True Faith Perseveres
January 9th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
Today’s post continues the discussion from last week on the perseverance of the saints.
It is crucial to understand what the biblical doctrine of perseverance does not mean. It does not mean that people who “accept Christ” can then live any way they please without fear of hell. The expression “eternal security” is sometimes used in this sense, as is “once saved, always saved.” R. T. Kendall, arguing for the latter phrase, defines its meaning thus:
Whoever once truly believes that Jesus was raised from the dead, and confesses that Jesus is Lord, will go to heaven when he dies. But I will not stop there. Such a person will go to heaven when he dies no matter what work (or lack of work) may accompany such faith. (Once Saved, Always Saved, p. 19)
Kendall also writes, “I hope no one will take this as an attack on the Westminster Confession. It is not that” (p. 22).
But it is precisely that! Kendall expressly argues against Westminster’s assertion that faith cannot fail. He believes faith is best characterized as a single look: “one need only see the Sin Bearer once to be saved” (p. 23). This is a full-scale assault against the doctrine of perseverance affirmed in the Westminster Confession. Worse, it subverts Scripture itself. Unfortunately, it is a view that has come to be widely believed by Christians today.
John Murray, noting this trend a half-century ago, defended the expression “perseverance of the saints”:
It is not in the best interests of the doctrine involved to substitute the designation, “The Security of the Believer,” not because the latter is wrong in itself but because the other formula is much more carefully and inclusively framed. . . . It is not true that the believer is secure however much he may fall into sin and unfaithfulness. Why is this not true? It is not true because it sets up an impossible combination. It is true that a believer sins; he may fall into grievous sin and backslide for lengthy periods. But it is also true that a believer cannot abandon himself to sin; he cannot come under the dominion of sin; he cannot be guilty of certain kinds of unfaithfulness. The truth is that the faith of Jesus Christ is always respective of the life of holiness and fidelity. And so it is never proper to think of a believer irrespective of the fruits in faith and holiness. To say that a believer is secure whatever may be the extent of his addiction to sin in his subsequent life is to abstract faith in Christ from its very definition and it ministers to that abuse which turns the grace of God into lasciviousness. The doctrine of perseverance is the doctrine that believers persevere. . . . It is not at all that they will be saved irrespective of the their perseverance or their continuance, but that they will assuredly persevere. Consequently the security that is theirs is inseparable from their perseverance. Is this not what Jesus said? “He than endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.”
Let us not then take refuge in our sloth or encouragement in our lust from the abused doctrine of the security of the believer. But let us appreciate the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints and recognize that we may entertain the faith of our security in Christ only as we persevere in faith and holiness to the end. (Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 154-55)
Any doctrine of eternal security that leaves out perseverance distorts the doctrine of salvation itself. Heaven without holiness ignores the whole purpose for which God chose and redeemed His people:
God elected us for this very purpose. “He chose us in him [Christ] before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph. 1:4). We were predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ in all His spotless purity (Rom. 8:29). This divine choice makes it certain that we shall be like Him when He appears (1 John 3:2). From this fact, John deduces that everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself just as Christ is pure (1 John 3:3). His use of the word “everyone” makes it quite certain that those who do not purify themselves will not see Christ, nor be like Him. By their lack of holiness they prove that they were not so predestinated. The apostle thus deals a crushing blow to Antinomianism. (Richard Alderson, No Holiness, No Heaven!, p. 88)
God’s own holiness thus requires perseverance. “God’s grace insures our persevering`but this does not make it any less our persevering.” Believers cannot acquire “the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” unless they “press on toward the goal” (Phil 3:14). But as they “work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), they find that “it is God who is at work in [them], both to will and work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).
Amen - God choosing me to be part of the elect is the greatest challenge to me personally.
Why me?
I know the answer is so God can be glorified because He saved a dirty, filthy, wretched sinner and showed the world that even I, Wayne, can be transformed through His grace and mercy.
But that is still hard to fathem in my mind that the Father would draw me to Christ and forgive my sins and give me everlasting life with Him.
Praise Him.
This discussion has illuminated the topic of salvation and perseverance to a wonderfully great degree.
The blogs have given insite to both sides of the issue.
Those who are saved, are just that..saved; and they will evidence that salvation in earnest seeking after God, hatred of sin, obedience to Christ’s commands, love for one another, and a desire to God’s great work of the harvest of those whom God has prepared for salvation.
Let each of us humbly study the scriptures in light of these articles on the topic, and trust in what scripture says.
Scripture in its entirety is our answer of truth, and the guide, correction, and comfort for every true believer.
Greetings in Christ!
I find myself, as an evangelical Christian, at odds with this article. I would argue that if the person claiming to be a “Christian” is living a life that is contrary to the heart and character of the Savior, they have not backslidden or “lost their salvation” but were not indeed a believer to begin with. The seed was snatched from the shallow, weed choked soil of their heart.
I was raised to embrace “eternal security” as a child, and as a minister of the gospel in 7 diferent denominations - that is what I preach. If I can lose my salvation, Jesus’ death must be repeated for me; and we all know that is not necessary or posssible.
I preach eternal security, but live as if there is no such thing. I love and respect my brothers and sister in the faith who believe differently; and some day we will sit in heaven and discuss our differences here - if they will even matter by then…
God’s peace to you all!
Pastor Bob
One very imporatant, and often overlooked aspect of perseverance has to do with it’s relationship to saving faith. There is a qualitative and substantive difference between saving faith and temporary or false faith.
A temporary faith is not just the “same kind” of faith as saving faith, but with a shorter duration. No. Rather the very nature of temporary faith differs from saving faith. So that, perseverance is not only a result of saving faith, but helps define it and distinguish it from other false faiths. Temporary faith never possessesd the possiblity of perseverence.
The grace of God which finds fulfillment in saving faith sustains the believer for eternity. Christians then persevere in the Faith, because God has determined to persevere in them!
From I have read , then perseverance of the saints means being obedeint to the end. To fail to continue on in obedient faith , to remain pure in life and doctrine is to lose salvation. Is that what is understood in the perserverance of the saints ?
To fail to continue on in obedient faith , to remain pure in life and doctrine is to lose salvation.
I could be wrong, but if one doesn’t persevere, then one doesn’t have true faith to begin with, and thus non-perseverance means that you never had salvation to begin with.
This statement: “Any doctrine of eternal security that leaves out perseverance distorts the doctrine of salvation itself.” tells me that the doctrines of perseverance and salvation are inextricably intertwined with each other. Inseparable, really.
Ray B,
This doctrine does not mean that if someone does not persevere that they lost there salvation, but that they were not truly saved in the first place.
Robert
Since it is unlikely Dr. MacArthur is going to jump in and answer Ray’s question, I’ll take a stab at it.
Ray asks, “To fail to continue on in obedient faith , to remain pure in life and doctrine is to lose salvation. Is that what is understood in the perserverance of the saints?”
The short answer is no. Ultimately yes, believers persevere based upon the foundation of saving faith. But this is no guarentee Christians will maintain a life of perfect purity in faith and practice. In fact, because of our remaining sin nature, it makes it impossible to do so.
The doctrine of the perseverence of the saints simply stated means that once God draws you unto Himself in an effectual salvific relationship through the finished work of Christ, you are His from that point forward. You complete the race. You run the course. God upholds you by His all powerful hand.
Our doctrine nor our life will be perfect this side of heaven. This is not what is taught by perseverence. Rather, it is that we lay hold of the promise of God, that by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit, He loses none of those He calls to Himself.
I am in agony. I professed Christ as Savior as a young girl, and have been following — mostly — since. I am ever increasingly aware of my abject sinfulness; my every effort to obey Him is woefully inadequate. So I trust in Him to save me, and I keep trying to obey (again, failingly).
What will become of me on that last day? I am confused by this discussion, and swing back and forth between joyful comfort and desperate sadness.
David McCrory -
Thank you for your comments. I understand it as you’ve stated. All I know is that I am infinitely convinced that I cannot save myself by any of my effort — the finished work of Christ on the cross is my only hope. My works are only attempts to obey my Savior.
So why am I so jarred by these types of discussions? I know I can’t even do enough to obey — can I do enough to “persevere”?
Thank you for any encouraging and directing scriptures.
Okay. Let’s say that there are “professing” Christians who don’t persevere all the way to the end. And “P” maintains that they were never Christians in the first place. (1 John 2:19)
I think that in today’s culture it’s considered extremely bad manners to discern/judge and declare that someone was never a Christian in the first place.
The widow/widower don’t want to hear that. People will consider you overly judgmental and unnecessarily harsh and unloving. Therefore, you become hesitant to make these declarations that such a person was never a Christian. People’s ears are tickled by silence. They want to believe so-and-so was and is a Christian and is going to heaven. You want to be pastorally sensitive to others and keep your silence, even though you have doubts whether s/he was a Christian. This goes for both Arminians and Calvinists. Whether a person lost their salvation or never had it in the first place, you do not want to say. The inevitable comeback is “Only God can judge a person’s salvation. WHO ARE YOU to say whether this person is saved or not? You’re being far too judgmental. Just like the Pharisees. And you do know that Jesus had his harshest words for the Pharisees, don’t you?”
Whaddya gonna do, but just shut up and hold your peace for the sake of peace.
“Whaddya gonna do, but just shut up and hold your peace for the sake of peace. ”
Preach the word! You have to tell the truth
I think we have to bear in mind that God uses circumstances like the lost of a loved one as opportinuties to preach the good news of Christ.
If we cannot honestly say with some certainty a person has gone to heaven, then we shouldn’t, and then we use that an oppotinuty to speak to why our only hope is in Jesus.
Preach the word! You have to tell the truth
That’s kind of an awkward, sticky situation. Telling loved ones that you don’t think that the deceased will be in Heaven with God.
Or telling a person who thinks they’re a Christian that they’re really not a Christian. Or that they’re apostate.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t tell the truth. I’m just saying that there’s a high likelihood that it won’t be well-received and there’s a good chance that you’ll get demonised for your efforts. I believe that you could gently whisper the truth in the softest of tones with the most angelic purity on your face… and once they realize the substance of what you’re trying to convey, you’re gonna figuratively end up like John the Baptist.
Since this post does touch upon salvation, I thought I’d provide a Catholic article on salvation that someone pointed me towards. It’s long, but illuminating. Particularly the last paragraph.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6126
I don’t recall the Catholic Cardinal of this article alluding to perseverance….
I read the firstthings.com article and must say that there was a high level of ambiguity when addressing the fundamental requirement for salvation. Only through Christ (sola fide) can we be saved.
“believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments”
Believe the Word of God as taught by the church and obey the commandments?
“Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found”
Submit their lives? Join the community?
“Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.”
Look forward? Try to ascertain?
“adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.”
Seek and strive?
“Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.”
Salvation through worship and service?
“God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.”
What kind of grace?
Saving grace can only be found in Christ alone (Eph. 2:8, 9: Rom. 10:9, 10). No one can no if one is saved, but there are indicators . The fruit of the Spirit is evident in believers walking in faith (Galatians 5:22).
‘Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. ‘
Perhaps the disciples should have asked, “who then CAN’T be saved”?
If Jesus will say “I never knew you” to MANY who call on His name, how can there be hope for Christ-rejecters?
Britta -
Did anyone answer your question here? This is something I wrestle with all of the time. It seems a most confusing thing, sometimes, even arrogant for me to think I am on the right track when weighed against such arguments.
Dear Mo and Britta,
Your questions are very important and close to my heart as a pastor.
John MacArthur wrote about this very issue in a booklet titled: “A Believer’s Assurance: A Practical Guide to Victory over Doubt” which you can read here: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/2183.
I would also recommend that you avail yourselves of the resources listed at the bottom of that page.
Britt: One of the signs of genuine faith is the realization that one is a sinner and underserving of God’s grace. There are many more signs of true faith which John explains in his book titled: SAVED WITHOUT A DOUBT.
If you have a specific question about this issue, I will be glad to answer it. Let me encourage you to read the Epistle of I John which deals with how you can know for sure if you are saved.
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
Dear Britta,
Thank you for sharing your experience. Yes, like you stated, our works will never satisify God’s holy and righteous demands for a perfect life. Only Jesus Christ could do that. Ours then is to place our complete faith and trust in Him.
But even though we can find peace and assurance in this glorious truth, we should not become complacent. Proverbs tells us the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Therefore as we grow in the Lord, we should do so always with an eye to the great love and sacrifice it took to wash away our sins.
As a result, it can become, at times, overwhelming to believe God loved us enough to take away our awful sin. But when we do begin to feel this way, God bids us come to Him. He is our comfort and our strength. He will uphold us. He will love us. And the comfort and peace we have with God through Jesus Christ, cannot be surpassed.
If you continue to struggle and feel you might want more help, please email me,
david.mccrory@yahoo.com
Christ’s blessings,
David R. McCrory
Thanks to Steven Lamm and David R. McCrory for responding to Britta.
Thank you for your responses, dear brothers. I will study the materials you’ve recommended.
Peace of Christ…
If the beleiver does not persevere to the end , will they be lost ? Since God forgives when faith is professed then does it make any real difference in the salvation of an individual believer ? If staying faithful is true faith , then waht is the measure ? How amny works ? Or are any imporatant ? I mean what is the basic essentail for being saved ? A lot of preachers say accept Jesus in your heart as personal Savior and you are saved for all eternity. Are they teaching false docrtine ? Or is that the bare minimum ?
“I believe that you could gently whisper the truth in the softest of tones with the most angelic purity on your face… and once they realize the substance of what you’re trying to convey, you’re gonna figuratively end up like John the Baptist.”
LOL…again, been there, done that….
Eddie
Ray you ask,
“If the beleiver does not persevere to the end , will they be lost ?”
~ The point is ALL true believers persevere. So, no. None of them are lost.
You ask,
“Since God forgives when faith is professed then does it make any real difference in the salvation of an individual believer ?”
~ God does not forgive based upon a mere profession of faith. There must be a true possession of faith. Once you possess the gift of faith you are eternally saved.
You ask,
“If staying faithful is true faith , then waht is the measure ?”
~ I’m not sure what you’re asking here.
You ask,
“I mean what is the basic essentail for being saved ?”
~ Confessing our sins, repenting and placing our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as our only hope.
You ask,
“A lot of preachers say accept Jesus in your heart as personal Savior and you are saved for all eternity. Are they teaching false docrtine ? Or is that the bare minimum ? ”
~ This is a somewhat watered-down and vague Gospel message. A pure presentation of the Gospel deals with sin, repentance and faith by grace. Excepting Jesus into your heart could mean a lot of things.
I hope this helps,
David R. McCrory
david.mccrory@yahoo.com
Let me see if I understand the theology of this blog. True faith will persevere. Those who persevere are the elect. Then what about the brother overtaken in a trespass. Would he have drifted away if he was of true faith and would he have drifted if he is the elect ? If he is not the elect and is not of true faith then why bring him back because he is not the elect and therefore is chosen for hell. To bring him back is to give him a false security. Let me know if I am understanding in the right way.
Ray you say,
“True faith will persevere.”
~ Yes.
“Those who persevere are the elect.”
~ Correct.
“Then what about the brother overtaken in a trespass. Would he have drifted away if he was of true faith and would he have drifted if he is the elect ?”
~ The doctrine of perservence does not say Christians will not struggle with sin or that they will not, at times, question their salvation. What it does teach is that those who possess true saving faith will not fully nor finally fall away from Christ.
“If he is not the elect and is not of true faith then why bring him back because he is not the elect and therefore is chosen for hell. To bring him back is to give him a false security”
~ The Church does not have the capabiltiy to peer into the heart of man to see whether his is of the elect of God. The secret things belong to the Lord (Deut. 29:29).
~ Ours is the responsiblity of offering Christ to all. And then of those who profess to receive Him, disciple them in such a way as to cultivate the fruits of righteousness. It is through the produce of fruit (or the lack thereof) the Church is able to see whether the seed of the Gospel fell on fertile or rocky ground.
Again, I hope this helps,
David R. McCrory
david.mccrory@yahoo.com
David ,
I guess where I find all this confusing is in saying the elect will be Christians of true faith but some will fall away and eventually find their way back. Does not sound consistent. Too confusing. Either the true believer, the elect will stay with their faith from beginning to end or they are not the elect. Not saying not sin but to depart and then come back. How can that be true persevering faith ? And what about the non-elect. Poor souls who are arbitrarily sent to hell and have no hope whatsoever. They apparently cannot make a decision to follow Jesus Christ.
“I guess where I find all this confusing is in saying the elect will be Christians of true faith but some will fall away and eventually find their way back.”
~ The falling away of true believers is a falling out of favor with God, as a child of God. We don’t cease being a child of God simply because we are disobedient. Hebrews tells us God chastens those He loves. Even the great apostle Paul confessed his struggles against the flesh (Rom 7). Struggle with sin, falling into sin are all a part of being sanctified.
~ There is no struggle with sin outside of Christ. To say we will not sin this side of heaven is to say we become perfect this side of heaven, an unBiblical teaching. So, it is perfectly consistent to say that Christians can (and do) fall into sometimes grevious and terrible sin, but thanks be to God, He does not leave us there.
~ The reason it’s persevering faith is not because we don’t stumble along the path, but because we never fall completely off the path itself.
Blessings,
David R. McCrory
This is an interesting post, but if I’m allowed to differ, I find it to be a bit misleading and confusing.
This doctrine of perseverance (as you’ve described it) seems to nullify one of God’s first blessings to mankind: volition. To say that I could lose my salvation, but I won’t because of my predestined elitism is not acknowledging one of our earliest blessings: Free Will.
