Original sin is a doctrine that's somewhat difficult to come to grips with, but if you consider it carefully you'll see that refusing to believe in it creates a number of really difficult problems.
1. If people begin life perfect then at what point do they cross over into the age where sin begins to count against them, typically called the ‘age of accountability?’ If you reply "it is different for everyone" then what's the average age? Are there sins so heinous that God would count them when committed by someone still under the age? If God is just then why does He allow sinless children to die if death is the penalty for sin? Questions here could be multiplied.
2. If everyone starts without fallen natures then why is sin in every single heart? Why is every last society, man, woman, and child broken?
3. Why, if the Bible is sufficient to tell us everything we need to know, does God refuse to disclose the age of accountability to us? Why would He withhold this critical information? We have an oblique reference in Isaiah and Jonah but that's it?
4. If babies go to heaven because they don't understand (or don’t knowingly commit sin) then what's to stop adults from getting a free ride on the same train? If God is willing and able to turn a blind eye to wicked creatures in one case why might He not do so elsewhere? Since ignorance does not count against us, is all we need to forget about our sins to be saved? This is tantamount to insisting that Jesus was superfluous, and His death for our sins was merely a nice idea, not an essential event.
5. A man without original sin is a man capable of achieving salvation. But scripture does not allow us of this, instead it speaks in the strongest terms of our moral inability and fallen hearts: But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away (Is 64:6, Eph 2:8,9) For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
6. A rejection of sin directly contradicts scripture: “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3). “Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 51:5).
7. Someone with a clean slate has no need of grace, and therefore no need of Christ's atonement for sins. Babies are therefore saved apart by their own nature, and not Him who took on our nature.
I understand that the thought of being personally evil is repulsive to the flesh, but we must suppress this desire to justify ourselves and instead insist that people are tainted to the core, and that God is a merciful God. As the Scripture says, "Let God be true and every man a liar."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Heretical Religion of Wokeism
"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served tha...
-
I'm Phil. I'm an engineer, a father, and a husband. In my down time I think about theology, such as when I take my dog for a run, or...
-
This is the transcript of the debate between Alistair Begg and R.C. Sproul over infant baptism at the Ligonier conference in Orlando, 1997. ...
2 comments:
just commenting on a few aspects of Pelageus' argument.....
(1) Adam was created mortal, and would have died even if he had not sinned
i don't see where the Bible even makes the claim that Adam was created mortal. "from dust to dust" occurred AFTER he had fallen, correct? before that, it was simply "from dust" with no "to" or am i mistaken?
(3) Infants at their birth are in the same condition in which Adam was before the fall
again, i don't see where the Bible makes this claim. "same condition"? according to the Bible, Adam was created in a manner qualitatively different from babies. God Himself gathered dust and breathed into it to make Adam. and Eve was made from Adam; even Adam and Eve were made differently from one another, let alone babies after them! it's like, you can't make two identical cakes by following different recipes and cooking preparations lol.
i know you don't agree with Pelageus in the first place, but i just wanted to state how i saw the argument to literally break down from the beginning. and even if premise one passed by us, the argument breaks down again "by the time it gets to" the actual birth of infants (a whopping two premises after the first lol).
anyway, i just wanted to pass along my thoughts. i'll quit before Pelageus frustrates me even more lol. i enjoy the posts i've read! :)
Post a Comment