Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
john w: "I will believe what the proponents of the theory of Original Sin say instead of the verses which reveal that God made mankind upright."
ECT God Made Mankind Upright and That Contradicts the Theory of Original Sin
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
john w: "I will believe what the proponents of the theory of Original Sin say instead of the verses which reveal that God made mankind upright."
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Adam, our Federal representative, was made upright, but mutable. Able to sin, able not to sin. Adam sinned.
Consequently, all Adam's progeny by ordinary circumstance are made not able to not sin. If Adam's progeny are made able to not sin, then autonomous perfectionism is an actual possibility. Nonsense abounds from there onward.
Men that have aberrant views of vital matters, such as those concerning Our Lord, have no warrant to speak about what Scripture teaches, for they have shown themselves to be incapable of discernment:
AMR
There can be no doubt whatsoever, we see that you continue your ignoring what sir Paul said about assassination attempts, and you continue to run and hide to your Acts 2 Ironside-ism.
How did I do?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I am still waiting for you to give the Scriptures which you think proves that the present dispensation began at Acts 28.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If people aren't capable of not sinning then why would the Scriptures reveal that a person can, at least in theory, obtain eternal life by his own works or deeds?
If it were not possible for a person to do that then the Bible certainly would not speak of anyone actually having the ability to do that, would it?
But the Scriptures reveal that, at least in theory, a person can indeed obtain eternal life by his own deeds.
Jerry/the humanist atheist: I cannot understand why anyone would ever defend that deplorable theory of original sin/hell, especially since it makes the LORD God a sadist/the author of sin.And who in their right mind would ever think that the LORD would ever think that the LORD would hold infants responsible for the sins of Adam/consign people to an everlasting torment, that lasts forever? What I cannot understand, I will not believe. Therefore, there is no "original sin"/hell.
There can be no doubt whatsoever, that we see, it is obvious, that you talk like a humanist/atheist, in your method of arguing/reasoning-they talk like you.
How did I do?
Jerry: I believe what the proponents of the laughable, silly, ridiculous "no Original Sin" theory say, instead of what the verses in Romans through Philemon say, via sir Paul, and what that great mid Acts dispensationalist says, saint John W., and there can be no doubt whatsoever that I believe what men say, ignoring the scriptures, and I continue to assassinate the messengers, and run and hide.
And my " there can be no doubt whatsoever" ends the debate.
How did I do, Jer?
There can be no doubt whatsoever, we see, it is obvious, that you continue not to provide scriptures which you think proves your silly, ridiculous, laugable theory,that the present dispensation began at Acts 2, and are running and hiding to your Acts 2 Ironside-ism, and, instead of quoting the scriptures, quote men, and continue to assassinate me. We are still waiting, and we see that you have no answer, and ignore what Paul says in these verses:
Romans-Philemon
How did I do?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Adam sinned exactly like we all do....choosing wrongly. And he wasn't even living in a world of sin run by the god of this world. So, while that sounds like an interesting theory (mutability), it is nothing but speculation. Adam's sin was lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. Same things we face.
God created man with the ability to choose, and I have no doubt He knew man would choose to follow the desires of the flesh at some point in time. Rather than try and explain why Adam was different than we are, it would be wiser to recognize that his creation as a man with free will and in the flesh was all an important part of His plan of redemption from the beginning.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
As usual, you made a fool out of yourself.
You defend a theory which claims that a person's body and soul emerges from the womb totally corrupt even though the Scriptures reveal that people emerge from the womb upright.
There is no doubt whatsoever, we see, it is clear, it is obvious, that you are attacking the messenger, assassinating me, with your "you made a fool out of yourself" "personal attack," one of the giants of mid Acts dispensationalism, ignoring what the scriptures say, in Genesis-Revelation, including sir Paul says in Romans-Philemon, and defend a ridiculous, silly, laughable theory, which claims that a person's body and soul emerges from the womb totally sinless, like the Saviour's, thus mocking the reason for the virgin conception, making it superfluous, even though the Scriptures reveal that people emerge from the womb with a sin nature, and then you are running and hiding to your Acts 2 "the Lord Jesus Christ had flesh and blood in heaven before he became a man" Ironside-ism, and laughable, ridiculous, silly theory, and your laughable, silly ridiculous evaporation theory, that says he lost his "flesh and bones" spiritual body,on the way to the third heaven, as it was evaporated, when he was hit by an asteroid. BRILLIANT!
And we see that you have no answer, as to, if the LORD God was gracious, in not allowing them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, after the fall, as that would mean that they would live forever in a fallen state, why would they need to eat of the tree, to live forever, if they had no sin in them when born? Why would they die?
Why should we believe you, instead of the scriptures, and sir Paul, one of the giants, like me, of mid Acts dispensationalism?
How did I do?
Last edited:
ttruscott
Well-known member
AMEN!
IF they were sinners by their free will BEFORE they were sown into the world, ie, born as human, Matt 13:36-39, then their sinfulness as infants was not created by GOD because the created on earth theory is worthless in that it spawns this blasphemy. It also suggests that their original creation was as perfect beings made in HIS image with a free will and the ability and opportunity for everyone to choose to accept HIM as their GOD and the salvation found in HIS Son AND also the ability and opportunity for everyone to choose to reject HIM as their GOD and the salvation found in HIS Son as the lies of a false god.
No one in a right or wrong mind has ever thought of a good or bad reason for GOD creating HIS bride as degraded and putrid in evil.
ttruscott
Well-known member
To what holy and righteous purpose? Do you accept this describes the GOD who is love, as one who creates HIS Church and Bride as not able to not sin, ie as inevitable sinners under judgement?
HE is the source of clean life giving water and from such a source can flow no stagnant or salt water - how can abominations of moral depravity then come from HIM? You might know some theology but you do not seem to know YHWH at all.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Mutability in Adam's case was for the good or the bad.
After Adam, the only mutability of his progeny is for more or less bad, yet bad always, unless God first acts making it such that his progeny are now mutable for the good, as was Adam in his original estate.
If the unbeliever possesses the ability to not sin, then perfectionism is a warranted expectation. Such a perfecting expectation was possessed only by Adam for an indeterminate time. He failed to demonstrate it. Had Adam done so, he and his offspring would have been granted eternal and glorified life. Such was the essence of the covenant between Adam and God—do this and live.
Theories are just suppositions seeking to explain something based upon generalizations. In our case, the facts overrule the suppositions with the particulars. None of Adam's ordinary progeny are able to not sin, unless God graciously acts first, quickening them from this dire state of affairs.
Of course we have the ability to choose. Who has denied such a thing? :idunno: I think this business of the ability to choose gets used without much careful consideration of exactly what is meant by choosing. It is often teed up at the Calvinist, who many think deny man's ability to choose. Being one of those Calvinists, and speaking for all of them, let me make it clear that all men are created with the ability to choose—our very liberty of spontaneity.
The choices we make are self-determined by our inclinations, else we would never choose or be but randomized automatons, indifferent to all we have chosen. Scripture is clear, the unbeliever's inclinations are wholly at enmity with God. In plain words, all unbelievers hate God. Given their state of being in Adam from birth, unbelievers cannot choose such that their choices are for the ultimate reason to glorify God. If they could, they would be like us, believers, born anew with hearts of stone replaced by hearts of flesh by God's gracious initiative (monergism), penultimate to our choosing to believe (synergism), and well on their way to their glory. Instead, the unbeliever is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, from which proceeds all actual transgressions. The sins of the unbeliever serve to confirm their state of affairs and the righteous judgment of God.
When it comes to our eternal destinies, we need to step back from the notion that we are basically good persons, that we all possess some "seed" of goodness that enables us to choose wisely. If this were the case, then those that choose wrongly can be pointed to with disdain, for after all, we did other than they did, all things being equal. Those poor fools. If only they were like us, for we made something of what was given us. These notions are part and parcel the views of Rome that have been smuggled into Protestant traditions.
"Oh, it is sad that Jim passed away. He was such a good person." Yet, Jim never called upon the name of the Lord to be saved. Sure, he gave to charity, walked old ladies across the road, loved his family, provided for them, too, a veritable pillar of the community. Yet, in the final analysis, he hated the One who made him, else he would have obeyed Him (John 15:15; Rom. 10:13).
Now a legalist reads this backwards: “You will keep my commandments if you love me.” In other words, we must prove our love for God by doing what He commands. Apparently, commandment-keeping is our duty, a condition we must meet if we are to enjoy His love. But someone who is walking in grace reads it just as Jesus said it. Our Lord understands that keeping His commands is a by-product of our love for Him, incorporating our desire to glorify Him in all that we think, do, or say (1 Cor. 10:31).
We are not just like Adam. He was made by God to be the best representative of all mankind. God elected Adam—by a vote of Three Persons, if you will pardon the metaphor—to stand in for all of us. Can we honestly say that we could have elected a better representative than God (see the Politics section of this site)? :AMR1: Indeed, Adam possessed all the moral equipment to fulfill his duty to his Maker. God made Adam with the ability to choose the good or the evil. God even condescended to Adam, speaking to him directly and telling him exactly what he must do. Yet, this man, Adam, failed to maintain his original estate.
