ECT Classical Vs. Biblical Original Sin - Order of Judgment and Consequences (Part 2)

[glorydaz]

Was there really physical fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
Was it actually the fruit itself that contained a property that would open ones eyes to good and evil?

I've heard folks say that there was nothing special about the fruit itself (ie. it was just some regular fruit but had no such property), and that it was only the disobedience itself that was the problem, not the fruit.

If there was not actually something special about the fruit, then why block access to it?

If some other creature besides man ate the fruit, would their eyes have been opened to good and evil?

And what has, or is going to happen to that tree?
Is it an eternal (as in no ending) tree, or is it to be plucked up, axed down, burned up?

Drat...I almost missed this one. I don't think there was anything special about the tree or the fruit. It was only special because it was forbidden. That's the power sin gets from the law....making it look better than it is. The idea of the forbidden fruit is actually proven out time and time again. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and such as that.

Make a law against it and see how popular it becomes. :chuckle:

I don't think access to it was blocked. We eat the fruit of it the first time we know to choose good but choose evil instead.

When you read "Sin entered the world", what do you think of?

Why is sin personified like that? It reminds me of when God told Cain "sin lieth at the door".

I see sin as outside waiting to be tasted so it can have dominion over us.

 

[Nang]

You sayin' I'm a glory stealer? :crackup:

No, you just enjoy being ornery at times . .

A man after my own heart.

 

[glorydaz]

:idunno: You said you weren't talking about sinless birth doctrine or Pelagianism (or so I thought on Pelagianism).

Have I not been attempting that? If a discussion rather than posturing debate is to take place, there has to be a point were we start reading each other and then ask questions instead of jumping the gun or saying "gobbledegook" or "high-horse." Telling you about my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ at the age of 7 is not a high horse or gobbledegook. It is asking about 'your' understanding and giving my 7 year old understanding at the same time. I well remember what I understood at age 7.

I posted a definition of Original sin, to discuss John 3 and then I asked you to give 1) interaction with those scriptures as well as 2) asked you to expound your scriptural imperatives and explain them to me. I've no idea why any of these three would either be unintelligible or a high-horse :idunno:

You go back and look at post #196 and then tell me if you see something besides a mess. I see 1)some of my words mixed in with yours 2)(I guess they're yours), 3) If a discussion rather than a posturing debate is what I want, I'll have to 1) find another person, or 2) hire you a secretary.

 

[glorydaz]

The doctrine of Total Depravity is simply this: "We must be born-again." All of us. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "That which is born of flesh is 'flesh.' We are 'born' that way. What we are not born as, is Spirit. "That which is born of Spirit is Spirit." And so, He tells Nicodemus up front and clearly "YOU must be born again." It is only the man in Christ that is a new creation. He/she isn't 'born' a new creation. The Lord Jesus Christ makes that clear.

Total depravity claims man is unable to seek God...unable to hear the Gospel....unable to do all the things God tells us to do. So you're being deceptive leaving out all that good stuff, aren't you?


More importantly....

Why doesn't Paul say we must be born again? Perhaps you only think you know it all.

 

[Lon]

You go back and look at post #196 and then tell me if you see something besides a mess. I see 1)some of my words mixed in with yours 2)(I guess they're yours), 3) If a discussion rather than a posturing debate is what I want, I'll have to 1) find another person, or 2) hire you a secretary.

Er, formatting, and not my fault. I've double checked it and don't believe it is a mistake on my part, but rather the indentation caused a formatting problem when I posted quotes from wiki.

The 3 points were:

1) You had said you didn't like the "Pelagian" label, nor that you believed in born-sinless doctrine. Thus by 'distancing' I meant "No, I Glorydaz, don't believe that." Neither here nor there. Rather I was hoping it would set up you explaining what you believe while I sit and listen.

2) A brief explanation of my understanding of how we are born needing new birth, thus where I am against Jerry's theology. We can start a meaningful discussion either examining what I believe, or what you believe, and go from there: again a starting place/talking point.

