Did We get The Doctrine Of original Sin From Bible, or Catholic Church?

Cypress....before I look at this, please tell me the authors background & theological edu. I need to know he is credible before reading still another blog. Thanks

 

Would you like for him to run a background check before you read it? Finger prints? DNA test? :laugh:

 

To what end do you part company? So tell me Van, what ultimately determines whether a person is saved or not?

 

That would be helpful:thumbs:

 

EWF....http://www.evangelbooksonline.com/author.html
:love2: Just for you!

 

Thanks.......Finny, Assemblies of God, & Calli....no thanks! :laugh:

 

Glad I could save you some time.....kinda how I feel about piper,hodge ,institutes etc..........:wavey: But no side has exclusive rights to the truth....it can be found in lots of places. Carry on.:love2:

 

Thats OK.....Piper gets on my nerves & who is Hodge....now I disagree on Institutes....that was brilliant for the time it was written (noting Calvin was signing his death warrant by doing it). Come to think of it.....I never did read anything by an Arminian....well maybe Wesley but I dont like him either. At least these men all have credentials.:smilewinkgrin:

 

His misconception of the meaning of Romans 7:8,9

Now further expounded here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1725656&postcount=172

 

It comes from the bible, but if the RCC believe it then they are correct.

 

You did not refute me, you gave your interpretation, which I disagree with. Numerous commentaries interpret this passage very similar to me. John Gill made the statement that this was not speaking of Paul in his youth. Though he disagrees with me, it is notable that he saw this possible interpretation, so I am not out in right field on this.

Another passage that refutes OS is the prodigal son in Luke 15. It is clear in this chapter that Jesus is speaking of salvation. Verses 7 and 10 speak of the joy in heaven when a lost sinner repents.

Jesus continues in this context with the story of the prodigal son. We see the prodigal son asking for his inheritance in vs. 12. This represents spiritual death, he treated his father as if he was dead, this is when he should have received his inheritance. He was joined to the citizen of another country in vs. 15, again showing his lost state.

We all know he came to himself and turned toward home, his father was looking for him and saw him from a distance, ran to him and embraced him. This shows how God is eager for folks to repent. But what is significant is that the father twice says his son is alive AGAIN.

Lk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

Lk 15:32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Jesus knows correct doctrine, it would be impossible to say a person is alive AGAIN if they are born dead. And it is clear Jesus is speaking of salvation, as he says the boy was lost, and is found, as in vs. 6.

 

You disagree on The Institutes. Do have more agreement with him than disagreement?

What do you mean by the statement that :He was signing his death warrant by doing it?

That's highly unlikely.

 

Like some others I know, you think the same words have to be used the same way in every passage of Scripture no matter what the context is, even though Luke 15 is a parable, and Romans 7 is a doctrinal epistle.

 

The parables expressed spiritual truths. All three parables in Luke 15 were told in order, they were all concerning salvation as clearly revealed in verses 7 and 10.

The shepherd originally had 100 sheep. The sinner is the one lost sheep who is RECOVERED.

The woman originally had 10 pieces of silver. The sinner is the lost coin the woman swept and searched for until she RECOVERED it.

And TWICE Jesus said the prodigal son was alive AGAIN. Words have meaning, if a person is born dead in sin as you believe, it would be impossible to say anyone was alive AGAIN.

I will believe Jesus, you can believe Augustine and Calvin.

 

Of course the doctrine of original sin is totally Scriptural.

If the RCC believes this doctrine, good for her, but this doesn't mean she is to be considered an fortress of truth. Instead she is to be considered apostate.

Cults, many theologies, "churches" have truth, but they are mixed with error centering around their false Gospel. This is what makes them apostate, and is what makes them dangerous.

If ones Gospel is correct, and so to ones view on the person of God, and His nature, then ones theological foundation will be solid, and truth generally stems from this. Any deviation from the Gospel and Person and nature of God breeds error and false teaching.

 

Parables do NOT teach truth.
A Parable only illustrates truth already taught in other parts of the Bible.
To teach "truth" from any parable is poor hermeneutics and often leads to the formation of a cult.

 

So, Jesus was using a "poor" method of teaching truth when he used parables?

You really should reconsider this opinion.

The purpose of the parables was to reveal truth to the discerning, and to hide it from those who had little regard for the truth.

 

Unclear as to your concern. I was impressed with Calvins writings. Very clear & direct.

He was circulating it thru Europe....must of p/o the RC

You forget I am 32 years a RC, 22 a Presby.....both I never got, 16 Mo truly born again. Apart from Acquinus & Bonaventure, I never read anything remotely religious in content....so why would I have read anything Arminian? Does that answer your questions?

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs: