Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

This is exactly the question though. The grounds for thinking there will be a second chance are non-existent. The writer of Hebrews makes the parallel between humanity/dying/judgment and Christ/sacrifice/forgiveness; so they have to parallel in number. One humanity/Christ, one death/sacrifice, one judgment/forgiveness. No second chance for sinners unavailed of Christ; this is it. The appearance a "second time" is "apart from sin". The "depart from me" has already been said, and only the saved are with God. So it becomes important to know the Word now. And the Word says baptism saves (not as work-pay/dunk-heaven, or as a bath/cleansing per se, or even as a ritual/rite/sacrament). Baptism is what a good conscience or honest heart does when it understands God's will and its own defilement. God saves/forgives because He was the one offended; but He does it when you are baptized, and not before or after. That's exactly the sense in which "baptism saves"; that's what He said, and that's why this thread is important.

Aside:
After baptism, you are "restored" or not. Pay careful attention to "put Him to open shame"; it is impossible to restore a rebel, not so a penitent. There's more to this, but I'll await forumer interest to write it up.

Anyway, I hope that is helpful. I'm not sure you were looking for all that, but I love this stuff. The Word is the most important thing in the world; and God is the most important thing period. If you love God, you obey Him (and those who speak His words).

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

As is most always the case, if we look back to Adam we can see an important point. Before Adam sinned, there was no death. As Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (NIV) Even if you don't believe in either of these verses there is an easy way to prove that children have sinned and suffer from the punishment of sin. I strongly advise that you not try this, but the example is this: Can you kill a baby or is a baby capable of dying? The answer is yes; babies die all the time. It usually takes only a few months before most mothers learn that their child is a sinner (that proof is found during feeding time). Are children sinners apart from original sin given by Adam? Certainly. As soon as children are able to interact with their surroundings they will sin. And there is no reason to believe that babies don't think sins either.

This argument doesn't work because it does not address that my sin can effect you. If I go and kill a kid, it says nothing about the state of the kid's will, but speaks volumes about the state of my will. But the kid died in either case -- good kid or bad kid. This is a fundamental confusion about what sin is, friend. Death entered through sin (Rom.5.12), and yes all sin (Rom.3.23); but the question of original sin is about when do "all sin". As I already demonstrated from scripture, if you hold that it is genetic -- communicated to offspring -- then God is the ultimate parent, and is thus at fault for sin (and is thus Himself a sinner!); so this is an absurd approach. If you hold that each individual himself sins, then when do they do it?

The bible says that babies don't sin: 1) "of such is the kingdom of heaven" (with regard to humility; and these are older children); 2) being "drawn away and enticed" is an adult activity (babies can't yet find their fingers even!); Moses made his own choice when he was of age (whatever age that is); and Joshua commanded the Israelites to choose. The common thread to this weave is choice; if one is not old enough to choose one is then only old enough to suffer from the sin of others -- this is consequence, not sin itself.

As an illustration: this is why a mother can abort/kill an unborn, and the child dies while the mother lives. She has so far made all the choices, up to and including the termination of her child's life.

The hard thing to realize in all of this, is that God has permitted us to run the show -- to our own destruction, if we want. He has shown us the way back too, but again we must choose to take it.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

I do not concede that this has been demonstrated adequately from Scripture. As I have already demonstrated from Scripture NO SIN can be attributed to God. Original sin is Adam's fault, not God's.

Your argument does not take into account that Psalm 51 and Romans 5:12ff do in fact attribute sin even to newborn children.


The verse states that the kingdom belongs to them: it does NOT state that this means they are completely innocent. The kingdom of heaven also belonged to that thief on the cross. Does that mean he was not a sinner? Furthermore, if you read my own above comments on that verse, when taken with Acts 2:39, it is actually a good reason TO baptize children, rather than adequate reason not to.


This is conjecture on your part. Can you prove that children cannot be drawn away or enticed? In fact, it seems to me that above, Ian, through simple observation, demonstrated that yes, indeed, they can.

And it does not answer my question: if there is not a sin nature at work even in small children, then why do things of this world draw away and entice? There would have to be a corrupt nature for those drawing and enticing things to appeal to. In other words, if there is no sin nature, then it would be possible for a human being to not sin. And yet we know from Scripture that ALL SIN, no exception except ONE.

Concerning Moses being "of age": this is speaking of him being considered a grown adult according to Hebrew (or perhaps Egyptian) culture. It is not referring to some mythical age of accountability. Specifically, it is speaking of a time when Moses was given the distinct choice: the Egyptians or the Hebrews. And, unless I am mistaken, Moses was in his late 30's when he made that choice. Are you saying that no one is going to be held accountable for sin until their late 30's? (If so, I better get a move on! I don't have much time left, if any at all!)

As for Joshua's "Choose": were these not Israelites who, after 40 years under the Covenant of Sinai, were already set apart to be God's people? Go back and read that entire speech in its context: they are already God's people, and the choice being presented to them is either to continue to be faithful to his covenant, or break it to serve whatever false gods they wish. This isn't a "conversion" speech, but rather a speech to encourage and warn them not to fall into the same apostasy their parents fell into.

