Total Depravity

[JIM]

Amen! It's tough dealing with people who deny the truth.

The truth is that the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer is for the forgiveness of the sins committed by the believer. It is not about Adam's sin, it is about the believer's sin. Even you, @Carbon, should understand that it was/is your sin, not Adam's, that you need forgiveness for.

Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.

Read that over and over until you truly grasp what God is saying there. In fact, read and study the entire 18th chapter to see that there is no such thing as sins of the father imputed to the sons. That included Cain and Abel, Adma's sin was not imputed to Cain, Abel, Seth, or any of Adam's children. That included the children of Adam's children. right on down to you.

Now that is direct from God's word. It is not some bacterized rendering from the likes of Augustine and his coming out of Manicheism.

 

[JIM]

What does this even mean?

A runner is someone who runs. He is a runner because he runs. A worker is someone who works. A farmer is someone who farms. A writer is someone who writes. A sinner is someone who sins.

 

[JIM]

Do you, along with all those insisting on self-determination, not find it strange that absolutely all mankind born since Adam, have sinned? I mean, if everyone is born with free will like Adam, without corruption of the will, surely someone would choose to do right, no?

Apparently not. Sinning is so much fun. It is so delightful. It has such strong effects on the pleasure centers of the brain. It takes a great deal of work to not succumb to all those truly pleasurable moments. That is the main reason for the indwelling spirit. He was given to help fight against the pleasures of sinning. We sin because we like it. You can hate yourself afterward, but at the time it felt good. What did Eve say? She saw that "that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise",

But, since Adam, only Christ has been without sin.

That is true. But it shows that it was possible. It is possible to say no to sinning. Unfortunately, as James tells us, even if you lived your entire life and sinned only once and disobeyed only one law only once, you would be accountable for the whole law.

Ask yourself which sin you committed that you had to commit, that you had no choice but to commit. There was none.

 

[JIM]

Perhaps you should consider what @Lees is trying to say to you.

I know exactly what he is trying to say to me. And it is wrong. It is so wrong. It makes God into such an ogre.

 

[Arial]

Are you serious? Sin is disobedience.

Let me speak more slowly. Sin is sin even if a person does not know it is sin.

 

[Arial]

That is true. But it shows that it was possible. It is possible to say no to sinning. Unfortunately, as James tells us, even if you lived your entire life and sinned only once and disobeyed only one law only once, you would be accountable for the whole law.

What was different about Jesus' humanity from all other men?

Adam was not his father!!!

 

[JIM]

Let me speak more slowly. Sin is sin even if a person does not know it is sin.

If you have children, do you punish them for doing something they didn't know was wrong?

 

[JIM]

What was different about Jesus' humanity from all other men?

Adam was not his father!!!

So what???

 

[Lees]

There is nothing in Romans 5:12-14 that speaks even one word about Adam's sin being imputed to his race. Verse 12 says the spiritual death spread to all men because they sin. Nothing there about any imputation.

Verse 13 is telling us that even though the law of Moses had not yet been given, there was indeed law. It says that if there is no law, then there is not sin, but it says that there was sin, therefore there was law.

Verse 14 doesn't say there was no sin like Adam's, which was disobedience to a direct command of God. It says that there was sin which was disobedience against law, not given directly by God. That is why I took you back to chapter 2 showing you that even among the gentiles there was law, even if it was not verbally given by God.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in all of that has anything to do with any heretical teaching about Adam's sin being imputed to mankind.

Not so.

(Rom. 5:13) "For until the law sin was in the world:" Do you see? Of course not. That law was the law of Moses. So, until the law of Moses sin was in the world.

(Rom. 5:13) "...but sin is not imputed when there is no law." So, the personal sins in the world were not imputed. Why? Because there was no law.

(Rom. 5:14) "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses..." Why say 'nevertheless'. Because even though their sins were not imputed to them they died.

(Rom. 5:14) "...even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression...." How much plainer can it be put? Adam sinned against law, which made it a transgression. Those from Adam to Moses sinned without law, as opposed to Adam's sin.

You say there was law from Adam to Moses but Scripture says there was not law. Nevertheless, they died. Why? Because of Adams sin imputed to them. Their sins were not imputed to them, (Rom. 5:13) is clear. They died because Adams sin was imputed to his race.

Such plain teaching in the Scripture, denied by you, makes you the heretic. Not me. And such twisting of these Scriptures, by you, makes you a liar of the first order, for you pervert the Word of God.

Finally, (Rom. 5:14) "who is the figure of him that was to come." And Who is that? None other than Jesus Christ. Which is why He is called the Last Adam. (1 Cor. 15:45)

So, you see? Of course not. You want to say Christ's righteousness was imputed to His race. But Christ, the Last Adam, fulfills the figure of the first Adam. Which means, Just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to His race, so must Adams sin be imputed to his race. Else Christ no longer fulfills the figure. He could no longer be the 'Last Adam'.

Lees

 

[JIM]

Not so.

(Rom. 5:13) "For until the law sin was in the world:" Do you see? Of course not. That law was the law of Moses. So, until the law of Moses sin was in the world.

So then because there was no law before the law of Moses, then what? Adam didn't sin? I don't think you can continue with that argument.

(Rom. 5:13) "...but sin is not imputed when there is no law." So, the personal sins in the world were not imputed. Why? Because there was no law.

That is not what it says. Sin was not imputed when there is no law. But there was sin so there must have been some law other than the law of Moses. I showed you what that was and is. It is the law written on their hearts. It was not the law of Moses, but it was law.

(Rom. 5:14) "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses..." Why say 'nevertheless'. Because even though their sins were not imputed to them they died.

Of course their sins were imputed. If not imputed, then there is no sin. God does not and cannot overlook sin. His holiness will not permit that.

(Rom. 5:14) "...even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression...." How much plainer can it be put? Adam sinned against law, which made it a transgression. Those from Adam to Moses sinned without law, as opposed to Adam's sin.

What is sinning not like that of Adam? Sin against a law or command received from God directly.

You say there was law from Adam to Moses but Scripture says there was not law.

No, it does not say there was no law. But there was law, just not the law of Moses. I showed you that.

Nevertheless, they died. Why? Because of Adams sin imputed to them. Their sins were not imputed to them, (Rom. 5:13) is clear.

You are really messed up. It seems that you will rewrite anything and everything to support your false Augustinian heresies.

 

[Lees]

So then because there was no law before the law of Moses, then what? Adam didn't sin? I don't think you can continue with that argument.

That is not what it says. Sin was not imputed when there is no law. But there was sin so there must have been some law other than the law of Moses. I showed you what that was and is. It is the law written on their hearts. It was not the law of Moses, but it was law.


Of course their sins were imputed. If not imputed, then there is no sin. God does not and cannot overlook sin. His holiness will not permit that.

What is sinning not like that of Adam? Sin against a law or command received from God directly.

No, it does not say there was no law. But there was law, just not the law of Moses. I showed you that.

You are really messed up. It seems that you will rewrite anything and everything to support your false Augustinian heresies.

Silly question. Scripture already told you Adam sinned. As have I.

That is what it says. "...sin is not imputed when there is no law." No, you're saying there 'must have been'. Scripture says there was no law. If there was law, then God could not refuse the imputation of their sins to them. He did not impute their sins to them proving there was no law.

Well, God says He did not impute their sins to them. God isn't overlooking sin. They all died. But they died due to Adam's sin, not their own.

I already told you. Adam sinned against law. Those from Adam to Moses did not sin as Adam did because they were not under law.

Yes, it says there was no law from Adam to Moses. "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law." (Rom. 5:13) And in (Rom. 5:14) "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."

What's the matter? Are you afraid to address Adam being a figure of Christ , which destroys your argument that Christ's righteousness was imputed but Adam's sin was not imputed. Come on. I'm sure you can come up with more lies and perversions of your use of Scripture.

Lees

 

[makesends]

Apparently not. Sinning is so much fun. It is so delightful. It has such strong effects on the pleasure centers of the brain. It takes a great deal of work to not succumb to all those truly pleasurable moments. That is the main reason for the indwelling spirit. He was given to help fight against the pleasures of sinning. We sin because we like it. You can hate yourself afterward, but at the time it felt good. What did Eve say? She saw that "that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise",

Jesus never sinned. One might speculate that it didn't appeal to him as much as it does to habitual sinners. But my question isn't about why dogs return to the vomit. Can you explain WHY the appeal, if everyone is born without sin, but eventually all succumb to its appeal? Why not [like the RCC seems to think, more like Mary and] Jesus? --and if you wish to return to the long, drawn out reasoning behind each step of causation, we can do that. But it would be better if you would cut to the chase, and admit that we all sin because we are born sinful. It is the "natural man".

That is true. But it shows that it was possible. It is possible to say no to sinning. Unfortunately, as James tells us, even if you lived your entire life and sinned only once and disobeyed only one law only once, you would be accountable for the whole law.

Ask yourself which sin you committed that you had to commit, that you had no choice but to commit. There was none.

Nobody is saying that the sinner had no choice. That's YOUR extrapolation.

Now if you are talking about imputed sin, that is the guilt of sin. That's a separate issue.

You said, in another post, which I looked for to quote, but didn't find, something to the effect that it is "because all have sinned" that we are all sinners. You should try to understand that the modern English is not the ancient Greek. It's not even ancient English. You cannot say for sure, that "because", there, designates a result of sinning, but, quite possibly, something along the lines of, "we know it is true that we are sinners, because [we know that] we all have sinned."

Endemic to several doctrines in Orthodoxy --that is, common particularly to Protestant denominations-- the doctrine of original sin is basic in Christian belief. It goes to the doctrines of election, grace, and even the patience and love of God, that before we were even conceived, God INTENDED our helplessness, and our guilt and our eventual end. It is BASIC to the Gospel, that we are not born innocent.

 

[Arial]

So what???

So what? Why do you think that was? Do you not think it deserves more in a theological sense than a so what? As though it had no significance at all? Why would it be important that Adam not be the Savior's father?

 

[Arial]

If you have children, do you punish them for doing something they didn't know was wrong?

What does that have to do with God? He is not a man. We are not talking about punishment here or human parents. The subject is whether or not all are born as sinful beings.

To be a sinful being does not mean that we are born sinning personal sins. It means we will do so because we are a being that sins. Our estrangement from God does not begin with our first sin. We are born estranged from him. Otherwise we would all be born in the Garden of Eden, which of course is impossible because our first father and mother got kicked out of there and the gates were barred.

 

[Carbon]

The truth is that the imputed righteousness of Christ to the believer is for the forgiveness of the sins committed by the believer. It is not about Adam's sin, it is about the believer's sin. Even you, @Carbon, should understand that it was/is your sin, not Adam's, that you need forgiveness for.

Yo really have things all twisted up Jim.

 

[Carbon]

Let me speak more slowly. Sin is sin even if a person does not know it is sin.

Yep

 

[JIM]

So what? Why do you think that was? Do you not think it deserves more in a theological sense than a so what? As though it had no significance at all? Why would it be important that Adam not be the Savior's father?

The significance was that it made Jesus the actual, literal, begotten son of God. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the condition of his spirit when he was born. The condition of the any person's spirit when they are born is wholly independent upon the parents. It depends only on God who forms it.

 

[JIM]

Yo really have things all twisted up Jim.

You are the twistomatic here. You won't go to hell because of what Adam did, but you could go to hell for what you do or not do.

 

[Carbon]

You are the twistomatic here. You won't go to hell because of what Adam did, but you could go to hell for what you do or not do.

Actually, if you are not an elect, hell is where you will end up because the Atonement is limited.

 

[JIM]

Jesus never sinned. One might speculate that it didn't appeal to him as much as it does to habitual sinners. But my question isn't about why dogs return to the vomit. Can you explain WHY the appeal, if everyone is born without sin, but eventually all succumb to its appeal?

You should answer that question of yourself. Why do you sin? Is there some independent feature of your own being that forces you to sin?

Nobody is saying that the sinner had no choice. That's YOUR extrapolation.

Again, complete nonsense. I am the only one here, apparently, that believes in the free-will choice to sin or not.

Now if you are talking about imputed sin, that is the guilt of sin. That's a separate issue.

Your only sin imputed to you is your own personal sin. There is no other charged against you.

You said, in another post, which I looked for to quote, but didn't find, something to the effect that it is "because all have sinned" that we are all sinners.

You are not remembering correctly. I have never made such a statement. I don't believe it. We don't sin because we are sinners; rather we were sinners because we had sinned and had not yet been forgiven. Once forgiven and once having been given the gift of the Holy Spirit wer are no longer considered to be sinners in God's eyes, rather we are saints.

Endemic to several doctrines in Orthodoxy --that is, common particularly to Protestant denominations-- the doctrine of original sin is basic in Christian belief. It goes to the doctrines of election, grace, and even the patience and love of God, that before we were even conceived, God INTENDED our helplessness, and our guilt and our eventual end. It is BASIC to the Gospel, that we are not born innocent.

And most of that as you present it is pure poppycock.

What is basic to the Gospel is a belief in God and in the need to be redeemed from our own personal sins. God does not hold us responsible for anyone else's sins.