Original Sin

[The Biblicist]

When "Original Sin" is dicussed one needs to carefully define terms not only in a theological but pragmatic way.

I realized this in the Baptist Only Forums when it was said that I held to an Augustinian/Catholic view of said doctrine.

However anyone who accepts this version of Original Sin also believes that water baptism takes away Original Sin.



Without water baptism to remove "Original Sin" there can be no doctrine of Augustinian/Latin Church "Original Sin".

My own view is that Adam (the original human sinner) passed on to all of us all the necessary equipment and ability to sin which inevitably each of us will do given the maturity of discerning good and evil.

John 3

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.​

HankD

Infant baptism is really a waste of water and time. First, those cast into hell are cast in there only after judgment "according to" their own personal works. Dying infants have no individual personal works to be judged. None are judged or cast into hell for anything other than their own personal individual works.

John 1:29 says that Jesus took away the "sin" (singular) of the world and therefore no one is brought before the judgement seat of God and condemned to hell because of Adam's sin. They are brought before judgement and condemned according to their own willful sin. Christ paid the eternal penalty for Adamic Sin. He did not remove the immediate and temporal consequences of sin and death.

I believe that dying infants are redeemed from sin exactly as they were condemned by sin. Adam acted in their behalf and Christ acted in their behalf. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. What was lost in Adam much more was gained in Christ. I believe the number in heaven will out number those in hell.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Not at all. Calvin had Servetus murdered.

You are so good at lying, but then practice makes perfect. Nowhere have I said that I have an affinity for "Eastern Religions". I have said that I like some things about the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Maybe I'll stick around and be a thorn in your evil flesh. I have no doubt that had you lived in Calvin's day, you would have gleefully cheered on the decision to murder Servetus. I see many more fruits of the Spirit in our Catholic brethren on this forum than in you, Iconoclast, and others of your ilk.

Please do....Id love the opportunity to expose you & would jump thru hoops to beat the livin fertilizer out or you. Stay... please stay! Your the biggest cry baby woosie Ive ever seen here. You want to start .....just draw that line.....I would be happy to accommodate you! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Didn't Calvin also Torture Sebastian Castello? Urge the burning of Witches and had Jacques Gruet beheaded?[/QUOTE

If so then he was just mimicking Roman Catholics who did it on a regular basis. People who live in galss houses shouldn't throw stones :smilewinkgrin:

 

[The Biblicist]

Hey guys, I know you like fighting, but let's redirect our battle back to the OP!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Didn't Calvin also Torture Sebastian Castello? Urge the burning of Witches and had Jacques Gruet beheaded?[/QUOTE

If so then he was just mimicking Roman Catholics who did it on a regular basis. People who live in galss houses shouldn't throw stones :smilewinkgrin:

You need to brush up on history a bit. Sure People who were Roman Catholics executed people however they were the civil authorities or local governments acting on behalf of localities and government rather than on behalf of the Church.

Calvin Attempted to Create a Theocracy in Geneva in which his council headed by him did these things. So when the Huguenots were killed they were killed by the French Government or more properly the French crown. At other times it was mob violence which again was not supported or caused by the Catholic Church but by people who were politically motivated rather than motivated by the church. Ie in this example of the St. Bartholemew's day Massacre

Admiral de Coligny was the most respected Huguenot leader and enjoyed a close relationship with the king, although he was distrusted by the king's mother. Aware of the danger of reprisals from the Protestants, the king and his court visited Coligny on his sickbed and promised him that the culprits would be punished. While the Queen Mother was eating dinner, Protestants burst in to demand justice, some talking in menacing terms.[13] Fears of Huguenot reprisals grew. Coligny's brother-in-law led a 4,000-strong army camped just outside Paris[14] and, although there is no evidence it was planning to attack, Catholics in the city feared it might take revenge on the Guises or the city populace itself. That evening, Catherine held a meeting at the Tuileries Palace with her Italian advisers, including Albert de Gondi, Comte de Retz. On the evening of 23 August, Catherine went to see the king to discuss the crisis. Though no details of the meeting survive, Charles IX and his mother took the decision to eliminate the Protestant leaders

Were as Calvin as Leader of his Reformed Church and of the Theocratic Geneva Council killed the men mentioned.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You need to brush up on history a bit. Sure People who were Roman Catholics executed people however they were the civil authorities or local governments acting on behalf of localities and government rather than on behalf of the Church.

Calvin Attempted to Create a Theocracy in Geneva in which his council headed by him did these things. So when the Huguenots were killed they were killed by the French Government or more properly the French crown. At other times it was mob violence which again was not supported or caused by the Catholic Church but by people who were politically motivated rather than motivated by the church. Ie in this example of the St. Bartholemew's day Massacre Were as Calvin as Leader of his Reformed Church and of the Theocratic Geneva Council killed the men mentioned.

Duh.... he wasn't even a member of City State of Geneva at the time. So how did he "Murder" anyone. If you want to blame anyone then blame the magistrates. BTW, the RCC's had a warrant out for the arrest & execution of Servitus. Amazing how you guys could so blithely slander the man Calvin without doing any research.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Duh.... he wasn't even a member of City State of Geneva at the time. So how did he "Murder" anyone. If you want to blame anyone then blame the magistrates. BTW, the RCC's had a warrant out for the arrest & execution of Servitus. Amazing how you guys could so blithely slander the man Calvin without doing any research.

Ah when you say Catholics be honest. Which government? Ah and Calvin did cause the death of Servitus. He may not have lit the kindling but he ensured Servitus would be executed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ah when you say Catholics be honest. Which government? Ah and Calvin did cause the death of Servitus. He may not have lit the kindling but he ensured Servitus would be executed.

I am being honest.....The Holy Roman Empire ..... so you also have blood on your hands.

Lets move away from Calvin & review Luther's little "tet a tet" with The RCC back in Worms. Lets revisit the hit they put on Luther for merely telling them the truth....that they were corrupt. They did succeed in murdering Huss & he was a fellow priest! So lets not dance around these topics & start a urinating contest.

Anyway, is was one of the board miscreants who started this conversation in the 1st place. Lets let him come out with all his evidence & put it before all to debate in a form dedicated to his opinion. Id be more than happy to make my thoughts known. MORE THAN HAPPY! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am being honest.....The Holy Roman Empire ..... so you also have blood on your hands.

The Holy Roman Empire was Germany BTW.

Lets move away from Calvin & review Luther's little "tet a tet" with The RCC back in Worms. Lets revisit the hit they put on Luther for merely telling them the truth....that they were corrupt. They did succeed in murdering Huss & he was a fellow priest! So lets not dance around these topics & start a urinating contest.

What is often forgoten is that the Catholic Church Agreed with the Majority of Luther's 95 theses. They had a problem with a few issues. The Holy Roman Emperor declared Luther an outlaw thus it was the German Government that wanted to Punish or kill Luther. Fortunately for him Fredrick III Elector of Saxony protected him. See how actual history is a bit different from the propoganda? As far as Hus Anti-Pope

A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected.

Alexander V excommunicated Hus and King Sigismund tried and put Hus to death. As far as urinating contest the guy with the largest bladder wins :tongue3:

We're all miscreants here. Oh well. back to the original topic.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Holy Roman Empire was Germany BTW.


What is often forgoten is that the Catholic Church Agreed with the Majority of Luther's 95 theses. They had a problem with a few issues. The Holy Roman Emperor declared Luther an outlaw thus it was the German Government that wanted to Punish or kill Luther. Fortunately for him Fredrick III Elector of Saxony protected him. See how actual history is a bit different from the propoganda? As far as Hus Anti-Pope Alexander V excommunicated Hus and King Sigismund tried and put Hus to death. As far as urinating contest the guy with the largest bladder wins :tongue3:

We're all miscreants here. Oh well. back to the original topic.

Well we both have practice holding in beer.....I had 2 St. Patty's day parades back to back this weekend......that and cabbage....wooooo! Oh, & there was no Germany in those days.... just Duchy kingdoms & your right, Frederick covered Marty s rear end.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Infant baptism is really a waste of water and time. First, those cast into hell are cast in there only after judgment "according to" their own personal works. Dying infants have no individual personal works to be judged. None are judged or cast into hell for anything other than their own personal individual works.

John 1:29 says that Jesus took away the "sin" (singular) of the world and therefore no one is brought before the judgement seat of God and condemned to hell because of Adam's sin. They are brought before judgement and condemned according to their own willful sin. Christ paid the eternal penalty for Adamic Sin. He did not remove the immediate and temporal consequences of sin and death.

I believe that dying infants are redeemed from sin exactly as they were condemned by sin. Adam acted in their behalf and Christ acted in their behalf. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. What was lost in Adam much more was gained in Christ. I believe the number in heaven will out number those in hell.