In short, I believe in original sin because the Scriptures testify to them, and I have yet to hear a convincing argument that there is no such thing. The Scriptures testify to a sin nature at work in man, and I would contend that there is no "age of accountability" from which it begins to be operative. And I contend that, if there were no sin nature in man, then at least some people would not be subject to its corruption. So far, only One has been exempt, and that because God himself was his father.

I also do not believe that arguments from moral responsibility constitute adequate arguments against original sin, since, in the end, all human beings must give an account of their own sins: Scripture never states resolutely that there is a certain age below which someone is exempt from this requirement. In other words, those passages which speak of moral responsibility never actually state that children are not guilty.

I can only presume from the weight of the scriptural arguments that original sin is a reality.

And finally, here to me is the clincher: the Scriptures state that we are saved by grace, that is, the forgiveness of sins we have on account of Jesus' sacrificial death. To argue the presumed innocence of children to me strikes me as an attempt to justify them according to the Law, and the Scriptures are resolute on this: NO ONE IS JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW. As I have stated above, children can ONLY be justified by grace, the same as with adults. In other words, if you would suggest that children don't need Jesus, then aren't you breaking that Mark 10:14 passage in worse ways than we are? The command there (which you omitted) is for us to bring them, and not hinder them from coming, to our Lord Jesus Christ.

_________________

A point by point is too cumbersome, so I'll do a rapid fire. Bold is not consistent with Italics above; my "own sins" as a kid didn't have anything to do with my "dad's sins" or my "mom's sins", in other words. Forgive me if I mis-summarized, and please correct me. Underline is correct, with my added assertion that the conditional "if" is not needed. And last the "only One has been exempt" is correct too -- but not because of parentage -- rather because of actions. But I have never heard this defense put forward quite so blithely: that Christ doesn't have original sin because His Daddy was God! His mommy -- very much a mortal (and subject to original sin without an extra bit of doctrinal whole cloth) -- was Mary the non-divine human. So somehow Jesus didn't inherit mom's sin (in this one case, and unlike you and me), but He did inherit God's lack of sin... Maybe original sin is only maternally transmitted? Or maybe Jesus resisted His mendelian 50% original sin for His whole life? Or maybe He was blessed with an advantage that none of us have: the lack of original sin, and He is thus not qualified to be our faithful and merciful High Priest?

And I still say (you have not answered me, near the end of the post): If Adam/Eve sinned, who put that tendency there? They DID NOT HAVE original sin to blame. Who messed up? And how?

[EDITS]: (added link to old post; corrected miskey "paternal" to "maternal")

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Sorry for straying dangerously off-topic, but I'm just throwing in my two cents on the topic.

I think Didy said that it was possible for Christians who fall away to lose their salvation. Please correct me if I'm wrong in saying that. I personally believe that "nothing will snatch them from my hand" literally means "nothing".



I'll disagree on that point for this reason: wouldn't "no one" extend to the believer himself? Where is he excluded from this pool? I would comment on the second passage involved, but in all honesty, I don't to so well on the older english understanding.

And as for the Hebrews passage, I had some trouble with that as well. I looked at a paraphrased version (The Message) and this is what it said:



I think it might be saying that it could be referring to everyday life, not eternal life. Plus, about the last part, doesn't God say that people will bring him gold and straw in the final judgement? I also think that having no gold doesn't mean no heaven. I won't say any more on that because I don't want to misquote it. The New Life Translation also says something similar.



This continues on to say that while they did know God, they are not repenting from the day-to-day sin, which, while it is forgiven, God is more pleased, I believe, by continual, true repentence. If they keep on sinning, then they're just building up more straw, with what I just said.

To conclude this mess, I think it is saying that those who turn away, while still having forgiveness, will be displeasing to God in the end because they will continue on sinning.

Gah, long posts at 10pm. Not good.

_________________

Take a look at Galatians.5.4 (I linked chapter4 and chapter5). No doubt those translations you used will mutilate that too: they badly shredded the language of the passages you cited; this doctrine is a widely despised one, so its not surprising. Even so: in the NKJV the antecedent of you in "you who attempt to be justified by law, have fallen from grace" in this passage is back in Galatians.4:7 ="son/heir of God". So...

"son(s) of God" ... "who attempt" ... "have fallen from grace". So, you can fall if you try to do so yourself.

NKJV = New King James Version is a good modernization of the KJV (without all the thees, thous and thines). You might try it.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Part of what is bound with original sin is the loss of original righteousness. Christ is the Righteous One, which he is on account of being God's Son. The Incarnation was a miraculous birth; it was God himself taking upon himself human form, and, along with that, our weak, mortal nature. This is why he is called the Second Adam: what what lost in the first Adam is regained through the second, namely the righteousness of God. That is why he was tempted in all ways that we are, and yet without sin. That is why he is both qualified to be our high priest and able to empathize with our lowly condition.

And my answer to that last comment, as before, is Romans 5:12ff again. Adam was capable of sinning; he was also capable of not sinning. His fall, however, made it impossible for the rest of humanity to not sin. His fall corrupted all humanity, not just himself.

The problem I'm beginning to have with this whole discussion is that while the Scriptures state resolutely that all humanity is fallen, it seems to me that you're reaching for straws by which you can claim it is not. Like Erasmus in his discussions with Luther in "On the Freedom of the Will," you seem to jump to some conclusions about what certain passages imply that are not specifically stated. God as the creator has the right to expect his creation to function the way he designed it; i.e., he holds his creatures accountable for sin. This is a consistent theme throughout the Scriptures. However, this fact in and of itself does not explicitly state or even presume that this means those who are under this accountability are ABLE to fulfill the requirements. An imperative ("Do this") does not express the indicative ("You can do this"). Of course this begs the question: why would God give us laws he knows we are incapable of keeping? The answer is simple (1) because it reflects His holy nature and reveals him, and (2) in order to reveal to us that we are in fact fallen, broken creatures in need of his mercy and love.

Now, as regards original sin, just because there are passages which place the perfect demands of the Law upon us does not in and of itself prove that we can keep these Laws. And just because there are passages which state that people will be held accountable for their sins does not mean that those whom we deem too young to commit sins are in fact innocent of them. Sins, after all, are thought, word, deed, and attitude, not just action. You judge a child with your eyes, but you cannot see the corruption in his heart, and so you deny it. But this in and of itself does not make them innocent.

Also, you seem to be missing this point: you slipped that "[their parents' sins]" in there. I don't appreciate that. If you're going to quote me, you either use my own words, or you ask for clarification. Misquoting me does not impress me. Deathly Pallor tried that tactic in another thread. I never stated that children would be judged for their parents' sins, but rather for their own sins. Sins that they have because they are fallen creatures, because corruption is already at work in them, and that they are already committing. The fallen nature may not have been their fault, but the ways they indulge that fallen nature, in thought, deed, and attitude, is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translations:

I like modern translations, so long as they are actual translations from the Hebrew and Greek. However, paraphrases, which attempt to clarify the language for modern readers, are not trustworthy for intense study.

I've said this before in other threads: if anyone is going to challenge any particular translation, I tend to expect them to do so with some working knowledge of the original languages. To simply reject a translation or version based on personal preference is not a very scholarly move.

I also do not hold the King James to be the most reliable translation, since some of it, where there were not available Greek or Hebrew manuscripts, were taken from the Vulgate instead. We now have more reliable manuscript evidence by which we can assess these passages.

My own personal preference is the New American Standard Bible. Scholars hail it as one of the most reliable modern translations available, but it is a bit difficult to read at times. The English Standard Version is good, accurate but also readable. The NIV, which seems to be the KJV of today, is okay, but there are some exceptions I take with it here and there.

Chin, those Bibles you quoted appear to me to be paraphrases, and not translations. I'm familiar with Peterson's The Message, but would you mind filling us in on the second version you cited there? Whatever the case, in real Bible study, paraphrases are never to be preferred to actual translations taken from the original languages.

_________________

My friend, I cannot even apologize: you called the genetic analogy into the argument. That Is Parental In Nature.

I substantially agree with your last post, but [s]this[/s] I doctrinally differ with you in this, as it is expressly against scripture:

But in any case, if I do grasp at straws, I am not aware of it, AND I DO apologize for so grasping; it is not my intention: only to clarify scripture. I have no other agenda.

[EDIT]: (struck typo)

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Except you need to study Romans 7 in order to know what that way out is. The way out is Christ himself, not some innate ability within man. As a matter of fact, you could just look at the verse just prior to that one: "Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."

_________________

No, that's not talking about how to get back to God; it's talking about escaping a temptation -- at the outset. Remember: temptation comes before sin. If God -- through Paul -- was trying to speak of repentence/returning/"getting back" (and assuming He wants to be understood), He'd have said just that -- "repentence" ... as He has elsewhere. But here is one of the fundamental promises of Christianity -- that Christians may sin no more (future), by divine provision; this is one of the two key promises that set Christians apart from the world (the other is Romans.8.1 -- that Christians are condemned for their sin no more (past).

Romans 7 talks about the law of sin (made by Moses), describing its ability to show forth what sin is -- its nature; thus the blood that was so integrally a part; as if to say: "yea, sin IS that bad". It also says that such covenants can only be broken by the death of one party of the two-party agreement (so party1-God died, to save party2-all of us); yet more terror adding to the "terribleness of sin". Paul ends by saying that he "serves the law of God" which is distinct from the "law of sin" earlier decribed -- in that it is an ESCAPE from sin (rather than a highlight of it). And then (because chapter headings are artifactual -- not part of the original), he says Romans 8:1 (above cited).

All of this resulted in baptism -- the central symbol of the law of God: its meaning, its inception, divinely thought out import, its symbolism, its silliness, its humbling simplicity; and above all its divine backing. Romans 7 leads up to Romans 8, it's building the case. And it ALL would be moot, without 1Corinthians.10.13. To "be condemned no more" for sin, one has to "be provided a way of escape" in each temptation. Otherwise Jesus indeed would have suffered often for our continuous rebellion.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Didy, what about Jesus? Was He sinless while he lived on the earth?

_________________

Didn't I already clarify that? As the Son of God and as the Second Adam, he was born with the original righteousness for which God intended our fallen race. So yes, he was sinless.

To me, this discussion of original sin is becoming a waste of time. For me, the question is this: are we going to say what the Scriptures themselves say, or are we going to construct vain arguments in attempt to justify our own ideas? And just what do the Scriptures say?

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (Psalm 51:5).

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12).

"None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good, not even one" (Romans 2:10-12).

Considering what the Scriptures are constantly saying about the fallen, sinful condition of all mankind, and considering that there is not a single passage to testify to this presumed innocence of children, I'm going to continue to teach, believe, and proclaim the fallenness and sinfulness of all humanity.

It seems to me that all this vain argument based on the presumed innocence of children still ignores this: that the only way to the Father is through the Son. As stated above, I am not convinced that Mark 10:14 is a declaration of innocence, but rather a command from our Lord that children be brought to him, and Acts 2:39 tells us how: through Holy Baptism. The simple truth is this: as Jesus told his disciples, no one - No One - comes unto the Father except by him. And this is why in Mark 10:14 he commands that they be brought and not hindered: because he wants them in his kingdom as well.

_________________

Very well. Then Christ was not "tempted as we are", and the Hebrew writer was not inspired. (This is a required conclusion of the argument that Christ is different from us fundamentally -- ie in other than "how He lived".)

You are right on this point, however: this dialogue has probably now entered the unprofitable stage. I have enjoyed it so far because it is important; and so much of doctrine floating around in the world today is just too loosely (or not at all) grounded in scripture ... it needs more grounding. And this doctrine needs more grounding; demolition and rebuilding, actually. But the clear fact here is: we are commanded to understand, and I do take that as a positively indicative statement of possibility (and necessity!). It is only by this means -- "understanding what the will of the Lord is" -- that we will reach the goal of "no condemnation" promised AFTER -- and in the same contextual vein of -- Romans 6 (which is all about baptism, its meaning and aftermath). Please, EVERYONE, remember that Romans 8:1 -- so comforting for Christians -- ends with "who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit". And how can you walk with God (obeying Him / doing His will), if you don't agree with Him? And how can you agree unless you know Him?

Remember, too, that God is not mocked. And if you do not want Him -- measured by whether you seek Him or not -- He will not choose you. Receiving (or not receiving) a "love of the truth" is our choice. Not doing so will result in a "strong delusion" from God Himself, who is evidently disgusted with the behavior "non-receiving". False doctrine is just such strong delusion; and original sin is a false doctrine.

Original means something: original sin has an origin: Dids, you never answered my question (repeatedly asked): Where did Eve get her original sin -- predisposing her to fall for the serpent's tricks? And Adam likewise? From God?

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

You caught me in mid-editting. My bad. I would like to know your response to the second reference in the first paragraph (it's new). Thanks.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Incorrect. Being tempted (which we know he was) is not fundamentally connected with being sinful (which we know he is not). Adam was sinless when he was tempted, and yet fell. Christ was tempted when he was sinless, yet did not fall. Therefore, your conclusion does not flow necessarily from the premise.


John 15:16 "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you."


Incorrect yet again. The Scriptures do not support your conclusion. As stated above, the Scriptures testify to the fallen nature of all humanity. You have yet to cite a single passage that explicitly states what you propose, that mankind is entirely free from sin at birth. What you have cited are passages here and there and faulty conclusions you make based on your own reading of them. Therefore, I can only conclude that your Pelagian heresy is the false doctrine, not mine. You are a good debater, there's no doubt there. And you do a good job of presenting your arguments in a way that would convince someone who might not be fully instructed in the Word. But time and again what I see is you posting Bible verses which you claim support your statements, when the reality is often, they do not say what you claim they say. A gross example would be that one passage you cited about Moses being of age. But about that, St. Paul had A Few Choice Words.

For me, the issue is about what the Scriptures actually do say. As stated above, the Scriptures testify that all humanity is sinful. It never states anywhere that anyone - except the Lord himself - is free from sin.


Because he was entirely human, as we confess, both fully man and fully God. I still do not understand where the difficulty is here. To me this makes perfect sense.

There is only one chief difference: and that is he is sinless, just as Adam was sinless in the beginning. Sin is not part of the created nature of man, but the fallen nature. As a sinless man, Christ still fully bears our human form, and yet we are sinful on account of the Fall. If I may borrow Aristotelian language, the sinful nature is accident (that is, while a very real part of us, not essential to our humanity); it is not the essence of humanity.

_________________

How did they fall?

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Genesis 3.

_________________

hahahaha. Thanks; *bows in adoration for services rendered*

But specifically, if Adam & Eve didn't have original sin = "tendency to give in to temptation", how did they sin = "give in to tempation"?

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Because they willfully sinned. That has already been explained. But just because they willfully sinned at a time when they were not fallen does not necessarily prove that the rest of humanity is not fallen. On the contrary, Romans 5:12.

Furthermore, I'm also going to take exception to your understanding of that 1 Corinthians passage. You seem to be citing this verse to demonstrate that mankind is inherently able to overcome sin on his own. I disagree. Read that passage carefully: it is God who provides the Way out. The way out is not inherent in man, but must be given. And bear in mind, St. Paul is writing this passage to the Christians at Corinth, people who have already come to know this Way out. Romans 5:6-8, however, states that prior to this provision, we are helpless, powerless, and unable to be reconciled with our God. So what is this Way? As I stated before, that Way is none other that Christ himself, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Romans 7 further shows this to be the case: when fallen man finds himself unable to overcome the power of sin at work within him, he must ultimately conclude that there is no one who can help him but God alone, and that through our Lord Jesus Christ.

You see, you can't just cite one verse to demonstrate a point; you've got to consult the full council of God. It also helps when you don't try to read into the verse something that it's not actually saying. The verse does not say that it is possible for man to prevent himself from sinning; on the contrary, it states that only God can help him.

_________________

I agree with your premise: that man cannot save himself; I have agreed with it throughout our discussion. That is not at issue. We disagree as to 1) what sin is, 2) how it is created, and 3) how it is transferred (if at all). My (EMPHATIC emphasis, so's not to annoy) take is:

1.barwhack: sin is opposing God (attitude and action)
2.barwhack: sin is an action, then a habit, then a way of life
3.barwhack: sin is never transferred from one to another

1.didymus: sin is a) inherited genetically, b) opposing God (attitude and action)
2.didymus: sin is innate, then an action, then a habit, then a way of life
3.didymus: sin is always (except once) transferred from parent to child

In no way do I ever argue that God is not the only Way, and that man can go it alone, but I understand that you must think I do argue that -- since you have frequently tried to argue against that and not my position.

Further, how can two Christians (who have received the "cleansing from inherited sin") give birth to a child that has it anyway? Apparently Paul was concerned about some sort of uncleanness (potentially like original sin?); but he took the more optimistic view: that one Christian parent was enough to sanctify the child. I reason that "sanctifying" would be something different depending on whether you view it with original-sin-colored glasses or not. To you then -- by my guess at your position here -- one Christian parent is enough to yield children without original sin(???); worked with Christ, I guess. And to me -- by Ezekiel 18 -- there wasn't ever any sin inherited, and the uncleanness Paul talks about was ceremonial -- part of the kindred/parentage requirements of the old Jewish covenant (that had to keep the family descent of Christ from Abraham clear through many ages).

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

But this is not so of both: Eve was deceived, unlike Adam. Further, Eve sinned first having been deceived. It was not willful. Presuming the correctness of the doctrine, all this was still WITHOUT original sin. How did she do it? God made a bad egg?

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

It was willful. It was willful because she listened to the serpent rather than trusting God's command. She was deceived by the serpent, but only because she chose to take the serpent's advice and reject God's Word. Just because she did it based on false, misleading information does not mean that she acted against her will is doing so.


Once again, I must point out, just because the original parents sinned while in an unfallen state does not in any way disprove that the rest of humanity is in a fallen state. But for the sake of clarification:
Created state: mankind is able to either obey or disobey God.
Fallen state: fallen mankind is in such a condition that he will disobey God.


Why should we at all hold God responsible for the fallen state? As has already been stated, God created man in an unfallen state. Mankind's fall is entirely man's fault. I do not see how the fallen state makes God culpable.


That's a very good question, and I will pose one back to you: how can Christians, who have received the cleansing from Baptism, continue to sin themselves? Have you ever met a person, Christian or otherwise, who can honestly say that they do not sin? I do not mean in the sense that they continue to adopt sinful lives, but rather that, despite their best efforts, they still have faults and failures. If anyone, Christian or otherwise, ever claims to be completely free from sin, do not trust such a person.

The reason is this: while we receive forgiveness and cleansing from sin through Baptism, we still live in a fallen state. Christians are simultaneously saint (that is, forgiven and cleansed) and sinner (that is, still imperfect). We have forgiveness and cleansing, but only in part, and only in so far as we continue to abide in Christ (John 15). The ultimate and final cleansing will only take place at Christ's return, when we will finally be rid of these corrupted, mortal bodies, and will be glorified and completely sinless, even as Christ is.


Christ's birth, being a miraculous one to begin with, is probably not the best reference point by which to address the transmission of original sin from parent to child. Original sin is essentially the loss of original righteousness - that is to say, when children are brought into this world, they are already oriented the wrong direction on account of the corruption at work within them. But Christ, being the Second Adam, is born with that original righteousness restored (bear in mind, our confession is that while Christ is fully and completely human, he is so according to the pattern of created humanity, not fallen humanity). Christ, unlike fallen humanity, is like Adam in that sense: able to choose between obedience and disobedience, unlike fallen humanity, which must be reoriented back toward God, and that through the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

_________________

It makes no sense to call something "willful" (=rebellious) when it was done under "deception" (=in ignorance). But I see the point that the Eve's perfection did not preclude her from sin, or imply anything at all about her offspring; and this makes the whole trace back less valuable in distinguishing between our contentions. "Not implying anything about offspring" is -- on balance, though -- more of an argument against any kind of inherited sin; an inherited trait would imply something. Also -- as I understand it -- the reason for the development and maintenance of the doctrine of orginal/inherited sin was/is to explain why sin is in the world; and if sin can be there without being original ... who needs a new doctrine? You cite Psalms 51 as a proof text, but it is just as easily explained by old covenant laws about birth out of wedlock.

You also cite Romans 5:12, without well accounting for the "death spread to all because all sinned". The simplest fact about genetic type inheritance is this: you as the inheritor can do nothing (and therefore don't do anything) about what those things are you inherit. You are made of that stuff, and you can't do things before you're made. So "because all have sinned" is either false and sin is inherited, or sin is NOT inherited; notice it doesn't say "because all have sin" (noun), but "because all have sinned" (verb). We individually did it (even if when we were minutes-old babies, even pre-borns), and that is NOT original. Original goes all the way back, through the parents -- an unbroken chain -- to the first cause (which was Eve for us). Original sin doesn't start over at every iteration, every person, coming anew from out of the ether into the newly formed human. If it is somehow communicated, or iterative -- like an infection -- then it is better characterized as environmental -- which is MY contention.

Please understand the medical terms are not exact. They're just intended to convey my point without a lot of needless expansion.

As for the idea that Christ is a new creation -- partially agreed: in that God made him from the woman, Mary, only (who would have original sin herself, and would have to avoid genetically transferring it to her Son). But then: Jesus has to be entirely like us to be our savior. If Jesus is without original sin and we are all under it, He is not like us in every way. It is very important for Him to be totally like us (not just totally human, but LIKE us -- in everything). So He emptied Himself and enterred our situation, just as we entered it. Born the same, same initial condition, raised in a human culture, learned, grew, developed. And those initial conditions would have to include original sin -- if it were a true doctrine -- for Him to be like us.

I love 1Corinthians 15, by the way.

As well, I observed some missed points:

Context here yields that "you" is "Judas (not Iscariot)" and company back in 14:22. And yes, Jesus did choose the apostles individually. As well he says that he wants everyone else, but not for apostles. God evidently doesn't GET everyone else, though, so how is His choice of "everyone" widdled to "few"? =Our individual choice(s).


I have never met a person who could honestly say they were entirely without sin: Christ is it, and only by record rather than my personal account. As well the record yields one man who went 300 years "walking with God": Enoch. From this example, along with present day life spans, and John's words, I have to conclude that although all have sinned (past tense verb) -- and they therefore have accumulated sin (noun) -- there is no prophetic constraint causing continued accumulation; it's already >0. In fact Christians are enjoined to "sin no more" -- and there's that imperative again: which makes it sin not to accomplish; and temptation precedes sin, so 1Corinthians.10:13 does apply -- "there is no temptation but there is a way provided out". So 300 years or my lifespan (whichever is less) is apparently within bounds. As for sinning after being cleansed, that's just someone choosing filth; which happens. Peter doesn't give a very good prognosis for such people.

As to your contention that I'm using scripture out of context: I'm not (my own testimony, of course). It would be easier to explain myself live, sitting next to you; aspects of each passage always apply -- at least to the best of my understanding. But not every passage has perfect overlap. I too believe in Psalms 119:160 -- "the sum/totality ... is truth"; so I try to assemble what I know.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Because she did not trust God's Word. She knew what God had said, but instead turned to the false words of the serpent, and in doing so, disobeyed. Have you ever heard the phrase, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Even if Eve felt like she had good reason to distrust God's Word, that saying still applies: what she did was break God's command. But the move toward breaking that command began when she chose to listen to the serpent's false words instead of trusting God's Word.


Actually, as I've studied it, it seems that the explanation is given to us in Scripture, and it is because of the sin of the original parents. But Romans goes on to show how helpless fallen humanity is in overcoming that sin. In Chapter 1, the fact that humanity continues to grow worse, falling into more depraved sin, is because God simply let's them go. As long as mankind wishes to rebel, he does not stop them. In Chapter 2, the Law comes into play. The Hebrews are given the Law, and yet they do not keep it. Never. At times in their history, they're more diligent than others, but the failure still persists. And, as we learn in Chapter 7, it was because they were lacking something that would have enabled them to keep it. Chapter 2 also goes on to point out that the Gentiles, even without the direct revelation of the Law, are still held accountable to that Law. Why? Because God gave them a conscience. And yet, they go against that conscience, and those who give a care find themselves in the same place David was in Psalm 51: trapped in a cycle of failure that only God himself can rescue them from. That is, if they know of God at all. Romans 5:13 clarifies that a bit as well (and also clarifies regarding Eve's sin): sin is in the world even apart from the Law. Romans 3 continues this theme: humanity is not what God created it to be. All humanity fails. The reason why I do not concede the point regarding Eve's failure as an innocent creature is this: I can see how a sinless person can make a bad choice. However, it would seem to me that, if that innocence were still intact, that at least a few human beings would be able to overcome the sinful drive, and as yet, only one has, and that, in part, can be attributed to the miraculous nature of his birth.

So there it is:
Innocent Humanity: able to choose between obedience and disobedience.
And yet, no human being (except one) ever chooses obedience on his own.
Conclusion: humanity may not be as innocent as believed.

Romans 5 then speaks of the helpless and hopeless condition of the humanity for which God sent Jesus to die. "While we were helpless," the text says.


WRONG! Who wrote that psalm? David. Was David a legitimate child? Yes. So where would the concept of illegitimacy of birth factor in to this psalm at all? No, this psalm is David's lament about his own sin, particularly his sins of adultery and murder, but I would conjecture that, as he reflects on his life as a whole, he does as many people do: try to find in himself where it all began. His conclusion: that the entire race of humanity is fallen and sick.


Actually, I looked this up in the Greek. There's not a "because" in that phrase. Literally, the phrase is "on all who sin." A better translation of that phrase in context would be, "and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, that is, on all who sin."

But then it raises an interesting question: if death can only have authority over those who sin, then what does that tell us about infant mortality? It would seem to indicate, once again, that even newborn children may not be as innocent as we think.


I disagree. I think you're trying very hard to give that "in every way" more significance than it deserves. Besides, what does that passage in Hebrews say? It says he is TEMPTED like us in every way, and yet SINLESS. In other words, if we take that "in every way" as strongly as you seem to be pushing, then we must begin confessing our Savior to be a sinner, in which case, his spotless sacrifice is defiled and worthless. The sinlessness is the key there. Like is in every way, except sinless. So I really don't see how this becomes much ground for an argument contrary to original sin at all, since a sinless Savior must be just that: sinless.


Oh, I do not doubt that God's intent is that Christ die for the entire world, or that individual free choice is what condemns those who reject. However, I keep reading over and over again in the Gospels that, without God's sovereign choice, there would be no one saved. For example, in John 10:29, Jesus makes it very clear that the Father is the one who gives him his sheep. And this seems to be a theme that comes up over and over again: that while many are called, few are chosen (note the use of the passive term here, not the active). And the few chosen seem to be based on God's initiative, not man's. In other words, what I see is that, without God's help, man is entirely unable to choose him at all. Man cannot orient himself toward God; God must therefore orient man toward himself.


Perhaps, but at least on one occasion, Peter was one himself. Remember Galatians 1 and 2, in which Paul describes a confrontation between himself and Peter on account of Peter's refusal to associate with Gentiles (despite being the first apostle to welcome Gentiles)?

Enoch is certainly a good example of a man who walked with the Lord, but does the text say that he was sinless? Even Job, the man accounted by God as righteous, was not without sin. So I'd be careful about introducing any saint - no matter how God-pleasing their life may be - as an example of a sinless life. Certainly a godly life is possible for the redeemed, I'm not doubting that at all. But one observation that I've made in my own ministry is that those whom I would count as the most godly also seem to be those who are most aware of their own personal sin. As they have come to truly love God, they want nothing to come between him and them, and yet they see their own faults as such obstacles. And how do they deal with it? The same way St. Paul dealt with his "thorn in the flesh": they pray constantly to him, and let God's strength manifest itself in their weakness.

So what I see is this: in Scripture, there is sin and there is sin. In 1 Corinthians, Paul can command them to stop sinning because their sin is essentially gross immorality and is entirely contrary to the Christian life. Read Chapters 5 and 6 for an example of the gross immorality that was widespread in that congregation. But then there is also that "not-quite-rightness" that is common to all humanity, but is most poignant to the Christian who sees it within himself. The Christian who does not see this struggle deceives himself; the Christian who recognizes his faults and brings them before the Lord in contrite prayer receives forgiveness and cleansing. But for the point of this discussion, the struggle is still there; perfection has not come yet, and will not until the Resurrection.

_________________

Dids:
We are, then, unreconcilable. I remain your friendly neighborhood Palagian heretic, though. ;) It seems God has not seen fit to orient me yet (under your paradigm). But I am never content in my understanding, so I will keep searching. Perhaps He will see fit to fulfill His promise -- that "he who seeks shall find" -- for me someday; perhaps not (since he didn't for some others). I hope enlightenment comes before judgment, is all.

To all:
Dydimus and I are beginning to "agree to disagree" -- which really means "we don't agree, but we'll be friendly and courteous anyway." This is not tolerance (here I speak for myself) -- which is an admission that the opposing view is equally valid. I still hold one position, but I cannot persuade Didymus with what skill I have.

If I lived in Didymus's world: God might not (ever) grant me equal wisdom to see the evidence as clearly as Didymus must see it ... then I would be damned and it would be God's fault, who would then receive praise for saving the chosen-by-God. So would be it.

I don't live in that world though: God grants an equal opportunity to everyone who will seek Him and consider/do His work and words. I will, as a Christian, in fact be saved and God will receive praise for saving the chosen-by-God/choosers-of-God. So be it.

By putting all the choices (including orientation to God) in God's hands, we make it all His fault (and His doing). My only real point is (and has always been): we must participate. Baptism is the reason for the thread, and "original sin" has consumed a couple pages in here now -- for good reason. Who gets baptized? Never does a child manifest in ANY EXAMPLE of baptism where the child is the one being baptized. Nor is there ever ANY COMMAND which specifies that they be so cleansed -- either categorically specified or specifically. EVERY inference in this regard leads back to "belief", which the young -- who cannot think -- cannot do. So I'll leave this portion of the discussion with this:

A child must eat the taffy offered if he wants the benefit out of the candy. Though the kid didn't make it or harvest the sugar cane and herbs in it; he did none of the hard value-added work; neither did he knead it or stretch it; nor designed/build the machine that did; but the kid still must eat it and participate. Especially if the taffy is a medicine that will save his life. Give that life saving taffy to an infant? you'll have to go in the back way...

[EDIT]: added "would" in first "so be it"

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

No it wouldn't. You're still arguing from the wisdom of the world here. The Fall was not God's fault, but everything he offers to correct the Fall is grace (that is, something which he chooses to do according to his good will, but is not necessary for him to do - he could have simply chosen to put Adam and Eve to death on the spot, yet he clothed them in the skin of a Lamb, a foretaste of the ultimate redemption of Christ clothing us with his own righteousness through his cross). So, no, I do not concede that this makes it any way God's fault that certain people don't get it.


