Featured Sketchy Doctrine

There is conditionality to the imputation of Adam's sin. Paul clearly tells us what that is just a few verses down....and then forseeing the lie of Original guilt attempts to preclude that mistake in verse 13.
Rom 5:12 ¶ 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:

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

It's scary to abandon the fanciful assumptions of men, but if you step outside of the bubble of uniquely Western and post-Calvin Theological pre-supposition and take the Scriptures as written, they don't even IMPLY Original Sin.

You find that Winman is right-on. The Scriptures nowhere teach Original Guilt. Only Western reformation pre-supposition does. It is read into the text. No one has ever "refuted" Winman...they've simply argued with him. That doesn't make his view wrong. Fortunately, more and more Bible-Believers (I think) are waking up to the lie that was Original Sin. Because it is no-where in Scripture.

 

Thank God, many Baptist pastors and theologians are now correctly interpreting scripture and rejecting Original Sin. This very recent article;

Read the whole article

http://sbctoday.com/2013/05/22/dr-a...am-harwood-2013-john-316-presentation-part-34

Of course, Calvinists and Reformed believers will reject this, they are utterly dependent upon Original Sin.

 

Ah, such is the modernist.

The issue of "Original Sin" comes down through history relating to the birth of a child.

Is the child born sinful or not.

The typical Calvin like teaching takes what the psalmist said, "I was born in sin." That means that even the conception was sinful - as the psalmist states - "In sin my mother conceived me."

Augustine taught this as do most Baptist Calvinists that I have visited. They (Baptist Calvinists) also generally hold to the "age of accountability" in which the child is held as "innocent" by God until they reach an age of mental maturation that comprehends sin as sinful.

To the Jews this age is celebrated by the Bar (Bat for girls) Mitzvah which means "son (daughter) of commandment." The time when the person is now responsible for the law and the punishments is celebrated - makes sense to me.

The early church used pedobaptism to get past the "original sin" issue that the typical Baptist satisfies by using the term "age of accountability."

LASTLY, the extended problem by some is bringing the "adult" condition to that of the child. As if the adult is not responsible for their own sin, nor do they have the propensity to sin in their very human "Adamic" nature.

Paul states that sin entered the world by one man.
Paul states that all have sinned.

Frankly, it really doesn't matter is some "theologian" rejects original sin teaching or not.

The Scriptures teach it, groups have attempted various human schemes to deal with it, and if it were not Scriptural, then it would have been proclaimed heretical by the very teaching of Christ and the apostles.

 

IF Sim was not imputed towards us by God thru the fall of Adam, why the contrast made between firt and second Adam by paul?
That in BOTh Adams, God reckoned to their "children" His judgement upon their works...

In adam, found gulity sinner, so ALL in Adam judged and found as sinner, in Jesus, ALL in Him found innocent and blamefree, have spiritual life!

So imputed/Original SIn HAS to be real if paul makes any sense!

 

As was jesus and the Apsotles!

Again, jesus Himself MUST have come thru the person of the HS, or else would have been in the line of Adam, and inherited a sin nature, just as ALL of us did !

 

Adam seperation from god due to Him now found spiritually dead, so that part of man that has relationship with God "shut down!"

ALL born without that means to come to comprehending jesus in a saving sense, forthat takes the Act of the HS towards sinners to make that happen!

 

Problems I have with rejecting Original Sin:

1. Effects of Sin. Sin is the reason that humans now experience pain, suffering, hunger. Eating protein is now required because as the body dies, it need replenish of nutrients to prolong the inevitable-death.

Would any deny that a child is dying the minute it is born? But if there is no original sin, then the effects of sin should not follow until sin is imputed or the sin nature imputed to the child.

The effects of sin are apparent in a child which could not be possible unless the child was born with sin.

2. Knowledge and Consciousness of Sin. A child lies and deceives from birth. A baby deceives it's parent by crying as if hungry, when the child really wants attention. I can remember when my son was 2 lying to my face about taking something from his sister. Not only did he lie about it, he had a guilty conscience. Like Adam, he tried to hide his sin.

If a child was born without sin, how can a child possibly have a consciousness of sin? and a knowledge of what is right or wrong? Sin is not imputed when there is no law, and yet a child shows the "work of the law written on their hearts".

3. Eternal Security. If a child is born without sin, then it's safe to argue that is a reason why the child goes to heaven. Sounds good, of course (although that obviously gives a Calvinist fits because that baby might have been elected to go to hell). However, the problem with this is that it conflicts with Eternal Security. If the child is born without sin, and would go to heaven at death, then that means a child is born saved which I believe not only conflicts with the contrast of physical and spiritual birth in John 3, but conflicts with assurance of salvation if this true.

If a child is born saved, but at a later time is then held accountable and can go to hell for eventually rejecting Christ, then that favors an argument that a person's salvation can be lost.

