bibliology QUIZ

[Revmitchell]

Meaning?? I ask this merely for clarification and not being persnickety....

I have agreed with your posts on this until this on:

Adam caused us to be born positionally outside of Christ.

The only thing that can place us positionally outside of Christ is our own sin.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Brother IJ,
Adam was created in complete accord, complete harmony, complete joy of his Maker, his Creator, his Master, and he sinned,

Correct.

and we, still being in his loins, sinned in Adam.

I have never seen any passage of Scripture which says this.
I have seen myriads of passages where we sin when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed and it brings forth sin, and sin when it is finished brings forth death.

We fell, when he fell, being in his loins.

There is no such passage of Scripture, only a tradition which super-imposes it onto Scriptures where it does not exist.

If he had not have done this deed, everyone of his progeny would have been born in complete accord, complete harmony, complete joy, still being in the Garden, partaking of the Tree of Life.

Correct...........
But, like Adam........
We all would have (even in a state of innocence) have chosen if we were in said garden to willfully sin and partake of the forbidden fruit.
Adam did nothing we would not all have done.

But Adam and Eve got the "ole heave ho" out of there "lest they take hold of the Tree of Life and live forever".

Yes, for a sinful man in a wicked world to live forever would be an unimaginably horrific curse.

This is what I am driving at. God thrust them out of "paradise on earth"

Yes, Clearly stated in the book of Genesis chapter 3! :thumbs:

and we, still being in his loins, were thrusted out, too.

NOT, so clearly stated in Genesis 3! :thumbs:
............or, well, anywhere in Scripture.

We were never in the garden....the garden doesn't exist.
I was never in it, and I never sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.....I amassed quite a debt of sin on my very own thankyaverymuch, and didn't need to be with Adam to do it. I died for my own sins.

We suffered the same fate Adam did

Yes, see Romans 5:12 a
Rom 5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men

and not of our doing.

No, see Romans 5: 12 b
..... for that all have sinned:

Of OUR OWN DOING....OUR OWN.
Rom 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

This proves we suffered the same fate, for something we didn't do.

No, you suffered the same fate for this reason:
Jam 1:14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jam 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Just as Paul said in Romans 5:12
.....for that ALL HAVE SINNED.

 

[Revmitchell]

We have not sinned in Adam, we have sinned in ourselves. We do have a sin nature because of Adam.

 

[Winman]

Brother IJ,

Adam caused us to be born positionally outside of Christ. Adam was created in complete accord, complete harmony, complete joy of his Maker, his Creator, his Master, and he sinned, and we, still being in his loins, sinned in Adam. We fell, when he fell, being in his loins. If he had not have done this deed, everyone of his progeny would have been born in complete accord, complete harmony, complete joy, still being in the Garden, partaking of the Tree of Life. But Adam and Eve got the "ole heave ho" out of there "lest they take hold of the Tree of Life and live forever". This is what I am driving at. God thrust them out of "paradise on earth" and we, still being in his loins, were thrusted out, too. We suffered the same fate Adam did, and not of our doing. This proves we suffered the same fate, for something we didn't do.

I have already addressed this theory that we all sinned with Adam in his loins. This argument is based on Hebrews 7 where it is said that Levi paid tithes to Melchisedec while in his father Abraham's loins.

Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

These verses are simply showing the superiority of Christ's priesthood, as he was in the order of Melchisedec. Levi was a grandson of Abraham (and thus inferior in Jewish thought), so if his father Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec, this proves Melchisedec was greater than the Levitical priesthood. That is all these verses are saying.

If you believe that Levi LITERALLY paid tithes in Abraham's loins you have all sorts of problems. This means we are not only guilty of Adam's first and original sin, but EVERY sin he EVER committed, and not just his sin, but the sin of ALL of our ANCESTORS as well. And note these verses are teaching that Levi did GOOD in his father's loins, we would also be credited with believing God if our grandfathers believed. We would be saved for our grandfather's faith.

No, this idea was created by Augustine in the fourth century because he had a flawed Latin text which I showed earlier;

1. The Vulgate, a fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible, wrongly translated the last clause of Romans 5:12. Where the Greek text has, "Because all men sinned," the Vulgate rendered, "In whom all sinned." Adam was regarded as the unnamed antecedent of "in whom."

2. Upon the basis of this translation error in the Vulgate, Augustine (a.d. 354-430) developed his doctrine of original sin. He taught that all men were seminally present in the loins of Adam when he sinned. Thus he held that the whole human race sinned in Adam's sin. By virtue of our physical descent from Adam, we inherit his guilt. We are born guilty of original sin, according to Augustine. …

3. In the seventeenth century Johann Cocceius proposed a different theory of original sin. He taught that God entered into a covenant with Adam as the federal head of the human race. If Adam obeyed God, all mankind would receive eternal life; but if he disobeyed, all would be condemned to corruption and death. Since Adam sinned, God imputed his sin to all his descendants. This has been called the Federal Theory of Original Sin or the Theory of Condemnation by Covenant. It has influenced greatly the churches of the Reformed tradition. However, there is not one shred of evidence in the Bible that God ever entered into such a covenant with Adam. The theory was born in Europe, not Eden.

4. Many interpreters of Romans 5:12-21 have tended to ignore both its general and immediate context in the letter. In Romans 1:18 to 3:20 Paul set forth his doctrine of sin. Here he showed how all men, Gentiles and Jews alike, have become guilty, because all men have sinned (3:9, 19, 23). Human guilt derives from human sin; it is not inherited. Men are guilty because they have sinned, not because they were born.”

“No interpretation of Romans 5:12-21 that obscures or refutes the plain teaching of Romans 1:18 to 3:20 can be correct. Is it not interesting that Paul managed to demonstrate the guiltiness of all men in this earlier passage without any reference to Adam?”

Augustine developed the theory of Original Sin from a flawed translation of Romans 5:12 that said "in whom". Augustine simply ASSUMED this was speaking of Adam.

Much later the Federal Theory was developed without one word of scripture to support it.

The important point that Dr. MacGorman makes is that Paul clearly shows men are sinners because they have PERSONALLY committed sin in Romans chapters 1 thru 3. This would all be contradicted if Romans 5:12 teaches we all became sinners because of Adam's sin. In Romans chapters 1-3 Paul does not even mention Adam, yet over and over he shows ALL men are guilty because ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT as Inspector Javert pointed out.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

We are all born flesh, with fleshly lusts that tempt us. Jesus was also born with THE SAME flesh as we are. He took on the same NATURE as Abraham (not Adam), and was made like his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS. He could feel the same infirmities (weakness of the flesh) we all feel and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.

If we are born with a sin nature, then so was Jesus. I refuse to believe this, the scriptures say Jesus was HOLY.

 

[convicted1]

I have agreed with your posts on this until this on:




The only thing that can place us positionally outside of Christ is our own sin.

We aren't born in Him at birth, only to be pulled away after we sin, so then that makes us born outside of Him, no?

 

[Revmitchell]

We aren't born in Him at birth, only to be pulled away after we sin, so then that makes us born outside of Him, no?

I do not believe one single baby goes to hell. How about you?

 

[convicted1]

We were never in the garden....the Garden doesn't exist. I was never in it, and I never sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.....I amassed quite a debt of sin on my very own thankyaverymuch, and didn't need to be with Adam to do it. I died for my own sins.

I am not skipping the rest of your post intentionally, but due to time constraints, I want to focus on this portion here.


I agree that we have never been in the Garden, and never alluded we was. However, if not for the sin of Adam, we would have been born there. Adam ruined it for himself, and all mankind, and got thrust out of the Garden. We, being in his loins, were also thrust out of there, so-to-speak. If not for the first Adam, we would have already been born in the Garden, in the presence of the Tree of Life...a symbol of Jesus Christ. The last Adam, a quickening Spirit, puts us back in there...Spiritually speaking, that is, when we are saved. He undoes for us what the first Adam did. He separated us from God, He built back the bridge to God, and paved it with His blood. :thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

We aren't born in Him at birth, only to be pulled away after we sin, so then that makes us born outside of Him, no?

