PDA

View Full Version : Are People Born Dead In Sin?



Samie
April 21st, 2016, 03:18 PM
From a link (http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html) provided in another thread, here's one paragraph (emphasis mine):
So in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam or Eve that they were incapable of performing. But once transgression entered and mankind became fallen, God’s law was not repealed nor did God adjust his holy requirements downward to accommodate the weakened, fallen condition of his creation. God did punish his creation by visiting upon them the judgment of original sin, so that everyone after Adam and Eve who was born into this world was born already dead in sin. Original sin is not the first sin. It’s the result of the first sin; it refers to our inherent corruption, by which we are born in sin, and in sin did our mothers conceive us. We are not born in a neutral state of innocence, but we are born in a sinful, fallen condition. Virtually every church in the historic World Council of Churches at some point in their history and in their creedal development articulates some doctrine of original sin. So clear is that to the biblical revelation that it would take a repudiation of the biblical view of mankind to deny original sin altogether.Two questions:
1. Had Christ not lived, died and resurrected, are people born dead in sin?
2. Despite Christ's life, death and resurrection, are people born dead in sin?

If possible, please provide Scriptural basis for your answer.

Robert Pate
April 21st, 2016, 04:50 PM
From a link (http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html) provided in another thread, here's one paragraph (emphasis mine):Two questions:
1. Had Christ not lived, died and resurrected, are people born dead in sin?
2. Despite Christ's life, death and resurrection, are people born dead in sin?

If possible, please provide Scriptural basis for your answer.

If they are not born dead why do they need to be born again? 1 Peter 1:23.

Samie
April 22nd, 2016, 05:31 AM
If they are not born dead why do they need to be born again? 1 Peter 1:23.We died with Christ, being His Body on the cross. Having died, we need to be resurrected. And God resurrected us - His Body, TOGETHER with Christ - the Head, when He rose from the grave. And that act of God for us, caused us to be born again.ESV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the deadTherefore, having been made part of His Body on the cross, and resurrected TOGETHER with Him, we are all In Christ Who is our Life (Col 3:4), and therefore born spiritually alive instead of born spiritually dead in sin.

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 06:14 PM
We died with Christ, being His Body on the cross. Having died, we need to be resurrected. And God resurrected us - His Body, TOGETHER with Christ - the Head, when He rose from the grave. And that act of God for us, caused us to be born again.ESV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the deadTherefore, having been made part of His Body on the cross, and resurrected TOGETHER with Him, we are all In Christ Who is our Life (Col 3:4), and therefore born spiritually alive instead of born spiritually dead in sin.


If what you believe is true no one in Christ would die. Death is a result of sin.

Bradley D
April 24th, 2016, 09:14 PM
It is human nature to sin.

"...for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth..." (Gen. 8:21)

Robert Pate
April 25th, 2016, 07:37 AM
We died with Christ, being His Body on the cross. Having died, we need to be resurrected. And God resurrected us - His Body, TOGETHER with Christ - the Head, when He rose from the grave. And that act of God for us, caused us to be born again.ESV 1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the deadTherefore, having been made part of His Body on the cross, and resurrected TOGETHER with Him, we are all In Christ Who is our Life (Col 3:4), and therefore born spiritually alive instead of born spiritually dead in sin.

Only believers are born again and made spiritually alive. This happens when they hear and believe the Gospel, Galatians 3:2.

themuzicman
April 25th, 2016, 08:39 AM
Romans 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.


If Paul was once alive, he obviously wasn't born dead in sin.

We can also look at Romans 5:12 and see that we die because of our own sin, which requires the knowledge of good and evil.

Zeke
April 25th, 2016, 08:57 AM
The legal aspect of the words relates to being born/sold into slavery by being given a surname that has been going on since the futile Kings and Lords stated buying and selling souls on their slave markets, You're born alive and innocent and then sold into slavery through the fraud and generational deceit into the Babylonian way until you wake up and forsake that surname that allows you to buy and sell, things theology forgot to mention on purpose, seeing they are also part of the programing. Dog Latin English to keep you in Cains mentality.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 25th, 2016, 10:18 AM
Once one denies Adam's original sin and our inherited guilt therefrom, all manner of doctrinal error follows.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?114680-What-are-the-basics-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4559007&viewfull=1#post4559007

AMR

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 25th, 2016, 10:29 AM
Once one denies Adam's original sin and our inherited guilt therefrom, all manner of doctrinal error follows.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?114680-What-are-the-basics-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4559007&viewfull=1#post4559007

AMR

Though I ultimately agree, this is possibly the most widely misunderstood and misrepresented and misheld doctrine because so few understand sin as a noun, and articular/anarthrous singular/plural Greek nouns in general because of English definite/indefinite article noun forms.

I have historically opposed the Original Sin doctrine, but only because I hate the misconceptualization of it in relation to other vital and authentic orthodox doctrines. A deep exegetical delineation of Hamartiology exposes the errors and heresy of Pelagianism (which includes Arminianism) and Open Theism (which may as well be full-on Process Theology).

Samie
April 25th, 2016, 01:27 PM
Only believers are born again and made spiritually alive. This happens when they hear and believe the Gospel, Galatians 3:2.It cannot be simply denied that Scriptures say people have been born again through the resurrection of Jesus.NKJ 1 Peter 1:3 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the deadThe fact that God has already begotten us again through the resurrection of Jesus simply coincides with our being made alive TOGETHER with Christ. NAS Colossians 2:13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressionsScripture's key phrase is "made alive together with" which is but a single Greek word: συζωοποιέω. If people are born again at the instant of believing or AFTER they believe, then that is "made alive one at a time", NOT made alive TOGETHER with Christ.

Let's see Gal 3:2 whether it says people are born again when they believe:NKJ Galatians 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?The keywords in the verse are "receive" and "hear", acts doable only by those already made alive. And as pointed out above, we were made alive TOGETHER with Christ when He resurrected, being His Body when He died, as discussed in post #3 (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117554-Are-People-Born-Dead-In-Sin&p=4682899&viewfull=1#post4682899) and in this thread (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365).

The merits of our being made alive SOLELY belongs to God. It was God's work FOR man. Not an iota of human participation.

bling
April 25th, 2016, 02:01 PM
Original sin refuted
This is no small subject and there appear to be verses on both sides of the issue.
The Bible does not say after Adam and Eve sinned: “Man’s nature changed”, or “The sin of Adam and Eve was pasted on”. It does say the knowledge of good and evil came into the world and does not use the word “fall” to describe this.
Is knowledge bad in and of itself?
To refute the idea: “Children and anyone else that has not reached mature adulthood have not sinned yet and do not need saving, since they have done nothing wrong. They are in a safe condition.” Use:
Rom 3:23 says "for ALL have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". We are born sinners, thanks to Adam.
Yet: The key to this verse is accountability.
“All have sinned”, so is Paul addressing an unborn child with that statement? Paul did not say we “all” inherited Adam and Eve’s sin, but all have (actually) sinned. It also does not say we inherited even a “sinful nature”, but talks about knowledge, so is knowledge=nature? “All” does not have to include everyone including unborn children, but could be referring to all of us (whom Paul is addressing at that time those that can understand his letter).
A. The mechanism for the transmission of inherited sin is false:
Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30
1. Exodus 32:31*33 In this passage, Moses wanted to receive the punishment for someone else's sin. In verse 33, the one who sinned is removed from the book, not the one whose parents have sinned.
We will be judged only by our own actions: Mt 12:36-37; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 1:17
Isa 59:1-2, "Your sins have separated you from your God" not Adams
Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4 (Infants have done nothing)
Where is one Bible verse that says we will be condemned for sin other than our own?
B. Unsaved and unregenerate men are capable of doing good and have freewill:
Calvinists teach that if a sinner helps an accident victim, he still sins because he does it for the wrong motive.
Gentiles do by nature the good things of the law: Rom 2:14-16
Cornelius was devout, feared God, righteous, Acts 10:1-4, 22 yet unsaved: 11:14
Man has a freewill and can choose to do good or evil: Josh 24:15 "Choose this day..."
C. God requires man to act and do something to be saved...infants can't act or do
"Unless you repent you will perish": Lk 13:3
"Save yourselves": Acts 2:40 KJV
"Repent and be baptized every one of you for forgiveness of sins": Acts 2:38
Why are we told to "work out our own salvation": Phil 2:12
The spoken and written gospel message is God's power for salvation: Rom 1:16; 1 cor 1:18
D. The words used to describe salvation refute inherited sin:
These words imply that we, individually, were once in God's grace at conception and birth
Justification - Romans 5:18
A court term; a legal word
Addresses the subject of our guilt before God

