Layman Bible Lounge

Пікірлер

@Dizerner 12 күн бұрын

It's interesting, because any quote that says infants are saved in any way through the Work of Jesus is thereby logically implying they are in need of redemption from sin, there would be no other need for it. People's emotions really cloud their logic on this issue.

@LaymanBibleLounge 11 күн бұрын

@@Dizerner I would obviously affirm infants need redemption from sin, meaning the presence and consequences of sin in our world. And the effects of sin on the infant. But not yet in the sense where there is a damnable guilt that will send an infant to hell if they die. That is all conditioned on personal sin IMO

@Dizerner 11 күн бұрын

@@LaymanBibleLounge This is interesting. Don't you realize that if you object that it is a violation of justice for the innocent to suffer for the guilty, to be punished for what someone else has done, then babies suffering from the presence and consequence of sin is definitionally unjust? See, this is the whole heart of the argument against a sin nature, that it's unjust. But here the same argument is being applied that innocent people are dying through no fault of their own, and yet it is called justice? I never understand how people are okay with the glaring internal inconsistency. It feels like special pleading.

@Dizerner 12 күн бұрын

You're conflating Original Sin with Original Guilt.

@LaymanBibleLounge 11 күн бұрын

@@Dizerner inherited adamic guilt is historically one of the components of the western doctrine of original sin. If a view uses the title original sin but rejects inherited guilt, it’s not really original sin. That view would be essentially ancestral sin. So no, I’m not conflating the two.

@LaymanBibleLounge 11 күн бұрын

@@Dizerner if you look at my articles and videos that frame the issue, I categorize the affirmation of inherited guilt as an original sin view and the denial of inherited guilt as an ancestral sin view. But both views do overlap on other consequences of the fall which everyone affirms (like mortality, a fallen world, personal sin etc.)

@Dizerner 11 күн бұрын

@@LaymanBibleLounge Yes, you ARE conflating the two, because just asserting they are the same does not prove it. Original sin as the doctrine teaches that because of Adam's sin we are each born sinful with a sin nature. It does NOT teach, and never HAS taught, that every individual is held personally responsible for a direct violation of God's command in clear light and grace that led to billions of souls being eternally lost in hell and the entire creation being cursed, that is not the doctrine. Original Guilt is a false accretion upon Original Sin, and very distinct from it. Consider this explanation of Original Sin by Tertullian, 200 years before Augustine even lived: “Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration; and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame.” Notice there is NO description or talk of Adam's specific sin being imputed to people as their guilt... none. It is a transference of a sin nature that is the core of Original Sin.

@BradMcFadden 21 күн бұрын

But we are not guilty of sins we did NOT commit. We are NOT guilty of Adam’s sin we are guilty of our sin. The Bible does not teach inherited guilt.

@LaymanBibleLounge 21 күн бұрын

@@BradMcFadden I agree

@havenofear7033 23 күн бұрын

This was a good eye-opener. Shared it with my FaceBook group. Thank you.

@LaymanBibleLounge 23 күн бұрын

@@havenofear7033 thanks for sharing!

@kevinsBiblicaldiscussions 23 күн бұрын

There is also the position that your nature becomes sinful the first time that you sin

@havenofear7033 23 күн бұрын

That is my view.

@kevinsBiblicaldiscussions 23 күн бұрын

Augustine was a deranged idiot.. I'm torn between the traducian view and the creation view. I affirm that human beings have a sinful nature however I deny that God has made us born guilty of Adam's sin. The only way I can see how to reconcile this is that God creates the soul and then when the soul is in the human body we inherit the consequences of Adam's fall which would be a sinful nature. In this view I can get around God being the one that creates the sinful nature of man. However I'm not dogmatic on that view because I think there's still things to be worked out with it. What do you think brother?

@kevinsBiblicaldiscussions 23 күн бұрын

I will definitely be watching this.

@LaymanBibleLounge 23 күн бұрын

Happy to hear your thoughts!

@jackenvolsen5069 Ай бұрын

👍🏻keep it up

@LaymanBibleLounge 29 күн бұрын

@@jackenvolsen5069 thanks! I have a lot more stuff coming soon.

@benjaminsaint9628 Ай бұрын

Great video. Very informative and packed with references.

@havenofear7033 5 ай бұрын

Why aren't more teaching this?

@LaymanBibleLounge 5 ай бұрын

Probably because it’s uncomfortable to talk about. Nobody likes to meditate on the idea that their theology entails infant Damnation.

@charlesdoyle2161 5 ай бұрын

The question, by implication, that I've been looking into is, "Are we born as Adam and Eve were when they were created?"

