Man is unable to choose spiritual life (salvation) on his own!

[Winman]

Original sin teaches all are born with a curse. Even before a child can choose to sin, the child is cursed due to the Original Sin of Adam. Are all children saved? The scriptures say nothing at all specifically. This is a subject of mauch debate and little "matter of fact".

We know that David's young son who died went to heaven, because David (who was a prophet) said he would go to be with his son.

We know from Romans 9:11 that unborn children have committed no sin.

Jesus said a person must be converted and become as a "little children" (meaning ANY child) to enter the kingdom of heaven.

There is not one word in all of scripture that says God cursed man's moral nature because of Adam's sin. God cursed the ground so that it produced thorns and thistles, and that man would have to earn his bread by the sweat of his face, he also said man would return to the dust from which he was taken. God chased them out of the garden and put and angel to guard the tree of life guaranteeing that all men would physically die.

But there is not one word to support that all men became sinners because of Adam and must sin. In fact, the scriptures continued to say that men were made in the image of God after the "fall".

Yes and no. Free will is needed, but that is not all. A commandment had to be given and a third party had to deceive and tempt. Take away the commandment and take away the Deceiver, and choice is gone, and God has a creation of humans who have no knowledge of good and evil, and thus never learn what love is.

Paul said that without law, sin is not imputed. This is why children cannot be sinners, because they can not yet comprehend law and their responsibility before God.

Paul said he would not have known sin except for the law. Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. This of course must be speaking of spiritual death, he could hardly have been saying he physically died.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

This passage easily refutes Original Sin. Paul could not have been speaking of physical death here, but spiritual. The fact that Paul says he was spiritually alive once without the law utterly refutes Original Sin. Those who believe in Original Sin like DHK think that all men are born dead in sin. That is an oxymoron and contradiction, you cannot be born dead. Yes, we say children are stillborn or born dead, but all children who are stillborn were alive at one time.

You must be alive to die.

When the prodigal son repented, twice Jesus (and Jesus knows doctrine) said the boy was alive AGAIN. If people are born dead (impossible), then it would be impossible to say anyone is alive AGAIN, but that is what Jesus said twice.

Luk 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

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.

The scriptures are not silent on this subject at all, but unfortunately most folks are far more familiar with the false doctrine of Augustine than the Word of God.

 

[steaver]

But there is not one word to support that all men became sinners because of Adam and must sin. In fact, the scriptures continued to say that men were made in the image of God after the "fall".

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19

Paul said he would not have known sin except for the law. Paul said he was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he died. This of course must be speaking of spiritual death, he could hardly have been saying he physically died.

You cannot apply this scripture as a defense for your pov, for Paul speaks of when the commandment came. The commandments did not come until Moses brought them. What of all those before Moses? Did they all go to heaven?

Paul declares that even those who have never heard of any "Law" or commandment are guilty because of their own God given conscience which teaches them right and wrong (sin) . The curse was in effect long before the Law was given.

No, the Law was not the beggining of spiritual death, this disconnect from God was from Adam and the curse applied to Adam's race. So why was the Law added?

"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:" Romans 5:20

All die, and they die because of the curse of sin in the flesh. Babies die, it is proof that sin is in their flesh. The wages of sin is death. You will have to explain to us why infants die, yet have no sin according your pov.

"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

 

[Winman]

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19

If Adam's sin is unconditionally imputed to us, then Jesus' righteousness would also be unconditionally imputed us. This is not so, you must conditionally believe to be imputed righteous. Likewise, you must conditionally sin like Adam to be imputed sin.

You have to treat both sides of these verses equally in Romans 5, that is the technique Paul is using. You cannot apply sin unconditionally and righteousness conditionally, but that is what you are attempting to do.

You cannot apply this scripture as a defense for your pov, for Paul speaks of when the commandment came. The commandments did not come until Moses brought them. What of all those before Moses? Did they all go to heaven?

Paul had just explained that if not for the law he would not know what sin is. He is not speaking of the law being given 1500 years before he was born, but when he matured and came to know the law.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Again, if your view is correct, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Paul to say he was EVER alive. Those who teach Original Sin teach that the moment you are conceived you are a sinner who is spiritually dead. Paul refutes this and tells us he was spiritually alive, but when the commandment came, that is, when he learned the law, he was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died.

Paul declares that even those who have never heard of any "Law" or commandment are guilty because of their own God given conscience which teaches them right and wrong (sin) . The curse was in effect long before the Law was given.

Exactly!! But a newborn child does not know what sin is, and their conscience is not yet developed. It is when we mature and understand right from wrong that we become guilty and spiritually die.

No, the Law was not the beggining of spiritual death, this disconnect from God was from Adam and the curse applied to Adam's race. So why was the Law added?

"Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:" Romans 5:20

The law was written so man would have no excuse. As Paul said, he did not know that lust was a sin until the law told him "thou shalt not covet". The law identifies all things that are sin so that all men are without excuse.

All die, and they die because of the curse of sin in the flesh. Babies die, it is proof that sin is in their flesh. The wages of sin is death. You will have to explain to us why infants die, yet have no sin according your pov.

All men die as a consequence of Adam's sin, because God barred man from the tree of life. This is PHYSICAL death, not spiritual. But all men die spiritually when they willingly and knowingly sin like Adam. This is what Paul is describing in Romans 7.

"That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:21

I agree 100%, but spiritual death is not unconditional, a person must break a known law (whether written, or that written on the heart) to die. Without law sin is not imputed.

The scriptures say the wages of SIN is death, not the wages of being BORN.

 

[DHK]

What do you mean, never mind Adam and Eve? Original Sin teaches you are born a sinner because of Adam!

No. Because of the sin of Adam, and the consequent fall; the curse that was put on mankind and all the creation of God. See Gal.3:10.

Adam and Eve PROVE that a sin nature is not necessary to sin. All that is necessary to sin is free will.

And so?
Lucifer did the same. So did one third of all the angels.
But the other angels did not. However not a single human (unlike angels) has never remained sinless.

Adam and Eve had it easy, they lived in a perfect world without needs. They had one single law to obey. And they sinned the very first time they were tempted.

And you are using this as an excuse for you to sin? For shame!

We, on the other hand, live in an utterly corrupt world with many thousands of constant temptations. We have many more laws to keep. Is it any wonder that we fail and sin at an early age?

If you are created as Adam and Eve were (without sin) then you have no excuse. You are just making up excuses now. You ought to be perfect and sinless. Stop making excuses for your sin Winman!!

Nonsense, even Jesus said we have needs.

This is what I said:

If they are born self-centered they are born sinners, for selfishness does not belong to God it belongs to Satan. Your theory has just been debunked.

Your answer doesn't make sense in the light of what I said. Yes, we all have needs; I never said we didn't. I said we are born sinners, selfish to the core. Selfishness is season right from infancy. Is that a "need." What are you talking about? Was Jesus selfish? Do you accuse him of that also?

Mat 6:31

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

God equips all men with instincts. A child will automatically suck at it's mother's breast. This is for self preservation. It is not sinful for a baby to cry when it is hungry, or cold, or teething, or having a wet diaper. Folks that claim this is sin are totally messed up in the head.

Can I recommend some books on hermeneutics for you? You need them.
You are speaking as an evolutionist does. Animals live their lives by their instincts. Children learn from their parents. You teach that man has evolved from animals or at least it sounds that way.

Your view of mankind has been so distorted by the teachings of Calvinism. You very well speak evil of men who are made after the similitude of God.

I am not a Calvinist; I am a Biblicist. Your statement demonstrates that you don't like to answer difficult questions.

Jam 3: 9

Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.

An excellent verse. If man didn't have a sin nature he wouldn't have the slightest inclination to curse man, and James would not be saying the things that he is teaching in that verse. He is speaking of the depravity of man right there in James 3:9.

Yes, children fight, they can be selfish, but they are not old enough to understand their behavior yet, and therefore not guilty of sin.

Are you God. It is God that makes that call, not you. God knows when they understand, what they understand. They understand sin at a very early age, less than a year.

Jesus placed a small child among his disciples and said they must be converted and become as a little child to enter heaven.

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.

You are truly unaware of how distorted your thinking has become because of false teaching. Do you really think Jesus is telling his disciples to become evil sinners to enter heaven? Absurd.

Let me interpret the Scripture in the same absurd way you do:
Unless you learn how to say "ma ma" and "goo goo" you cannot enter into heaven. This is how you are interpreting the Scriptures Winman. Like I said, you need some lessons in hermeneutics.
Christ is speaking of faith. As a child has implicit faith or confidence in his parents, and goes only to them for protection, nourishment, etc., he expects us to have the same kind of faith or confidence in our heavenly Father. It has nothing to do with children being evil and it has nothing to do with speaking or babbling like a child!

What kind of argument is this? TV is certainly a poor influence on children (and adults), but there was plenty of sinful behavior in the world before TV.

How soon you forget. You brought this argument into the debate, that the TV was an "evil influence" on children causing them to learn to lie, etc. You simply make one excuse after another for their sin, instead of taking responsibility.

Children do not speak the day they are born, it takes about 2 years before children begin to put multiple words together.

My second child started to speak at about two years. My first child could speak by ten months. All children are different. It is evident that if a child can speak before he is one he can sin before he is one.

They learn to speak from listening to those around them, that is why they speak the same language as their parents (do I really need to explain this to you??). If your parents speak English, then so do you. By the time a child starts to speak sentences they have heard lies probably hundreds of times.

You don't answer my post at all:

What does the firstborn do who doesn't have children?
If the parents are Godly they don't misbehave in front of their children.
You are making excuses. They lie as soon as, or soon after they are born. They do so because they have a sin nature. They don't need to blame it on their environment, as you and Humanism teach.

Learned behavior is sinful behavior for parents sin.
You sin and your children sin.
However you have been sinning since your birth and so have your children without any instruction at all. And this is what you don't address.
Who taught them to lie.
Who taught a four year old to bite a two year old?
Why does a two year old grab the bottle of a one year old and take it?
They are sinners by birth.

I already showed 1 Peter 1:18;

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

We receive our vain conversation or behavior by TRADITION FROM OUR FATHERS. We do not inherit a sin nature, we learn it from those around us.

This is what the scriptures teach, but you will ignore it.

You quote your selected proof texts.
You deny the truths taught by Psalms 51:5; 58:3; Jer.13:23; Gen.6:5; Rom.5:12,19; Rom.3:10-15, etc.

 

[steaver]

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

This passage easily refutes Original Sin. .

Actually, the passage easily supports Original Sin....

What is Paul's conclusion?

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Ro7:17

The Commandment exposes the "sin that dwelleth" within a person. And Paul concludes;

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not." vs 18

And concludes that he has a body of death, NOT that he had just died a spiritual death, but has DISCOVERED through the Law that he is indeed a sinful man and dead in trespasses and sin;

"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

And Paul concludes, that without Jesus Christ we are doomed;

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

Romans 7 is in no way a chapter you would want to point towards to support a pov that Original Sin is false. In fact, it quite clearly shouts it out!

 

[Winman]

No. Because of the sin of Adam, and the consequent fall; the curse that was put on mankind and all the creation of God. See Gal.3:10.

What? Galatians 3;10 supports my view and utterly refutes yours!

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

This verse does not say you are cursed because you were born, it says you are cursed if you do not continue in all things written in the law. Do you really believe God applies this to a newborn child? Ridiculous to say the least.

You really think God expects a one day old child to understand and keep all the laws? Insane.

And so?
Lucifer did the same. So did one third of all the angels.
But the other angels did not. However not a single human (unlike angels) has never remained sinless.

Nevertheless, Adam and Eve PROVE that a sin nature is not necessary to sin.

And you are using this as an excuse for you to sin? For shame!

I make no excuse for my sin, it is you that says you MUST sin. Now that is an excuse!!

If you are created as Adam and Eve were (without sin) then you have no excuse. You are just making up excuses now. You ought to be perfect and sinless. Stop making excuses for your sin Winman!!

I'm not making an excuse, I have repeatedly said I knowingly and willingly sinned. No one has ever FORCED me to sin, and my nature has never FORCED me to sin.

Now, I would say my nature pulls and tugs at me to sin, but I could have always done the right thing.

This is what I said:

If they are born self-centered they are born sinners, for selfishness does not belong to God it belongs to Satan. Your theory has just been debunked.

Your answer doesn't make sense in the light of what I said. Yes, we all have needs; I never said we didn't. I said we are born sinners, selfish to the core. Selfishness is season right from infancy. Is that a "need." What are you talking about? Was Jesus selfish? Do you accuse him of that also?

Can I recommend some books on hermeneutics for you? You need them.
You are speaking as an evolutionist does. Animals live their lives by their instincts. Children learn from their parents. You teach that man has evolved from animals or at least it sounds that way.

Let me recommend a good book to you, THE BIBLE.

I am not a Calvinist; I am a Biblicist. Your statement demonstrates that you don't like to answer difficult questions.

You are heavily influenced by Calvinism.

[/COLOR]An excellent verse. If man didn't have a sin nature he wouldn't have the slightest inclination to curse man, and James would not be saying the things that he is teaching in that verse. He is speaking of the depravity of man right there in James 3:9.

No, he's not, he is saying that man is made in the similitude of God and that it is evil to curse your fellow man. This was AFTER the fall by the way.

Are you God. It is God that makes that call, not you. God knows when they understand, what they understand. They understand sin at a very early age, less than a year.

I have repeatedly said that only God knows when a person is mature enough to understand right from wrong and accountable. I am sure it is a different age for every person.

Let me interpret the Scripture in the same absurd way you do:
Unless you learn how to say "ma ma" and "goo goo" you cannot enter into heaven. This is how you are interpreting the Scriptures Winman. Like I said, you need some lessons in hermeneutics.

You are desperate. Your arguments are nonsensical. Grow up.

Christ is speaking of faith. As a child has implicit faith or confidence in his parents, and goes only to them for protection, nourishment, etc., he expects us to have the same kind of faith or confidence in our heavenly Father. It has nothing to do with children being evil and it has nothing to do with speaking or babbling like a child!

Jesus told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. It is ridiculous to believe Jesus was telling his disciples to be converted and become wicked sinners.

How soon you forget. You brought this argument into the debate, that the TV was an "evil influence" on children causing them to learn to lie, etc. You simply make one excuse after another for their sin, instead of taking responsibility.

TV does influence people, radio influences people, books influence people, what is your point? Am I wrong to say that TV influences children to do wrong things? We had a teenage boy in my town who set himself on fire copying a TV show he watched. Totally stupid, but he thought he could do the same thing he saw on TV. He burned himself seriously.

My second child started to speak at about two years. My first child could speak by ten months. All children are different. It is evident that if a child can speak before he is one he can sin before he is one.

Brother, you are DESPERATE. Your daughter probably said Da Da or Ma Ma at 10 months. I have 8 children, you are not talking to someone who does not know a little about children here.

You don't answer my post at all:

What does the firstborn do who doesn't have children?
If the parents are Godly they don't misbehave in front of their children.
You are making excuses. They lie as soon as, or soon after they are born. They do so because they have a sin nature. They don't need to blame it on their environment, as you and Humanism teach.

I already showed you 1 Peter 1:18 that says we received our vain conversation (our behavior) by tradition from our fathers. You have not believed all the other scripture I have showed you, it is no surprise you do not believe this scripture either.

Learned behavior is sinful behavior for parents sin.
You sin and your children sin.
However you have been sinning since your birth and so have your children without any instruction at all. And this is what you don't address.
Who taught them to lie.
Who taught a four year old to bite a two year old?
Why does a two year old grab the bottle of a one year old and take it?
They are sinners by birth.

You don't get it, a person has to understand right from wrong before it is imputed sin. Without law sin is not imputed. (Romans 5:13). You cannot grasp that it is impossible for a newborn baby to be guilty of sin because they cannot understand right from wrong.

You quote your selected proof texts.
You deny the truths taught by Psalms 51:5; 58:3; Jer.13:23; Gen.6:5; Rom.5:12,19; Rom.3:10-15, etc.

It is you that takes scripture like Psa 58:3 that is obvious hyperbole to prove OS. Jer 13:23 is nonsensical if a person must sin, why should Jeremiah condemn persons for sinning if they MUST sin?

See, you cannot even grasp how ridiculous your view is.

 

[DHK]

What? Galatians 3;10 supports my view and utterly refutes yours!

Gal 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

This verse does not say you are cursed because you were born, it says you are cursed if you do not continue in all things written in the law. Do you really believe God applies this to a newborn child? Ridiculous to say the least.

You really think God expects a one day old child to understand and keep all the laws? Insane.

Everyone is cursed. Why?
Because no one can keep the law. The Bible states that fact here, in James 2:19, and many times in the Book of Romans. No one can keep the law; no one.
The reasons we cannot keep the law is simply: we are born sinners.
I have explained this verse before using diagrams. I will do it for you again.
It says that any person who does not continue keeping all things, all the commandments of the law from birth to death, all of their life, they are cursed.
It is like this:
[Birth]_________________________________________[Death]

The above line demonstrates what the verse tells us our life must be like. It is a broken line from birth to death--no sin, no transgression: "continues in all things that are written in the law".

If a person sinned only one time in his entire life he would be cursed and condemned to hell. His life would be demonstrated as below:
[Birth]_____________________ _______________________[Death]

If a person only committed one sin, just one break in the line, he would be condemned as above. What does the verse say? "continues in all things that are written in the law."

But here is reality. Here is what each of our lives look like in real life:
[Birth]------------------------------------------------------------------[Death]
or maybe,
[Birth]...........................................................................[Death]

There are just as many breaks as not. We sin every day and many times every day. It is not the first line or the second line. It is at least the third, if not the fourth--a broken line of successive breaks representing sin after sin after sin. But the first says that one must "continue in all things that are written in the law."
He can't. And therefore he is cursed.

Nevertheless, Adam and Eve PROVE that a sin nature is not necessary to sin.

It is irrelevant. What is relevant is because of Adam's sin:
1. The chance of living eternally on this earth was taking away from him.
2. He, by his sinful action, brought a curse upon this entire creation including man.
3. Part of that curse is a sin nature that is passed from generation to generation commonly known as the "Adamic nature."

I make no excuse for my sin, it is you that says you MUST sin. Now that is an excuse!!

If you don't have a sin nature you don't have any reason to sin. So why do you? What is your excuse? Why do you keep sinning? You should be able to live a sinless life if you have no sin nature. Just because Adam failed does that mean you have to fail? Don't make excuses. Why can't you make it to heaven on your own?

I'm not making an excuse, I have repeatedly said I knowingly and willingly sinned. No one has ever FORCED me to sin, and my nature has never FORCED me to sin.

But the question remains why do you sin?
Do you blame Adam? You keep saying "even Adam sinned." But why do you? If you were created with no sin nature you have no excuse to sin.

Now, I would say my nature pulls and tugs at me to sin, but I could have always done the right thing.

But the reason you don't is because of your sin nature. You know that. Billions and billions of people from this generation back to the date of creation have never made it. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. They have all missed the mark. They have all transgressed the law of God. No one has ever obeyed all of God's law--not even the Ten Commandments. Why? They have a sin nature.
Surely someone would have made it had they not had a sin nature.

No, he's not, he is saying that man is made in the similitude of God and that it is evil to curse your fellow man. This was AFTER the fall by the way.

Man, naturally curses his fellow man, even though he is made after the image of God, because of Adam; because he is under a curse and has inherited a sin nature. This is what James teaches.

I have repeatedly said that only God knows when a person is mature enough to understand right from wrong and accountable. I am sure it is a different age for every person.

I am sure it is. And it is usually a very young age.

You are desperate. Your arguments are nonsensical. Grow up.

Jesus told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children to enter heaven. It is ridiculous to believe Jesus was telling his disciples to be converted and become wicked sinners.

Is that your interpretation; it is not mine. Or is your interpretation such that one has to act like a little child, speak like a little child, babble like a little child, etc. Is that really what Christ was speaking about? Are you starting your second childhood??
As I already told you Christ was teaching a lesson on faith.

TV does influence people, radio influences people, books influence people, what is your point? Am I wrong to say that TV influences children to do wrong things? We had a teenage boy in my town who set himself on fire copying a TV show he watched. Totally stupid, but he thought he could do the same thing he saw on TV. He burned himself seriously.

So what! You missed my point completely.
Go back in your mind to the 18th and 19th centuries, when our nation was still being settled and the country was more agrarian than urban. There was no TV. Many lived on farms apart from worldly allurements. Rarely would they see a city, and in most cases it would be a small town. If the family would be Christian they would stay away from the bar, and other such places.
No computer, no TV, no internet, no library, (a few books perhaps).
And yet they were still sinners like today. You can't blame the TV and other modern inventions for sin. But that is what you have been doing.

Brother, you are DESPERATE. Your daughter probably said Da Da or Ma Ma at 10 months. I have 8 children, you are not talking to someone who does not know a little about children here.

So you say. But when a one year old clearly understands the difference between right and wrong and does wrong, it demonstrates that he has an evil nature. It demonstrates that he is born doing evil and not good. It demonstrates that "doing good" must be taught. Evil is not taught. It is inherent in a person. Doing good must be taught.

I already showed you 1 Peter 1:18 that says we received our vain conversation (our behavior) by tradition from our fathers. You have not believed all the other scripture I have showed you, it is no surprise you do not believe this scripture either.

You have taken that verse out of context.
It is speaking of salvation, not the nature of man. The "tradition" here would be like the tradition of the RCC. Look what Adam Clarke says:

Received by tradition from your fathers - The Jews had innumerable burdens of empty ceremonies and useless ordinances, which they received by tradition from their fathers, rabbins, or doctors. The Gentiles were not less encumbered with such than the Jews; all were wedded to their vanities, because they received them from their forefathers, as they had done from theirs. And this antiquity and tradition have been the ground work of many a vain ceremony and idle pilgrimage, and of numerous doctrines which have nothing to plead in their behalf but this mere antiquity. But such persons seem not to consider that error and sin are nearly coeval with the world itself.

Your appeal to this verse is moot.

You don't get it, a person has to understand right from wrong before it is imputed sin. Without law sin is not imputed. (Romans 5:13). You cannot grasp that it is impossible for a newborn baby to be guilty of sin because they cannot understand right from wrong.

All mankind is under the curse and will be until Christ comes and removes that curse. Why don't you understand that. The Bible says that all of creation waits for it and seems to understand it:

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
--The whole creation is waiting for the coming of Christ, at which time our bodies will be redeemed.

It is you that takes scripture like Psa 58:3 that is obvious hyperbole to prove OS. Jer 13:23 is nonsensical if a person must sin, why should Jeremiah condemn persons for sinning if they MUST sin?

See, you cannot even grasp how ridiculous your view is.

I don't dismiss the teaching of Scripture wholesale, even when a few verses have figures of Scripture. I am amazed at your unbelief.

 

[Winman]

Double post

 

[Winman]

Actually, the passage easily supports Original Sin....

What is Paul's conclusion?

"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." Ro7:17

The Commandment exposes the "sin that dwelleth" within a person. And Paul concludes;

"For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but [how] to perform that which is good I find not." vs 18

And concludes that he has a body of death, NOT that he had just died a spiritual death, but has DISCOVERED through the Law that he is indeed a sinful man and dead in trespasses and sin;

"But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?"

And Paul concludes, that without Jesus Christ we are doomed;

"I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

Romans 7 is in no way a chapter you would want to point towards to support a pov that Original Sin is false. In fact, it quite clearly shouts it out!

Then why should any man be held accountable for sin? If Paul is saying he MUST sin, then sin is a calamity and not a crime. If a woman takes drugs and becomes an addict, she can be arrested and sent to jail for her crime. But if her baby is born addicted to drugs, do we condemn this baby and send it to jail? Nonsense, no one would consider this baby a criminal and condemn it, but a victim of it's mother's sin. And if Original Sin were true, it would be the same, we would all simply be victims of Adam's sin.

Even folks who believe in Original Sin have recognized this problem. This is what the theologian Hodge wrote;

"It is utterly inconsistent with all just ideas of God that He created man with a nature which with absolute uniformity leads him to sin and destruction; or that He placed him in circumstances which inevitably secure his ruin."

Besides that, Paul does not say he is born a sinner here. He does not say he was born with sin dwelling in his body. In fact, Paul said he was "sold" under sin not "born" under sin.

Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

As for Paul being in a body of death, he had just told you he was ALIVE without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and he DIED. For without the commandment sin was dead. Sin has no power without law, when there is no law sin is not imputed (Rom 5:13). When Paul learned the law he was convicted of his sin and DIED. This is when his body became a body of death.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

You cannot simply ignore what Paul said in verse 9. Paul did not say he was born dead in sin, he said he was born alive, but when the commandment came, he died.

 

[Winman]

Everyone is cursed. Why?
Because no one can keep the law. The Bible states that fact here, in James 2:19, and many times in the Book of Romans. No one can keep the law; no one.
The reasons we cannot keep the law is simply: we are born sinners.
I have explained this verse before using diagrams. I will do it for you again.
It says that any person who does not continue keeping all things, all the commandments of the law from birth to death, all of their life, they are cursed.
It is like this:
[Birth]_________________________________________[Death]

That is not what the scriptures say, they say cursed is everyone who keeps not all the commandments to do them. You are not cursed because you are born as you are clearly saying here, you are cursed the first time you fail to keep the law. But God does not expect a one day old baby to keep the law, that would be ridiculous and absolutely unreasonable.