Reconciliation - Romans 5:6-11; Col 1:14,20,21
A word dealing with social intercourse; human relations; to make friendly again, payment of a price to recover from the power of another, a restoration to favor.
Addresses the subject of our being estranged from God

Redemption - Colossians 1:13-14
to buy back; A slavery term; human commerce; purchasing one's freedom; a ransom
Addresses the subject of our slavery to sin

"Regenerate"
to generate again, renewed, restored



E. The Bible describes infants are pure and holy:
Why would Jesus use infants as a model for all believers to imitate in character if they were "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil"? Mt 18:1-3; 19:13-14
Paul also used infants as a model of purity for Christians to follow: 1 Cor 14:20
Paul states that he was once spiritually alive but then he sinned & died/was killed: Rom 7:9-11
God said that the king of Tyrus was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezek 28:15
"God made men upright but they sought devices" Eccl 7:29 (plural can't refer only to Adam)
Newborns do not know the difference between good and evil
God allowed the children to enter Canaan but not the parents: "your little ones who...have no knowledge of good and evil shall enter". Deut 1:34-39
Jesus "Before He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good" Isa 7:15-16
Jer 19:2-6 human sacrifices of children to Baal is called the "blood of the innocent"
If newborns do not know "good or evil" yet the Bible says , "Your sins have separated you from your God" (Isa 59:1-2) then newborns must be born united with God.
Apostle Paul: Rom 7:9-11
"Once alive"
"sin killed me"

King of Tyre: Ezek 28:15
"Blameless from creation"
"until sin found in him"

All men: Eccl 7:29
God made men upright
They sought out devices

Like Adam, each man is born in the "Garden" and is cast out when he sins

F. The second Spiritual death implies a first spiritual death & initial spiritual life:
Second death is hell: It is a spiritual separation from God: Rev 20:6,14
First death is when we first sin and are separated from God till judgement
For us to die a first death we must have been spiritually alive at birth.

Those that argue for a baby being in sin will miss-use this:

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
A Perspective on Psalm 51:5

But I would use this explanation:
by William P. Murray, Jr.

Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the 'circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”

Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”

1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”

David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.

2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as 'true' a son as his half-brothers. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected 'all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring 'his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the 'least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21; Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)

David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because 'no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered 'defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.

Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17


This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.

Samie
April 25th, 2016, 02:16 PM
Once one denies Adam's original sin and our inherited guilt therefrom, all manner of doctrinal error follows.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?114680-What-are-the-basics-of-Reformed-Theology&p=4559007&viewfull=1#post4559007

AMRI beg to disagree. It more looks like, when one believes that people are born spiritually dead in sin, all manner of doctrinal error follows as displayed by both Calvinists and Arminians in their endless, centuries-old debate, the pot calling the kettle black.

God did not simply fold His hands and did nothing when Adam fell into sin. Right then and there on that very same day, He implemented the plan of redemption He devised BEFORE the foundation of the world, as discussed here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365). That plan was revealed in the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. No wonder, Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

In the words of the wisest man:NAS Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."Being born spiritually alive, people are In Christ, parts of His Body. But instead of overcoming evil with good, people choose to be overcome of evil. That's why God is calling all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), because they are capable of repenting being in Christ Who is their Strength (Phil 4:13) to overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21). Overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5) and will be seated with Christ in His throne, Who Himself is an overcomer.KJV Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Samie
April 25th, 2016, 03:24 PM
If what you believe is true no one in Christ would die. Death is a result of sin.No one who remains in Christ will see death. All who gets blotted out from the book of life will experience two deaths: one, death from the 7 last plagues, and, two, the lake of fire. The death with which people now die, is but sleep in the eyes of God.

Ask Mr. Religion
April 25th, 2016, 03:29 PM
I beg to disagree.
Of course you do, as it validates my premise that those that disagree with over a thousand years of the church's denunciation of deniers of original sin, are found to hold all manner of doctrinal oddities and error. You are a textbook example (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116948-Arminians-amp-Calvinists-Limit-God-s-Power-To-Save&p=4647498&highlight=samie#post4647498) of how far one will stray outside the bounds of orthodoxy once one denies original sin.

AMR

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 25th, 2016, 08:06 PM
Original sin refuted

This is no small subject and there appear to be verses on both sides of the issue.
The Bible does not say after Adam and Eve sinned: “Man’s nature changed”, or “The sin of Adam and Eve was pasted on”. It does say the knowledge of good and evil came into the world and does not use the word “fall” to describe this.
Is knowledge bad in and of itself?
To refute the idea: “Children and anyone else that has not reached mature adulthood have not sinned yet and do not need saving, since they have done nothing wrong. They are in a safe condition.” Use:
Rom 3:23 says "for ALL have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God". We are born sinners, thanks to Adam.
Yet: The key to this verse is accountability.
“All have sinned”, so is Paul addressing an unborn child with that statement? Paul did not say we “all” inherited Adam and Eve’s sin, but all have (actually) sinned. It also does not say we inherited even a “sinful nature”, but talks about knowledge, so is knowledge=nature? “All” does not have to include everyone including unborn children, but could be referring to all of us (whom Paul is addressing at that time those that can understand his letter).
A. The mechanism for the transmission of inherited sin is false:
Spiritual consequences of sin cannot be transmitted from father to son but only falls on the one who committed the act: Ezek 18:1-4; 18-20; Jer 32:29-30
1. Exodus 32:31*33 In this passage, Moses wanted to receive the punishment for someone else's sin. In verse 33, the one who sinned is removed from the book, not the one whose parents have sinned.
We will be judged only by our own actions: Mt 12:36-37; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 1:17
Isa 59:1-2, "Your sins have separated you from your God" not Adams
Sin is committed by individually breaking God's law: 1 Jn 3:4 (Infants have done nothing)
Where is one Bible verse that says we will be condemned for sin other than our own?
B. Unsaved and unregenerate men are capable of doing good and have freewill:
Calvinists teach that if a sinner helps an accident victim, he still sins because he does it for the wrong motive.
Gentiles do by nature the good things of the law: Rom 2:14-16
Cornelius was devout, feared God, righteous, Acts 10:1-4, 22 yet unsaved: 11:14
Man has a freewill and can choose to do good or evil: Josh 24:15 "Choose this day..."
C. God requires man to act and do something to be saved...infants can't act or do
"Unless you repent you will perish": Lk 13:3
"Save yourselves": Acts 2:40 KJV
"Repent and be baptized every one of you for forgiveness of sins": Acts 2:38
Why are we told to "work out our own salvation": Phil 2:12
The spoken and written gospel message is God's power for salvation: Rom 1:16; 1 cor 1:18
D. The words used to describe salvation refute inherited sin:
These words imply that we, individually, were once in God's grace at conception and birth
Justification - Romans 5:18
A court term; a legal word
Addresses the subject of our guilt before God

Reconciliation - Romans 5:6-11; Col 1:14,20,21
A word dealing with social intercourse; human relations; to make friendly again, payment of a price to recover from the power of another, a restoration to favor.
Addresses the subject of our being estranged from God

Redemption - Colossians 1:13-14
to buy back; A slavery term; human commerce; purchasing one's freedom; a ransom
Addresses the subject of our slavery to sin

"Regenerate"
to generate again, renewed, restored



E. The Bible describes infants are pure and holy:
Why would Jesus use infants as a model for all believers to imitate in character if they were "utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil"? Mt 18:1-3; 19:13-14
Paul also used infants as a model of purity for Christians to follow: 1 Cor 14:20
Paul states that he was once spiritually alive but then he sinned & died/was killed: Rom 7:9-11
God said that the king of Tyrus was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." Ezek 28:15
"God made men upright but they sought devices" Eccl 7:29 (plural can't refer only to Adam)
Newborns do not know the difference between good and evil
God allowed the children to enter Canaan but not the parents: "your little ones who...have no knowledge of good and evil shall enter". Deut 1:34-39
Jesus "Before He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good" Isa 7:15-16
Jer 19:2-6 human sacrifices of children to Baal is called the "blood of the innocent"
If newborns do not know "good or evil" yet the Bible says , "Your sins have separated you from your God" (Isa 59:1-2) then newborns must be born united with God.
Apostle Paul: Rom 7:9-11
"Once alive"
"sin killed me"

King of Tyre: Ezek 28:15
"Blameless from creation"
"until sin found in him"

All men: Eccl 7:29
God made men upright
They sought out devices

Like Adam, each man is born in the "Garden" and is cast out when he sins

F. The second Spiritual death implies a first spiritual death & initial spiritual life:
Second death is hell: It is a spiritual separation from God: Rev 20:6,14
First death is when we first sin and are separated from God till judgement
For us to die a first death we must have been spiritually alive at birth.

Those that argue for a baby being in sin will miss-use this:

Ps 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
A Perspective on Psalm 51:5

But I would use this explanation:
by William P. Murray, Jr.

Are men born sinners? A commonly abused 'proof' text is Psalm 51:5. Although I cannot claim the following as a result of my own scholarship or research, the information is a culmination from many sources over the years, and, I feel, the best explanation of this particular text that I have come across.

Psalm 51:5 - "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." KJV

This is a Hebrew poetic parallelism, with the second line of the verse saying the same thing as the first line in a slightly different way. The first verb, of which David is the subject, is in the Pulal tense (as is "made" in # Job 15:7 ), which is an idiom used to refer to creation or origins, and is the 'passive' form of Polel ("formed": # Ps 90:2 Pro 26:10 ). TWOT, #623, 1:270.

The subject of this verse is NOT the state or constitution of David's nature as a sinner at, or before, his birth. The subject is, as the verse clearly states, the 'circumstances' of his conception- the sexual union which produced him was an act of sin, and addresses the unrighteousness of his mother's act, not anything (such as a sin nature) inherent within himself. (The NIV's version of this verse is an INTERPRETATION, not a translation: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.")

David had two half-sisters (Zeruiah, Abigail).....:

1CHR 2:13-16 13 “And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14 Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15 Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 16 Whose sisters were Zeruiah, and Abigail. And the sons of Zeruiah; Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. 17 And Abigail bare Amasa: and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmeelite.”

....and the father of David's half-sisters was not Jesse, but Nahash:

2Sam 17:25 “And Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.”

Nahash, the father of Zeruiah and Abigal, David's half-sisters, was an Ammonite king:

1Sam 11:1 “Then Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabeshgilead: and all the men of Jabesh said unto Nahash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee.”

1Sam 12:12 “And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us: when the LORD your God was your king.”

David's father was Jesse, not Nahash. Zeruiah and Abigal were David's half-sisters through his mother's previous marriage to Nahash. This would also help explain why Nahash showed kindness to David, perhaps out of respect for David's mother, Nahash’s former wife and the mother of two of Nahash's children.

2Sam 10:2 “Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.”

David's mother was most likely the second wife of Jesse, the first wife being the mother of David's half-brothers. Jesse’s first wife's standing before the 'righteousness of the law', (her not having been married to, or the concubine of, a heathen king, as was David’s mother), would have been superior to that of David's mother, and explains why David's half-brothers, Jesse's other sons, would have felt they were superior to David, and why he would be accused of being prideful, for thinking he was as good as them....

1Sam 17:28-30 28 “And Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spake unto the men; and Eliab's anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride, and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that thou mightest see the battle. 29 And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause? 30 And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same manner: and the people answered him again after the former manner.”

...and why David was not considered, by his father Jesse, as 'true' a son as his half-brothers. Samuel had called Jesse and his sons, and thus expected 'all' his sons, to the sacrifice (1Sam 16:5,11). Jesse, having been told to bring 'his sons' by a prophet of the Lord everyone feared (1Sam 16:4), was confident he had obeyed the prophet, even knowing he did not bring David....

1Sam 16:11 “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither.”

....which would be consistent with God's sometimes choosing that which men esteemed as worthless (the 'least') to be the greatest: (Gideon- Jud 6:15; King Saul- 1Sam 9:21; Jesus- Mt 2:6, Lk 9:48)

David's mother was apparently a Jewish woman, because 'no Ammonite shall enter the congregation of the Lord to the 10th generation’ (Deu 23:3), and yet in PS 86:16 and PS 116:16, David refers to himself as "the son of thy handmaid", which would seem to testify to his mother's relationship with the Lord. David's mother was, in the eyes of Jewish law, considered 'defiled' by her previous relationship to an Ammonite.

Nu 25:1,2; De 7:3,4; 1ki 11:2-4, Ezr 9:2; Ne 13:23,25; 2Co 6:14-17


This page may be copied and distributed freely as long as it is not altered.

This is possibly the most abyssmal non-exegetical non-lexical example of fallacious proof-texting obfuscation I've ever encountered.

It's almost impressive how horrible this is. Almost...

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 25th, 2016, 08:10 PM
I beg to disagree. It more looks like, when one believes that people are born spiritually dead in sin, all manner of doctrinal error follows as displayed by both Calvinists and Arminians in their endless, centuries-old debate, the pot calling the kettle black.

God did not simply fold His hands and did nothing when Adam fell into sin. Right then and there on that very same day, He implemented the plan of redemption He devised BEFORE the foundation of the world, as discussed here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365). That plan was revealed in the life, death and resurrection of our Lord. No wonder, Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8).

In the words of the wisest man:NAS Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."Being born spiritually alive, people are In Christ, parts of His Body. But instead of overcoming evil with good, people choose to be overcome of evil. That's why God is calling all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), because they are capable of repenting being in Christ Who is their Strength (Phil 4:13) to overcome evil with good (Rom 12:21). Overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life (Rev 3:5) and will be seated with Christ in His throne, Who Himself is an overcomer.KJV Revelation 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

It really is as simple as you not comprehending articular/anarthrous Greek nouns and the specifics of Hamartiology. But you can't hear anything but your fallacies from your horrific presuppositions.

jamie
April 25th, 2016, 08:31 PM
Infants are not born in sin but because of the nature God created in humans sin is inevitable.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 25th, 2016, 08:43 PM
Infants are not born in sin but because of the nature God created in humans sin is inevitable.

Would you precisely define sin, please?

jamie
April 25th, 2016, 09:27 PM
Would you precisely define sin, please?


I define sin as as the violation of any of the parameters of the covenant God wrote with his own finger. (Deuteronomy 9:9-12)

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 25th, 2016, 10:18 PM
I define sin as as the violation of any of the parameters of the covenant God wrote with his own finger. (Deuteronomy 9:9-12)

Interesting, since those are actions (acting), which would always be a verb.

Sin (hamartia/hamartiai) is a noun, in four forms. Sin (hamartano) is a verb, in multiple tenses, moods, and voices. And sin (hamartema/hamartemata) is a noun, in four forms. None of them are the other, though all are integral.

All you referred to was hamartano, the verb; and without indicating tense, mood, or voice considerations. The majority of references in scripture are to hamartia in its various forms... and all of them are nouns.

THIS is why virtually no one knows the truth about much of anything, but presume they do just because they have the basic ability to think and speak.

Notaclue
April 26th, 2016, 01:24 AM
From a link (http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html) provided in another thread, here's one paragraph (emphasis mine):Two questions:
1. Had Christ not lived, died and resurrected, are people born dead in sin?
2. Despite Christ's life, death and resurrection, are people born dead in sin?

If possible, please provide Scriptural basis for your answer.



2Cor.5:20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

For he hath 'made him "to be sin" for us, who knew no sin;' that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


Heb.9:27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time 'without sin ' unto salvation.


shall he appear the second time ' without sin' unto salvation.