The point is that once a believer has freely chosen to trust Christ, they are alive in Him and dead to sin and the law. Once and forever. If this is not the case, then you are implying that Jesus’s work is not finished. If I could lose my salvation by falling away, then how can I regain it? Doesn’t this imply that Christ would have to die again so that I could re-gain my salvation?
And how does this doctrine of perseverance apply to parables dealing with this issue, such as theparable of the Prodigal Son? Was there any time during his absence that the Prodigal Son was not welcome home? Was he pre-destined not to ask for his inheritance, not to leave the farm, and not to waste all of his money, and if so then why did he do all of these things in spite of his predetermined perseverance? Was he required to do something when he returned in order to be accepted back into his father’s house? Or didn’t his father see him coming on the road, give orders for the preparation of a feast, and welcome his lost son back before he had said a word? I believe this parable speaks to this issue directly. If we but trust Christ once, we are saved forever. No stipulations or conditions to the salvation. And definitely no pre-destined limitations. I feel that to add any of these extraneous issues to it is to diminish God’s grace.
“Struggle with sin, falling into sin are all a part of being sanctified.”
I could be wrong but I believe that once I’ve accepted Christ as my Savior, I am dead to sin (Rom 6:11, Rom 8:10). Is that not true? Do you believe that our salvation a life-long process?
Thank you for your time.
Luke,
I find that your comment, starting with the 3rd paragraph, is in agreement with the position on eternal security, so I won’t respond to it. If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify.
However, the following comment doesn’t square: This doctrine of perseverance (as you’ve described it) seems to nullify one of God’s first blessings to mankind: volition. To say that I could lose my salvation, but I won’t because of my predestined elitism is not acknowledging one of our earliest blessings: Free Will.
First of all, you demonstrate your wholesale misunderstanding of the nature of election and predestination by calling it elitism. If someone is chosen because of absolutely nothing that they do (including choosing one thing or the other), there are absolutely no grounds for boasting… no grounds for elitism. By contrast, if I in my fallen state somehow muster up the strength and reason to choose to obey, I do have something to boast about. That puts me in the elite. I chose, and Larry didn’t. I’m among the elite to whom it was given this knowledge to choose Christ. Again, though, if I’ve done absolutely nothing to be accepted by Christ and yet am accepted, I’m bowed low in humility, not puffed up because I’ve been chosen.
Secondly, I’m not quite sure why you see volition as such an inherently ineffably glorious gift. Maybe you could shed some light on that. I will acknowledge, though, that volition is a great gift to those whose nature it is to love and serve God. Such was the case with Adam and Eve. God gave them the ability to choose Him, and their nature was such that it was possible. However, we don’t have such a nature. Our nature is evil, always choosing to hate God by wanting everything but Him. Fallen man doesn’t know what’s best for him, so giving him a free will may actually be an act of violence instead of an act of grace. Consider this analogy to illustrate my point: Your son loves to run in the street. For whatever reason, it’s freeing for him, and he knows no other joy than just running around playing in the street. Whether it be with his toy cars, on his bike with new training wheels, or running around with his friends, he simply loves it. Surely a good father doesn’t quash that joy for his son, does he?
Sure he does! Why? Because playing in the street is dangerous. It’s infinitely more loving for the father, against his son’s will, to grab him by the hand and yank him from running into the street. So it is with our Father and our salvation. As inheritors of Adam’s sin nature, our “free will” is free inasmuch as it acts in accordance with our nature. Our nature means our volition will always be against God. It is extremely loving for God to step in and change our nature, giving us a will that is free to love Him. That changing of nature is regeneration, and is the only way anyone believes (cf. John 10: You don’t believe because you’re not my sheep, not: You’re not my sheep because you don’t believe).
Hope that clarifies.
Mike,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment.
To repspond, I don’t feel that I have a “wholesale misunderstanding of the nature of election and predestination” but I’m sorry if my statements confused you. I do not believe in predestination. We were created with free will, as Adam and Eve clearly demonstrate.
I’m curious to know when you believe we lost our free will and why God never mentions censuring our volition when he casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden? Do you believe that we lost our free will with the Fall? And you believe that we are only capable of choosing sin and sinful choices? And we are saved in spite of the fact that we cannot choose to trust Christ with our salvation? Then why were we given free will in the first place? If we are not free to choose Christ as our Savior, then we are following Him by compulsion? Now please don’t misunderstand me again, I am not saying that I can save myself. Christ did all of the work on the Cross and His work is completed, but I still have to choose to follow Him and trust in the gift freely offered. As John 3:14-15 states like “the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up”. As you well know, God told Moses to “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.”(Num21:8) What I’m saying is that the Israelites still had to choose to look and they would live. As do we. We cannot contribute to our own salvation one iota, but we do have to choose. And in that one nanosecond that we trust Christ as our Savior, we are saved once and forever.
So to answer your question, that is why I see volition as such an “inherently ineffably glorious gift.” Because just as it neccessitated my need for salvation through Adam and Eve, it also enabled my acceptance of the gift that has been offered to me by Jesus. To underestimate the gift of volition, in my eyes, is to underestimate the blessing of being able to ask for a draught of the “living water”.
Finally, no offense, but I don’t think that you fully comprehend our fallen state. You compare our situation with a human father who doesn’t want his child to play in the street, so he grabs his hand and pulls him out of the street. God did nothing of the sort. In fact He lovingly warns us about continuing to play in the street, shows us a much better place that we can play, and holds out His hand to lead us to that better place, but he does not make up our minds for us by pulling us out of danger. To continue your metaphor, we are in fact born into the middle of the street and continue to live there until we get hit by a car or take God’s extended hand and believe His Word.
Thank you for your time.
I’m curious to know when you believe we lost our free will and why God never mentions censuring our volition when he casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden? Do you believe that we lost our free will with the Fall?
I’m not saying we lost our “free will.” I’m saying that our nature changed. Adam had a qualitatively different nature than we have. His was not necessarily sinful. But through his sin, we are all born with a sinful, evil nature. It’s important to realize that our will is free only within the bounds of our nature. A fish’s will is free insofar as it can choose to swim anywhere in the pond. Nothing stops him. But a fish cannot will that he walk on land. It is not within the bounds of his nature to just get up and walk because he feels like it. So are our wills bound to act in accordance with our nature. As a result of the Fall, we lost the ability to choose God because we inherit an inherently sinful nature. To use biblical language, we died with Adam (Rom 5). Dead people can’t choose anything.
And you believe that we are only capable of choosing sin and sinful choices?
Yes. Absolutely. For reasons, I hope, explained above.
And we are saved in spite of the fact that we cannot choose to trust Christ with our salvation?
I’m not sure what you mean by choosing to trust Christ with our salvation. In our fallen state, we can’t choose Christ. Fallen man will never trust Christ with, or for, anything.
Then why were we given free will in the first place?
There are many people who contend that we were not given a “free will” as you’re defining it at all. We were created with our will, our volition, which is free to act within the bounds of our nature. So we can make choices, but we choose only that which are capable of, defined by our nature. I might answer this question more clearly below.
If we are not free to choose Christ as our Savior, then we are following Him by compulsion?
No. And here’s why. Because God perceives fallen man, dead in trespasses and sins, and regenerates the elect. This is sometimes called irresistible grace or an effectual call. He gives new birth to those He means to save. He causes them to be born again (1 Pet 1) and makes them alive (Eph 2). By re-generating fallen man, God gives him a new nature. With this new nature, regenerate man can see God as He truly is, for all the glory and splendor of the Son, and runs to Him willingly, out of no compulsion at all. So we serve God willingly, now having a nature in which our will/volition can (and always will) choose God.
We cannot contribute to our own salvation one iota, but we do have to choose.
This is simply a contradiction. “We don’t do anything.” “We choose.” Choosing is doing something. And according to you it’s on the basis of that thing that we do that our eternal destiny is different than others’. I know you don’t think that you’re saying that. You say it’s on the basis of Christ’s work alone. But allow me to put it to your conscience that your position is not consistent with that. Christ’s work is indeed finished. We don’t “activate” the finished work by our choice. It’s finished. There’s nothing to activate. It’s already activated in eternity past, accomplished in ~30 AD.
Finally, despite your no offense disclaimer, I disagree with your assessment of my understanding of our fallen state. I think you pressed my analogy farther than the ground it was supposed to cover, and are assessing the situation from that. I’m also convinced it is you who are misinformed about man’s nature.
Further, I ask that you search your own conscience and ask yourself honestly if your son was in the street about to be hit by a car, if you’d call to him and hold your hand out, or if you’d run in front of the car, dive, and knock him out of the way, even if it meant your own death.
God most certainly does the latter, because we don’t have the nature to heed His call until He sovereignly and effectually regenerates us.
Where in scripture does it say that we “inherit” sin ? Is it in the DNA ? I continue to read about inherited sin from Adam but I cannot find “inherited” being used. Please give me scripture.
