The LDS deny this and call it a Theory. I will point out some of the sources they use to teach this and I will show from the Bible why I believe they are wrong, plus I will add my own thoughts on this subject.
First the LDS quote from the Articles of faith They quote Number 2 which says,
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
The first Question I would ask is this, If A of F 2 states Men will be punished for their own sins, and we are not sinners because of Adam, then where does or did our sinful nature come from?
I read in the BoM in Ether 3:2
O Lord, thou hast said that we must be encompassed about by the floods. Now behold, O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires.
Seems to me, the BoM implys the fact we have a fallen nature by way of Adam.
Then they use Moses 6:53-55
53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.
54 Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.
55 And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they may know to prize the good.
Now we read in verse 55 that Sin Conceiveth in the hearts of the Kids. How is it if they are not stained by the fall of Adam that sin can just simply be there. Again where does this sinful nature come from if not from the fall of Adam?
We read in Moroni 8:8
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
Just a side note here, the way Moroni 8:8 starts sounds a lot like these verses here,
Mat 9:13 But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.Many people claim the BoM was simply copied in many spots word for word from the Bible. Do what ever you want with this info.
Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luk 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
I want to know focus on this here,
wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
1. If the curse is removed from kids, then Yet again, how do they have sin in them when they grow up past the age of 8 years old
2. If the law of Circumcision is/has been done away with, Why is it mentioned through out the entire old testment as a law and Moses was almost killed for not doing it, His wife had to come to his rescue?
Now lets look at some verses from the Bible that teach we are all sinful.
Romans 5:8-14 says
8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.
10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
11 And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Death in Adam, Life in Christ
(Gen. 3:1-19)
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-- 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
We also read in
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
You can also read much in the Old Testement About the Priests Laying Hands upon animles to tranfer our sins to them, then they are put to death and not us. Read Hebrews chapters 9 and 10. Rick B
15 comments:
As you mentioned the priests in the old Testament would preform various rituals to remove the stain of both their sinful deeds and their sinful nature (Original Sin-I think of it as the Origin of Sin). All these works of men were very finite in their ability to do so. These rituals had to be preformed often. All works done by men are finite and have limits.
The work that Jesus, the only High Priest in the order of Melchezidek, did on the cross by paying that wage of death for all sin was infinite in its ability to purge sin from all who believe in Him and chose to follow Him.
Clarifying Point.
None of the works preformed in the under the old Testament Law of sacrifices removed any sin. The Atonement of Jesus was for all Sin not just the ones that were left after the priests had removed some of them.
The actions of the Israelits were done in Obedience in anticipation of the work that Jesus would later do.
Rick,
As you are well aware this is an issue (Calvinism) It is not an It is not an essential doctrine
SEE Calvinism Refuted
http://www.bible.ca/cal-T-spawned-false.htm
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.htm
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.htm
Now - Brother Hafen described it in a wonderful way wrote in his book under the chapther "Grace" the following
,"..In LDS teachings, the Fall of Adam made Christ´s redemption necessary, but not because the Fall by itself made man evil. Because of transgression, Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden into a world that was subject to death and evil influences. However, the Lord revealed to Adam upon his entry into mortality that "the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt"; therefore, Adam´s children were not evil, but were "whole from the foundation of the world" (Moses 6:54). Thus, "every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God" (D&C 93:38).
As the descendants of Adam and Eve then become accountable for their own sins at age eight, all of them taste sin as the result of their own free choice. "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). One whose cumulative experience leads her or him to love "Satan more than God" (Moses 5:28) will eventually become "carnal, sensual, and devilish" (Moses 5:13; 6:49) by nature. On the other hand, one who consciously accepts Christ´s grace through the Atonement by faith, repentance, and baptism yields to "the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the Atonement of Christ the Lord" (Mosiah 3:19). In this way, the individual takes the initiative to accept the grace made available by the Atonement, exercising faith through a willing "desire to believe" (Alma 32:27). That desire is often kindled by hearing others bear testimony of Christ. When this word of Christ is planted and then nourished through obedience interacting with grace, as summarized below, the individual may "become a saint" by nature, thereby enjoying eternal (meaning godlike) life.
Grace is thus the source of three categories of blessings related to mankind´s salvation. First, many blessings of grace are unconditional—free and unmerited gifts requiring no individual action. God´s grace in this sense is a factor in the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, and the Plan of Salvation. Specifically regarding the Fall, and despite death and other conditions resulting from Adam´s transgression, Christ´s grace has atoned for original sin and has assured the resurrection of all humankind: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam´s transgression" (A of F 2).