4. Age of Accountability. The arguments I've seen here rejecting the age of accountability (don't like that term) seem to have a problem. If there is no such thing as an age of accountability, then that would also defeat any argument for an age of imputability. At some point a child has to be accountable for sin. No matter which argument you chose, both sides have to agree that there is a particular age that the child is aware of and accountable for sin. I think the argument against age of accountability is a self-defeating rebuttal.

 

You should try reading your Bible, Jesus WAS in the line of Adam. Romans 1:3 tells us Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and David was a descendant of Adam according to the flesh.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

2 Sam 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

2 Samuel 7:12 is a direct promise to David that the Messiah would proceed "out of thy bowels".

This false teaching that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature goes against scripture, and is nothing but a superstition. Jesus received his flesh from his mother Mary and therefore received the DNA of both David and Adam from her. Scripture directly tells us that Jesus was made of the seed of David.

The angel that spoke to Mary directly said that David was Jesus's father.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

So, if you want to continue to spread a falsehood, that is your choice, but that is exactly what you are doing. I don't think God would be pleased with that, do you?

 

Adam and Eve had to eat before they sinned.

The tree of life provides healing. It appears that even in the New Jerusalem that this healing will be required.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Only the saved are allowed to eat of the tree of life, so obviously it is the saved that will require the healing.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

Adam and Eve were created without a sin nature, and sinned the first time they were tempted. All that is required to sin is a free will. Children are born into a sinful environment. They are exposed to sin and temptation the moment they are born. It is no wonder that all men soon sin.

Lying requires INTENT. A child simply wants it's parents attention, there is nothing sinful whatsoever about this. The only means a baby has of preservation is to cry, it is all they've got.

How did Satan sin? He was created perfect. How did Adam and Eve sin without a sin nature? How about all the fallen angels that were created perfect?

No, all that is required to sin is a free will.

Children do not at first know right from wrong, scripture shows this.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

God did not punish the children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness, and allowed them to enter the Promised Land, a figure of heaven. Why? Because they had no knowledge between good and evil in that day.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

This verse shows that it takes time before a child matures and can choose between good and evil. This verse shows we retain free will, and it also shows that man can refuse evil and choose good, refuting Total Inability.

No, the child is not SAVED. You have to be lost to be saved. This child was NEVER LOST. Is there such a thing? YES, Jesus himself speaks of those who have never sinned and need no repentance.

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
14 Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Luk 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Jesis spoke of 99 sheep which went not astray. He then identifies these persons as little children. Jesus had just told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. No unclean thing ever enters heaven.

Jesus also spoke of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
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.

The elder son claimed never to have sinned against his father. Did his father call him a hypocrite or rebuke him? NO, the father confirmed that what the elder son said was true. He called him "Son", he said he was "ever with me" (never separated by sin). He also said that his brother (the prodigal) was DEAD and LOST, contrasting with the elder son who was never dead or lost.

And remember, it is Jesus himself who told us of these persons who never sinned and never went astray. There have literally been millions, if not billions of children who have died before they could sin. This would account for the 99 just persons who never went astray compared to the one sheep who became lost and repented.

No, because when we are saved we are SEALED by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. We are not originally born with the Holy Spirit, but man's spirit. But it is not lost at first.

There is an age of accountability, Deu 1:39 shows it. Paul also said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. When he matured and understood the law he became accountable. The law he thought would lead to life led to death. Sin took occasion by the law and convicted him as a sinner.

And that is the point, if OS is true, Paul could NEVER say he was once alive. And Jesus could not have said the prodigal was ALIVE AGAIN.

Luk 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.

Original Sin is FALSE doctrine.

 

Easily refuted. Men were not separated from God after Adam sinned. Adam and Eve spoke directly to God. Cain spoke directly to God, and he was lost.

Several men walked with God AFTER Adam sinned.

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

I could continue, other men walked with God, such as Abraham.

Scripture says our sins (not Adam's) have separated us from God.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

Scripture says OUR iniquities and OUR sin has separated us from God, not Adam's sin as you falsely teach.

And we are not born separated from God, but become separated AFTER we are born when we personally sin.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter said we are now RETURNED to Jesus. You cannot return someplace you have never been. If we were born separated from God, then it could never be said we are RETURNED to God, but that is exactly what Peter said.

I can keep showing you scripture that refutes Original Sin, but you will hold to the traditions of men.

 

I am perfectly glad to let folks read and decide for themselves who is rightly dividing the word of God and who is not.

 

Winman,

Why are you avoiding Vans refutations

 

What refutations? He didn't refute me whatsoever, I have posted scripture to support everything I believe, he has not refuted anything I've said.

He argues similar to you, he simply insists he is correct. That is not a valid argument.

Explain to me where I have misinterpreted any scripture I have provided to support my view.

For example, what did Paul mean when he said he was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. How could Paul say he was EVER spiritually alive if we are all born dead in sin?

Explain how my interpretation is wrong.

 

I did about a year ago,and you avoided it ,....but you have bigger fish to fry, you are giving Van.....shuck and jive,and twaddle to the max...as he likes to say.....you better focus Winman,as Van has you on the ropes:thumbsup::thumbsup: