scrape deeper into the tenets of reformed theology so I will leave a link for anyone who is interested and also so I can go to bed.
The Work of the Trinity in Monergism
Ken,
Again I appreciate the forum and my opportunity to participate.
I must say thanks to Jason Gray for citing the numerous passages on the subject of obedience. Although he listed more than ten it is but a brief number of references when compared to the myriad times in scripture God declares this to be what He wants from us, obedience. Obedience not to a reformed theology but unbridled, unwavering, unshakable obedience to His will and His way which are in no wise burdensome(Matt 11:30)
The topic of obedience will take me to the focus of my previous post, the idea that children are born sinful. I, over the past day or so as I have played this idea over and over in my mind cannot come to grips with how any clear thinking individual could possibly look at a newborn baby and beleive this teaching. Then I began to wonder what these same men’s thinking would be for the untold millions of babies aborted in our country, are they condemned to hell?
Now, as I asked previously if salvation is dependent upon obedience to the gospel(Heb 5:9) then shouldn’t infants be implored to obey the gospel from birth?? Perhaps it would be better to wait till age 1 or 2 when children can actually form words like mama, dada, and Barnie to begin trying to teach then the gospel in between teaching them the ABC’s?
As the early church did we today must follow the teachings of the apostles (Acts 2:42)which they received from GOd in that same chapter of Acts not the tenents of Calvinism,Luteranism, what my preacher says, what my family believes or what I feel at the moment for that matter. What ultimately matters is what the Bible says and only what the Bible says.
I again ask; Where is the example of Peter, Paul, John or any other pleading with newborns, creepers and crawlers or toddlers to obey the gospel this way:Hear the word (Romans 10:15-17) Believe the word (Mark 16:15-16) Repent (Acts 2:38) Confess Christ (Matthew 10:32-33) Be Baptized (Galatians 3:27, Acts 2:38) and live faithfully (Rev 2:10).
A Bible example will persuade me, opinions of men will not
Thank you again for the discussion
Joe Engelbird
Joe, there’s a problem…
First you said:
…the idea that children are born sinful. I… cannot come to grips with how any clear thinking individual could possibly look at a newborn baby and beleive [sic] this teaching.
(Quick aside: what if I said I can’t come to grips with how any clear-thinking individual could possibly look at a newborn baby and not believe this teaching? It doesn’t address the question, does it?)
Then you said (emphasis mine):
…we today must follow the teachings of the apostles… not the tenents [sic] of Calvinism,Luteranism [sic], what my preacher says, what my family believes or what I feel at the moment for that matter. What ultimately matters is what the Bible says and only what the Bible says.
Is it fair to say that, regardless of which side of the “original sin” question any of us falls on, our ability to “come to grips with it” says nothing about the truth?
A couple of times now (Jason Gray @ 2006-02-07 21:57; Dennis @ 2006-02-03 19:23) we’ve endured a Parthian volley of Bible verses.
I’m asking myself: “What now?”
Do I take them seriously and address them, even though they were not delivered seriously?
Do I dismiss them, treat them as covering fire to facilitate retreat, and move on?
Do I let stand the impression that a handful of verses closes the case?
Do I address the one-sidedness fallacy that lies therein?
I’ve got to run, so I’ll just say this: argument does not consist of mocking your opponent’s position and throwing Bible verses at it. This is true no matter which side you’re on, and it extends to the way we as Christians engage the culture and each other alike.
In this case, it’s particularly distasteful. The disagreement is among those who revere the Scripture but come to different conclusions about what the Scripture means. That’s not a problem. What is really foul, however, is that one side of the room is content to take that Scripture and reduce it to a bunch of one-liners with which to muddy the waters and create confusion, not clarity, and call into question the glory of God to which the Scriptures testify so powerfully.
I find this sort of attack as rather ironic when the Pelagian view that you are espousing has been in distinct minority throughout church history (and deemed heretical). In addition, when defending this position, you find yourself in the company of folks who hold other non-Biblical views, like denial of the Trinity.
Now that doesn’t prove that you are wrong, but it sure makes your ridicule of Ken seem out of place.
Hello again Joe,
You say,
Joe, this discussion has explored dozens (if not more) passages related to the topic at hand. You are setting up a straw man with your argument. You have arrived at the conclusion that the necessary implications of the doctrine of Total Depravity (TD) is that all babies who die before committing personal sin go to hell. From this conclusion you then set out to prove TD is unbiblical. Hugh could tell us the logical fallacy that is in play (I took logic 26 years ago).
First of all, your pre-conceived conclusion is false. If you do any reading at all of systematic theology (which is a big fancy word for Bible harmonization), then you will see that this is an issue all have considered and dealt with.
In a nutshell, we can look to King David’s assurance that he will be with his dead infant son in the afterlife to assure us that God, IN HIS SOVEREIGNTY (a topic you haven’t considered at all in your criticism of my position), would apply the atoning power of the blood of Christ to those who are unable to exercise personal faith before their death.
Now you can sit back and wag your head at my “dilemma”. What about yours? Your system, with its mysterious “age of accountability” is equally troubling. Can you put your finger on the exact moment when Sarah becomes (as Eric, Jason, and Dennis argue) a sinner? When exactly does her disobedience move from cute and precocious to damnable? I have over 12 years of experience in youth ministry in the Church of Christ. I can tell you that this is excruciating to parents of teens and pre-teens.
