After I miscarried, a well-intentioned Calvinist told me my baby was burning in hell. Thank God for Michael Heiser's clarity of thought. He will be missed!
Jesus who spoke only the fathers words said that all children's angels behold the fathers face. So what was the original sin? Separation from God. Yet God still spoke to Adam after the fall. Through out the old testament God was without but in the new its God within. The children of isreal were told over and over the Lord thy God in the midst of you. In the new testament its in him we live breath and have our being. The Lord God omnipotent and sin cannot separate us from him. Remember he is the lamb slain before the foundation of the word. He does not change. So the sin is the belief that God is somewhere else.
I had a similar conversation a few years ago, and I cannot help myself but frown as I imagine how the conversation would have been. "HOW ABOUT THE UNBORN CHILD? BECAUSE HE/SHE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO BELIEVE, IS HE/SHE IN HELL?" - that was the question I was being asked, in a somewhat condescending way, daring me to hurt the questioner's feelings. I mean, unless you are a psychopath, you do not literally say "Your baby is in hell!" - but it is true that we all need to have & receive faith in Jesus Christ so that we may be redeemed and saved from eternal destruction we humans (as we are indeed abominations in sin) deserve. I could not and would not make a compromise for fear of hurting someone's feelings by contradicting the very basics of the Christian faith.
@@Mimu1983 Not sure what faith you speak of. So many Christians are indoctrinated with absolutley false beliefs. Lets go to the garden where it began and stop at. God said let us make man in our image. Skip forward to and man became a living soul. Then we go to it is appointed once for man to die and then the judgement. At the cross there were three people being hung for crimes. Now we know Jesus was innocent and took our punishment. There was a murderer who mocked Jesus and told him to heal himself. The thief though told the other to shut up. Jesus was innocent. He was told this day you shall be with me in paradise. He wasnt even baptized nor did he say he was his lord. Now to the prodigal son. You know the story. He came to his right mind. You see, children come into this world in a completely innocent state. They have no clue what hate is, or murder, and cant sin. Now lets see more in the new that knocks the crazy double minded god preached still (god is not double minded). For God so loved the world. The love of God in Jesus. God was in Jesus reconciling the world to himself. When you think that he took upon himself the worlds sin for eternity. Do you really think he would send an innocent baby to hell to burn forever? Utter nonsense and crazy. God is love and anyone who has not love has not God. Let God be true and every man a liar.
The more I read scripture, the more I realize that if my theology seems to defy common sense, then my theology is most definitely faulty. God is logical, His creation is logical, and scripture is logical, but we're often so hindered by our traditional religious preconceptions that we look right past the logical truth staring us in the face and favor the illogical belief we already hold, and we call it "faith".
I'm going the same thing, especially on original sin. The thought of my miscarriage sister being in hell for something she did not ask for is sickening to me, and it makes me nauseous that fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are happy that she would be suffering there. I'd recommend reading more of Heiser's stuff. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's incredibly helpful. And I'd also recommend the UA-cam channel InspiringPhilosophy. He's a Christian apologist and philosopher.
Just curious, what theology are you holding that defies common sense? You should be careful with that way of thinking- “common sense” is a relative term and can lead you away from the way scripture reasons. For instance, the message of the cross is foolishness to the common person. How can God decide to just give us eternal life at his own cost? Wouldn’t it make more sense that he would tell us to earn it and pay him back for the dishonor we showed to him? Just an example.
@PizzaDisguise I don't know that I'm currently holding any theology that defies common sense. If I find out that I am, I will work to resolve it. Also, I don't think scripture reasons outside of common sense. I think there are people who misunderstand scripture who reject common sense due to their misunderstanding. I believe the doctrine of original sin is one example of this. Common sense doesn't necessarily mean most people believe it. Common sense means it's an obvious truth available to everyone to know and understand. It's certainly possible to deny common sense, but I can't see how a proper understanding of God and scripture could possibly be at odds with common sense, such as the common sense that a newborn infant could not possibly be a sinful abomination to God. It defies basic logic and reason to say an infant is sinful since sin requires the breaking of God's law, and infants can't break God's law. Therefore, the doctrine is most likely based on a misunderstanding of scripture, and I believe a careful reading of scripture would reveal that truth.
@@lukegaier9490 The doctrine of original sin doesn’t, by necessity, make you conclude that babies are a sinful abomination to God. Paul argues that babies, and in fact all humans, were dying before the Law was given (so they couldn’t transgress it), so he reasons from effect to cause: they were dying because of Adam’s sin. That is what original sin means. It’s the key to understanding how Adam is a type of Christ- just as the guilt of Adam can be imputed, so the righteousness of Jesus can be imputed to us. Romans 5:16 [16] And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. Oh interesting! I just got this. He’s also saying that the sin that we committed in killing the Christ is not going to result in death for us like Adam’s sin- it’s going to result in life for us because of the grace of God. Man, the Lord Jesus is so beyond searching out- only God could turn our sin into salvation through his grace and patience.
@PizzaDisguise Paul says plainly in verse 12 that people die because they sin. If he were going to make a case for Original Sin, he wouldn't have said this. He says Adam introduced sin into the world, but we all die because we all sin. When he says, "sin isn't counted where there is no law," he surely isn't saying God excuses sin where there is no law. He's saying we don't keep track of our sin where there is no law for us to reference. God certainly held people accountable for their sins before the law was given. We see this with Cain, the people in the flood, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. He goes on to explain that death reigned over those whose sinning was not like Adam's transgression. He means that even though they weren't breaking a direct command from God, like Adam did, their sin still resulted in death. Lastly, the free gift is not like the trespass because it is exactly the opposite. The trespass introduced sin and death, but the free gift introduced forgiveness and life. This is a common sense reading of this text that doesn't require us to invent mysterious doctrines of imputed guilt.
It is good. To be fallen is different than being guilty. We inherit fallenness from Adam, but not guilt. Think of the many judgment passages in scripture, and the reasons for their judgment. Being "in Adam" is never listed. OT judgments, Matt. 25 sheep and the goats, etc. Tony Evans has a similar understanding, mentioned in his book Totally Saved, and in some of his messages. He explains, and refutes the Universalist interpretation of, 1 Timothy 4;10b, "the living God... is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." He would say that Jesus bore Adam's guilt for everyone -- so although we're born fallen, we're not born guilty, and remain that way until committing personal sin, for which we are then under God's wrath.
@@trone3630 I disagree. The bible says as in Adam all die. Death is the result of sin and sin means we are all guilty before God. In fact the Apostle Paul says that was the purpose of the law to expose us as guilty. It can’t be kept because it’s perfect and we aren’t. The only One who kept the law was Jesus
@@mountainman78629 Thanks for your reply, and I like where you're coming from. You're supporting your points well with scripture, and I certainly agree with most of it. I'll add this for now. (a) Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis, and means to introduce ideas into a text that actually aren't there. We're all prone to that, so need to always beware of that. (b) There can be gaps in our understanding of scripture (holes in our theology) that we don't realize until we encounter a new idea or experience. The proper response is go back to scripture, to understand more precisely what it says on the subject. (c) Many passages assert that we will give an account to God for what we have done, not for what our parents have done. From Ezek. 18, "The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son. The righteousness of the righteous man will fall upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will fall upon him." Scripture is also clear that God's earthly judgment, and blessing, are often given broadly, to groups of people -- "it rains on the just and the unjust" -- but, in our personal relationship with him, and on the final day, we will answer to Him only for ourselves. (d) Biblically, death, sin, guilt, law and judgment are connected. And there's more than one kind of death. We're all born spiritually dead in Adam (spiritually fallen). That condition results in us sinning when we reach the stage of comprehension that Paul describes in Romans 1, where seeing "what He has made" is why Paul says they then have no excuse. He says in a similar way elsewhere that people become guilty when they sin against their own consciences, even though they may not know biblical laws. (e) People begin as fertilized embryos, and may be able to comprehend the basics of the gospel at, what age? Six months? 18 months? They are born spiritually dead (incapacitated; unable to respond to God), but are they guilty for some of their fathers' sins? And if they're very young, or not even born, have they committed sins for which they should be judged -- when Paul says that sin is based on comprehension of things outside or inside? (f) "Paul says that the children of the righteous are holy." True. And after his baby died, David said, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David indicated that his infant wouldn't go to a place of judgment. (g) We can therefore draw two conclusions from scripture -- a strong conclusion that the children of the righteous are not under the wrath of God for (guilty for) Adam's sin, meaning it was never conferred to them, or was paid by Christ if it was conferred -- and a less strong conclusion that the children of the unrighteous are also not under the wrath of God for (guilty for) Adam's sin, nor for their own sin, because we have biblical evidence for that not being so.
@@trone3630 we are all guilty of Adams sin, called original sin because Adam was the head of the human race and we all descended from him. The reason everyone sins is because of our sin nature. I think the reason it has to work this way is because of the righteousness of the second Adam, which is Jesus. Without us being in Christ we are doomed because we have no righteousness of our own. Even as Christians we still sin but the penalty for our sins was paid for by the Lord Jesus Himself. Theoretically God would be perfectly just if He killed us in the womb because of original sin but I know He’s merciful and Loves children. Where does Paul say sin is based on comprehension? Remember kids being holy doesn’t mean sinless, it means set apart. Come out from among them and be separate says the Lord and I will receive you. We are in the world but not of the world. That’s usually the holy He’s talking about because no one is without sin
This brings to mind the passage 1 Kings 14:12-13, where the prophet Ahijah tells the wife of Jeroboam that her infant that was sick will die, be mourned and be buried, and be the only one of Jeroboam's family who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the Lord God of Israel. (paraphrase of NKJV). The child was too young to share in the sin and guilt of his father, he died early and escaped the fate the rest of the family would face.
I'm 47 years old, raised in the church. This is the only answer to the question about infant deaths I have ever heard that makes any sense without "reading between the lines" of the Bible. Thank you!
Everyone seems to appreciate his teaching here... I feel ignorant in that I just didn't "get it" ...would you be so kind as to explain the gist of this video/teaching to me? Thank you.
The church writ large has taught for 20 centuries that every human INHERITS the GUILT of our first father, Adam. Heiser here reminds us that the text of Romans v.12 speaks of DEATH as that which was inherited, not GUILT. Yes, we all violate God's holy Law and we're judged on that, and not another man's guilt.
Hey man! May I suggest a few channels that may also help? I've gone through many (I assume similar) questions. @Soteriology101 @Idol killer @TheChurchSplit
2 Samuel 12:22 and 23 (paste): And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”
And then you have Solomon being born, which means Peace, from the root - Shalom. This fulfills God promising a man of peace who will build the temple and at the same time be reflective of David's peace after the 3 days he mourned. If the child were forever damned, David would have no reason to stop weeping, and to look forward to any type of peace then or for the rest of his life, and we know that's not how he lived.
Whenever people bring this up now I have to bring up David. David is the biggest proof of what happens to children when they die. David was comforted when the child died because he knew there was no point in weeping anymore, and he would see the child again. As long as there was a chance for life he wept. If the child was eternally damned like Augustine claims, then David would have never stopped weeping for that child.
@@jrconway3 Yup. This isn't that hard. I'm not sure why people get so confused about this. God demands an account for what we do in life, implying that we are account-able. Infants can give no such account, they are a victim of circumstance.
@@jrconway3 I’m curious => do you believe anyone goes to hell ? If yes, can you give an approximate answer to your belief as to how many ? 70% ? 90% ? 97-99% ?
The Eastern church fathers got this right. Historically, and to this day, the Eastern Orthodox have held the correct viewpoint on this issue. This doctrinal error largely falls on Augustine and those who follow his teachings.
To be fair to Augustine, he was the first of the fathers to read scripture in Latin rather than Greek, and the Latin translation he had access to wasn’t particularly good. Especially relating to Roman’s 5. He was definitely wrong though.
@@HunterShawMusic Augustine had ample time to read the Scriptures in Greek, therefore allowing him to come to an accurate interpretation of the text. He didn't, and I would say he didn't want to because of his gnostic philosophies such as fatalism, predeterminism derived from the Manichaeism sect he was in.
@@remnant8898Augustine’s Greek wasn’t good by his own admission. In Confessions he goes on about how much he hated reading the Greek classics. It’s not his fault that he had a faulty translation of this verse which informed his doctrine of original sin. He was also not responsible for his works becoming the foundation for western theology. When he died he was only half way through a book of retractions to his earlier writings. For the record, as an Orthodox Christian I agree that the Saint.
@@JesusForKing2030 St. Augustine is responsible for his own errors. St. Jerome is responsible for the mistranslation. Later theologians are responsible for not correcting those errors. My theological history gets very poor after Augustine so I can't comment on why his doctrine of original sin became so popular in specific theological schools of Western Christianity (the reformed school). I am pretty sure that the Roman church today does not teach the view of original sin that Heiser is critiquing.
Listening to this for about the third time I have to come to the defense of the church Fathers: saying "the church Fathers" are responsible is wildly inaccurate because it was really just one, Augustine, who while he was brilliant in some ways was too fixated on guilt and saw it where it wasn't. The idea of transmitted guilt comes from the notion that each human soul is formed from the substance of the souls of the parents, and that guilt sticks with everyone because all our souls are in essence just tiny pieces of Adam's soul -- a theory that most church Fathers denounced, responding that each soul is a new one. When Dr. H says what we inherit is mortality, he uses the exact same words as St. John Chrysostom and Maximus the Confessor. What he misses is that western theology regarded the problem of our standing before God as a legal issue, whereas the east regarded it as a relational issue, and in a legal framework guilt is the big question whereas in a relational framework the big question is about separation, so in the legal framework if children aren't pure and holy there must be guilt at play whereas in a relational framework it's separation at work.
@@gracenroses7471The Torah wasn't seen as a legal framework until after the Babylonian Exile and, IIRC, the Persian influence. Before it was "instruction", and just described what set YHWH's people apart from other people.
@@Traildude yes, I understand. Torah doesn’t actually mean “law”. A better translation would be instruction or teaching. However, the Israelites had judges and priests over them as early as the wilderness who judged between discrepancies and made decisions (judgments) based on witnesses etc. in accordance to the instructions on how to relate. in this sense, certain aspects of the instructions for the people were treated as legal matter. That is my point some was legal, some was relational, some was for priestly duties, some were for ritual purity etc.
Yes when the Bible is studied properly it is a legal framework… we are born condemned and when we accept Christ we are “ declared” righteous… all legal terms in the Hebrew and Greek
Hmmm so this isn't a "church-aged" doctrine, it's just a Catholic doctrine. Us Orthodox have never understood it this way. We have inherited consequence for the fall but not guilt.
Romans 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” Eph 2:3 “.. fulfilling the desires of the flesh and were by nature children of wrath, just as others.”
so are you saying many means ALL?? If so what do you do with the other half of the verse you conveniently did not post so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Are you a universalists too?? There is a reason both sides are included in the verse As far as Eph 2, you need to take scripture as a whole, Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave to it, and Paul went through great detail on this in romans 6 Yes we all sin not because we have been born with sin in our flesh otherwise Jesus would have inherited adams guilt too But it is written all have sinned, this si true but not because we were born guilty of Adams sin, there is no verse for that
@@victorcritelli5790 jesus was born because of the holy spirit overshadowing mary. spotless lamb of god. paul states ephatically it is because of sin nature that we sin romans 7 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. sin producing death in me --- i am of the flesh sold under sin --- i dont understand my own actions, indicating their is interfereance with his new nature.- iits NO LONGER I WHO DO IT !!!! BUT SIN THAT DWELLS IN ME !! - NOTHING GOOD DWELLS IN ME and in galatians 5- he speaks about the war of the two natures 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. part 2 romans states the whole world is guilty before god and we all know that we are sinners, or we are decived and suppressing this knoledge 9 What then? Are we any better?[a] Not at all! For we have previously charged that both Jews and Gentiles[b] are all under sin 10 as it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one. 11 There is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away; all alike have become useless. There is no one who does what is good, not even one.[ his seaking of the whole human race. what is the opposite of rightousness. sinner. and he says, there is not ONE ! who is rightousness 19 Now we know that whatever the law says speaks to those who are subject to the law,[k] so that every mouth may be shut and the whole world may become subject to God’s judgment. 20 For no one will be justified[m] in His sight by the works of the law, because the knowledge of sin comes through the law. the whole world -you and me - - the human race --subject to gods judgment. that means you are pronounced guilty before god- and as we see, everyone has this internal knowledge of sin, even without the law. but suppress it 8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. if we say we do not have sin, we decive ouselves and the truth is not in us. 1 john. the denial that sin is present in us just like paul exaplain in romans and galatians. john knows that sin nature is present and that jesus was manifest to destroy the works of the devil.
@@catalinak6320 Ok what does it mean sold under sin?? You just have to go one chapter back to romans 6 Paul states Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? And since we are all slaves Because we all SINNED we all need Christ Power from Grace Through Faith to be freed from sin and death like the Israelites need God to rescue them from Israel this is actually what his is supposed to show us In fact Romans 5:12 states all died because ALL sinned, And listen where do we get our sense of Justice from if not God? Would anyone agree with severely punishing a severely autistic child for disobeying instructions they could not follow?? Does that make any sense The Good news is it does not make sense to God either he says The soul who sins shall die. Over and Over and over again “If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise;But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes- He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live! THis this is the heart of GOD Here read in full a lot of gems in this whole chapter A False Proverb Refuted 18 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge’? 3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel. 4 “Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die. 5 But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right; 6 If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity; 7 If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 8 If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man; 9 If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully- He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord God. 10 “If he begets a son who is a robber Or a shedder of blood, Who does any of these things 11 And does none of those duties, But has eaten on the mountains Or defiled his neighbor’s wife; 12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy, Robbed by violence, Not restored the pledge, Lifted his eyes to the idols, Or committed abomination; 13 If he has exacted usury Or taken increase- Shall he then live? He shall not live! If he has done any of these abominations, He shall surely die; His blood shall be upon him. 14 “If, however, he begets a son Who sees all the sins which his father has done, And considers but does not do likewise; 15 Who has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife; 16 Has not oppressed anyone, Nor withheld a pledge, Nor robbed by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; 17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor And not received usury or increase, But has executed My judgments And walked in My statutes- He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; He shall surely live! 18 “As for his father, Because he cruelly oppressed, Robbed his brother by violence, And did what is not good among his people, Behold, he shall die for his iniquity. Turn and Live 19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. 21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? 24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die. 25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair? 30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”
@@catalinak6320 There is no one righteous You have to take this in its Context Paul actually draws a lot from the old testament especially in romans and makes Long points especially in romans and in partially here in the begging and again in roman 9-11 as that is also a whole thought together long argument drawn from old testament Ideas So yes are we all guilty before God Yes we ALL sinned this is a fact, Did we all do all the things listed NO, clearly NO, but its hyperbole language in this case actually used for contrast the many and the few and he is drawing from 2 old testament Psalms that do the same thing and he is mirroring those psalms in both of these psalms I believe 14 and 53 possibly it starts with the fool says in his heart there is no God, then it goes into the many the no one is righteous no not one and all the evil they all do But then it states what do the no not ones do, but the eat MY people the my people are clearly not of the NO NOT ONES, likewise Pauls contrast is those who live by faith using Abraham as the example Romans is all about context
@@catalinak6320 the whole world you and me - - the human race --subject to gods judgment. that means you are pronounced guilty before god and as we see, everyone has this internal knowledge of sin, even without the law. but suppress it ok again with this this whole romans 1 actually is a better argument against OG sin anyway, it does show that it is because what THEY do they are guilty that they DO have responsibility because they DO have knowledge, and REFUSE and are given a lie because they REFUSE the truth not because they are unable But again on top of that you have the few like Abraham the contrast os if often done in this type of scripture, Abraham did NOT suppress the truth, did not turn to his own way, was not violent, given over to a depraved nature also not all are given over to the depraved nature either we see that in society today, but its like a disease the further down the scale the more the symptoms, If you read the text carefully you will see that, Who is given over to doing what is against nature man with man woman with woman is this everyone? You have to stay within the context, its generalities as if You were to look down from heaven you will see this you will see in generality I tell you the truth there is so much of this that the majority do it suppress the truth and this include most 99% of the professing Christians who attend church's in the US But there always the few Who belive in God what he can do the power of it and the promises to even now diliver them from sin John 8:31-37 and Romans 6.Titus22:11-14
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Contrary to Heiser's interpretation, It would be unjust for everyone to die for Adam's sin if they themselves were not born with a propensity to sin. Note that I said "propensity to sin" and not "Adam's guilt". It is that propensity to sin that we inherited, not the actual sin that Adam himself committed, though we are prone to choose what we think is right vs what God determines to be good and right, just as Adam did. So like David, we can rightly say "in sin did my mother conceive me" (referring to the propensity and not the actual sins resulting from that). As to children in the womb, even Jacob was grabbing Esau's heel on the way out (to try to usurp his firstborn status), so yes, they have a propensity to sin, but the question is, are they banished from God's presence prior to an awareness of right and wrong? When David lost his child due to David's sin, David had the assurance that he would see that child again. So obviously, in God's justice, He takes into account the capacity of a child to understand that they've transgressed God's law. If a child lacks that understanding, in His sovereign justice, God puts that to Christ's account, who suffers the little children to come unto Him, for such is the kingdom of heaven.
Heiser actually agrees with the view of a propensity to sin. I think he writes about it in his book The Unseen Realm. And it honestly makes me nauseous just how many Christians (mostly males, confidently enough) take joy in the thought of infants suffering in hell for the sin of a long dead human.
This whole argument is about an age that no longer exists (before the Law was given). So people died in Abraham’s day for a “propensity to sin” before they actually commit a sin? How is that solving the problem of perceived injustice with Adam’s guilt being transferred. The point is that we were dead on arrival because of what someone else did, and we’re saved because of what someone else did.
Jonah 4:11 also shows that there is a type of age of innnocence. Jonah is mad that God is sparing Ninvah becuse a large number of them are children and therefor the wrath does not apply to them. "And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much kcattle?” If children cannot make concrete distinctions, such as knowing the right hand from the left, then they cannot be especially to make abstract moral one either. If children are just as capable/culpable of understanding and participate in evil, then why is God worried about this?
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 What do you mean they were vegetarian? They weren't. Jesus had a passover meal which included lamb. Jesus preparred fish and bread to the mulititudes. Jesus made fish of the sea on a fire and ate the fish from the Sea of Galilee John 21.9. Nothing you have written is accurate in any way
@TheMOV13 EO doesn't teach the western version of orginal sin. People are not culpable for Adam's sin. We inherit the effects of it (the fall) not guilt. But death. EO is saying the same thing as Dr. Heiser is saying
@@angelocos1 Yes! I'm EO myself, I just wanted to make sure I understood the comment correctly - it's a shame that Michael makes that rather blanket statement about "The Fathers" as though they all got it wrong - original sin was a later aberration.
. It was already exclaimed by angel Gabriel calling her "full of grace".....being full of grace means her salvation started before her conception at the time Mary was conceived by Ann up to her last time on earth and up to her unification with God...
@@sandydepiedras6372wow! So then Stephen was also immaculately conceived too! But that ALSO means Stephen was PERFECT IN POWER TOO! So was he ALL POWERFUL? Acts 6:8 (ESV) 8And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.
@@AliciasUA-cam-kq6mw....kindly check how "full of grace" was use gramatically with regards to the context...it was use .in Acts 6:8 God filled St. Stephen with grace in preparation for his martyrdom being commissioned as an apostle...and to add John 2:14 Jesus full of grace was used because of being God...while Luke 1:28 full of grace was use by angle Gabriel addressing Mary's same as" title" or "identity" showing she received God's grace from the time of her beginning and remained in that state.
Thank you for a new view of Romans 5:12. Note too that the verse said, "sin" entered the world through one man..., not "guilt." So Adam's guilt wasn't transferred, only the action that caused it. (Can anyone deny mankind's propensity to err (sin)?) But we need to talk about sin-what it is, its effects, and how it's caused.
YES! Thank you Dr. Heiser! I have been thinking about this topic for a while now after reading Ezekiel 18:20. Because if the Doctrine or Original Sin was correct, would Jesus himself be a sinner by merely being born?
no. All humans are created at our creation, and we are created LIKE our parents, Jesus existed before his conception and just took the perfect human FORM. What it tells us is that our sinful nature is NOT an essential aspect of being human, it is a result of a FALLEN nature.
Hi, but the Bible says Jesus was fully human. Saying that he had a human body only is the Word- flesh early church problem which means he was God with a flesh body. This means he never had a nature like ours and there can not identify with us in every way as Hebrews says. As Gregory of Nazianzus said: “That which He did not assume, He has not healed”@@iglesiaagapecalvarychapelr6982
@@HJM0409 He knows what it is like to be TEMPTED like us. He has not experienced our failure or sinful nature, only our HUMAN nature. It tells us that our HUMAN nature does not include our sinful nature. So that is the ONLY distinction. Remember SIN is not a thing, it is not the absence of good eather. It is a moral judgment of an action that is not aligned with our perfect purpose. Our fallen nature does not intuitively KNOW the right thing to do, and that is what causes sinful actions. Thinking of it this way, the Scripture that says he can sympathize with our weaknesses since he was tempted on ALL points like us...along with the fact that as Paul said, "In Him, we live we move and we have our being" means that he DOES fully understand us since he was both fully GOD and fully MAN.
@@RobertlawrenceBDCMinistries Hi! Thanks for the response. You say sin is the moral judgement of -an action. So there we are under judgement for what WE do. I agree Jesus did not sin, so therefore was never under the moral judgement of any sinful act. But as Jesus, with a human nature,he was tempted in every way we are. You said “our fallen nature does not intuitively know the right thing to do”, then how do you explain Romans 2:15 they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts as their conscious bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts according to my gospel through Jesus Christ.
@@HJM0409 what you are referring to in Romans 2 is a description o Natural Law and God's revelation of his moral truths through the Holy Spirit as Jesus said, "he will convict the world of sin." so this is still not part of our human nature to know right from wrong. This is understood only through knowledge we learn or God reveals.
At 3:45 of the video the speaker says something about there being verses in the Bible that say we will remember things/people from this life. But Isaiah 65:17 says, "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."
Romans 5:12-21 (read the whole context) cf. Romans 6:23. Death results as the wages of sin. Death is, among other actions, a judicial response to sin by God.
Yes I agree, though not sure what point you are making, Jesus said they same thing John 8:31-37. we all sinned and become under the bondege of sin, But if we abide in him (keep his commandments john 15) he will set us free and like in Romans 6 which you quoted we have a responsibility to submit our bodies to righteousness, But if we being free, Submit to sin we will again become slaves and the wages of our sin will still be death God always said the same thing the wages of each one "own"" sin is death, NOT the wages of Adam's sin 17 “Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair! 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. 19 But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. 20 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.”
"The first man out of the earth dust. The second Man out of heaven, a life-giving Spirit." "In Adam all die... in Christ all are made alive". Who are you IN? Answer that question because it all turns on one's specific state.
Hi everyone, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as 'full of grace.' While grace can abound alongside human imperfection, being *full* of grace suggests a complete absence of sin, as grace, like light, supernaturally dispels darkness. This understanding has led the Church to affirm Mary’s sinlessness throughout her life. It’s a perspective that challenges reformist views about Mary but is grounded in authentic readings of scripture. Such debates remind us of the rich and infinite possibilities in interpreting the Bible.
@Tybourne1991 I love that you recognize that the bible is open to interpretation instead of demanding that your interpretation is the only truth to be had. I am very curious why you think Mary was sinless. Is it simply because she was pregnant with jesus? I can't find anything in the bible supporting this using my own interpretations. Could you provide me with yours? I'm unfamiliar with a lot of catholic traditions and would like to understand better. Thx!
Hi @Ninjaskeptic Thanks for jumping in-I appreciate your thoughtful response! I’ll do my best to wrestle with your questions. First off, let’s start with something foundational: our approach to interpreting Scripture. Do you, like me, hold that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it faithfully communicates the truths God intended to reveal for our salvation? Put another way, do you see Scripture as the pillar and support of truth? Let’s see if we can start from the same page!
I've heard both sides and it comes down to "how is anyone ever going to get to hell?" Vs "how is anyone ever going to get to heaven?" And babies are somewhere in the middle. I'll just say I don't know until I really get to figuring it out.
Amen to the max! Thank you Doctor Heiser for being faithful to teach this important issue and the truth of it. The lies have permeated Christianity for too long!
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 Revelation 21:8 KJV [8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
@@sandydepiedras6372Your statement would be correct if you replaced Catholic with Orthodox. Unfortunately the many lies, innovations and outright worldly heresies of the Roman Catholic are undeniable.
I greatly respect Dr heiser though I see in scripture that though we do not inherit Adam’s guilt, we do inherit his nature which is to chose the self over God, that is what son is, it isn’t just actively doing horrible wicked things but it’s a whole lifestyle that chooses the self over God. Once you understand that it makes sense that we did inherit a nature of choosing the self over God and thus through Adam all have sinned
Not often can you listen to hours of a person's commentary without hearing one single dumb word. Dr. Heiser is a freak of nature in that sense and is my #1 hero in front of Michael Jordan, The Rock, Chuck Norris, Les Feldick, Tiger Woods, Jordan Peterson, Bill Craig, Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, Plato, Bonhoeffer, and Chopin.
@@barkwahlmerg do keep in mind that even he slips up from time to time, still he is a great person to introduce someone to the bible properly among other scholars like him
The Eastern Orthodox have never believed in original sin. The problem, as ever, is Augustine who based his doctrine on a mistranslation from Greek into English. The notion of inherited guilt is illogical: you cannot inherit guilt.
@@menknurlan That was an error. I meant: Greek into Latin (the Vulgate). I was thinking of the erroneous modern English translations of the Greek which often follow later Augustinian notions rather than the actual Greek.
If you can't inherit guilt, then you destroy the argument that by Christ's obedience, "the many will be made righteous." 18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Romans 5:18-19 (RSV)
@@PizzaDisguise None of that requires inherited guilt, which is impossible anyway. It requires a fall- but not inherited guilt. We are sinners because Adam fell, but that doesn’t mean that we inherit his guilt. It makes zero sense to say that a child is guilty of Adam’s sin.
Me thinks it is not guilt that is inherited, but rather the inclination towards sin that is inherited. That is the spiritual death (depravity, distance from God) that Paul is talking about.
One day when reading about the woman who touched the edge of Christ's robe and got healed it struck me just how wrong the Immaculate Conception -- Mary's supposedly sinless birth -- is, because it is bad Christology: the basic idea behind the Immaculate Conception is that Jesus as a single cell conceived in Mary's womb was too weak to resist being made impure or unclean if Mary wasn't sinless! when the truth is the other way around: Mary could have been the greatest sinner ever among women and the moment Jesus arrived as a cell in her womb it was the same situation as with the woman who was healed by just touching Jesus' robe -- the arrival of the ultimately clean One, the ultimately Pure, at the moment of contact/arrival purified Mary's womb like the Holy of Holies itself, like the Ark of the Covenant that became pure not because of how it was built or any such thing but because holy things were put into it. Sin flees from the presence of Christ, and Mary's womb was no different: the moment of Jesus' conception, her womb was made the ultimate Temple of God on Earth, the dwelling of the living Savior. In a sense on the topic of Mary and Christ's conception Romans 5:12 becomes irrelevant, but if it wasn't for Romans 5:12 the matter would never have arisen.
Archangel Gabriel himself said that the Spirit of God will overshadow her fleshly nature, so even if He (God) took on human flesh, He would not be sullied with any taint of sin in the flesh. That was in effect sanctification.
Mary was a vessel, a virgin, the Holy Spirit placed the "sperma " into her, it is the Father/father that determines the blood, so Jesus's blood was without sin/any contamination and why it was offered on the altar for all mankind/all who accept His sacrifice and resurrection. This is why God could accept His sacrifice, "once and for all".
Verses 5:16 -18 does teach that Adam's sin passed to us all. Adam's judgement led to the condemnation of all. The Bible does not say what happens to infants at death, but the God of the universe can only do what is right.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Ezekiel chapter 18 is MOST CLEAR. the only persons sin i am guilty of IS MY OWN. to deny this is to set up contradictions in scripture itself i am born a sinner because of Adam and on reflection on how this works I am totally perplexed. Chuck Missler says it is a genetic defect, which i find ridiculous. i always thought that original sin only meant that i somehow inherited sin from Adam but my guilt was my own. oh well, yet another reason to regard Augustine, who i detest heartily, as a heretic
Maybe you detest it because you don’t understand the reasoning? It’s really to our benefit that the guilt was imputed to us- otherwise, the righteousness of God cannot be imputed to us. If the sin of Adam cannot be inherited, then you also can’t inherit the righteousness of another person. So Christ can’t die for the sins of another person, and you can’t be counted as righteous because of his death. If we’re all only responsible for our own actions, then we’re also responsible to produce our own righteousness. There would be no mechanism for someone else to take responsibility for us and “cover” us or “redeem” us. Again, it’s clear that even though the sin of Adam WAS imputed to us, that is no longer the case because of what the “last Adam” did.
I mean think about it- Romans 5:12 is talking about the age between Adam and Moses. The next verse puts us into an even worse state- not only are we born as sinners, now we’re transgressing the given Law. So we’re transgressing multiple thousands of times worse than Adam did. Romans 5:13-14 [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Once Christ came, original sin was dealt with. So ultimately, I believe Heiser’s conclusion is correct, even if he denies the meaning of the verse. He gets there because he understands that the resurrection removes the guilt of the first sin for all, but it only removes the personal sins of those who believe.
If you think about it, Jesus is the only one who fulfilled Ezekiel 18. Ezekiel 18:19 [19] “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. Jesus is the only one overcame this world and died sinless. Thus, God reversed the judgment of adam (man) on him.
@@PizzaDisguise quote; for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Once Christ came, original sin was dealt with. Yes it was dealt with in addition to all the other sins of mankind, but original sin still exists for us in that we all still die including infants who have never committed personal sin. Christ's sacrifice removes our guilt (original sin and personal sin), but only if we repent, believe and are baptized, just as Jesus said. If there is no repentance and belief, then we are still in our sins. Even if everyone only had original sin, and no personal sins at all, we would still suffer death, and need a savior.
@@jzak5723 but all people are going to be raised from the dead, regardless of belief. But all people are not justified. That was the basis for what I was saying about babies having original sin wiped away apart from belief- the judgment of death is reversed, which means the guilt of Adam’s sin must have been removed. We’re arguing from effect to cause, as Paul does.
Jeromes’s Latin Vulgate translated as”in Whom” not “ because of”. Augustine had no Greek oft Hebrew. He built this theology on a faulty Latin translation.
Okay, let’s take this with grain of salt as idiom says.. what about Romans classic verse, for everyone has fallen short of glory of God? How do we take that? Because I often hear many use that verse to discuss or describe our sinful nature. So big question now, let’s assume first Dr Heiser’s statement is true: if there is no sin from birth, but yet every person has a “fallen short” nature- at what age then is the transition from no sin to a fallen nature? Thanks!
It does sort of make you wonder if we are only guilty on account of our own conscious and volitional sin, does that make us only righteous on account of our own good works? At one point in the clip, he basically said that infants and mentally-handicapped people are sinless. If they are sinless, then they don't need a Savior and therefore the gospel doesn't apply to them (despite trying to weasel out of implying that). Congratulations Heiser, you've destroyed the heart of Christianity.
Yes the doctrine of imputation is very unibiblical - its actually against laws in the torah. We are specifically not condemned for the sins of our previous parents. We are judged as invidivals for our decisions. We are created in the same image of the fallen parents because they were the only two at the time who were perfect. By default all of us are broken into a state where we are corrupted, but thats a conquence of their sin. We are born into the collatoral damage. A consquence is not a "judgement"- thats what is confusing to people because they are compounding them. If you inheredited diabetes from your mother, is that your fault? No. Is it your responsiblity to manage your condition? Yes, it is. Sin works the same way because we cannot escape the condition. Everyone wil give an account for their personal lives, we do not stand in judgement for anyone but ourself, or Samuel, or your father's mistakes, or our very first parents Adam and Eve.
@@vngelicath1580 Sin requires awareness and will - because you have to account and atone for your actions. Sin requires you to willingly violate the will of God. Without the will or the capacity, this is not possible.
Isn’t Romans 3:23 more problematic here? “All” literally means all. I’m not sure how babies can be omitted here, but then no one omitted in v3:24 when it says “…all are justified.”
I have for most of my Christian life believed that there is an age of accountability as it's usually called meaning a point in time when a person becomes conscious of sin and therefore accountable. I do not believe it is a specific age, but can vary greatly and by that I mean by YEARS, not days. I believe babies and small children who have not come to a point where they know the difference between right and wrong are accountable for their sins. You can question me if you wish, but I remember the very day that my conscience was awakened and I began to know right from wrong. I was 4 years old when it happened and remember it like it was yesterday. I believe some can become conscious of their sins before that while some could be YEARS later. There is a point at which all of us become aware of right and wrong and choose wrong. When we do that knowingly we are beyond question accountable for our sins, but it simply varies from person to person. This could and should give hope to a person who perhaps lost a child, sibling, or close friend at a very early age and it haunts them to this day. Btw, I set our house on fire when I was 4. I was innocent when I struck the FIRST MATCH, but by the time I saw the fire I lost my innocence forever!!! I didn't become an arsonist just FYI.
Jonah 4:11 speaks to the innocence of children and the LORD's compassion on these innocent people "120,000 who cannot tell their right from their left". Also, when David's 'affair child' dies, he says "I will go to him but he cannot come to me (back to life)". David was very confident that his "affair child" was innocent before the LORD and one day he - David - would be re-united with the youngster in eternity.
Hey michael I just wanted you to know that I’m praying for your healing and I hope you’re doing well. Also just wanted to say that I get so overwhelmed with the different denominations and finding the “right one” and your video response to a guys email on that subject was exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you so much for all of your work.
John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents... Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments... Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance...
What if you don't do original sin? But rather , derivative sin? How about if you just copy parts of original sin? What if you pay royalties to use original sin?
in 2:34 he said "transmission of guilt moral guilt before" Does he mean sin? We do not carry Adams's guilt. we carry his sinful nature, not total depravity but we are in a fallen state. Why? We partake of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.
@@timvickers947 he is saying nobody is guilty of Adamic guilt. We are not guilty because of what he did. We become guilty when we sin for ourselves. Here is another one that is very similar and maybe articulated differently. Titled do babies go to heaven ua-cam.com/video/aAi5f0sWXNI/v-deo.htmlsi=IiowJTCOJUQDlOfM
@@timvickers947 wanted to be more specific. Transmission of moral guilt. He means exactly this. We are not morally guilty because of Adam. He is not talking about our own sin and guilt from that. His statement is about the category of original sin and the belief all are declared guilty because of Adam
@@Jennifer13515 I am slow. I still don't get the guilt thing. Maybe I need to explain my understanding of our condition. We have the Adamic nature, our beast nature. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is in us. By Adam partaking of the tree, his eyes were opened, and because of this, his cause is in us throughout all human generations. Until man overcame this nature, our eyes were opened also. The first cause of Adam's fall is the tree. This Is the sin nature. To say we are guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with our sinful nature. It's like , I am fat because I go to the store too much. It has nothing to do with me being fat although I can't overeat if I have no food. The problem I have with saying guilt Has no connection to our sinful nature. We are guilty because we sin, . But the cause of guilt is because we sin, it's not that we are guilty, so we are judged for sin. Am I totally wrong? Please explain this to me. I am not being mean, I would like to see his point maybe he gives a different point on this sin nature thing .
We inherited death from Adam, Adam already had the ability to sin, that was the “action” he took. Sin is action, it’s going astray from Gods laws. Sinning is eternal death, righteousness is living in the spirit for eternal salvation which we now have because of Jesus and Gods grace, not works of the old mosaic covenant.
Correct. It takes the will + awareness to violate God's law. Plus, we are also going to make account for our lives. Without choice, awareness, or will - accounts are not possible.
Having been a Christian nearly 50 years, and having been a member of some different denominations (due to moving to different areas), I have never heard someone assert that humans inherit Adam's guilt. Not in any evangelical churches or reformed churches. Never. I cannot for the life of me imagine reading Romans 5 and coming away with an understanding that we inherit Adam's guilt. Wow.
Michael Heiser was such an unbelievable gift to the church. The clarity of thought in which he provides argumentation is exceptional. Unfortunately, so many people are caught in theological belief systems, simply because they’ve been raised to think about scripture in a certain way. It happens to all of us. Heck, it happened to me! But, gentleman like Heiser make it so clear that sometimes our assumptions are deeply flawed without us even realizing it.
We must take Heb 2:13 into account. Yes death was inherited from our father Adam but through the fear of death we became subject to slavery all our lives. This seems to be saying because death was the result of Adams sin for all men, so is slavery, and that seems to be, slavery to Satan, and sin. We will see if Mr Heiser deals with that in the rest of this recording.
Can anyone offer up an answer for the opposite situation, where you've either led a godly life (or ungodly life), you age, gradually losing your mental faculties until the point where you become only intermittently able (or unable) to know right from wrong and to ask forgiveness for doing wrongs even when you may not realize you're sinning (because of your depraved immoral nature)?
Heiser actually does address the issue of this in a discussion on eternal security. I'd have the find the exact video but to summarize, ultimately, if we are saved and justified through faith, then our works (and our failings) become inconsequential. What cannot be earned through works cannot be lost through them. That doesn't give us a license to sin of course and if we seek salvation so that we can sin without guilt then clearly, we aren't living in accordance with the faith we proclaim, but I digress. This doesn't mean that a believer cannot become an unbeliever once again, as they can if the choose to do so...GOD doesn't drag people to heaven kicking and screaming. However, it also means that if we earnestly place our faith in Christ then HE becomes the source of our salvation.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in order for man to commit sin there must be free will as well as the knowledge that an act is sinful. Yet they invented the concept of original sin so that all would feel guilt. This is purely an instrument of control. The message is that only the Church holds the means to forgiveness and salvation. If not even an infant is sinless, then everyone is guilty. This concept is deduced from a story in Genesis that is portrayed as factual, and yet not even in Genesis does God condemn the offspring of Adam to be conceived in sin.
Sin is not guilt. It is modern people who are preoccupied with that line of thinking I believe. Sin is just the state of not being one with God in every way. This means mistakes are made. This traces back to the sin of Adam. He was one with God, but making a choice for himself made him aware of his otherness and capable of choice, which basically makes him separate from God. Original sin is just the fact that our fathers mistakes affects us, which makes us unable to avoid mistakes too. This is just the most obvious fact of human life. Jesus shows us the grace of God is at work to allow us to not sink in to a deeper and worsening hole of increasing mistakes undermining our humanity, i.e. our image bearing capability.
His lack of respect for the history of interpretation of the church thinking that his work and intelligence is superior is very arrogant in my opinion. “And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” Romans 9:10-16 NASB1995
In the book of jubilees at the end, chapter 50 verse, we are cleansed from all past knowings brought in by Satan and the evil one, or the wicked one, Matthew 6:13.
When the innocent aborted babies are raised on the last day and found not having sin, will they be given the option to accept or reject Christ? Why is it that they will always accept Christ?
There are no exceptions made as it is stated and should be assumed of impartiality in judgement, unjust, and thus - unworthy. Lawlessness is a delusion - as Paul makes clear in Romans 2:12-14. What you sow is what you'll reap - have the law or not, and ability by one's nature... the spirit that one is of... to demonstrate that the law is, as intended from the beginning, written on the heart.
If you reject the inheritance from the first Adam, do you also reject the inheritance from the Second Adam? Are abortion & infant death outside the sovereignty of God? We are all condemned under the Law so that salvation is a gift of grace, and luckily is not based on our inability to repent.
If it is inevitable that we will all sin then it looks like we are not wholly responsible for our sin either. How am I fully responsible for sin when I could not avoid sinning? If it was impossible for me not to do x how can I be held fully responsible for x? It looks like we were thrown into a situation in which sin is unavoidable and we are then condemned for doing that which we could not avoid!
@@34ccsn There has never been a human being who has not sinned (aside from Christ but he was a divine person) and according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners (without exception). It follows that we must sin inevitably otherwise there should be an exception out of the billions of people who have existed. If all are sinners, how are we free not to sin?
@@34ccsn Could I have avoided sinning? The distinction you make is one without a difference. The fact that everyone has sinned and that everyone will sin implies that we cannot not sin. The question then becomes: why are we all sinners? It seems to me that whatever answer we give it must involve some kind of necessity otherwise there would be at least one exception out of billions; but it’s part of Christian doctrine that all are sinners. You cannot say that all are sinners and all will sin but that we could also avoid sinning. It’s logically possible that even though all are sinners, all did not have to be sinners, and yet all are sinners, and that needs to be accounted for. To me it suggests necessity.
Correction: Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach that humanity inherits Adam’s guilt. The idea was put forward by St Augustine and quickly rebutted by StJohn Chrysostom, but Augustine’s idea was taken up by the Protestant reformers
@@franciscafazzo3460 Lol this video proved it, Jesus proves it as he was without sin and he was born in flesh, Yet what you claim is no where in scripture so you prove it
I believe Romans 5 and 7 should be interpreted as St. Paul explaining how he imitated Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. What is wrong with viewing the original sin in the Garden of Eden as being likened to original drunk driving? The original drunk drivers oriented society to the problem of driving while drunk, which resulted in a stigma, prejudice, and punishments against future drunk drivers (even for those who do not get into accidents). Adam was weak through the flesh and was in bondage to the serpent (the law of sin in his members). Romans 7 is largely an explanation as to how he imitated Adam's original sin. This can be seen by looking at the law as the knowledge of good and evil.
I wonder if anyone has a take on Jesus’ statement in Matthew 18:10 that “Their [these little ones] angels always see the face of the Lord. I have always thought that this supports the view that those who are too young to be held morally culpable have the Lord’s favor and will not be held accountable for sin at the resurrection. Granted, it’s not as straight forward as a proper exegesis of Romans 5:12, but I do think it’s supportive. Augustine’s double predestination was probably influenced at least as much by his prior heathen philosophy as by the Bible. He seems to have equated physical death with moral judgment. This is fallacious conflation, as it ignores the death of innocents throughout history. I have in mind here, in particular, righteous Abel, whom Cain slew in jealousy. Abel died for another man’s sin.
From Article IX: _Of Original or Birth-sin_ "Original Sin standeth not in the following of _Adam,_ (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of _Adam;_ whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated. (Etc.)"
Romans 5:12 does not even say death spread to all because Adam sinned. It says death spread because all sinned, having nothing to do specifically with Adam except that Adam experienced the same thing.
I was raised in the JW cult and they flip flopped on the doctrine of whether stillborn or aborted babies would get a resurrection over the years. Awful group, stay away at all costs. But when I was still physically and mentally 'in', I thought about this and did research on it for myself. I came across one fascinating passage in the Bible that made me believe for sure that unborn babies get a second chance. Job 3:11-19 says “Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb? Why were there knees to receive me and breasts that I might be nursed? For now *I would be lying down in peace; I would be asleep and at rest with kings and rulers of the earth,* who built for themselves places now lying in ruins, with princes who had gold, who filled their houses with silver. Or why was I not hidden away in the ground like a *stillborn* child, like an *infant who never saw the light of day?* There the wicked cease from turmoil, and *there the weary are at rest.* Captives also enjoy their ease; they no longer hear the slave driver’s shout. *The small and the great are there,* and the slaves are freed from their owners.'' This alone is proof to me that the Biblical teaching should be as Heiser describes in this video. No unborn babies are in Hell, they are in the same place as EVERYONE ELSE - 'resting in peace' sleeping, waiting for God to wake them up to a resurrection to either life or judgment. Job 10:18-19 also says “Why then did you bring me out of the womb? I wish I had died before any eye saw me. If only I had never come into being, or had been carried straight from the womb to the grave!' Job believed that if he died before birth, he would go straight to 'the GRAVE'. Other translations use the word 'tomb.' Job did not long to go to Hell, but believed that if he had never sinned he would go to the grave/tomb which is ALWAYS associated with God's remembrance. In other words, he expressed faith that those without sin would experience a resurrection of life in the future, not eternal destruction. Jeremiah 20:17-18 says ''For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever. Why did I ever come out of the womb to see trouble and sorrow and to end my days in shame?'' The expression 'with her womb enlarged forever' is very interesting because it implies to me that there is a remembrance. God knows about all the unborn babies, and yes they are put in a special category as they have been UNABLE to commit any sins.
I dunno, it doesn't seem that complicated to me. He clearly sinned and by His sin, sin entered the world. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world..." (LSB) (Federal headship) I've never understood it as "moral guilt" but the fact that as Adam sinned, we wouldn't have done any better.
But the Bible also says that there will be no more tears or sorrow in the coming new Kingdom. Perhaps, we will have the memory minus the feelings about the ordeal.
I mean... just keep reading... "Therefore, as one trespass LED TO condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience, the many were MADE sinners, so by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:18-19 I love Dr Heiser. And I’m thankful he’s with the Lord and I’m excited to meet him one day in heaven! But he’s wrong here.
Ah yes, because it's not like humans got involved and corrupted the teachings of Jesus at all. No way, no sir. And I'll go ahead and say it, as you may be struggling to comprehend, I'm being sarcastic.
Romans 5 KJV still emphasizes the "death" part before and after the passages you just quoted. Also, it says "many", not "all" in the verses you posted. I think Mike's point is valid, but at the end of the day no man has it all figured out and has complete understanding of our reality and existence.
Romans 5:12 is about how sin entered the world. The world is mankind. The same world which God loved and sent His Son to die for. *"Sin entered the world[mankind]* by one man." --Romans 5:12 "God loved *the world [mankind]* so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life." --John 3:16
Oh Michael. At 1:58- “Death is what spread to all men, all humans, not guilt, death. The text says ‘death.’ Romans 5:12 is about the transmission of mortality to all humans” (because they’re driven from the garden and the source of life, etc). Let me ask this- why couldn’t Abel return to the garden as a boy before he had consciously sinned then? And then just read the next two verses- people are dying before Moses but “sin is not counted where there is no law.” That leads to the question, then, WHOSE SIN ARE THEY DYING FOR. That leads to the later question- by WHOSE RIGHTEOUSNESS ARE THEY BEING GIVEN ETERNAL LIFE. I mean, Michael believed in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us by faith- this is laying the groundwork for that. If guilt can be imputed, then so can righteousness.
Because Abel inherited the "knowledge of good and evil" from Adam. He couldn't enter eden for the same reason Adam couldn't, because he was now like "one of us" and had to be kept from eternal life. Adams sin brought sin and death into the world. These forces needed to be conquered/defeated as they enslave us all Jesus was victorious over them. Death reigned by Adam's sin, now grace and righteousness reign through Jesus.
Abel couldn't enter Eden because of Genesis 3:24. What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of Adam's sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from Adam as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life. The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 & 24. See also Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Hi Berean, hear me out. If your conclusions are completely accurate, then there is no way to deduce that everyone you meet has sinned. Suppose you meet a twelve year old from a devout Messianic Jewish family. Is it possible that this young person could literally have never sinned in God's eyes? And what is to stop this sinlessness progressing throughout the rest of their lives? Furthermore, Christ partook of all of those consequences of Adam, including death- he was not born in the Garden, his family was poor and oppressed by the Romans/Herod, and yet he never sinned. So the problem isn't the consequences, it's the nature inside human beings. Even if we accept what you're saying about the spirit, the problem put to us is that we are not spiritual beings, but carnal because of the flesh. If sin resides in the flesh, and the soul is tied to it- as soon as the command of God comes, sin comes alive and raises it's head. Romans chap 7: 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. If everyone inherits their fallen body from Adam, then they are, by nature, born a sinner - the rebellion is already inside of them before they have done anything good or bad.
@@PizzaDisguise That everyone sins is axiomatic (Romans 3:20) but we need to hold together both this idea and what Scripture says about the guilt of sin not being inherited but arising during one's youth. One can't simply play one Scripture off against another so as to have one trump the other to fit whatever theological system we prefer. It does not follow from Romans 3:20 or 5:12 that one's sinful nature or guilt for sin has anything to do with some inherited trait. If you study Scripture closely, you will find it provides no support for the Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine of Original Sin (i.e. imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to and the inheritance of Adam's 'sin nature'). The early church believed infants were born innocent. It was only after infant baptism was introduced that a doctrine of original sin was invented to support the practice. Before Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr (by implication), Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent. Augustine argued that the sin of Adam - including the guilt for it - is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture and it was his job to identify the relevant Scriptures. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentaries on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7). Coupling this with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4-5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1). When we come to the Reformation, we find Luther (an Augustinian monk) uncritically adopting Augustine’s teaching and Calvin endorsing Luther. Calvin openly admitted his theology was entirely Augustinian, writing, _"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings"._ You refer to one being carnal instead of spiritual. That doesn't mean the unsaved person has no spirit. Everyone has one. That's what it means to be a living soul. People are souls compromised of a body and a spirit.
Most people that I know believe there's a difference between believing in original sin and believing that humans are born with a fallen nature. I don't see how those two are not one in the same
Original sin, as concocted by Augustine and adopted by the Catholics and Reformers means that the Guilt of Adam's sin is inherited to all of humanity at birth. I believe Augustine was trying to rationalize why infants are baptized and why they die without sinning. Fallen nature, as per Augustine and the Reformers means that we are pure evil from conception and can do nothing good. The bible says similar but differntly. The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. Fallen nature means that our hearts and nature are sick, that we are inclined or bent towards evil in our hearts and minds. We have fallen from our created nature. We inherit this fallen nature, but not the guilt of Adam's sin. The consequence of that sin was death(physical) and our own sin causes death(spiritual/relational with the God).
@@mikeschaller9233 Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have a few questions. We know that God created Adam with a human nature that was good so why did he fall? God is the Creator of all life so does this mean that God creates individuals with a fallen human nature? If God desires that none are lost, why would He create us with a fallen nature that is only able to sin? If we are created with a broken sinful nature why and how can a wise and just God expect us not to sin? Adam was created with a human nature. He was tempted and fell. It seems to me that God creates all humans with a human nature and that we all fall because we choose to rebel against our Creator. This is why children are innocent until they willfully and knowingly sin. The problem is that ALL sin. I can understand why we want to blame it on being born with a fallen nature but it just doesn't line up with scripture. Personally, I think we all give into our flesh because we are born into a fallen carnal world that tempts us and pulls us away from God constantly. God could have destroyed us and created some other kind of creatures but He didn't. He chose to rescue us instead.
I agree, I was just explaining what Christians believe with these terms, not that I agree with them. I think you should look into the Eastern Orthodox Church. The don’t follow the same understandings of Original Sin. They see us as able to do good, but we are sick and in need of healing. Or something like that. Augustine seems to have blended different philosophies with Christianity. Neo-platonism, Stoicism, Manichaeism, and the reformers were Augustinian. The Eastern Church calls many of their teachings heresy, and I don’t disagree. I think we just need to understand that we aren’t what we are meant to be, and on our own we are helpless to do anything about it.
Yes, Jesus was like us in every way, yet he was without sin. Looks like we don’t inherit sin like some believe. This is why so many doctrines were created about Mary to try and show that Jesus wasn’t like us. Jesus was tempted, like we are, and could have given in, but didn’t. The thing to take away from this is that we have a God who is for us, He knows how we are tempted and how we suffer, how we fear death, and are weak in our flesh, because He experienced it.
Reformed Christian here! We don't believe that babies inherit Adam's guilt. We believe that they inherit a sin-nature (in other words, they will sin when able to). With regards to whether or not babies in unbelieving families go to heaven or hell, God's word does not reveal this. God is rich in mercy and just.
If God sent Adam and Eve to experience mortality they had to have free will in order to experience something other than divinity. Was the feeling of shame and guilt for choosing, perhaps the Sin? Judging their choice rather than experiencing it and let God just experience through me the consequences of choice. If not for the law I would not sin. Without judgment from the ego, towards ourselves and others we can just live and let live. Jesus came to remind us of who we really are.
We would all sin because God is the Law, only He is holy and we are not. He knew this, of course. That is why the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth. Rev 13.8
Romans 6:23 KJVS For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Hebrews 9:27 KJVS And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
This is Heiser's distorted and erroneous theology. The "gods" in Psalm 82 are not divine beings. How do we know? Because the immediate context tells us. Nowhere in the entire Bible do "gods" judge humans unjustly, so that God now has to judge them. Human judges are described in Psalm 82 based on the immediate context of that Psalm. We know that humans were called "elohim" meaning judges because of passages like Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9. Right now I am interviewing the author of the book "The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michael Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldview." We both came to similar conclusions without knowing each other before, and he cites others who also take issue with Heiser's theology. This is not rocket science here. Heiser simply misread several passages. Case in point. I have heard him say that Deut. 32:8 where he takes as original the reading "Sons of God" instead of "sons of Israel," is related to Deut. 4:19. He then argues that Deut. 4:19 is speaking of "heavenly beings." But anyone reading the immediate context of Deut. 4 starting from verse 15 down to 19 will see the clear reference to God warning against IDOL worship, not worship of any alleged "divine beings." No, Moses is talking in that context about the problems with idol worship of different kinds, and when we get down to verse 19, the flow of thought continues as God warns against a different kind of idol worship, the worship of heavenly bodies, the "sun, moon and stars, all the host of heaven." So one of his key passages he got grossly wrong. The fact that Heiser missed this simple truth from the immediate context speaks volumes, and it also speaks to how people can be blinded by a theology that they can't see the obvious. Deut. 4:19 is not speaking about any kind of real "gods" or "divine beings." God there is warning against idolatry, man made idols (carved images per vs. 16), and idols people could make of heavenly bodies.
There is an error in the Genealogies. SOLVED: The Matthew and Luke Genealogy Conflict. Matthew 1:17 states: *_Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David (are) fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Transmigration fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian Transmigration to Christ fourteen generations._* It is a well known fact that the scriptures are missing a generation in the last set of 14 generations. Did Matthew err, or, is there a mistranslation? In the Hebrew language, a dot can change the meaning of a word. While translating Matthew into Greek a translator could easily miss a dot, and mistranslate a word. In the Hebrew language, a single dot changes the word from Father to Husband. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew reads: *"Joseph the father of Mary."* The Greek text of Matthew 1:16 has the word "ton" in front of "andra" which literally reads in English as: *_"the Joseph the man of Mary"_* The English translators left out the definite article in front of Joseph and translated "ton andra" as "the husband." This is an error. The definite article changes the meaning of "andra" to a specific man of higher importance. It's acceptable to leave the definite article out in the English, as long as the effect it has on context is not ignored, which it was. *"The Joseph the man of Mary"* doesn't really work well for the western English speaking world, so it should have been translated as: *"Joseph the father of Mary"* (a different Joseph than is mentioned in Matthew 1:19). The expression "ton andra" (the man of) is never used for a husband of someone when the subject comes first accompanied with the definite article as in "the Joseph, the man of Mary." As proof, In Matthew 1:19 the writer makes a distinction between the Joseph of verse 16: *_Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was about to put her away privately._* In the Greek this actually translates word for word to English as "the Joseph, moreover the husband of her." The writer is making it clear that "the Joseph" in verse 19 is not the same Joseph mentioned in verse 16 by emphasizing that this Joseph is the husband of Mary using the Greek word "aner" instead of "andra." "Andra" and "aner" have similar meaning. Both can mean man, and both can mean husband. The context indicates how the word is translated. Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is the Son of Jacob, the man (father) of Mary, not her husband. *Evidence from the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew* (Revised English Version) In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is "gavra" or "gawra," which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband." However, it was read by the Greek translator as 'gura' meaning husband. In Matthew 1:19 and Luke 3:23 the Aramaic word is "bala," which is “man” or “husband.” The Hebrew text preserves the truth. There is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16 (the “mighty man” of Mary), and the “Joseph” of verse 19 and Luke 3:23 (the “husband” of Mary). The ancient Aramaic text has Matthew 1:16 translated to English as follows: "Jacob was the FATHER of Joseph, who was the father of Mary. Mary was the mother of Yeshua [Jesus], who is called the Messiah." SEE the REV Bible commentary on Matthew 1:16 Now we can see that Joseph, the father of Mary, is 12th generation, Mary is the 13th, and Jesus is the 14th generation. The Matthew genealogy is the royal lineage of Mary, which fulfills the requirements for the Kingship of Judah. The Luke genealogy traces the royal lineage of Mary's husband all the way back to Adam. Jesus is the legal step son of Joseph, and therefore a legal heir to the throne of David. In addition, before Luke even lists the genealogical record, he gives an account of Jesus being divinely appointed as King of Israel. The result of the two genealogical records is that Jesus qualifies for BOTH kingships: King of Israel, and King of Judah (King of the Jews). Mike is just wrong on so many levels I wish he was still around to see my posts. However, I'm sure he is aware of his errors now.
What is wrong with viewing the original sin in the Garden of Eden as being likened to original drunk driving? The original drunk drivers oriented society to the problem of driving while drunk, which resulted in a stigma, prejudice, and punishments against future drunk drivers (even for those who do not get into accidents). Adam was weak through the flesh and was in bondage to the serpent (the law of sin in his members). Romans 7 is largely an explanation as to how he imitated Adam's original sin. This can be seen by looking at the law as the knowledge of good and evil.
The Hebrew text of Psalm 51:5 _doesn't_ say David was born a sinner. Translations that render it that way are importing the translators' theology into the text.
David's father, not his mother, conceived him. The idea of a mother conceiving her baby alludes to the idea that the father is a sex maniac who does not like to be responsible for his fathering of his children. This is sinful and carnally minded. One of the great weaknesses of American culture is the false notion that an abortion is none of the husband's business. Being spiritually minded means the father cares about his children, as in the story of the Prodigal Son.
@@raykidder906 What a bizarre notion! Everywhere conception of a child is mentioned in Scripture, it is the mother alone who conceives. See: Genesis 4:1, 17; 16:4-5; 21:2; 25:21, etc., etc.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh You have made an interesting and valid point. In the Bible, it seems to me that "conceived" means, "become pregnant". Sometimes the father is mentioned, but sometimes he is not mentioned (where is says that she conceived "me" or "them"), I sense that sin is also referenced. Psalm 51:5 Song of Solomon 3:4, and Hosea 2:5 allude to a woman conceiving a child through her own decision and enticements, Of these 3 places, only the Song of Solomon verse does not reference or imply sin, which suggests that a woman CAN entice a man to get pregnant without sin as long as be is held responsible.
“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,” Romans 9:10-23 KJV www.bible.com/bible/1/rom.9.10-23.kjv
The later Western fathers and even later the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong. Not the Eastern fathers or early Western fathers. There is no inherited guilt. So what Heiser once thought wasn’t entirely correct.
We inherit our sinful nature from Adam, not his guilt. No one said we inherited his guilt; that's misleading. The reason babies go to heaven is because they are below the age of accountability and cannot choose Jesus rationally. They are under his grace. Plus, Jesus' real father is the Holy Spirit, and that statement alone proves he was born sinless. We, as Christians, have the Holy Spirit; He is the one who makes us sinless. Remember, folks, it doesn't matter how schooled one is in the scriptures; they are in a fallen state and make numerous mistakes just like the rest of us. Michael is not exempt from that reality. He is right though, about the aborted babies and miscarriages, no matter how he arrived at that conclusion.
@@jelly7310 A common belief in the "age of accountability" exists, and there's evidence to suggest its true. Jesus for example says that you have to become "like one of these little ones". He refers to children as being "innocent". David said he knew he'd see his dead child again who was stillborn (I think the child was stillborn anyway). If such an "age of accountability" does exist, it probably exists on a case-by-case basis. To be held accountable you need to understand what you're doing is wrong and be capable of repenting. Mentally deficient people might in fact fall under this as well, not being able to understand what's going on to be capable of repenting.
After I miscarried, a well-intentioned Calvinist told me my baby was burning in hell. Thank God for Michael Heiser's clarity of thought. He will be missed!
Who would say such a horrible thing? Not this Calvinist.
Pay no attention to that calvinist he really knows not what he speaks your child is with God just believe this happy Mother's Day
Jesus who spoke only the fathers words said that all children's angels behold the fathers face.
So what was the original sin? Separation from God. Yet God still spoke to Adam after the fall. Through out the old testament God was without but in the new its God within.
The children of isreal were told over and over the Lord thy God in the midst of you.
In the new testament its in him we live breath and have our being. The Lord God omnipotent and sin cannot separate us from him.
Remember he is the lamb slain before the foundation of the word. He does not change.
So the sin is the belief that God is somewhere else.
I had a similar conversation a few years ago, and I cannot help myself but frown as I imagine how the conversation would have been. "HOW ABOUT THE UNBORN CHILD? BECAUSE HE/SHE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO BELIEVE, IS HE/SHE IN HELL?" - that was the question I was being asked, in a somewhat condescending way, daring me to hurt the questioner's feelings.
I mean, unless you are a psychopath, you do not literally say "Your baby is in hell!" - but it is true that we all need to have & receive faith in Jesus Christ so that we may be redeemed and saved from eternal destruction we humans (as we are indeed abominations in sin) deserve. I could not and would not make a compromise for fear of hurting someone's feelings by contradicting the very basics of the Christian faith.
@@Mimu1983
Not sure what faith you speak of. So many Christians are indoctrinated with absolutley false beliefs. Lets go to the garden where it began and stop at. God said let us make man in our image. Skip forward to and man became a living soul.
Then we go to it is appointed once for man to die and then the judgement.
At the cross there were three people being hung for crimes. Now we know Jesus was innocent and took our punishment. There was a murderer who mocked Jesus and told him to heal himself. The thief though told the other to shut up. Jesus was innocent. He was told this day you shall be with me in paradise. He wasnt even baptized nor did he say he was his lord.
Now to the prodigal son. You know the story. He came to his right mind.
You see, children come into this world in a completely innocent state. They have no clue what hate is, or murder, and cant sin.
Now lets see more in the new that knocks the crazy double minded god preached still (god is not double minded). For God so loved the world.
The love of God in Jesus.
God was in Jesus reconciling the world to himself.
When you think that he took upon himself the worlds sin for eternity. Do you really think he would send an innocent baby to hell to burn forever? Utter nonsense and crazy.
God is love and anyone who has not love has not God.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
The more I read scripture, the more I realize that if my theology seems to defy common sense, then my theology is most definitely faulty. God is logical, His creation is logical, and scripture is logical, but we're often so hindered by our traditional religious preconceptions that we look right past the logical truth staring us in the face and favor the illogical belief we already hold, and we call it "faith".
I'm going the same thing, especially on original sin. The thought of my miscarriage sister being in hell for something she did not ask for is sickening to me, and it makes me nauseous that fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are happy that she would be suffering there. I'd recommend reading more of Heiser's stuff. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's incredibly helpful. And I'd also recommend the UA-cam channel InspiringPhilosophy. He's a Christian apologist and philosopher.
Just curious, what theology are you holding that defies common sense?
You should be careful with that way of thinking- “common sense” is a relative term and can lead you away from the way scripture reasons. For instance, the message of the cross is foolishness to the common person. How can God decide to just give us eternal life at his own cost? Wouldn’t it make more sense that he would tell us to earn it and pay him back for the dishonor we showed to him? Just an example.
@PizzaDisguise I don't know that I'm currently holding any theology that defies common sense. If I find out that I am, I will work to resolve it. Also, I don't think scripture reasons outside of common sense. I think there are people who misunderstand scripture who reject common sense due to their misunderstanding. I believe the doctrine of original sin is one example of this. Common sense doesn't necessarily mean most people believe it. Common sense means it's an obvious truth available to everyone to know and understand. It's certainly possible to deny common sense, but I can't see how a proper understanding of God and scripture could possibly be at odds with common sense, such as the common sense that a newborn infant could not possibly be a sinful abomination to God. It defies basic logic and reason to say an infant is sinful since sin requires the breaking of God's law, and infants can't break God's law. Therefore, the doctrine is most likely based on a misunderstanding of scripture, and I believe a careful reading of scripture would reveal that truth.
@@lukegaier9490 The doctrine of original sin doesn’t, by necessity, make you conclude that babies are a sinful abomination to God. Paul argues that babies, and in fact all humans, were dying before the Law was given (so they couldn’t transgress it), so he reasons from effect to cause: they were dying because of Adam’s sin. That is what original sin means. It’s the key to understanding how Adam is a type of Christ- just as the guilt of Adam can be imputed, so the righteousness of Jesus can be imputed to us.
Romans 5:16
[16] And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
Oh interesting! I just got this. He’s also saying that the sin that we committed in killing the Christ is not going to result in death for us like Adam’s sin- it’s going to result in life for us because of the grace of God. Man, the Lord Jesus is so beyond searching out- only God could turn our sin into salvation through his grace and patience.
@PizzaDisguise Paul says plainly in verse 12 that people die because they sin. If he were going to make a case for Original Sin, he wouldn't have said this. He says Adam introduced sin into the world, but we all die because we all sin. When he says, "sin isn't counted where there is no law," he surely isn't saying God excuses sin where there is no law. He's saying we don't keep track of our sin where there is no law for us to reference. God certainly held people accountable for their sins before the law was given. We see this with Cain, the people in the flood, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. He goes on to explain that death reigned over those whose sinning was not like Adam's transgression. He means that even though they weren't breaking a direct command from God, like Adam did, their sin still resulted in death. Lastly, the free gift is not like the trespass because it is exactly the opposite. The trespass introduced sin and death, but the free gift introduced forgiveness and life. This is a common sense reading of this text that doesn't require us to invent mysterious doctrines of imputed guilt.
This is the best explanation I’ve ever heard. Thank you so much even though you’ve already passed into the unseen realm. I can’t wait to meet you.
How long have you been a Christian?
It is good. To be fallen is different than being guilty. We inherit fallenness from Adam, but not guilt.
Think of the many judgment passages in scripture, and the reasons for their judgment. Being "in Adam" is never listed. OT judgments, Matt. 25 sheep and the goats, etc.
Tony Evans has a similar understanding, mentioned in his book Totally Saved, and in some of his messages. He explains, and refutes the Universalist interpretation of, 1 Timothy 4;10b, "the living God... is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." He would say that Jesus bore Adam's guilt for everyone -- so although we're born fallen, we're not born guilty, and remain that way until committing personal sin, for which we are then under God's wrath.
@@trone3630 I disagree. The bible says as in Adam all die. Death is the result of sin and sin means we are all guilty before God. In fact the Apostle Paul says that was the purpose of the law to expose us as guilty. It can’t be kept because it’s perfect and we aren’t. The only One who kept the law was Jesus
@@mountainman78629 Thanks for your reply, and I like where you're coming from. You're supporting your points well with scripture, and I certainly agree with most of it. I'll add this for now. (a) Eisegesis is the opposite of exegesis, and means to introduce ideas into a text that actually aren't there. We're all prone to that, so need to always beware of that. (b) There can be gaps in our understanding of scripture (holes in our theology) that we don't realize until we encounter a new idea or experience. The proper response is go back to scripture, to understand more precisely what it says on the subject. (c) Many passages assert that we will give an account to God for what we have done, not for what our parents have done. From Ezek. 18, "The soul who sins is the one who will die. A son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son. The righteousness of the righteous man will fall upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked man will fall upon him." Scripture is also clear that God's earthly judgment, and blessing, are often given broadly, to groups of people -- "it rains on the just and the unjust" -- but, in our personal relationship with him, and on the final day, we will answer to Him only for ourselves. (d) Biblically, death, sin, guilt, law and judgment are connected. And there's more than one kind of death. We're all born spiritually dead in Adam (spiritually fallen). That condition results in us sinning when we reach the stage of comprehension that Paul describes in Romans 1, where seeing "what He has made" is why Paul says they then have no excuse. He says in a similar way elsewhere that people become guilty when they sin against their own consciences, even though they may not know biblical laws. (e) People begin as fertilized embryos, and may be able to comprehend the basics of the gospel at, what age? Six months? 18 months? They are born spiritually dead (incapacitated; unable to respond to God), but are they guilty for some of their fathers' sins? And if they're very young, or not even born, have they committed sins for which they should be judged -- when Paul says that sin is based on comprehension of things outside or inside? (f) "Paul says that the children of the righteous are holy." True. And after his baby died, David said, "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David indicated that his infant wouldn't go to a place of judgment. (g) We can therefore draw two conclusions from scripture -- a strong conclusion that the children of the righteous are not under the wrath of God for (guilty for) Adam's sin, meaning it was never conferred to them, or was paid by Christ if it was conferred -- and a less strong conclusion that the children of the unrighteous are also not under the wrath of God for (guilty for) Adam's sin, nor for their own sin, because we have biblical evidence for that not being so.
@@trone3630 we are all guilty of Adams sin, called original sin because Adam was the head of the human race and we all descended from him. The reason everyone sins is because of our sin nature. I think the reason it has to work this way is because of the righteousness of the second Adam, which is Jesus. Without us being in Christ we are doomed because we have no righteousness of our own. Even as Christians we still sin but the penalty for our sins was paid for by the Lord Jesus Himself. Theoretically God would be perfectly just if He killed us in the womb because of original sin but I know He’s merciful and Loves children. Where does Paul say sin is based on comprehension? Remember kids being holy doesn’t mean sinless, it means set apart. Come out from among them and be separate says the Lord and I will receive you. We are in the world but not of the world. That’s usually the holy He’s talking about because no one is without sin
This brings to mind the passage 1 Kings 14:12-13, where the prophet Ahijah tells the wife of Jeroboam that her infant that was sick will die, be mourned and be buried, and be the only one of Jeroboam's family who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the Lord God of Israel. (paraphrase of NKJV). The child was too young to share in the sin and guilt of his father, he died early and escaped the fate the rest of the family would face.
Very good observation
I didn’t know this reference. Thanx for sharing
I'm 47 years old, raised in the church. This is the only answer to the question about infant deaths I have ever heard that makes any sense without "reading between the lines" of the Bible. Thank you!
Everyone seems to appreciate his teaching here... I feel ignorant in that I just didn't "get it" ...would you be so kind as to explain the gist of this video/teaching to me? Thank you.
The church writ large has taught for 20 centuries that every human INHERITS the GUILT of our first father, Adam. Heiser here reminds us that the text of Romans v.12 speaks of DEATH as that which was inherited, not GUILT. Yes, we all violate God's holy Law and we're judged on that, and not another man's guilt.
This is exactly what I needed and what I have been searching for-and it brings me such joy! Heiser thank you so much for this message.
This cleared up sooooo many of my questions. Very grateful!!
Hey man! May I suggest a few channels that may also help? I've gone through many (I assume similar) questions.
@Soteriology101
@Idol killer
@TheChurchSplit
Great clip. I really miss Heiser!
In the story about when David's baby died, it said one day David would go to b e with the baby.
2 Samuel 12:22 and 23 (paste):
And he said, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.”
And then you have Solomon being born, which means Peace, from the root - Shalom. This fulfills God promising a man of peace who will build the temple and at the same time be reflective of David's peace after the 3 days he mourned. If the child were forever damned, David would have no reason to stop weeping, and to look forward to any type of peace then or for the rest of his life, and we know that's not how he lived.
Whenever people bring this up now I have to bring up David. David is the biggest proof of what happens to children when they die. David was comforted when the child died because he knew there was no point in weeping anymore, and he would see the child again. As long as there was a chance for life he wept.
If the child was eternally damned like Augustine claims, then David would have never stopped weeping for that child.
@@jrconway3 Yup. This isn't that hard. I'm not sure why people get so confused about this. God demands an account for what we do in life, implying that we are account-able. Infants can give no such account, they are a victim of circumstance.
@@jrconway3
I’m curious => do you believe anyone goes to hell ? If yes, can you give an approximate answer to your belief as to how many ? 70% ? 90% ? 97-99% ?
The Eastern church fathers got this right. Historically, and to this day, the Eastern Orthodox have held the correct viewpoint on this issue. This doctrinal error largely falls on Augustine and those who follow his teachings.
To be fair to Augustine, he was the first of the fathers to read scripture in Latin rather than Greek, and the Latin translation he had access to wasn’t particularly good. Especially relating to Roman’s 5.
He was definitely wrong though.
@@HunterShawMusic Augustine had ample time to read the Scriptures in Greek, therefore allowing him to come to an accurate interpretation of the text. He didn't, and I would say he didn't want to because of his gnostic philosophies such as fatalism, predeterminism derived from the Manichaeism sect he was in.
@@remnant8898Augustine’s Greek wasn’t good by his own admission. In Confessions he goes on about how much he hated reading the Greek classics. It’s not his fault that he had a faulty translation of this verse which informed his doctrine of original sin. He was also not responsible for his works becoming the foundation for western theology. When he died he was only half way through a book of retractions to his earlier writings. For the record, as an Orthodox Christian I agree that the Saint.
@@TheOtherNathanielwhos fault is it
@@JesusForKing2030 St. Augustine is responsible for his own errors. St. Jerome is responsible for the mistranslation. Later theologians are responsible for not correcting those errors. My theological history gets very poor after Augustine so I can't comment on why his doctrine of original sin became so popular in specific theological schools of Western Christianity (the reformed school). I am pretty sure that the Roman church today does not teach the view of original sin that Heiser is critiquing.
Listening to this for about the third time I have to come to the defense of the church Fathers: saying "the church Fathers" are responsible is wildly inaccurate because it was really just one, Augustine, who while he was brilliant in some ways was too fixated on guilt and saw it where it wasn't. The idea of transmitted guilt comes from the notion that each human soul is formed from the substance of the souls of the parents, and that guilt sticks with everyone because all our souls are in essence just tiny pieces of Adam's soul -- a theory that most church Fathers denounced, responding that each soul is a new one.
When Dr. H says what we inherit is mortality, he uses the exact same words as St. John Chrysostom and Maximus the Confessor. What he misses is that western theology regarded the problem of our standing before God as a legal issue, whereas the east regarded it as a relational issue, and in a legal framework guilt is the big question whereas in a relational framework the big question is about separation, so in the legal framework if children aren't pure and holy there must be guilt at play whereas in a relational framework it's separation at work.
In scriptures I see both the legal framework and the relational framework at play, no? Especially in the Torah…I see both.
@@gracenroses7471The Torah wasn't seen as a legal framework until after the Babylonian Exile and, IIRC, the Persian influence. Before it was "instruction", and just described what set YHWH's people apart from other people.
@@Traildude yes, I understand. Torah doesn’t actually mean “law”. A better translation would be instruction or teaching. However, the Israelites had judges and priests over them as early as the wilderness who judged between discrepancies and made decisions (judgments) based on witnesses etc. in accordance to the instructions on how to relate. in this sense, certain aspects of the instructions for the people were treated as legal matter. That is my point some was legal, some was relational, some was for priestly duties, some were for ritual purity etc.
Yes when the Bible is studied properly it is a legal framework… we are born condemned and when we accept Christ we are “ declared” righteous… all legal terms in the Hebrew and Greek
yup. federal headship of Adam, he died on that day he ate the fruit
everyone after him is born dead
Hmmm so this isn't a "church-aged" doctrine, it's just a Catholic doctrine. Us Orthodox have never understood it this way. We have inherited consequence for the fall but not guilt.
Romans 5:19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” Eph 2:3 “.. fulfilling the desires of the flesh and were by nature children of wrath, just as others.”
so are you saying many means ALL?? If so what do you do with the other half of the verse you conveniently did not post
so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Are you a universalists too?? There is a reason both sides are included in the verse
As far as Eph 2, you need to take scripture as a whole, Jesus said whoever commits sin is a slave to it, and Paul went through great detail on this in romans 6
Yes we all sin not because we have been born with sin in our flesh otherwise Jesus would have inherited adams guilt too
But it is written all have sinned, this si true but not because we were born guilty of Adams sin, there is no verse for that
@@victorcritelli5790 jesus was born because of the holy spirit overshadowing mary.
spotless lamb of god.
paul states ephatically it is because of sin nature that we sin
romans 7
13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
sin producing death in me --- i am of the flesh sold under sin --- i dont understand my own actions, indicating their is interfereance with his new nature.- iits NO LONGER I WHO DO IT !!!!
BUT SIN THAT DWELLS IN ME !! - NOTHING GOOD DWELLS IN ME
and in galatians 5- he speaks about the war of the two natures
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
part 2 romans states the whole world is guilty before god and we all know that we are sinners, or we are decived and suppressing this knoledge
9 What then? Are we any better?[a] Not at all! For we have previously charged that both Jews and Gentiles[b] are all under sin
10 as it is written:
There is no one righteous, not even one.
11 There is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away;
all alike have become useless.
There is no one who does what is good,
not even one.[
his seaking of the whole human race. what is the opposite of rightousness.
sinner. and he says, there is not ONE ! who is rightousness
19 Now we know that whatever the law says speaks to those who are subject to the law,[k] so that every mouth may be shut and the whole world may become subject to God’s judgment. 20 For no one will be justified[m] in His sight by the works of the law, because the knowledge of sin comes through the law.
the whole world -you and me - - the human race --subject to gods judgment. that means you are pronounced guilty before god- and as we see, everyone has this internal knowledge of sin, even without the law. but suppress it
8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
if we say we do not have sin, we decive ouselves and the truth is not in us. 1 john. the denial that sin is present in us just like paul exaplain in romans and galatians.
john knows that sin nature is present and that jesus was manifest to destroy the works of the devil.
@@catalinak6320 Ok what does it mean sold under sin?? You just have to go one chapter back to romans 6 Paul states Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one’s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness?
And since we are all slaves Because we all SINNED we all need Christ Power from Grace Through Faith to be freed from sin and death like the Israelites need God to rescue them from Israel this is actually what his is supposed to show us
In fact Romans 5:12 states all died because ALL sinned,
And listen where do we get our sense of Justice from if not God? Would anyone agree with severely punishing a severely autistic child for disobeying instructions they could not follow?? Does that make any sense
The Good news is it does not make sense to God either he says The soul who sins shall die. Over and Over and over again
“If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes-
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!
THis this is the heart of GOD
Here read in full a lot of gems in this whole chapter
A False Proverb Refuted
18 The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, 2 “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying:
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
And the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.
4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
5 But if a man is just
And does what is lawful and right;
6 If he has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
7 If he has not oppressed anyone,
But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury
Nor taken any increase,
But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes
And kept My judgments faithfully-
He is just;
He shall surely live!”
Says the Lord God.
10 “If he begets a son who is a robber
Or a shedder of blood,
Who does any of these things
11 And does none of those duties,
But has eaten on the mountains
Or defiled his neighbor’s wife;
12 If he has oppressed the poor and needy,
Robbed by violence,
Not restored the pledge,
Lifted his eyes to the idols,
Or committed abomination;
13 If he has exacted usury
Or taken increase-
Shall he then live?
He shall not live!
If he has done any of these abominations,
He shall surely die;
His blood shall be upon him.
14 “If, however, he begets a son
Who sees all the sins which his father has done,
And considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains,
Nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone,
Nor withheld a pledge,
Nor robbed by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor
And not received usury or increase,
But has executed My judgments
And walked in My statutes-
He shall not die for the iniquity of his father;
He shall surely live!
18 “As for his father,
Because he cruelly oppressed,
Robbed his brother by violence,
And did what is not good among his people,
Behold, he shall die for his iniquity.
Turn and Live
19 “Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?
24 “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.
25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? 26 When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies. 27 Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29 Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?
30 “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore turn and live!”
@@catalinak6320 There is no one righteous You have to take this in its Context Paul actually draws a lot from the old testament especially in romans and makes Long points especially in romans and in partially here in the begging and again in roman 9-11 as that is also a whole thought together long argument drawn from old testament Ideas
So yes are we all guilty before God Yes we ALL sinned this is a fact, Did we all do all the things listed NO, clearly NO, but its hyperbole language in this case actually used for contrast the many and the few and he is drawing from 2 old testament Psalms that do the same thing and he is mirroring those psalms
in both of these psalms I believe 14 and 53 possibly it starts with the fool says in his heart there is no God, then it goes into the many the no one is righteous no not one and all the evil they all do
But then it states what do the no not ones do, but the eat MY people the my people are clearly not of the NO NOT ONES, likewise Pauls contrast is those who live by faith using Abraham as the example
Romans is all about context
@@catalinak6320 the whole world you and me - - the human race --subject to gods judgment. that means you are pronounced guilty before god and as we see, everyone has this internal knowledge of sin, even without the law. but suppress it
ok again with this this whole romans 1 actually is a better argument against OG sin anyway, it does show that it is because what THEY do they are guilty that they DO have responsibility because they DO have knowledge, and REFUSE and are given a lie because they REFUSE the truth not because they are unable
But again on top of that you have the few like Abraham the contrast os if often done in this type of scripture, Abraham did NOT suppress the truth, did not turn to his own way, was not violent, given over to a depraved nature
also not all are given over to the depraved nature either we see that in society today, but its like a disease the further down the scale the more the symptoms, If you read the text carefully you will see that, Who is given over to doing what is against nature man with man woman with woman is this everyone?
You have to stay within the context, its generalities as if You were to look down from heaven you will see this you will see in generality
I tell you the truth there is so much of this that the majority do it suppress the truth and this include most 99% of the professing Christians who attend church's in the US
But there always the few Who belive in God what he can do the power of it and the promises to even now diliver them from sin John 8:31-37 and Romans 6.Titus22:11-14
Powerful!
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Contrary to Heiser's interpretation, It would be unjust for everyone to die for Adam's sin if they themselves were not born with a propensity to sin. Note that I said "propensity to sin" and not "Adam's guilt". It is that propensity to sin that we inherited, not the actual sin that Adam himself committed, though we are prone to choose what we think is right vs what God determines to be good and right, just as Adam did. So like David, we can rightly say "in sin did my mother conceive me" (referring to the propensity and not the actual sins resulting from that). As to children in the womb, even Jacob was grabbing Esau's heel on the way out (to try to usurp his firstborn status), so yes, they have a propensity to sin, but the question is, are they banished from God's presence prior to an awareness of right and wrong? When David lost his child due to David's sin, David had the assurance that he would see that child again. So obviously, in God's justice, He takes into account the capacity of a child to understand that they've transgressed God's law. If a child lacks that understanding, in His sovereign justice, God puts that to Christ's account, who suffers the little children to come unto Him, for such is the kingdom of heaven.
Heiser actually agrees with the view of a propensity to sin. I think he writes about it in his book The Unseen Realm. And it honestly makes me nauseous just how many Christians (mostly males, confidently enough) take joy in the thought of infants suffering in hell for the sin of a long dead human.
Not sure you’re fully listened to him cause that’s what he’s getting at lol
This whole argument is about an age that no longer exists (before the Law was given).
So people died in Abraham’s day for a “propensity to sin” before they actually commit a sin? How is that solving the problem of perceived injustice with Adam’s guilt being transferred. The point is that we were dead on arrival because of what someone else did, and we’re saved because of what someone else did.
@MenorahRadio, unfortunately, that is nowhere said in the text.
Jonah 4:11 also shows that there is a type of age of innnocence. Jonah is mad that God is sparing Ninvah becuse a large number of them are children and therefor the wrath does not apply to them.
"And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much kcattle?”
If children cannot make concrete distinctions, such as knowing the right hand from the left, then they cannot be especially to make abstract moral one either.
If children are just as capable/culpable of understanding and participate in evil, then why is God worried about this?
Eastern Orthodoxy teaches the exact same thing! Good job, Mr Heiser 👍
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 What do you mean they were vegetarian? They weren't. Jesus had a passover meal which included lamb. Jesus preparred fish and bread to the mulititudes. Jesus made fish of the sea on a fire and ate the fish from the Sea of Galilee John 21.9.
Nothing you have written is accurate in any way
You mean EO teaches original sin, or doesn’t teach original sin?
@TheMOV13 EO doesn't teach the western version of orginal sin. People are not culpable for Adam's sin. We inherit the effects of it (the fall) not guilt. But death. EO is saying the same thing as Dr. Heiser is saying
@@angelocos1 Yes! I'm EO myself, I just wanted to make sure I understood the comment correctly - it's a shame that Michael makes that rather blanket statement about "The Fathers" as though they all got it wrong - original sin was a later aberration.
the RCC still has to explain how MARY was sinless.
Immaculate conception. If a problematic doctrine creates problems, just make a new doctrine to make the old problems go away
. It was already exclaimed by angel Gabriel calling her "full of grace".....being full of grace means her salvation started before her conception at the time Mary was conceived by Ann up to her last time on earth and up to her unification with God...
@@sandydepiedras6372wow! So then Stephen was also immaculately conceived too! But that ALSO means Stephen was PERFECT IN POWER TOO! So was he ALL POWERFUL?
Acts 6:8 (ESV)
8And Stephen, full of grace and power, was doing great wonders and signs among the people.
@@AliciasUA-cam-kq6mw....kindly check how "full of grace" was use gramatically with regards to the context...it was use .in Acts 6:8 God filled St. Stephen with grace in preparation for his martyrdom being commissioned as an apostle...and to add John 2:14 Jesus full of grace was used because of being God...while Luke 1:28 full of grace was use by angle Gabriel addressing Mary's same as" title" or "identity" showing she received God's grace from the time of her beginning and remained in that state.
@epiedras6372 wow. Talk about Eisegesis. Yes. Google it.
Thank you for a new view of Romans 5:12. Note too that the verse said, "sin" entered the world through one man..., not "guilt." So Adam's guilt wasn't transferred, only the action that caused it. (Can anyone deny mankind's propensity to err (sin)?) But we need to talk about sin-what it is, its effects, and how it's caused.
YES! Thank you Dr. Heiser! I have been thinking about this topic for a while now after reading Ezekiel 18:20. Because if the Doctrine or Original Sin was correct, would Jesus himself be a sinner by merely being born?
no. All humans are created at our creation, and we are created LIKE our parents, Jesus existed before his conception and just took the perfect human FORM. What it tells us is that our sinful nature is NOT an essential aspect of being human, it is a result of a FALLEN nature.
Hi, but the Bible says Jesus was fully human. Saying that he had a human body only is the Word- flesh early church problem which means he was God with a flesh body. This means he never had a nature like ours and there can not identify with us in every way as Hebrews says.
As Gregory of Nazianzus said:
“That which He did not assume, He has not healed”@@iglesiaagapecalvarychapelr6982
@@HJM0409 He knows what it is like to be TEMPTED like us. He has not experienced our failure or sinful nature, only our HUMAN nature. It tells us that our HUMAN nature does not include our sinful nature. So that is the ONLY distinction. Remember SIN is not a thing, it is not the absence of good eather. It is a moral judgment of an action that is not aligned with our perfect purpose. Our fallen nature does not intuitively KNOW the right thing to do, and that is what causes sinful actions.
Thinking of it this way, the Scripture that says he can sympathize with our weaknesses since he was tempted on ALL points like us...along with the fact that as Paul said, "In Him, we live we move and we have our being" means that he DOES fully understand us since he was both fully GOD and fully MAN.
@@RobertlawrenceBDCMinistries Hi! Thanks for the response. You say sin is the moral judgement of -an action. So there we are under judgement for what WE do.
I agree Jesus did not sin, so therefore was never under the moral judgement of any sinful act. But as Jesus, with a human nature,he was tempted in every way we are. You said “our fallen nature does not intuitively know the right thing to do”, then how do you explain Romans 2:15 they show that the work of the law is written in their hearts as their conscious bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them, on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts according to my gospel through Jesus Christ.
@@HJM0409 what you are referring to in Romans 2 is a description o Natural Law and God's revelation of his moral truths through the Holy Spirit as Jesus said, "he will convict the world of sin." so this is still not part of our human nature to know right from wrong. This is understood only through knowledge we learn or God reveals.
At 3:45 of the video the speaker says something about there being verses in the Bible that say we will remember things/people from this life. But Isaiah 65:17 says, "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."
"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Rom. 7:9)?
Romans 5:12-21 (read the whole context) cf. Romans 6:23. Death results as the wages of sin. Death is, among other actions, a judicial response to sin by God.
Yes I agree, though not sure what point you are making, Jesus said they same thing John 8:31-37. we all sinned and become under the bondege of sin,
But if we abide in him (keep his commandments john 15) he will set us free and like in Romans 6 which you quoted we have a responsibility to submit our bodies to righteousness, But if we being free, Submit to sin we will again become slaves and the wages of our sin will still be death
God always said the same thing the wages of each one "own"" sin is death, NOT the wages of Adam's sin
17 “Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair! 18 When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it. 19 But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it. 20 Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.”
The text is not about physical/biological death. It is about spiritual death - alienation from God.
@@meleket Which text? Romans 5:12-21? Romans 6:23? Both?
"The first man out of the earth dust. The second Man out of heaven, a life-giving Spirit." "In Adam all die... in Christ all are made alive". Who are you IN? Answer that question because it all turns on one's specific state.
“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:”
-Romans 5:12 kjv
Hi everyone, in Luke 1:28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as 'full of grace.' While grace can abound alongside human imperfection, being *full* of grace suggests a complete absence of sin, as grace, like light, supernaturally dispels darkness. This understanding has led the Church to affirm Mary’s sinlessness throughout her life. It’s a perspective that challenges reformist views about Mary but is grounded in authentic readings of scripture. Such debates remind us of the rich and infinite possibilities in interpreting the Bible.
@Tybourne1991 I love that you recognize that the bible is open to interpretation instead of demanding that your interpretation is the only truth to be had. I am very curious why you think Mary was sinless. Is it simply because she was pregnant with jesus? I can't find anything in the bible supporting this using my own interpretations. Could you provide me with yours? I'm unfamiliar with a lot of catholic traditions and would like to understand better. Thx!
Hi @Ninjaskeptic Thanks for jumping in-I appreciate your thoughtful response! I’ll do my best to wrestle with your questions. First off, let’s start with something foundational: our approach to interpreting Scripture. Do you, like me, hold that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it faithfully communicates the truths God intended to reveal for our salvation? Put another way, do you see Scripture as the pillar and support of truth? Let’s see if we can start from the same page!
Michael Heiser was awesome. So much knowledge. He cleared up so much for me.
he is awesome :)
What a blessing the teachings from Michael have been to me many things I have believed has been confirmed by him and it encourages me to stand firm
I've heard both sides and it comes down to "how is anyone ever going to get to hell?" Vs "how is anyone ever going to get to heaven?" And babies are somewhere in the middle. I'll just say I don't know until I really get to figuring it out.
Thank God for Michael Heiser
Amen to the max! Thank you Doctor Heiser for being faithful to teach this important issue and the truth of it. The lies have permeated Christianity for too long!
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
@@theguyver4934 Revelation 21:8 KJV
[8] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Thank you Dr. H I wish I heard you when I was growing up Catholic! So much unnecessary pain!
Being Catholic isn't the problem, but being a Roman Catholic definitely is
...if he left the Catholic Chuch then he left a Church build by Christ...
😳😵💫
@@sandydepiedras6372Your statement would be correct if you replaced Catholic with Orthodox. Unfortunately the many lies, innovations and outright worldly heresies of the Roman Catholic are undeniable.
@@JudoMateo .... unfortunately also the orthodox is just a breakaway from the Catholic Church....
I greatly respect Dr heiser though I see in scripture that though we do not inherit Adam’s guilt, we do inherit his nature which is to chose the self over God, that is what son is, it isn’t just actively doing horrible wicked things but it’s a whole lifestyle that chooses the self over God. Once you understand that it makes sense that we did inherit a nature of choosing the self over God and thus through Adam all have sinned
Not often can you listen to hours of a person's commentary without hearing one single dumb word. Dr. Heiser is a freak of nature in that sense and is my #1 hero in front of Michael Jordan, The Rock, Chuck Norris, Les Feldick, Tiger Woods, Jordan Peterson, Bill Craig, Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, Plato, Bonhoeffer, and Chopin.
he's the closest thing to jesus you'll ever know
@@barkwahlmergthats a bit much bro
I think that was John the Baptist, fren
One of my favorite comments on UA-cam dude .. love it and agree ! Unless the rest of the list is rank order then I have a few quibbles :)
@@barkwahlmerg do keep in mind that even he slips up from time to time, still he is a great person to introduce someone to the bible properly among other scholars like him
The Eastern Orthodox have never believed in original sin. The problem, as ever, is Augustine who based his doctrine on a mistranslation from Greek into English. The notion of inherited guilt is illogical: you cannot inherit guilt.
English didnt even exist in Ausgustines time ???? Lmao
@@menknurlan That was an error. I meant: Greek into Latin (the Vulgate). I was thinking of the erroneous modern English translations of the Greek which often follow later Augustinian notions rather than the actual Greek.
If you can't inherit guilt, then you destroy the argument that by Christ's obedience, "the many will be made righteous."
18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Romans 5:18-19 (RSV)
@@PizzaDisguise None of that requires inherited guilt, which is impossible anyway. It requires a fall- but not inherited guilt. We are sinners because Adam fell, but that doesn’t mean that we inherit his guilt. It makes zero sense to say that a child is guilty of Adam’s sin.
logic is not the standard that interprets the bible.
Innocence is not the same as righteousness
Fantastic thank you so much for such honest truth
Me thinks it is not guilt that is inherited, but rather the inclination towards sin that is inherited. That is the spiritual death (depravity, distance from God) that Paul is talking about.
You make a good point, Paul.
One day when reading about the woman who touched the edge of Christ's robe and got healed it struck me just how wrong the Immaculate Conception -- Mary's supposedly sinless birth -- is, because it is bad Christology: the basic idea behind the Immaculate Conception is that Jesus as a single cell conceived in Mary's womb was too weak to resist being made impure or unclean if Mary wasn't sinless! when the truth is the other way around: Mary could have been the greatest sinner ever among women and the moment Jesus arrived as a cell in her womb it was the same situation as with the woman who was healed by just touching Jesus' robe -- the arrival of the ultimately clean One, the ultimately Pure, at the moment of contact/arrival purified Mary's womb like the Holy of Holies itself, like the Ark of the Covenant that became pure not because of how it was built or any such thing but because holy things were put into it. Sin flees from the presence of Christ, and Mary's womb was no different: the moment of Jesus' conception, her womb was made the ultimate Temple of God on Earth, the dwelling of the living Savior.
In a sense on the topic of Mary and Christ's conception Romans 5:12 becomes irrelevant, but if it wasn't for Romans 5:12 the matter would never have arisen.
Archangel Gabriel himself said that the Spirit of God will overshadow her fleshly nature, so even if He (God) took on human flesh, He would not be sullied with any taint of sin in the flesh. That was in effect sanctification.
Mary was a vessel, a virgin, the Holy Spirit placed the "sperma " into her, it is the Father/father that determines the blood, so Jesus's blood was without sin/any contamination and why it was offered on the altar for all mankind/all who accept His sacrifice and resurrection. This is why God could accept His sacrifice, "once and for all".
Verses 5:16 -18 does teach that Adam's sin passed to us all. Adam's judgement led to the condemnation of all. The Bible does not say what happens to infants at death, but the God of the universe can only do what is right.
Such helpful Biblical distinctions. So incredibly helpful.
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
Ezekiel chapter 18 is MOST CLEAR. the only persons sin i am guilty of IS MY OWN. to deny this is to set up contradictions in scripture itself
i am born a sinner because of Adam and on reflection on how this works I am totally perplexed. Chuck Missler says it is a genetic defect, which i find ridiculous.
i always thought that original sin only meant that i somehow inherited sin from Adam but my guilt was my own.
oh well, yet another reason to regard Augustine, who i detest heartily, as a heretic
Maybe you detest it because you don’t understand the reasoning? It’s really to our benefit that the guilt was imputed to us- otherwise, the righteousness of God cannot be imputed to us. If the sin of Adam cannot be inherited, then you also can’t inherit the righteousness of another person. So Christ can’t die for the sins of another person, and you can’t be counted as righteous because of his death.
If we’re all only responsible for our own actions, then we’re also responsible to produce our own righteousness. There would be no mechanism for someone else to take responsibility for us and “cover” us or “redeem” us.
Again, it’s clear that even though the sin of Adam WAS imputed to us, that is no longer the case because of what the “last Adam” did.
I mean think about it- Romans 5:12 is talking about the age between Adam and Moses. The next verse puts us into an even worse state- not only are we born as sinners, now we’re transgressing the given Law. So we’re transgressing multiple thousands of times worse than Adam did.
Romans 5:13-14
[13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Once Christ came, original sin was dealt with. So ultimately, I believe Heiser’s conclusion is correct, even if he denies the meaning of the verse. He gets there because he understands that the resurrection removes the guilt of the first sin for all, but it only removes the personal sins of those who believe.
If you think about it, Jesus is the only one who fulfilled Ezekiel 18.
Ezekiel 18:19
[19] “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.
Jesus is the only one overcame this world and died sinless. Thus, God reversed the judgment of adam (man) on him.
@@PizzaDisguise
quote; for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Once Christ came, original sin was dealt with.
Yes it was dealt with in addition to all the other sins of mankind, but original sin still exists for us in that we all still die including infants who have never committed personal sin. Christ's sacrifice removes our guilt (original sin and personal sin), but only if we repent, believe and are baptized, just as Jesus said. If there is no repentance and belief, then we are still in our sins. Even if everyone only had original sin, and no personal sins at all, we would still suffer death, and need a savior.
@@jzak5723 but all people are going to be raised from the dead, regardless of belief. But all people are not justified. That was the basis for what I was saying about babies having original sin wiped away apart from belief- the judgment of death is reversed, which means the guilt of Adam’s sin must have been removed. We’re arguing from effect to cause, as Paul does.
The Bible clearly states that all people are responsible for their own sins 😢
Jeromes’s Latin Vulgate translated as”in Whom” not “ because of”. Augustine had no Greek oft Hebrew. He built this theology on a faulty Latin translation.
I agree. Paul makes the case that we all sinned “like adam”, not “in Adam”
@@folktheologytransition3756exactly.
Okay, let’s take this with grain of salt as idiom says.. what about Romans classic verse, for everyone has fallen short of glory of God? How do we take that? Because I often hear many use that verse to discuss or describe our sinful nature.
So big question now, let’s assume first Dr Heiser’s statement is true: if there is no sin from birth, but yet every person has a “fallen short” nature- at what age then is the transition from no sin to a fallen nature? Thanks!
It's pretty well known that the one of the first words children learn is "no." And they call it the "terrible twos" for a reason.
Are you telling me the doctrine of imputation is unbiblical?
It does sort of make you wonder if we are only guilty on account of our own conscious and volitional sin, does that make us only righteous on account of our own good works?
At one point in the clip, he basically said that infants and mentally-handicapped people are sinless. If they are sinless, then they don't need a Savior and therefore the gospel doesn't apply to them (despite trying to weasel out of implying that). Congratulations Heiser, you've destroyed the heart of Christianity.
Yes the doctrine of imputation is very unibiblical - its actually against laws in the torah. We are specifically not condemned for the sins of our previous parents. We are judged as invidivals for our decisions.
We are created in the same image of the fallen parents because they were the only two at the time who were perfect. By default all of us are broken into a state where we are corrupted, but thats a conquence of their sin. We are born into the collatoral damage. A consquence is not a "judgement"- thats what is confusing to people because they are compounding them.
If you inheredited diabetes from your mother, is that your fault? No. Is it your responsiblity to manage your condition? Yes, it is. Sin works the same way because we cannot escape the condition.
Everyone wil give an account for their personal lives, we do not stand in judgement for anyone but ourself, or Samuel, or your father's mistakes, or our very first parents Adam and Eve.
@@vngelicath1580 Sin requires awareness and will - because you have to account and atone for your actions. Sin requires you to willingly violate the will of God. Without the will or the capacity, this is not possible.
Isn’t Romans 3:23 more problematic here? “All” literally means all. I’m not sure how babies can be omitted here, but then no one omitted in v3:24 when it says “…all are justified.”
I have for most of my Christian life believed that there is an age of accountability as it's usually called meaning a point in time when a person becomes conscious of sin and therefore accountable. I do not believe it is a specific age, but can vary greatly and by that I mean by YEARS, not days. I believe babies and small children who have not come to a point where they know the difference between right and wrong are accountable for their sins. You can question me if you wish, but I remember the very day that my conscience was awakened and I began to know right from wrong. I was 4 years old when it happened and remember it like it was yesterday. I believe some can become conscious of their sins before that while some could be YEARS later. There is a point at which all of us become aware of right and wrong and choose wrong. When we do that knowingly we are beyond question accountable for our sins, but it simply varies from person to person. This could and should give hope to a person who perhaps lost a child, sibling, or close friend at a very early age and it haunts them to this day. Btw, I set our house on fire when I was 4. I was innocent when I struck the FIRST MATCH, but by the time I saw the fire I lost my innocence forever!!! I didn't become an arsonist just FYI.
Jonah 4:11 speaks to the innocence of children and the LORD's compassion on these innocent people "120,000 who cannot tell their right from their left". Also, when David's 'affair child' dies, he says "I will go to him but he cannot come to me (back to life)". David was very confident that his "affair child" was innocent before the LORD and one day he - David - would be re-united with the youngster in eternity.
Hey michael I just wanted you to know that I’m praying for your healing and I hope you’re doing well.
Also just wanted to say that I get so overwhelmed with the different denominations and finding the “right one” and your video response to a guys email on that subject was exactly what I needed to hear. Thank you so much for all of your work.
John 9:3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents...
Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments...
Luke 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance...
Jesus said the saved are like children I believe. Children are in good standing.
I'm so glad to know my aborted sister will be raised and with the LORD at final judgment and afterward in the new Kingdom.
What if you don't do original sin? But rather , derivative sin? How about if you just copy parts of original sin? What if you pay royalties to use original sin?
in 2:34 he said "transmission of guilt moral guilt before" Does he mean sin? We do not carry Adams's guilt. we carry his sinful nature, not total depravity but we are in a fallen state. Why? We partake of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil.
Keep listening. He answers about half way through.
@@Jennifer13515 No he does not .listened to it two times.
@@timvickers947 he is saying nobody is guilty of Adamic guilt. We are not guilty because of what he did. We become guilty when we sin for ourselves. Here is another one that is very similar and maybe articulated differently. Titled do babies go to heaven
ua-cam.com/video/aAi5f0sWXNI/v-deo.htmlsi=IiowJTCOJUQDlOfM
@@timvickers947 wanted to be more specific. Transmission of moral guilt. He means exactly this. We are not morally guilty because of Adam. He is not talking about our own sin and guilt from that. His statement is about the category of original sin and the belief all are declared guilty because of Adam
@@Jennifer13515 I am slow. I still don't get the guilt thing. Maybe I need to explain my understanding of our condition. We have the Adamic nature, our beast nature. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is in us. By Adam partaking of the tree, his eyes were opened, and because of this, his cause is in us throughout all human generations. Until man overcame this nature, our eyes were opened also. The first cause of Adam's fall is the tree. This Is the sin nature. To say we are guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with our sinful nature. It's like , I am fat because I go to the store too much. It has nothing to do with me being fat although I can't overeat if I have no food. The problem I have with saying guilt Has no connection to our sinful nature. We are guilty because we sin, . But the cause of guilt is because we sin, it's not that we are guilty, so we are judged for sin. Am I totally wrong? Please explain this to me. I am not being mean, I would like to see his point maybe he gives a different point on this sin nature thing .
We inherited death from Adam, Adam already had the ability to sin, that was the “action” he took. Sin is action, it’s going astray from Gods laws. Sinning is eternal death, righteousness is living in the spirit for eternal salvation which we now have because of Jesus and Gods grace, not works of the old mosaic covenant.
Correct. It takes the will + awareness to violate God's law. Plus, we are also going to make account for our lives. Without choice, awareness, or will - accounts are not possible.
This made me rejoice and praise YHWH and the Master for their everlasting kindness. Also thanks to Dr Heiser's wisdom.
Best comment on here. You actually use the tetragrammaton which is the true name of our creator. Not the term god
@@robertwatley5249 Thanks. I just feel i'm being disrespectful when i call YHWH in the same way that i call the other gods.😊
@@happyevardo3258 that's awesome brother/ sister. I know it brings thr creator great joy seeing his name written upon his people's hearts
YHWH IS NOT WHO YOU THINK . Why does “god” say in Genesis “ let’s make man in OUR ( plural) image and likeness ?…just saying ….
Having been a Christian nearly 50 years, and having been a member of some different denominations (due to moving to different areas), I have never heard someone assert that humans inherit Adam's guilt. Not in any evangelical churches or reformed churches. Never.
I cannot for the life of me imagine reading Romans 5 and coming away with an understanding that we inherit Adam's guilt. Wow.
I don't believe you had never heard of the doctrine of original sin.
Michael Heiser was such an unbelievable gift to the church. The clarity of thought in which he provides argumentation is exceptional.
Unfortunately, so many people are caught in theological belief systems, simply because they’ve been raised to think about scripture in a certain way. It happens to all of us. Heck, it happened to me! But, gentleman like Heiser make it so clear that sometimes our assumptions are deeply flawed without us even realizing it.
"Don't think you're going to surprise me with an email. I know all of them." 😂
We must take Heb 2:13 into account. Yes death was inherited from our father Adam but through the fear of death we became subject to slavery all our lives. This seems to be saying because death was the result of Adams sin for all men, so is slavery, and that seems to be, slavery to Satan, and sin. We will see if Mr Heiser deals with that in the rest of this recording.
Can anyone offer up an answer for the opposite situation, where you've either led a godly life (or ungodly life), you age, gradually losing your mental faculties until the point where you become only intermittently able (or unable) to know right from wrong and to ask forgiveness for doing wrongs even when you may not realize you're sinning (because of your depraved immoral nature)?
Heiser actually does address the issue of this in a discussion on eternal security. I'd have the find the exact video but to summarize, ultimately, if we are saved and justified through faith, then our works (and our failings) become inconsequential. What cannot be earned through works cannot be lost through them. That doesn't give us a license to sin of course and if we seek salvation so that we can sin without guilt then clearly, we aren't living in accordance with the faith we proclaim, but I digress. This doesn't mean that a believer cannot become an unbeliever once again, as they can if the choose to do so...GOD doesn't drag people to heaven kicking and screaming. However, it also means that if we earnestly place our faith in Christ then HE becomes the source of our salvation.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in order for man to commit sin there must be free will as well as the knowledge that an act is sinful. Yet they invented the concept of original sin so that all would feel guilt. This is purely an instrument of control. The message is that only the Church holds the means to forgiveness and salvation. If not even an infant is sinless, then everyone is guilty. This concept is deduced from a story in Genesis that is portrayed as factual, and yet not even in Genesis does God condemn the offspring of Adam to be conceived in sin.
Sin is not guilt. It is modern people who are preoccupied with that line of thinking I believe. Sin is just the state of not being one with God in every way. This means mistakes are made. This traces back to the sin of Adam. He was one with God, but making a choice for himself made him aware of his otherness and capable of choice, which basically makes him separate from God.
Original sin is just the fact that our fathers mistakes affects us, which makes us unable to avoid mistakes too.
This is just the most obvious fact of human life.
Jesus shows us the grace of God is at work to allow us to not sink in to a deeper and worsening hole of increasing mistakes undermining our humanity, i.e. our image bearing capability.
His lack of respect for the history of interpretation of the church thinking that his work and intelligence is superior is very arrogant in my opinion.
“And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”
Romans 9:10-16 NASB1995
In the book of jubilees at the end, chapter 50 verse, we are cleansed from all past knowings brought in by Satan and the evil one, or the wicked one, Matthew 6:13.
When the innocent aborted babies are raised on the last day and found not having sin, will they be given the option to accept or reject Christ? Why is it that they will always accept Christ?
There are no exceptions made as it is stated and should be assumed of impartiality in judgement, unjust, and thus - unworthy.
Lawlessness is a delusion - as Paul makes clear in Romans 2:12-14. What you sow is what you'll reap - have the law or not, and ability by one's nature... the spirit that one is of... to demonstrate that the law is, as intended from the beginning, written on the heart.
If you reject the inheritance from the first Adam, do you also reject the inheritance from the Second Adam?
Are abortion & infant death outside the sovereignty of God?
We are all condemned under the Law so that salvation is a gift of grace, and luckily is not based on our inability to repent.
The words of Jesus (Luke 13:1-5): "Unless you repent, you too will all perish."
If it is inevitable that we will all sin then it looks like we are not wholly responsible for our sin either. How am I fully responsible for sin when I could not avoid sinning? If it was impossible for me not to do x how can I be held fully responsible for x? It looks like we were thrown into a situation in which sin is unavoidable and we are then condemned for doing that which we could not avoid!
its not that all MUST sin, its all WILL sin. GOD knowing what you will do because he is outside of time does NOT mean you dont have a choice.
@@34ccsn There has never been a human being who has not sinned (aside from Christ but he was a divine person) and according to Christian doctrine we are all sinners (without exception). It follows that we must sin inevitably otherwise there should be an exception out of the billions of people who have existed. If all are sinners, how are we free not to sin?
@@bayreuth79 That fact that we all WILL doesn't mean we must, that is not a logical conclusion.
@@34ccsn Could I have avoided sinning? The distinction you make is one without a difference. The fact that everyone has sinned and that everyone will sin implies that we cannot not sin. The question then becomes: why are we all sinners? It seems to me that whatever answer we give it must involve some kind of necessity otherwise there would be at least one exception out of billions; but it’s part of Christian doctrine that all are sinners. You cannot say that all are sinners and all will sin but that we could also avoid sinning. It’s logically possible that even though all are sinners, all did not have to be sinners, and yet all are sinners, and that needs to be accounted for. To me it suggests necessity.
@@bayreuth79 In theory yes, buy only Jesus accomplished it.
Correction: Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach that humanity inherits Adam’s guilt. The idea was put forward by St Augustine and quickly rebutted by StJohn Chrysostom, but Augustine’s idea was taken up by the Protestant reformers
Yeah That's what I thought, I agree it is a crystal clear, death is the result not a sin that can put you to hell.
The doctrine of original sin is not biblical. Follow the bible, not man made doctrines.
prove that.
@@franciscafazzo3460 Are you willing to discuss this with me, so I can prove it?
@@franciscafazzo3460 Lol this video proved it, Jesus proves it as he was without sin and he was born in flesh, Yet what you claim is no where in scripture so you prove it
How do you interpret Roman’s 5:12 through the end
I believe Romans 5 and 7 should be interpreted as St. Paul explaining how he imitated Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden. What is wrong with viewing the original sin in the Garden of Eden as being likened to original drunk driving? The original drunk drivers oriented society to the problem of driving while drunk, which resulted in a stigma, prejudice, and punishments against future drunk drivers (even for those who do not get into accidents). Adam was weak through the flesh and was in bondage to the serpent (the law of sin in his members). Romans 7 is largely an explanation as to how he imitated Adam's original sin. This can be seen by looking at the law as the knowledge of good and evil.
WOW! That sounds blasphemous too me!
We didnt "inherited" guilt, its the inclination to sin!!
I wonder if anyone has a take on Jesus’ statement in Matthew 18:10 that “Their [these little ones] angels always see the face of the Lord. I have always thought that this supports the view that those who are too young to be held morally culpable have the Lord’s favor and will not be held accountable for sin at the resurrection. Granted, it’s not as straight forward as a proper exegesis of Romans 5:12, but I do think it’s supportive.
Augustine’s double predestination was probably influenced at least as much by his prior heathen philosophy as by the Bible. He seems to have equated physical death with moral judgment. This is fallacious conflation, as it ignores the death of innocents throughout history. I have in mind here, in particular, righteous Abel, whom Cain slew in jealousy. Abel died for another man’s sin.
From Article IX: _Of Original or Birth-sin_
"Original Sin standeth not in the following of _Adam,_ (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is ingendered of the offspring of _Adam;_ whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated. (Etc.)"
Romans 5:12 does not even say death spread to all because Adam sinned. It says death spread because all sinned, having nothing to do specifically with Adam except that Adam experienced the same thing.
I was raised in the JW cult and they flip flopped on the doctrine of whether stillborn or aborted babies would get a resurrection over the years. Awful group, stay away at all costs. But when I was still physically and mentally 'in', I thought about this and did research on it for myself. I came across one fascinating passage in the Bible that made me believe for sure that unborn babies get a second chance. Job 3:11-19 says “Why did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb? Why were there knees to receive me and breasts that I might be nursed? For now *I would be lying down in peace; I would be asleep and at rest with kings and rulers of the earth,* who built for themselves places now lying in ruins, with princes who had gold, who filled their houses with silver. Or why was I not hidden away in the ground like a *stillborn* child, like an *infant who never saw the light of day?* There the wicked cease from turmoil, and *there the weary are at rest.* Captives also enjoy their ease; they no longer hear the slave driver’s shout. *The small and the great are there,* and the slaves are freed from their owners.'' This alone is proof to me that the Biblical teaching should be as Heiser describes in this video. No unborn babies are in Hell, they are in the same place as EVERYONE ELSE - 'resting in peace' sleeping, waiting for God to wake them up to a resurrection to either life or judgment.
Job 10:18-19 also says “Why then did you bring me out of the womb? I wish I had died before any eye saw me. If only I had never come into being, or had been carried straight from the womb to the grave!' Job believed that if he died before birth, he would go straight to 'the GRAVE'. Other translations use the word 'tomb.' Job did not long to go to Hell, but believed that if he had never sinned he would go to the grave/tomb which is ALWAYS associated with God's remembrance. In other words, he expressed faith that those without sin would experience a resurrection of life in the future, not eternal destruction.
Jeremiah 20:17-18 says ''For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever. Why did I ever come out of the womb to see trouble and sorrow and to end my days in shame?'' The expression 'with her womb enlarged forever' is very interesting because it implies to me that there is a remembrance. God knows about all the unborn babies, and yes they are put in a special category as they have been UNABLE to commit any sins.
I dunno, it doesn't seem that complicated to me. He clearly sinned and by His sin, sin entered the world. "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world..." (LSB) (Federal headship) I've never understood it as "moral guilt" but the fact that as Adam sinned, we wouldn't have done any better.
But the Bible also says that there will be no more tears or sorrow in the coming new Kingdom. Perhaps, we will have the memory minus the feelings about the ordeal.
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17
I mean... just keep reading...
"Therefore, as one trespass LED TO condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience, the many were MADE sinners, so by the one man's obedience, the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:18-19
I love Dr Heiser. And I’m thankful he’s with the Lord and I’m excited to meet him one day in heaven! But he’s wrong here.
Ah yes, because it's not like humans got involved and corrupted the teachings of Jesus at all. No way, no sir. And I'll go ahead and say it, as you may be struggling to comprehend, I'm being sarcastic.
Romans 5 KJV still emphasizes the "death" part before and after the passages you just quoted. Also, it says "many", not "all" in the verses you posted.
I think Mike's point is valid, but at the end of the day no man has it all figured out and has complete understanding of our reality and existence.
Thank you for sharing this.... Somehow, intuitively I never liked making God a monster who chucks babies into hell fire...
Romans 5:12 is about how sin entered the world. The world is mankind. The same world which God loved and sent His Son to die for.
*"Sin entered the world[mankind]* by one man." --Romans 5:12
"God loved *the world [mankind]* so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life." --John 3:16
Oh Michael.
At 1:58- “Death is what spread to all men, all humans, not guilt, death. The text says ‘death.’ Romans 5:12 is about the transmission of mortality to all humans” (because they’re driven from the garden and the source of life, etc).
Let me ask this- why couldn’t Abel return to the garden as a boy before he had consciously sinned then?
And then just read the next two verses- people are dying before Moses but “sin is not counted where there is no law.” That leads to the question, then, WHOSE SIN ARE THEY DYING FOR. That leads to the later question- by WHOSE RIGHTEOUSNESS ARE THEY BEING GIVEN ETERNAL LIFE.
I mean, Michael believed in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us by faith- this is laying the groundwork for that. If guilt can be imputed, then so can righteousness.
Because Abel inherited the "knowledge of good and evil" from Adam. He couldn't enter eden for the same reason Adam couldn't, because he was now like "one of us" and had to be kept from eternal life. Adams sin brought sin and death into the world. These forces needed to be conquered/defeated as they enslave us all Jesus was victorious over them. Death reigned by Adam's sin, now grace and righteousness reign through Jesus.
@@mikeschaller9233 yeah interesting. I’m not sure what the “knowledge of good and evil” actually is- I know that they obtained it through lust, though
Abel couldn't enter Eden because of Genesis 3:24.
What has passed down to us from Adam is the collateral consequences of Adam's sin. This is no different than if you or I were to be convicted of a crime and imprisoned for it; we would be punished but our dependents would also suffer as a result. What Adam’s descendants inherited from Adam as a result of his sin was his mortality and what they lost was access to the Tree of Life.
The doctrine of Original Sin is a plain contradiction of Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20 & 24. See also Ecclesiastes 7:29. What Scripture clearly shows is that human sinfulness arises during one’s youth (Genesis 8:21; Jeremiah 3:25) and that children must reach a certain level of maturity before they are able to make moral choices between good and evil (Isaiah 7:15-16). Furthermore, since the human spirit is not inherited from one’s parents; rather, but is given to each person individually by God (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Hebrews 12:9), it is unreasonable to suppose it is any less pure at conception than the source from whence it comes.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Hi Berean, hear me out. If your conclusions are completely accurate, then there is no way to deduce that everyone you meet has sinned. Suppose you meet a twelve year old from a devout Messianic Jewish family. Is it possible that this young person could literally have never sinned in God's eyes? And what is to stop this sinlessness progressing throughout the rest of their lives?
Furthermore, Christ partook of all of those consequences of Adam, including death- he was not born in the Garden, his family was poor and oppressed by the Romans/Herod, and yet he never sinned. So the problem isn't the consequences, it's the nature inside human beings.
Even if we accept what you're saying about the spirit, the problem put to us is that we are not spiritual beings, but carnal because of the flesh. If sin resides in the flesh, and the soul is tied to it- as soon as the command of God comes, sin comes alive and raises it's head.
Romans chap 7:
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
If everyone inherits their fallen body from Adam, then they are, by nature, born a sinner - the rebellion is already inside of them before they have done anything good or bad.
@@PizzaDisguise That everyone sins is axiomatic (Romans 3:20) but we need to hold together both this idea and what Scripture says about the guilt of sin not being inherited but arising during one's youth. One can't simply play one Scripture off against another so as to have one trump the other to fit whatever theological system we prefer. It does not follow from Romans 3:20 or 5:12 that one's sinful nature or guilt for sin has anything to do with some inherited trait. If you study Scripture closely, you will find it provides no support for the Lutheran/Calvinist doctrine of Original Sin (i.e. imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to and the inheritance of Adam's 'sin nature').
The early church believed infants were born innocent. It was only after infant baptism was introduced that a doctrine of original sin was invented to support the practice. Before Augustine, the only early church writers claiming infants were born in an inherited sinful state were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine’s contemporary, Jerome. Against these three, Aristeides of Athens, the writer of the _Epistle of Barnabas,_ Hermas of Rome, Justin Martyr (by implication), Irenaeus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and the writer of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ all viewed infants as being born innocent.
Augustine argued that the sin of Adam - including the guilt for it - is inherited by all humans ( _Letter_ 55.8; _Letter_ 164.6, 19; 250.2). Fundamental to Augustine’s hermeneutics was his belief that the practice of paedobaptism necessarily evidenced a tradition based on revelation to the church through Scripture and it was his job to identify the relevant Scriptures. The core of Augustine’s argument supporting paedobaptism was that Adam’s sin was inherited, an argument he largely based on an interpretation of what he _knew_ from Ambrosiatser's _Commentaries on Romans_ to be a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12b, which construed Adam as the one ‘in whom’ all sinned ( _A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians_ 4.7). Coupling this with an interpretation of poorly-translated texts of Psalm 51:5a and Job 14:4-5a, Augustine argued that even infants are held guilty because of Adam’s transgression ( _On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants_ I.34, III.13). Hence, according to Augustine, having inherited Adam’s sin, infants needed baptism for its remission ( _Letter_ 158.1).
When we come to the Reformation, we find Luther (an Augustinian monk) uncritically adopting Augustine’s teaching and Calvin endorsing Luther. Calvin openly admitted his theology was entirely Augustinian, writing, _"Augustine is so wholly within me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings"._
You refer to one being carnal instead of spiritual. That doesn't mean the unsaved person has no spirit. Everyone has one. That's what it means to be a living soul. People are souls compromised of a body and a spirit.
Most people that I know believe there's a difference between believing in original sin and believing that humans are born with a fallen nature. I don't see how those two are not one in the same
Original sin, as concocted by Augustine and adopted by the Catholics and Reformers means that the Guilt of Adam's sin is inherited to all of humanity at birth. I believe Augustine was trying to rationalize why infants are baptized and why they die without sinning.
Fallen nature, as per Augustine and the Reformers means that we are pure evil from conception and can do nothing good. The bible says similar but differntly.
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
Fallen nature means that our hearts and nature are sick, that we are inclined or bent towards evil in our hearts and minds. We have fallen from our created nature. We inherit this fallen nature, but not the guilt of Adam's sin. The consequence of that sin was death(physical) and our own sin causes death(spiritual/relational with the God).
@@mikeschaller9233 Thank you for taking the time to explain. I have a few questions.
We know that God created Adam with a human nature that was good so why did he fall?
God is the Creator of all life so does this mean that God creates individuals with a fallen human nature?
If God desires that none are lost, why would He create us with a fallen nature that is only able to sin?
If we are created with a broken sinful nature why and how can a wise and just God expect us not to sin?
Adam was created with a human nature. He was tempted and fell. It seems to me that God creates all humans with a human nature and that we all fall because we choose to rebel against our Creator. This is why children are innocent until they willfully and knowingly sin.
The problem is that ALL sin. I can understand why we want to blame it on being born with a fallen nature but it just doesn't line up with scripture. Personally, I think we all give into our flesh because we are born into a fallen carnal world that tempts us and pulls us away from God constantly. God could have destroyed us and created some other kind of creatures but He didn't. He chose to rescue us instead.
Also, if all humans are born with a fallen flawed nature that would have to mean that Jesus was born that way as well.
I agree, I was just explaining what Christians believe with these terms, not that I agree with them. I think you should look into the Eastern Orthodox Church. The don’t follow the same understandings of Original Sin. They see us as able to do good, but we are sick and in need of healing. Or something like that. Augustine seems to have blended different philosophies with Christianity. Neo-platonism, Stoicism, Manichaeism, and the reformers were Augustinian. The Eastern Church calls many of their teachings heresy, and I don’t disagree. I think we just need to understand that we aren’t what we are meant to be, and on our own we are helpless to do anything about it.
Yes, Jesus was like us in every way, yet he was without sin. Looks like we don’t inherit sin like some believe. This is why so many doctrines were created about Mary to try and show that Jesus wasn’t like us. Jesus was tempted, like we are, and could have given in, but didn’t. The thing to take away from this is that we have a God who is for us, He knows how we are tempted and how we suffer, how we fear death, and are weak in our flesh, because He experienced it.
How about Exodus 20:5?
God will render the sin of the fathers unto the children
Reformed Christian here! We don't believe that babies inherit Adam's guilt. We believe that they inherit a sin-nature (in other words, they will sin when able to).
With regards to whether or not babies in unbelieving families go to heaven or hell, God's word does not reveal this.
God is rich in mercy and just.
In Adam all have sinned In Christ all shall be made alive.
If God sent Adam and Eve to experience mortality they had to have free will in order to experience something other than divinity. Was the feeling of shame and guilt for choosing, perhaps the Sin? Judging their choice rather than experiencing it and let God just experience through me the consequences of choice. If not for the law I would not sin. Without judgment from the ego, towards ourselves and others we can just live and let live. Jesus came to remind us of who we really are.
We would all sin because God is the Law, only He is holy and we are not. He knew this, of course. That is why the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the earth. Rev 13.8
Romans 6:23 KJVS
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hebrews 9:27 KJVS
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Age of accountability 13?
This is Heiser's distorted and erroneous theology. The "gods" in Psalm 82 are not divine beings. How do we know? Because the immediate context tells us. Nowhere in the entire Bible do "gods" judge humans unjustly, so that God now has to judge them. Human judges are described in Psalm 82 based on the immediate context of that Psalm. We know that humans were called "elohim" meaning judges because of passages like Exodus 21:6 and Exodus 22:8-9.
Right now I am interviewing the author of the book "The Unbiblical Realm: Refuting the Divine Council of Michael Heiser’s Deuteronomy 32 Worldview." We both came to similar conclusions without knowing each other before, and he cites others who also take issue with Heiser's theology. This is not rocket science here. Heiser simply misread several passages.
Case in point. I have heard him say that Deut. 32:8 where he takes as original the reading "Sons of God" instead of "sons of Israel," is related to Deut. 4:19. He then argues that Deut. 4:19 is speaking of "heavenly beings." But anyone reading the immediate context of Deut. 4 starting from verse 15 down to 19 will see the clear reference to God warning against IDOL worship, not worship of any alleged "divine beings." No, Moses is talking in that context about the problems with idol worship of different kinds, and when we get down to verse 19, the flow of thought continues as God warns against a different kind of idol worship, the worship of heavenly bodies, the "sun, moon and stars, all the host of heaven." So one of his key passages he got grossly wrong.
The fact that Heiser missed this simple truth from the immediate context speaks volumes, and it also speaks to how people can be blinded by a theology that they can't see the obvious. Deut. 4:19 is not speaking about any kind of real "gods" or "divine beings." God there is warning against idolatry, man made idols (carved images per vs. 16), and idols people could make of heavenly bodies.
Brother, I am certainly not in disagreement with you, but would you please address, "...else were your children unclean"? Thank you.
Dr. Heiser has fallen asleep, friend. Cancer.
@PizzaDisguise Thank you. I hope it was not terribly painful; he's in Good Hands now...
@@georgefisher8610 He was a trooper in it, I didn't see him get bitter. I'm sure he doesn't regret it now, good witness.
There is an error in the Genealogies.
SOLVED: The Matthew and Luke Genealogy Conflict.
Matthew 1:17 states:
*_Therefore all the generations from Abraham to David (are) fourteen generations, and from David to the Babylonian Transmigration fourteen generations, and from the Babylonian Transmigration to Christ fourteen generations._*
It is a well known fact that the scriptures are missing a generation in the last set of 14 generations. Did Matthew err, or, is there a mistranslation?
In the Hebrew language, a dot can change the meaning of a word. While translating Matthew into Greek a translator could easily miss a dot, and mistranslate a word. In the Hebrew language, a single dot changes the word from Father to Husband. The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew reads: *"Joseph the father of Mary."*
The Greek text of Matthew 1:16 has the word "ton" in front of "andra" which literally reads in English as:
*_"the Joseph the man of Mary"_*
The English translators left out the definite article in front of Joseph and translated "ton andra" as "the husband." This is an error. The definite article changes the meaning of "andra" to a specific man of higher importance. It's acceptable to leave the definite article out in the English, as long as the effect it has on context is not ignored, which it was.
*"The Joseph the man of Mary"* doesn't really work well for the western English speaking world, so it should have been translated as:
*"Joseph the father of Mary"* (a different Joseph than is mentioned in Matthew 1:19).
The expression "ton andra" (the man of) is never used for a husband of someone when the subject comes first accompanied with the definite article as in "the Joseph, the man of Mary."
As proof, In Matthew 1:19 the writer makes a distinction between the Joseph of verse 16:
*_Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was about to put her away privately._*
In the Greek this actually translates word for word to English as
"the Joseph, moreover the husband of her."
The writer is making it clear that "the Joseph" in verse 19 is not the same Joseph mentioned in verse 16 by emphasizing that this Joseph is the husband of Mary using the Greek word "aner" instead of "andra."
"Andra" and "aner" have similar meaning. Both can mean man, and both can mean husband. The context indicates how the word is translated.
Joseph in Matthew 1:16 is the Son of Jacob, the man (father) of Mary, not her husband.
*Evidence from the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew* (Revised English Version)
In Matthew 1:16, the Aramaic word is "gavra" or "gawra," which means “mighty man,” “father,” or “husband." However, it was read by the Greek translator as 'gura' meaning husband.
In Matthew 1:19 and Luke 3:23 the Aramaic word is "bala," which is “man” or “husband.”
The Hebrew text preserves the truth. There is a difference between the “Joseph” of verse 16 (the “mighty man” of Mary), and the “Joseph” of verse 19 and Luke 3:23 (the “husband” of Mary).
The ancient Aramaic text has Matthew 1:16 translated to English as follows:
"Jacob was the FATHER of Joseph, who was the father of Mary. Mary was the mother of Yeshua [Jesus], who is called the Messiah."
SEE the REV Bible commentary on Matthew 1:16
Now we can see that Joseph, the father of Mary, is 12th generation, Mary is the 13th, and Jesus is the 14th generation.
The Matthew genealogy is the royal lineage of Mary, which fulfills the requirements for the Kingship of Judah.
The Luke genealogy traces the royal lineage of Mary's husband all the way back to Adam.
Jesus is the legal step son of Joseph, and therefore a legal heir to the throne of David. In addition, before Luke even lists the genealogical record, he gives an account of Jesus being divinely appointed as King of Israel. The result of the two genealogical records is that Jesus qualifies for BOTH kingships: King of Israel, and King of Judah (King of the Jews).
Mike is just wrong on so many levels I wish he was still around to see my posts. However, I'm sure he is aware of his errors now.
What is wrong with viewing the original sin in the Garden of Eden as being likened to original drunk driving? The original drunk drivers oriented society to the problem of driving while drunk, which resulted in a stigma, prejudice, and punishments against future drunk drivers (even for those who do not get into accidents). Adam was weak through the flesh and was in bondage to the serpent (the law of sin in his members). Romans 7 is largely an explanation as to how he imitated Adam's original sin. This can be seen by looking at the law as the knowledge of good and evil.
Can someone pls pls explain Psalm 51:5 (I was born a sinner) in this context? May be this was eluded to somewhere in one his other sermons.
The Hebrew text of Psalm 51:5 _doesn't_ say David was born a sinner. Translations that render it that way are importing the translators' theology into the text.
David's father, not his mother, conceived him. The idea of a mother conceiving her baby alludes to the idea that the father is a sex maniac who does not like to be responsible for his fathering of his children. This is sinful and carnally minded. One of the great weaknesses of American culture is the false notion that an abortion is none of the husband's business. Being spiritually minded means the father cares about his children, as in the story of the Prodigal Son.
@@raykidder906 What a bizarre notion! Everywhere conception of a child is mentioned in Scripture, it is the mother alone who conceives. See: Genesis 4:1, 17; 16:4-5; 21:2; 25:21, etc., etc.
@@Berean_with_a_BTh You have made an interesting and valid point. In the Bible, it seems to me that "conceived" means, "become pregnant". Sometimes the father is mentioned, but sometimes he is not mentioned (where is says that she conceived "me" or "them"), I sense that sin is also referenced. Psalm 51:5 Song of Solomon 3:4, and Hosea 2:5 allude to a woman conceiving a child through her own decision and enticements, Of these 3 places, only the Song of Solomon verse does not reference or imply sin, which suggests that a woman CAN entice a man to get pregnant without sin as long as be is held responsible.
@@raykidder906 Hosea 2:5 _does not_ suggest any sinning in the act of conception. Read the context!
So....If a saved person sins they go to hell?
no Their sin is covered by Christ. This does not make sin good.
“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,”
Romans 9:10-23 KJV www.bible.com/bible/1/rom.9.10-23.kjv
The later Western fathers and even later the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong. Not the Eastern fathers or early Western fathers. There is no inherited guilt. So what Heiser once thought wasn’t entirely correct.
We inherit our sinful nature from Adam, not his guilt. No one said we inherited his guilt; that's misleading. The reason babies go to heaven is because they are below the age of accountability and cannot choose Jesus rationally. They are under his grace. Plus, Jesus' real father is the Holy Spirit, and that statement alone proves he was born sinless. We, as Christians, have the Holy Spirit; He is the one who makes us sinless. Remember, folks, it doesn't matter how schooled one is in the scriptures; they are in a fallen state and make numerous mistakes just like the rest of us. Michael is not exempt from that reality. He is right though, about the aborted babies and miscarriages, no matter how he arrived at that conclusion.
Is there an actual age of accountability or is it just when a kid can understand the gospel?
@@jelly7310 A common belief in the "age of accountability" exists, and there's evidence to suggest its true. Jesus for example says that you have to become "like one of these little ones". He refers to children as being "innocent". David said he knew he'd see his dead child again who was stillborn (I think the child was stillborn anyway).
If such an "age of accountability" does exist, it probably exists on a case-by-case basis. To be held accountable you need to understand what you're doing is wrong and be capable of repenting. Mentally deficient people might in fact fall under this as well, not being able to understand what's going on to be capable of repenting.