Rom.7:18. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not


nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh


Rom.8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,


sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh


Mk.10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

there is none good but one, that is, God.


21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


Peace.

beloved57
April 26th, 2016, 03:12 AM
Only believers are born again and made spiritually alive. This happens when they hear and believe the Gospel, Galatians 3:2.

False comment, thats not Gal 3:2 says.

One must be of God to hear Gods words Jn 8:47

47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 10:27 AM
Of course you do, as it validates my premise that those that disagree with over a thousand years of the church's denunciation of deniers of original sin, are found to hold all manner of doctrinal oddities and error. You are a textbook example (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?116948-Arminians-amp-Calvinists-Limit-God-s-Power-To-Save&p=4647498&highlight=samie#post4647498) of how far one will stray outside the bounds of orthodoxy once one denies original sin.

AMRThat's according to you, of course. I can say the same about you. But the final arbiter is the Bible.

I have explained my position with valid Scriptural basis. And if Scripture is with me, then that's good enough for me, no matter what others say. Copernicus stood alone in standing against the long held belief in the geocentric model of the solar system. We know now he was right. Ages and ages will not convert lie into truth. Truth remains truth even if people refuse to believe it.

Because of what God through Christ did for humanity, people are born spiritually alive. Again, from the wisest man:NAS Ecclesiastes 7:29 "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices."I rather agree with Solomon and disagree with promoters of the unbiblical idea that people are born spiritually dead in sin.

WonderfulLordJesus
April 26th, 2016, 10:36 AM
I have explained my position with valid Scriptural basis. And if Scripture is with me, then that's good enough for me, no matter what others say. Copernicus stood alone in standing against the long held belief in the geocentric model of the solar system. We know now he was right. Ages and ages will not convert lie into truth. Truth remains truth even if people refuse to believe it.


What sort of sophistry is that? So you're now Copernicus? Should everybody with a bad idea or professing some ignorance cop to being Copernicus? Could you be just a tad high on yourself? In terms of scripture and reality, you've more got the sun revolving around yourself, than anything else.

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 11:08 AM
To prove that people are born spiritually dead in sin you used the ff verses:
2Cor.5:20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

For he hath 'made him "to be sin" for us, who knew no sin;' that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.So what if Jesus was made sin for us, does that mean people are born spiritually dead in sin? We sinned AFTER we were born, not before or during birth.



Heb.9:27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time 'without sin ' unto salvation.


shall he appear the second time ' without sin' unto salvation.So, because he shall appear the second time 'without sin', that means people are born spiritually dead in sin? I can't see the connection.



Rom.7:18. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not


nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my fleshWhy does nothing good dwells in him, says Paul? He answers in the last part: for, or because, the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. When is the "willing and the doing" done? Before birth, during birth, or AFTER birth when one has reached the age of accountability?


Rom.8:3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,


sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful fleshThis verse endorses my position but against yours. Because when Christ came in the likeness of the sinful flesh of humanity, He was NOT born spiritually dead in sin!!!



Mk.10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

there is none good but one, that is, God.Of course. And because of that all else are born spiritually dead in sin? So, as your reasoning suggests, the angels are also spiritually dead in sin because God is the only one good.



For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Peace.I don't see in any of those verses hinting that people are born spiritually dead in sin. In fact, the Father sent the Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. And the likeness of sinful flesh as we see it in Christ is: Jesus was NOT born spiritually dead in sin, though he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of men (Phil 2:7). So being made in the likeness of men, was Jesus born spiritually dead in sin? And can do nothing good? It's the reverse that's true.

The Father's sending of His Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, having made Him in the LIKENESS of men, proves that people are born spiritually alive, as Jesus was, though in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, and made in the LIKENESS of men.

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 11:14 AM
What sort of sophistry is that? So you're now Copernicus? Should everybody with a bad idea or professing some ignorance cop to being Copernicus? Could you be just a tad high on yourself? In terms of scripture and reality, you've more got the sun revolving around yourself, than anything else.Out of tune.

The mention of Copernicus is in his being alone in his position and castigated by all others in his time. But that did not make Copernicus wrong. That's the idea. Really that simple. Get it now?

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 11:20 AM
What sort of sophistry is that? So you're now Copernicus? Should everybody with a bad idea or professing some ignorance cop to being Copernicus? Could you be just a tad high on yourself? In terms of scripture and reality, you've more got the sun revolving around yourself, than anything else.So how is my position that people are born spiritually alive instead of being born spiritually dead in sin, a bad idea?

Looks like you are saying that to be born spiritually alive is a bad idea, BUT to be born spiritually dead in sin is a good idea.

Wow. Not very unlike calling good evil and evil good.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 26th, 2016, 02:53 PM
So how is my position that people are born spiritually alive instead of being born spiritually dead in sin, a bad idea?

Looks like you are saying that to be born spiritually alive is a bad idea, BUT to be born spiritually dead in sin is a good idea.

Wow. Not very unlike calling good evil and evil good.

Explicitly and lexically define "spiritually alive" and "spiritually dead".

jamie
April 26th, 2016, 03:12 PM
Explicitly and lexically define "spiritually alive" and "spiritually dead".


Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Paul explained, "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."

People are not born with the Spirit of Christ and without the Spirit of Christ there is no spiritual life.

dodge
April 26th, 2016, 04:10 PM
No one who remains in Christ will see death. All who gets blotted out from the book of life will experience two deaths: one, death from the 7 last plagues, and, two, the lake of fire. The death with which people now die, is but sleep in the eyes of God.

EVERYONE in CHRIST if HE tarries will die physically which is a fact, and death is the result of sin !

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 26th, 2016, 04:47 PM
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Paul explained, "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."

People are not born with the Spirit of Christ and without the Spirit of Christ there is no spiritual life.

Yeah, that doesn't help expose the fallacy and heresy of Sambo's Universal Atonement tripe.

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 05:16 PM
Explicitly and lexically define "spiritually alive" and "spiritually dead".You know the definition, wise and learned one. No need to ask whom you call a child when it comes to theological knowledge. Just refute my position that people are born spiritually alive instead of spiritually dead in sin, that is, IF you are not with me in my position.

There is no verse in the Bible that hints people are born spiritually dead in sin. Instead, the Bible tells us through the wisest man that God made people upright but they sought out many inventions. The Bible also tells us that the Father sent His Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and that He was made in the LIKENESS of men. If it were true that indeed people are born spiritually dead in sin, then Jesus, being sent in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and made in the LIKENESS of men, should have been born spiritually dead in sin, too.

Samie
April 26th, 2016, 05:19 PM
Yeah, that doesn't help expose the fallacy and heresy of Sambo's Universal Atonement tripe.Not just with your mouth, wise and learned one. Use Scriptures.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 26th, 2016, 05:59 PM
You know the definition, wise and learned one. No need to ask whom you call a child when it comes to theological knowledge. Just refute my position that people are born spiritually alive instead of spiritually dead in sin, that is, IF you are not with me in my position.

There is no verse in the Bible that hints people are born spiritually dead in sin. Instead, the Bible tells us through the wisest man that God made people upright but they sought out many inventions. The Bible also tells us that the Father sent His Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and that He was made in the LIKENESS of men. If it were true that indeed people are born spiritually dead in sin, then Jesus, being sent in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and made in the LIKENESS of men, should have been born spiritually dead in sin, too.

And there you have it. You can't and won't even define the central terms you insist you depend upon for your heretical Universal Atonement pseudo-doctrine.

I've already refuted your fallacy; you just can't recognize it. You are yet in your sins.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 26th, 2016, 06:01 PM
Not just with your mouth, wise and learned one. Use Scriptures.

I did. You don't understand that the minutiae of Greek grammar IS scripture. You have no idea how sad it is that you cling to this contradiction of the inspired text.

You think it's some kind of competition, and you've won some war of English words; and that I'm reciprocating in some power struggle to be right. I'm grived for you (and others), not engaging in argument. I'm trying to lay down my life for you to see your error and have the truth.

Epoisses
April 26th, 2016, 11:49 PM
Yeah, that doesn't help expose the fallacy and heresy of Sambo's Universal Atonement tripe.

Or the fallacy of your universal goat atonement that can remove sin!!! Tell me what happened on the day of atonement again when sinners with goat blood expiated sin. What an educated idiot.

Epoisses
April 26th, 2016, 11:53 PM
I did. You don't understand that the minutiae of Greek grammar IS scripture. You have no idea how sad it is that you cling to this contradiction of the inspired text.

You think it's some kind of competition, and you've won some war of English words; and that I'm reciprocating in some power struggle to be right. I'm grived for you (and others), not engaging in argument. I'm trying to lay down my life for you to see your error and have the truth.

This guy is basically saying that an English bible is insufficient for Salvation. I have to know the Greek or his interpretation of the Greek in order to be saved. Talk about a con artist. Any verse brought before him will be dismissed on this ground. I would like to hear your understanding of the atonement. If you could bring it down to me level it would be greatly appreciated. Do tell, what happened on the old rugged cross?

Notaclue
April 27th, 2016, 02:38 AM
[QUOTE=Samie;4686343]To prove that people are born spiritually dead in sin you used the ff verses:So what if Jesus was made sin for us, does that mean people are born spiritually dead in sin? We sinned AFTER we were born, not before or during birth.


So, because he shall appear the second time 'without sin', that means people are born spiritually dead in sin? I can't see the connection.


Why does nothing good dwells in him, says Paul? He answers in the last part: for, or because, the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. When is the "willing and the doing" done? Before birth, during birth, or AFTER birth when one has reached the age of accountability?

This verse endorses my position but against yours. Because when Christ came in the likeness of the sinful flesh of humanity, He was NOT born spiritually dead in sin!!!


Of course. And because of that all else are born spiritually dead in sin? So, as your reasoning suggests, the angels are also spiritually dead in sin because God is the only one good.


I don't see in any of those verses hinting that people are born spiritually dead in sin. In fact, the Father sent the Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. And the likeness of sinful flesh as we see it in Christ is: Jesus was NOT born spiritually dead in sin, though he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of men (Phil 2:7). So being made in the likeness of men, was Jesus born spiritually dead in sin? And can do nothing good? It's the reverse that's true.

The Father's sending of His Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, having made Him in the LIKENESS of men, proves that people are born spiritually alive, as Jesus was, though in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, and made in the LIKENESS of men.


[Quote]
I don't see in any of those verses hinting that people are born spiritually dead in sin. In fact, the Father sent the Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. And the likeness of sinful flesh as we see it in Christ is: Jesus was NOT born spiritually dead in sin, though he was born in the likeness of sinful flesh.


Why do you add the word likeness?


2Cor.5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus knew no sin, he had to be born in sin.


Peace.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 03:48 AM
This guy is basically saying that an English bible is insufficient for Salvation. I have to know the Greek or his interpretation of the Greek in order to be saved. Talk about a con artist. Any verse brought before him will be dismissed on this ground. I would like to hear your understanding of the atonement. If you could bring it down to me level it would be greatly appreciated. Do tell, what happened on the old rugged cross?

No, that's basically what YOU and many others are saying in the inverse. You're insisting English speakers can automatically know every nuance and aspect and facet of meaning in the text by simply reading an English translation without knowing the difficulties of translation.

It's a sub-conscious arrogance that's difficult to recognize and admit.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 03:53 AM
If someone were born "spiritually alive" (which is a concept, and has never been clearly and exegetically defined) without sin (which is a singular articular noun, for which there is an anarthrous form), there would be no need for salvation.

Danoh
April 27th, 2016, 07:36 AM
No, that's basically what YOU and many others are saying in the inverse. You're insisting English speakers can automatically know every nuance and aspect and facet of meaning in the text by simply reading an English translation without knowing the difficulties of translation.

It's a sub-conscious arrogance that's difficult to recognize and admit.

I'd be willing to bet that in those areas where you and I might agree doctrinally, we would, though I barely ever turn to "the Greek."

And I mean barely ever.

Just a matter of Basic, Elementary School Reading Comprehension 101 rigorously applied to my KJB.

For either the translators of the KJB all the way back to the first English version to theirs as one collective voice had the Greek nuance down to a level I have absolutely no doubt you alone will never ever achieve an iota of, or they did not, and you are some sort of an Apostle Paul all over again - which you, certainly are not - not by any stretch of your obvious "Greek" delusion.

Whereas; where collective translation might appear off; as usual, that just calls for more time in what is a bit clearer elsewhere in Scripture.

Then again, you and that other name on here often remind me of that old quip "I used to be Shizophrenic, but now WE'RE okay."

Your two as two to my one as one, well, maybe you have a fighting chance against my one :chuckle:

Samie
April 27th, 2016, 08:05 AM
And there you have it. You can't and won't even define the central terms you insist you depend upon for your heretical Universal Atonement pseudo-doctrine.

I've already refuted your fallacy; you just can't recognize it. You are yet in your sins.All mouth. No Bible.

Danoh
April 27th, 2016, 08:07 AM
You know the definition, wise and learned one. No need to ask whom you call a child when it comes to theological knowledge. Just refute my position that people are born spiritually alive instead of spiritually dead in sin, that is, IF you are not with me in my position.

There is no verse in the Bible that hints people are born spiritually dead in sin. Instead, the Bible tells us through the wisest man that God made people upright but they sought out many inventions. The Bible also tells us that the Father sent His Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and that He was made in the LIKENESS of men. If it were true that indeed people are born spiritually dead in sin, then Jesus, being sent in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and made in the LIKENESS of men, should have been born spiritually dead in sin, too.

What nonsense your above is.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

They were now spiritually dead; their spirit no longer able to quicken their bodies...a clock began ticking off their physical accompaniment to that: physical death.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

And so this spiritual still born death passed upon all men - after Adam's own image of same.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

All have sinned...in Adam.

Our spiritual dna is like that of someone whose very dna has been severely impacted by drug abuse and or a disease such as Aids. We are now born that ourselves.

As it has often been noted; man is a sinner not because he sins - leave that to the worker ants in the error that is their religion of men - rather; man sins because he is a sinner by nature.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

By his very nature the child of Adam's disobedience, man is born dead in trespasses and sins. He sins because he is being who he is - the child of Adam's disobedience.

Nope. Man is absolutely hopeless.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Samie
April 27th, 2016, 08:13 AM
And there you have it. You can't and won't even define the central terms you insist you depend upon for your heretical Universal Atonement pseudo-doctrine.There again. All mouth. No Scriptures.


I've already refuted your fallacy; you just can't recognize it.I can easily recognize your mouth from Scriptures.


You are yet in your sins.From your mouth. Not from Scriptures.

From Scriptures, all had been washed clean from sin on Calvary's cross. Eph 1:7; Col 2:13; Rev 1:5

Danoh
April 27th, 2016, 08:16 AM
What is needed is a spiritual circumcision; or cutting off all around of this spirtual cancer from our spirit - through the faith of the operation of God.

That accomplished, spiritual newness of life is the result - a reversal of things - that of being spiritually dead unto sin and spiritually alive unto God, Rom. 6.

Danoh
April 27th, 2016, 08:17 AM
EVERYONE in CHRIST if HE tarries will die physically which is a fact, and death is the result of sin !

Yep.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 08:28 AM
I'd be willing to bet that in those areas where you and I might agree doctrinally, we would, though I barely ever turn to "the Greek."

And I mean barely ever.

And you'd lose that bet, but you can't fathom that. And I can tell you barely turn to the Greek. I can always immediately tell who has actual language knowledge and who doesn't; and usually where they are on a sliding scale.


Just a matter of Basic, Elementary School Reading Comprehension 101 rigorously applied to my KJB.

But it's your basic elememtary school (English) reading comprehension that has NO grid whatsoever for anarthrous noun forms as you automatically substitute English indefinite articles or verbs for those nouns.