I do not concede this. As stated above, the fallenness, the brokenness of humanity, is man's fault. If a man jumps overboard from a ship and drowns, it is not the captain's fault that he jumped in. But if the captain stops the ship, and engages to rescue the man, then the man can claim no credit for the rescue. This is how I view the issue: humanity fell on account of Adam's sin; that puts us all in the drink. And yet, God undertook a rescue operation by sending his own Son into the waters to save us (and in doing so, he himself was drowned). The fault: always man's. The rescue initiative: always God's. This is, of course, a rough analogy, but oddly enough, connects with Baptism. Even as we all are drowning in sin, the way out provided to us is to drown the sin. And just as Christ was pulled from death and into new life by the divine act of God, so too are we drawn alive again from the waters by Christ into new life.


I do not concede this, either. What do you really know about what takes place in a child's head, or a child's heart? Did Jesus not commend the faith of newborn children to his disciples, saying to them that if their faith is not like that of a child, they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? While children may be weak (and I would contend, sinners as well), they're helplessness and utter dependence on others to provide is a perfect example of how a Christian must learn to depend on God. So while you may be correct in stating that children cannot have a developed confession of faith (fides quae), I do not believe this in any way prevents the from having trust (fides qua). Who knows? It might be on the basis of this uninformed faith (i.e., trust that comes only from complete reliance on another) that God deems them worthy to receive eternal life.

Incidentally, the Scriptures use the term pistis to refer to both the faith (confessional, intellectual), and to trust (reliance, dependence). The two are interconnected. Therefore, I am hesitant to condemn someone just because their confession of faith differs from mine on certain points. Except these: the Athanasian definition of the Trinity, the doctrines of sola gratia, sola fide, and sola Christe - I feel that rejection of these doctrines actually leads away from trust in Christ. This is not to say I do not take the time or energy to correct - I certainly hope my posting in this thread shows otherwise.

As a former Baptist, I often take exception to certain points of Baptist theology that I feel do not align with Scripture. It is one of the reasons I'm Lutheran and no longer Baptist. And yet, my family back home are mostly Baptist. My uncle is a staunch Baptist, and while there are things we disagree on, we respect each other's ministries. And as a matter of fact, my step-father was baptized by my uncle mere days before he died, and I take great comfort in that. Not because I believe my uncle's theology to be 100% correct, but because it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (I could share with you other details surrounding my step-father's death - for example, the vision my mother had the night before he died - but I do not deem it important to my point here). The fact is, as St. Paul states, we all see through a glass darkly. We will never have perfect vision until Christ returns. While this does not relieve us of the responsibility to confess, believe, and proclaim sound doctrine, it does show that none of us will ever have it down nearly as good as the Lord himself. This is why I'm glad that salvation is by grace through faith, and that he has indeed gifted us to trust in his mercy. If salvation were based on a theology test, how well do you think most people would do on it?

And in the end, it is not faith that saves, but rather grace that demonstrates itself in faith, and even that is a gift from God.

But like you, I view Baptism as a gift, something given to us by God for our benefit, to save us, cleanse us from sin, grant us new life in Christ, and to nourish us and strengthen us to live Christian lives. For that reason, I proclaim louder than most that people should avail themselves of this means of grace. And a present unopened is a wasted present. I do not believe that God limits his grace to only the baptized - the example of the thief on the cross I feel demonstrates this, and while no full explanation as to why he was enabled to receive it apart from baptism is given, I prefer to trust the words Christ spoke to him: "You will dine with me in Paradise." A promise given, upon which that thief could rely. The same is true for us with Baptism: the promises given to us are trustworthy and reliable, and should not be doubted.

I'm not sure the "taffy" analogy works regarding infants. For that, I still feel Mark 10:14 and Acts 2:39 instruct us in this regard. If Baptism is grace - and I contend that it is, on account of the fact that it is God who accomplishes it, even if through the imperfect hands of men - then even an adult cannot contribute more to what takes place than an infant would. Adults have nothing to bring to the water except their own sins - what do they have to offer God that God owes them? Can an infant offer less?

_________________

To all:
My friend -- Steve Rudd -- has this site. It's fairly comprehensive over the whole of biblical and extra-biblical doctrine; and the "how to be saved" section is good (baptism's on it). It's a simple layout; take a look. And do comment.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

It's not written in the Bible, so no it's not necessary. It is just an outward expression of your new life as a Christian.

_________________

1. Baptism is NEVER referred to as "an outward expression." If you can cite me a single passage that even hints at such an idea, I'd greatly appreciate it.

2. But as for what Baptism actually accomplishes:
Mark 16:16 (promise of salvation).
1 Peter 3:21 (Baptism saves you).
Acts 2:38-39 (Baptism saves you, and grants you the gift of the Holy Spirit).
Acts 22:16 (Baptism washes away your sins).
Romans 6:1-11 (Baptism puts you to death and grants you eternal life in Christ).
John 3:5 (basically, "to be born again" is "to be baptized").
I think you get my point.

So, yes, it is written in the Bible. Several times.

That being the case, can you explain to me where you get this "outward expression" idea from?

And by the way, were you been? Long time no see.

_________________