The above line demonstrates what the verse tells us our life must be like. It is a broken line from birth to death--no sin, no transgression: "continues in all things that are written in the law".

I understand clearly that it only takes one sin to condemn us, but that is not what you are teaching, you are teaching we are BORN a sinner.

If a person sinned only one time in his entire life he would be cursed and condemned to hell. His life would be demonstrated as below:
[Birth]_____________________ _______________________[Death]

No, it would be like this;

BORN ALIVE -------- SIN (death by sin)------------ DEATH

If a person only committed one sin, just one break in the line, he would be condemned as above. What does the verse say? "continues in all things that are written in the law."

Exactly, but that is not what you are teaching, you are teaching we are BORN sinners and that you are a sinner before you have actually done anything evil. Scripture itself PROVES you are wrong, Romans 9:11 clearly says Jacob AND Esau had done no evil.

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; )

Your own analogy defeats you, Jacob and Esau had not broken the line here.You just can't seem to get that.

But here is reality. Here is what each of our lives look like in real life:
[Birth]------------------------------------------------------------------[Death]
or maybe,
[Birth]...........................................................................[Death]

There are just as many breaks as not. We sin every day and many times every day. It is not the first line or the second line. It is at least the third, if not the fourth--a broken line of successive breaks representing sin after sin after sin. But the first says that one must "continue in all things that are written in the law."
He can't. And therefore he is cursed.

It is irrelevant. What is relevant is because of Adam's sin:
1. The chance of living eternally on this earth was taking away from him.
2. He, by his sinful action, brought a curse upon this entire creation including man.
3. Part of that curse is a sin nature that is passed from generation to generation commonly known as the "Adamic nature."

If you don't have a sin nature you don't have any reason to sin. So why do you? What is your excuse? Why do you keep sinning? You should be able to live a sinless life if you have no sin nature. Just because Adam failed does that mean you have to fail? Don't make excuses. Why can't you make it to heaven on your own?

But the question remains why do you sin?
Do you blame Adam? You keep saying "even Adam sinned." But why do you? If you were created with no sin nature you have no excuse to sin.

But the reason you don't is because of your sin nature. You know that. Billions and billions of people from this generation back to the date of creation have never made it. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. They have all missed the mark. They have all transgressed the law of God. No one has ever obeyed all of God's law--not even the Ten Commandments. Why? They have a sin nature.
Surely someone would have made it had they not had a sin nature.

Man, naturally curses his fellow man, even though he is made after the image of God, because of Adam; because he is under a curse and has inherited a sin nature. This is what James teaches.

I am sure it is. And it is usually a very young age.

Is that your interpretation; it is not mine. Or is your interpretation such that one has to act like a little child, speak like a little child, babble like a little child, etc. Is that really what Christ was speaking about? Are you starting your second childhood??
As I already told you Christ was teaching a lesson on faith.

So what! You missed my point completely.
Go back in your mind to the 18th and 19th centuries, when our nation was still being settled and the country was more agrarian than urban. There was no TV. Many lived on farms apart from worldly allurements. Rarely would they see a city, and in most cases it would be a small town. If the family would be Christian they would stay away from the bar, and other such places.
No computer, no TV, no internet, no library, (a few books perhaps).
And yet they were still sinners like today. You can't blame the TV and other modern inventions for sin. But that is what you have been doing.

So you say. But when a one year old clearly understands the difference between right and wrong and does wrong, it demonstrates that he has an evil nature. It demonstrates that he is born doing evil and not good. It demonstrates that "doing good" must be taught. Evil is not taught. It is inherent in a person. Doing good must be taught.

You have taken that verse out of context.
It is speaking of salvation, not the nature of man. The "tradition" here would be like the tradition of the RCC. Look what Adam Clarke says:

Your appeal to this verse is moot.


All mankind is under the curse and will be until Christ comes and removes that curse. Why don't you understand that. The Bible says that all of creation waits for it and seems to understand it:

Romans 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
--The whole creation is waiting for the coming of Christ, at which time our bodies will be redeemed.

I don't dismiss the teaching of Scripture wholesale, even when a few verses have figures of Scripture. I am amazed at your unbelief.

I am not going to continue to answer your babble. The scriptures clearly teach that babies have not committed any sin, therefore they have not broken your line and died. Paul said he was alive until the commandment came and then he died. Jesus said when the prodigal son repented that he was alive AGAIN. 1 Pet 2:25 says we are RETURNED to Jesus.

The scriptures do not teach we are born dead in sin, they teach that we are born alive like the prodigal son and then go out in sin and become spiritually dead.

Believe whatever you want.

 

[DHK]

Even if he did, would you accept it?

I suppose the answer is: "No you wouldn't."

 

[Yeshua1]

This is a great question. If a man does not have the Holy Spirit and the word of God dwelling in him, then he is operating in the flesh. He will naturally do what his flesh tells him to do. It is not that he cannot resist sin, but he may believe certain sinful behavior is OK. A man may drink every night and get drunk because he was brought up in a family that drinks. He does not see this behavior as sinful. When he gets saved and hears that drunkenness is a sin, he can repent and turn from this sin.





You are making the error of assuming that because a person sins, they MUST sin, when deep down we all know better. No one has ever forced me to sin, and no one has ever forced you to sin.

Again, Adam and Eve were created in a perfect world without a sin nature, and yet they both chose to sin the first time they were tempted. What makes you think that we who are born in an utterly corrupt world with thousands of temptations would do any better?

Again, it is not remarkable that we all sin. What is remarkable is that Jesus could live 33 years as a man in this corrupt world and was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin. Now THAT is amazing!

Jesus was and is GOD in huamn form, can you claim that truth?
he was ONLY one ever able to never sin, due to be Divine...

No one else EVER did that, don't you think someone other thasn jesus would have IF he was aame as all of us as you keep claiming?

 

[Yeshua1]

Of course no man has ever been sinless but Jesus, but that does not mean we HAVE to sin, only that all men choose to sin. A man doesn't have to get married, but probably 99% of men choose to get married.



Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign. This is clearly stated in scripture.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Jesus being born of a virgin was a sign. How did people know that Jesus was the promised Christ? Because he was born of a virgin!

There is no scripture that supports Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. That is silly superstition. You inherit your grandfather's DNA from your mother, in fact, it is generally believed that baldness is inherited from your mother's father.

The scriptures themselves say Jesus was MADE of the SEED of DAVID 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;

Augustine believed sin was inherited physically through the lust of sexual intercourse, a pagan gnostic belief. It is pure superstition. The scriptures tell us Jesus was made of the seed of David, so if sin is inherited from the male, then Jesus would have inherited a sin nature from David. Pure nonsense.

However you view what Sin is, ALL have done it except forJesus, all born in it, and Jesus HAD to come conceived by Spirit or else he would have been exactly same as you and I, a born sinner!

 

[DHK]

I understand clearly that it only takes one sin to condemn us, but that is not what you are teaching, you are teaching we are BORN a sinner.

That is why a person sins shortly after they are born. If they didn't have that sin nature why would they start sinning so soon, and then just keep on sinning every day. You have no answer for that. It is our sin nature that gives a nature or natural inclination to do evil more than to do good. It takes effort to do good; no effort to do wrong.
A simple example:
It takes more effort to pick up my Bible and read it than it does to pick up the remote and turn on the TV. Why? Because I have to constantly overcome my sin nature.

I am not going to continue to answer your babble. The scriptures clearly teach that babies have not committed any sin, therefore they have not broken your line and died. Paul said he was alive until the commandment came and then he died. Jesus said when the prodigal son repented that he was alive AGAIN. 1 Pet 2:25 says we are RETURNED to Jesus.

Talk about taking Scripture out of context!!
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
--Peter is addressing this to suffering Christians. He had just finished describing the intense suffering of Christ who never sinned. Now, after the adult believer is persecuted, suffers, he doesn't despair. Jesus did not give up; neither does he. It is not that he dies. He does not despair. He goes back and lives for the Lord.
Look at Young's Literal Translation:

1 Peter 2:25 for ye were as sheep going astray, but ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.

The scriptures do not teach we are born dead in sin, they teach that we are born alive like the prodigal son and then go out in sin and become spiritually dead.

Believe whatever you want.

First, I believe what the Bible teaches.
Second, to deny that man is born in sin denies the necessity of the new birth.

Remember the scathing remarks of Jesus to the Pharisees:
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Tell me, as an unsaved person (in the past, not now) were you any better than they? Is one saved person on a scale of 1 to 10 any better than another. No, they all hit the 10 mark. Unsaved is unsaved is unsaved. You were just as bad and wicked in the sight of God as the Pharisees and your father was Satan himself. You were born into his family. Because you born into his family you needed to be born into God's family. You needed a spiritual re-birth.

Your theology denies the necessity of the new birth.

 

[Winman]

That is why a person sins shortly after they are born. If they didn't have that sin nature why would they start sinning so soon, and then just keep on sinning every day. You have no answer for that. It is our sin nature that gives a nature or natural inclination to do evil more than to do good. It takes effort to do good; no effort to do wrong.
A simple example:
It takes more effort to pick up my Bible and read it than it does to pick up the remote and turn on the TV. Why? Because I have to constantly overcome my sin nature.

Adam and Eve prove that a sin nature is not required to sin. All that is required is a temptation and free will. Adam and Eve were born into a perfect world without any needs, with only one single law to obey, and yet they failed and sinned the very first time they were tempted.

Even babies are born into an utterly corrupt world with many laws to obey, and literally thousands of temptations. It is no wonder that all men sin, ESPECIALLY at an early age before a person has developed a strong personality. A child sinning does not prove they were born with a sin nature in the least.

Not only that, but the scriptures tell us that sin is learned.

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

The scriptures say our vain conversation or lifestyle was received "BY TRADITION" from our fathers. Children imitate their parents. There are MANY other scriptures that say this.

Why did God command the Jews to kill all the people's who lived in the land of Canaan? So, they would not learn their sins, especially idolatry.

Deu 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

2 Kng 21:19 Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah.
20 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, as his father Manasseh did.
21 And he walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them:

The scriptures show over and over that children learn and copy their parents sins.

Talk about taking Scripture out of context!!
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
--Peter is addressing this to suffering Christians. He had just finished describing the intense suffering of Christ who never sinned. Now, after the adult believer is persecuted, suffers, he doesn't despair. Jesus did not give up; neither does he. It is not that he dies. He does not despair. He goes back and lives for the Lord.
Look at Young's Literal Translation:

1 Peter 2:25 for ye were as sheep going astray, but ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.

The KJB and many other translations say RETURNED. A person cannot return someplace they have never been. I cannot return to Utah, because I have never been to Utah. I CAN return to California, because I have been there before.

If men are born dead in sin, separated from God, then it would be impossible to say men who repent have RETURNED to God, but that is exactly what Peter said. Of course, you will look for whatever translation suits your view, but the KJB and many of the MVs say RETURNED.

First, I believe what the Bible teaches.
Second, to deny that man is born in sin denies the necessity of the new birth.

No, it doesn't, every man who sins must be born again.

You see, you have a HUGE problem with babies dying too, because a baby that dies in the womb or when it is a few days old could not possibly believe the gospel. So you must explain how a person can be saved without faith in Jesus.

The difference is, Jesus actually spoke about persons who have not sinned and need no repentance.

Mat 18:13 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.

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.

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:

It was Jesus himself that spoke of persons who have never sinned multiple times. Whether you like it or not, these are the facts. I refuse to believe Jesus would make up imaginary persons who could not possibly exist, which would be the case if Original Sin is true.

But if Original Sin is not true, then there have been millions, if not billions of babies and little children that have died before they committed sin. This explains why there are 99 sheep who never went astray compared to the one sheep who went astray and repented.

You cannot explain who these persons are, but JESUS spoke of them. I did not make this up in my own mind.

Remember the scathing remarks of Jesus to the Pharisees:
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You PROVE my point. Jesus would never give the Pharisees the impression they were without sin, he called them a "child of hell".

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

How could the Pharisees MAKE a person a child of hell if they were born a child of the devil? See, you completely overlook scripture like this.

Jesus never gave the Pharisees the impression they were without sin and needed no repentance, so Jesus was speaking of someone else. And I have showed in Matthew 18 that he was speaking of LITTLE ONES.

Tell me, as an unsaved person (in the past, not now) were you any better than they? Is one saved person on a scale of 1 to 10 any better than another. No, they all hit the 10 mark. Unsaved is unsaved is unsaved. You were just as bad and wicked in the sight of God as the Pharisees and your father was Satan himself. You were born into his family. Because you born into his family you needed to be born into God's family. You needed a spiritual re-birth.

Your theology denies the necessity of the new birth.

I go by the scriptures, not my personal thoughts. The prodigal son was not lost at first, the scriptures say the father had TWO SONS. The prodigal rejected his father and left home and went out in sin. Then he joined himself to a citizen of that far country. I believe this represents Satan, and shows that when a person knowingly and willingly chooses to sin they become a child of the devil.

Nevertheless, the boy was able to come to his senses and return home. The father saw him returning from a great distance which represents foreknowledge. He ran and hugged the boy, put a clean robe on him, a ring, and new shoes.

The father said the boy was alive AGAIN. Now, if we are all born dead in sin as you believe, it would be impossible to say any person was alive again, but Jesus said it twice.

The elder son was angry. He claimed he had NEVER sinned against his father. Did the father call him a hypocrite and correct him? NO, he called him Son, he said the boy was EVER with him (never separated from the father by sin), and said ALL he had was his (an HEIR). The father never said the elder son was either DEAD or LOST like his brother the prodigal.

It was Jesus who told these stories, not me. Accept it.

 

[DHK]

Adam and Eve prove that a sin nature is not required to sin.

That is true. Thus it has no bearing on man, after the fall who does have a sin nature being brought under the curse and inheriting that sin nature from Adam. The old McGuffey Reader put it this way:
"In Adam's Fall, we sinned all."

All that is required is a temptation and free will.

I don't know where you get this from. Sin is not a result of temptation.
Why did Lucifer sin?

Even babies are born into an utterly corrupt world with many laws to obey, and literally thousands of temptations. It is no wonder that all men sin, ESPECIALLY at an early age before a person has developed a strong personality. A child sinning does not prove they were born with a sin nature in the least.

It doesn't prove that they don't have a sin nature. The Bible does.
You claim you don't have or didn't have a sin nature. The evidence proves you wrong. You sin every day and can't but help sin. Why? You have a sin nature. Your inclinations are to do wrong more than they are to do right. You daily fight against that old nature, that sinful nature. Like Paul, "The things I want to do, those I don't do; and the things I do; those I don't want to do."
pquote]Not only that, but the scriptures tell us that sin is learned. [/quote]
No it doesn't. It is simply your interpretation and twisting of Scripture that teaches that. Psalm 51:5; 58:3; Jer.13:23; Gen.6:5, etc. say the opposite.

1 Pet 1:18

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

Learn hermeneutics. Look what it is saying.
You are redeemed not with: silver, gold, vain conversation, etc.,
Those things will not redeem you. There is no mention of OS there. It is speaking of redemption.
The next part says:
But you are redeemed with the precious blood of the lamb.
There is the contrast it is making. It is telling what we are not redeemed with vs. what we are redeemed with. You are misinterpreting the verse.

The scriptures say our vain conversation or lifestyle was received "BY TRADITION" from our fathers. Children imitate their parents. There are MANY other scriptures that say this.

But that is not what the verse is speaking about. It makes no mention of children. It is speaking of redemption.

Why did God command the Jews to kill all the people's who lived in the land of Canaan? So, they would not learn their sins, especially idolatry.

Deu 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.

Why? Because he didn't want the adults copying the ways of the heathen. After Israel had left Egypt, conquered Jericho, Sidon, Og, they finally came to the Midianites. God would not allow Balak, king of the Midianites to curse the Israelites. But Balaam gave advice on how they could be defeated. What happened? The young men went into the Midianites and married young Midianite women, and then started to worship their gods. The mandate was for the adults.

2 Kng 21:19

Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah.
20 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, as his father Manasseh did.
21 And he walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them:

The scriptures show over and over that children learn and copy their parents sins.

The children, over and over again, are adults. Manasseh was the child of Hezekiah, one of the Godly kings of Judah.
I have grandchildren. That doesn't make me any less a child of my father.
You must learn to use the word in context.

The KJB and many other translations say RETURNED. A person cannot return someplace they have never been. I cannot return to Utah, because I have never been to Utah. I CAN return to California, because I have been there before.

Just because the word "return" is used does not give you the right to attach your specific meaning to it. You are wrong. And your reasoning is wrong. These were suffering Christians. Some had strayed from the Lord. Now he urges them to come back, return to the Lord. Young's translation makes that very clear. The KJV is clear also, if you don't have it in your head that "return" has to have just your meaning.

If men are born dead in sin, separated from God, then it would be impossible to say men who repent have RETURNED to God, but that is exactly what Peter said. Of course, you will look for whatever translation suits your view, but the KJB and many of the MVs say RETURNED.

They had strayed from the Lord. He urges them to return. Look at the context:
1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
--They were going astray. Now they are returned. Simple isn't it? It has nothing to do with OS or with being born in sin, or sin nature.

No, it doesn't, every man who sins must be born again.

They sin because they are born into the wrong family and thus have the wrong nature. They need to be born again, born into God's family.

You see, you have a HUGE problem with babies dying too, because a baby that dies in the womb or when it is a few days old could not possibly believe the gospel. So you must explain how a person can be saved without faith in Jesus.

I believe in the mercy of God. Do you?

The difference is, Jesus actually spoke about persons who have not sinned and need no repentance.

Mat 18:13 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.

Sheep are sheep. They are not lost as in salvation. Like in 1Pet.2 they had gone astray from the savior and needed to return.

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 reference is a sarcastic reference to the Pharisees who "thought they needed no repentance." He was speaking in their presence and spoke of them sarcastically as he often did.
On another occasion he also speaks of their righteousness.
"Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise enter into the Kingdom of God."
You might want to conclude that the Pharisees were righteous also, right?

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:

A son is a son, and is always a son. He went astray and now returned to his father. The same is true with the sheep and the suffering Christians. We see a recurring theme don't we.

It was Jesus himself that spoke of persons who have never sinned multiple times. Whether you like it or not, these are the facts. I refuse to believe Jesus would make up imaginary persons who could not possibly exist, which would be the case if Original Sin is true.

Never once did Jesus speak of those who never sinned.
In fact he called them children of Satan and even worse.

 

[DHK]

But if Original Sin is not true, then there have been millions, if not billions of babies and little children that have died before they committed sin. This explains why there are 99 sheep who never went astray compared to the one sheep who went astray and repented.

Only by your twisted logic.

You cannot explain who these persons are, but JESUS spoke of them. I did not make this up in my own mind.

I already explained it. The question is: will you accept my explanation?

You PROVE my point. Jesus would never give the Pharisees the impression they were without sin, he called them a "child of hell".

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

How could the Pharisees MAKE a person a child of hell if they were born a child of the devil? See, you completely overlook scripture like this.

Jesus never gave the Pharisees the impression they were without sin and needed no repentance, so Jesus was speaking of someone else. And I have showed in Matthew 18 that he was speaking of LITTLE ONES.

It says two-fold the child of hell. They already were a child of hell; now they had just reinforced their condemnation by indoctrinating their poisonous beliefs into their minds. It would make it twice as hard for them to come to Christ.
All are born into the family of Satan. "You are of your father the devil."
What makes you think you are a "better sinner" then the Pharisees, in that you can escape the same condemnation?
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Whether you miss the mark by six inches or sixty feet, you still miss the mark and fall short of the glory of God. You are still born into the family of Satan, and thus need to be born again.

The "Little ones" in Matthew 18" were referring to his disciples. He was rebuking the Pharisees concerning harming his own disciples. Peter and John were not little children.

I go by the scriptures, not my personal thoughts. The prodigal son was not lost at first, the scriptures say the father had TWO SONS. The prodigal rejected his father and left home and went out in sin. Then he joined himself to a citizen of that far country. I believe this represents Satan, and shows that when a person knowingly and willingly chooses to sin they become a child of the devil.

A person is born a child, doesn't become a child. You are confused. A son is a son is a son. He needs to be born again. You thus negate the necessity of the new birth.

Nevertheless, the boy was able to come to his senses and return home. The father saw him returning from a great distance which represents foreknowledge. He ran and hugged the boy, put a clean robe on him, a ring, and new shoes.

The wayward SON returned home. He was still a son.

The father said the boy was alive AGAIN. Now, if we are all born dead in sin as you believe, it would be impossible to say any person was alive again, but Jesus said it twice.

Once a saved person goes astray he becomes separated from God spiritually. Psalm 66:18.
"If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me."
Until I repent of my sin I will walk in darkness though I am saved. This is also the teaching of the first chapter First John. Only repentance can restore fellowship. And that is what happened.

The elder son was angry. He claimed he had NEVER sinned against his father. Did the father call him a hypocrite and correct him? NO, he called him Son, he said the boy was EVER with him (never separated from the father by sin), and said ALL he had was his (an HEIR). The father never said the elder son was either DEAD or LOST like his brother the prodigal.

He was the son out of fellowship with the Father. He had the wrong attitude.

It was Jesus who told these stories, not me. Accept it.

Not your interpretation.

 

[Winman]

DHK, we will have to agree to disagree.

Jesus told three parables in Luke 15. In none of these parables was the sinner lost at first. The shepherd had 100 sheep not ZERO. One went astray, this was not a backslidden Christian, Jesus clearly identified this sheep as a lost sinner.

He also spoke of 99 sheep that never went astray and needed no repentance. If Original Sin were true, no such persons could ever exist.

The story of the 10 silver pieces is the same, none were lost at first. When the lost piece was recovered, again Jesus explained this had been a lost sinner.

The father had two sons, neither were lost. The prodigal became both DEAD and LOST, terms never used of a believer (and you KNOW that well). When he repented, Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. If OS were true, no one could ever be alive again, because no one was alive to begin with.

Then Jesus describes the elder son who NEVER sinned at any time. Again, if OS is true, no such person could exist.

You just go right on and ignore what Jesus taught. Jesus did not teach that people are BORN dead in sin, he taught that they were born alive, not lost, but went out in sin and spiritually died afterward.

You can ignore all you want, but scripture is against you.

 

[DHK]

DHK, we will have to agree to disagree.

Jesus told three parables in Luke 15. In none of these parables was the sinner lost at first. The shepherd had 100 sheep not ZERO. One went astray, this was not a backslidden Christian, Jesus clearly identified this sheep as a lost sinner.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and I give unto them eternal life.
The "lost" does not refer to salvation. The sheep went astray.
1 Peter 2:25 for ye were as sheep going astray, but ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls. (Young's)

He also spoke of 99 sheep that never went astray and needed no repentance. If Original Sin were true, no such persons could ever exist.

Where does it say they never needed repentance. You read into things that are not there. Parables are meant to teach one spiritual truth.

The father had two sons, neither were lost. The prodigal became both DEAD and LOST, terms never used of a believer (and you KNOW that well). When he repented, Jesus said he was alive AGAIN. If OS were true, no one could ever be alive again, because no one was alive to begin with.

In the case of "lost" astray is used often.
In the case of "dead" it is used a number of times.
We are to be dead to sin; crucified with Christ; I die daily; take up your cross, etc.

Then Jesus describes the elder son who NEVER sinned at any time. Again, if OS is true, no such person could exist.

False. Read it again.
That is how the elder son described himself. Do you think he was honest in his assessment of himself.

You just go right on and ignore what Jesus taught. Jesus did not teach that people are BORN dead in sin, he taught that they were born alive, not lost, but went out in sin and spiritually died afterward.

A child of the devil is not a person being born innocent.

You can ignore all you want, but scripture is against you.

I know it isn't.
Believing a man is born without a sin nature denies the necessity of the new birth.

 

[Winman]

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and I give unto them eternal life.
The "lost" does not refer to salvation. The sheep went astray.
1 Peter 2:25 for ye were as sheep going astray, but ye turned back now to the shepherd and overseer of your souls. (Young's)

Right, nearly every other versions says RETURNED. If you were born separated from God, you could not return to him.

Where does it say they never needed repentance. You read into things that are not there. Parables are meant to teach one spiritual truth.

What? I've showed the scripture several times.

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.

In Matthew 18 Jesus tells the same parable but says "which went not astray".

In the case of "lost" astray is used often.
In the case of "dead" it is used a number of times.
We are to be dead to sin; crucified with Christ; I die daily; take up your cross, etc.

You are desperate man, you are sucking air. You will simply never admit when you have been shown wrong (which is OFTEN).

False. Read it again.
That is how the elder son described himself. Do you think he was honest in his assessment of himself.

Yes, he was perfectly honest. The father did not call him a liar or hypocrite, but verified what he said was true. He called him Son, he said he was EVER with him, that is, he was NEVER separated from his father by sin, and he said ALL that he had was the elder son's. He did not say the elder son was dead or lost as he did the prodigal.

You just keep resisting the truth.

]A child of the devil is not a person being born innocent.

When the boy rejected his father and left his home, afterward it said he was joined to a citizen of that far country he had gone into. I believe this represents Satan.

Luk 15:15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine

Keep on resisting.

I know it isn't.
Believing a man is born without a sin nature denies the necessity of the new birth.

Did Adam and Eve need to be born again?

It is easy to refute you, because truth will always defeat error.