@LaymanBibleLounge 5 ай бұрын

@@charlesdoyle2161 I’d say no. There’s obvious things that do transfer over, but not in a 1:1 way where we’re exactly as Adam and Eve were pre fall.

@charlesdoyle2161 5 ай бұрын

@LaymanBibleLounge It's been a while since I viewed all your other videos. Do you address this question? If so, point me where. If not, maybe a topic for your next video? Thanks! I really appreciate your research and straightforward presentation on such foundational theology!

@LaymanBibleLounge 5 ай бұрын

@@charlesdoyle2161 I believe I briefly addressed this in my pelagianism video. I appreciate your feedback. I have a handful of articles I’m working on that should have videos in the near future. Some of the things I’m working on: Psalm 51:5 Original Sin in the early puritans The development of infant salvation in the Presbyterian tradition

@charlesdoyle2161 5 ай бұрын

@LaymanBibleLounge Interesting! I'm off to review the video on Pelagianism and will snag the transcript. Thank you, again!

@LaymanBibleLounge 5 ай бұрын

@@charlesdoyle2161 No problem! Quite a few of my articles have received additions since recording videos on them. I think the pelagianism article on my blog might be one of them. So check there as well.

@Yaas_ok123 7 ай бұрын

Thanks. If you are not familiar with Ali Bonner's work, check his interviews on Idol Killer and Soteriology101. You will see how things went south from Augustine forward. Blessings from Finland !

@LaymanBibleLounge 7 ай бұрын

Yep! Very familiar with her work. Thanks for the comment.

@frederickanderson1860 7 ай бұрын

0:21 theological abstractions u runnin out of explanations and u can only squeeze so much juice out of a lemon.

@LaymanBibleLounge 7 ай бұрын

I’m planning on doing a video or two on Psalm 51:5 in the near future.

@christopherwest5047 7 ай бұрын

Great video, highly informative

@LaymanBibleLounge 7 ай бұрын

I appreciate the feedback! More stuff is in the works

@Jazzfestn 8 ай бұрын

The TEXT says "By NATURE the children of wrath". We don't become sinners - we are born sinners. It is not learned, as all parents have observed in their children's sinful behavior which was not taught them - it comes NATURALLY. In the judgement in Noah's time 1Peter 3:20 says "eight souls were SAVED". Except for Noah's family,, the rest of the people were judged and went to hell. Same for Sodom and Gomorrah. All were judged and went to hell.

@LaymanBibleLounge 8 ай бұрын

Hi! Thanks for dropping your thoughts. I have a few points here on what you said. 1. Where did I say or convey that sinful behavior has to be externally taught or that it doesn't come naturally? That's not my view. 2. Yes, that's what the text says, but what's your evidence that contextually and thematically Paul has in mind some cosmic perpetually inherited guilt of a singular sin which makes God have wrath toward us from conception? Simply reciting a verse doesn't in and of itself make it mean what you interpret it to mean. We can't interpret half of a verse in a vacuum without considering the larger context and parallel statements. 3. I think you're conflating physical and spiritual condition. These are distinct. (cf. Matthew 10:28) I also think you're unnecessarily assuming spiritual salvation in various temporal physical death passages. The context of the flood is being saved from flood waters, not saved from eternal destruction and hellfire. I'd challenge you to demonstrate that in the context that there is certainly a 1:1 ratio with dying in the flood and being eternally damned. 4. Another reason why we can't just assume and conflate spiritual condition and physical condition is David's child. He physically died as a consequence of David's sin, but the spiritual fate of the child seems to be positive in light of 2 Samuel 12:15-23.

@graceanneful 8 ай бұрын

Two parts- through Adam’s transgression we lost our immortality and our days are all numbered. Part two-we have a propensity ( in the flesh) to transgress the law ( which was abolished through Jesus Christ. We are saved through faith and obedience to Jesus Christ as we repent for sins we commit. We are justified through faith. Noah was righteous in his generation ( which I believe he was pure for his seed was not mixed when the fallen ones looked on the daughters of man and found them beautiful and took them as wives. Genesis 6, for which the initial race of giants occired

@JaysonCarmona 8 ай бұрын

@@apostasiaelegcho5612 Christ's resurrection and the Tree of Life both point to the future destiny of man to be resurrected. Job said, "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:" Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. 1 Cor. 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. It was always God's plan for man to have their physical flesh immortal. Christ is the type, firstborn among many brethren. All humans will be resurrected, but not all will receive a glorious resurrection like Christ's if they weren't faithful. Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: 1 Cor. 15:40,42 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

@jordandthornburg 8 ай бұрын

8:21 yes, almost everyone in scholarship thinks that isn’t original.

@jordandthornburg 8 ай бұрын

Any particular reason for using the kjv?

@joshmckown7778 8 ай бұрын

So, a "child of wrath" couldn't mean, you are wrathful like children? See how that changes the entire text?

@LaymanBibleLounge 8 ай бұрын

That’s interesting. I haven’t considered that interpretation. I think though with Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 in view, the wrath is of God. But I’ll look into that further.

@sandormiklosnagy 8 ай бұрын

This passage is not talking about God and his wrath. Notice it says earlier sons of disobedience and God is not disobedient. The sons of disobedience is the same meaning as children of wrath. If God reconciled, meaning nade peace with the whole world, in thew time of grace why would he have wrath? But it make sence, whan God asking man, be reconcile to him. The answer that whos sons it's talking about, who is disobedient and wrathful against God, it's in the same verse, the spirit of the air.

@joshmckown7778 8 ай бұрын

@@LaymanBibleLounge in regards to Ephesians 5 and Col 3, if we assume, by what Paul writes in his letter to the Thessolonians, that he is aware of the impending judgement and wrath of God that is soon to come upon Jerusalem, it seems to clarify "Gods wrath" as an earthly punishment for evil. If we ignore that knowledge of Paul, it leaves us assuming God's wrath as an eternal punishment that is administered after death.

@LaymanBibleLounge 8 ай бұрын

@@joshmckown7778 I’m open to various interpretations of exactly what substance this “wrath” actually entails or does. My focus here was just to show historical attestation that it’s not meaning that mankind is under God’s wrath from conception because we’re all guilty of Adam’s sin. It’s connected to personal transgression which all humans naturally commit themselves. Whether the wrath is for temporal/physical things or eternal state type things, I didn’t really address.

@joshmckown7778 8 ай бұрын

@LaymanBibleLounge I understand. I would argue that Christ has made peace on our behalf and we are not under His wrath any longer. Every sin has natural consequences, some that lead to death, some that destroy relationships, some that steal weath, some that hinder growth. Death itself is the natural consequence of our inability to access the tree of life, which is actually an act of mercy whereby we are not ruled by the knowledge of good and evil, eternally. Death is our way out of this state of being and the promise of life after death, salvation.

@michellethalman2803 9 ай бұрын

What inclination did Adam and Eve have when they sinned?

@LaymanBibleLounge 9 ай бұрын

Good question. I would say they didn’t have any internal inclinations toward sin. Meaning, I don’t think they were walking around being tempted by intrusive thoughts and fleshly urges like we do today. Rather, the chain reaction that led to their sin was ultimately spurred by the serpent. So you could say they were externally tempted.

@DanielinLaTuna 9 ай бұрын

Interestingly, this is a question within the western (Roman and Protestant) churches; in the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.

@LaymanBibleLounge 9 ай бұрын

I agree with your assessment.

@TheChurchSplit 9 ай бұрын

Thoroughly enjoyed this. Well done!

@LaymanBibleLounge 9 ай бұрын

Glad you found it insightful!

@garythebeast5391 9 ай бұрын

1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (KJV): “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”

@kevinsBiblicaldiscussions 9 ай бұрын

I'm not sure what to believe regarding this topic. I lean more towards we get our soul from our parents but again I'm not sure. I wish the bible was more clear regarding these issues

@LaymanBibleLounge 9 ай бұрын

While traducianism is often closely connected with inherited guilt. I could see a scenario where you affirm traducianism but just deny that guilt is a transmittable substance to the soul.

@alanrhoda228 10 ай бұрын

Another nice video! The Motte and Bailey fallacy strikes me as the inverse of the Strawman fallacy. In the latter one tries to refute a less extreme position by attacking a more extreme position. In the M&B fallacy one tries to support a more extreme position by defending a less extreme position. In each case one is picking a target that is easier to attack/defend than the position one ought to be attacking/defending.

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Mere representation you could say is the Trojan horse…much more hard to defend ideas are smuggled inside which are critical and distinct to federal headship.

@alanrhoda228 10 ай бұрын

Excellent video! It really bugs me how often Christians (esp. reformed Protestants) speak of the "sinful nature," as in the quotations you provide beginning at around 4:00. Even if we were to assume the doctrine of original sin, we ought not to suppose or suggest that our "nature" is corrupted by sin. Otherwise, the Fall would have resulted in Adam and Eve ceasing to exist as humans and becoming a fundamentally different kind of being ("sinful-humans"?). In that case, the Son's taking on human nature wouldn't have any bearing on us sinful-humans. Aquinas, I think, had a much better idea. Because he didn't want to allow that human nature could be corrupted by the Fall and assumed by the Son, he argued that what Adam and Eve lost in the Garden was a "donum supperadditum," a "superadded gift" over and above their human nature. Roughly put, they and their descendants lost direct access to the divine grace they needed to properly rule their appetites and emotions (i.e., the "flesh"), thus making it virtually certain that they (and their descendants) would continue to sin. Through the Holy Spirit that superadded gift is, in effect, restored, but it doesn't automatically reverse our lifelong habits of selfishness and sin. Thus, sanctification remains an extended and often arduous process. Needless to say, Aquinas's idea is consistent with ancestral sin. It might also be consistent with original sin, provided one can make moral sense of generational transmission of guilt, but that strikes me as very implausible.

@gianthebaptist 10 ай бұрын

Dr. Layman

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Dr. Gian

@alanrhoda228 10 ай бұрын

Bravo! The patristic support is excellent.

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

To be honest I did not do an exhaustive dive into the patristic support! I’m sure more similar comments can be found.

@alanrhoda228 10 ай бұрын

@@LaymanBibleLounge, well, what you provided is more than enough to demonstrate that there is no patristic consensus in favor of the idea that mortality implies adamic guilt and at least a solid patristic opposition to that idea.

@thetechpastor 10 ай бұрын

This is excellent. As one who once held the Traducian view without really giving it much thought, for a large portion of my college and early ministry years, I sat thinking, this paper, and subsequent video is a must to initiate discussion on the creationist vs. traducian view of soul/spirit origin. It was in 2007-2008, that I gave up the traducian viewpoint, again without a lot of concern regarding theological papers, books or videos. I simply saw what you pointed out in your section entitled "According to the Flesh" that the transmission verses were always specific to the flesh, and not the soul/spirit. Though I did not arrive at that conclusion in such a theologically precise manner, I had long rejected much of Shedd's (required reading in my college) theological approach to sin transmission, but never thought to really questioned traducianism in his texts. Thanks, good work!

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for your feedback! Glad you got something out of it!

@alanrhoda228 10 ай бұрын

Brilliant analysis! You should seriously consider publishing your work.

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for your feedback Dr. Rhoda! I might consider it if I knew where to go and what to do 🤣. I have about 300 or so pages worth of stuff written concerning issues related to original sin and ancestral sin.

@alanrhoda228 10 ай бұрын

@@LaymanBibleLounge, I'm no expert at book publishing, but I think a good first step might be to contact two or three established theologians who you think would be highly sympathetic to your work. Tell them that you'd like to publish your work, and ask if any of them have some time to look at your stuff and recommend how to proceed with finding a publisher. The hope is that one of them will be sufficiently impressed to help line you up with a good publisher and/or write a strong letter of endorsement on your behalf. Maybe one of them would be willing to sign on as a secondary coauthor. Of course, you can skip all that if you wish and just go straight to a publisher. With a nearly complete manuscript in hand and a few strong letters of support from scholarly friends (e.g., John Sanders, Brian Wagner), you might be able to persuade a publisher to take your project on.

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

@@alanrhoda228 I love Brian Wagner! In pretty frequent communication with him actually. I might ask him about it then 🤔

@richardcompere3426 10 ай бұрын

This is a great addendum to your brilliant article on ancestral sin. Great work. Thank you so much for your detailed research and biblical insight, Layman’s Bible Lounge!

@sahilthedisciple 10 ай бұрын

Great analysis

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Thanks my friend!

@scottthong9274 10 ай бұрын

Nice summary including Christ didn't just die to save from guilt

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Appreciate it! I have more stuff coming up soon on all of this!

@scottthong9274 10 ай бұрын

@@LaymanBibleLounge Is there a short summary video on what Ancestral Sin teaches? I have a discussion on the nature of man next week or so, I already pushed back on the necessity of Adam's Imputed Guilt to Christ's saving work by mentioning Ancestral Sin as an alternative view

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

@@scottthong9274 If you check my video here called a comprehensive case for ancestral sin, and click on the chapter that goes over the potential consequences of the fall I outline what the Main points are!

@traesaint9328 10 ай бұрын

Good video bro

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Appreciate it!

@gracekhriz 10 ай бұрын

based

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Thanks bro!

@Gods_silliest_goober 10 ай бұрын

Original sin position in shambles

@LaymanBibleLounge 10 ай бұрын

Much more to come!

Ең жақсы KZbin

Пікірлер