Old Earth and Original Sin

[Noeb]

I havent even posted the definition for original sin, nor the citation, and you are already naysaying it?

Yes you did
"You just said man is not righteous. My point all along has been that man is not righteous by nature due to Adam's fall. That is the very definition of original sin."

[Noeb]

How could we be? Are you saying that it is not possible for us to be righteous by nature? You just said Adam wasnt, how could we be? Does that mean you agree that man cannot be righteous before God by nature?

No, I agree man cannot be created righteous by nature.
That's different than righteous before God by nature.

If so, what option does that leave us, considering the following verse...

John 5:17- All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

If man is not righteous by nature, then he is unrighteous by nature,

Read it!
1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

All ACTS OF unrighteousness is sin. It does not say that if you are not righteous when you are born, you are unrighteous. You can't be either when you are born. You haven't done or believed anything yet!

Please explain which verses in 1 Corinthians 2 describe an unregenerate person.

You'll find that here
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.ph...93#post2865993

[glad4mercy]

Laying aside the question of whether or not we are born or created righteousness, I want to focus on your repeated quoting of Romans 2:14-15. You say it teaches one thing, ( I still havent been able to figure out what you are trying to affirm.) I say it teaches something entirely different. Perhaps what is written below may shed some light on this passage that hasnt been properly and rightly discussed in this forum. I think that a misunderstanding of this text is the basis of the misunderstanding of what we mean by original sin, depravity, and human inability apart from Divine Grace.

First the text itself...

Romans 2: 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves,even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Now it is said that the Genties do by nature the things contained the Law, and you say that this disproves sin nature, but does it really? I think it teaches something else entirely, as I will demonstrate below.

But first, does the fact that they have the Law written on their hearts and do by nature the things contained in the Law mean they have no sin in them? Not at all!!! Here what Paul says on the matter.

Romans 3: 9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

Now a counter charge can be made by the Gentiles. They may say, “we do the things contained in the Law by nature, while they who know the Law do not keep it! ,Are we better than they?” I think Paul would give the same answer, Not at all, all alike are under sin, there is none righteous, no not one. James would agree…

James 2:10- ... whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

It matters not if you break one commandment or all of them. If you break God’s Law you are a lawbreaker. Now why is it that those who did not have the Law externally seemed to keep the Law better than those who had received and possessed the Law. The answer is surprising!

Please consider the following verses…

Romans 5: 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,

This passage says that the Law actually causes the trespass to increase. How can this be so? Is the Law evil. No indeed!

Romans 7: 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said,"Do not covet."

The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin, and in so doing it reveals our sinfulness.

Romans 3:20- Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So the purpose of the Law is to reveal the sin that is already there. The purpose of the Law is to show us our sinfulness,to remove the deception of our hearts which lyingly tells us that we are righteous because we are basically good people by human standards. The only righteousness God excepts is perfection, and the Law also demands perfection. Which is why we need Jesus, who makes us complete and we are perfect in Him.
The interesting thing is that the Law actually incites the sin in us!

Romans 7: 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

So we see the Law inciting the sin that is already in our members, ( our bodies)

Romans 7: 8 But sin,taking occasion by the commandment, wrougt in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came , sin revived , and I died

Does this mean that sin was not present? No, for it says that sin revived. In some way, sin was dead, but when the Law entered it revived. I hold that those who are in a state of innocence are free from transgression, and are covered by God's grace, yet there is a presence of sin in latency that is in them that is brought to life as soon as they reach the age that they are able to make moral decisions.

As soon as a Law is placed on us, as soon as we are told “do not do this”, the sin in us is incited, and we rebel. You see this as soon as children reach the age to make moral decisions, perhaps even earlier. This is the sin in our members.

The Law also takes the sin that is already present and causes it to both appear as sin and also to become exceedingly sinful.

Romans 7: 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid . But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

"Sin working death in me..."

Where is sin working? Sin works death inside of a person. Sin is in a person. The purpose of the Law is to bring the hidden things to light. The Law exposes our sin.More verses on sin being in us.

Romans 7: 17 Now then it is no more I that do it,but sin that dwelleth in me.

Sin is not merely an act, it is a presence! This is very clearly stated here.

Here is a parenthetical statement, just like the one you like to quote from Romans 2:14-15)

(The Law actually causes transgressions to increase. Why would God create a Law that causes sin to increase?)

Romans 5:20b- But where sin abounded , grace did much more abound : 21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Galatians 3: 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,that we might be justified by faith.

The purpose of the Law was not to justify us, or to act as a determiner or scale as if our righteousness was graded on a scale. The purpose of the Law was to reveal the sinfulness that was already in us. Otherwise, many who thought that they were basically good people, and who compared themselves to one another and judged themselves according to this standard might think that they were OK with God. Yet when a person tries to keep the Law in their own strength, they will fail and fail again. Additionally, when once we have broken God's Law knowingly, it seems to create a chain reaction. Is it not so that sin is progressive. So when we sin against the known will of God, it creates a guilt in us, and either we give in again and again, creating a seared conscience or we try with our own might to keep the Law in our own strength. Yet we end up chopping off one branch, and one or more different branches will take it's place.

This will lead a seeker of God to despair, and he or she will soon despair of their own strength and realize that all they have to fall on is grace. A sinner who hears the Law may be convinced of his sin, realize that he is undone, realize his need for grace, and this is what makes good soil the are awareness of one's need, ( poor in spirit), and godly sorrow, ( blessed are they that mourn), and a thirst for God produced by the Holy Spirit, ( blessed are they that hunger and thirst). A person must realize that they are lost before they can come to Jesus, and it is the Law and the Spirit that shows one their lostness.

Good gospel preaching begins with the Law and than adds Grace. This is the precise method Paul used in the book of Romans. This is because people need to realize their need before they will come to their saviour. The Law is the diagnosis, Grace is the cure. . Yet a person that thinks that they are already righteous or cares not for their sin, or is blind to their depravity is bad soil. Good soil are those who know and recognize their sinful condition, ( being convicted by the Law and the reproving ministry of the Spirit) and recognize their total inability apart from God, then believing the Gospel. Bad soil are those who don’t do this, else they don’t care to do it, lacking the necessary Godly sorrow that leads to repentance. .

The purpose ofthe Law is to reveal sin. It reveals sin by calling it what it is, but it also exposes sin by the way that sin is incited by it. It brings deep rooted sin to the surface so it can be dealt with.

Does the presence of indwelling sin remove responsibility and guilt from impenitant sinners. Of course not, for they do have the Law written in their hearts, they have or once had consciences, they have general revelation from God. They will condemned for rejecting the Gospel.

In conclusion, the purpose of the Law is to lay our sinfulness bare, so that we cannot claim ignorance. It's purpose is also to lead us to Christ, who redeems us from the just penalty from the Law, and cleanses our hearts from the sin that so easily entraps us. The Law also reveals the sinful condition that lies in each man, that would otherwise have been denied by him, or even hidden from his eyes, which would have probably been the case of many who are spoken of in Romans 2:.14-15. I am righteous, I do not lie or steal or murder. I need no saviour. Yet we know that this sentiment is deception, don't we Noeb?

Now whether you believe in sin nature depends on how you define it. I define it as sin dwelling in the members. Whether or not we are born with it is not stated explcitely in the Bible, but it is very clear that every person has this sin dwelling in their members, and the sin needs to be cleansed. That is why John said that when we walk in the Light, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, that is why Peter spoke of Cornelius and his family having their hearts purified by faith, that is why Jesus said make the inside of the cup clean that the outside can be clean also. Who can thouroughly cleanse the heart but God?

Create in me a clean heart and renew a right spirit within me.

Regardless of whether or not we are born with a propensity or inclination to sin, it is very clear that natural man does possess that propensity or inclination. It is just stronger in some than it is in others due to the hardening of heart.

[glad4mercy]

Noeb. I added and edited to my last post.

[glad4mercy]

"You just said man is not righteous. My point all along has been that man is not righteous by nature due to Adam's fall. That is the very definition of original sin."

You state that man is neither righteous nor unrighteous by nature, is that correct? Let's say that this is true. If this is true, then Adam had the ability to become unrighteous by choosing to sin, or become righteous by refraining from sin. He had these abilities by his God given nature, correct?

Now we know that if a descendant of Adam is born neither righteous or unrighteous, he certainly has the ability to choose to sin and become unrighteous, I'm sure we can agree on this. The question is does he have the ability in his nature alone to become righteous by merely refraining from sin. Can we refrain from sin. Now don't tell me that we can refrain from and even stop committing some sins, according to James 2:10 that proves nothing. Satan doesnt mind too much if someone stops stealing or stealing or doing drugs, thinksing this somehow makes him ok with God because he did. Especially if that person is still lying, or having other gods before YHWH, or especially rejecting Christ.

Now here's the crux. If Adam would have had simple obedient faith, he would have never sinned, yet all of his descendants, even those who had faith, like Moses, David, Abraham, Peter, etc. sinned. They were righteous in some degree, but not by faith alone, but also by the Grace of God that did not impute their sins to their account. Also to sin is inevitable for every man until he is born from above. Some sin more, some less, but there is none that do not sin, and they are unable to live sinless lives by nature alone. Sin is inevitable, unless they die in infancy, or before the age of knowing right or wrong. I do not know that God created Adam with that same inevitability, though God certainly foreknew what would happen. Adam could have remained sinless without a new birth or becoming a new creature, yet this option is not available to his descendants. His descendants must have a second birth in order for true righteousness to be possible. This was not so with Adam. He merely needed to keep his first estate, which he did not do.

Original sin means that because of Adam's sin, man has been alienated from God, and this alienation has caused man to be in a fallen state, and inclined to sin until he is born from above. This is the Arminian/Wesleyan view of original sin as I understand it.

Hear this. I believe that ,at the very least, God created Adam with equal freedom to do right or commit sin, ( more likely he had a much greater inclination to righteousness, after all he was created in God's image and he did walk with God at least for a time.) On the other hand, Adam's descendants before faith in the Old and faith and regeneration in the New, (while still in the image of God) at the very least have a greater inclination to sin due to his alienation from God. ( This is really saying it mildly, and my view of man's sinfullness is stronger than this, but I will state this as the lightest view of man's sinfulness. ) Additionally, Romans 7 clearly states that there is an indwelling principle of sin that needs to be dealt with, and if this indwelling sin is not in our nature, where is it?

[glad4mercy]

Addendum to post 408. ( note I also edited post 410)

You continually point out that Adam sinned because of his own desire, just as we sin due to our own desires. Point taken on that, but I would like to point out one important difference. Before Adam sinned, he did not have dwelling in him what is described in the following verses. If you contend that he did, then that would be to say that God created Adam with indwelling sin, and I think we all agree that God did not do so. If you say that man was not born with an indwelling sin condition, not even in latency, that is your position, but surely you must know that these verses demonstrate that there is something dwelling in fallen man that did not dwell in Adam pre-fall. You contended that Adam's nature wasnt changed by sin and I guess you say that ours wasnt either. Perhaps the disagreement lies in how we define nature. Yet it is clear from Romans 7 that something exists inside man that did not exist prefall, and that thing is called sin. Sin is not only an act, it is something that indwells us, deceiving us, enslaving us, and killing us until we are set free by the Grace of Christ.

5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Did Adam have sin in his members before the fall? Of course not!

14For we knowthat the law isspiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Before the fall, was Adam sold under sin?

18For I knowthat in me (that is , in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Paul said that he desired to do that which is good, but he could not find the ability to perform it. Now did God create Adam with the inability to obey and do good, or did he create him with the ability to obey?

20 Now if I dothat I would not, it is no more I that doit, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Did Adam have sin dwelling in him before the fall?

Your comparison of Adam to unregenerate men is not a valid comparison. There are too many major differences between them, and they are not merely external differences or privations as you say, there is a very real infection of sin inside of man that needs to be cleansed, purged, and destroyed.

Yes destroyed!

a. Sin is condemned. Romans 8: 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weakthrough the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

b. The body of sin is destroyed- Romans 6:6- Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed , that henceforth we should not serve sin.

What is it that is condemned and destroyed. Sin in the flesh is condemned and the body of sin is destroyed, both by the work of Christ.

[glad4mercy]

Yes you did
"You just said man is not righteous. My point all along has been that man is not righteous by nature due to Adam's fall."

This statement is supported by the following scripture...

Romans 7: 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

We cannot achieve righteous conduct by the flesh alone. We may obtain partial obedience in the flesh, like the people in Romans 2:14-15, but partial obedience is worlds away from true righteousness. So yes, man's nature is neither righteous, nor can it attain to righteousness on it's own. It needs grace all the way.


And looky loo at this...

Romans 7: 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

The Arminian view of Original sin is that man has an inclination or propensity to sin caused by Adam's fall. The Wesleyan view is basically the same, but I have read one Wesleyan writer, ( whom I cannot quote for the book is not currently in my hands), who said that original sin is caused by the alienation from God due to Adam's sin, and because we are alienated from God in our natural state we are inclined to sin or have a propensity to evil. Now, Romans 2:14-15 shows that the inclination is not absolute in the sense that man is as evil as he can be, some have a stronger inclination or propensity than others, but the inclination exists in some degree in everyone. Also, there is an indwelling sin that exists in fallen man that did not exist in Adam pre fall, as stated above.

[Noeb]

Romans 2: 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves,even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

Now it is said that the Genties do by nature the things contained the Law, and you say that this disproves sin nature, but does it really?

How could it not? If it is our nature to sin, how do we do righteousness? And if we sin because of our nature so we call it a sin nature, and this says we do righteousness because of our nature, why do we not call it a righteous nature? Just common sense. Doesn't work either way. We do righteousness and unrighteousness because of our nature, but why? Originally man had a relationship with God. He was to trust and believe God, and as long as he did God would be his help and blessing and he would live. When he sinned he put a partition between God and man, changing the relationship and we are born designated/ordained to sin, as Romans 5 says. Why? What changed? Relationship. I can't make it any plainer. This has been proven with scripture and most everyone agrees. Why do you need more for us to sin? Isn't this plenty? Isn't not having a 'garden relationship' like Adam and Jesus had more that enough to ensure we will sin? The answer is yes, and no one will or can deny it, so again, why do you look for more than what scripture says when it's not necessary?

I think it teaches something else entirely, as I will demonstrate below.

But first, does the fact that they have the Law written on their hearts and do by nature the things contained in the Law mean they have no sin in them?

Of course not, but again that's not the issue. The question is why we sin, not do we. They have sin in them because they have committed sin, living carnally according the spirit of this world in fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind all their lives, not because sin is a thing that can be placed inside them and passed down genetically. That's contrary to scripture.

Now why is it that those who did not have the Law externally seemed to keep the Law better than those who had received and possessed the Law. The answer is surprising!

Please consider the following verses…

Romans 5: 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,

This passage says that the Law actually causes the trespass to increase. How can this be so? Is the Law evil. No indeed!

Romans 7: 7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said,"Do not covet."

The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin, and in so doing it reveals our sinfulness.

Romans 3:20- Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

So the purpose of the Law is to reveal the sin that is already there. The purpose of the Law is to show us our sinfulness,to remove the deception of our hearts which lyingly tells us that we are righteous because we are basically good people by human standards. The only righteousness God excepts is perfection, and the Law also demands perfection. Which is why we need Jesus, who makes us complete and we are perfect in Him.
The interesting thing is that the Law actually incites the sin in us!

Romans 7: 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

So we see the Law inciting the sin that is already in our members, ( our bodies)

Romans 7: 8 But sin,taking occasion by the commandment, wrougt in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. 9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came , sin revived , and I died

Does this mean that sin was not present? No, for it says that sin revived. In some way, sin was dead, but when the Law entered it revived. I hold that those who are in a state of innocence are free from transgression, and are covered by God's grace, yet there is a presence of sin in latency that is in them that is brought to life as soon as they reach the age that they are able to make moral decisions.

This does not say sin is present when we are born. Sorry, but you know it doesn't. This says we are sinning before we know it and understand it. The question is why? It's not counted as sin because we don't know better but when we are able to be aware the sin becomes sin [came alive]--by the law is the knowledge of sin and sin is not imputed when there is no law. This does not mean we were born with a thing called sin. It means what Paul said, sold into carnality by Adam's sin. Which means born without God. Has nothing to do with a sin nature, because Adam had the same nature but had God. That's the difference. Relation with God changed, not the nature.

As soon as a Law is placed on us, as soon as we are told “do not do this”, the sin in us is incited, and we rebel. You see this as soon as children reach the age to make moral decisions, perhaps even earlier. This is the sin in our members.

Scripture does not say sin is in our members when we are born. Sorry, you know it doesn't. It says...
the motions of sins did work in our members
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

law [of sin] which is in my members
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

These two describe the idea/concept of the law of sin in action. He is not saying a thing [sin] is in us. Sin is action, here used as a none to describe the idea of a principle of sin.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

We serve the law of sin with the flesh [members]
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Does the presence of indwelling sin

No such thing. Sin is not some-thing that can literally be present. Just like missing the target is not some-thing literally present. It is as Romans 7 uses it. A noun describing and idea or concept as a condition, not a thing. Until you accept the truth we will get no where on this because I won't waste anymore time on a concept born in the dark ages through Catholicism. There's no sin nature in Judaism and the Early church fathers did not believe be are born with one either.

Now whether you believe in sin nature depends on how you define it. I define it as sin dwelling in the members.

I know, which is why there's not much to discuss.

Whether or not we are born with it is not stated explcitely in the Bible,

Then we are done here, aren't we?!?

but it is very clear that every person has this sin dwelling in their members, and the sin needs to be cleansed.

No, it says every person lives in the condition and needs their condition changed to cleansed.

Regardless of whether or not we are born with a propensity or inclination to sin, it is very clear that natural man does possess that propensity or inclination.

Why do we? No relationship..

[glad4mercy]

How could it not? If it is our nature to sin, how do we do righteousness? And if we sin because of our nature so we call it a sin nature, and this says we do righteousness because of our nature, why do we not call it a righteous nature? Just common sense. Doesn't work either way. We do righteousness and unrighteousness because of our nature, but why? Originally man had a relationship with God. He was to trust and believe God, and as long as he did God would be his help and blessing and he would live. When he sinned he put a partition between God and man, changing the relationship and we are born designated/ordained to sin, as Romans 5 says. Why? What changed? Relationship. I can't make it any plainer. This has been proven with scripture and most everyone agrees. Why do you need more for us to sin? Isn't this plenty? Isn't not having a 'garden relationship' like Adam and Jesus had more that enough to ensure we will sin? The answer is yes, and no one will or can deny it, so again, why do you look for more than what scripture says when it's not necessary?


Of course not, but again that's not the issue. The question is why we sin, not do we. They have sin in them because they have committed sin, living carnally according the spirit of this world in fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind all their lives, not because sin is a thing that can be placed inside them and passed down genetically. That's contrary to scripture.