Second, the Savior has also atoned conditionally for personal sins. The application of grace to personal sins is conditional because it is available only when an individual repents, which can be a demanding form of works. Because of this condition, mercy is able to satisfy the demands of justice with neither mercy nor justice robbing the other. Personal repentance is therefore a necessary condition of salvation, but it is not by itself sufficient to assure salvation (see Justice and Mercy). In addition, one must accept the ordinances of baptism and the laying-on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, by which one is born again as the spirit child of Christ and may eventually become sanctified (cf. D&C 76:51–52; see also Gospel of Jesus Christ).
Third, after one has received Christ´s gospel of faith, repentance, and baptism unto forgiveness of sin, relying "wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save," one has only "entered in by the gate" to the "strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life" (2 Ne. 31:17–20). In this postbaptism stage of spiritual development, one´s best efforts—further works—are required to "endure to the end" (2 Ne. 31:20). These efforts include obeying the Lord´s commandments and receiving the higher ordinances performed in the temples, and continuing a repentance process as needed "to retain a remission of your sins" (Mosiah 4:12).
In the teachings of Martin Luther, such works of righteousness are not the result of personal initiative but are the spontaneous effects of the internal grace one has received, wholly the fruits of the gracious tree. In LDS doctrine by contrast, "men should…do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves" (D&C 58:27–28). At the same time, individuals lack the capacity to develop a Christlike nature by their own effort. The perfecting attributes such as hope and charity are ultimately "bestowed upon all who are true followers…of Jesus Christ" (Moro. 7:48) by grace through his Atonement. This interactive relationship between human and divine powers in LDS theology derives both from the significance it attaches to free will and from its optimism about the "fruits of the spirit" (Gal. 5:22–25) among the truly converted, "those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do" (D&C 46:9).
God bestows these additional, perfecting expressions of grace conditionally, as he does the grace that allows forgiveness of sin. They are given "after all we can do" (2 Ne. 25:23)—that is, in addition to our best efforts. In general, this condition is related less to obeying particular commandments than it is to one´s fundamental spiritual character, such as "meekness and lowliness of heart" (Moro. 8:26) and possessing "a broken heart and a contrite spirit" (Ps. 51:17; 3 Ne. 9:20; Hafen, chap. 9). Or, as Moroni wrote at the end of the Book of Mormon, "If ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind, and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; …then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ" (Moro. 10:32–33).
Again the point while this may be fun to debate this is not a disqualifying factor from being a Christian
Resources qouted
Hafen, Bruce C. The Broken Heart: Applying the Atonement to Life´s Experiences. Salt Lake City, 1989.
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=95
Dillenberger, John. "Grace and Works in Martin Luther and Joseph Smith." In Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen. Provo, Utah, 1978.
Holmer, Paul L. "Law and Gospel Re-examined." Theology Today 10 (1953–1954):474.
Keller, Roger R. Reformed Christians and Mormon Christians: Let´s Talk! Urbana, Ill., 1986.
Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York, 1943.
Madsen, Truman G. Reflections on Mormonism, p. 175. Provo, Utah, 1978.
McDonald, William, ed. "Grace." In New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 6. New York, 1967.
Millet, Robert L. By Grace Are We Saved. Salt Lake City, 1989.
Rahner, Karl, ed. The Teaching of the Catholic Church. Regensburg, Germany, 1965.
Hey Devin,
How are you my friend? I hope this finds you and yours well.
Concerning Calvinism & OS (i.e. "original-sin") might I say this to you. First of all, Calvinism is not true Biblical Christianity. And, although OS is a Biblical truth yet not expressed in the Bible with the words "original sin" per se, just as the word "missionary" for example, is not used but yet expresses the Biblical mandate for the Christian to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.
Nevertheless, Devin, before I address the Biblical concept of OS, I would like to hear, or read as it were, your interpretation of the following verses from Romans 5 and 1st John 1 for now.
E.g., Romans chapter 5:12-14 states; "12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."
Also this from 1st John 1:8; "8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
And just a simple question too if I may. If sin is the cause of death in the world as the Scriptures clearly teach, which I'm sure you will agree; then how is it that infants who have not yet sinned actually in their own personal behavior, then die just as the grossest of adult actual sinners?