3) I explained my 7 year old understanding of my need for a Savior. I understood that the Lord Jesus Christ called little children unto Him and that I was a child, if not 'little' (my sister was 'little' in my mind at that time). We were memorizing John 3:16. I remember asking the Sunday School teacher to help me to become 'born-again' by leading me in prayer. I prayed something to this effect: "Dear Lord Jesus Christ. I know you came to save those who are lost, and I am lost without you. Forgive my sin, please make me born-again. I want you in my life." I remember the verses and sentiments, not the exact words I prayed.

Why did I explain this? Yet another talking point in which I can sit and listen to you and your perspective. I'm trying to have a point where we just 'start.' Any of the 3, or all of them, were attempts to start from square one and get your feed back. -Lon

 

[Nang]

Why doesn't Paul say we must be born again? Perhaps you only think you know it all.

Paul indeed claims salvation is a matter of being raised from being dead in trespasses and sins. Ephesians 2:1-5

Perhaps you actually do not know or understand anything . . .

 

[Lon]

Total depravity claims man is unable to seek God...unable to hear the Gospel....unable to do all the things God tells us to do. So you're being deceptive leaving out all that good stuff, aren't you?


More importantly....

Why doesn't Paul say we must be born again? Perhaps you only think you know it all.

2 Corinthians 2:14; 5:17

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The doctrine of Total Depravity is simply this: "We must be born-again."

In regard to that subject let us look at what Paul said in regard to his salvation:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth:

"renewing of the Holy Spirit."​

If a person is "renewed" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit. And that happens when a person is conceived. So no one emerges from the womb spiritually dead.

 

[Nang]

In regard to that subject let us look at what Paul said in regard to his salvation:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth:

"renewing of the Holy Spirit."​

If a person is "renewed" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit. And that happens when a person is conceived. So no one emerges from the womb spiritually dead.

This is just plain stupid stuff . . .:kookoo:

 

[Lon]

Total depravity claims man is unable to seek God...unable to hear the Gospel....unable to do all the things God tells us to do. So you're being deceptive leaving out all that good stuff, aren't you?

Romans 3 is pretty clear, as far as I read it. I realize you don't see that the same way. We disagree. I didn't leave anything out, but rather discussed that unless we are new creations 2 Corinthians 5:17, then we are not able to do any of it. I think John 3 surpasses Jewish minds with universal truths. I've heard every MAD I've ever talked to quote John 3:16. I don't think I'm as clueless as you seem to think, but that's just what either of us thinks.

Why doesn't Paul say we must be born again? Perhaps you only think you know it all.

Or perhaps I do, in fact, know it all (at least the parts you are thinking of)? :think: 2 Corinthians 5:17 Ephesians 2:10
2Co 3:18

　 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.　


The Apostle Paul understood what it means to be born-again.

 

[Lon]

In regard to that subject let us look at what Paul said in regard to his salvation:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).​

Here Paul uses the word "regeneration" in regard to his salvation. This word is translated from the Greek word paliggenesia, which is the combination of palin and genesis.

Palin means "joined to verbs of all sorts,it denotes renewal or repetition of the action" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

Genesis means "used of birth, nativity" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).

When we combine the meaning of the two words we have a "repetition of a birth."

It is obvious that the reference is not to a "physical" rebirth, or the repetition of one's physical birth. Paul could only be speaking of a repetition of a spiritual birth. And the words that follow make it certain that the "birth" of which Paul is referring to is a "spiritual" birth:

"renewing of the Holy Spirit."​

If a person is "renewed" by the Holy Spirit then that means that one must have previously been born of the Holy Spirit. And that happens when a person is conceived. So no one emerges from the womb spiritually dead.

Does someone have to be alive spiritually before they can die spiritually?

Even physically, miscarriages produce 'born-dead.' I don't remember being spiritually alive, knowing my Lord Jesus Christ from birth.
At the age of seven, I'm fairly sure I was not born with the Holy Spirit, but I'm trying to walk this mile in your shoes, but am having a difficult time:

Renovation: If a house 'was' new, and is currently in disrepair, it can be renovated, but not renewed. It will always be an old house and the same with a car. What we are seeing in this verse, does not, by necessity mean only what you think it means: It is rather that God takes the old and replaces it with what is new. Thus, if any man be in Christ, he/she is a 'new' creation, recreated. Literally scraped, and turned into a new thing. Thus 'renewable' resources don't just renovate, they are boiled down and started all over again. Matthew 9:17

John 3:16 "Born-again" Jesus clearly explains means "born of spirit" not 'rebirth' of Spirit: born once of flesh. born once of Spirit.

He makes it clear, at least as far as I understand scriptures. Other than your held doctrine, what would be the reason for me to question His words? I'm trying to walk that mile in your shoes, but I'm not seeing it. Help me out Jerry, I am trying. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

Er, formatting, and not my fault. I've double checked it and don't believe it is a mistake on my part, but rather the indentation caused a formatting problem when I posted quotes from wiki.

Here's a copy and paste. I did not say all that. Maybe you could force yourself to keep it short and simple, then we wouldn't have this problem.

Again, Original sin is a doctrinal discussion of being born of flesh, not born of spirit which is 'why' we must be born again. I realize you are against it. To me? It is
But do you or Nang want to discuss any of that? NO. You're too hung up on what those scary heretics must be saying. You and Nang make quite a pair.

The 3 points were:

1) You had said you didn't like the "Pelagian" label, nor that you believed in born-sinless doctrine.

I don't like any labels. I have always believed man is born sinless....I don't know nor care what that particular "born-sinless doctrine" entails. God only knows what that might be....which is why I hate labels. I read the definition Angel put up, but I didn't read all the details. I just saw that original sin was not one that was preached, and that's the part I agreed with. This is why I hate labels.

Thus by 'distancing' I meant "No, I Glorydaz, don't believe that." Neither here nor there. Rather I was hoping it would set up you explaining what you believe while I sit and listen.

Just don't be talking about what I believe since you don't seem to know what that might be.

2) A brief explanation of my understanding of how we are born needing new birth, thus where I am against Jerry's theology. We can start a meaningful discussion either examining what I believe, or what you believe, and go from there: again a starting place/talking point.

I agree with him that man is not born with Adam's sin. We are born innocent, and remain innocent until we reach the age of accountability. That's very simple and I know very few Christians who don't believe the same thing.

3) I explained my 7 year old understanding of my need for a Savior. I understood that the Lord Jesus Christ called little children unto Him and that I was a child, if not 'little' (my sister was 'little' in my mind at that time). We were memorizing John 3:16. I remember asking the Sunday School teacher to help me to become 'born-again' by leading me in prayer. I prayed something to this effect: "Dear Lord Jesus Christ. I know you came to save those who are lost, and I am lost without you. Forgive my sin, please make me born-again. I want you in my life." I remember the verses and sentiments, not the exact words I prayed.

Why did I explain this? Yet another talking point in which I can sit and listen to you and your perspective. I'm trying to have a point where we just 'start.' Any of the 3, or all of them, were attempts to start from square one and get your feed back. -Lon

I know, I remember the first time you said you were saved at 7 years old. I've heard a lot of people say similar things. I can remember when I went to Catholic school, I believed a lot of wonderful things about Jesus, and even wanted to become a nun. But, it wasn't til I was twenty years old that I "heard" the Gospel, and understood what it really meant to be saved by Grace.

 

[glorydaz]

Even physically, miscarriages produce 'born-dead.'

The baby was alive first.

 

[Lon]

Here's a copy and paste. I did not say all that. Maybe you could force yourself to keep it short and simple, then we wouldn't have this problem.

Not sure this is the 'short and simple' section. :idunno:

I don't like any labels. I have always believed man is born sinless....I don't know nor care what that particular "born-sinless doctrine" entails. God only knows what that might be....which is why I hate labels. I read the definition Angel put up, but I didn't read all the details. I just saw that original sin was not one that was preached, and that's the part I agreed with. This is why I hate labels.

▼erased▼ in lieu of talking about what you may or may not believe. Labels can serve. MAD serves. Pelagianism, no, but that's why I dropped it.

Just don't be talking about what I believe since you don't seem to know what that might be.

Okay, I'll erase my ▲above comments▲ You've wanted to talk about it, so hopefully it is all ready to go that direction, if you'd like.
What scriptures inform your understanding?


I

agree with him that man is not born with Adam's sin. We are born innocent, and remain innocent until we reach the age of accountability. That's very simple and I know very few Christians who don't believe the same thing.

"Innocent" needs unpacking. Do you mean 'born-sinless?' What do you mean by it? As I asked in the other thread, do you rather mean 'not accountable?' What do you mean by innocence?

I know, I remember the first time you said you were saved at 7 years old. I've heard a lot of people say similar things. I can remember when I went to Catholic school, I believed a lot of wonderful things about Jesus, and even wanted to become a nun. But, it wasn't til I was twenty years old that I "heard" the Gospel, and understood what it really meant to be saved by Grace.

I wasn't Catholic. I went to a Methodist Church (dead, but had some evangelical Sunday School teachers). I remember telling her that I needed to come to the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, that Sunday. I remember needing my sins forgiven and not waiting until the next week. I don't remember any talk of hell. I just remember a bit of discussion from the Sunday School lesson from John 3 and a flannelgraph of Nicodemus coming to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the explanation of his spiritual need.

 

[Lon]

The baby was alive first.

Well, he's building off an idea that we can have new wine in old wineskins, rather than needing to be spiritually born again. However the child comes to Jesus, they may have a new body given to them, but they must come to Him to receive His Spirit. Before the Lord Jesus Christ came, there was no 'spirit' for any child to have, so I have to keep working at understanding what you and Jerry are not saying, rather than what you are saying. It seems a vague doctrine, not really understood by either of you, and not able to express clearly to others, to me.

It isn't Pelagianism, by your rejection, so that helps. It isn't 'sinless birth' doctrine, whatever that is. I'll keep paying attention and hope that such important doctrine is clearly spelled out, especially if I need to believe it? If you asked me what I believe, I can (and have been) clearly able to give the tenants of the belief and explain why I think scripture supports it.

Analogy: The OT is about rules that will help Israel go through life without causing their cracked block to leak oil, leading to engine seizure. So, rules in place will keep that from happening. Abraham, ultimately had faith in God, that He'd fix that cracked block. The New Testament is about 'fixing the cracked block.' Through trial and error, gentiles figure out what will help keep their cracked block running thus are a 'law unto themselves.' The inevitable, I believe from the NT, is that no matter how careful with the cracked block, the end result is still engine seizure (death). So, the child is born with the cracks ('under sin'). because they can't drive on the highway or freeway, they will not seize the engine, but their blocks still need repair.

As bad as this analogy is, does it help talk about your doctrine? Is there a way to talk about the analogy from what you believe? Is there a better way to explain what you believe?

 

[glorydaz]

Labels can serve. MAD serves. Pelagianism, no, but that's why I dropped it.

Well MAD doesn't serve very well, because, from what I see, there are factions there, too. Danoh is always waring over Acts 19 or Acts something else. Some say I'm MAD, but if I am, I'm not sure why I am. I do agree with most of what I hear from them. Maybe even all of it. I haven't measured that out or formed some particular "doctrine". Same with Calvinists....some are hyper, some say one thing and others say something else. Even the doctrine of "original sin" means different things to different people.

Saying people sin IN ADAM is based upon a scripture that has nothing to do with sin. I've followed through by searching out many of these proof texts, and I'd be embarrassed to even put them forth as proof of anything. They don't stand when read in context.

"Innocent" needs unpacking. Do you mean 'born-sinless?' What do you mean by it? As I asked in the other thread, do you rather mean 'not accountable?' What do you mean by innocence?

The same thing it always means....not guilty.

I wasn't Catholic. I went to a Methodist Church (dead, but had some evangelical Sunday School teachers). I remember telling her that I needed to come to the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, that Sunday. I remember needing my sins forgiven and not waiting until the next week. I don't remember any talk of hell. I just remember a bit of discussion from the Sunday School lesson from John 3 and a flannelgraph of Nicodemus coming to the Lord Jesus Christ, and the explanation of his spiritual need.

That's not the Gospel of Salvation.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No, you just enjoy being ornery at times . .

Yeah, but my mom always said, with a little sternness in her voice, "Michael, you know better than that."

A man after my own heart.

Touche.

 

[glorydaz]

It seems a vague doctrine, not really understood by either of you, and not able to express clearly to others, to me.

I see you're blind, maybe one day you'll see. :chuckle:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I see you're blind, maybe one day you'll see. :chuckle:

Dang it woman!

:sherlock:

 

[glorydaz]

Dang it woman!

:sherlock:

Ain't it horrible?