Forgive me, Ray.
Because “all died in Adam” (1Cor 15:22), sin was “imputed” (Rom 5:13). We are imputed a sin nature because of Adam’s fall. Since we all died in Adam (1Cor 15:22, cf. Eph 2:1-5, Col 2:13-14), we cannot respond in faith until we are born again (John 3:3, cf. John 10:26).
2 Tim 2:14
But where does it say inherited ?
“In our fallen state, we can’t choose Christ.”
Where in Scriptures does it specifically say this, Mike? Not figuratively, but explicitly say that “until we are elected and regenerated” that “we can not choose Christ”?
Because I can find quite a few verses where Jesus talks explicitly about believers choosing to follow him and being saved or not choosing and not being saved. One of the simplest and most clear is John 5:39-40: “39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you REFUSE to come to me to have life.” (emphasis added, of course). In another translation it is “you ARE NOT WILLING to come to me..”(emph. added). In this verse, the Holy Spirit and Jesus clearly state that people are choosing not to come to him and be saved.
I stated that:
“We cannot contribute to our own salvation one iota, but we do have to choose.” To which you responded: “This is simply a contradiction. “We don’t do anything.” “We choose.” Choosing is doing something.”
You mis-quoted me. I said that I cannot CONTRIBUTE anything to my salvation. There is nothing that I can add to it. Choosing/trusting is not contributing to it. In a very simplistic example, if I go to a restaurant and choose the penne pasta dish, I am not doing anything or adding anything to the dish that I receive. The dish is offered to me and I did not contribute anything towards it’s production. Jesus’s work is finished and as Matthew 7:8 states, if we knock we will be admitted, that simple. Nothing is said about needing to be elected and regenerated and then being able to knock and then being saved. Of course we don’t “activate the finished work by our choice” but by choosing to knock, we are guaranteed a place at the already-prepared banquet.
You ask me to think “if your son was in the street about to be hit by a car, if you’d call to him and hold your hand out, or if you’d run in front of the car, dive, and knock him out of the way, even if it meant your own death. God most certainly does the latter.” Are you serious? Have we been reading the same book? God watched his creation torture and kill his son(self) and did not step in to stop it. Let’s make no mistake. I don’t join the family of God unti I am cleansed of sin through the salvation freely offered by Jesus Christ. So to say that God jumps in front of “his son” to save him while he is in the road is false and misleading. If I am still in the road, I am still rebelling against God. Why would God impugn his perfect Justice to pull me out of danger before I have been justified by trusting Christ as my Savior?? Were the Israelites saved on Passover simply because they were Israelites? No, they had to ACT. They couldn’t save themselves, but they had to believe that what God said through Moses was the truth and the way to life. As we know from Romans 10:10 it is “with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” Please be careful, Mike.
God bless.
Ray, substitute “we inherit a sinful nature” for “we are imputed a sinful nature.” They both mean the same thing, but if you’re more comfortable with the latter, that’s fine with me.
Luke,
When Jesus, in John 10, says “You do not believe because you are not my sheep,” that communicates something to us. What are the grounds for the sinner’s rejection by God? The sinner’s unbelief. But, what is the cause of the sinner’s unbelief? The answer is that he is not one of Jesus Christ’s sheep. We have to be one of Christ’s sheep chosen by Him in eternity past to believe in time. He does not say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe.” The passages you cite demonstrate that salvation involves making a choice from the human perspective, but this passage teaches who can and do make that choice and who cannot and do not.
Also, in John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that the prerequisite for salvation is to be born again. Nicodemus asks how that’s possible. Jesus tells him the Spirit (the one by whom God causes us to be born again) is like the wind, that blows where it wishes. Regeneration precedes faith; and those regenerated are done so “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:14). “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16).
Romans 3 says that there is no one righteous, and that none seek after God. Nobody seeks God, because we have all died in Adam. Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 talk about our being dead in our sins because of the sin nature that was imputed to us because of Adam. What choices can dead men make? None. Dead people can’t respond to anything. The only thing that enables a dead man to choose anything is when life is breathed into him.
Lydia had no hope of believing the gospel message that Paul spoke until “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14).
In Ezekiel 37 there is an allegory of how God breathes life into dry, lifeless bones before they can do anything at all, which pictures our spiritual death and inability to choose/please God until He regenerates us.
I could go on. I hope this has been sufficient.
I’m very disappointed in your reply about the car/street analogy. I find you to be being deliberately disingenuous, and your comment about reading the same book is needlessly inflammatory. This whole time the both of us have been using that analogy with these relationships: Jesus/God is to the father as believers are to the son. Then, for reasons unknown to me, you switch Jesus into the second category. The whole point is that on the cross, God dies to save His people. He doesn’t wait for them to come around. They won’t come around, just like the son in the street won’t heed his father’s call. Isaiah 59 says, “Now the LORD saw, And it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice. And He saw that there was no man, And was astonished that there was no one to intercede; Then His own arm brought salvation to Him, And His righteousness upheld Him.” There was no one to intercede, so He did it. No one was seeking God, so He went to them. They were dead, so He brought them life. God does not wait around for us to get smart enough to choose Him. He “looked and saw” (anthropomorphism) that we never could. So He ran in the middle of the street, and rescued us by dying for us.
If I am still in the road, I am still rebelling against God.
That’s right. “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. … But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. … For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son…” — Rom 5:6-10. God saves us while we’re still in rebellion. We can’t not be in rebellion before this.
Why would God impugn his perfect Justice to pull me out of danger before I have been justified by trusting Christ as my Savior?
Here is another demonstration of a lack of understanding of justice. It is not unjust for God to save sinners who are still rebellious because God imputes to that sinner the righteousness of Christ and imputes the sinner’s sin to Christ. Then, on the cross, the wrath of God against that sinner’s sin is fully exercised in Christ, so that Christ’s death is equal payment as the sinner’s eternal damnation. Justice is not abrogated. By the doctrines of imputation and penal substitutionary atonement, a Holy God saves sinners in the depth of their depravity in rebellion without becoming less holy. See 2 Corinthians 5:21 as well as Isaiah 53:4-6.
And I’ll say this one more time, so please get it here. Your example of the Israelites needing to act is a good one. But as I keep saying, what makes them able to act OR what keeps them from acting? It is their nature. If they have been born again by the sovereign grace of God (John 1, 3, 10; Ezek 37; Eph 2; Col 2), they act in accordance with righteousness because God has willed it so. If they are yet dead in their trespasses and sins they cannot choose God and so they won’t.
I ask you, if you’re still serious about having a conversation in which you want to learn as well as speak, to deal with what I’m actually saying instead of what you tell me I’m saying.
Mike,
It seems like we have a pretty signifigant, linguistic disconnect and I’m just going to have to respectfully disagree with your theories.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posts.
Luke,
I understand.
However, Luke and Ray, I’d like to invite you both to check out an upcoming series of posts on the heart these very issues over at PyroManiacs. The first post is today’s, and will open up into a series considering the following four things:
1. In what sense is depravity total?
2. How can we be held responsible for our own inability?
3. How did we inherit Adam’s sinfulness?
4. Is there an antidote for human depravity?
Please do stop by.
Mike ,
I am not comfortable with either one. Tell me where it is taught that every baby is born a sinner. If that is true then should we baptize every baby or how will they confess , or repent and of what sins and how are they capable of belief and obeying the gospel ?
Ray,
Are you insinuating that you do not believe that ALL have sinned?
Daniel ,
No. I am asking are we all born sinners ? Is it at the time of conception , right at the moment a baby is born or when are we declared sinners ? If every baby is born with inherited sin then what is the condition of a baby that dies ? I am still trying to understand inherited sin.
When is a person accountable for sin ?
Ray,
If a newborn has not sinned, then not all have sinned. But we know that all have sinned.
Psa 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
The question here is: does God elect babies to heaven (even those who die before they were born)?
You asked, “When is a person accountable for sin ?”
We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
David was only lamenting his own sin. Psalm 51 :5 is not a universal statement. He did not say ” we ” . David was only crying out because of his won sin and was saying that he consideded himslf such a great sinner. He was not speaking concerning the sins of every person.
Ray,
Do you believe that there is ever a time when we are not accountable for sin?
Do you believe that we are not born sinners?
Again, we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
Ray,
To answer your question, I’d like to begin by highlighting something Daniel said, and then I’ll move on to the Scriptural support for original sin: “We are not sinful because we sin; we sin because we are sinful.”
“Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” - Ephesians 2:3 says that we were, by nature, “before they had done anything good or bad” (Rom 9:11), children of wrath. That is destined for and deserving of divine judgment because of our inherent sinfulness in Adam.
“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.” - Romans 5:14 says that though those hadn’t sinned like Adam, death still reigned over them because of their sinfulness.
“So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.” - Romans 5:18 says that through one transgression, that is, Adam’s sin, there resulted condemnation to all men. That means there was a sentence of judgment delivered on all men as a collective body because of Adam’s sin. God imputes the guilt and responsibility of Adam’s sin to the entire human race.