For either the translators of the KJB all the way back to the first English version to theirs as one collective voice had the Greek nuance down to a level I have absolutely no doubt you alone will never ever achieve an iota of,

Which is why I've exhaustively examined their lives and their work, so I would know the fruit of their labors. Erasmus is one of my greatest heroes of the faith, and he said the same things I'm saying and much more in a much more scathing manner. He would strip you to the nubb over your abject arrogant ignorance and applaud everything I've said (though possibly scolding me for being so gracious, etc.)


or they did not, and you are some sort of an Apostle Paul all over again - which you, certainly are not - by any stretch of delusion.

I'm no Paul. But I follow hom as he follows Christ; and I know precisely and exactly what he said by inspiration of the Spirit. His response to your post would be the same and exponentially beyond as Erasmus'. You don't have any idea of the depths of meaning for what Paul wrote. He would scold you and commend those like me.


Whereas; where collective translation might appear off; as usual, that just calls for more time in what is a bit clearer elsewhere in Scripture.

There's no way for you to even know this. I sit and talk with linguists and grammarians, and we almost weep at times over the stubborn adamance of English-only slaves to their own hearts and minds. We've all been there. I lead people out of "there" multiple days every week; and they all say the same thing... "I can't believe I thought I knew what anything meant. I did... Sorta... In a way... But not really at all." And that's after one 2-hour expose' on language structure for nouns.

In language sessions, they all testify it's like being born again over and over out of the death of the letter of their own English nominal understanding. And I don't even teach the Greek language; I just teach them what they need to know in their own native first language of English. Learning Greek isn't necessary, but learning how it translates into English is beyond vital.

You don't and can't know what you don't know. Plus Modernism has installed extreme autonomy and autocentrism in everyone, so nobody can be corrected when they're egregiously wrong.


Then again, you and that other name on here often remind me of that old quip "I used to be Shizophrenic, but now WE'RE okay."

Your two as two to my one as one, well, maybe you have a fighting chance against my one :chuckle:

Unlike you, I'm not fighting. I'm trying to give you (and others) something.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 08:32 AM
All mouth. No Bible.


There again. All mouth. No Scriptures.

I can easily recognize your mouth from Scriptures.

From your mouth. Not from Scriptures.

From Scriptures, all had been washed clean from sin on Calvary's cross. Eph 1:7; Col 2:13; Rev 1:5

Anarthrous Greek nouns throughout scripture ARE scripture, stubborn dullard.

Samie
April 27th, 2016, 08:33 AM
What nonsense your above is.

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

They were now spiritually dead; their spirit no longer able to quicken their bodies...a clock began ticking off their physical accompaniment to that: physical death.

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

And so this spiritual still born death passed upon all men - after Adam's own image of same.

Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

All have sinned...in Adam.

Our spiritual dna is like that of someone whose very dna has been severely impacted by drug abuse and or a disease such as Aids. We are now born that ourselves.

As it has often been noted; man is a sinner not because he sins - leave that to the worker ants in the error that is their religion of men - rather; man sins because he is a sinner by nature.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

By his very nature the child of Adam's disobedience, man is born dead in trespasses and sins. He sins because he is being who he is - the child of Adam's disobedience.

Nope. Man is absolutely hopeless.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.Not a single verse in your quoted verses say that people are born spiritually dead in sin. Instead all sinful acts were committed AFTER one is born, NOT before or during birth.

Here, refute this:

1. The wisest man who ever lived said: God made man upright but they sought out many inventions (Eccl 7:29). So man starts out upright or righteous, NOT born spiritually dead in sin.

2. The Father sent Jesus to this world in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). If the LIKENESS of sinful flesh is to be born spiritually dead in sin then Jesus was born spiritually dead in sin. But because Jesus was not born spiritually dead in sin, therefore, man in sinful flesh is not born spiritually dead in sin, being Jesus' LIKENESS.

3. Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of men (Phil 2:7). So the pattern is the LIKENESS of men. The resulting copy from the pattern is Jesus. As the pattern, so is the copy. But the copy is not born spiritually dead in sin, therefore, the pattern is also not born spiritually dead in sin.

Your turn, Danoh.

Samie
April 27th, 2016, 08:39 AM
Anarthrous Greek nouns throughout scripture ARE scripture, stubborn dullard.No quoted Scriptures but just from your mouth, getting filthier each time it speaks.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 09:27 AM
No quoted Scriptures but just from your mouth, getting filthier each time it speaks.

"Stubborn dullard" is not "filthy", it's fact.

Your false anti-christ doctrine is what is filthy.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 09:40 AM
SCRIPTURE .... Romans 5:12-13

12 Wherefore, as by one man (ANARTHROUS) sin (hamartia ARTICULAR) entered into the world (ARTICULAR), and death (thanatos ARTICULAR) by sin (hamartia ARTICULAR); so death (thanatos ARTICULAR) passed upon all men (ANARTHROUS), for that all have sinned (hamartano - aorist indicative active).

13 For until the law (nomos ANARTHROUS) sin (hamartia ANARTHROUS) was in the world (ANARTHROUS); but sin (hamartia ANARTHROUS) is not imputed when there is no law (nomos ANARTHROUS).


Verse 12 is men (ANARTHROUS) with all other nouns as ARTICULAR.

ALL nouns are ANARTHROUS in Verse 13.

HUGE difference, not understood in English.

Samie
April 27th, 2016, 09:53 AM
"Stubborn dullard" is not "filthy", it's fact.

Your false anti-christ doctrine is what is filthy.You just don't understand it, wise and learned one. It is pro-Christ, NOT anti-Christ. Here:

The Father sent Jesus to earth in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). Was Jesus, being in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, born spiritually dead in sin? No. That is glaring evidence that sinful flesh is NOT compatible with being born spiritually dead in sin.

Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of men (Phil 2:7). The pattern is the LIKENESS of men; the resulting copy is Jesus. As the pattern, so is the copy. Was Jesus, the copy, born spiritually dead in sin? No. So is the pattern.

And the wisest man said that God made men upright but they sought out many inventions (Eccl 7:29). So people start out upright or righteous, instead of born spiritually dead in sin.

I have just provided Scriptures negating the teaching that people are born spiritually dead in sin. Instead, people are born spiritually alive like Jesus who was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and made in the likeness of men.

Your turn.

Samie
April 27th, 2016, 09:56 AM
SCRIPTURE .... Romans 5:12-13

12 Wherefore, as by one man (ANARTHROUS) sin (hamartia ARTICULAR) entered into the world (ARTICULAR), and death (thanatos ARTICULAR) by sin (hamartia ARTICULAR); so death (thanatos ARTICULAR) passed upon all men (ANARTHROUS), for that all have sinned (hamartano - aorist indicative active).

13 For until the law (nomos ANARTHROUS) sin (hamartia ANARTHROUS) was in the world (ANARTHROUS); but sin (hamartia ANARTHROUS) is not imputed when there is no law (nomos ANARTHROUS).


Verse 12 is men (ANARTHROUS) with all other nouns as ARTICULAR.

ALL nouns are ANARTHROUS in Verse 13.

HUGE difference, not understood in English.So how does your anarthrous invention address the issue in this thread whether people are born spiritually dead in sin or not?

serpentdove
April 27th, 2016, 09:58 AM
Are People Born Dead In Sin?

Yes (Ps 51:5, Jn 3:7). Get yourself a new heart (Eze 36:26).

http://www.castlerockbiblechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/stone-and-flesh-heart.jpg

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 10:26 AM
So how does your anarthrous invention address the issue in this thread whether people are born spiritually dead in sin or not?

Why do you insist a construct of the Greek lanuage for nouns is "my invention"? You have no idea how foolish you sound and are.

What you're mistaking is articular and anarthrous noun forms of sin. You can't even begin to understand what I'm referring to. That's why you shouldn't be engaging in theological doctrinal apologetics.

This is like a first-semester high school chemistry student trying to lecture a Chemistry PhD about some nominal thing he thinks he understands better than those who have written his textbooks and taught the subject at a level he'll likely never even attain.

You can't/won't even define death (thanatos) and apply it to both physical and spiritual. You just regurgitate this false concept pretending you understand by saying the words without their definitions and applications. Spiritual death and physical death are two different things, though interconnected.

Sin comes from spiritual death, the wages for which is physical death; but you don't/won't/can't understand what that means. And you don't even know what sin IS, in ANY form except the verb and the resulting noun from the verb.

You're in a huge majority, wandering around like zombies and presuming to self-determine what scripture means from a glossed nominal reading by scattered English-only proof-texting. It's the worst epidemic in human history, and it's undermining the Christian Faith.

You think you're doing God a service. You're just interposing singular anarthrous sin for singular articular sin in oppostion to their use and meaning in the text. You can never know this from an English perspective. Never. It requires being renewed in the spirit of the mind. Your foundational epistemology has enslaved you to the patterns of English thought.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 27th, 2016, 10:37 AM
You just don't understand it, wise and learned one. It is pro-Christ, NOT anti-Christ.

No, it's the same error that Barth and many other have made; and its effects have reached epidemic proportions as a plague within the Christian Faith.

Sadly, it is you who don't understand.

You can't know the tone of my words in this written venue. I'm not debating and arguing and fighting. Nor am I condescending. I'm grieving to the core of my being over the damage being done to the Christian Faith by this, and several other, key doctrinal perversions because of English misrepresentation.

Language determines belief, and all thought, volition, desire, emotion, and action are determined by belief. Once one hears an inauthentic Word, it shapes their belief just as the authentic Word does.

It's nobody's "turn". The truth is absolute whether anyone knows it or believes it. It won't change even if everyone believes the same sublte non-anarthrous lies you've embraced.

Once the anarthrous is removed from language, the whole spectrum of qualitative characteristics and functional activity of EVERY noun is significantly diminished and/or lost. You can't even know how horrific this is as the primary instrument of the enemy of our souls.

KingdomRose
April 27th, 2016, 10:40 AM
From a link (http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html) provided in another thread, here's one paragraph (emphasis mine):Two questions:
1. Had Christ not lived, died and resurrected, are people born dead in sin?
2. Despite Christ's life, death and resurrection, are people born dead in sin?

If possible, please provide Scriptural basis for your answer.

Whether or not Christ had lived, died and resurrected, we would still be born dead in sin, and yes, despite Christ's life, death and resurrection, people are born dead in sin. Augustine was entirely correct concerning this.

Romans chapter 5 shows this to be true. If we leave off the parts about Christ, it is clear that mankind has been under the influence of sin and death since Adam. So without Christ, we would all be hopeless.

"By one man's trespass many died..." (verse 15)

"The judgment resulted from one trespass in condemnation..." (verse 16)

"Through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation..." (verse 18)

"Through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners..." (verse 19)


So it is clear that mankind needed their Creator's help in becoming justified. That is where Christ comes in. He provided the propitiatory sacrifice required under the Law, thus fulfilling the Law and God's justice for humans.

KingdomRose
April 27th, 2016, 10:52 AM
If they are not born dead why do they need to be born again? 1 Peter 1:23.

Being born again has nothing to do with whether or not a person is born spiritually dead. If they were born perfect and were chosen to rule in heaven with Christ, they would still need to be "born again." Being born again is not a remedy for being born in sin and death. It is a further, additional birth, if you will, one that places a person in line for heavenly life.

Most of us now are in no need of being "born again," because the rulers with Christ have been chosen. We do not need to be prepared for heavenly life. If you'll notice the scripture about being born again, Jesus did not say that a person has to be born again to be saved. He said a person must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God. That means to rule with him in heaven, which is where the Kingdom has its seat. The Kingdom extends its influence over the earth, which is part of that Kingdom arrangement. We have a government by God (God's appointed King, Jesus Christ, and his co-rulers) and we have its subjects---here on Earth.

Only Christ's co-rulers need to be born again.

KingdomRose
April 27th, 2016, 11:00 AM
Romans 7:9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.


If Paul was once alive, he obviously wasn't born dead in sin.

We can also look at Romans 5:12 and see that we die because of our own sin, which requires the knowledge of good and evil.

You skipped a whole lot of scriptures there in Romans 5.

Paul was also born in sin, and he realized that everyone needed to be included under Christ's ransom sacrifice in order to have eternal life. He said that, previously, he was FOREMOST among sinners. (I Timothy 1:15) Everyone born from Adam is born in sin. Jesus gave up his own human life so that we humans could be absolved of sin. But we have to ACCEPT that sacrifice and follow Christ's footsteps. (John 3:16; I Peter 2:21)

KingdomRose
April 27th, 2016, 11:06 AM
Just a comment to Calvinist Ask Mr. Religion: Calvin will have to do a whole lot of re-thinking when he is resurrected by Jehovah through Jesus. He will see clearly and suddenly that his crazy ideas about predestination were purely hogwash.

themuzicman
April 27th, 2016, 11:36 AM
You skipped a whole lot of scriptures there in Romans 5.

Actually, Romans 5 supports me, too. 5:12 tells us that all die because we all sin, not because Adam sinned.


Paul was also born in sin

Cite?


and he realized that everyone needed to be included under Christ's ransom sacrifice in order to have eternal life.

Well, those who died when the law came alive. Romans 7:7-9 are pretty clear that Paul was alive until the law came, and he died.



He said that, previously, he was FOREMOST among sinners. (I Timothy 1:15) Everyone born from Adam is born in sin. Jesus gave up his own human life so that we humans could be absolved of sin. But we have to ACCEPT that sacrifice and follow Christ's footsteps. (John 3:16; I Peter 2:21)

None of this changes Romans 7:9

Ben Masada
April 27th, 2016, 11:58 AM
From a link (http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html) provided in another thread, here's one paragraph (emphasis mine):Two questions:
1. Had Christ not lived, died and resurrected, are people born dead in sin?
2. Despite Christ's life, death and resurrection, are people born dead in sin?

If possible, please provide Scriptural basis for your answer.

Good reply Jamie! I would further say that no one is born in sin. To be a sinner, one must become. The Lord
would be unjust if any one were born a sinner. If not by any other reason, the sinner would not be entitled to any kind of punishment.

Ben Masada
April 27th, 2016, 12:08 PM
If someone were born "spiritually alive" (which is a concept, and has never been clearly and exegetically defined) without sin (which is a singular articular noun, for which there is an anarthrous form), there would be no need for salvation.

Every one is born spiritually alive yes. If you read Ecclesiastes 7:20 "HaShem created man perfect but he went after many moral decays." Hence, no one is born a sinner but he becomes one when he gets into many spiritual moral distortions.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 28th, 2016, 06:00 AM
Every one is born spiritually alive yes. If you read Ecclesiastes 7:20 "HaShem created man perfect but he went after many moral decays." Hence, no one is born a sinner but he becomes one when he gets into many spiritual moral distortions.

Yes, man(kind) was originally created tov (functional) and became ra'a (dysfunctional).

So much for your Kabbalah and Talmud and Zohar and Tikkun garbage, pseudo-Zionist anti-Semite.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 28th, 2016, 06:37 AM
Actually, Romans 5 supports me, too. 5:12 tells us that all die because we all sin, not because Adam sinned.

Romans 5:12 tells us death passed upon all men; and it's not because Adam sinned (the verb). It's because of sin (the noun) entering the cosmos by one man, and death by sin (the noun).

No one dies because of Adam's acting and actions as sinning and sins. Death passed upon all men because of the sin (noun), for that all have sinned.

Sin (the noun) is the source for sinning (the verb).


Well, those who died when the law came alive. Romans 7:7-9 are pretty clear that Paul was alive until the law came, and he died.

Alive is zao (and in the imperfect tense), referring not to spiritual life but to physical existence as opposed to physical death. "To spend one's exitence." In this form, related to bios (biological life), not zoe (constant communion with God as spiritual life).


None of this changes Romans 7:9

But you have misunderstood and misrepresented Romans 7:9 because of shallow English presumptions upon the text.

The "alive" in Romans 7:9 is NOT the same life that comes with salvation. It's actually contrasting them, not equating them.

The details of Greek grammar and semantics matter much more than modern English shallow presuppositions from a skim reading of proof-texts, etc.

Samie
April 28th, 2016, 08:01 AM
Why do you insist a construct of the Greek lanuage for nouns is "my invention"? You have no idea how foolish you sound and are.

What you're mistaking is articular and anarthrous noun forms of sin. You can't even begin to understand what I'm referring to. That's why you shouldn't be engaging in theological doctrinal apologetics.

This is like a first-semester high school chemistry student trying to lecture a Chemistry PhD about some nominal thing he thinks he understands better than those who have written his textbooks and taught the subject at a level he'll likely never even attain.

You can't/won't even define death (thanatos) and apply it to both physical and spiritual. You just regurgitate this false concept pretending you understand by saying the words without their definitions and applications. Spiritual death and physical death are two different things, though interconnected.

Sin comes from spiritual death, the wages for which is physical death; but you don't/won't/can't understand what that means. And you don't even know what sin IS, in ANY form except the verb and the resulting noun from the verb.

You're in a huge majority, wandering around like zombies and presuming to self-determine what scripture means from a glossed nominal reading by scattered English-only proof-texting. It's the worst epidemic in human history, and it's undermining the Christian Faith.

You think you're doing God a service. You're just interposing singular anarthrous sin for singular articular sin in oppostion to their use and meaning in the text. You can never know this from an English perspective. Never. It requires being renewed in the spirit of the mind. Your foundational epistemology has enslaved you to the patterns of English thought.My simple reply to the wise and learned one:

1 Corinthians 1:20, 26 - 29

20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty;
28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are,
29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.

I suggest that in lieu of displaying credentials, simply refute my position (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117586-The-Lie-Many-Honestly-Believed-As-Truth&p=4684365&viewfull=1#post4684365)why the teaching that people are born spiritually dead in sin is a lie. Instead, people are born spiritually alive:

1. The wisest person said God made people upright or righteous, but they sought out many inventions (Eccl 7:29).
2. The Father sent Jesus into this world in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3).
3. Jesus was made in the LIKENESS of men (Phil 2:7).

Jesus was made in all things like unto His brethren, brethren - plural, not simply singular like Adam:NKJ 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.That's a generic application. The pattern is His brethren. The resulting copy is Jesus. As copied from the pattern, the copy is born not spiritually dead in sin. Therefore, the pattern is not born spiritually dead in sin.

themuzicman
April 28th, 2016, 08:38 AM
Romans 5:12 tells us death passed upon all men; and it's not because Adam sinned (the verb). It's because of sin (the noun) entering the cosmos by one man, and death by sin (the noun).

You're doing a lot of unnecessary twisting and manufacturing, and you're missing the piece in the middle, which Paul explains further.

Adam sinned, and (physical) death entered the world through Adam. He had access to the tree of life, but because he disobeyed God and gained the knowledge of good and evil, he was barred from it, ensuring his death. As Paul explains in Romans 7, when we encounter law, our flesh reacts badly to it, and we sin. That's why Paul concludes with all die because all sin, rather than all die because Adam sinned.

It's not any more complicated than that.


No one dies because of Adam's acting and actions as sinning and sins. Death passed upon all men because of the sin (noun), for that all have sinned.

That's not what the text says. The text says that all die because all sinned.


Sin (the noun) is the source for sinning (the verb).


Again, that's false, as well, as we see in Romans 7. It is when our flesh encounters law that sin comes about.


Alive is zao (and in the imperfect tense), referring not to spiritual life but to physical existence as opposed to physical death. "To spend one's exitence." In this form, related to bios (biological life), not zoe (constant communion with God as spiritual life).

Now, that's completely silly, because Paul says that when the law came, he died. If this life was physical, then Paul should have physically died when he encountered the law.

And we know that's not the case.

The fact is that when Paul refers to being alive and then dying, he's referring to eternal condemnation, the death and judgment that is inevitable because of sin.


But you have misunderstood and misrepresented Romans 7:9 because of shallow English presumptions upon the text.

Actually, you've completely shredded the text by imposing your view on it. I've studied it in the Greek, and you're either ignoring half the verse, or engaging in special pleading.


The "alive" in Romans 7:9 is NOT the same life that comes with salvation. It's actually contrasting them, not equating them.

Your silliness in interpreting this verse has already been noted.

But you are correct in the sense that it isn't the life that comes with salvation. It's the life that we have before we sin. Without our sin, there is no condemnation.


The details of Greek grammar and semantics matter much more than modern English shallow presuppositions from a skim reading of proof-texts, etc.

And you've pretty much destroyed both texts with your poor exegesis.

PneumaPsucheSoma
April 28th, 2016, 10:44 AM
You're doing a lot of unnecessary twisting and manufacturing, and you're missing the piece in the middle, which Paul explains further.

Adam sinned, and (physical) death entered the world through Adam. He had access to the tree of life, but because he disobeyed God and gained the knowledge of good and evil, he was barred from it, ensuring his death. As Paul explains in Romans 7, when we encounter law, our flesh reacts badly to it, and we sin. That's why Paul concludes with all die because all sin, rather than all die because Adam sinned.

It's not any more complicated than that.



That's not what the text says. The text says that all die because all sinned.



Again, that's false, as well, as we see in Romans 7. It is when our flesh encounters law that sin comes about.



Now, that's completely silly, because Paul says that when the law came, he died. If this life was physical, then Paul should have physically died when he encountered the law.

And we know that's not the case.

The fact is that when Paul refers to being alive and then dying, he's referring to eternal condemnation, the death and judgment that is inevitable because of sin.



Actually, you've completely shredded the text by imposing your view on it. I've studied it in the Greek, and you're either ignoring half the verse, or engaging in special pleading.



Your silliness in interpreting this verse has already been noted.

But you are correct in the sense that it isn't the life that comes with salvation. It's the life that we have before we sin. Without our sin, there is no condemnation.



And you've pretty much destroyed both texts with your poor exegesis.

Sigh. Like virtually everyone else, you have no idea what hamartia (sin, the noun) is, or what significance Greek articular and anarthrous nouns have for understanding because of English-only concepts.

You mistreat the text because of an ignorance of Greek noun constructs. Join the massive club. It's a plague upon the Christian faith by western hearts and minds who mean well and think they know something.

themuzicman
April 28th, 2016, 11:03 AM
Sigh. Like virtually everyone else, you have no idea what hamartia (sin, the noun) is, or what significance Greek articular and anarthrous nouns have for understanding because of English-only concepts.

That's false. I've studied Greek as part of my Master's degree. What you're saying is simply not supportable from the Greek text.


You mistreat the text because of an ignorance of Greek noun constructs. Join the massive club. It's a plague upon the Christian faith by western hearts and minds who mean well and think they know something.

Again, false. I know the constructs. I know how Greek nouns and verbs work.

What you're doing is trying to look down your nose at people who don't know Greek, and telling them they don't know what their talking about.

Well, I know Greek. And what you're claiming isn't Greek. It's your theology.

themuzicman
April 28th, 2016, 11:11 AM
Problem #1:


Sin (the noun) is the source for sinning (the verb).


Romans 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

Paul disagrees with you.

This:


Romans 5:12 tells us death passed upon all men; and it's not because Adam sinned (the verb). It's because of sin (the noun) entering the cosmos by one man, and death by sin (the noun).

Romans 5 tells us nothing of the sort. Your self-taught Greek skills combined with listening to one too many uneducated Calvinist "theologians" have convinced you of what isn't in the text.


Romans 5:12 δια τουτο ωσπερ δι ενος ανθρωπου η αμαρτια εις τον κοσμον εισηλθεν και δια της αμαρτιας ο θανατος και ουτως εις παντας ανθρωπους ο θανατος διηλθεν εφ ω παντες ημαρτον


Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

The noun "sin" is used because Paul is describing the result of Adam's actions, namely that dead entered because of sin. This doesn't make sin (noun) the source of sinning, or the source of our death.

And the reason it's not is that the text tells us otherwise: We all die, because we all sin.

So, your reasoning is faulty, your reading of the text is faulty, and your attempt to appeal to Greek (because you assume you know little bit about Greek) is also faulty.

And this is demonstrated because Paul explains sin differently than you do in Romans 7.

Oh, and BTW, your obvious and silly failure in an attempt to say that "alive" in Romans 7:9 is physical remains unaddressed.