This does not say sin is present when we are born. Sorry, but you know it doesn't. This says we are sinning before we know it and understand it. The question is why? It's not counted as sin because we don't know better but when we are able to be aware the sin becomes sin [came alive]--by the law is the knowledge of sin and sin is not imputed when there is no law. This does not mean we were born with a thing called sin. It means what Paul said, sold into carnality by Adam's sin. Which means born without God. Has nothing to do with a sin nature, because Adam had the same nature but had God. That's the difference. Relation with God changed, not the nature.


Scripture does not say sin is in our members when we are born. Sorry, you know it doesn't. It says...
the motions of sins did work in our members
Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

law [of sin] which is in my members
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

These two describe the idea/concept of the law of sin in action. He is not saying a thing [sin] is in us. Sin is action, here used as a none to describe the idea of a principle of sin.
Rom 7:17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

We serve the law of sin with the flesh [members]
Rom 7:25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.



No such thing. Sin is not some-thing that can literally be present. Just like missing the target is not some-thing literally present. It is as Romans 7 uses it. A noun describing and idea or concept as a condition, not a thing. Until you accept the truth we will get no where on this because I won't waste anymore time on a concept born in the dark ages through Catholicism. There's no sin nature in Judaism and the Early church fathers did not believe be are born with one either.


I know, which is why there's not much to discuss.


Then we are done here, aren't we?!?


No, it says every person lives in the condition and needs their condition changed to cleansed.


Why do we? No relationship..

I am not taking issue with you saying that we are not born with a sin nature, for the Bible does not say explicitely that we are or that we are not. You have one verse that says man was made upright, and you interpret as saying that we are born without sin, even though made and born are not the same thing. I have two verses in Psalms that I listed. In one David sayid that he was brought forth in iniquity and in sin his mother conceived him. The other said that man goes astray from birth.

What I take issue with is that you deny the presence of indwelling sin, and the inability of man to attain to true righteousness by nature. You talk about partial obedience as if that is righteousness. Sorry, it is not. Romans 2:14-15 is clearly talking about partial obedience and conformity to the Law, if you deny this, you do not rightly understand Romans 3, 5, 7, or 8. Partial obedience is sin. If you keep the law but offend in one point, you are guilty of all.

Your denial of indwelling sin is a complete denial of Paul's words in Romans 7. This is a fruitless discussion.

[Noeb]

You continually point out that Adam sinned because of his own desire, just as we sin due to our own desires. Point taken on that, but I would like to point out one important difference. Before Adam sinned, he did not have dwelling in him what is described in the following verses.

What is described is what has worked in members and been played out over the life of the individual. Nothing in the verses say we are born with what must happen in experience. That's why Adam did not have it and why we do not when we are born. How could his condition be what he had not lived? Same for us.

If you say that man was not born with an indwelling sin condition, not even in latency, that is your position, but surely you must know that these verses demonstrate that there is something dwelling in fallen man that did not dwell in Adam pre-fall.

No. Man is born innocent and sins his own sin because of Adam's sin. Afterward his condition can be described as sinful.

Paul said that he desired to do that which is good, but he could not find the ability to perform it.

Because he was married to the old man and was not in the Spirit.

Now did God create Adam with the inability to obey and do good, or did he create him with the ability to obey?

In his nature? Ability, just like us.

Did Adam have sin dwelling in him before the fall?

No and neither do we.

Your comparison of Adam to unregenerate men is not a valid comparison. There are too many major differences between them, and they are not merely external differences or privations as you say, there is a very real infection of sin inside of man that needs to be cleansed, purged, and destroyed.

Show me scripture of unregenerate men when they are born that say they are different than Adam.

Yes destroyed!

a. Sin is condemned. Romans 8: 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weakthrough the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

b. The body of sin is destroyed- Romans 6:6- Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed , that henceforth we should not serve sin.

What is it that is condemned and destroyed. Sin in the flesh is condemned and the body of sin is destroyed, both by the work of Christ.

Right, the law of the husband/law of sin/Sin -noun. You can't miss the mark --a thing. You miss the mark --idea/concept.

[glad4mercy]

I asked that we temporarily lay aside the born unrighteous part momentarily, but you keep fixating on that. Let's establish some other things first, then we'll go back to the birth issue.

No. Man is born innocent and sins his own sin because of Adam's sin. Afterward his condition can be described as sinful.

Which is exactly why I said "fallen man". Apparently, you don't believe man is born fallen, so I qualified my terms for your benefit. Something exists in fallen man, ( man who has sinned), that did not exist in Adam pre-fall. Can we agree on this? I am trying to at least see if we have any common ground whatsoever on this by stating very moderate positions, and you keep reverting back to the "birth issue". Why don't we see what we agree on and work from there. Apparently, we

[Noeb]

I am not taking issue with you saying that we are not born with a sin nature, for the Bible does not say explicitely that we are or that we are not. You have one verse that says man was made upright, and you interpret as saying that we are born without sin, even though made and born are not the same thing. I have two verses in Psalms that I listed. In one David sayid that he was brought forth in iniquity and in sin his mother conceived him. The other said that man goes astray from birth.

What I take issue with is that you deny the presence of indwelling sin, and the inability of man to attain to true righteousness by nature. You talk about partial obedience as if that is righteousness. Sorry, it is not. Romans 2:14-15 is clearly talking about partial obedience and conformity to the Law, if you deny this, you do not rightly understand Romans 3, 5, 7, or 8. Partial obedience is sin. If you keep the law but offend in one point, you are guilty of all.

Your denial of indwelling sin is a complete denial of Paul's words in Romans 7. This is a fruitless discussion.

I posted other verses.
The two verses in Psalm"s have been explained repeatedly.
Sin is not a thing that can be present. Paul did not say it was.
Man is described as righteous throughout scripture. Doesn't mean they are righteous as He is. If you deny this tear out a hundred pages or so.

You do realize when it says if you offend in point you are guilty of all, it doesn't mean that if you steal, then you have also mudered, worshiped other gods, and comitted adultery, don't you? It's point is that it just takes one, just like Adam's one transgression.

[Noeb]

I asked that we temporarily lay aside the born unrighteous part momentarily, but you keep fixating on that.

Yes, and you made your points and I answered. Original sin includes how we are born.

Let's establish some other things first, then we'll go back to the birth issue.

Which is exactly why I said "fallen man". Apparently, you don't believe man is born fallen,

If it is defined as out of fellowshipship with God or similar, fine. But that's not all you mean, is it? You think Adam's nature changed and we are born with that change, but somehow I am fixing on birth? In the very post you said you wanted to lay it aside, you posted that sin was already in man. You are talking about how man is born, are you not?

Something exists in fallen man, ( man who has sinned), that did not exist in Adam pre-fall. Can we agree on this?

How could we? I don't know of any scripture that says so.What do you think this something is, how did it get there, and how is it passed through generations.

[glad4mercy]

Yes, and you made your points and I answered. Original sin includes how we are born.

Here's the definition I was aluding to earlier.

"Original sin is a propensity or bias or inclination towards acts of sin, due to an estrangement from God. It exists because certain ministries of the Holy Spirit have been withdrawn due to Adam's sin. Being deprived of these ministries, we become positively depraved, inclined to evil..."Holiness is the correction of original sin's alienation. J. Kenneth Grider, "Entire Sanctification", pg 28.

If it is defined as out of fellowshipship with God or similar, fine

Fallen means out of fellowship with God, enslaved to sin, and needing imputed and imparted righteousness.

You think Adam's nature changed

Did Adam become a sinner when he ate the forbidden fruit?

we are born with that change,

Nothing in my most recent posts makes that statement. Like I said, I am laying that part of the argument aside for the time being in order to see if we can find any common ground. Let's stop focussing on contentions, and see what we agree on.

you posted that sin was already in man.

I said that in that post? I don't see it,

You are talking about how man is born, are you not?

Did I state that explicitely or are you assuming it? Like I said, I laid aside the born with a sin nature disagreement for the time being. I may revisit it at a later time, but for now I took it off the table in order to try to find some common ground between us. If you're not interested in discovering if there is anything we agree on and then building from there, then this is a pointless discussion. Like I said, I am not hear to debate. I am here to share and learn. Knowledge puffs up but love edifies.

How could we? I don't know of any scripture that says so.What do you think this something is, how did it get there, and how is it passed through generations.

So then Adam sinned because the conditions Paul writes about in Romans 7 were present in Adam before the fall. Do you believe this? Do you believe that Adam was in need of a new birth in order to not sin? Was Adam in need of a heart cleansing before the fall, did his mind need to be renewed, should he have asked God to renew a right spirit within him before he sinned. Was his heart deceitful and desperately wicked before the fall? So sin produces a defiled conscience, a impure and wicked heart, a wrong spirit, a defiled mind

Forget about sinful at birth for the moment. Do you not see that sin is not only a separation from God, and the resulting privation of true righteousness, it is also something that enslaves, corrupts, defiles, and depraves? Doesnt all this constitute something that exists in man that did not exist before the fall?

[Noeb]

You state that man is neither righteous nor unrighteous by nature, is that correct? Let's say that this is true. If this is true, then Adam had the ability to become unrighteous by choosing to sin, or become righteous by refraining from sin. He had these abilities by his God given nature, correct?

Now we know that if a descendant of Adam is born neither righteous or unrighteous, he certainly has the ability to choose to sin and become unrighteous, I'm sure we can agree on this. The question is does he have the ability in his nature alone to become righteous by merely refraining from sin. Can we refrain from sin.

How can an infant, toddler, small child, child etc....refrain from sin without a relationship with God? All they know is pleasing the flesh. They don't have the capacity to understand their constitution and how God created them, and since God is not their teaching and guiding them, how do you propose they avoid growing into habitual sin?

Now here's the crux. If Adam would have had simple obedient faith, he would have never sinned, yet all of his descendants, even those who had faith, like Moses, David, Abraham, Peter, etc. sinned.

They didn't have the same opportunity as Adam. No one else did, until Jesus.

Sin is inevitable, unless they die in infancy, or before the age of knowing right or wrong.

How much tendency towards sin is developed in this time?

Original sin means that because of Adam's sin, man has been alienated from God, and this alienation has caused man to be in a fallen state

you just said it caused man to sin. That's different than cause him to be in a fallen state. What is the fallen state? What was different?

Hear this. I believe that ,at the very least, God created Adam with equal freedom to do right or commit sin, ( more likely he had a much greater inclination to righteousness, after all he was created in God's image and he did walk with God at least for a time.)

Bingo! So if walking with God increases the inclination towards righteousness, not having a walk with God what?......increases the inclination towards sin!!!!! That's what I have been saying all a long. you got it!

On the other hand, Adam's descendants before faith in the Old and faith and regeneration in the New, (while still in the image of God) at the very least have a greater inclination to sin due to his alienation from God.

Right!!!!

( This is really saying it mildly, and my view of man's sinfullness is stronger than this, but I will state this as the lightest view of man's sinfulness. ) Additionally, Romans 7 clearly states that there is an indwelling principle of sin that needs to be dealt with

Now see why do you gotta go an backtrack? What you stated is more than enough. Nothing else is needed.

and if this indwelling sin is not in our nature, where is it?

Sin here is the Noun, descriptive quality/concept/idea of one who has lived without God all their lives. It says....
the motions of sins did work in our members

The individual has feed flesh all their lives. That is what they do, that is what they know, to the point that when they know they shouldn't they do it anyway, because they have lived without God and the restraining power therein all their lives. Sin is not a thing. You cannot miss a thing in you. You miss a mark in you, the law, that says what is and is not sin.