“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.” - Romans 5:19 makes a very similar point, and also certifies the qualification both Daniel and I made above. Through the sin of Adam, we were all made sinners. We were not made sinners because of the first sin that we committed. We were made sinners because of Adam’s sin — because of the fall of man.
So, that’s where it’s taught that every baby is born a sinner.
Though that’s true, I don’t suggest we baptize any babies, let alone every baby. I’m not sure where you came up with that.
As to where infants go when they die, I’m uncertain what the Bible teaches. The Bible certainly teaches that they’re sinful, and so God certainly has the right to punish them for that. God is of purer eyes to behold even the inherent evil in infants (cf. Hab 1:13). But, as others have suggested, He may choose, in His electing purpose according to all His good pleasure, to elect infants to salvation. This squares with David’s thought of “going to” his child who died. In my estimation, this question will never be answered definitively.
I do, though, think it borders on absurd to suggest that David was only speaking of himself about being sinful in his mother’s womb, especially in light of these passages I’ve quoted here, but also simply in the context of that passage. Did David somehow out-sin other people? Did God make only David inherit the sin of Adam? Should Romans 5:18-19 read, “there resulted codemnation to David” or “to one man, that is David,” and “through the one man’s disobedience one was made a sinner, that is David”? I should hope you say no. David was expressing a universal reality that he felt personally.
Finally, I want you to recognize that you’re flirting with what the early church condemned as heresy in the late 300s: the idea of the absence of original sin, or that every baby is not born a sinner. I think you’re being consistent with your positions, because your position on soteriology requires you to hold this position, if you’re logically consistent. But I urge you to abandon them both as you pore over these passages in meditation.
Mike
You also might want to abandon something you said in the last post, “As to where infants go when they die, I’m uncertain what the Bible teaches… But, as others have suggested, He may choose, in His electing purpose according to all His good pleasure, to elect infants to salvation.”
I would imagine you agree with Calvinists about election being preordained, guaranteed to happen, and postive results in the elect being born again and saved and that there is no way that the elect can fall away. So, how can you say that the possible answer to the infant question is that God may choose to elect them? Which ones? All infants? If all infants, then everyone would be elect, since no one can later become non-elect. If only some babies are elect, what about the others? This position has then again not solved the emotional issue about what happens to babies who die. If some babies are elect, then are they instantly born again, when they are born physically, because some die soon afterwards? I have read Calvinists say that the elect are born again by the Spirit and then, with the new nature, they respond to the calling. How can a baby, respond and accept Christ?
Thanks.
Mike F,
As I said, I’m uncertain, and have committed to using words like “may” or “might” to not speak dogmatically about something that I can’t support biblically. So be careful about the severity with which you present these ideas.
Also, I’m not saying God chooses to elect all infants until a certain point. That’s a strawman if I’ve ever seen one. What I would be saying if I were arguing that position was that, as God has ordained the days of everyone, He has ordained the days of infants who die. Not only ordaining their earthly life, He ordains their spiritual life. So, perhaps it is the case that God elects to save all the babies He ordains to die before childhood/adulthood. That would not be inconsistent with Calvinist soteriology as I understand it.
As to how a baby can respond and accept Christ, I don’t know. But it’s just as much of a mystery to me how a dead man (Eph 2:1) can respond and accept Christ (that is, through regeneration). So if God can regenerate dead people (Eph 2:1ff) and give them a heart to receive His Son, I’m certainly not willing to say He can’t do that with baby dead people.
Mike ,
None of the passages you gave me teaches that we are born with inherited sin. Yes sin came into the world through Adam but the Roman passages do not say inherit or imputed.
David only speaks of his sin and does not make a universal statement. David was only commenting on his sin. There is nothing universal in the verse.
Mike,
I will throw out an idea for you to ponder. It is based on a number of Bible concepts and teachings and is the best I have been able to come up with as to the “babies”.
When Adam sinned, he died spiritually. Throughout the OT, since Adam, everyone was born spiritually dead, because their father Adam was and he cannot birth a nature he does not have. The Bible seems to indiate that if Adam had not sinned, his offspring would have also been born spiritually alive.
I do not believe that all babies that die, go to heaven. There does not seem to be any support for that in scriptue. But, since Jesus died on the cross, believers now have the Holy Spirit living in them giving them spiritual life (born again). So, my conclusion is that babies born into families with a Christian father are covered by that just as would have been babies in the OT if Adam had not sinned. A Christian father has spiritual life and can pass that nature onto his children. As the child grows, it will depend on what that child believes as to their future spiritual state.
Ray,
If every baby is born without sin or a sin nature, then there is the possibility that one could live a sinless life. If we are born without sin do we need salvation? If we could stay without sin, wouldn’t we be just like Christ? He that sayeth He hath no sin is a liar. If babies are born without sin, then they are in the same perfect condition as Adam before he sinned. If works can keep us sinless, then salvation is of works.
I find it hard to believe that David was the only person born in sin. If David was born in sin, that is at least one person born with a sin nature.
What do you think the Bible means when it says that ALL have sinned? Do you not believe that ALL have sinned? I hate to put this is such severe terms, but this belief that we are born sinless is nothing short of heresy. There is none righteous, NO NOT ONE.
Mike F,
There is only one that can give spiritual life, and that is the Holy Spirit. A sinful man, even a spiritually alive man, cannot give spiritual life. Spiritual life comes when the Holy Spirit indwells a person. No man can give this indwelling.
Daniel ,
And I believe it is heresy to believe that the Psalm 51 passage teaches universal inherited sin. It is NOT in the text. it is used to teach universal inherited sin by those who want to teach that all babies are born sinners , which cannot be supported by scripture but only human logic.
Ray,
Let’s assume for a minute that Psalm 51 doesn’t teach universal inherited sin. What about “for ALL have sinned” and “there is none righteous, NO NOT ONE”? Can you provide scripture to support your view?
Ray,
It’s not a legitimate move in a discussion to just say, “Nope, try again.” If you want to discount my biblical support and/or my reasoning, deal with what I wrote. I believe that there is more than enough reason to conclude original sin from the passages I’ve quoted by anyone not bringing biases to the text.
With the Ps 51 comment, again, all you’re doing is talking past me. “David meant this.” “No he didn’t… ” “Yes he did!” Doesn’t cut it.
The fact that you condemn as heretics all those who understand Psalm 51 to have implications for the entire human race only further aligns you with Pelagius, who himself was condemned by the church yet condemned all those who condemned him. It’s like the Council of Carthage (418) all over again.
Mike F, your reasoning would require that all babies born to Christian parents are saved, whether they live or die early. This obviously is not the case. Like Daniel said, only God can impart spiritual life, not those who have been made alive.
Daniel,
I know what you are saying. As I tried to explain, that concept is the best I can come up with, in dealing with the issue of a baby that dies. All of us would like to think that they all go to heaven, but that is an emotional desire. My idea is based on the idea as to what Cain and Able would have been like without the fall. I believe the implication is that they would have been born with the same nature as their father, Adam; since, after he died spiritually, they were born after that nature. If that is true, then could it be possible that this is God’s way of saving children born into Christian families? Jesus told the one man, believe and you and your family will be saved. There seems to be something to the spiritual headship of the man of the house. Again, it is the best I came up with, but I agree, it may be off base.
Mike,
You said, “Mike F, your reasoning would require that all babies born to Christian parents are saved, whether they live or die early. This obviously is not the case.”
I have always wondered about the “age of accountablity” teaching and did not find support for it in the Bible. But, as we would all like to think; that your baby would be in heaven, waiting for you, if it died; this is as close as I could come up with because it does have some basis from scripture principles.
Prior to this, you said (and this is what I was responding to): “So, perhaps it is the case that God elects to save all the babies He ordains to die before childhood/adulthood.”
So, if God can elect to save all the Babies He ordains to die; even though they have not believed and have not heard the Gospel, have not been born again (which is when the Holy Spirit comes into them to give them spiritual life); is OK with your doctrine; then why is it such a stretch to think that He could choose to do this with babies born to a Christian father by way of imparting the spiritual nature passed down from the father with the same spiritual nature, just as it would have been in Genesis with Adam, had he not lost his spiritual life?
Just my thoughts…
Mike F,
I commend you for your openness.
Before Jacob and Esau were born, God had chosen one and rejected the other. If both had died early, I believe that Jacob would have been in heaven and Esau in hell. This is hard to accept, especially for those of an Armenian belief of salvation, because neither baby had a chance to accept or refuse. However, this shows all the more how that salvation is of God’s choosing, not ours.
As to Christ telling the man to believe and He would be saved with His household, could you give me the reference for that? I know what verse you are talking about, but I can’t seem to find it. Thanks.
Daniel,
I had that wrong, it was Paul in Acts 16:31. He said it to the guard at the prison, I believe.
The Jacob and Esau example is a good one.
Again, an emotional argument, it just seems like there must be some plan God has whereby babies or at least some would be saved. The above is the only thing I could come up with that was at least based on concepts from the Bible. Even the verse in Acts could be a stretch to apply it to this situation as his kids could already be alive…
Any ideas on this subject?
Mike and Daniel ,
I have provided enough scripture to state what I believe. I am now being considered a heretic for what I believe. No use in going on with the discussion. I am not Pelagaian. I am a Christian and I have tried to state my views to the best of my ability. I cannot see inherited sin in any of the passages you have given. Tt has been a good discussion.
Ray,
You said, “I have provided enough scripture to state what I believe.”
You have not quoted one verse in defense of your view on this entire thread. I would be careful about holding to a view not stated in scripture, even if it ISN’T stated as wrong in the scripture. Actually, I wouldn’t just be careful, I wouldn’t do it. If man is basically good, then why this need for a savior? If man has the ability to live a sinless life, then not ALL have sinned. If a baby does not already have a sin nature, then not ALL have fallen short of the glory of God.
Could you answer this question: What about “for ALL have sinned” and “there is none righteous, NO NOT ONE”? If all does not mean all, then what does it mean?
Daniel ,
I have on numerous times stated that Jesus is our savior who died for our sins. All I have said about inherited sin is to quote me the verses that teach at birth that all babies inherit sin. You have yet to give me one definitive verse to teach it. Only implied or to accomodate your theology that if you believe in total deparavity , etc. , then I can see whwy you teach such. We disagree on Psalm 51 and will continue to disagree until you can show me in scripture where Psalm 51 is universal.In Psalm 51 , not some other passage. Where is the “we” or “all” in the passage. It is not there. The passages in Romans speak of sin coming into the world and yes all have sinned but those do not speak about inherited sin. Jesus once said that the children make up the kingdom of heaven. Mtt. 19 :14 . How can that be if they are condemned to hell sinners at the time of their birth ? What sins have they committed ? I have asked you , is it at the point of conception , is it in the DNA or where ? You have asked me for scriptures but you are the one who says it is inherited. Not me. The burden is with you giving the verses that teach that every baby is born with an inherited sin and is totally depraved and bound for hell at the time of birth. If you beleive that Psalm 51 and the passages from Roamns teach inherited sin, then so be it for you. I disagree.
Ray,
I never said that babies are “bound for hell sinners”. That is a straw man if I ever saw one.
The burden is also upon YOU, my friend, because you are to base ALL, and I repeat, ALL of your views of life on scripture. Therefore, if you are unwilling (or unable) to show one verse (even impied) in defense of your view, then you should be just as unwilling to hold to that view. For instance: the Bible never once mentions smoking, therefore smoking must be okay. If the Bible doesn’t say that it is wrong then it must be right, right?
I will respond furthur later.
Daniel ,
I have given several scriptureS and have commented on the scriptures you have given. About the babies going to hell: I nevEr said you said that but that is the direction the teaching on inherited sin arrives. It s not me that is holding to the position of inherited sin , so , no I cannot come up with a scripture to support inherited sin.
We have gone a long time on thIS and we will still disagree. It has been a good discussion.
Daniel ,
Never said it is what you said, just the ultimate conclusion to inherited sin. If inherited sin is right then every baby born is lost and a candidate for hell. Go to a nursery of new born babies in a major city hospital and observe the babies. Are they all lost ? Would anyone be willing to announce that to each parent ? If every baby is lost ,then something needs to be done to secure their salvation. That is why some advocate infant sprinkling or baptism. I beleive they are secure since Jesus said they make up the kingdom of heaven and they have no knowledge of the law and sin. All I am saying , is that is where inherited sin arrives. No , I do not have a scripture to endorse inherited sin because I cannot find one. The Psalm 51 passage we have covered. The verses in Romans do not say anything about inherited , imputed or whatever word that is used. Yes all have sinned but that does not teach inherited sin, that at birth every child is tainted with sin. Call it a straw man if you like but this is where I stand. I cannot find the scriptures that teach inheried sin. It is not my burden since I do not advocate inherited sin. And in this post I have mentioned several passages .
Ray,
I did not ask you to show verses that support my view, I asked you to show verses that support your view, which you have NOT done.
With your view of salvation (it is up to us to accept Christ, so salvation is our responsibility) you must believe that all babies go to hell, since not one of them has accepted Christ.
I believe that God chooses some babies and not others, just like any other men. Remember Jacob and Esau?
Inherited sin, and thence a sin nature, does not mean that all babies go to hell. This is NOT a necessary conclusion. At this moment, I have a sin nature. I am saved, and by God’s grace have a new nature, but I still have a sin nature. Am I doomed to hell just because I have a sin nature? When did I get this sin nature if not at birth?
You said, “I have given several scriptureS”
I have not seen them. It may just be me, so could you state them again?
Daniel ,
I will say it again. It is not up to me to prove by scripture about inherited sin. I already said to you in my last post about the salvation of a baby and have already given you Jesus and His words. But the burden of the proof is not with me. I do not believe in inherited sin because I do not believe it is taught in scripture. One of the reasons why I am not going too go lnog now is because of being moderated. Too bad . I thought this blog was interested in a free discussion about scriptures.
Ray,
I am surprised to hear you refuse to support your view with scripture. This is not a Biblical attitude. We are to prove ALL things. If I believed that babies did not have inherited sin, I would need to be able to support that view with scripture. I cannot believe anything unless it is supported by scripture. To say that it is not my responsibility to support my view with scripture is dangerous. The Bereans were noble because the searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. You should be willing to do the same. If you are not, then this discussion is over, for it is useless to debate with a man who does not feel a need to base his views on scripture.
Jesus words about “of such is the kingdom of heaven” were to say (like He said before) that Christians need to have a childlike faith. Not childlike as in “immature”, but childlike as in the faith that a child has in his father. Children believe that their father hung the moon. He is the greatest person that there ever was. This is a childlike faith, and this is what Christ was saying. It is a misinterpretation to say that it means that heaven will be filled with children. Heaven will be filled with those who have a childlike faith in God as their father.
The following is a section from Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology.
“Paul explains the effects of Adam’s sin in the following way: “Therefore…sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” (Rom. 5:12). The context shows that Paul is not talking about actual sins that people commit every day of their lives, for the entire paragraph (Rom. 5:12-21) is taken up with the comparison between Adam and Christ. And when Paul says, “so [Gk. “houtos” “thus in this way”; that is, through Adam’s sin] death spread to all men because all mean sinned,” he is saying that through the sin of Adam “all men sinned. Also see Rom. 5:8, :18-19. If you believe that Adam did not represent all men and thus did not imput sin to all men, then you must also believe that Christ did not represent us and thus did not imput His righteousness to us. Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”
1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven, so if all babies go to heaven, then all babies are saved. 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death, so Christ must have paid the penalty for all babies. 3)Christ only died for sinners, so all babies must be sinners. Taking only your view, this is the conclusion: all babies are sinners, unless you disagree with one or more parts of the process I just described. If so, please show me which part(s) you disagree with 1, 2, or 3.
If we believe that salvation is up to us to accept, then we must accept the fact that since no baby is able to accept, then all babies go to hell. However, since salvation cannot be based on their own merits, or on the basis of their own righteousness, innocence, or acceptance; it must be entirely on the basis of Christ’s redemptive work and regeneration by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Ray,
I have had several of my postings held up for moderation, over the past few weeks. Within a few hours or a day, every one of them were posted. I do not think there is any censorship being done, it just seems like some things may trigger the moderation and I am not sure what they may be.
Mike F. ,
Thank you for your words. I hope what you say is true. My only intent is an open discussion of the word of God.
Cocnerning infants , I find it very hard to conclude from scripture that some infants will be suffering in the flames of eternal hell because of a man made doctrine of
unconditional particular election. I am convinced election is corporate. The whosoever who choose Jesus are the predestined to be the elect. It is those who are in Christ that have all the spiritual blessings , Eph. 1 : 3 . Which includes being the elect , the church at Ephesus that Paul writes to , inspired of the Holy Spirit. They are the ones old enough to do what is involved in the free choice to be in Christ. Old enough to know about law , sin , the atonement, etc.
Also Jesus said the children make up the kingdom of heaven and Jesus once told his apostles that unless they became like children they would not enter the kingdom of heaven. Luke 18 : 16 and Matt. 18 : 3. An infant that dies is safe. Saved. Eternally , not just the particular elect.
Ray,
Read my comment on 25 2:03.
Your interpretation of Luke 18:16 and Matthew 18:3 is simply astounding. When Christ says “of such is the kingdom of heaven” He is saying that unless you humble yourselves as a little child. Here is a clip from Gill’s commentary.
“the Arabic renders it, “as this child”; that is, unless ye learn to entertain an humble, and modest opinion of yourselves, are not envious at one another, and drop all contentions about primacy and pre-eminence, and all your ambitious views of one being greater than another, in a vainly expected temporal kingdom; things which are not to be found in little children, though not free from sin in other respects,”
You said, “Cocnerning infants , I find it very hard to conclude from scripture that some infants will be suffering in the flames of eternal hell because of a man made doctrine of unconditional particular election.”
There is nothing man-made about it. When Paul says that salvation is not obtained by him who wills, but of God who chooses to show mercy, then this is a biblical doctrine.
You said, “The whosoever who choose Jesus are the predestined to be the elect.”
We are not the elect because we are saved, we are saved because we are the elect. Election means that God chose who would be saved before the foundation of the world. That is the only definition of election, so election cannot be corporate.
Unless my faith is like that of a little child (a humble and believing faith) then I will not enter the kingdom of God. But wait, an infant cannot have faith in God, so Jesus cannot be commending a child’s faith in God. He must be commending the child’s faith in general. A child will believe whatever you tell him. This is a good attitude to have toward scripture.
In order to believe what you believe about babies and salvation, you must disagree with one of the following points.
1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven. 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death. 3) Christ only died for sinners.
Let’s assume that all babies go to heaven. If 1) is true then all babies must have been saved. If all babies are saved and 2) is true, then they must all have been saved through the blood of Christ. If all babies are saved through Christ’s death and 3) is true, then all babies are sinners. But you believe that babies are not sinners, so which point do you disagree with, 1 2 or 3?
Daniel ,
Call it astounding but it is true. I understand the point about humility but Jesus is also talking about the innocence of children. For sure it is the meaning in Luke 18 : 16.
I am not sure what you mean or want in your last post. It really does not matter. I have already said to you Jesus is our Savior. My point has been in this part of the discussion that inherited sin is not found in scripture. The babies are safe.
Ray,
The word “imputed” is used in Romans 5:13.
I have a question for you at this point. It may seem redundant, because I think you’ve answered it indirectly. But I’m wondering if you’ll say it outright.
The question is: Do you deny the doctrine of original sin?
Mike ,
Does imputed mean the same as inerited from birth ?
I am not trying to avoid but how do you define original sin ? If you mean the first sin , then of course but if you mean inherited , then all I am saying is that I cannot find the passage that says every child born into the world is tainted with sin . And I keep wondering if that is true then does that mean some children when born into this world are at birth elected to salvation and some are condemned to hell , no matter what ? That to me is where inherited sin brings you.
Ray,
You asked, “And I keep wondering if that is true then does that mean some children when born into this world are at birth elected to salvation and some are condemned to hell , no matter what ?”
Not at birth; this was done before the foundation of the world. Ray, do you have any children? If so, can you honestly say that they were without sin?
You said, “I understand the point about humility but Jesus is also talking about the innocence of children.”
Here are the verses: Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Where in these verses does it say that children are without sin? Can you give me just one verse that says that children are without sin? If there is one child that has not sinned, then Rom. 3:23 is false. If there is one child that is righteous, then Rom. 3:10 is false.
Would you answer me on which point you disagree with? In order to believe the way you do, you must deny one of these points.
1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven. 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death. 3) Christ only died for sinners.
If Christ died for all babies, then all babies are sinners, because Christ only died for sinners. Which one do you disagree with?
Ray,
(Don’t let Daniel or Mike read this!)
I believe that it was my first post on this article that explained, briefly, a possible theory that I have concerning the subject of the babies. I was raised being told that all babies go to heaven. I have always heard people say about a baby who dies that it is in heaven with Jesus. I believe that that is exactly what we want to believe happens and would have trouble with any other answer, but it seems to be an emotional argument. At some point, I tried to find scripture to support that stance. I was unable to find it in scripture. I did find several verses that seem to indicate that “all have sinned”, “there is none righteous”, etc.
I believe that when Adam sinned, the Fall, caused Adam to die spiritually. The nature of spiritual death was passed on from generation to generation throughout the Old Testament. Romans seems to teach that death passed onto all men because of Adam. (Just a side note: when Lot and his family were saved out of town prior to destruction and judgement, the babies in those two towns were destroyed along with the adults.)
When Jesus died and sent the Holy Spirit, those who are born again now have the spiritual life, alive in them. My theory is that since spiritual death was literally passed down to future generations, why can’t spiritual life be passed down to our next generation, from a born again parent? (I believe that is what the case would have been if Adam had not sinned.) I do not believe that this means that all of our children become Christians and do not have to accept Jesus just as we did, but I wonder if this may be a way that God protects our babies until they are old enough to understand the gospel and sin. I can’t prove it, but it makes some sense to me.
I found a verse that may go along with this: Rom. 7:9 “I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died.” Could this be applied to the babies who have no concept of sin, the law, Jesus, etc? When the child reached the maturity to be able to understand the different concepts and the gospel, could that be when they are held accountable, personally; and before that, could they be “alive” apart from the law?
Just my thoughts…
Mike F
Rom 5:12 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:
If point 1 is true, then according to your view, all babies are saved. If point 2 is true, then according to your view, all babies are saved through the death of Christ. If point 3 is true, then according to your view, all babies are sinners. But you do not believe that babies are sinners, so you MUST disagree with one or more of these points, because if all of them are true, then all babies are sinners (at least all the ones that Christ died for). So which point(s) do you disagree with.
Daniel , I have answered you. We disagree.
Ray,
You have not answered which of the 3 points you disagree with. For you to believe the way you do, it is necessary to disagree with at least one of those point, so which do you disagree with? You have not answered this question.
Daniel ,
I have answered you with scripture . I have said I do not agree with inherited sin. If you do not agree with what Jesus said as being a statement about their innocence ( children,infants ), ok .That is your free decision. I believe it is very clear when He says they make up the kingdom of heaven. We can go on for a long time but I am not convinced that there is one scripture or many that teach the universal inherited sin of all babies. I do not know how else to state it. Also , maybe I am just too dumb or maybe I am one of the non-elect but your questions are too hard to understand.
Ray,
You said, “I have answered you with scripture…I believe it is very clear when He says they make up the kingdom of heaven.”
You have not answered with scripture that supports your point. When Christ said “of such is the kingdom of heaven” He was not saying that heaven would be filled with children, He was supporting the point that He had just made. This is what that passage was saying:
Unless you humble yourself as a little child you will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Forbid them not for of such “those who are humble like them” is the kingdom of heaven.
If this passage was meant to teach the disciples a lesson in humility by using a child as an example, then why would Christ change the subject to inform them that heaven would be filled with children? That would not be a logical interpretation.
For you to believe that all infants that die go to heaven, you must deny one of the 3 points. Either you deny 1) Only those who are saved will go to heaven 2) One can only be saved through Christ’s death or 3) Christ only died for sinners. If all of these are true, then all babies are sinners. Since you do not believe what these 3 point support, you must deny at least one of these points. I am just waiting to hear which one you deny. It is not a very hard question. I will try to put it more clearly.
1) Do you deny that only those who are saved will go to heaven?
2) Do you deny that a man can only be saved through Christ’s death?
3) Do you deny that Christ only died for sinners?
Just tell me whether you agree or disagree with each. Yes, I deny it; or No, I do not deny it. Your belief requires that you deny at least one of these, so which is it?
Daniel ,
I will say it again : I have answered but you do not agree about the truth from Jesus and the security of children. We will continue to disagree on that and that the Bible teaches inherited sin. Your questions have been answered throughout this discussion. Also , again , since I do not beleive in inherited sin , it is not my burden to prove it. And again , Jesus does teach about humility and the innocence of children. That is the way I see it , you do not . We disagree.
Ray,
Below is what I mean by original sin. Do you agree with this? If not, which part? In answering which part, please interact specifically with the Scriptures referenced in each part.
I know this may seem tiresome and laborious, but I believe we are differing on an essential doctrine of the nature of man, the nature of sin, and therefore the nature of the saving grace of God. To get this wrong is not only to “agree to disagree.” It is to get God wrong. I believe it would be the cruelest thing imaginable to pretend this is not of foremost importance. I hope you understand the severity of this discussion and my desire (along with Daniel’s as well, I presume) to see you built strong in grace and truth and not ignorant of these things.
——
1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.
( Genesis 2:16, 17; Genesis 3:12,13; 2 Corinthians 11:3 )
2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all: all becoming dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.
( Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12, etc; Titus 1:15; Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 3:10-19 )
3. They being the root, and by God’s appointment, standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the guilt of the sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed, to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation, being now conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, the servants of sin, the subjects of death, and all other miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal, unless the Lord Jesus set them free.
( Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, 45, 49; Psalms 51:5; Job 14:4; Ephesians 2:3; Romans 6:20 Romans 5:12; Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 )
4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.
( Romans 8:7; Colossians 1:21; James 1:14, 15; Matthew 15:19 )
5. The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
( Romans 7:18,23; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:8; Romans 7:23-25; Galatians 5:17 )
——-
Ray,
You said, “I will say it again : I have answered but you do not agree about the truth from Jesus and the security of children.”