You say that the age of "accountability" is "age eight in this statement of yours here" Thus, "every spirit of man was innocent in the
>beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again,
>in their infant state, innocent before God" (D&C 93:38). As the
>descendants of Adam and Eve then become accountable for their own sins
>at age eight, all of them taste sin as the result of their own free
>choice."
First the Bible says nothing of this "age eight" you offer. And again, if all mankind has been redeemed and returned to the original infant state, and sin is the reason for death, then why do infants die. Or to use your thinking, if we are all innocent again as before the fall, then why do these "innocents" die before the age of eight?
I would appreciate it if you address these three issues that I have brought up and not go off into other areas, at present.
Thank you in advance Devin.
A Christian,
Timothy J. Bortner
Timothy,
I will be responding soon. I have been working and teaching Martial arts Classes,but will be looking forward to our discussion. We had this heated discussion at our Bible study when I lived in California.
One of the Pastors was from a calvinist background and held to the Five points very strongly.Pastor Dave used acronym: T.U.L.I.P , let me dig out my notes from that two year study
Hey Devin,
How are you my friend? I hope this finds you and yours well.
I am pretty much, in other words, posting here what I did yesterday my
friend.
Insofar as Calvinism goes, that really has nothing to do with the Bible
except for TULIP being just another manmade theology, i.e. a false
interpretation of the Bible.
I myself have written books against Calvinism, the last one over 260,000
words tracing it back to the so-called "St. Augustine" bishop of Hippo, who
lived 354-430ad, and beyond to Gnosticism, of which Augustine was a Gnostic
of the Manichean sort for some 9 years or so before his "supposed"
conversion. I am quite familiar with Calvinism, but again, that has nothing
whatsoever to do with the "Biblical-issue" at hand concerning "original sin"
or whatever name one chooses to call it.
I asked you yesterday Devin to try and stay with the two texts I gave
you below from Romans & 1st John without going into other things.
Also my friend, knowing Biblically that sin is the cause of death, I
asked you to explain to me how it is that infants die when obviously having
no "personal-sin" and if they have no original sin either as you claim?
If what you say is true, that before the age of "eight" we are all
innocent again just like before the fall of Adam because of the Redemption
of Christ, then again I ask, why do children under the age of eight die (the
age of "accountability" you offer) if they have no sin when sin is the cause
of death? This is a really important question in light of your claims of
"innocency".
Personally Devin, I don't see what your notes on Calvinism have to offer
these 2 texts and the simple question I ask.
If you want to talk off of the blog about Calvinism, let rick forward your E-mail onto me. Just let him know and we will talk.
A Christian,
Timothy J. Bortner
Timothy,
On the subject of original sin, it would be helpful to add that that “LDS ‘probably identify most with an Arminian position which is man is not bon with sin Free will is limited by God's sovereignty, but God sovereignly allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist. (by Arminian and Wesleyan standards)
I think it must be noted that Paul's entire purpose in Romans 5 this passage is to
1)Establish Jesus Christ as the "second Adam," the man who, while tempted, did not fall into sin and gave Himself as the Atonement for sin, and therefore counteracts the condemnation given to man from Adam.
2), At is true in one sense that all men and women, regardless of age, suffer under the penalty of Adam in that we all die physical deaths. When an infant dies, that death is due to sin being in the world. Sin is in the world because of Adam's original sin. Sin, therefore, is the reason that people die-- this does NOT mean, however, that every person dies because they have themselves sinned.
Christian writer continues “…It is appropriate, then, to now discuss Psalm 51:5:
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.
Now, it is possible that David may use an exaggeration-to magnify the terrible nature of his sin. We can also, however, understand this verse in the same context as Romans 5: David was born into a sinful world to parents who, they had sinned, and he would himself sin. Does this mean that David sinned somehow at birth? Not at all!
These facts, at least, are clear:
1. Sin entered the world through Adam's sin.
2. The penalty of sin being in the world is death.
3. All humans are liable to die at any time.
4. Humans who have knowledge of good and evil and choose the evil have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
We can see from the passages we have explored, moreover, that the following is also true:
1.a Sin is only attributed to those actually performing sin.
2.b Little children are considered the ideal state for entering the Kingdom of Heaven.
On the matter of original sin, then, we can conclude the following:
It is true that since all humans are liable to die at any time, and death is due to the because of sin in the world, and Adam was the one to first sin, that infants and small children who die, along with anyone else who dies, die because death is one of mankind's penalties for sin.
Merely because they live in a sinful climate, however, does not mean that infants or small children have themselves sinned, infact one would argue they have un-sinned.
One must have recognition of good and evil and choose evil (cf. Isaiah 7:15-16) in order to sin. Since infants and small children do not have that capability, and therefore have no sin against them, and are considered the ideal state for anyone entering the Kingdom of Heaven, we conclude that the notion of "original sin" is false…”
In ending Protestant Founder Zwingli Denied Original Sin as you described it. In the book I read entitled History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity, and the paper Adam Lost Original Justice by Sinning Gravely. Original Sin Therefore Exists in All Men as a True Sin, Proper to Each Person and Transmitted from Adam by Propagation by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.Ji" both describeds
“original sin” in Latin as defectus naturalis and conditio misera, in German as a Brest or Gebrechen, . or disease and that Zwingli believed about the doctrine we are discussing:
a)He does not accept an original guilt in infants of which baptism is the means or sign of remission. At most Zwingli conceded that original sin in us is an inclination to evil.
Take care,
Devin
Resources Quoted and used
History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity, The Swiss Reformation by Schaff, Philip
Adam Lost Original Justice by Sinning Gravely. Original Sin Therefore Exists in All Men as a True Sin, Proper to Each Person and Transmitted from Adam by Propagation by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.Ji"
Zwingli and Bullinger, selections, introductions and notes by G.W. Bromiley, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953, Introduction to Zwingli's Of Baptism
01-The Historical Dilemma of the Evangelical Movement
http://here-am-i.ueuo.com/?p=137
By Colin and Russell Standish
SEE Calvinism Refuted
http://www.bible.ca/cal-T-spawned-false.htm
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.htm
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.htm
Bible Questions and Answers: Doctrines- Ethan R. Longhenryhttp://www.deusvitae.com/faith/index.html
Corrected note:
a)He did not accept an original guilt in infants of which baptism is the means or sign of remission. At most Zwingli conceded that original sin in us is an inclination to evil
Hey Devin,
Your basically making my point about "original sin", except you don't
want to call it that, your calling it a "climate of sin" instead. Unless I
missed something, originally, you were saying that children have no original
sin and that further, due to the death of Christ all of humanity has been
returned to a sinless state once again, until the age of acountability,
which by your count is age "eight", or by the account of those who have
taught you such. Again, Scripture no where speaks of this "age eight"
concept.
To this I then asked why it is that supposed innocent children under
eight still die when sin is the cause of death and they, infants, have
obviously not sinned personally? The obvious answer is Romans 5 in that
because of sin death passed upon all men, even those who have not disobeyed
a direct command as Adam did. This death due to "sin within", if you will,
for according to 1st John 1:8 "If we say that we have no sin, [sin singular,
i.e. as in a sinful nature inherited as descendants of Adam, original sin]
we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." This was written against
the Gnostics who said, and still say, that we have no sin as in original.
John is refuting this false Gnostic concept here and it is clearly different
as the differentiation John clearly makes between the "sin" of verse 8 and
the "If we say that we have not sinned" of verse 10 which is speaking of
personal sins committed.
What you are saying about infants dieing because they live in a sinful
world simply falls short of what the Bible teaches us. They don't die
because they "live in a sinful climate", they die because they are subject
to the law of sin and death because of Adam and have inherited a sinful
nature from him. This is the state of all Adam's progeny.
There is a false-doctrine among some Christian people, it is called
"entire-sanctification" or the "second blessing". Some even call it, or it
is their view perhaps I should say, of the "baptism of the Holy Spirit".
This is held by some Wesleyan and Arminian people.
In short, this way teaches that there is a second work of the Holy
Spirit that cleanses an individual of "original sin". I would have to ask
them that if this were truly the case then if a male and female of this
"entire-sanctification" concept had a child or children, then their
offspring would be born without original sin and therefore would have the
possibilty of living forever if they never sin personally. This is nonsense
plain and simple. The reason infants die without personal sin is simply
because they have been born with Adam's fallen nature.
Yes, in Romans 5 Christ is being explained by Paul as basically having
"reversed the curse". But, this is not automatic, one must believe in order
to be redeemed.
As far as infants and young children go and even aborted little ones or
miscarriages for that matter, we believe that they go to be with the Lord
for God is not an unjust God. I believe that this is shown in the story of
David's adultery with Bathsheba, that even though the infant born of that
adultery was taken shortly after birth David said that even though the child
would not be coming back to him, he would go to be with the child. The
account of this can be found in 2nd Samuel 12.
From this, it can be assumed that since David is in Heaven and that he
was eventually going to be with the dead child as he said, therefore the
child went to Heaven upon death. And all this was in fact before the
redemption of Christ, therefore this child would not even fall under your
"innocency" scheme under Christ. See what I'm saying?
I'm well schooled in church history, at least I like to think of myself
as such, heh-heh, and what many of the 16th century Reformers held to was
unbiblical and many of them fell into heresy in their fight against Romanist
heretics, or even retained some Romanist heresies to begin with such as
"baptismal-regeneration" and such.
Nevertheless, the death of infants and young children due to "original
sin" does not eliminate them from Heaven, if that is your fear here Devin.
There are those, Romanists, many Calvinists, et al, who believe this. It
comes from Augustine who in my opinion was the greatest heresiarch to ever
hit Christendom.
In closing Devin, if you read Romans 6-7 you will find "sin" being
spoken of in the singular, that is because "sin" is being personified as
being in one and Paul explicitly speaks of sin dwelling in him, using
himself as an example of us all by speaking in the first person in certain
instances.
The only way Devin, that one can deny that sin dwells in Adam's progeny
is to deny the clear teaching of Scripture, it says it explicitly all
through Romans 6-7. "Sin" is clearly spoken of as an "entity" in the
singular.
I hope this helps some and with all due respect Devin, I will not argue
this endlessly for it is a clear taeching of Scripture that does not need my
endless hammering. I prefer to just let the Scriptures speak for themselves,
I have given them to you and if you continue to deny them then your argument
is with God not me, they're not my Scriptures, they're God's. Amen.
A Christian,
Timothy J. Bortner
Timothy,
so Tim let’s see if a fellow Christian who reads the same Bible comes to the same concusion as you do, it would seem you should, both of you claim to be Christians and Follow only the Bible:
By Christian Jon W. Quinn in his online article Do We Inherit the Guilt of Adam's Sin? Wrote
“…Let us consider this teaching in light of what the Scriptures actually say. If the Bible teaches it, then it is true. If not, then it is false. It matters not how widespread the teaching is, who believes it, or what the creed books written by men say…”
Quinn contued "…Then to Adam He said, 'Because you ... have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat from it..."'" (Genesis 3:17; see context: vss. 14-24). One reads in vain for the idea of original sin in the account of man's fall as related in the Bible. Genesis records many consequences resulting from the first transgression. There is pain in childbirth, the ground is cursed, and physical death (the body returning to dust) is decreed. But nothing at all about children inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin.
We do inherit things from our parents, but those things do not include sin. We inherit our physical traits from our earthly parents. We inherit our spiritual traits from God. He is therefore called "the Father of spirits" in a passage plainly discussing the spirits of human beings (Hebrews 12:9). Paul refers to us as being "the offspring of God" (Acts 17:28,29). Who dares say our spirit is already tainted by sin at birth….’
He continues:
"...Truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you are converted and become like children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 18:3). This certainly does not sound like Jesus looked upon children as being totally depraved in sin…’
Reformed, Independent and Evangelical(http://www.assemblyofchristians.com/)
Do We Inherit the Guilt of Adam's Sin?
http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-ezekiel-18-19-32.htm
and Christian A. T. Overstreet wrote in his book Are Men Born Sinners? (From Gospel Ministries)
“…Sunday school teachers, and Christians in general make up their own brand of original sin because of compelling convictions of its injustice. For instance, Augustine taught that infants who die without baptism are damned, but this teaching is too offensive to the conscience of most Christians. So they teach a different brand of original sin or remain silent upon this point that is so repulsive to the conscience. They use all the standard proof-texts, such as Eph. 2:3, "By nature the children of wrath," to prove the doctrine of original sin, but are either unaware of the implications this has for infants who die or come up with a brand of original sin in which babies are not accountable and guilty for original sin until they reach the "age of accountability."
They invent a new brand of original sin because their convictions of justice tell them that children cannot be guilty before they actually sin. They are ignorant that the doctrine of original sin makes children "by nature the children of wrath" from the time they are born. They are unaware of the implications and inconsistencies of what they believe and teach. They are teaching what they have been taught, and since they can quote some proof-texts from the Bible, they feel they are on firm ground.
They are unaware of the fact that their irresistible convictions of the unjustness of the original sin doctrine has compelled them to come up with a brand new kind of original sin that could only be true if the dogma of original sin were false! ….”
He also wrote the same book
“…But when God says he "created us in his image, and gave us life and breath and all things," are we to understand that he created us as sinners? When he says, "We are his offspring," are we to understand that his offspring are born sinners? When Jesus said, "I am the root and the offspring of David," are we to understand that David sprang forth from the root Christ Jesus with a sinful nature? Or, are we to understand that Jesus, as the offspring of David, was born with a sinful nature?
The very fact that Jesus was a man, descended from Adam, and born with a human nature as we are, shows that men are not born with a sinful nature. I John 4:3, II John 7, Heb. 2:14, Heb. 2:16-18, Heb. 4:15, Rom. 1:3, Matt. 1:1, Luke 3:38.
Are Men Born Sinners? By A. T. Overstreet (the entire book is here) http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm (GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES http://www.gospeltruth.net/bookstore.htm) I have printed the entire book and with my Bible went through the entire book-I loved the book!!!!!!
You can get printed copy in book form for $12.00 (includes shipping and handling) at http://www.gospeltruth.net/bksorgsin.htm
This doctrine is not held by all evangelical Christians and is not an essential belief of Christianity. Calvinists appear to believe that people deserve hell in part because of original sin, but many believe that infants who die are among the "elect" and are therefore saved by God's Other Christians, , believe that we suffer the effects of Adam's sin - we are born with a sinful nature and will experience physical death .
And then there are Christians including myself, suffer the effects of Adam's sin –we will all die and will be responsible for our own sins -, "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son" (Ezek 18:20). Now your point on " (1 John 1:8). When our loved John the apostle described, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”.
Fortunately he added, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." NOWHERE DOES IT STATE IT WAS BASED ON BEING AN ORGINAL SIN ISSUE.
* Scripture does talk about "age eight"concept. As an LDS Christian have more then one canon of Scripture we believe - II Tim. 3:15-16 ...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness... The age at which baptism should be administered is not specified in the Bible, although it is evident that candidates were to be old enough to be capable of belief and have some understanding.
In latter-day revelation we learn that the Lord has set the age at eight years as the time when a person begins to become accountable and can be baptized (D&C 20: 71; D&C 68: 25-28). This was also the age given in O.T. times (JST Gen. 17: 11).
You are correct that they do seem clear to myself and millions of other LDS Christians around the world, but seem to not so, clear among other Christians I look forward to the day I meet Jesus for I know the LDS fainth is a Christian walk.
Thank you for your time and well written information,
Devin Willis
Hey Devin,
I don't really know who these men are that you quote, nor do I care who
they are.
I gave you Romans 6-7 yesterday where Paul repeatedly speaks of sin as
dwelling in man. That is the end of it. If Scripture says sin dwells in man,
then sin dwells in man and if we say we have no sin, singular, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. That is what the Scriptures teach. As
for these other men, if they say they have no "sin" they deceive themselves
and have fallen for the Gnostic lie that John was refuting.
As far as God being the Father of spirits, of course He is, He is the
creator of the original uncorrupted creation, i.e. the creation that He
created which was very good until the fall of Adam which then corrupted man
spiritually making all of Adam's progeny dead in sin.
Certainly we are his offspring, again, for he has created man. But we
are not all His offspring spiritually for we were all "by nature" Devin, "by
nature the children of wrath even as others." Eph. 2:3b. "By nature the
children of wrath" my friend until one becomes born-again into God's eternal
life family. Before that we were all "by nature the children of wrath even
as others", "by nature" Devin. We are all born of a woman and thereby "by
nature the children of wrath", that "nature" that makes us all children of
wrath is the sin-nature until one becomes born-again and made a partaker of
the divine nature.
Like I said yesterday, I have given you the Scriptures concerning sin
dwelling in man and now this from Eph. 2:3b. If you choose to continue to
deny the clear teaching of Scripture on this matter that is certainly within
your ability to do so.
And as I also said, I will not endlessly hammer the issue. If you won't
submit to the Scriptures, then who I am that you will listen too for my much
speaking? I am not one for endless arguing for the Scriptures don't teach me
to do this.
Someone made the statement in your letter that this subject of original
sin is not essential. I don't know about that, but John says those who say
that they have no sin also have no truth in them.
Is there anything else you would like to discuss of a Biblical nature?
A Christian,
Timothy J. Bortner
Timothy ,
The men I quoted were Christians, one is a Pastor, they are born again and claim thier reading is correct and you claim is correct both claim it is clear-yet it seems you both are un-clear who is reading it correctly.
It is 99% of Pastors I have talked with or state non-essential doctrine- The quote I hear often
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." With that in mind, I ask you what do you say to Christian leaders? Because, I have friends serving in different pastoral calling AND THEY CONFIRM THE ABOVE.
According to History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, pp. 650-653 (repr. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1965)Philip Schaff
"..On the Origin of the Sentence: "In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus) caritas."
This famous motto of Christian Irenics, which I have slightly modified in the text, is often falsely attributed to St. Augustin (whose creed would not allow it, though his heart might have approved of it), but is of much later origin. It appears for the first time in Germany, A.D. 1627 and 1628, among peaceful divines of the Lutheran and German Reformed churches, and found a hearty welcome among moderate divines In England.
The authorship has recently been traced to RUPERTUS MELDENIUS an otherwise unknown divine, and author of a remarkable tract in which the sentence first occurs. He gave classical expression to the irenic sentiments of such divines as Calixtus of Helmstadt, David Pareus of Heidelberg, Crocius of Marburg, John Valentin Andreae of Wuerttemberg, John Arnd of Zelle, Georg Frank of Francfort-on-the-Oder, the brothers Bergius in Brandenburg, and of the indefatigable traveling evangelist of Christian union, John Dury, and Richard Baxter. The tract of Meldenius bears the title, Paraenesis votiva pro Pace Ecclesiae ad Theologos Augustanae Confessionis, Auctore Ruperto Meldenio Theologo, 62 pp. in 4to, without date and place of publication. It probably appeared in 1627 at Francfort-on-the-Oder, which was at that time the seat of theological moderation. Mr. C. R. Gillett (librarian of the Union Theological Seminary) informs me that the original copy, which he saw in Berlin, came from the University of Francfort-on-the-Oder after its transfer to Breslau.
Dr. Luecke republished the tract, in 1860, from a reprint in Pfeiffer's Variorum Auctorum Miscellanea Theologiae (Leipzig, 1736, pp. 136-258), as an appendix to his monograph on the subject (pp. 87-145). He afterwards compared it with a copy of the original edition in the Electoral library at Cassel. Another original copy was discovered by Dr. Klose in the city library of Hamburg (1858), and a third one by Dr. Briggs and Mr. Gillett in the royal library of Berlin (1887)...'
It seems you may be on the fringes of Christianity holding this is an essential.
I do thank you for your time, but as stated above there seems to be a lot of confusion within Non-LDS-Christianity.
Devin Willis
Hey Devin,
I never "exactly" said believing in original sin was an essential. What
I quoted was 1st John 1:8 which says that those who say they have "no sin"
deceive themselves and the truth is not in them. Perhaps I should have made
myself a little more clear, so here I will.
I would have to say that having the truth in one is "an essential", as I
would hope that you would agree with. Therefore, saying they we have "no
sin" would logically leave us without an essential, and that essential would
clearly be the truth we are without if we say that we have no sin, and if we
have no truth then we obviously have no Jesus Christ who is the Truth. And
without Him we have no Eternal Life, which He also is if you read a few
verses up in 1st John 1.
So, you tell me if denying we have sin is an essential or not?
Furthermore, you never did really answer John 1:8 or Romans 6-7 where
Paul repeatedly speaks of indwelling sin. All you have done is give me a
bunch of quotes from people who agree with you. That means nothing, a lot of
people agreed with Hitler too, heh-heh
How about if you, Devin Willis, tell me why Paul speaks of sin dwelling
in man, when according to you it doesn't. Simply tell me why Paul is wrong
and you are right, in your own words. Like for example when Paul says
explicitly in Romans 7:17, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin
that dwelleth in me". And how about verse 20, "but sin that dwelleth in me."
All I'm asking you is to explain to me why Paul is mistaken here? Again,
Devin, you tell me why these verses and others do not mean exactly what they
say. No quotes from those who agree with you, I want to here Devin tell me
the real truth and why Paul lies to us so.
I specifically asked you in my first post to you not to go off on other
things, but to simply answer the texts I offer. My offer still stands simply
because you have done everything but answer the texts I gave you.
As far as "Reformed Theology", i.e. Calvinism goes? It is not true
Biblical Christianity.
As far as the saying about unity, essentials, non-essentials, etc., sure
I've heard that before, what's your point?
A Christian,
Timothy J. Bortner
Tim,
What texts hav I not answered yu? Re-read the past posts , you will see I answered the Romans text and John text.
Please repost a question and I will answer it
In your past statement you stated:
"..Someone made the statement in your letter that this subject of original sin is not essential. I don't know about that, but John says those who say.."
That was my point on using the quote " unity, essentials, non-essentials, etc.," which is a standard that is used within Non-LDS Christianity
Thank you again for being Christian during discussion
Hey Devin,
How are you? I hope this letter finds you and yours well.
And I thank you for being civil too Devin. I am not one to argue
endlessly, although I used to be but I have grown out of that over the
years, heh-heh. And I do my best to speak the truth in love rather than in
anger, although I don't always live up to this standard. I have no problem
being blunt at times or hard, so to speak, if I think that is the way the
Lord is leading me, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it.
In the past I have often spoken the truth but in the wrong spirit and
then would wonder why no one would listen to me, heh-heh.
I also used to be the type who just wanted to be "right". It is not just
about being right, or having the facts etc. It is about loving people and
wanting the best that Jesus Christ has for them, i.e. wanting them to have
eternal life through faith in Him and the grace that God offers through His
death and resurrection.
Nevertheless, perhaps you did answer the verses in Romans 6 & 7 and I
missed them. If that is the case, then forgive me for being inattentive, I'm
not as young as I used to be, heh-heh.
Okay, the verses that I am referring to from Romans chapters 6 & 7 are
as follows. Now remember, these are about "indwelling sin", or it's
theological designation of "original sin", and not just a propensity to sin
as I understand you to be saying.
Romans 6 speaks of sin as if it were a power that we should not obey,
and in fact no longer have to obey if we have been born-again for that
experience then makes us free from sin and alive unto God so that just as
before one is born-again they were free from righteousness and servants of
sin in Adam; now in Christ, as we discussed earlier, this has been reversed
so that those who have been born-again are free from sin and have been made
the servants of righteousness. But, even in this freedom from the power of
sin it is still our responsibility not to yield ourselves to sin as Paul
also makes abundantly clear in Romans 6.
I would hope that we can agree that Romans 6 speaks of sin as a power
that the Christian has been freed from and therefore is not to yield to for
the wages of sin is death, eternal death.
Now, if we can agree on this much, sin being a power in and of it's self
then we come to Romans 7 to find out where this "sin" is.
Romans 7:8 again, speaks of "sin" singular, verse 11 speaks of "sin"
after the same fashion. Verse 13, again speaks of sin in the singular
further remaining consistent with Romans 6.
Now, when we get to 7:17 we begin to find out where this "sin" is. Paul;
explicitly states in the last line of 17, "but sin that dwelleth in me."
Also. a little further on in verse 20, the last line again, we find Paul
again explicitly saying, "but sin that dwelleth in me."
Then when we get to verse 23 we see Paul speaking of "another law in my
members" and he explicitly describes this "law in my members" as being "the
law of sin which is in my members."
Thus we find out where this "sin" he has been speaking of is. It is "the
law of sin", where? "In my members", or in other words, in his body, our
body.
These verses speak of sin dwelling in man, sin "singular" as an actual
"entity" or "principal" if you will, that can cause one to commit "sins"
plural, as in the actual acts or fruit of sin within.
My question which I do not remember you answering is then:
Why do you say that man has "no indwelling sin", or "original sin", as
it is known in it's theological term, when Paul in God's Word and thereby
God himself explicitly says that sin dwells in man, Paul, speaking in the
first person, using himself as an example?
And don't forget Ephesians 2:3 where Paul writes of man as being "by
nature the children of wrath" as I mentioned the other day. "By nature", is
more than a sinner by act. It is by the "sin-nature" of all of Adam's
progeny.
Again Devin, just answer Paul, why does he explicitly speak of sin
indwelling man if it does not as you are saying?
I don't really know what else to say. Does "dwelleth in me" mean "not
dwelleth in me"? If this is the case then perhaps it is also true that when
one reads Paul in 1 Cor. 3:16 where it speaks of the Christian as being the
temple of the Holy Ghost and asking, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of
God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" Are we to then understand
this as, "and that the Spirit of God dwelleth 'not' in you?"
Or perhaps Paul again asking in 1 Cor. 6:19, "What? know ye not that
your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of
God, and ye are not your own?" Perhaps this does not mean that the Holy
Spirit "is in you?", i.e. in the Christian.
I think you understand my argument here, same wording about sin "in" and
the Spirit of God "in". If sin does not dwell "in" man, then neither does
the Holy Spirit dwell "in" the believer, and this is of course nonsense for
the Spirit of God does dwell in the believer. Follow me my friend?
Have a good one Devin.
Tim
Post a Comment