I have explained several times.
And I have refuted it every time. And you have left it at that.
In verses 1-4 David clearly confesses his sin and takes personal responsibility for it. If your view is correct, he suddenly changes course in vs. 5 and blames his mother (and God by extension) for his sin.
Utter nonsense. That is HP's view.
He was born a sinner, he cannot help it that he committed adultery with Bathsheba and had Uriah killed. NONSENSE.
That is what I said. Nonsense. Where do you get the idea that I believe that. It is a psalm of repentance, David taking responsibility for his own sin.
I did address it, it says we are "accustomed" to sin. Look in the dictionary, accustomed means a learned behavior.
Check the link I gave you. I addressed that answer. But you never answered back. It is not speaking of "accustomed." Did the leopard become accustomed to his spots; the Ethiopian accustomed to his skin? No they were born with it! So is man born sinning or with a sin nature, just as the other two were born with black skin and spots respectively. It is in their nature. All three rhetorical questions deal with the nature of the subject in question.
No, you have bought Augustine's false doctrine that excuses sin and blames God hook, line, and sinker.
A false accusation. I have never read Augustine.
I agree 100% that all men have sinned. I do not believe babies and little children are accountable, because they have no knowledge between good and evil as God clearly says in Deut 1:39.
Your "little ones" refer to all those who would be twenty years and under. Typical of you to take scripture out of context. The application of this verse is that you believe the age of accountability is 20. Thus in our society older teens who murder, steal, rape, etc. are innocent. They are not accountable for their sins for they have not reached the age of accountability. This is the teaching of this verse. The little ones would inherit the promised land--20 years and younger. The elder generation would wander in the wilderness. You are way off in your interpretation.
Just because I can't explain it proves nothing. I can't explain why some folks like ketchup on a hot dog while others prefer mustard, yet I know it is true. I know by observation that all men sin.
You can't explain it because you have no Scripture; it is an unscriptural position; no one throughout history has held to it except for heretical groups. It is outside of mainstream Christianity. That is why you have no explanation.
They believed it because if they disagreed they would be sawn in half or burned at the stake. The Eastern church never agreed with Augustine's view of Rom 5:12 from a Latin text. The Greek does not support Augustine's view. The Eastern church with Greek texts have never held to Augustines' concept of original sin.
Who is they? I have held to this belief before and after I was saved, and never heard of Augustine before I was saved. It has nothing to do with Augustine. It is an orthodox teaching of the Christian church. Document the Eastern Greek Church's statement of faith on this subject for me. Do they believe that man is born without sin, perfectly sinless?
James is showing how sin occurs. Every man is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts. When lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin, and when sin is finished, it brings forth death. Sin is the cause, death is the effect. You teach the opposite, you teach we are born dead, and this causes us to sin. That is utterly unscriptural.
What is the second verse of James chapter one?
My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; (James 1:2)
--He is writing about practical Christian living to "Christians," my brethren. This has nothing to do with the depravity of man or original sin. It has to do with how a Christian is tempted and falls into sin. We cannot blame our sin on God. That is the Christian cannot do that.
Why warn folks about sin if they are already dead in sin? How could it hurt to sin more? You can't be anymore dead than dead.
For the Christian sin will bring spiritual death (separation from God) or possibly physical death. Either way, God chastises his children when they sin. Read Hebrews 12.
Sure it does. Having lusts and desires is what folks mean when they say sin nature. They say men have a desire to do wrong. Jesus was tempted to eat bread when Satan tempted him, he was very hungry. But he denied his lust and obeyed God and did not sin.
Thus Jesus was tempted and never sinned proving he had a human nature, but not a sin nature. That should be clear to you by now. Children are tempted and give into temptation by nature, proving they have a sin nature. They do it naturally.
I took nothing out of context. Heb 2:16 very clearly says Jesus had the nature of the seed of Abraham. Verse 17 says he was made like unto his brethren in ALL THINGS. Verse 18 says he "suffered" being tempted. Heb 4:15 says he was tempted in ALL POINTS AS WE ARE, yet without sin.
So what is the problem then? He had a human nature like us, born of a virgin to avoid the sin nature, and tempted in all things such as we are yet without sin. In this way he was qualified to be our Great High Priest.
I agree that having lusts and desires and being tempted is not sin, that is the very point I am trying to make. Being born with desires does not make you a sinner, it is when you obey these desires when they would cause you to sin against God that makes you a sinner. You have to actually sin to be a sinner.
Every one is under the curse brought upon man by Adam. We have an Adamic nature. Seth was made in the image of Adam, not any longer in the image of God. He was born with a sin nature. That in itself should convince you that our nature is different than that of Adam. It has been marred by sin. It is a sinful nature. Why was Seth's nature not in the image of God. Why was it "in the image of Adam"? Why was there a difference here?