This does not tell me which point you disagree with. You have not told me which point you disagree with. I am beginning to think that you are avoiding answering this question. Just tell me if you agree on each of the 3 points. I doesn’t really matter to me if you have answered already, because if you have, I haven’t seen it, so could you please answer again?
You said, “Also , again , since I do not beleive in inherited sin , it is not my burden to prove it.”
I never said it was your burden to prove inherited sin, I said it was your burden to prove YOUR view, and it is. You have a responsibility to base your beliefs on scripture, and to be able to give a scriptural answer for why you believe what you believe.
You said, “And again , Jesus does teach about humility and the innocence of children.”
Jesus teaches about the humility of children, but NEVER the innocence. Show me a verse where Christ says that children are innocent of sin. Show me a verse anywhere that says that ANYONE is sinless. If you can show me such a verse, I will show you a contradictory Bible, because the Bible says that if someone says that they have no sin, they make God a liar. If you say that someone else has no sin, you also make God a liar.
Please answer the 3 points question (even if you already have).
Daniel ,
I have told you several times that I disagree with you about inherited sin. I have said that chilren at birth are innocent and have given you the scriptures. You know I have, you just disagree. I have told you that Jesus has died for our sins. I have not avoided speaking to the key issue about inherited sin.
And , Daniel , you do not need to quote what I have said each time . I do know what I have written. But if you must , ok. You know the end result. We very strongly disagree on all babies being born with sin inherited from Adam. You have given me scripture you believe teach it. I do not agree that they do. It is as simple as that.
Ray,
The reason that I quote what you said is so that you know specifically what I am responding to.
You have not given me a single scripture that says that children are innocent at birth. You gave me 2 that said of such is the kingdom of heaven (even though Christ was talking about humility, not the actual filling of heaven). However, you have done nothing to answer the verses that I have shared with you. You just keep saying that we disagree. I could have told you that, but that is not a legitimate argument against those verses.
AGAIN you refuse to answer my 3 points question. Why will you not answer it? It is important that you do so, because each of those points are central to the doctrine of salvation. So if you deny one or more of them, then you have undermined the whole doctrine. But you do deny at least one of them, because you believe that babies are not sinners. Please answer this question. Also, please attempt to respond to the verses that I have shared (not just by saying we disagree). Start with this one.
Rom 5:12 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:
Daniel ,
You keep saying I have not responded with scripture and I say I have. I have on several posts already said Rom. 5 : 12 does not say anything about inherited sin. I have already said Jesus died for our sins. I have given you verses that say that infants are innocent. You say they do not , just as I say Rom 5 : 12 does not teach inherited sin. I have answered your questions in this blog several times , just not in your question form. We disagree about inherited sin and the innocence of infants. I do not know what else to say. It is not my burden to prove anything about inherited sin because I cannot find a scripture that supports the doctrine and especailly since I am not trying to accomodate Calvinistic dostrine , which I reject. Maninly because the human explanations are not in harmony with scripture.That is where I stand .
Ray,
Again, you have NOT given me a single verse that teaches that children or anyone else is innocent of sin, but I have shown you many verses (which you have NOT responded to exegetically) that say that NO ONE is innocent of sin.
Rom 5:12 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:
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.
I challenge you to show me a verse that says that children are sinless (Even if you already have, show me again).
Answer me yes or no one the following questions PLEASE.
1) Do you believe that only those who are saved will go to heaven?
2) Do you believe that a man can ONLY be saved through Christ’s death?
3) Do you believe that Christ only died for sinners?
Just yes or no would be sufficient.
Daniel ,
I already have.
Ray,
Would you deal with my response on whether you accept or reject the doctrine of original sin?
Ray,
I have no clue as to which of the 3 points you deny. I know that you do not believe in inherited sin, but I need to know which point you deny to get to this point. Please tell me even if you have already.
Daniel ,
Not one of the verses you gave me said that each person who is born , is born with sin inherited from Adam. Sin came into the world through Adam and Eve but not one verse says we inherit it . Not one. But if you are trying to see everything through Calvinism then inherited sin becomes necessary to combine with all the points of Calvinism. Ezek 18 : 19 - 20 teaches that the child will not be guilty of the sins of the father. We must all be judged on what each has done 2 Cor . 5 : 10 and a large number of verses that teaches each will be judged on an individual basis. Also , read all of Psalm 58 and realize first , that it is Hebrew poetry , and is an imprecatory Psalm.But it does not teach imputed or inherited sin that comes due to being born. Where is it , is it in the DNA or where ? It is not taught. The whole 5th chapter of Romans speaks to the glory of grace through Jesus in contrast to the sin in the world ; disobedience through choice not an arbitary robotic decision. Just as Adam and Eve had choice, free will , so it is given to each person. We keep getting back to whosoever will and free choice and election being corporate ; the whosoever will who accept Jesus are the elect and they are the chosen, the predestined.
Mike ,
I asked you to tell me what you mean by original sin, in your definition ? Only then can I answer you .
Daniel ,
Psalm 58 speaks about the wicked and the righteous and the righteous want vengence against the wicked. Verse 3 does not say every person born is wicked. It does not teach universal inherited sin. If it does then this whole discussion has really become very confusing. If verse 3 only mentions the wicked , then that must mean-if you take the inherited sin position- some are born sinners and some are not since the Psalm shows a difference between the wicked and the righteous. Then some are born safe and secure and some are born lost , if there is sin at the time of birth. I keep wondering why a baby is to be held accountable for the sin of Adam since the baby cannot comprehend sin .
Ray,
Why are you dancing like this? What kind of burden is it that you’re trying to lay upon this discussion by saying that I have to construct my own definition of things? These antics that you’re pulling, both with me and with Daniel, reflect the weakness of your position.
Let’s keep this simple.
I accept whole-heartedly what is written there concerning sin and the nature of man. (And in fact, I’ve said most of that in my own words in the foregoing discussion.)
Do you, or do you not, whole-heartedly accept what is written there concerning sin and the nature of man?
If you do not, what do you reject?
In answering why you reject what you reject, please interact specifically and exegetically with the Scriptures referenced there, demonstrating why you feel that they are inadequate to support the position they claim to support.
Just as Adam and Eve had choice, free will , so it is given to each person.
So what happened in the Fall? When Adam and Eve sinned, what did that do to humanity?
Mike ,
Not dancing. Just asking for a defintion. Why will you not give me one ?
Mike ,
Sin came into the world but I am still waiting on the scripture that teaches that at birth a baby is held accountable for the sin of Adam .
I gave you a definition Ray. It’s there, spelled out, nice and clear, step by step, with Scripture. Stop acting like a child and answer the question.
And stop taking the discussion where you want to take it and just answer the questions asked. Your answer as to what happened in the Fall was that sin came into the world. What does that mean? Did it change human nature in any way?
Ray,
Ezek 18:19-20 teaches that a son will not be guilty of the sins of his father. I agree. If my father did something sinful, I would not be punished for that. Inheriting a sinful nature from Adam is not the same as being punished for the sins of my father.
You said, “Not one of the verses you gave me said that each person who is born , is born with sin inherited from Adam.”
Every one of the verses that I gave you said that ALL have sinned and there is NONE righteous NO NOT ONE. This means that ALL have sinned. From the elderly to the infant, ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
As far as Psalm 58, I never said that this chapter has anything to do with inherited sin. Please deal with the verses that I have mentioned (just dismissing a verse is not dealing with it).
The doctrine of inherited sin is not a Calvinistic teaching. Calvin believed that, but this doctrine is central to the belief that salvation is by grace alone, not just Calvinism.
You STILL have not answered my three points. Ignoring my points, questions, and verses is not a good way to convince me of the veracity of your belief. In fact, it is getting quite agravating. You just keep saying “I already have”. That is not an acceptable answer to my question. Please answer that question.
Ray,
If you’ve replied before this comment I haven’t seen it, yet. So read this as if I haven’t.
First, I’m sorry for my last comment. I was impatient and unloving. I sincerely apologize and ask your forgiveness. I will, once again, as you’ve asked, define original sin with my own words (and from Scripture), and hope to show you its truth.
Adam and Eve were created with a nature that included the ability to choose to obey God unto life or choose to disobey God unto death. They both chose to disobey God unto death. As a result of their sin, they died (Gen 2:17).
Then we pick up at Paul’s argument. Because Adam sinned, sin and death entered into the world (Rom 5:12). Then he says something extremely interesting. He says that “death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom 5:12). What can “death spread to all men” possibly mean? It means that the state of spiritual death was applied to all of humanity. This universal, spiritual death is consistent with Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. In 15:22 we read that “in Adam all die.”
So why did this universal, spiritual death come upon all of humanity? Paul’s answer is because “all sinned.” Not “all sin.” That’s important. It’s a past tense. It’s the aorist tense in the