SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : original sin

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

"He hears our question, stretches out nail pierced hands and says "I will"."

Matthew 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?

Who is responsible for answering this question in the life of the mentally competant individual person?

Unless that question has been correctly answered prior to either judgement.It will be too late, and noone but the individual person will have to answer for that decision.So then, who is responsible? Whether they've heard or not? And every person will be held individually accountable for their answer, for they will be without excuse.

I think the scriptures are very clear about entering into the Kingdom of God.

Clutch :-)


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/2/11 10:03Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Matthew 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?

Who is responsible for answering this question in the life of the mentally competant individual person?

Unless that question has been correctly answered prior to either judgement.It will be too late, and noone but the individual person will have to answer for that decision.So then, who is responsible? Whether they've heard or not? And every person will be held individually accountable for their answer, for they will be without excuse.

Hi Clutch
Your question deserves as answer, but as I lifted my heart I saw something else and thought I should share it. Now to the question.

If you have followed the twists and turns of my thinking we can come to some conclusions, although you don't have to agree with them.

I see sin as a double problem with a double cure. Sin, the disposition, was granted access by Adam's disobedience, and Death followed through to the whole cosmos. I believe the condemnation that accompanies this opening of a door by Adam, is Death. By Death I mean the corruption of another life that has percolated through the whole of humanity, and my humanity. I believe the condemnation is that spreading poison. It is wrath revealed now. I don't believe this condemnation includes eternal separation. I don't believe I will go to hell because of what Adam did. The Federal head of our race was responsible, and God has brought in a Second Man, the Last Adam. We don't know Adam's eternal destiny, although there are some indications as others have pointed out. But we do know Adam's temporal destiny, his condemnation... and we have shared it. This power could only be broken by Christ taking the Old Man down into death with him, and breaking his power over the human race. [Rom 6:6]

But what about me and sins as deeds done in opposition to God. God holds me responsible for my actions, but John says 'there is a sin not unto death' [1John 5:16] I like the little definition of sin in James 4:17 "to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin". I know that ignorence of the law is no excuse for a police officer, but I am not sure that ignorance of sin is the same. By the law, was the knowledge of sin, but what of those who did not have The Law in its Sinai expression. There seems to be an indication that knowledge increases responsibility; Amos 3:2 " You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." This indicates no excuse for Israel because they knew God's will. It was one of their boasts; [Rom 2:18]

I link in the Rom 2 section here [Rom 2:5-11] which speaks of future judgment, wrath. I notice that this promises eternal life, at a future time, for those who 'seek'... but future judgment for those who 'disobey'... Now you can't disobey unless you have heard, can you? I think all sin has a clash of wills in it.

Let me set another rabbit running... this promises future eternal life, but the regenerate have eternal life now. This is my understanding of the old questions about Abraham. I believe he has eternal life, there and now, but the regenerate has eternal life here and now. This is why I distinguish so strongly between justification and regeneration.

Matthew 27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?

Who is responsible for answering this question in the life of the mentally competant individual person? Many millions have never heard the earlier question. Will they be sentenced to eternal separation for not having heard?




_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/11 11:17Profile
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re:

Hey all!

My name is Samuel, or Agent001. I have been misidentified a number of times, so I thought I'd make a declaration here!

Philologos:

I think I agree with your exposition of the wider context of Romans 5. I am awaiting your case for the distinction between congenital sin and congenital guilt--why you think the former but not the latter is affirmed in Romans 5.

I also agree that the wrath of God is poured out upon us now, and culminates in the future judgement. I look forward to the completion of your argument.


Clutch:

I believe that in the Second Coming, there will be the judgment seat of Christ where Christians are judged based upon their deeds in the present life. There will also be the Great White Throne, where those who reject God will be cast in the lake of fire.

Agent001


_________________
Sam

 2004/2/11 12:08Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hi Ron,and Sam,
Sam, I believe it like you do about the two judgements. However, about those people that have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel, and will be sent to the lake of fire; I WISH that I could believe it like Ron does.
It seems to me that if things work out like Ron believes, that we are wasting a lot of time, money, and effort trying to fulfill the great commission. Also, immeadiately after we got saved, God could just take us on to heaven, because we would not be serving much purpose here. If what Ron says is correct, then we are certainly doing the people that live in the 10/40 window a great disservice by attempting to evangelize them. In fact, the Calvinists would be right, for the wrong reason, and we should be doing the opposite of what Jesus has commanded the church to do. If Ron is right, then by introducing them to the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are part and parcel in partnership with God unnecessarily sending multitudes to the lake of fire(The ones that do not believe). Whereas, if we leave them ignorant, they will make heaven. In my mind, that would make God evil, and I ain't buying it.

I really don't think these explanations of congenital sin, and congenital guilt get to the meat of the issue. The doctrine that makes the most sense to me, is the doctrine of congenital consequences.
Like those on the Titanic, some were there by choice, others were not. Some knew of the warnings about icebergs,most didn't,or didn't care. So, you had a group of folks that were all in the same boat so to speak. Some were more responsible than others in regard to matters of the well being of the occupants, to include themselves. But when the end came, there was only one way to get off the Titanic alive, and that was by getting into a life boat. Whether a person knew about the iceburg or not, whether anyone told them the ship was sinking or not, whether they knew about lifeboats or not, in reality did not matter. The bottom line was; the ONLY way to live was, you had to get into the life boat.

Ron, I hope I'm wrong about this, and I love you anyway brother. I'm like Sam, I'm trusting that There's some mysteries yet to be revealed, that will make it right. Until the day that they're revealed to me, I just have to believe it like it's written.
After all, you know that I'm not very smart ( but I'm crafty and bear watching).
nite nite time,
clutch :-P


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/2/11 20:08Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Clutch wrote
Hi Ron,and Sam,
Sam, I believe it like you do about the two judgements. However, about those people that have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel, and will be sent to the lake of fire; I WISH that I could believe it like Ron does.
It seems to me that if things work out like Ron believes, that we are wasting a lot of time, money, and effort trying to fulfill the great commission.

Not at all. We fulfil the great commission because it is a commission. Although it is a popular evangelical doctrine there is no indication in the Bible that Paul et al evangelised because they believed souls were going to hell. Of course, we love men and women, but that is not the biblical motive for evangelism.


Also, immeadiately after we got saved, God could just take us on to heaven, because we would not be serving much purpose here.

Not at all. Regeneration takes a moment, but the rebuilding of character may take a life time. There are things that take time, and God has given time so that these things can be accomplished. I think one of our family used to use the sign-off 'a work in process'. This is really saying that the only reason we are here is to save souls; really?


If what Ron says is correct, then we are certainly doing the people that live in the 10/40 window a great disservice by attempting to evangelize them. In fact, the Calvinists would be right, for the wrong reason, and we should be doing the opposite of what Jesus has commanded the church to do. If Ron is right, then by introducing them to the gospel of Jesus Christ, we are part and parcel in partnership with God unnecessarily sending multitudes to the lake of fire(The ones that do not believe). Whereas, if we leave them ignorant, they will make heaven. In my mind, that would make God evil, and I ain't buying it.

No each one will be judged according to the light they received, but will not be held responsible for what they could not know. If we follow the relentless route of your argument we shall end up with lots of babies hell-bound too.


I really don't think these explanations of congenital sin, and congenital guilt get to the meat of the issue. The doctrine that makes the most sense to me, is the doctrine of congenital consequences.
Like those on the Titanic, some were there by choice, others were not. Some knew of the warnings about icebergs,most didn't,or didn't care. So, you had a group of folks that were all in the same boat so to speak. Some were more responsible than others in regard to matters of the well being of the occupants, to include themselves. But when the end came, there was only one way to get off the Titanic alive, and that was by getting into a life boat. Whether a person knew about the iceburg or not, whether anyone told them the ship was sinking or not, whether they knew about lifeboats or not, in reality did not matter. The bottom line was; the ONLY way to live was, you had to get into the life boat.

Most people died on the Titanic because adequate provision had not been made and ultimately because of the decisions of Captain John Smith. (who incidentally was married to my grandmother's cousin) This is not the case with man's condition.

Ron, I hope I'm wrong about this, and I love you anyway brother. I'm like Sam, I'm trusting that There's some mysteries yet to be revealed, that will make it right. Until the day that they're revealed to me, I just have to believe it like it's written.
After all, you know that I'm not very smart ( but I'm crafty and bear watching).
nite nite time,

Likewise in every part, except that around here we don't have any bears to watch, although we have one or two mean sparrows I'm keeping an eye on. :-P


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/11 22:57Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Sam
you wrote...I look forward to the completion of your argument.

I'll do my best with a little study of the words used.

krinO (2919) and katakrinO (2632) [and nouns, krima (2917) and katakrima (2631)] with their Strong’s Numbers.
These words are used more than 50 times in the writings of Paul, but the KJV does not serve us well in identifying them as it is inconsistent in its translation.

However, we can see a trend in these two examples:

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest (2919): for wherein thou judgest (2919) another, thou condemnest (2632) thyself; for thou that judgest (2919) doest the same things.

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged (2919), we are chastened of the Lord, that we should (2632) not be condemned (2632) with the world.

These verbs have to do with a process of justice and have associated nouns.

1. krinO - is the process of assessment or judging which leads to a judgment. (it might be guilty or innocent)
2. katakrinO - is to judge against, or to sentence. In this sense it is the next stage of the process that leads to the execution of the sentence. Kata as a prefix strengthens the verb and often means ‘thoroughly’.

We are to ‘judge’ (krinO) ourselves in the sense of monitoring our lives. In 1 Cor 11:32 this is a continuing process and uses the present tense; we are to be continually assessing ourselves. This leads to the Lord’s present disciplining of our lives in chastening, rebuke, conviction etc. But there is a coming katakrima (noun)– carrying out of a sentence which is to come. This is a one-off event and the Aorist tense is used. This event is the katakrinO (verb), the passing of the sentence leading to the execution of the sentence.

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation (2631); even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. KJV The AV adds some words here intending to clarify, but instead it muddies the waters. Young’s drops the added words and gives us…
Romans 5:18 So, then, as through one offence to all men it is to condemnation (2631), so also through one declaration of ‘Righteous’ it is to all men to justification of life; (YLT) The essential things to see in this verse are that one offence (Adam’s) resulted in ‘condemnation’ to the whole race. This is a continuation of the theme from
Romans 5:12 because of this, even as through one man the sin did enter into the world, and through the sin the death; and thus to all men the death did pass through, for that all did sin; (YLT)

What I have been trying to say is that the ‘Death’ of Rom 5:12 is the ‘condemnation’ of Rom 5:18. The ‘sentence’ that came through to the whole human race was ‘Death’; not physical death which was a consequence, but spiritual Death. This sentence was executed immediately Adam ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it—dying thou dost die.’ ‘Dying thou shalt die’ is a Hebrew idiom for intensity (eg James tells us that Elijah ‘prayed in his praying’ KJV says ‘prayed earnestly’.)

This Death is not the mere absence of life, but is the outworking of a sentence in which God abandoned man to his own choices. The world calls it ‘freedom’, the Bible calls it Death. There is an interesting picture of it at work in Eph 4:22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts. ‘is corrupt’ is the present participle ‘the corrupting one’. Death/corruption is not a fixed state but a spring of corruption constantly bubbling up and defiling the whole man.

This is the ‘sentence’ that the whole human race now lives under. It has an obvious impact on our ‘sins’ which will receive a future ‘sentence’, but my conviction is that Adam’s sin did not immediately ‘sentence’ the whole human race to eternal punishment and separation from God. That ‘sentence’ will be the result of our own sins, not Adam’s.

‘certified as MHO at 10:30 GMT, 12th Feb 2004, but watch this space.’



_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/12 0:57Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hi Ron,
I think we still pretty much disagree at every point on this issue.

"we don't have any bears to watch, although we have one or two mean sparrows I'm keeping an eye on"


Strange the way that the bears have disappeared from the British Isles. Because I do recall from my service there in the early 70's,there was lots of things there that bears like. In fact I remember distinctly there being LOTS of nuts, and not just a few berries.I also remember watching a few birds while I was there, but I'd think a man of your age and social standing would be passed all that. :-D
Clutch :-P


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/2/12 5:29Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Hi Clutch
yes, there are still plenty of nuts over here. :-o


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/2/12 5:33Profile
Agent001
Member



Joined: 2003/9/30
Posts: 386
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

 Re:

Hi all!

I find myself in agreement with Clutch at points, and with Ron at other points. That makes three persons with three different opinions--see how without the Christ as the centre, there will never be unity? :)

Clutch:

I think the reason of our earthly life is not just to preach the gospel, as you unconsciously implied. Going through transformation of the soul (mind, emotion, and will) and maturity in life are things that will take a lifetime to experience. But this deserves another forum.

I also think Ron is saying that the people who have not heard of the gospel will be judged by a different set of criteria--their deeds. They are not by default saved. (My problem is, given human's total depravity, we are all powerless to do good. So even if we do not consider "original sin", no one will ever attain God's standard of righteousness [or even merely the human ideal of goodness]--doesn't that mean they deserve to go to the lake of fire, just the same?)

Ron:

Even putting original sin aside, what puzzles me is how God will judge those who have not heard of the gospel. (See above)

If God is going to judge according to each individual's deeds, then a distinction will also have to made between those who have a moral sense and those who are not yet capable of making moral choices (infants, mentally disabld).

According to Romans 2, even those who do not have the Law will have their own laws in their conscience. The way I see it, the reality of human depravity still applies here--whatever moral ideals these people have, they would not be able to attain. So I don't see much chance for anyone to be spared from God's wrath.

The exception would be the infants and the mentally challenged. So if you could show that they have no "congenital guilt" (that is, responsible for Adam's sin), and are therefore, judged only by their actions, then maybe, just maybe, there's a good chance that they might make it to heaven.

We are treading into very speculative realms here. Are we trying too hard to fathom God's mysteries? :)


_________________
Sam

 2004/2/12 5:39Profile
Clutch
Member



Joined: 2003/11/10
Posts: 202
Oak Ridge, Tennessee

 Re:

Hey Ron,
I think I like this Secret Agent Sam guy.
He said:

"I find myself in agreement with Clutch at points, and with Ron at other points. That makes three persons with three different opinions--see how without the Christ as the centre, there will never be unity? :)"


I'd wager that he's Infralapsarian too. Except for his Supralapsarian tendencies. I can appreciate someone like us, that has focus,conviction, and can feel strongly both ways on an issue. :-D

By the way, the Sanhedrin met this morning, and I've convinced the younger bulls in the heard to dismantle the gallows, and make a rope bridge from the left over rope. Also, you have a standing invitation to come to the United States and preach ...........on REPENTANCE.
Clutch :-P


_________________
Howard McNeill

 2004/2/12 6:34Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy