[...] three blogs on this subject compel us to believe that we are held guilty for the sin of Adam: see part 1, part 2, part [...]

[...] I will finish my series on imputation [...]

To lisakaay, I would say: Jesus, being fully human, still was subject to temptation and COULD have chosen to sin. If he was not capable of choosing, then he would not have been fully human. But he CHOSE not to sin and instead chose to always live in accordance with God’s will, even when that will lead to the pain of being whipped and crucified. His perfect human will “intermeshed” with the Spirit of God within him opened up the kingdom of heaven to all people.

I don’t understand all the workings of this and I don’t think we can ever fully understand it. And remember, I am not one of the students of this Reclaiming the Mind online school. I “self-study” and was brought up Catholic but investigated many of the other Christian churches and also looked in to Buddhism and Hinduism but always came back to Jesus as the one that could be trusted and loved because of his love for us.

Joanie D.

[...] the last post we discussed the problem of Original Sin, especially from an Evangelical Reformed perspective. Are [...]

I believe the sin is passed down through the seed and he was born of a virgin. II Cor 5:21 says “He made him who knew no sin to be sin our behalf so that we may become the righteousness of God” . I think not knowing sin means it was not present in his being, as it is in ours.

My question is this…

How does Christ escape the taint of Adam’s sin? Orthodoxy dictates that he was fully man. Yet, he was able to atone for our sin by living a sinless life. But what about “original sin”? Maybe one of you can help me with that one.

Yeah, I’m checking out the Desiringgod.org site now, though I’m leaving the computer now. I’ll dig into it some more later. Thanks again!

-T

Just to restate I didn’t say those things, I was quoting from Desiringgod.org (i.e. the DG Staff).

Not that I don’t agree with them, I just don’t want to make it seem as though they originated from me in anyway besides me using the copy/paste buttons lol.

Josh said:
That is the bottom line is the goodness of God—that is the hope for us all, and the only hope.

On this, I don’t wonder or ponder at all. I say, “Amen brutha!”

-T

Josh,

Thanks for the reply.

A few things.

Josh said:
In addition to having sinful natures, we also come into the world with Adam’s sin imputed to us. Because of our union with Adam, we are born guilty of his first sin (Romans 5:12-21)

I, of course, accept this through faith, but that doesn’t make it make sense to me. Again, how is original sin imputed? How does that work? (Please refrain from tagging me with the “Pelagian” label! I do not hold to his teachings!)

Josh said, quoting Dr. Piper:
God in his justice will find a way to absolve infants who die of their depravity. It will surely be through Christ. But beyond that we would be guessing.

This seems to me to be an honest leaning.

Josh said, quoting Dr. Piper:
It is important to emphasize that, in our view, God is not saving infants because they are innocent. They are not innocent, but guilty.

If infants are guilty, but they themselves haven’t yet sinned, then this must speak of original sin inherited, correct? This would bring us to my original point/question, which was regarding how original sin actually works or happens (see post #14).

Josh said:
As Spurgeon pointed out, it is not that God chooses someone to salvation because they are going to die in infancy. Rather, He has ordained that only those who have been chosen for salvation will be allowed to die in infancy.

This may very well be so, though it seems to be an explanation fashioned from the belief to fit the belief; It seems to be a domino belief. Not that this is something we shouldn’t sometimes do.

Josh said:
It should also be emphasized that the salvation of all who die in infancy is not inconsistent with unconditional election (the view that God chooses whom to save of His own will, apart from anything in the individual).

True enough, it isn’t inconsistent, but, again, I think this explanation is fashioned from the belief (Calvinistic election) to fit the belief. Overall, it seems the “Do infants go to heaven?” issue is something we don’t know. I get what you’re saying, Josh, but I think it’s an attempt to work it (infants who die are saved) into the theology, not something rock-solid.

But that question was just an example I was using related to the “fairness” questions people ask. These seem born of the implications to how you view justification before God.

By the way, I’m still on the fence with Calvinism/Arminianism. Still working through it. This blog has been very instrumental in getting me thinking! Thanks, P&P!

Oh, and thanks for the link, Josh, I’ll check that out!

-T