One mistake that is commonly made is to assume that all people within a denomination hold to all of the beliefs of that denomination. I am an example of that fallacy. I was raised in the Baptist denomination, yet I never believed the doctrine of original sin. Of all of the denominational doctrines that people will cling to, in spite of the Biblical evidence to the contrary, “original sin” is one of the most baffling to me. “Original sin” (claiming that everyone is born with the sin of Adam upon them) seems to me a toned-down version of Calvin’s total depravity. I like to call original sin “total depravity light” ™. I would like to briefly look at this unbiblical doctrine.
I would like to begin by trying to determine how people think that original sin might be inherited. There are only two possible explanations:
#1. Through the blood. This possible means of transmitting original sin would be physical – in other words, it is somehow genetic and transmitted physically from parent to child. This possibility can be defeated with one word – Jesus. If original sin were transmitted physically, then Jesus, born of woman, would have inherited this sin. We know that Jesus had no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). Notice that Psalm 51 (a favorite passage for those who teach original sin), if used to teach original sin, states that it comes from the mother. Jesus clearly had an earthly mother who carried Him like our mothers carried us. Sin cannot be transmitted physically, for if it is, then Jesus Himself inherited this sin.
#2. Through the spirit of man. This possible means of inheriting original sin would be spiritual – somehow our souls are created with the stain of Adam’s sin and we have it the moment we are born. Those who would take this position find themselves guilty of attacking the creation of God the Father. Notice:
Ecclesiastes 12:7 then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
Hebrews 12: 9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
Our spirits come from God. Shall we say that sinless God Almighty is guilty of creating sin? 1 John 1:5 says that in God there is no darkness. If He attaches sin to the spirit He gives us, certainly there IS darkness in Him. This notion besmirches the very character of our Creator.
If original sin were true, then it must be transmitted either physically or spiritually and neither option is viable in light of the scriptures.
I don’t think it would be fair to simply dismiss this doctrine and say that there are no verses that might be misinterpreted to substantiate it. Let us look briefly at a few “proof texts” used to back up this teaching.
Psalm 58: 3The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
To ignore the poetic language of this Psalm is dangerous, and really makes no sense. Many will point out that the wicked go astray as soon as they are born, yet ignore the impossibility of a newborn “speaking lies”. If this verse is to be taken literally, then what literal poison (like that of a poisonous snake) do they possess, as the next verse would indicate? Also, if this verse is to be taken literally, then what do we make of this verse:
Job 31:18 For from my youth he was brought up with me, as with a father, and I have guided her from my mother’s womb
Was Job literally caring for widows from his birth, or is this poetic language? Why would Psalm 58:3 be literal and Job 31:18 be figurative? This is a glaring inconsistency.
The Bible tells us elsewhere that, while we may become evil at an early age, it takes a period of learning the difference between good and evil before one is truly wicked in the eyes of God:
Isaiah 7: 15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
The apostle Paul wrote of a time when he was “alive without the law” (Romans 7:9). When, other than his childhood, could this have been? Since the garden of Eden there has been law – Patriarchal, Mosaic and the law of Christ. You cannot find any period in the Bible in which God had no law for man. How then could Paul have been alive without the law? I see no other good explanation than the fact that the law (of Moses) was not over him until he was old enough to understand it. This goes back to Isaiah 7: 15-16.
Perhaps the greatest verse used to support the doctrine of original sin is Romans 3:23:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
There it is – all have sinned. Does this verse have no qualifiers? Does “all” simply mean “all”? Let us look just two chapters over in the book of Romans (chapter 5):
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Did this free gift (salvation) come upon all men, or must we qualify this statement based upon the whole of scripture? Does “all” mean “all” here? I think we are forced by the whole of scriptures to conclude that “all” who receive the free gift are those that obey Christ. We must also conclude that the “all” who have sinned are those that have reached the age where they understand good and evil.
Closing Thoughts
I guess one of the strangest things about the doctrine of original sin is the way it is applied by many who teach it. I have read Methodists and Pentecostals (and others) say that while we inherit original sin, it is not imputed to us until we reach an age where we can cognitively be held accountable for it. In other words, you have this sin, but God doesn’t hold it against you until you reach an age of accountability. I guess those who follow Calvin over Christ are at least consistent when they assert that non-elect babies will be held accountable for, and condemned for, original sin. What sense does it make to claim a person has sins, but won’t be held accountable for them? Does it not make more sense to simply acknowledge that we are without sin until we are able to know the difference between good and evil as the scriptures teach? Look:
Ezekiel 18: 20The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Your wickedness or righteousness is determined by you and your relationship with God. I don’t bear the sins of my father Adam – his sins are his, mine are mine. The doctrine of original sin is in complete contradiction with Ezekiel 18:20.
Perhaps there is no passage that shows us any more clearly that children do not inherit sin than Matthew 19:14:
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Are we to believe that the kingdom of heaven is comprised of totally depraved souls, or those that have inherited sin in some fashion? Children are born without sin. To be certain, once we have reached the age where we understand what God wants from us (and that age will differ from person to person) then we will sin, thus making Romans 3:23 universally true. Until that time, we are “alive without law”, bearing no sin of our own, and certainly not the sin of Adam.
82 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 30, 2009 at 1:01 am
lee
#1. Through the blood. This possible means of transmitting original sin would be physical – in other words, it is somehow genetic and transmitted physically from parent to child. This possibility can be defeated with one word – Jesus. If original sin were transmitted physically, then Jesus, born of woman, would have inherited this sin.
good evening corey,
please check my info on this topic, but at no time
during the gestation of a child does the blood of
the child come into contact with the mother.
the father determines the the blood type.
i have always believed this is why the conception of jesus was so important.
his blood needed to be without spot.
lee
January 30, 2009 at 2:12 pm
coreydavis
Lee,
Psalm 51 is one that is often used to teach “original sin”, yet it only mentions the mother. I think that we would both agree that sin is a spiritual condition, not a physical condition. To assert that sin could be transmitted physically seems absurd when we acknowledge what sin is.
Furthermore, if two Christians (who are cleansed of sin by the blood of Jesus) have a child, how could either of them pass along a sin that has been remitted?
If I accepted this doctrine (and clearly I don’t) the only option that would make ANY sense is that it is transmitted spiritually. As I’ve shown above, to assert that is to attack the creation and character of the Father.
January 30, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Truth
Corey said: Sin cannot be transmitted physically, for if it is, then Jesus Himself inherited this sin.
Reply:
2 Corinthians 5:21
“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
Jesus knew no sin and did not sin, though was made sin when He became flesh. We are all born flesh, we are all born in sin.
January 31, 2009 at 10:26 pm
ProdigalKnot
Corey,
I think you err to say “Sin cannot be transmitted physically, for if it is, then Jesus Himself inherited this sin.” As Lee touched upon, there is a reason Jesus was fully man and fully God and yet without sin. He is not physcially descended from Adam’s seed, but from the seed of the Holy Spirit. Original sin is the very reason why a man was not involved in the incarnation. If Jesus had had a father of the flesh, he would have inherited the seed that is diseased.
The Bible says that all men were affected by Adam’s fall, as you quoted from Romans. Paul tells us also, that “you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; (1 Peter 1:23 ESV), which tells us that the seed of Adam is inherently the seed of death. Only after we are truly born again and become Christ like can it be said “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” (1 John 3:9 ESV)
Why did Jesus have to shed His blood for our justification, salvation and santicfication? Because it was pure and undefiled unlike natural man’s. His blood is precious because it is the blood of the Son of God and also because it is one of a kind in it’s purity. Scripture tells us “the life is in the blood” and “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins”. But, scripturew also tells us that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” That blood was only a type of the pure and undefiled blood of Christ Jesus. Only His blood is efficacious because it is unique, precious and only available to us through faith.