The image of God in which Adam was originally made is not the image possessed by His progeny. That original image has been corrupted. No amount of self-oiling and maintenance can fix it. Only He who made that image can restore it as it was originally intended. Once God so firstly acts to restore that image, those with this restorative image will choose the right thing.
If a person wants to be saved, he will be saved. None can claim that want without first having been acted upon by God. A person may think and even sincerely believe that their want rose up within themselves, for they believe they possessed some "seed" of goodness giving them that autonomy. I argue and maintain that this want was the work of God alone in His regenerating the person first. They chose wisely second. Why? Their inclinations became for the good after their regeneration, hence they chose accordingly. Furthermore, this want was not some lengthy wooing and pleading by God. After all, if a person is inclined for the good, they will do the good. That they did not do so means they really were not that inclined, for some other greater inclination took them in another direction. All of which to say is that when God regenerates a person, the person's choosing to believe immediately follows, for that is the greatest inclination when they so chose.
AMR
"The image of God in which Adam was originally made is not the image possessed by His progeny. That original image has been corrupted. No amount of self-oiling and maintenance can fix it. Only He who made that image can restore it as it was originally intended....... ."-AMR
In this, we agreed-Adam was born in God's image, after His likeness, per Genesis 1:26-27 KJV. However, we are begat in fallen Adam's own likeness, and after his image, "The Adams Family," per:
Genesis 5 KJV
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Details...in a book of details...
In this, we agreed-Adam was born in God's image, after His likeness, per Genesis 1:26-27 KJV. However, we are begat in fallen Adam's own likeness, and after his image, "The Adams Family," per:
Genesis 5 KJV
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
Details...in a book of details...
glorydaz
Well-known member
I see no proof of that, though, AMR. Adam did what other men do. Period.
We see others who did better than Adam.
Ezek. 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So you deny that the LORD made mankind upright but you do not even address those words.
If no one can keep the moral law before they are saved then how do you explain what Paul said about himself at a time before he was converted?:
"Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" (Phil.3:5-6).
Paul also makes it known that the Gentiles could in fact do the things contained in the law which is written in their hearts:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Ro.2:14-15).
Now perhaps you will actually address my initial post on this thread and tell us why the LORD God did not make mankind upright despite the fact that the Scriptures reveal that He did!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why didn't you address the following detail, sonny boy?:
"This only have I found: God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes'" (Eccl.7:25-29).
According to the theory of Original Sin people emerge from the womb with with their souls and bodies totally corrupted. So please address the following words of David concerning the way he emerged from the womb:
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well" (Ps.139:13-14).
By the way, when Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he received a conscience and his descendants also received a conscience because they were made in Adam's image in that respect.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
sonny boy, I am still waiting you to actually address the verses which I did quote. In order to examine the results of personal sins in regard to death let us look first at the following verse :
"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (Eph.2:1).
Joseph Benson wrote that "they are under condemnation, on account of their past depravity and various transgressions, to the second death, or to future wrath and punishment, like criminals under sentence of death for their crimes" [emphasis added] (Joseph Benson, Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments, Commentary at Ephesians 2:1).
In The Pulpit Commentary we read that "the death ascribed to the Ephesians in their natural state is evidently spiritual death, and "trespasses and sins," being in the dative seems to indicate the cause of death - 'dead through your trespasses and your sins' (R.V.)" (The Pulpit Commentary)
Paul also tells the believers at Colosse the following:
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:13).
In Vincent's Word Studies we read the following: "In your sins...the dative is instrumental, through or by" (Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent's Word Studies)
At Colossians 2:13 we read that Paul tells these people that they were dead previously but now have been made "alive with Christ." This can only be speaking of them receiving spiritual life so their death was a spiritual death. So these people died spiritually as a result of their own sin. That means that they were alive spiritually before they sinned because no one can die spiritually unless he is first alive spiritually. And the only possible way that these people were alive spiritually before they sinned is because they emerged from the womb spiritually alive.
That means that no one emerges from the womb spiritually dead and that completely destroys the theory of Original Sin which teaches that all people emerge from the womb spiritually dead. Thomas R. Schreiner is clearly in error when he says that "all people sin individually because they enter the world spiritually dead on the basis of their union with Adam" (Thomas R. Schreiner, Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin", 273-74).
The theory of Original Sin is very harmful to the cause of Christianity because it makes the LORD God the author of sin. When unbelievers hear Christians teach that little babies are guilty of Adam's sin they have a really good reason to reject Christianity.