That's an excellent post.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Please do....Id love the opportunity to expose you & would jump thru hoops to beat the livin fertilizer out or you. Stay... please stay! Your the biggest cry baby woosie Ive ever seen here. You want to start .....just draw that line.....I would be happy to accommodate you! :smilewinkgrin:

See, that's all you've got -- insults and bluster. You're nothing but hot air, which is what most are who try to project themselves as arrogant bullies.

Every time you respond to me, the only one you expose is yourself. You are nothing but a windbag, an empty shell, a whitewashed tomb. I've already started, and the line has been drawn a long time ago. There's no way you can stay with me on anything.

We are supposed to turn the other cheek; I figure I've done that. After that, there is no further directive.

When challenging one to a duel, one should make sure they have the ammunition; your weapon is empty.

So, I'm a cry baby woosie, and you'd like to beat me up, huh? Well, you can see where I live; come on down and let's see if you're really a man or just a big wind. I'll give you directions.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Calvin was definitely responsible for the murder of Servetus. He wanted Servetus beheaded rather than burned at the stake -- merciful "Christian" that he was.

Calvin was a persecutor and murderer; that is a fact. All anyone has to do to know that is to be able to read.

 

[DaChaser1]

Calvin was definitely responsible for the murder of Servetus. He wanted Servetus beheaded rather than burned at the stake -- merciful "Christian" that he was.

Calvin was a persecutor and murderer; that is a fact. All anyone has to do to know that is to be able to read.

you are SURE that was the case? My understanding ofthat event was that Calvin wanted to save him, but that was not done!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

you are SURE that was the case? My understanding ofthat event was that Calvin wanted to save him, but that was not done!

I am absolutely certain that was the case. Calvin did NOT want to save him; he just wanted him beheaded instead of burned at the stake.

 

[Moriah]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
HP: please quote from one person you consider as Pelagian that has ever said that the sin of Adam affected no one but himself. Don't get on the Internet and start given me quotes were Calvinist are talking about someone they disdain. Quote from the source or admit you don't know whereof you speak.




HP: First you are flat out lying about myself because I do not believe in original sin yet that is not my position.

DHK, you are really something. You have the audacity to tell us how I believe, and how Moriah believes, without one soilitary quote from myself or him? Did you not clearly accuse me of lying and slandering you by my failure to quote your exact words? Have you no conscience?

Is this precisely not the way you judge others, and then you do the same thing yourself? Certainly the following verse should give us all a reason for self introspection.
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Thank you, HP, for standing up for me. I have found that there are people here in the group that I am so glad to have met. It was worth going through any negativity that the majority gave to me just to meet the few wonderful ones.

DHK needs to post my comments where I said what he claims I have said.

 

[DHK]

DHK needs to post my comments where I said what he claims I have said.

I usually quote you directly. Tell me what I have said about you that you claim isn't true and I will quote it for you.

 

[Moriah]

Moriah believes this. All who deny that man has a sin nature believe the same. This is the first tenet of Pelagianism.
He quoted the three major tenets of Pelagianism.
I had already explained them. I am not a Calvinist.

Look here in this thread, and note how I explained this already. Pay attention!!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817660&postcount=77

Here are some authoritative sources on Pelagianism:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817227&postcount=85

Show where I said man does not have a sin nature. Show it now, or repent and apologize. Are you a liar, DHK? Did you not tell HP and me that a liar says someone says something but does not quote exactly?

 

[DHK]

Show where I said man does not have a sin nature. Show it now, or repent and apologize. Are you a liar, DHK? Did you not tell HP and me that a liar says someone says something but does not quote exactly?

Here are your quotes and where you got them from:

You side with someone who has been going against me for speaking against total depravity.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817587&postcount=76

Calvinists and those from the reformed religions like to use John 3:19 to support their false beliefs of total depravity. Total Depravity meaning no one can believe in God after learning of Him.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817304&postcount=1

Total depravity (also called absolute inability, radical corruption, total corruption, or Augustinianism[citation needed]) is a theological doctrine that derives from the Augustinian concept of original sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is offered.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817503&postcount=7

 

[Moriah]

Moriah believes this. All who deny that man has a sin nature believe the same. This is the first tenet of Pelagianism.
He quoted the three major tenets of Pelagianism.
I had already explained them. I am not a Calvinist.

Look here in this thread, and note how I explained this already. Pay attention!!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817660&postcount=77

Here are some authoritative sources on Pelagianism:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1817227&postcount=85

Here are your quotes and where you got them from:

Those links do not say what you say I said. Now post the words I said and post what you said I said. Post it now or repent.