So, yes, we inherit sin through the flesh, “But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” (Romans 8:10 ESV)
Hyper-Calvinists may think that there is such a thing as un-Elect babies who die before they reach the age of accountability. Most, I believe, would tell you that babies who die before that age ARE of the elect.
February 1, 2009 at 12:07 am
Randy
I will comment later. One question: will holding a diff. view on this be reason to disfellowship or condmen others to hell. In others words: Is this one of the doctrines we choose that must be followed as we understand it? Or can we have diff views on this and still accept each other? Corey, it seems we pick and choose which doctrines that seperate us….does this one?
Anyways, I will comment later on the subject. Have three kids running me in circles right now. ttyl
February 1, 2009 at 7:30 pm
lee
lets talk about this for a while if we can.
the age of accountability, i would like to state
my belief on this subject.
i think there is some wrong thinking in this premise.
the coc says that all are born sinless and i believe just the opposite.
lets imagine a line representing the life of a man.
at some point according to the coc the man-child reaches a defined point at which he is fully aware of
the difference of right and wrong. since he cannot sin until this event there is a time period between then and his first sin that he is self aware yet without sin.
according to the coc the first sin is what makes him a sinner.
here is where the wrong thinking comes in. sin is a symptom of the disease and not the disease itself.
when we use the term AOA we use it mostly with the wrong premise. it is not when we become aware of the difference between right and wrong that we are responsible for our place in eternity. it is when we fully understand that god is reaching out to save and to redeem us and what we do with his offer.
we have all been separated from god at birth thanks to adam. we are all born in sin, that is not what god will hold you guilty of…….the only question we must answer is what we did with his offer of redemption.
i left out one thing….
if the coc is right then there is a time however brief,
that the man-child is fully aware yet sinless.
sounds like man reaches god status to me.
lee
February 2, 2009 at 2:03 pm
coreydavis
Jesus knew no sin and did not sin, though was made sin when He became flesh. We are all born flesh, we are all born in sin.
The very verse you quoted clearly states that Jesus knew no sin. What you, and others here, are saying is the old Gnostic doctrine. They denied Jesus came in the flesh since they believed the flesh to be inherently sinful. Jesus became flesh at birth, yet He wasn’t born in sin. John the Baptist confirmed this:
Matthew 3: 14But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
John knew Jesus had no sins to be remitted, and didn’t need to be immersed unto the remission of sins.
February 2, 2009 at 2:09 pm
coreydavis
PK – nothing you said backs up the notion of original sin. Romans 5:12 lets us know that once Adam sinned, sin entered the world. We also know that eventually all who reach the knowledge of good & evil will sin. This is not the same as inheriting the sin of Adam. I don’t understand why so many here are overlooking what sin is – a spiritual condition. Sin is not physical, and to assert that it is passed in a physical fashion is unscriptural. Ezekiel 18:20 is, as usual, left untouched by those who support this false doctrine of original sin.
The Calvinists you mentioned would call those babies “elect” to ease their own consciences and to soften their damnable doctrine.
February 2, 2009 at 2:18 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
If someone is going to assert that Jesus had sin because He was born in sin, then absolutely I would not fellowship that individual. That is an attack on the sinless sacrifice of the Son of God.
If someone became a Christian and still believed this doctrine, they should be taught in meekness and gentleness. They shouldn’t be allowed to teach until they abandon this doctrine. If they teach this doctrine, then they are by definition a false teacher and I wouldn’t extend my fellowship to them.
I understand that you are troubled by what you see as the picking and choosing of which doctrines should divide. I think the easiest way to understand how most lines are drawn is by looking at the effects of the difference. For example:
Brother A believes that the Holy Spirit literally dwells within the Christian. He believes that this doesn’t enable the Christian to have miraculous powers, nor does he believe that it provides any revelation apart from the word of God.
Brother B believes that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian only through the word of God. He believes that the Christian has no miraculous powers, nor does the Christian get any revelation apart from the word.
Now, what real difference is there? What changes? What truth of the word is compromised? Do you see how, in this instance, the difference in beliefs doesn’t really change anything? This is how those 2 brothers can dwell in unity and fellowship while holding beliefs that are somewhat different.
February 2, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Randy
Does man become a sinner when he sins? I believe that the Bible teaches that man sins because he is a sinner. We do not come into the world seeking God and righteousness.
Is sin learned or an inbred disposition – a spiritual condition, from the fall of Adam?
Did Adam’s fall taint the entire human race with sin – Both the guilt and the corruption of sin are universal? I see this as a spiritual condition, as you noted. Paul seems to make some argument for Adam being the cause…
I believe if left to ourselves, we will pursue a course of sin.
As Jesus said to Nicodemus, “That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit… [Therefore,] you must be born again” (John 3:6-7). “Born of the flesh” with a sinful bent, we have no power to free ourselves from sin’s bondage. We lack the Holy Spirit and thus have no capacity to please God or obey Him from the heart). Until we are born again, we are dead in “trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1).
February 2, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Randy
“If someone is going to assert that Jesus had sin because He was born in sin, then absolutely I would not fellowship that individual. That is an attack on the sinless sacrifice of the Son of God.”
- I agree! But, who says this? I know many who teach and believe in original sin, but not once have they taught this. But, I understand your point.
February 2, 2009 at 2:29 pm
coreydavis
when we use the term AOA we use it mostly with the wrong premise. it is not when we become aware of the difference between right and wrong that we are responsible for our place in eternity. it is when we fully understand that god is reaching out to save and to redeem us and what we do with his offer.
I see no difference in these two premises – they go hand in hand and cannot be separated.
we have all been separated from god at birth thanks to adam. we are all born in sin, that is not what god will hold you guilty of…….the only question we must answer is what we did with his offer of redemption.
Remove the words “at birth” from the first sentence and you are pretty much correct. We are separated from God because of Adam since Adam brought sin into the world. He brought about the knowledge of good and evil.
Again, your application of this doctrine is inconsistent. You’re saying you are born with a sin that God won’t hold you accountable for unless you reject His offer of redemption. I am saying that when you inevitably sin and reject the offer of redemption for YOUR sin God will hold you accountable for it. The only difference in our positions is that you want me to believe I am accountable for a sin I didn’t commit.
i left out one thing….
if the coc is right then there is a time however brief,
that the man-child is fully aware yet sinless.
sounds like man reaches god status to me
Adam was created sinless, correct? Does this mean Adam attained god status? Has a Christian, washed by the blood of Christ and able to stand before God without blame attained God status?
The reason Christ is different from a child, or a Christian that has been forgiven, is because He lived a life just like us, tempted in all ways as we are (this is how He differs from a child) and yet was without sin (this is how He is different from the Christian whom He has cleansed). Unlike a child, He completely understood good and evil, and unlike the rest of us, He never chose evil.
February 2, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Randy
“Again, your application of this doctrine is inconsistent. You’re saying you are born with a sin that God won’t hold you accountable for unless you reject His offer of redemption. I am saying that when you inevitably sin and reject the offer of redemption for YOUR sin God will hold you accountable for it. The only difference in our positions is that you want me to believe I am accountable for a sin I didn’t commit.”
I agree with what you are saying…I was just throwing questions out
February 2, 2009 at 2:45 pm
coreydavis
Does man become a sinner when he sins? I believe that the Bible teaches that man sins because he is a sinner. We do not come into the world seeking God and righteousness.
Did you read Isaiah 7:15-16? We must learn to tell the difference between good & evil. Look at Timothy who was young, had known the scriptures since childhood and who demonstrated the faith that had first dwelt in his mother & grandmother. He was taught holiness from his youth and that is what he obviously chose.
Paul seems to make some argument for Adam being the cause…
He IS the cause in the sense that through him the knowledge of good and evil, and thus sin, entered the world. You acknowledge that sin is spiritual. You must also acknowledge that the spirit of man comes from God. If sin is both spiritual and hereditary, then God is the one who created that sin.
For you to say that being born of flesh implies sinfulness is to insert your own view into the passage, while ignoring many others that teach to the contrary. Look:
Romans 16:18
For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
A concentration on the purely physical or fleshly desires is not spiritual. We can focus on the physical and ignore the spiritual, but this doesn’t mean that the flesh is inherently sinful. Again, look how the apostle shows the difference:
Philippians 3:19
Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.
I’ve noticed that few, if any, of the verses I’ve shown to disprove this doctrine are being addressed. This shows me that many are content with the doctrines taught by men and that there is little desire to address the whole of God’s word on this subject.
February 2, 2009 at 3:04 pm
churchesofchrist
“I’ve noticed that few, if any, of the verses I’ve shown to disprove this doctrine are being addressed. This shows me that many are content with the doctrines taught by men and that there is little desire to address the whole of God’s word on this subject.”
- I don’t think it is really that Corey. I wouldn’t say anyone is content with “knowing” a doctrine to be false. I don’t know many people who really want to believe something that is false. These people really believe in original sin and debaters like Jeff Black, RC Sproll, John Macarthur, Paul Mcdade, and many others can sound convincing and would even convince many members within the churches of Christ. Many may not understand and you may have helped clear some of the fog. If someone fails to understand this as you, maybe they will after more study. Most members within the church of Christ assemblies could not defend this as you have…but they still are saved. To be honest, most members don’t put in the study that you and others do…
gotta go.
ttyl
February 2, 2009 at 3:32 pm
cthoward
Certainly Paul speaks of something that was passed on from Adam to all men…but it is not sin: “Therefore, just as sin came in to the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12) It seems to me that Paul is saying that the condemnation, the consequence of Adam’s sin, physical death, spread to all men. He literally says, “so death spread to all men.” Notice also Romans 5:15: “For if many died through one man’s trespass…” And verse 14: “Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses…” And verse 17: “If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man…” And verse 21: “sin reigned in death…” Paul is simply referring to the Genesis 3 curse upon all men for Adam’s sin…the curse of death, decay, and disease.
And, I think Corey’s argument is valid and remains unanswered: Paul says in Romans 5:18: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” If Paul is saying that all are born into sin because of Adam then he is also saying that all are born into righteousness because of Jesus. This is obviously not only a logical contradiction, but is biblically contradicted many times over. Paul must be saying something else.
February 2, 2009 at 4:04 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
I know many people who have that “if it was good enough for momma & daddy, it is good enough for me” view of their religion. Not to mention the many who claim that they “feel” that they are correct. Not everyone is like you – willing to study, search & seek. I’m not saying that all those who regularly post here are wanting to believe false doctrine, but there are some I think that are. Anything to justify what they currently believe. Let me say clearly that I don’t think Lee is like that, nor PK, but there are some.
My point I was trying to make is that no one was touching the passages & arguments that I made in the article.
February 2, 2009 at 4:21 pm
churchesofchrist
Ecclesiastes 7:29 ….. “Behold, I have found only this: God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.”
Ezekiel 28:15 ….. “You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you.” (Written about the King of Tyre)
Psalm 106:37-38 ….. “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters.”
In the wilderness the people of Israel rebelled against God and perished in the wilderness. However, the children were allowed to enter the promised land. “Your little ones, who you said would become prey, and your children, who as yet do not know good from bad — they shall enter; to them I will give it, and they shall occupy it” (Deuteronomy 1:39). Isaiah 7:15-16 speaks of there being “a time” when a child will “know enough to refuse evil and choose good.”
Romans 9:11 ….. “For the twins (Jacob & Esau) were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad.” Yet Calvinism says “infants in their mother’s womb are infected.” Romans 3:12 says men “turn aside” and “become useless.”
The Word of God teaches that sin is something man chooses to do, not something thrown upon him at birth …. or before. I doubt anyone prove you wrong on this Corey, least I don’t see how they can. I was lucky enough to have studied with a church of Christ preacher years ago, who was schooled heavily in Calvinism prior to being saved.
I often throw questions/statements out from the other side to pull more from the conversation…please note, I agree with your post 100!
Johnny Robertson also has a good debate on this topic. He would send to anyone free upon request.
February 2, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Truth
Corey said: “If someone is going to assert that Jesus had sin because He was born in sin, then absolutely I would not fellowship that individual. That is an attack on the sinless sacrifice of the Son of God.”
Reply:
I never attacked His sinless sacrifice. 1 Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.” We know Jesus was born not just of flesh but conceived by the Holy Spirit, in which He was sinless. Jesus was not like any other man. We are not God, we are not Jesus and that is why we need His Spirit to help guide us. That doesn’t mean we will not sin, but we should desire and try to be like Him. And when we sin, His mercy His forgiveness, His redeeming blood covers our sins and we are made righteous.
God made Adam in His image from the dust of the earth, and after Adam God created Eve. Adam and Eve were given everything God supplied them all their needs. They loved God and loved each other. Adam was a man not a child. Adam knew right from wrong, he just didn’t know evil… yet. He knew God commanded him not to eat from the tree in the midst of the garden of Eden. If Adam didn’t know it was wrong he would have eaten from the tree right from the start, but that’s not how it happened. Satan, the devil also was in the garden who was the serpent (the serpent of old, Rev.20:2). The devil knew God had put the tree in the midst of the garden, the devil knew God had commanded them not to eat from it he knew God was giving Adam and Eve a choice – free will, so then the devil tempted them to eat from the tree. And Adam and Eve weak in their flesh ate. God told Adam that there would be consequences. God did punish them and He drove them out of the garden. Adam brought sin upon all mankind, from that point on man inherited sin, we are born in sin. Jesus lived in the flesh and never sinned, He was perfect. Through Jesus we are made righteous through His righteousness.
There was a law given, God commanded them not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam was a man, not a child. Adam knew right from wrong, and Adam fell. When Adam fell he brought sin upon all mankind. We have all inherited Adam’s sin we are all born in sin. Sin is a disease, but the gospel of Christ tells us there is a cure and His name is Jesus the Christ. Jesus lived in the flesh and never sinned, He was perfect. Through Jesus we are made righteous, through His righteousness.
Jesus is the only perfect man to have ever lived on the earth. I believe we are born in sin, though I believe a child is innocent even though they can do things that are sinful because they don’t understand exactly what sin is until they reach whatever age they come to, to understand. And God who knows all, He knows when one understands right from wrong. For someone to say that we are not born in sin would mean that Jesus is not the only man who lived on earth that was perfect and to say that is a lie.
1 John 1:8-10 “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.”
February 2, 2009 at 5:04 pm
coreydavis
We know Jesus was born not just of flesh but conceived by the Holy Spirit, in which He was sinless. Jesus was not like any other man. We are not God, we are not Jesus and that is why we need His Spirit to help guide us. That doesn’t mean we will not sin, but we should desire and try to be like Him. And when we sin, His mercy His forgiveness, His redeeming blood covers our sins and we are made righteous.
I’m having a hard time determining what you’re saying. It appears that you’re saying that because Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit that He couldn’t sin. That isn’t true:
Hebrews 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Jesus was fully human, and yet fully divine. If He didn’t have the capacity to sin then He wasn’t tempted as we are. Perhaps this isn’t what you’re trying to say, but if it is, you are incorrect.
When Adam fell he brought sin upon all mankind.
No. As Clint showed above, he brought death upon us all, not sin. He did allow sin to enter the world, but it is our personal sins that separate us from God, not Adams. Read Ezekiel 18:20 again.
I believe we are born in sin, though I believe a child is innocent even though they can do things that are sinful because they don’t understand exactly what sin is until they reach whatever age they come to, to understand. And God who knows all, He knows when one understands right from wrong. For someone to say that we are not born in sin would mean that Jesus is not the only man who lived on earth that was perfect and to say that is a lie.
You are left in the same incredibly inconsistent position as Lee. Why not just acknowledge that when you come to the age where you understand good from evil that you will sin and need Jesus to save you? Why do you want people do be accountable for a sin they never committed?
Saying that a child has no sin in NO WAY means that Jesus wasn’t the only perfectly sinless man to ever live. I’ve already explained this, but I will post it again:
The reason Christ is different from a child, or a Christian that has been forgiven, is because He lived a life just like us, tempted in all ways as we are (this is how He differs from a child) and yet was without sin (this is how He is different from the Christian whom He has cleansed). Unlike a child, He completely understood good and evil, and unlike the rest of us, He never chose evil.
You are so close to the truth on this matter. You know that Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven would be made up of those that would become like children. There is no need for you to believe this false doctrine of original sin. You know that you have sinned personally and need God’s forgiveness for it. You know that all adults sin and need forgiveness. There is no need to try and hang Adam’s sin on us, for we have plenty of our own. The Bible does not teach the doctrine of original sin and I hope that you will study and abandon this doctrine.
February 2, 2009 at 5:49 pm
churchesofchrist
TRUTH, I really think if you examine both sides, you will know this to be so. When we sin, we do so by choose – not because Adam makes us, or because of Adams fall. Who made Adam commit sin? Who can Adam blame? Eve, perhaps
February 2, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Truth
Adam blamed the only other two who were there, both God and Eve.
Genesis 3:11-12(NKJV)
“And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
Corey said: No. As Clint showed above, he brought death upon us all, not sin.
Reply:
Romans 5:12(ISV)
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to everyone, because all have sinned.”
Romans 5:12(NLT)
“When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.”
February 2, 2009 at 6:40 pm
coreydavis
Truth,
I notice that you have posted verses from versions that you hope will support your view. The NLT is a paraphrase, not a literal translation. How about we use an actual translation and not a paraphrase (after all, the NKJV seemed to work for the first verse you posted):
Romans 5: 12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—(NKJV)
Now, what is it that “spread to all men” because of Adam? Sin or death?
February 2, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Truth
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world”
Where does this exclude mankind, it doesn’t, mankind is part of the world.
When a child not knowing right from wrong does something sinful, does that bring death on them, I don’t believe so. I believe they sin because they are born in sin. Say a parent won’t let their child do something and in response that child bites the parent. Now did that child bite their parent because their parent bit them, I would hope not. To put it like this I believe we are born with sin. It’s obviously not something that is always learned, but is something that is in all of us.
February 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm
coreydavis
I notice that you won’t answer my question.
Sin entered the world when Adam sinned. It came into existence. You are trying to read more into the passage than is there. You won’t acknowledge what actually spread to all men – death, not Adam’s sin.
February 2, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Truth
I acknowledge that death came to men. I also acknowledge that scripture shows sin also came to men. Mankind is part of the world.
February 2, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Truth
If you would notice scripture refers to mankind as the world.
February 2, 2009 at 8:38 pm
coreydavis
The world can refer to mankind, but that isn’t what is being discussed. Sin “entered” the world, but death “spread” to all men. This is clearly stated in the verse. There was no sin until Adam transgressed the one commandment he’d been given. Thus, sin entered the world.
Please tell me why this is important for you to believe in since you don’t think that children are held accountable for it, should they die before they’re old enough to understand good & evil. Ezekiel 18:20 clearly shows us that we are judged only for our sins or righteousness, not those sins or righteousness of our fathers.
February 2, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Truth
Who’s to say what age or when another is held accountable, only God knows that. I never said we are responsible for Adam’s sin. I believe Adam’s sin opened the door up to sin, therefore sin came upon all men.
February 2, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Truth
Gotta go, been nice talking with you.
February 2, 2009 at 9:08 pm
coreydavis
You seem like you are moving closer to the truth. Look at it like this – if you inherited Adam’s sin, then you have sin in your life. If you have sin in your life, God will hold you accountable for it. There is no way around this.
Your last statement is true:
Adam’s sin opened the door up to sin, therefore sin came upon all men.
Adam truly “opened the door”. He sinned and thus sin entered the world. The Bible is clear that all who come to the knowledge of good & evil WILL sin. As the scripture you posted earlier states, anyone who claims he hasn’t sinned is a liar. The important thing to understand is that it is OUR sins that separate us from God, not Adam’s sin.
You clearly know that little children are not old enough to understand what God wants for them. I think you know they are pure and without sin until they understand right & wrong (both the scriptures and what you know in your heart testify this to you). I am confident that you understand that eventually they will sin and need the blood of Christ to redeem them.
I can see you coming to a realization of the scriptural truth that we are not born with sin with each post. You must understand that the inevitable fact that we will sin does not mean that we inherit sin. I pray that you will continue to look at the scriptures both Randy & I have posted and you will accept the truth of God’s word. I really think that you are close, and I pray you will come all of the way.
February 2, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Truth
Corey said: You clearly know that little children are not old enough to understand what God wants for them. I think you know they are pure and without sin until they understand right & wrong.
Reply:
I believe children are pure and innocent until they understand right from wrong. I don’t believe they are without sin because they do sin. Jesus was the only One to ever walk the earth without sin.
I really do have to go. Thank you again for the kind discussion.
February 2, 2009 at 9:34 pm
lee
corey,
is it possible for you to talk about any subject that i dont agree with you
without it being labeled by you as a false doctrine?
it does make it difficult to talk to you while being belittled.
but no matter.
You are left in the same incredibly inconsistent position as Lee. Why not just acknowledge that when you come to the age where you understand good from evil that you will sin and need Jesus to save you? Why do you want people do be accountable for a sin they never committed?
i never said that. i said you are accountable for you rejection of the remittance of your sins. huge difference!
tell me if im wrong but the only ones in the bible told to confess their sins are…………..christians.
and randy…….
I often throw questions/statements out from the other side to pull more from the conversation…please note, I agree with your post 100!
i dont know what to say about you.
im serious, could you please stop agreeing when dont?
im pulling for you.
lee
February 2, 2009 at 9:50 pm
coreydavis
Truth,
As I’ve said before, it is a little difficult at times to pin down exactly what you mean. Do you mean that children (pure & innocent by your own admission) actually sin before they understand good & evil? Or are you saying that they sin once they understand good & evil? If it is the latter, then we are in agreement.
Lee,
A doctrine that is false = a false doctrine. This is just a statement of fact, not any attempt to belittle you. Some will teach that Jesus was created, and not eternal. That is a false doctrine. I would tell those who teach it that they believe a false doctrine. That doesn’t mean I’m belittling them in some way.
As to only Christians confessing sins…I think you are mostly correct. Non-Christians are told to repent – which involves acknowledging sin, but it isn’t the same as confession. It wouldn’t do a non-Christian any good to confess their sins since there is no hope for their removal without being in Christ.
I’m not sure what you mean by “rejection of the remittance of sins”. The remission of sins is tied into salvation (as it cannot occur without salvation). You’re saying we’re accountable for the rejection of salvation? I agree with that, but I don’t understand how that fits in to this. Please define what you mean as it applies to the subject of original sin. I’m confused.
February 2, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Truth
I believe sin means to do wrong. I believe death means punisment. Someone has to do the wrong first and understand it before punisment.
I don’t know what else to say to show you what I mean.
Really busy right now. ttyl.
February 2, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Truth
punisment should be punishment. Trying to do too much at once.
February 2, 2009 at 11:18 pm
lee
you know what remit means, to make payment.
the payment is sufficient for all ,but all will not accept.
it is not forced on you.
if i buy tickets to the super bowl and leave them at the will call
you have to accept the prevision i made for you.
i cant make you go.
but you cant say that i didnt try.
my doctrine isnt false. that is a statement of fact.
thanks
lee
February 3, 2009 at 11:43 am
churchesofchrist
and randy…….
I often throw questions/statements out from the other side to pull more from the conversation…please note, I agree with your post 100!
i dont know what to say about you.
im serious, could you please stop agreeing when dont?
im pulling for you.
lee
- sorry about that Lee. I didnt mean to confuse anyone. I should have stated where I stood and not used others arguments. I do this with post at times too and have told Corey this in the past. He also advised that it wasnt a good idea for me to do that, so I will not anymore. Again, I am sorry.
February 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm
coreydavis
Lee,
I agree that everything you said in your last post is true. We are responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation. My question is how you think that ties into the doctrine of original sin.
February 3, 2009 at 2:38 pm
churchesofchrist
To be more clear, Lee. I probably line up closer to Clint Howards beliefs more-so than others, far as church of Christ goes. Also, I am somewhere in the middle on many issues ( expedients ) – not decided. I am still searching things out from every angle…
Anyways, I will jump out of here so you and Corey can continue.
February 3, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Truth
I believe children sin but are pure in the sense they are innocent because they don’t understand. I believe Jesus was born different in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was born of pure undefiled blood, He was born also of flesh in which He could be tempted. According to you a person is born without sin, yet sins. When a person sins is it because they are so good, no, they sin because they are a sinner. If we were so good we would never sin. Someone who is good does not and would not sin. If we were born without sin, then we would never sin, but that’s not the case is it, we do sin. We are given a choice to accept God’s free offer of mercy and forgiveness to free us from the bondage of sin. God will not force Himself on any man. Through Jesus we are righteous in God’s sight.
February 3, 2009 at 6:18 pm
coreydavis
I believe children sin but are pure in the sense they are innocent because they don’t understand.
I wouldn’t word it like you, but I think we are basically in agreement. Children do things, that for an adult who understands good & evil, would be considered sin (like lying). I think the scriptures teach that once we are old enough to understand right & wrong, those things become sin and are charged to us.
If we were so good we would never sin. Someone who is good does not and would not sin
You misunderstand me. Everyone will choose to sin. Look:
Matthew 7:11
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
Even the wicked know how to do good. We could find many atheists who do great good in the world and live generally moral lives. That said, they still sin and, like you said, need to accept the free offer of salvation. No one is so good that they will never sin. The Bible is clear on that. Just because we will sin doesn’t mean that we are born sinful.
February 3, 2009 at 6:45 pm
churchesofchrist
Corey, I think the beef that TRUTH and others have, is with our exclusive gospel. They see the division and disagreements we all have on various scriptures. They see how we pick and choose what we wish to call doctrine and expedients – this also varies from church to church. They see our “unity in diversity” and see our denial of such.
I cant call TRUTH and others here non-Christians, seeing they have faith in the work of Jesus and are trusting Him to save them.
This always goes back to our so-called understanding of baptism and proper motive. We exclude them because we have somehow understood the purpose of baptism, while they missed it…
Peter, who delivered the terms of remission offered by God to man, made two promises–” the remission of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit.” “For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.” (Acts 2: 39.) The two promises—” the remission of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit “–are closely and inseparably connected together. They are connected by the same word that connects “repent, and be baptized,” in the preceding clause. One grows out of the other. If to understand one is essential, I cannot see why it is not equally necessary to understand the other.
It would distress me much to think my acceptance with God depended upon my understanding the promise of the Holy Spirit. Maybe that’s why we don’t stress this part of the verse. I think I understand it; but so many good and honest men, my equals in all the elements of my so-called scriptural intelligence, differ with me in this point that it would distress me to think my salvation depended upon my understanding being correct, lest I be mistaken.
Ask any church of Christ Sunday morning class how many knew when they were baptized that it was for the remission of sins, all hands will shoot up. Then ask how many understood at the time of baptism that they would be receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Two or three hands may go up. If it is necessary to understand all the promise of salvation, then most church of Christ persons are hell-bound.
To require more is to undermine simple obedience itself and shifts the focus from faith in Christ to education, knowledge and doctrinal precision that determines acceptable obedience. This destroys assurance because when knowledge becomes the ground rather than faith one can never be sure they know enough about their obedience for their obedience to be accepted. A faith in Jesus that moves one to obedience is sufficient faith no matter what else they know or don’t know or even falsely believe about their baptism.
February 3, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Truth
Matthew 7:11
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
Who was Jesus speaking to, people who believed in God or were they all atheist.
Matthew 4:23-5:2
“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people. Then His fame went throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all sick people who were afflicted with various diseases and torments, and those who were demon-possessed, epileptics, and paralytics; and He healed them. Great multitudes followed Him–from Galilee, and from Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea, and beyond the Jordan. And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.”
February 3, 2009 at 6:52 pm
coreydavis
I was simply trying to show you that there is good even in the wicked, just as the good will choose at times to be wicked. To say that because one is born pure that they will forever remain that way is contrary to scriptures and not what I’m saying.
February 3, 2009 at 8:03 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
Let’s follow your logic when we don’t discern who is a brother and who is not.
We have a congregation where one teacher stands up and says, “all you have to do to be saved is believe in Jesus”.
The next week another teacher stands up and says, “all you have to do to be saved is repent and believe”.
On and on it could go. Who are people supposed to believe? Does that sound like unity? Does that sound like order?
The fact is that it is a simple issue to remedy. Those who haven’t been immersed, as an adult, for the remission of their sins need to be. That’s it. The problem isn’t in anyone insisting upon that (because that is what the scriptures teach), the problem is that there are people who just don’t want to do it.
February 3, 2009 at 8:21 pm
churchesofchrist
I understand what you are saying, Corey. That is not where I was headed. My point was that I will accept OTHERS who have obeyed the gospel, even if they failed to understand baptism “its purpose;” and lets not leave off the part we so often do…”and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Remission of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit “–are closely and inseparably connected together. They are connected by the same word that connects “repent, and be baptized,” in the preceding clause. One grows out of the other. If to understand one is essential, I cannot see why it is not equally necessary to understand the other.
People see though this Corey. We cant demand part of the verse to be understood, while making rest of something that we can disagree on or not understand. Who made this rule? I don’t have the right to tell someone they must understand the first part of Acts 2:38 before God will act, and then make another rule stating that the remaining of verse 2:38 doesn’t need to be understood as part in/of my salvation. Remission of sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit “–are connected together. Again, if to understand one is essential, I cannot see why it is not equally necessary to understand the other. This is inconsistent and dishonest. Either we demand the entire verse be understood before it “causes” God to work in our salvation or we need to drop this, because people see the inconsistency. Who makes these rules? Who says part of the verse must be understood, but not the rest? We make these rules!
Again, ask any church of Christ Sunday morning class ( perhaps yours ) how many knew when they were baptized that it was for the remission of sins, all hands will shoot up. Then ask how many understood at the time of baptism that they would be receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. Two or three hands may go up. If it is necessary to understand all the promise of salvation, then most church of Christ persons are hell-bound.
Corey, people like TRUTH see through this.
Anyways, I have to go.
I will check back later this week.
February 3, 2009 at 9:02 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
The problem is that most of them reject the fact that baptism is for the remission of sins. Because of that, they teach that baptism isn’t even necessary. Put it off days, weeks, months or years…maybe not even do it at all. Is that what you read in scripture?
You also know that it is baptism that puts us into Christ. Those who teach that baptism isn’t essential are therefore teaching that you can be saved outside of Christ (Romans 6:3, Galatians 3:27). That is a huge problem.
This is the “should” verses the “must” argument. Would you have a problem with someone teaching that you “should” repent, but saying it isn’t a “must”?
Again, the solution is simple – just do what the Ephesians of Acts 19 did – submit to the proper baptism for the proper purpose and the problem is eliminated. You know as well as I do that most people won’t.
February 4, 2009 at 11:47 am
churchesofchrist
I think Acts 19 is about the poorest way to argue this, seeing they were rebaptized for other reasons than we demand…
February 4, 2009 at 11:53 am
churchesofchrist
The problem is that most of them reject the fact that baptism is for the remission of sins. Because of that, they teach that baptism isn’t even necessary. Put it off days, weeks, months or years…maybe not even do it at all. Is that what you read in scripture?
- Corey, Some church of Christ folk even delay baptism. It is not the norm, but it does happen. I know where you are coming from, but these same people honestly trust Jesus to save them and they honestly trust in His work ( proper motive )
When they are baptized, they do so to obey? Even though they failed to understand what all happens at baptism.
When church of Christ folk are baptized, they fail to understand the remaining part of the verse “and ye shall recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit” but we over look this and accept them.
We cant demand part of the verse to be understood, while making rest of something that we can disagree on or not understand. Again, if to understand one is essential, I cannot see why it is not equally necessary to understand the other.
February 4, 2009 at 12:01 pm
churchesofchrist
Were you baptized purposely in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? Why make an issue of one promise and not the other? In the one account of rebaptism in the Scriptures, converts of Apollos were asked by Paul, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” We are not told of any inquiry into the understood purpose of their prior baptisms (Acts 19:1-9).
Do we ask church of Christ folks today ““Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
February 4, 2009 at 1:03 pm
churchesofchrist
Wonder why the Judean disciples in Acts 15 were not re-baptized? They were convinced that circumcision, in addition to obedience in baptism, was necessary to be saved, yet no question is raised about the validity of their baptisms (Acts 15).
February 4, 2009 at 2:20 pm
coreydavis
I think Acts 19 is about the poorest way to argue this, seeing they were rebaptized for other reasons than we demand…
I am not arguing from the specifics of Acts 19, but from the general principle – that being that there is a precedent for re-baptism. I’ve tried to point out that it was clearly important enough that they would submit to it twice. Here are some simple questions:
1. Had the Ephesians of Acts 19 been baptized originally with faith in God?
2. If no, why would you say that? If yes, then doesn’t that show us that more than just faith is involved (knowledge & understanding playing a role)?
We cant demand part of the verse to be understood, while making rest of something that we can disagree on or not understand. Again, if to understand one is essential, I cannot see why it is not equally necessary to understand the other.
Not understanding that baptism is unto the remission of sins will lead people to teach that baptism is not essential. Not understanding exactly what is meant by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit will not change what people will teach regarding the nature of salvation. Let’s be honest – the remission of sins is clearly explained in scripture; the gift of the Holy Spirit is not as clear. It all boils down to the fact that misunderstanding that baptism is for the remission of sins will change what people teach about baptism.
Wonder why the Judean disciples in Acts 15 were not re-baptized? They were convinced that circumcision, in addition to obedience in baptism, was necessary to be saved, yet no question is raised about the validity of their baptisms (Acts 15).
Let me give you an example I’ve seen – some people mistakenly think that Sunday is the new Sabbath and that we are still to observe the Sabbath (or they’ll say we should still follow the 10 commandments). This doesn’t change their teaching on what we must do to be saved, they just think there is more to be observed than what the New Testament teaches. What did the apostles do? They corrected their brothers on this mistaken conclusion. By looking at Acts 15 it seems clear that after being taught fully they accepted the inspired instruction.
That is what I’m asking someone to do today – say a Baptist, who was immersed out of faith, but taught that baptism isn’t essential and that they were saved prior to baptism. I want them to just heed the full counsel of God on this issue. Paul said that by preaching all God expected of man that he was free from the blood of all men (Acts 20:26-27). The only way I see that I can be innocent of the blood of those I teach is to do the same.
February 4, 2009 at 2:34 pm
churchesofchrist
I have looked at every argument possible from both sides and to state one must understand “for ( eis ) the remission of sins” before God will act also means one should understand “and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” before God will act. But, they don’t stress this part of this verse, and the reason why is because most of the church of Christ members didn’t understand this when they were baptized. Heck, some don’t even hear this part of the verse…
The men in Acts 2 had faith in Christ evidenced by them asking Peter “what shall we do” … do about what??? In others words, how do we become forgiven, since hearing and believing the gospel? Peter gave them the command “repent and be baptized” …this is what they must DO after having faith in Jesus. And the results will be “remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
What motivated them to ask “what shall we do”? The message Peter preached ( the Gospel ) moved them to seek forgiveness. The proper motive was seeing their sin and seeing a redeemer of their sins. The proper command to sinners“ repent and be baptized.” The work of God “remission of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit” upon obedient faith “repent and be baptized.” Both remission of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit are works of God gifted to the sinner who obeys the command repent and be baptized upon faith in Jesus Christ.
I believe the baptist to be saved if he has faith in Christ and repents and is baptized. God will do His work.
February 4, 2009 at 2:37 pm
churchesofchrist
Not understanding that baptism is unto the remission of sins will lead people to teach that baptism is not essential. Not understanding exactly what is meant by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit will not change what people will teach regarding the nature of salvation. Let’s be honest – the remission of sins is clearly explained in scripture; the gift of the Holy Spirit is not as clear. It all boils down to the fact that misunderstanding that baptism is for the remission of sins will change what people teach about baptism.
Corey, both are stated in Acts 2:38. If baptism is invalid due to understanding part of the verse, then logic follows we must say that about rest of the verse. We cant bend, break and make our rules as we see fit
February 5, 2009 at 6:07 pm
ProdigalKnot
This is what is scriptural and is without room for contention:
Believe in the Christ Jesus as Savior, Lord and God
Repent and turn from your wicked ways,
Be baptized.
We need to get away from all this arguing about the when, how, and where of all this and just preach and teach those simple three rules. God will take care of our understanding and He will impart the Holy Spirit to all who call on the name of Jesus and obey His commandments, with or without a perfect understanding of the how, when and where of baptism.
I don’t know if baptism really washes away sins or if it is symbolic of that internal act which scripture calls “the circumcision made without hands”. I am inclined to believe the latter, but I think God is not bound by our simplistic human understanding. If we obey according to the knowledge we have that is what we will be judged by.
Anything else is evidenced (by this very conversation) as contentious and legalistic. As long as a person who claims to be a believer has obeyed the gospel according to those three rules we all agree on, then we have no right to not fellowship such.
February 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm
coreydavis
Simple questions: does the purpose of the Lord’s Supper matter? May we say, “let’s partake of this because Jesus once at these same things”?
My position is simple – if the purpose for any commandment is given, be it the reason we are to be baptized or the reason we partake of the Lord’s Supper, then we need to know it, obey it and teach it. That is not legalism. That is seeking to do the will of the Father rather than our own.
If we obey according to the knowledge we have that is what we will be judged by.
For the most part I agree with this, based upon Luke 12: 47-48. My problem is when someone is shown the full truth upon a matter and rejects it because they are unwilling to change their beliefs & teachings to be in harmony with the word.
February 5, 2009 at 7:03 pm
lee
Mat 21:28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
Mat 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
is obedience required of a servant or understanding?
lee
February 5, 2009 at 7:13 pm
coreydavis
Can we be obedient without some level of understanding?
February 5, 2009 at 7:15 pm
churchesofchrist
The circumcision made without hands is a work of God. I don’t find many people wanting to believe something false. Many people truly do not see water baptism as we do, and often their focus is more on Christ and His work. We have become so water focused, that we neglect the fact that baptism is a circumcision made without hands.
I can not reject TRUTH as a bother, seeing he has repented and was baptized. If so, I am rejecting him because he failed to understand baptism PROPERLY as I understand it. If so, I should at least be consistent and demand that we also understand “ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The gift of the Spirit is a promise to those who obey “repent and be baptized”…how many understood that when they were baptized?? We are using a double standard. We demand something of TRUTH that we do not demand of others.
The remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are two promises, the former fitting or preparing for the latter, both given as rewards to induce obedience and bring comfort to the distressed sinners.
1.The thing to be believed (Acts2:36); (2) the effect on them of believing (Acts 2:37); (3) they were told what to do (verse 38); (4) while doing it, on whom to rely and to whom to look for blessing; and (5) then the promise or reward to lead to obedience. This is the order made by God. A clear distinction and separation was kept between the faith–the thing to be believed, the obedience to be rendered, the source of the blessing, and then the promises or rewards to be bestowed on the obedience. How many understood all of this when they were baptized???
To be baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” is to be led by God into baptism, to be baptized from the same reason that Jesus was, and is acceptable service. To be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is to follow the divine leading, and is acceptable baptism. To be baptized relying upon Jesus Christ, in order that he may forgive our sins, is to be led by God into baptism. Whenever man is led by God into baptism, the baptism is acceptable to God. God said to Saul: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22: 16.) To be baptized that God may wash away or separate our sins from us in baptism is acceptable baptism. Peter says: “While the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet. 1:20, 21.) Baptism is the answer or seeking of a good conscience. It can be either of these only when the person understands baptism to be the command or requirement of God, in which he is consecrated to his service. His conscience demands that he should obey God in this requirement, and he does it in order to seek or find the answer of a good conscience toward God. When man is thus baptized to seek the answer of a good conscience toward God, he is following a divine leading to baptism, and that baptism is acceptable service to God.
February 5, 2009 at 7:21 pm
churchesofchrist
Can we be obedient without some level of understanding?
- I knew this was coming. Thats why I commented above.
February 5, 2009 at 7:25 pm
churchesofchrist
A person actuated by the general motive must also desire the specific ones, so far as he sees them. A man that is baptized to enter into Christ, or “to fulfill all righteousness,” shows beyond a doubt that he would be baptized for every single specific blessing found in Christ if he were cognizant of it. But is it possible for a man to be sincerely desirous of obeying God with a loyal and true heart while failing to understand the relation baptism bears to the remission of sins?
February 5, 2009 at 7:27 pm
lee
did noah know what rain was?
probably not.
still built the ark.
the fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom.
now which is the product of which?
doing or understanding?
Psa 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
February 5, 2009 at 7:41 pm
coreydavis
Good example Lee.
Noah had a commandment – build an ark of gopher wood (Genesis 6:14)
Noah had a purpose – to save him, his family and the animals God would send (Genesis 6: 18-20)
Noah had a promise – that everything outside the ark would be destroyed (Genesis 6: 13)
Now what happens if Noah changes the purpose? Let’s say he decides he should build it as a great monument. Now that the purpose has changed, Noah is free to change the commandment – he doesn’t have to build it the way God said to build it because, after all, it doesn’t have to float, it is just a monument.
This is what has happened to baptism. The purpose is to have sins remitted or washed away (Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16). Now we change the purpose to show “an outward sign of an inward grace”. Since it now has nothing to do with the removal of sins it becomes optional. We don’t have to be immersed as the word denotes, we can just sprinkle a little or pour some. After all, it doesn’t have anything to do with forgiveness.
The difference is that Noah obeyed the commandment for the correct purpose. We can’t show what would have happened otherwise because we have an example of obedience in harmony with understanding. It is no stretch to think that Noah would have perished like everyone else if he altered the commandment due to an alteration of the purpose.
February 5, 2009 at 7:45 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
Think with me a minute here – let’s say that I start accepting anyone who was baptized for whatever reason. Let me go a step further and say that they were motivated by their desire to be obedient.
Later they are shown that baptism is for the remission of sins. They see it right there in the scriptures but they refuse to believe it or teach it. They continue to teach that salvation is by faith alone.
What are we to do now?
February 5, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Randy
To me, Baptism is clearly revealed as a condition on which the remission of sins is to be enjoyed. All the promises and requirements of God are plain when man looks at them from a favorable standpoint.
All agree that salvation comes through faith. It seems to me that all should, by a study of the Bible, see that faith must be perfected through obedience before it becomes a justifying faith. But many coming to baptism are not very familiar with the Bible. A man who fully acts in accord with the spirit of the commission first believes and is baptized, then has to be taught “all things whatsoever I commanded you.”
Must man know at what point God bestows a blessing in order to receive and enjoy that blessing? Did Abraham?
“If a man were to come to you and say, ‘ I believe God has forgiven my sins in believing, but I wish to be baptized to fulfill all righteousness, to obey God in all his commandments,’ would you baptize him?”
I would explain to him to the best of my ability the connection of baptism and forgiveness, but do so with a focus upon Jesus. Even if he failed to comprehend the connection, I would still baptize this believer in Christ, would you Corey?
Clint, would you?
PK, would you?
Note: Anyone reading, please note that I have no ill will towards Corey. I know at times things can be seen the wrong way. Please understand we are just attempting to drive our points home and we do so with forcefully, but not out of anger.
-Randy
February 5, 2009 at 7:52 pm
coreydavis
Randy – you go first. I asked you a question right above your post. If you’ll please answer that I’ll answer your question.
February 5, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Randy
Later they are shown that baptism is for the remission of sins. They see it right there in the scriptures but they refuse to believe it or teach it. They continue to teach that salvation is by faith alone.
- If someone understands this, and rejects what they clearly see – I agree with you. I havent met anyone like this. What I see are people who do not understand this. I have never seen anyone reject something they understand as true. Lee, Truth….walkinglove do not see this, Corey. Sure, its plain to us, but not to them.
February 5, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Randy
I have to sign off now, but will comment soon as possible.
tyyl
Randy
February 5, 2009 at 8:02 pm
lee
your very slippery today mr davis.
very artful.
lee
This is exactly the type of comment I don’t want here Lee. Any other comments like this are going to be deleted – Corey
February 5, 2009 at 8:08 pm
coreydavis
I think you are confusing “don’t” understand with “won’t” understand. You never said what you’d do in the situation I proposed and I’m still curious.
Let’s say that they don’t understand it – would you allow them to publicly teach others how to be saved? Would you feel comfortable with that person teaching your children how to be saved?
Now, I’ll answer your question even though you dodged mine a bit:
Absolutely not. That person is claiming that they are in Christ when they haven’t done what the scriptures teach puts us IN Him (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). I would teach that individual what the Bible says about salvation, forgiveness and baptism – how they are all tied together. I would hope that they would accept the word and submit to it. If they still think that baptism is not for the remission of sins I would refuse them. That person’s blood would be on my hands for not teaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).
February 6, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Randy
Corey, I ran into a road-block and am surprised you didn’t come at me from this angle. If I do not need to understand that baptism is for the purpose of remission of sins, then how do I explain this in light of repentance, seeing Peter tied them both together – toward remission of sins. My position seems to be crumbling before me.
When Peter reached a certain point in his sermon, some were “pierced to the heart,” and cried out, “Brethren, what shall we do?” At that moment, the men were still in their sins. This is simply undeniable. Their sins had not, then, at that moment, been remitted. While, then, their sins are still unremitted, Peter says to them, “Repent, and be baptized (eis) for the remission of sins.” Now, it is completely impossible to understand that eis here means “in regard to remission as the occasion” of the baptism, with the further thought that the remission came before the baptism. This is not only impossible for the reason, but for the further reason that it would make Peter command men to repent who were already pardoned; thus placing repentance as well as baptism after pardon. Unquestionably, the remission of sins was contem¬plated as a point yet to be attained, a blessing yet to be secured. Even if I take the rendering of eis and read it as others, Repent and be baptized “in regard to” remission of sins; it is still in regard to a blessing contem¬plated as future at the time of repentance and baptism. Either way, my position has fallen apart.
At this point, I have no choice but concede and denounce my position. If I argue it’s not important or necessary for one to understand baptism to be the purpose or towards remission, then I must make the same argument with repentance and say one not need to understand that repentance is in order to be forgiven, seeing Peter tied repentance and baptism together as something one must do in order to receive remission of sins.
If this is to be true, then my entire family and friends have believed in vain. This is a hard pill to swallow Corey, and it has put a knife through my heart. I want to not believe this, but how can I deny what I read in scripture. If one must understand that he is repenting in order to be forgiven, then he must also understand he is being baptized for the same purpose. Peter tied them together and I have no right to break them apart.
I may not comment for a while – this has really distressed me…if this is true, my entire family and most of my friends are deceived – LOST!
February 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Randy
Corey, thanks for staying with me on this and making me dig deeper. If I don’t comment for while, it will because my heart is aching…
February 6, 2009 at 2:47 pm
lee
not going to post it?
lee
February 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm
coreydavis
Randy,
I know how you feel, I really do. Consider this:
Luke 12: 47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
48but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
We have been given much in the way of understanding. Because of that, much is going to be demanded. I honestly can’t say what will happen to those who never had much in the way of understanding. I know what I hope, but it is just that – my hope.
One thing I know is that God is just. While His sense of what is just is not always what I would consider just, I know it to be true that He is the very epitome of what is just and fair. I find some comfort in that and I hope you can too. There are things that we cannot change, but there are things that we can change. We can strive to teach the full truth as long as we live. Press forward, doing all that you can and don’t let the things of the past hold you down from pleasing the Lord as you move forward.
I pray that your heartache will be healed and that you will have the strength and conviction to carry on the work of the kingdom.
February 6, 2009 at 2:56 pm
coreydavis
No, Lee, I’m not. I feel that we were both engaging in a petty argument rather than fruitful discussion. Notice that I deleted my own comment as well.
You are welcome here, but that is not the direction I want us to move in.
February 6, 2009 at 3:44 pm
lee
you are never wrong……and that is the direction your going.
your friend
lee
February 6, 2009 at 3:52 pm
coreydavis
And you believe you are? Can you point me to one discussion we’ve had where you’ve acknowledged that you were wrong? I am simply trying to follow this commandment:
Ephesians 4:14
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
This does not mean that I am not open to the possibility that I could be wrong. I just admitted on Randy’s blog that you made a good point and that my example was not a good one. I am open to correction, but I’m not going to allow myself to be tossed about by every doctrine or teaching that comes my way.
February 6, 2009 at 4:27 pm
lee
gee thankyou
iv never been called crafty, deceptive, cunning,and
a magician all in the same sentence.
lee
February 6, 2009 at 4:36 pm
coreydavis
You take my statement too far. I am referring to the “every wind of doctrine”, not calling you any of those things. You seem to take the fact that I disagree with your doctrine as an attack on you personally. That isn’t the case.
Again, perhaps you could show me where you’ve stated that you were wrong on something we discussed? Or is it, as you said, that “you are never wrong”?
February 7, 2009 at 7:28 am
Prodigal Knot
This has really gone “off topic” here!
The original question was “Is Original Sin a Biblical Doctrine?”
Clint said, and ypou supported his take on it, that Romans 5: 12, which says ” Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (NKJV) means that “death” only was what Adam brought into the world.
But, that begs the question “What brought death?” The answer is “SIN”. Adam brought sin into the world and that brought death. There is not one recorded record in the Bible that anything or anyone died before Adma and Eve disobeyed. So their sin is what brought death and death is the result of sin. They are part and parcel of each other. If there were no sin there would not be death. Jesus conquered sin and death for us, hence we are, as believers, “Free from the law of sin and death”. They are inclusive, not exclusive. We inherit the predisposition to sin from Adam. We are responsible for our own sin, but Adam ensured that we would sin.
Of course this brings up the question, how did Enoch and Elijah escape death? They certainly did not remian in their earthly bodies, so they had to have been transformed/transfigured. They were not treated this way because they were sinless; only the Son of God has ever been credited with that. But God’s Word says “It is appointed for all men to die once, and after that comes judgement”. What do we do with that?
God makes exceptions. That’s all there is to it. And He can make any exception He wants to. Still, we are all doomed to die both physically and spiritully because of Adam. That is why we needed a Savior; not to save our physical lives, but our spiritual ones. So, it follows that our spiritual death is a given and is inherited from Adam just as much as our physical death is.
February 7, 2009 at 2:10 pm
lee
February 2, 2009 at 9:08 pm
coreydavis
Your last statement is true:
Adam’s sin opened the door up to sin, therefore sin came upon all men.
Adam truly “opened the door”. He sinned and thus sin entered the world. The Bible is clear that all who come to the knowledge of good & evil WILL sin. As the scripture you posted earlier states, anyone who claims he hasn’t sinned is a liar. The important thing to understand is that it is OUR sins that separate us from God, not Adam’s sin.
February 2, 2009 at 8:05 pm
coreydavis
I notice that you won’t answer my question.
Sin entered the world when Adam sinned. It came into existence. You are trying to read more into the passage than is there. You won’t acknowledge what actually spread to all men – death, not Adam’s sin.
which one is true?
death or sin?
lee
lee