Featured I was born this way...

According to Calvinism (and others to be fair), your children were conceived sinners, and are not innocent. They were in Adam's loins and participated in his sin. This is what Original Sin teaches.

Heaven is the "promised land" we wait for. The land of Israel was a figure or picture of this, a land flowing with milk and honey.

God caused all the Jews who sinned in the wilderness to die, except for Joshua and Caleb who did not sin. But God allowed the children to go in because they did not know between good and evil in that day.

If a three year old boy finds his father's gun and shots his sister, we do not try and convict that little boy. Why? Because he did not understand his actions. We got this concept from the Bible!

Yes, but nevertheless, God explained to Jonah that it was JUST AND RIGHT to spare Nineveh because there were 120,000 innocent children there. But if God had destroyed Nineveh, those children would have went straight to heaven, their parents would not.

No, David said he would go to his son, and David KNEW he was saved, God promised the KING would come through his seed. David also had the Holy Spirit and wrote MUCH scripture (many of the Psalms).

 

Winman

Winman...get a grip on yourself...Skan a Cal...:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

I do believe that babies who die go to heaven, and therefore there are persons in heaven who never sinned and need no repentance. I believe this is exactly who Jesus is speaking about in Luke 15;

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.

The 18th chapter of Matthew is all about children. Jesus told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. He said that their (little children) angels do always behold the face of his Father. Again, Jesus compares these children to 99 sheep who never went astray.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

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.

Jesus also spoke of the elder son who NEVER transgressed his father's commandment at any time in Luke 15;

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.

Jesus told us about the elder son who claimed to have never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Such a person could not exist if Original Sin is true (it isn't).

Did the father call the boy a hypocrite or correct him? NO, the father confirmed that what the elder son said was true. He called him SON, and said THOU ART EVER WITH ME. They were never separated by sin.

Note that he also contrasted the elder boy to the prodigal, only the prodigal was DEAD and LOST.

But now the prodigal was ALIVE AGAIN, which proves he was not born dead in sin. He was alive at home with his father until he knowingly and willingly went out in sin and joined himself to a citizen of that far country.

But when he repented, twice Jesus said the prodigal was alive AGAIN.

If Original Sin were true (it isn't) no one could be alive AGAIN.

Finally, note that there is no celebration for these 99 persons who never went astray and need no repentance, and the elder boy also complained that there was no celebration for him. So, they seem to be sort of 2nd class citizens.

 

Well at least he is consistant...now you know that an Arminian is considered half a Calvinist in his eyes. Nothing short of Pelagian cuts it with this guy. Its as it should be.

 

Actually, Skan is a Catholic, he follows Augustine. And so do you, Calvin followed Augustine.

You are just a daughter of the mother.

 

Oh agreed, it is almost universally believed by all Christians. Nevertheless it is total error and is the ROOT of all false doctrine in the church.

Get rid of OS and nearly all the other false doctrines are destroyed.

 

I've never seen him argue against the federal headship as in the human won't sin or doesn't have the propensity to sin because of the nature of man coming through from Adam. In my view we are not Adam as in without the added self-acquired nature of knowledge of good and evil. We are Adam+ and are responsible and bound to sin because of the +. God did not give us the + we did that on our own, everyone of us, and now we must use the same type of free will Adam originally had to repent of the +.

I think Winman argues that God did not give us the "+ nature" in regards to original sin. I haven't seen him ever deny we have the + and because of it will sin.

The version of origin of sin is what is debated. Do you think we lost the nature Adam had when he took of the tree of knowledge? I don't see us losing that nature or ever being recreated by God to be different from Adam who was born only good and with free will, I see us gaining a nature from the time of Adam that insures we will sin that "man" (Adam) all men are solely responsible for, not God. IOW's we gained the nature, not the sin.

Not sure if that is going to come through and make sense. It is hard thing to break down and explain, but original sin must be clarified as to it's origin's responsibility and that is in all men, from man, and was this sin was not predestined by God, but it is judged by God, yes, with what He added mercy and grace after Adam added the "+ nature". "Now" man must use the nature He gave Adam (free will of choice) and use "our hand" (same non-recreated nature) to take of the tree of tree of life.

IOW's we gained the nature, not the sin. This + nature guarantees we will fall short of the perfect Adam and all of us were given only perfectly good nature by God. When we born it comes in the same given perfectly good nature God + the nature of Adam - nowhere do I see God giving us the nature of sin.

I don't believe we sin until we use that + nature to do so. God will be the judge of it in truth. The Determinist holds to that the sin is already committed but it is not, the propensity has been committed that so that it is unavoidable is all that is predestined and that is predestined through Adam, not God. God's work is perfectly Good, all of it.

There is a distinction that needs to be made and while trying to make it the Determinist loves to say "gottcha heretic" but this is a game to them, a smokescreen in which they can avoid coming to defining terms like "original sin" which would form a conclusion (if they were pinned to the term in their predestination premise) of God being the author of evil and drive them straight into theological fatalism.
:type:

 

If people were actually born without a sin nature, sinless, and not children of Adam, then at least one person in all of history would have made to at least age 21 without sinning. I would like to know who that was!

 

I'm not a Calvinist so stick that one up you pipe and smoke it ...apparently you process your thoughts that way.

 

Well you've apparently missed a lot then. He also believes the elder brother of the prodigal son was an infant because the brother claimed he had never sinned.

 

jesus christ

 

If babies are born innocent, w/o sinning and go to heaven, they did so w/o Jesus' provisions on the cross. He died to atone for sinners........

 

We are directly told what man gained, the knowledge of good and evil, and this is what makes us accountable.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

This is why Adam and Eve spiritually died, because now they knew good from evil. This has been passed down to us, although it takes time to mature, a little baby does not know good from evil.

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 speaks of Christ, but it also has universal application. Little children do not at first know to refuse evil and choose good.

By the way, this verse refutes Total Inability, because it teaches that even a child can refuse evil, and choose good.

Very good post Benjamin.

 

Amen:applause:

 

Your position then convicted is that infants that pass, are not granted eternity in heaven?

 

You make a mistake here. The very first "judgment" we make IS going to be evil. There is Only One Perfect Judge between the two and that is God.

It is the added nature of judgment of good and evil that condemns us, Adam and Eve wanted to be as God but there is only One God.

It absolutely does not matter that they have any ability to understand between right and right it has to do with OWNING that judgment of good and evil. We all own that judgment and we are all unavoidably condemned because it.

God doesn't second guess our judgments whether they are good enough or not He is the only perfect good judgment period and that is the end of the story. We must bow to His perfect judgment and we all are condemned, "fall short in sin" miss the perfect bullseye" by our judgments, everyone of our judgments.

 

Well, you believe the ERROR Augustine taught, that is what I meant.

I would like to see that scripture that you believe is evidence for Original Sin.