We at Grace Fellowship trust foremost in the Sovereignty of God in all circumstances. God is in control. The apostles and evangelists in the Bible recognized this as well. They understood that people only respond as their hearts are opened to accept the gospel message. Ours is to faithfully preach. God gives the increase (haven’t you ever wondered how God “gives the increase” if he never interferes with our so-called free will?).
Finally, you will notice that the participants in this forum who embrace a biblical world view consistent with Reformed Theology believe, as you do, that the Bible is what ultimately matters. Please refrain from denigrating language which calls this into question. It is certainly “fair game” to call into question their interpretations of the Bible. To that I say, “indulge yourself.”
Hugh,
It does matter which side of the “original sin” argument you fall on when it comes to the truth. Here is how. According to 1 Thess 5:21 we are exhorted to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. Does this teaching have a biblical foundation? I have read the opinions of some on the matter but I remain unconvinced.
Furthermore no one has addressed the crux of my posts primarily that if babies are born sinful then to be consistent in your position you should be seeking to evangelize them from birth maybe conception. This is my greatest concern, not for proving you doctrine but for the salvation of our future generations.
Do you actively go teach and baptize babies? Do you reqire infants to repent and confess along with the other Biblical steps leading to salvation. Unless you do I question whether you really believe in “original sin”.
Finally I again ask where the first century church endeavored to teach infants? The single minded purpose of the acts of the apostles and early church was to carry out the Great Commision (Matt 28:18-20) and spread the gospel. They were concerned over the souls of men and based on the examples I read they taught those of an age who could decide for themselves to be obedient or not.
If you want to believe that babies are born sinful then could this be a first step away from the truth which is possible (Gal 1:6)?
I am only concerned this teaching could open the door to a flood of false teachings(1 Peter 5:8)
Joe
Joe, I’ve got to run to a meeting, but when you said it matters about which side of the debate you fall on, you fundamentally misunderstood what I said. Quoting myself:
Is it fair to say that, regardless of which side of the “original sin” question any of us falls on, our ability to “come to grips with it” says nothing about the truth?
Let me put it another way: whether one accepts the doctrine of original sin or not, one’s ability to come to grips with it says nothing about the truth of that doctrine.
I’ll try yet again: just because you don’t get it, doesn’t mean it’s not so.
Joe said:
if babies are born sinful then to be consistent in your position you should be seeking to evangelize them from birth maybe conception.
There’s no inconsistency if you subscribe to the doctrine of sovereign election. Election teaches that the conversion of souls is brought about not by evangelism but by the work of the Spirit. Does it pose any problems to contend that the Spirit regenerates babies (or anyone else) independent of an evangelical endeavor on the part of men?
(Looking back, Ken sort of brought this in earlier… it took me a minute to realize when he was talking about “David” that he didn’t mean Ennis, hehe…)
Joe said:
Do you actively go teach and baptize babies? Do you reqire infants to repent and confess along with the other Biblical steps leading to salvation. Unless you do I question whether you really believe in “original sin”.
I understand you’re trying to illustrate the consequences of asserting that babies are sinful. But in fact, the answer to your questions is, ultimately, “yes.”
Look at it this way: Christ requires everyone, adults and children alike, to repent and believe — but there’s no set timetable that we know about for these things. It’s on the Lord’s schedule, not ours.
The appeal of the illlustration you’ve offered is that it clearly shows that people aren’t prepared from birth to repent and believe. The average guy on the street isn’t either.
So, if you’re going to use that kind of logic to question someone’s belief in original sin, I could use the same logic to question your belief in the need for a savior if you don’t require everybody you meet to repent and confess, etc., right here, right now.
I hope it’s obvious that this “proves too much;” I don’t question your belief — but that also means I don’t think the doctrine of original sin is weakened by this line of argument.
Quick aside: if you’re looking for a quick reference on logical fallacies, try fallacyfiles.org.
!!Hey Eric G!! (Or whoever else cares to answer.)
So how do you respond to Ken’s multiple choices?
I just searched this entire thread and there has been a lot of talk about Romans, but so far NO ONE has addressed Romans Chapter 3 – in particular verses 10-24. Whenever it has been brought up, the response has been something to the effect of, “Well, what about this interpretation of Romans 5?” Or “You’re just wrong!”
If “no one will be declared righteous by it” (AKA: no one will achieve the end by the means) then by definition isn’t it “unkeepable?”
Since you have made it quite clear that you are only concerned about what the Bible teaches and Ken has responded to your questions, will you please address these verses directly and in a logical, coherent manner as to how they reconcile with the idea that the law is keepable?
I know that I am behind the times (I can’t keep up with you mega posters) – but I would pose this thought in response to the following from a man named Joe Engelbird:
If babies are born without original sin, and are therefore innocent before God – then wouldn’t aborthing them be the most humane or loving or merciful thing we could do for them? They would be assured of heaven.
Just wondering.
Eric –
Thanks for catching the “J”, man. Yes, the Mormon jesus – that would be the one.
🙂
John
David Ennis,
I guess in my simple mind that I didn’t realize that I supported that Paul kept the law perfectly. I thought I just asked a question. Sorry for asking!
Peter specifically said in Acts 15 that the Jewish Christians were binding laws on the Gentile Christians that neither them nor their fathers were able to bear. I do not think that anyone kept the law perfectly, save Christ. I asked a question about what Paul meant. Yes, even I can ask Ken for his opinion from time to time.
I don’t really know why we are concerned with the Old Law. Paul said it was nailed to the cross, and its ordinances were taken out of the way. He also said it was a tutor or schoolmaster bringing us to Christ. Those things that were written before were written for our learning.
Ken,
I will respond to your link when I have more time.
Eric Gray
Eric G, you are correct. I read your question as a challenge question so I was bringing it back to the forefront. My apologies.
It was Dennis and Jose that used Job and Enoch as examples of men that have lived without sin (implying their whole life) and Jason that said, “God would not expect something of us that He KNOWS is impossible.” By example of the 10 Commandments and Romans 3, it appears that He did.
So you disagree with them on that. Again, apologies.
Eric G,
You wrote:
I assume (correct me if I’m wrong here) you mean that the Law is irrelevant in the life of a Christian.
I’m interested to know just how this parses out for you. You allude to Col. 2:14:
Perhaps you might answer a few exegetical questions.
1. How, in your understanding, did the Law stand opposed to “us”?
2. If perhaps the Law was “against us” simply because it didn’t provide forgiveness, then does the Law stand against “innocent babies”? Does it stand against good Jews who, being able to not sin, hadn’t yet become sinners?
3. After listing such things as New Moon and Sabbath days (v. 16), Paul says, in v. 23, “Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” Can you tell me why Paul would make this claim? Why can’t a keepable Law restrain sensual indulgence?
Eric G, your quote implies a new law and Jason mentioned one earlier. As you are responding to Ken and so we are all on the same page, can you please define this new law (or provide a link to it)? Thx!
John Lee
You wrote:
If babies are born without original sin and are therefore innocent before God then wouldn’t aborting them be the most humane or loving or merciful thing we could do for them? They would be assured of heaven
Never in a trillion years could abortion be deemed as loving or merciful or humane. This is a vile and repulsive practice and God have mercy on America for sanctioning such actions.
By the same token pinning sin on an unborn child or new born or even toddler for that matter and believing God would send them to hell if they die is equally outrageous.
Do you think it loving to view an innocent child as sinful and in danger of the wrath of God?
Finally Hugh
You said
Conversion is brought about by soverign election and not through evalgelism.
The bible however teaches to the contrary. Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus commands hid followers to Go, Teach and Baptize. This is what is commonly refered to as evangelism. Furthermore Romans 10:17 Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. So hearing the word through preaching also known as evangelism produces faith. It appears that God counts on faithful men to preach His word in converting others not a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.
Thanks
Joe
Let me clarify what I said, Joe. When I said that “the conversion of souls is brought about not by evangelism but by the work of the Spirit,” I was not seeking to undermine the role of evangelism. I agree with you that we are clearly commanded to preach the gospel.
It seems to me that we just disagree on how evangelism works. If I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that evangelism is the mechanism of salvation. Is that right?
I wouldn’t go that far; I don’t know how to reconcile that idea with Paul’s rejection of salvation through works. If it is true that the works of men cannot save the souls of men, then it follows that the work of evangelism cannot effect salvation.
By contrast, I see no problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit is primary in the regeneration of fallen souls. It is certainly consistent with the whole of Scripture, and I can’t even think of any nagging problems it opens up. You’re free to argue otherwise, of course — I really, sincerely, believe I could be wrong — but you’ll have to show me.
Anyway, circling back around to your original question about evangelizing infants: that’s why I answered by pointing to sovereign election and the direct work of the Spirit over and above any effort of evangelism. If it’s all on the Holy Spirit to get the job done, it doesn’t matter if you’re talking about adults or babies. If it’s the Holy Spirit doing the work, we can be confident of Jesus’ statement that he loses none that the Father gives him.
If, on the other hand, it were up to guys like you and me, I would think Jesus was highly optimistic when he said that.
P.S. When you say “God counts on faithful men,” are you claiming that God is dependent upon men?
Joe,
We aren’t saying that God will send all babies to Hell, just that they are sinful. Whether they will be accountable for that sin is up to God. See Ken’s reference to King David (not me.)
You expressed concern about a slippery slope away from the truth. (Gal 1:3). As evidence of today’s prevalent Oprahism combined with the inability to define when one becomes accountable, here’s where the “loving God” argument can lead (I’m not saying that you’re saying this.):
I think I’d rather fall down the other side and trust in God’s perfect judgement.
Ken,
1. The law stood opposed to us in that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. But that in now way changed the fact that those under the law lived by faith (Hab. 2:4).
2. I do not think that the Old Testament is irrevalent. Nice try. I, for one, value the Old Testament. We find God’s providence, love, and care throughout all of the Old Testament. We find God’s love through His plan of sending His Son to the world to die for the sins of man. I love the Old Testament.
3. Your question #2 does not make sense. Paul says in Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Does that say that they sinned in Adam? Does that say that they are born with sin? Couldn’t it mean that all chose to sin? I guess you read what you want to read. The problem is you cannot say that it means that we are born with sin.
4. I never said that the Law was keepable. I specifically quoted Peter in Acts 15 saying that the Law was not bearable. But it is the same today. We are not able to keep the law of Christ perfectly. That is why God gave us grace and forgiveness.
David Ennis,
The new law would be the new law of Christ. It is not necessarily a new law, but it is used in reference as the Old Testament is given the title Old Law. The law was an agreement between God and man. The new law of Christ, as Paul mentions in Romans and Galatians as the law of the Spirit, is also an agreement between God and man.
Eric Gray
I think we all agree that murder is wrong no matter what your view of Total Depravity. Let’s just leave that one alone.
Joe, the Bible uses both the terms, “predestination” and “elect” in the context of salvation. Every Bible believer has to have some kind of doctrine of election. Ours is based on the Sovereignty of God. He knows all things from eternity therefore He decrees all things from eternity.
Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to deny the operation of the Holy Spirit (you’ve been reading too many bulletin articles :-D). Remember, Jesus said, “no one can come to me unless the father draws him.” Whatever way you slice it, the Spirit plays a role in conversion.
We contend that the Bible teaches that the Spirit’s draw is more than through merely reading or hearing words preached.
You allude to Rom. 10:17. Keep on reading to 11:7. Apparently there were some Jews who heard just fine but God gave them a “spirit of stupor”. Now how exactly do you explain that? Especially in light of your contention that God “counts on faithful men to preach…and not a direct operation of the Holy Spirit.”
David Ennis,
You say:
I’d rather fall down on the other side and trust in God’s perfect judgment.
Is “perfect judgment” defined as condemning someone to hell without ever giving them the opportunity to devote their lives to Him? Because my understanding of your view of “election” leads me to believe that this is what it entails. That is not perfect judgment. Judgment is condemning someone for what they did or didn’t do. It is not condemnation for what someone never had the chance from day one to do.
Thanks,
Eric G.
Eric G,
You wrote:
Please let me reword my question…
Since you believe the only reason Paul claims the Law to stand against us is it’s inability to forgive sin, and since you believe that we are not sinners until we sin for the first time, do you believe that the Law stood against that person who has reached the “age of accountability” but has not yet committed his first sin?
You see, this all goes back to my original point which Dennis tried to refute. We are not free to not sin. It sounds like you are agreeing with me.
Like it or not, this is what Original Sin is all about. Fallen man is born with the inability to NOT sin. He is by nature an object of wrath. There is a moral corruption that prevents him from living a life pleasing to God. He will, as you so eloquently point out, need grace and forgiveness. There’s no way around it.
you also say:
Wow. Again, we agree. But keep it quiet. Jason doesn’t buy it.
In another post you say,
I would direct you to my original post on this thread and the whole problem of evil. We both have a problem. I choose to embrace the mystery of God’s Sovereignty as the overarching determining factor in all events. I trust in His goodness as HE defines it, not as my sensibilities define it. For some reason, some of my opponents on this blog believe that trusting in God’s Sovereignty is some kind of false doctrine. Too bad.
Eric G,
Again, in regards to babies, all I’m saying is, though sinful, we don’t know their fate. We have to trust that God will do what brings Him the most glory.
You ask: “Is ‘perfect judgment’ defined as condemning someone to hell without ever giving them the opportunity to devote their lives to Him? … That is not perfect judgement.”
After reading Romans 2:12-16 and considering the proverbial Native American circa 400 AD, that definition works for me. Does it sound “fair”? No, but then again we, the judged, can’t presume to know how to apply perfect judgement.
This gets at something often called the “ought implies can” problem — the deeply held and completely understandable intuition that it is unfair to hold someone accountable for something he cannot do.
However, I am not aware that “ought implies can” is ever taught in Scripture. All I can say in support of the idea is that it sure seems reasonable.
So here’s what it comes down to: does a sinner’s intuition about fairness trump the testimony of Scripture about God’s righteousness, holiness, and justice?
Ken, and anyone who would like to answer,
In the garden of Eden, did God make Adam and Eve sin?
Eric Gray
Oracle: I’d ask you to sit down, but, you’re not going to anyway. And don’t worry about the vase.
Neo: What vase?
[Neo turns to look for a vase, and as he does, he knocks over a vase of flowers, which shatters on the floor]
Oracle: That vase.
Neo: I’m sorry…
Oracle: I said don’t worry about it. I’ll get one of my kids to fix it.
Neo: How did you know?
Oracle: Ohh, what’s really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn’t said anything?
Augh! I can’t help myself. I have to address a couple of things you said, Joe. These are ideas that I considered very early in my theological development, and they’ve helped me thus far. Allow me to explain.
You say,
Ignoring the obvious hyperbole…what if someone getting an abortion or performing one hasn’t reached the “age of accountability”? Is abortion then, therefore, not a sin? To rephrase this question, what constitutes sin? If you don’t answer, “Anything contrary to God’s character and anything the unregenerate man does,” then you have a problem. What about those sins done unintentionally by “innocents”? Do those sins just float around without anyone to blame? Do you have to invent another concept like the “age of accountability” to account for this?
Moving right along…
Once again, no one has said that God will or will not send babies who die to hell. If we’re all honest, none of us can say that–either way. I know how much fun it can be to beat up on a straw man, but please leave this one be: it’s been demolished already.
No matter what the belief you stick in place of the ellipsis, what does it matter that a belief is outrageous? Did the Bereans search the Scriptures to see if those things were so and to make sure they were not outrageous? No. A belief’s condition of being outrageous (which is a relative term, anyway) is irrelevant to its veracity.
Okay, here’s what I was talking about above. This concept is important, and I think it’s the basis for many of the disagreements here. Joe, you say,
Big question time: Who made the rule that theology has to be loving to be correct? Please answer me this! It seems to be the basis of what you, Eric G., Dennis, and Jason believe. A few quotes (forgive me if I don’t track whose they are):I am shocked that there are still people who believe…I wonder how any one could fathom her or any other child as sinful and in danger of eternal punishment? This doctrine of total depravity is perplexing to me in light of clear Bible teaching? [sic]How does it feel to serve a ruthless, uncompassionate, personal favorite God who, according to your theology, laughs at anyone who tries to come to the Bible with a simple, contrite heart? What has happened to distort the view of our beautiful, innocent children who are so helpless, that they rely on their parents for everything they do?Otherwise, there is no comfort for our mothers who lose their children. Their is no comfort for fathers who lose their children. But here is the comfort: our children are innocent, pure, not tainted by the sins of the world.I, over the past day or so as I have played this idea over and over in my mind cannot come to grips with how any clear thinking individual could possibly look at a newborn baby and beleive [sic] this teaching.Is “perfect judgment” defined as condemning someone to hell without ever giving them the opportunity to devote their lives to Him?So is our criterion for correct theology the fact that we feel it’s loving? That it’s not shocking? That we can fathom it? That it’s not perplexing? That it feels right? That it emphasizes the love and mercy of God over His ruthless judgment and passionate wrath? That it gives us a “beautiful, innocent” view of ourselves? That it always brings us comfort? That we can “come to grips” with it?
Can’t you see that, while all these criteria seem good to us, theology is not about us? We’re not talking anthropology. That’s the place for feel-good humanism. We’re talking THEOlogy. And if you base it on feeling good, our own judgment, how loving it is, or the fact it makes us feel comfortable, it’s a moving target. Theology is not the place for relativism. It is not the place to let our own desires get in the way of what the Scriptures teach. Please don’t throw out truth for the sake of feeling. If that happens, we are all lost.
Did God make Adam and Eve sin?
I’m not prepared to argue either way, but just for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that yes, God made Adam and Eve sin.
Does that present a problem?
Eric,
You ask,
Simple question, complex answer. Yes and No. See my original post on this thread.
Yes, in the sense that God is Sovereign and decrees all things which come to pass.
No, in the sense that God “authored” their evil. He decrees all things to come to pass according to the nature of secondary causes.
This is just like the question I posed in my first post, “Was the crucifixion a good thing or a bad thing?” The Bible forces us to conclude “both”.
I arrive at this conclusion through a systematic approach to biblical interpretation. Any serious student of the Bible must do the same. I find it necessary to say this because so many have accused me of following a theologian as opposed to following the Bible. That argument is just subterfuge. Challenge my conclusions. Argue with my interpretations. That’s cool. Just recognize that two people can both love the scriptures and look to them as the final authority and yet both can arrive at different conclusions on multiple subjects.
Here’s another clay pigeon for you…I don’t believe that Adam or Eve were born with a sinful nature. They were able to not sin.
Sorry I can’t bring in any references from “The Matrix”.
Ken,
Okay, so we can both study the Bible, reach different conclusions, and both be right? That makes as much sense as wiping before you use the restroom. Sorry for the analogy, but it was the best I could think of. If that is the case, then what does Paul mean in Ephesians 4:4-6 of “one faith”?
So, God put Adam and Eve in the garden to sin. That makes so much sense so that He could cast them out and cause them to die! Good conclusion (Sarcasm).
You see, the problem is this: man was God’s chief creation. Man was His glory, and for His glory.
Here is another problem. If God made Adam and Eve sin, then the Bible has contradicted itself.
1 Corinthians 10:13 says, “No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, WHO WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO BE TEMPTED BEYOND WHAT YOU ARE ABLE, but with the tempation will also make the way of escape, THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO BEAR IT.”
If God will not allow me, and I believe this includes all mankind including Adam and Eve, to be tempted beyond what we are able to bear, how can you say that God caused Adam and Eve to sin? That idea is perposterous.
Here is another problem:
James 1:12-18
I will not type all of these verses out for the sake of space, but please give them consideration.
But let us look particularly at James 1:13-14.
“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by emil, NOR DOES HE HIMSELF TEMPT ANYONE. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away BY HIS OWN DESIRES and enticed.”
Here is a major problem. God does not tempt anyone. If you say that God caused Adam and Eve to sin, then God tempted them, and James obviously was not inspired of the Holy Spirit. But we know this to not be the case.
Adam and Eve made a choice to rebel against God. The tree was put in the garden, and the law was given to not eat of it. Simple. But THEY CHOSE, as do we, to rebel against God’s law. That does not run down to me, only the consequence of death (Rom. 5:12). I am not born with it, I do not bear the guilt.
Now, given the idea that they chose to sin, don’t we do the same thing? You can argue all day that we are “children of wrath”. But you are taking the verse out of its context. What do you define as children? Didn’t Paul call the Ephesians in chapter 4 children? Were they under 12? Were they 50? You cannot use this verse to push Total Depravity because it just doesn’t do it.
After we are born, and we come to a knowledge of good and evil, and we rebel because we go against God’s commands, then that sinful nature has taken control, and thus we are “children of wrath.” How can you say a child is sinful when they have no knowledge of sin? How can they be accountable to God when they do not know what it means? How can they stand before the judgment seat of Christ and receive the things done in the body when they have no clue what it means to sin against God?
At least our babies are condemned to hell, right?
Eric G.
Ken,
Another point of Romans 5:12.
The consequence of sin is death. What is sin? Sin is committing lawlessness (1 John 3:4). So how does a child commit lawlessness? Please explain.
Also, think about why people die. What gave Adam and Eve eternal life? The tree of life which was in the garden (Gen. 2:9). This tree, of which they ate, gave them eternal life. That is why when God cast them out of the Garden, “He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life” (Gen. 3:24).
We also know that in heaven is the tree of life, and God will grant the “overcomers” to eat of it (Rev. 2:7).
“For the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).
That is what we earned when Adam and Eve sinned. It was not their sin, it was the consequence of death because the way to the tree of life was shut off. It does not say in Romans 5 that we inherited sin, but it might say that in the KRV (Ken Rutherford Version). Just a joke 🙂 Please give this some thought.
Eric G.
Eric,
You say,
No, trust me. We’re not both right. I think you’re dead wrong.
As to the rest of your post, I can’t even respond since nowhere do you take into consideration what I have described as the CENTRAL tenet of my theology–the sovereignty of God.
Your sarcasm comes across to me as empty smugness. I offer up, what I believe to be, a thoughtful analysis of the problem of evil and a reasonable explanation of the “Yes and No” answer. You have yet to deal with how you reconcile God’s sovereignty with your understanding of the Bible. Do that and I’ll continue.
If you are content to believe that God has no control whatsoever over events in time, then we have no common ground on which to debate.
Ken,
This idea of the Sovereignty of God is more complex than we have space. Yes I believe in the Sovereignty of God, but probably not to the extent that you do. You believe that God is in control of every action. If that is the case then God, just like you claimed with Adam and Eve, has caused me to sin.
I know this is not the case because my sins have separated me from God (Isa. 59:2). But God has His will that He will accomplish on this earth, and He will send His Son to bring the bride home to the father, being His Church.
But is God in control of tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis? Did God send those terrorists to fly planes into the Word Trade Center? Did God put Hitler into power to destroy the Jews? Did God put Bill Clinton in office to make deals with nations so they could one day have a chance to destroy us? These questions must be answered.
God is in control, but to say that He sent those terrorists to kill 3000 innocent people is a little more than I can say. God uses situations such as these to bring people back to Him, just as we saw. But you cannot say that He sent them. It is possible that God used Hurricane Katrina to do the same, but we cannot say for sure because we just do not know. Now, we cannot say that God sent the Hurricane. We have no scriptural authority to make such assertions.
All I can say about the Sovereignty of God is that He is supreme, and He loves His creation. But I cannot say that He causes man to sin, because that is against His very nature. God loves me, and God saved me. God gave me the opportunity to grow up in a Christian home, and He gave me the opportunity to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and respond to it by giving my life to Him in humble obedience on April 11, 1999. He gave the invitation to come to Him, and I responded to it.
That was God’s will for my life. Now I am a minister of the Gospel of His Son, and whether He put me here or not, I do not know, but I know that He is using me here. YOu see, there are certain things that we cannot say for sure. But we can know that whereever we find ourselves, God is always willing to use us. Sometimes we take the wrong road, but God will use us down that road. It does not mean that He wanted us to go that way, but He will always allow us to serve Him in whatever capacity that we can.
That’s my view, a very condensed view, of the Sovereignty of God.
I know that you disagree with a lot of it, and please make your comments about it.
Thanks.
Eric G.
Eric G,
You say,
From your continued post, am I safe to assume your answer to these questions is “no.”?
You yourself, some weeks ago, said that God has eternal knowledge of all events. Yet now you say that these events “surprise” God and he reacts to them. This is indeed a contradiction.
You say,
You won’t go there because it violates what you understand God’s nature to be. But you will say that God has contingent knowledge. Why aren’t you bothered by this violation of God’s eternal nature?
You say,
And It’s me y’all accuse of following after man-made philosophy!?!?! Where do you get this less-than omniscient, less-than omnipotent god from the Bible?
You say you love the Old Testament and I’m sure you do. Would Joseph have answered as you do above when asked why he ended up in Egypt?
“But is God in control of tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis?”
Yes.
“Did God put Hitler into power to destroy the Jews? Did God put Bill Clinton in office to make deals with nations so they could one day have a chance to destroy us?”
Yes. (Not saying that these verses have anything to do with God’s intent, just that God gives the authority to governments.)
Ken,
I am not saying that God is surprised by tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. I am sorry if I appeared to view it that way. God, in no event whatsoever, is surprised by what happens. It is as you say, He is omniscient and omnipotent. But using the story of Joseph is different. That was God’s plan to bring Christ into the world. That was fulfilling Scripture.
Aren’t things different today?
I do not deny the Sovereignty of God, but I do not agree with you that God causes every action in this world. He knows what will happen, but how can you say that God caused Hitler to murder the Jews?
Eric G.
Eric G,
You say,
I don’t believe so. There’s nothing in scripture to make me believe that God has “left the building” so to speak. Isn’t this too close to Deism for you?
You say,
Eric, we are very close on this. I wish you could be more comfortable with our understanding on this. I wish this so that there might be less rhetoric of the type I’ve read recently which accuses me of not respecting the Bible.
Again, please look at my original post. God “ordained” Hitler and every action Hitler took. However, God is not the causative agent when it comes to the evil of Hitler’s actions. God ordains all events according to the nature of secondary causes. Yes, I admit, God is the primary cause. But God is not evil. Everything He does, He does with purity, love, and goodness as His motivation (Rom. 8:28). Hitler, on the other hand, made real, conscious choices to rebel against God. His motivation was evil. Therefore he is the author of the evil and God can, in His position of Sovereign judge, determine those actions to be evil–even though He Himself ordained the actions.
Wow! So much to get your brain around. In fact, I don’t think we can ever really comprehend it all. We must be satisfied to embrace the mystery of it all. The mistake would be to reject a God-centered world view in favor of a man-centered world view.
You and others in the family may think that my doctrinal view leads to lazy disobedience. But I invite you to get to know the members of our church. They are faithful, committed followers of Jesus Christ. They love the Lord. They are filled with the fruit of the Spirit. They diligently search the scriptures. They have genuine love for one another. They rest on the grace of the Sovereign God for their salvation. All marks of real disciples.
Eric G., here’s a simple question that might help explain where we’re coming from…
When did God come to know that Adam and Eve would sin? Was it before or after He created the universe?
If you answer ‘after’ then welcome to the world of open theism. If you answer, as I suspect you would, ‘before’ then I have a second question…
Could God have created the world such that they would not have sinned?
If you answer ‘no’ then we’d have a non-omnipotent God.
If you answer ‘yes’ then you are saying that God knowingly, by His own choosing, decided to create a world where Adam and Eve would sin. This makes Him the primary cause. But Adam and Eve are truly responsible for their actions. Reconciling these two truths is not a simple matter, and Scripture doesn’t call us attempt to. In trying to reconcile them anyway, we get into primary and secondary causes. Joseph and his brother are the best illustration of this in action. We also see it with Moses and Pharaoh and with Judas.
I hate to break into the boys locker room, but I’d like to help out David Ennis with his uncertainity on his position regarding sinful infants.
David Ennis,
You say,
“Again, in regards to babies, all I’m saying is, though sinful, we don’t know their fate.”
According to Ezekiel 18:20 we can know their fate if they are, as you say, sinful from birth.
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”
You have to choose, my friend. Are babies lost to sin or not? According to you they are sinful from birth, if an infant dies (in sin according to you) he is lost, (according to the scriptures.)
Let’s not ride the fence gentlemen, you must choose.
And Ken,
You could do well to read a few bulletin articles. 🙂
In Christian Love,
Jennifer
Ken,
Man, what did you say? Just kidding. Now if Papa Gray gets in this, then it has gotten way to deep if he has figured out how to use a computer this way 🙂 Anyways, on to the more important matters…
You stated it just as I hoped you would.
“But Adam and Eve are truly responsible for their own actions.”
Am I not the same? You see, that is where this idea of Original Sin falls short of Biblical support. No matter what we say about the Sovereignty of God, everyone is accountable for his own sins. If we are born with sin, then we are being held accountable for what we cannot help. This has been my whole point all along.
Forget the talk about innocent babies, forget the talk about them going to hell.
What the major point is, if they are born with sin, then they are accountable for something that they cannot help. Once they sin, they are held accountable for that sin, given the understanding of it. How can you charge someone with sin who has no idea what sin is, or more than that, the difference between right and wrong?
About the sovereignty issue, God is higher and more supreme than I can ever imagine. God is in control of my life and that is all that matters. This is His world that I am living in. What does it matter?
I am sure that the members of your church are faithful people. I am sure that they are some of the greatest people in the world. But as you said to me, “I think you’re dead wrong.” Doctrine is something of great importance, and I think that God will hold us accountable for what we teach. Therefore, we need to make sure that we are sure in what we believe.
Likewise, I encourage you to get to know the people that I worship with. They are committed, faithful, loving Christians whose only desire is to know the Word of God.
Ken, considering that you know virtually everything that I believe, considering you once were a part of that, do you consider me a Christian? And at that, do you think that I can go to heaven given what I teach and what I believe? If not, why not?
If so, then why differ?
Please answer that.
Eric G.
Some thoughts on Ephesians 2:1-3 offered by Wayne Jackson, a more than capable scholar of the Bible.
Jackson offers these thoughts in regards to the idea of Total Depravity. He is more learned than I am, and I think his approach to this passage is very Biblical. Please take the time to read this and respond. All of these are direct quotes taken from http://www.christiancourier.com.
First, note that in verse 1 the apostle plainly declares that spiritual death is the consequence of “your trespasses and sins” (ASV). Note the word your. This emphasizes personal sin. We are not spiritually dead as a result of Adam’s transgression. Though the term “your” is not found in the King James Version (following the Textus Receptus), it is amply supported by evidence from ancient Greek manuscripts, early versions, and the writings of the “church fathers” in the post-apostolic period (Salmond, p. 283).
Second, in verse 3 Paul affirms that all of us “were. . . children of wrath.” The verb emetha (“were”) is an imperfect tense form. The imperfect tense describes continuity of action as viewed in the past. Thus, here it depicts the habitual style of life which had characterized these saints prior to their conversion. Had the apostle intended to convey the notion of inherited sinfulness at the time of their birth, he easily could have expressed that idea by saying, “you became by birth children of wrath.”
Third, it is also significant that the verb is in the middle voice in the Greek Testament. The middle voice is employed to suggest the subject’s personal involvement in the action of the verb. The language therefore stresses that the sinful condition of the Ephesians had been their individual responsibility. Hence, combining the imperfect tense and middle voice aspects of the verb, we might paraphrase the passage thusly: “. . . you kept on making yourselves children of wrath.”
Fourth, it is probable that the King James Version, and most subsequent translations, reflect a Calvinistic bias in the rendition, “by nature children of wrath.” The Greek word phusei, rendered “nature” in our common versions, can denote “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (Thayer, p. 660). Edward Robinson observed that the term can be understood of a “native mode of thinking, feeling, acting” on the part of those who are “unenlightened by the influence of divine truth” (p. 771). Clearly, these people, by habitual practice, had become worthy of divine wrath.
Hugo McCord’s translation has an excellent rendition of this passage. It suggests that the Ephesians had “by custom” become children of wrath. Wiener contended that their trespasses and sins had made them “natural children of wrath” (p. 270). Moule suggested that the phrase rendered “by nature children of wrath” might be equivalent to saying, “left to ourselves we are destined to suffer the consequences of sin” (p. 174). Thus, the Ephesians, in their unregenerate state, had become, by long practice of sin, deserving of the wrath of God. These thoughts are consistent with the immediate context and with the tenor of the Bible as a whole.
Fifth, it is worthy of note that if this passage teaches that babies are born totally depraved, one would have to infer necessarily that infants who die in that condition are lost since they are clearly designated as “children of wrath” (cf. the expression “son of perdition” – John 17:12). Yet, this is a conclusion that even denominationalists are loath to accept.
I want to say again that this was taken from an article by Wayne Jackson. This is not my material.
Eric G.
Eric,
you ask,
First of all, I didn’t start this. This is my blog, primarily intended to instruct the flock over which I am a shepherd. You guys jumped in on the attack. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad to have you participate.
Do I consider you a Christian? Sure, Eric. You have consistently displayed a gentle, loving spirit that is indicative of a follower of Christ. You testify to the transforming power of the gospel. I must believe you at that.
I do think you are wrong. I think you are bound up in a system which limits your witness and limits your freedom in Christ. This is why I differ. This is why I left the CoC here in Atlanta.
Ken,
What system am I bound up in? Where am I limited?
I am a member of the church that Jesus purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28), of which He is head (Eph. 1:20-22), an autonomous body of believers. He is the builder of it (Matt. 16:18), not established by man, or by man’s creeds, but only believing in the Bible as a source of authority, being inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
I am able to minister to young people with the same gospel that Paul himself preached. I am able to preach from the same Bible that was written almost 2000 years ago. I myself was preached that gospel for many years, and I was able to respond to the invitation of Jesus Christ, believing Him to be the Son of God (John 8:24), repenting of the sins in my life (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38), confessing Him to be the Son of God and my belief in Him (Rom. 10:9-10; Matt. 10:32-33; Acts 8:37), and through humble obedience, submitting to Him in baptism for the remission of my sins (Acts 2:38), being baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:27), being buried with Him into death reenacting the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:3-7), rising to walk in newness of life, and being added to the church of my Lord by God Himself (Acts 2:47).
I am a member of the same church that we read about in the New Testament, a body of believers that are striving to get to heaven and be pleasing to Him, patterning themselves after the New Testament.
I am able to worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24), singing with the Spirit and understanding (1 Cor. 14:15), using the instrument that God gave me and authorized-my lips, singing and making melody in my heart (Eph. 5:19). I am able to remember my Lord in the Supper that He instituted (Matt. 26) each Lord’s day, Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11). I am able to give of my means as I have been prospered (1 Cor. 16).
I am able to pray to my Father, having the Holy Spirit to help me pray (Rom. 8), also having Jesus as my Mediator, interceding on my behalf (Heb. 7:25).
What in the Bible is so different? Please let me know so that I can get right with God.
Now Ken, where am I “bound up in a system”? Am I bound up in the Bible? I hope so.
I am not limited to anything. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”
I have the same liberties in Christ that are listed in the Bible.
If, as you say, being limited means holding to the Bible for all things, then I choose to be limited than do things, say things, or teach things that God has not authorized.
Thank you for this blog and for your patience.
Eric G.
Eric G,
You left off the poem and the first and third verses of “Just As I Am”!
:-O
I think it’s time for me to figure out a new topic…
Just a final word on this thread.
What a beautiful thing to be able to rest on the grace of the Sovereign God.
It’s humbling to realize that the God of the universe, from eternity past, chose to forgive me of my sins–long before I had the experience of saying, “Lord forgive me, I’ve hurt you by my sin.”
What grace. What mercy.
May we all heed the words of Paul in Col. 3:13-14:
May God bless us all.