Willis, the term "in Adam" is found only once in scripture, and that is 1 Cor 15:22. This verse is speaking of physical death, not spiritual. The entire 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians deals with the resurrection of our physical bodies.

If 1 Cor 15:22 were speaking of spiritual death (it isn't), then it would completely refute Original Sin, because it says in Adam all "die" which is FUTURE TENSE. It would actually prove we are born spiritually alive and die later.

So, this verse hardly helps your view, if anything it destroys it.

God did curse the earth, and God did ban man from the tree of life, and so all men physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but God does not impute any man's sin to another.

In Ezekiel 18 the Jews had a form of Original Sin, they said when a father eats a sour grape, the children's teeth are set on edge. God swore that they would never have occasion to say this false proverb again. Over and over he says a man dies (spiritually) for his own sin, and not the sins of his father.

Eze 18:1 The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
2 What mean ye, that ye 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, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.
4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Some here have argued this chapter is speaking of civil law, but that is nonsense, the very proverb that the children's teeth are set on edge because the father ate a sour grape shows these Jews were teaching a form of Original Sin. In addition, if you read carefully, you will see this chapter is speaking of dying "in sin", that is, dying without forgiveness and going to hell.

18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.

24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

So, it is clear this chapter is speaking of dying in one's sins as Jesus spoke about in John chapter 8;

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Dying "in your sins" is not speaking of physical death, but eternal spiritual death.

God clearly says the son shall not bear the iniquities of his father, neither shall the father bear the iniquities of the son in this chapter.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This one verse alone destroys the false doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[convicted1]

I do not believe one single baby goes to hell. How about you?

Ab-so-lute-lee not. But that doesn't negate the fact that they are still in need of a Saviour. One who isn't lost, doesn't need saved. One who doesn't need saved, doesn't need the blood. And no redeeemed human will ever see the other side of glory w/o the affects of the atoning blood of the Lamb.

 

[convicted1]

Well, Brother winman, we have travelled fifteen miles and haven't moved one inch, I'm afraid. No amount of debating is going to change your mind, and vice versa.

 

[Winman]

Ab-so-lute-lee not. But that doesn't negate the fact that they are still in need of a Saviour. One who isn't lost, doesn't need saved. One who doesn't need saved, doesn't need the blood. And no redeeemed human will ever see the other side of glory w/o the affects of the atoning blood of the Lamb.

They don't need to be saved, they are not lost.

Rom 9:11 (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; )

How many sins did Jacob and Esau commit in their mother's womb? ZERO.

Do babies die in the womb? Yes, MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS.

Maybe now you will understand why Jesus spoke of 99 just persons who never sinned and NEED NO REPENTANCE.

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.

If babies who die without ever sinning go to heaven, would there be 99 for every person who lives to willfully sin and repents later to be saved? YES.

And before you call me crazy, remember who it is that spoke of persons who never sinned, JESUS.

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.

Did the elder brother ever sin? Not according to Jesus.

Did the father correct the elder son? Not according to Jesus, in fact, the father confirmed that the elder son NEVER sinned. He called him "Son" and said "thou art EVER with me, and ALL that I have is thine". The elder son was NEVER separated from his father by sin according to Jesus.

Did the father distinguish between the elder son and the prodigal? YES, only the prodigal was dead and lost, the elder son was never dead or lost.

I didn't make these words up Willis, it was JESUS who spoke of persons who never sinned and need no repentance.

And who could these be? The only reasonable answer is babies and little children who died before they could ever sin.

Don't let false doctrine blind you.

 

[convicted1]

They don't need to be saved, they are not lost.

Rom 9:11 (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; )

How many sins did Jacob and Esau commit in their mother's womb? ZERO.

Do babies die in the womb? Yes, MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS.

Maybe now you will understand why Jesus spoke of 99 just persons who never sinned and NEED NO REPENTANCE.

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.

If babies who die without ever sinning go to heaven, would there be 99 for every person who lives to willfully sin and repents later to be saved? YES.

And before you call me crazy, remember who it is that spoke of persons who never sinned, JESUS.

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.

Did the elder brother ever sin? Not according to Jesus.

Did the father correct the elder son? Not according to Jesus, in fact, the father confirmed that the elder son NEVER sinned. He called him "Son" and said "thou art EVER with me, and ALL that I have is thine". The elder son was NEVER separated from his father by sin according to Jesus.

Did the father distinguish between the elder son and the prodigal? YES, only the prodigal was dead and lost, the elder son was never dead or lost.

I didn't make these words up Willis, it was JESUS who spoke of persons who never sinned and need no repentance.

And who could these be? The only reasonable answer is babies and little children who died before they could ever sin.

Don't let false doctrine blind you.

Jesus said He was/is the Door to the sheepfold, where they can go in and out and find pasture. Now, if they died, not being sinners, and Apostle Paul stating that Christ came into this world to save sinners, then myriads are going there w/o the atoning blood of the Lamb, w/o His Grace, etc.

 

[Winman]

Jesus said He was/is the Door to the sheepfold, where they can go in and out and find pasture. Now, if they died, not being sinners, and Apostle Paul stating that Christ came into this world to save sinners, then myriads are going there w/o the atoning blood of the Lamb, w/o His Grace, etc.

Jesus said he came to save that which was LOST. Children who die before they can sin are not lost, and need no repentance as Jesus himself said.

God is not intimidated by those who have not sinned. Two thirds of the angels have never sinned, is Jesus intimidated by them? Are they equal to Jesus?

And babies who died do need Jesus to receive resurrected bodies. If Jesus did not die and rise from the dead, they would not receive resurrected bodies at the resurrection. So they are dependent upon Jesus's blood as we all are.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Hi brother Convicted.

I agree that we have never been in the Garden, and never alluded we was. However, if not for the sin of Adam, we would have been born there.

Presumably, yes.

Adam ruined it for himself, and all mankind, and got thrust out of the Garden.

Yes.....

We, being in his loins, were also thrust out of there, so-to-speak.

That isn't really a story that lends itself to a "so-to-speak"....The garden isn't a metaphor for a sinless paradise, nor is the tree of life a metaphor. It was an actual sinless paradise and an actual tree. Now, I know you believe this, so I'm not accusing you of denying the literallness of those truths, but this would be like saying that because the Jews escaped from "Egypt" and made it to the "Promised Land" then we also did "so-to-speak".

Well, not really, except that we can obviously draw the symbolism out for the Christian life yes, but their having literally done so in History, does not automatically mean we individually escaped Egypt (an old sin life) and made it to the Promised Land.....

But, what you are actually doing, if you read yourself closely I think, is seeing a metaphor and then reasoning FROM your metaphor TO a literal historical occurance. This is bad joo-joo. It can only serve as a metaphor if the literal occurence is prima-facie true. It is actually precisely that literal historical occurence we are debating!

Sometimes, because we can see certain symbolism in the Scriptures to support some wrong-headed ideas we may have, that does not mean that our ideas are correct. It can also mean that we have assumed too much and are inadvertently reading into a story more than is there.

We weren't metaphorically or symbolically "kicked-out" nor does the text suggest that rendering....I think you are perceiving that from your assumption of Original Guilt.

And where does this "being in his loins" thing come from?
Is it Scripture or tradition?

If not for the first Adam, we would have already been born in the Garden, in the presence of the Tree of Life...a symbol of Jesus Christ.

We would presumably have been born in the garden (although that may be somewhat speculative) but, I do not see the tree of Life as a symbol of Jesus Christ, maybe I should.....but he is the Light etc etc....but the tree of life is a literal tree and still exists in the New Jerusalem. It's not a symbol, it's a tree and as far as we can tell given God's removing Adam from the garden, it causes physical escape from physical death. Jesus Christ does not do that. He is the first-fruits of resurrection, not escape from physical death.

The last Adam, a quickening Spirit, puts us back in there...Spiritually speaking, that is, when we are saved.

The garden of Eden was not a Spiritual thing that we can be Spiritually placed back into. It was a physical place never intended to be vacated.

He undoes for us what the first Adam did.

He undoes some of it....
but, he doesn't (for instance) grant us escape from death. Instead he offers us Resurrection.

He separated us from God,

Adam didn't separate you from God. You did.

He built back the bridge to God, and paved it with His blood. :thumbs: :thumbs:

Indeed!! :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Ab-so-lute-lee not. But that doesn't negate the fact that they are still in need of a Saviour. One who isn't lost, doesn't need saved. One who doesn't need saved, doesn't need the blood. And no redeeemed human will ever see the other side of glory w/o the affects of the atoning blood of the Lamb.

See, you give yourself away here Willis, as most people do. You, like almost everyone else refuses to believe God would ever send one baby to hell.

And why do you believe that? Because in your heart you KNOW they have not sinned and do not deserve to go to hell. Oh, you will say you believe Original Sin, but in reality you do not believe it one iota, and almost no one does, except for a few fanatical hyper-Calvinists.

So, you make up reasons for God to save babies without faith in Christ. That is FALSE DOCTRINE Willis.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Jesus said He was/is the Door to the sheepfold, where they can go in and out and find pasture. Now, if they died, not being sinners, and Apostle Paul stating that Christ came into this world to save sinners, then myriads are going there w/o the atoning blood of the Lamb, w/o His Grace, etc.

Because they are not sinners
and therefore not guilty
and need no atonement.

Is that unjust?
Illogical?
Inconsistent?

Illogical would be to allow sinners to receive atonement having never shown faith in Jesus Christ.
Inconsistent, would be to suggest that there is a method nowhere spoken of in Scripture for a lost person to recieve salvation without ever having heard, repented, believed etc... but rather simply belonging to a particular sub-set given a special dispensation whereby they recieve salvation in some way OTHER than everyone else in history.

It is those persons and those capable of reading and hearing those doctrines who are sinners who need atonement. It is they who are lost, not infants.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

David's sisters are identified as the daughters of Nahash, not Jesse.

Again, totally irrelevant. There are at least two other instances in the Bible that offspring are identified as the children of their mother. This is a red herring doing absolutely nothing to disprove the imputation of sin from Adam to all generations.

You want to run from Romans because it proves the imputation of sin. Look at the verses the key to this discussion.

Romans 5, (NASB)
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.​

I take a quick break here to say, the "likeness of the offense" means the dominion of death is not excluded over those who had sinned after the likeness of Adam. It confirms its power over them, and it's power over non-Jews -- that is, the whole world -- who did not sin in the same manner, or against the same law, as Adam did. This is true because Paul had written a few pages before, in Romans 2:14-16, that non-Jews are "a law to themselves." The imputation also includes infants, not yet guilty of actual sin. Since death reigns over them all, who only holds and exercises his dominion by virtue of sin, it follows, that they must have Adam's imputed sin in them. Arguments otherwise are flatly refuted by the remainder of the passage.

15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.​

Your red herrings and changes of subject fail to refute the biblical truth of imputation of sin. It is plainly taught throughout the Bible, and if it were not true, if men were capable of living sinlessly, there would be further evidence, other than this ridiculous supposition, that the could do so. They cannot. They stand condemned from birth. Arguments to the contrary are ridiculous.

 

[Winman]

Again, totally irrelevant. There are at least two other instances in the Bible that offspring are identified as the children of their mother. This is a red herring doing absolutely nothing to disprove the imputation of sin from Adam to all generations.

All I was showing is that there are other explanations for Psa 51:5. David is simply saying he was formed in a sinful world, and that he was conceived in sin.

The Jews themselves have a very strange story about David's mother;

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm

As you see, there is some controversy about her, and this is what many scholars think David is saying in Psa 51:5. He is not teaching that all men everywhere are born sinners because of Adam.

And Romans 5:14 refutes Original Sin, because it says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam. Original Sin teaches that ALL MEN sinned the exact same sin as Adam in his loins. So, Romans 5:14 proves men from Adam to Moses did not sin with Adam in the garden.

Not only that, but IF Paul were trying to teach Original Sin, then he would not have stopped at Moses, as Original Sin would extend to ALL MEN.

So, no way Romans 5:14 supports Original Sin, it refutes it completely.

In addition, Paul clearly says Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb in Romans 9:11. If Paul believed in Original Sin he would have believed they committed Adam's actual sin with him in his loins as Original Sin teaches.

The problem with most folks is that they have simply believed a false doctrine that has been handed down for centuries. The Eastern Church that used only Greek texts strongly objected to Augustine's misinterpretation from a flawed Latin text. This is an historical FACT.

Original Sin is false doctrine from top to bottom.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

As you see, there is some controversy about her, and this is what many scholars think David is saying in Psa 51:5.

Again, it's a red herring, an attempt to escape Romans 5.

He is not teaching that all men everywhere are born sinners because of Adam.

On the contrary, that is exactly what he is teaching, and the convolution necessary to "disprove" it through his sisters is a ludicrous effort to disprove Romans 5.

And Romans 5:14 refutes Original Sin, because it says men from Adam to Moses DID NOT sin after the similitude of Adam.

Not quite. It says, "even those" who had not sinned in the "likeness" (Greek, homoioma meaning a likeness or representation -- in other words, nearly equal to) of the offense of Adam. In other words, not in direct disobedience -- Adam had been told, and failed to adequately inform his wife, not to touch the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil -- but nonetheless in disobedience to God's law. If there was no law before God gave the Law to Moses, then all punishment prior to that, as I said in another post on this thread, was unjust. You, therefore, are saying if there is no imputed sin, or sin nature, punishment prior to the Law was unjust. I don't think you want to go there.

Original Sin teaches that ALL MEN sinned the exact same sin as Adam in his loins.

That's what Augustine taught, not what the doctrine of imputed sin teaches. Augustine was unbiblical. Romans 5:14 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, as do the following passages in the chapter, that a sin nature -- an absolute propensity and predetermined fact of sin -- was imputed to Adam's offspring. That would be us. Your contention otherwise is denial of biblical truth.

Not only that, but IF Paul were trying to teach Original Sin, then he would not have stopped at Moses, as Original Sin would extend to ALL MEN.

Total misconception of the passage. He didn't "stop at Moses" but includes all men before Moses as having sinned, even those who "had not sinned in the likeness of Adam," or, as I said, not in direct disobedience, but in general disobedience to the authority of God which, as Paul laid out in Romans 1, was evident to all men who are therefore without excuse.

So, no way Romans 5:14 supports Original Sin, it refutes it completely.

Yeah, so you keep saying. That, however, doesn't make you right.

In addition, Paul clearly says Jacob and Esau had done no evil in their mother's womb in Romans 9:11. If Paul believed in Original Sin he would have believed they committed Adam's actual sin with him in his loins as Original Sin teaches.

The word "done" in Romans 9:11 -- " ... the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad ... " -- is the Greek prasso and it means to undertake, accomplish, take on. It is an action verb. Unborn, they couldn't commit an act of sin. But that passage does nothing to negate the imputation of sin, the very nature of sin, from Adam.

The problem with most folks is that they have simply believed a false doctrine that has been handed down for centuries. The Eastern Church that used only Greek texts strongly objected to Augustine's misinterpretation from a flawed Latin text. This is an historical FACT.

It might be an historical fact the eastern church protested against Augustine's misinterpretation, but that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that sin is imputed through Adam to his offspring, that we have a nature within us that denies God's image in us, and instead bears the image of our father Adam, due to his disobedience.

Original Sin is false doctrine from top to bottom.

If there is no imputed sin from Adam, there is no imputed righteousness from Christ. Are you willing to go there? You have, because Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross was done by one Man to atone for the sin brought into the world by one man. That's biblical theology. You can't escape it. If you reject part of it, you reject all of it.

 

[Winman]

Again, it's a red herring, an attempt to escape Romans 5.

It has nothing to do with Original Sin. The context is David's personal sin with Bathsheba, not the metaphysical properties of man. It is not speaking of all men, and it does not say one word about men being made sinners by Adam. You are reading your presuppositions into this scripture.

On the contrary, that is exactly what he is teaching, and the convolution necessary to "disprove" it through his sisters is a ludicrous effort to disprove Romans 5.

Baloney. The Jews knew this scripture 1500 years before Augustine and never interpreted it to be teaching Original Sin.

Not quite. It says, "even those" who had not sinned in the "likeness" (Greek, homoioma meaning a likeness or representation -- in other words, nearly equal to) of the offense of Adam. In other words, not in direct disobedience -- Adam had been told, and failed to adequately inform his wife, not to touch the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil -- but nonetheless in disobedience to God's law. If there was no law before God gave the Law to Moses, then all punishment prior to that, as I said in another post on this thread, was unjust. You, therefore, are saying if there is no imputed sin, or sin nature, punishment prior to the Law was unjust. I don't think you want to go there.

It is saying they did not sin in a similar fashion as Adam. They had no positive command as Adam had, but only the law written on the heart Paul spoke of in Romans chapter 2. And if Paul were teaching of Original Sin, it would extend to all men, not just men from Adam to Moses. This fact alone proves Paul is not teaching Original Sin.

That's what Augustine taught, not what the doctrine of imputed sin teaches. Augustine was unbiblical. Romans 5:14 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, as do the following passages in the chapter, that a sin nature -- an absolute propensity and predetermined fact of sin -- was imputed to Adam's offspring.

Your interpretation is inconsistent. You believe Adam's sin nature was unconditionally imputed to all men, but Christ's righteousness was conditionally imputed to only those that believe. This violates Paul's form of argument, he is arguing that the work Christ performed counters Adam's sin in the same fashion, that sin is imputed conditionally when we sin like Adam, and righteousness is conditionally imputed when we believe as Jesus did.

What this chapter is really showing is that Adam and Christ were legal precedents for those who acted in like manner after them.

That would be us. Your contention otherwise is denial of biblical truth.Total misconception of the passage. He didn't "stop at Moses" but includes all men before Moses as having sinned, even those who "had not sinned in the likeness of Adam," or, as I said, not in direct disobedience, but in general disobedience to the authority of God which, as Paul laid out in Romans 1, was evident to all men who are therefore without excuse.

The fact that Paul stopped at Moses proves he was not teaching Original Sin unless you believe Original Sin ceased when the law was given.

Men from Adam to Moses sinned against the law written on the heart as Paul had already taught in chapter 2;

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; )

Paul shows here that men without law perish without law. Why? Because of Adam? NO! Because they are a law unto themselves and sinned against the law written on their hearts.

You can't spiritually die for Adam's sin AND your own sin. This seems to go right over your head. The fact that Paul teaches in Romans 2 that men without law die because they sin against the law in their heart proves that Romans 5:14 is NOT teaching these men died because of Adam's sin.

Think about it awhile and it will come to you.

Yeah, so you keep saying. That, however, doesn't make you right.The word "done" in Romans 9:11 -- " ... the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad ... " -- is the Greek prasso and it means to undertake, accomplish, take on. It is an action verb. Unborn, they couldn't commit an act of sin. But that passage does nothing to negate the imputation of sin, the very nature of sin, from Adam.It might be an historical fact the eastern church protested against Augustine's misinterpretation, but that doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that sin is imputed through Adam to his offspring, that we have a nature within us that denies God's image in us, and instead bears the image of our father Adam, due to his disobedience.If there is no imputed sin from Adam, there is no imputed righteousness from Christ. Are you willing to go there? You have, because Jesus' atoning sacrifice on the cross was done by one Man to atone for the sin brought into the world by one man. That's biblical theology. You can't escape it. If you reject part of it, you reject all of it.

Baloney. If Paul were teaching that all men sinned with Adam in Romans 5, then it would be error to teach that Jacob and Esau had committed no evil.

If Paul were teaching Original Sin in Romans 5 he would not have said he was spiritually alive until he learned the law in Romans 7.

You can believe whatever you want, but Original Sin is utterly false doctrine. It is a superstitious belief that came from Augusitine's Manichean and Gnostic influences.