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

Actually I did refute you. You just come along and say: "No you didn't; no you didn't"
If I didn't refute you, then take what I said and give a Scriptural refutation. Tell me how I am wrong using Scripture--the Scripture I used--show me how it is wrong.

 

Nice summary. Not sure why the majority of believers do not have a problem with Augustine, with his background I steer quite clear of what he taught.

 

And you simply insist you have refuted me. Your argument is no better than mine.

I simply believe you are using scripture from other writings of Paul to explain away Rom 7:9. Nowhere in this chapter does he speak of persecuting the church, so you are taking scripture where he is speaking of persecuting the church and applying it to this passage, when that is not the subject Paul is addressing. He is speaking of how the law brings knowledge of sin and thus convicts a man (Rom 7:7,10-11).

I do not disagree that Paul was self-righteous when he persecuted the church. But that is not the subject in Romans 7.

Paul had understood the law long before persecuting the church, but he did not see it in a personal way. I believe when he encountered the Lord he saw his sinfulness as any man would in this situation. He realized sin through the law had killed him.

It is just as when we are saved, most of us think we are doing pretty good, earning our way to heaven. But when we hear God's word personally, we realize we were dead in sin all along, though we may not have realized it. That is what Paul is talking about.

That said, Paul did not say he "thought" he was alive once, Paul is actually saying he was alive once, but sin taking occasion by the law killed him. The knowledge of the law made him accountable, whether he realized it or not.

No man will have excuse before God, although I do not believe God holds little children accountable.

And Jesus clearly spoke of the prodigal son being alive AGAIN. You cannot just brush this off.

 

Please don't call Jesus a poor teacher; that in itself is poor taste if not insulting to the Lord God our Savior.

I don't need to reconsider. I know I am right. Go to school and learn your hermeneutics. Here is the lesson again:

Parables do not teach truth! They only illustrate the truth already taught in the Bible.

I don't know why I have to teach this to you, a Baptist. I am constantly teaching it to an SDA in another forum, who develops one of his unbiblical doctrines from it. That is how cults work.

 

You are the one insulting Jesus when you say his parables do not teach truth.

What is the difference between illustrating truth and teaching truth?

The parables, if properly understood, teach much doctrinal truth.

All of the parables in Luke 15 do not show a person originally being lost. The sheep belonged to the shepherd, he had 100. One was lost, he left the 99 and searched and found his lost sheep.

The woman had 10 pieces of silver originally, one was lost and she searched till she found it.

The prodigal left his father and was joined to another citizen of that far country. When he repented and came home his father said he was alive AGAIN.

If you can't see the truth illustrated here, I can't help you.

 

Paul is giving his own testimony. To be thorough in a proper interpretation of this text we must look at other Scriptures which also speak of his testimony. If you have a verse that speaks of the tabernacle in the Book of Hebrews would you not look in other parts of the Bible that speak of the tabernacle to give you better understanding?

The subject of Romans 7 is the warfare between the two natures (the old sin nature and the new nature of Christ) that Paul faces every day. It comes to a climax in the last two verses of the chapter. But here you are still at the beginning of the chapter.

No matter how educated he was, how much of an academic he was, without the Holy Spirit he did not have the light of God. He was blind to the truths of God. And that is exactly what Paul is trying to teach you.

Yes, he says that he was blameless concerning the law. I would say that he thought that he was doing pretty good earning his way to heaven. He was keeping the law "to the fault."

After all that is what he said:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:6)
--He was "alive once". He was religious. He thought he was doing God's will. He calls himself blameless, righteousness. That is alive.

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (Romans 7:9-10)

He was righteous before the law--alive, so he thought.
Then the commandment (the law) came--this time with spiritual understanding.
He died. The law kills. It slays the sinner, the person who thought he had life.
The Law which he thought gave him spiritual life, he now realizes condemns him to eternal death.

And Paul didn't either. Read the entire chapter.

I am not sure how you interpret the chapter.

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.
Does it teach OSAS? That is was the young man lost and then came back to Christ?
Or does it teach that the young man was a prodigal, that is a son like the parable says, and was "backslidden," went astray, and came back to his Father. But he was never lost because he was always a son.

Either way the parable has no bearing on Romans 7. They are not related.

 

I do see truth illustrated. That has been my point all along. Why not try reading my posts once and awhile. The purpose of a parable is to illustrate truth already taught in the Bible. This is the THIRD time that I have reiterated this statement.

I am glad you are just coming to your senses (like the prodigal son).
Parables illustrate truth; not teach truth.

 

double post

 

The parable of the prodigal son is not about being backslidden, the father said his son was dead. A true believer has life and shall NEVER perish. (Jn 10:28)

And I never said Luke 15 is in context with Romans 7:9, I am simply showing additional scripture that refutes Original Sin. I can show many examples besides these.

 

The truth of Original Sin is made clear by comparing two verses of Genesis .

Gen 1:27. 'So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created Him.....'

Gen 5:3. 'And Adam lived on hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image and named him Seth.'
The image of God in fallen man is marred and defaced. 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' By nature we bear the image of the one who fell. That is why we need to be born again. There is a ton of Scriptural support for this. Read, for example Romans 3:9-18 and Eph 2.

Our children are living proof of this. You have to teach a little child everything. How to be clean, how to hold a spoon or a pencil, how to walk- everything. But you never need to tell them how to sin. They learn that all by themselves. You never need to say, "Now then, Johnny, this is how you tell a lie. You must think of something that isn't true and say it as if it is." Or, "Janet, this is how you must be selfish. You must keep all your toys to yourself and not let your little brother play with them." They learn this behaviour without any help at all.

That is why we need to be on our knees regularly before God, praying for our children: "Father, we gave them life according to the flesh; You, Lord, must give them life according to the Spirit."

DHK is right that we should be very cautious about drawing doctrine from the parables that is not supported elsewhere. They were never meant to be doctrinal. That teaching was given to the Apostles (Matt 13:10-13; Mark 4:34).

Steve

 

this is purely eisegesis. Mankind is made in the image of God, not Adam (Genesis 9:6, 1 Cor 11:7, james 3:9)

agreed, but this merely proves the curse is in affect not that we inherit guilt from Adam

th parable winman supplied is supported, though.

 

Steve, how do you suppose Adams children would have turned out had he not sinned It is entirely unreasonable imo to think that they would have needed any other type of instruction than our children need other than how to live in a newly fallen world. I realize there is really no way to tell other than speculation......just asking us to think about it from all angles. Can we picture them behaving from birth through maturity always sharing, never angry, etc.:love2:

 

It's not "eisegesis." If you are going to accuse someone of that, please share where they did this. Also, he quoted Genesis 5:3 which says that Adam's son Seth was in Adam's image. "and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image and named him Seth."

then go to the place where it's supported and not the parable. We don't get doctrine from parables.

 

It's reading into the text (eisegesis) to claim we are made in Adam's image and not God's based on the text he provided, nothing there states that all mankind is made in Adam's image, that is something read into the text. Scripture is clear mankind is made in the image of God, as I provided.

I keep hearing this, yet continuing to state it does not make it so. If it is a good enough approach for our Savior to teach from, it's good enough for me.

 

You still haven't address the statement, "and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image and named him Seth." You seem to just ignore it and post about being made in God's image(something no one has denied).

Was Seth after the image of Adam? Yes he was according to the text. So we can then conclude that Seth had a child after Seth's likeness who was in Adam's likeness. So Seth's child was in Adam's likeness.

no one has denied that.

No one is stating that parables are useless. There is a huge difference of using a story to teach a truth already stated and getting a doctrine from a parable. And example of that would be, using an example to teach something. A speaker will use an illustration to help get a point across. The story is simply there to help understand something that is already taught better. If your only source for a doctrine is a parable, you wrong. Jesus used parables to teach already stated truths and thus we will be able to find them in the Scripture.

 

God made man (Adam and Eve specifically) in his own image and likeness.
The Adam sinned, and not only Adam but the entire creation of God was cursed. This is clearly explained in Romans 8:18-24 as I have posted elsewhere. When Adam and Eve gave birth again (after the fall) his children were made after "Adam''s image" not God's image, as the Scripture's state. One cannot argue with Scripture. The reason for this is the curse. The image and likeness of God in man has been marred. We no longer have the exact image and likeness of God. It has been marred by the fall. When man get's saved, he becomes indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and that image is partially restored. That is why the command to believers is "to be conformed to the image of Christ." That image has been taken away. Otherwise we would have no such command would we? The image and likeness of God will be completely restored at the coming of Christ, when we receive our resurrection bodies.

Our Savior didn't teach the way that you assume.
He taught in parables. (a heavenly story with an earthly truth).
But the Pharisees did not understand him, and much of the time his disciples didn't understand him either. So he took his disciples apart and he had to explain the parable to them. Read Matthew 13. There are many parables in that chapter. He tells the parable, and then he takes the parable and explains it to his disciples. The truth of the parable is in his explanation. The parable then becomes illustrative of the truth he is teaching, and they will remember the truth much better when they associate it with the parable.

 

What is there to address? What have I ignored? Adam had a son named Seth in his own image and likeness. So? My son is made in my image and likeness. What from that text states every human thereafter is also in Adam's' image and likeness? There is nothing.

Which I agree to. Nothing from that text supports Augustine's original sin, and as I stated earlier it is eisegesis to use that text in support of it. Do you see what I am saying?

 

You didn't respond to what I just posted. I just explained it to you. Now, you admit that your son is made in your "image and likeness." Good. You were made in your fathers image. Your father in his father. Keep going and you will end up back to adam.

 

Agreed...and the Scripture I shared shows, all mankind as well.

Agreed...all mankind thereafter are under the curse (including Christ, ironically).

Wrong, as the Scripture I already posted shows. Mankind is made in God's image...it is reading into the text man's theology to state we are made in Adam's image. That is not Scripture, that is man's rendering.

Where does Scripture state the image and likeness is marred? I agree that a curse was put on mankind, but don't see how that affects the image. Adam was never created in the "exact" image and likeness, that would have put him on par with God.

Much speculation here. When we are saved our condition is restored, our life returns...nothing whatsoever about image or likeness. Being conformed to the image of Christ is dealing with sanctification, a process of holiness that will be perfected upon glorification. Again, nothing about image or likeness.

Mere semantics, IMO.

 

You've lost me...what didn't I respond to?

Are you saying that all humanity that comes after me in my lineage is in my likeness and image?

You are reading way more into that passage than what is intended. Nowhere are we to understand that EVERY human being is made in Adam's likeness and image, only Adam had a son, his name was Seth, and he looked and acted like his father. That's it.