SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : WHO is the CAUSE of sin and WHAT is the SOURCE of sin?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
PosterThread









 WHO is the CAUSE of sin and WHAT is the SOURCE of sin?



[b]Who[/b] is the [u]cause[/u] of all sin and [b]what[/b] is the [u]source[/u] of all sin?

Is God the cause of sin and is His Sovereignty the source?

Is the Devil the cause of sin and his lies the source?

Is Adam the cause of sin and the loss of freewill the source?

Or each sinner the cause of their own sin and the wrong use of freewill is the source?



[b]My answer is:[/b]

Each sinner is the [u]cause[/u] of [i]their own[/i] sin & the [u]source[/u] of sin is a wrong use of freewill.




[b]LUCIFER ORIGINATED HIS OWN EVIL BY A WRONG USE OF HIS WILL:[/b]

"For thou hast said in thine heart, [b][u]I WILL[/u][/b] ascend into heaven, [b][u]I WILL[/u][/b] exalt my throne above the stars of God: [b][u]I WILL[/u][/b] sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: [b][u]I WILL[/u][/b] ascend above the heights of the clouds; [b][u]I WILL[/u][/b] be like the most High." Isa 14:13-14



[b]SINNERS ORIGINATE THEIR OWN REBELLION BY A WRONG USE OF THEIR WILL:[/b]

"But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We [b][u]WILL NOT[/u][/b] have this man to [b]REIGN[/b] over us." Luke 19:24

"But those mine enemies, which [b][u]WOULD NOT[/u][/b] that I should [b]REIGN[/b] over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27



[b]SIN IS REBELLION AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN GOD:[/b]

"they [b]REBELLED[/b] against the words of God, and contemned the [b]COUNSEL[/b] of the most high." Ps 107:11

"But the Pharisees and lawyers [b]REJECTED[/b] the [b]COUNSEL[/b] of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Luke 7:30

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often [b][u]WOULD I[/u][/b] have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye [b][u]WOULD NOT[/u][/b]!" Luke 13:34

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always [b][u]RESIST[/u] THE HOLY GHOST[/b]: as your fathers did, so do ye." Acts 7:51

 2007/9/12 17:21
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re: WHO is the CAUSE of sin and WHAT is the SOURCE of sin?

This sounds good and all, but has already been declared heresy in the 400s as Pelagius' disciple
Coelestius was trying to spread similar ideas.

Perhaps the points closest to what you are espousing is that Adam's sin only did damage to him, and not to man as a whole. I can see another point that you try to teach as well, which is that men can be sinless. Pelagius believed that even before Christ there were sinless men, and also believed that one could be saved either through the Law or the Gospel. Of course the Apostle Paul had differing thoughts on this as he said that "by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be justified".

Sadly, if one does not accept the headship of Adam's fall, they cannot accept accept the Headship of Christ for His salvation.

Logically your idea fails simply due to the fact that God created satan fully knowing that he would sin against Him and fall. God also created man fully aware that Adam would give into the temptation that satan would bring, and bring death upon man. If you get rid of these points, you teach contrary to the fact that God also ordained Jesus as the Lamb slain before the foundation of the Earth. God had this all factored in before any thing or anyone was created, thus Paul in Ephesians says that we were chosen in Him before the foundations of the world.

You cannot break a link of this chain without it causing questionable ideas about God, and Christ, and the work of salvation.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/9/12 18:50Profile









 Re:

So are you saying that Adam is the cause of all sin or that God is the cause of all sin?

-----------------

1. Yes Pelagianism was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. But are you a Catholic? Do you believe that Protestantism is heresy also because it has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church?

2. Genesis 6:5-6 seems to be saying that if God knew men would use their freewill to sin He would not have created them. Because they have a freewill they have the power of contingent choice, and since those choices are contingent they can only be foreknown as possible but not foreknown as certain.

So God foreknew the possibility of the fall but not the certainty of the fall, since the fall was contingent and not certain.

This goes back to the bible teaching of open theism, that God foreknows certainties as certain and foreknows possibilities as possible. As the bible teaches, the future is partly open (what God lets men determine) and partly settled (what God Himself determines).

3. God is the cause of what He made, but not the cause of what His creation becomes.

God made Lucifer, a good angel, which became a devil.

And God made man with a freewill, capable of choosing good over evil and thus forming their own good moral character.

But God is by no means responsible for what angels and men become. God is responsible for what He made, but He is not responsible for what his creation becomes of their own choosing. What God made was "good" but what His creation has become is evil.

It's kind of like this: Who made your automobile? Suppose it was Chevy. The Chevy manufacturer made their creation with an INTENTION or PURPOSE. That is to provide transportation. But suppose you use your Chevy automobile to run people over!! That was not the INTENTION of the Chevy company, that was not the PURPOSE of it's creator.

You, and not Chevy, are responsible if you use your automobile to run people over.

Likewise God has given us the power to will. Since God created it, God must have an INTENTION or PURPOSE for creating it. And that intention or purpose was so that we would and could choose good over evil. But men use their will to choose evil over the good. That is contrary to the INTENTION of the Creator! That is not the PURPOSE of the will!

And so we ourselves, and not God, are responsible for our own evil choices!

 2007/9/12 18:59









 Re:

I know that books like Sirach were recognized by and used by the Early Church Fathers and that Sirach was in the original 1611 King James Version.

I am willing to believe in the possibility that Sirach is an inspired book, but I don't know...I need to study it more. It's possible that the Calvinist Reformers took these books out because it was contrary to their theology, just as Luther wanted to remove the book of James.

As I've been studying the writings of Pelagius, I noticed that he quotes out of the book of Sirach as the other Early Church Fathers did. That is because Sirach has such clear and explicit teaches on freewill, something all of the Church Fathers before Augustine universally believed in.

These are verses of interest in our discussion:

[u]Sirach 15:11-12[/u] "Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away: for thou oughtest not to do the things that he hateth. Say not thou, He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of the sinful man."

[u]Sirach 15:14-16[/u] "He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel [freewill]; If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithfulness. He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt."

[u]Sirach 15:20[/u] "He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, neither hath he given any man licence to sin."

I don't know if Sirach is an inspired book or not, but I know that these verses are teaching sound theology and good doctrine!

 2007/9/12 19:49
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
1. Yes Pelagianism was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. But are you a Catholic? Do you believe that Protestantism is heresy also because it has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church?



This is an unfair question as there are many issues that the Medieval Catholic had right, and even the Reformers did not seek to write off or destroy all that was taught within the Church.

The issue then as is now was how is man saved? Are men born a "blank slate" awaiting for the man to write what he will be, or are men born "dead in sin"?

We must see that the issue is what one makes of original sin, and if one gets this wrong, then the rest will be wrong as well.

Quote:
And so we ourselves, and not God, are responsible for our own evil choices!



Yes, but our choices are bound to our will, which from the womb is sinful, and simply waiting to break forth into sin. No man can raise himself above his will, and this is why salvation is from God by grace through faith in Christ. The believer is born again and united to the body of Christ, never to be aborted or cast away.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/9/12 19:59Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
I am willing to believe in the possibility that Sirach is an inspired book, but I don't know...I need to study it more. It's possible that the Calvinist Reformers took these books out because it was contrary to their theology, just as Luther wanted to remove the book of James.



The Reformers were not all Calvinist. There are some differences between Lutheran thought and Theology and Reformed Theology. Mainly the differences are in view of baptism, and the Lord's Table. They agree however in the falleness of man, and the depravity of man.

The Book of Concord was written to stem the influence of a more Calvinistic ideology coming into the Lutheran Church. Phillip Melancthon was leaning more towards the Calvinist view, moreso than the Lutheran.

As for the Apocrypha being left out of the Canon, it was mainly because the Lord did not quote from these books, and neither did the Apostles. There are probably more reasons, but right now they escape me.

I would also encourage you to look at the Coucnil of Orange from 529 AD, it can be found here-
[url=http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/councilorange.html]Council of Orange[/url]

Augustine had a different idea of "free will" than you are giving him. His was one that affirmed mans' freedom to move and choose according to their wills, but needed divine grace alone to give them faith to believe in Christ.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2007/9/12 20:09Profile
theopenlife
Member



Joined: 2007/1/30
Posts: 926


 Re:

My brother Jesse, I long for discussions where we will agree, but not so much that I will lay down what seems to be apparent truth.

Quote:
2. Genesis 6:5-6 seems to be saying that if God knew men would use their freewill to sin He would not have created them. Because they have a freewill they have the power of contingent choice, and since those choices are contingent they can only be foreknown as possible but not foreknown as certain.



Yet scripture says that Christ was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world. He was not literally slain then, but the assurance of His death for SIN was already set irreversibly from BEFORE the creation of man, which undeniably proves that God knew with certainty that man would sin, prior to the creation of man. My Savior was not slain for a possibility.

 2007/9/12 21:36Profile









 Re:

Quote:
My brother Jesse, I long for discussions where we will agree, but not so much that I will lay down what seems to be apparent truth.



My sentiments exactly.

Quote:
Yet scripture says that Christ was slain BEFORE the foundation of the world. He was not literally slain then, but the assurance of His death for SIN was already set irreversibly from BEFORE the creation of man, which undeniably proves that God knew with certainty that man would sin, prior to the creation of man. My Savior was not slain for a possibility.



Re 13:8 - the Lamb SLAIN [u]FROM[/u] the foundation of the world.

1Pe 1:20 - Who verily was FOREORDAINED [u]BEFORE[/u] the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

These text seem to be saying that God planned the cross BEFORE the foundation of the world (knowing the possibility of the fall) but that it was not executed, or Christ was not slain, until the foundation of the world (when Adam actually fell).

God planned it before the fall but executed it at the fall.

 2007/9/12 22:02
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
The issue then as is now was how is man saved? Are men born a "blank slate" awaiting for the man to write what he will be, or are men born "dead in sin"?

Since Adame died spiritualy from his own sin, so do we from our first own sin.

[b]Rom 6:23[/b] [color=990000]For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.[/color]
Sinse the "life" is spiritual, then the "death" is spiritual.
As the fact is, Adam only brought physical death.

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
We must see that the issue is what one makes of original sin, and if one gets this wrong, then the rest will be wrong as well.

that is why you are wrong. ;-)

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Yes, but our choices are bound to our will...

The inclination of our will effects individual choices that we make. The choice that you make will naturally follow your inclination. Consequently, if you love yourself or the world more than the one commanding you, you cannot consistently do things that please the commander. Your decisions are in bondage to your effections and inclinations so that you only do what you have favor towards.
Love God, hate sin; Love yourself and the world, hate God.

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
...which from the womb is sinful, and simply waiting to break forth into sin.

If you are alluding to Psalm 58:3 & Psalm 51:5, first of all, it needs to be initially recognized that this passage is Hebrew poetry. And Hebrew poetry abounds with bold and imaginative figures of speech; it is frequently characterized by a freedom, which departs from customary forms of expression. It is, therefore, a mistake of great magnitude to extract statements from poetical literature and thus employ them as a foundation for doctrinal schemes. [size=xx-small](Wayne Jackson)[/size] http://www.inplainsite.org/html/original_sin_and_the_psalms.html
&
http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_psalm_58_teach_original_sin

Thyerefore, your assertion is wrong.

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
No man can raise himself above his will...

One is able to be persuaded to move from his original will to will to be in christ.

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
The believer is born again and united to the body of Christ, never to be [b]aborted or cast away[/b].

[b]1Timothy 4:1[/b]
[color=990000]Now the Spirit speaks explicitly, that in the latter times some shall [b]depart from the faith[/b], giving heed to deceitful spirits, and doctrines of demons;[/color]
If we are already [b]born[/b] again, the term "aborted" does not fit into the analogy as one doesn't abort a newborn infant.
Furthermore, HE will not cast away, but one may depart from HIM. [url=http://amimynation.tripod.com/challenge.html]Example[/url]

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Perhaps the points closest to what you are espousing is that Adam's sin only did damage to him, and not to man as a whole. I can see another point that you try to teach as well, which is that men can be sinless.

Adam did damage to the world by introducing physical death and bringing offence into the world.
However man can only be sinless when pefected, however, man is born sinnless.

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Sadly, if one does not accept the headship of Adam's fall, they cannot accept accept the Headship of Christ for His salvation.

How so?

[url=http://amimynation.tripod.com/challenge.html]Example[/url]

 2007/9/12 22:08Profile









 Re: WHO is the CAUSE of sin and WHAT is the SOURCE of sin?

Tricky question, cannot be easily answered. When defining "Who" is the cause of sin, the answer lies with God and man.

The source of sin is much easier to define. The source of sin is the law. Not to say that the law is sin, but to obey it brings about the actions of sin.

In the garden, one law was given. "Don't eat of this tree". To obey the law by the flesh brings about disobedience. Such a command only causes man to study the very thing that he is commanded not to touch. But if you remove the enmity then the curiosity no longer exist, thus you are free from the law of sin and death.

Man was never created so he can think within himself, "Why can't I sin?", "why can't I eat of this tree?". You tell a child NOT to eat any cookies, but he's is right there waiting for an opportune moment to reach in that cookie jar and grab a cookie. "Why are you denying me these cookies?". But if you remove the flesh that causes the disobedience, there is no more temptation. Thus the cross is our answer to rid ourselves of all the "whys". Instead of "Why can't I?", it's now, "Thine will be done". We are no longer interested in what our flesh wants, but what our Father wants.

Forgive me if I got off topic.

 2007/9/12 22:35





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy