Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This argument is completely moot. Ask the majority of the Calvinists on this board, those whom you debate against. It doesn't refer to OS; it refers to the judicial system of the Jews, the Ten Commandments. Now that being said, UNDERSTAND:Scripture is clear that the son does not bear the iniquity of his father. That is so simple and straightforward, and yet you utterly ignore it to believe something not shown in scripture anywhere.
This argument is completely moot. Ask the majority of the Calvinists on this board, those whom you debate against. It doesn't refer to OS; it refers to the judicial system of the Jews, the Ten Commandments. Now that being said, UNDERSTAND:
If we believe that is its interpretation, then you have no argument, because you are debating against us!
Do you understand this. You don't believe in OS.
We don't believe this teaches OS.
Therefore your argument here is moot and useless.
Perhaps, in reading some of the foregoing chapters, we may have been tempted to think ourselves not much concerned in them (though they also were written for our learning); but this chapter, at first view, appears highly and nearly to concern us all, very highly, very nearly; for, without particular reference to Judah and Jerusalem, it lays down the rule of judgment according to which God will deal with the children of men in determining them to their everlasting state, and it agrees with that very ancient rule laid down, Gen. 4:7, "If though doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?'' But, "if not, sin,'' the punishment of sin,"lies at the door.'' Here is, I. The corrupt proverb used by the profane Jews, which gave occasion to the message here sent them, and made it necessary for the justifying of God in his dealings with them (v. 1-3). II. The reply given to this proverb, in which God asserts in general his own sovereignty and justice (v. 4). Woe to the wicked; it shall be ill with them (v. 4, 20). But say to the righteous, It shall be ill with them (v. 4, 20). But say to the righteous, It shall be well with them (v. 5-9). In particular, as to the case complained of, he assures us, 1. That it shall be ill with a wicked man, though he had a good father (v. 10–13). 2. That it shall be well with a good man, though he had a wicked father (v. 14–18). And therefore in this God is righteous (v. 19, 20). 3. That it shall be well with penitents, though they began ever so ill (v. 21–23 and 27, 28). 4. That it shall be ill with apostates, though they began ever so well (v. 24, 26). And the use of all this is, (1.) To justify God and clear the equity of all his proceedings (v. 25, 29). (2.) To engage and encourage us to repent of our sins and turn to God (v. 30–32). And these are things which belong to our everlasting peace. O that we may understand and regard them before they be hidden from our eyes!
You don't get it do you. You need to go to that thread on logic in that the Baptist theology forum.It is TRUTH that matters. Fact is, I have shown you Calvinist commentators that say Ezekiel 18 does pertain to eternal death, not civil law.
You can close your eyes to truth and ignore it, but in the end you must deal with it.
You don't get it do you. You need to go to that thread on logic in that the Baptist theology forum.
1. Do you believe in OS? Yes or No.
If no, then you cannot use a verse in the Bible that "supports" something you don't believe.
2. If yes, then you believe in OS; the argument is settled, and we all go home happy. Right? The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. If you believe this is referring to OS, then it still is about OS, and both father and son have OS irrespective how it was passed down. They both have OS. You believe that. You just admitted that all men are born with original sin. This is what you believe. This is what you say these verses teach. The only thing you disagree with is how it is passed from one generation to another. You haven't figured that part out. But you do believe that all have Original Sin from birth. You do believe in the doctrine. That is what you are admitting to.
Good. Argument over.
3. But I suspect you don't really believe in OS. Therefore you cannot use a verse that doesn't teach something you don't believe. There is no logic in that.
4. To go from the ridiculous to the sublime. You cannot use a verse that not only does not teach something you don't believe, but it doesn't teach something I don't believe, and I am the one you are debating!!!!!!!!
:tonofbricks:
Good. We agree. Then don't use it. Because I don't believe it supports OS either, and it is me that you are debating not some old dusty commentary. Do you get that??Ezekiel 18 does not support OS.
Good. We agree. Then don't use it. Because I don't believe it supports OS either, and it is me that you are debating not some old dusty commentary. Do you get that??
My position is that we are all sinners. Period The details of when that came about is irrelevant. It changes not the gospel and the timing of it is not clear. Any attempt to try to explain it is over all our heads and unnecessary.
God opens the heart to save us and we either accept Him or reject him. That is done according to His good will and pleasure.
He who has the power and authority to save us gets all the credit.
To much over thinking it and hyper-explanation only muddy the waters and cause unnecessary debate and division.
It can't refute what it doesn't teach. You are not logical.That's nonsense, Ezekiel 18 refutes Original Sin, it says that God does not impute the sin of the father to his children or vice versa.
Do you get that?
Unfortunately it is a very important subject, and probably hundreds of thousands of people have died over this issue. Many millions of people are atheists because they refuse to believe in a God that creates them (and especially babies) as sinners and then torments them forever in hell for being the very thing they were created to be.
The fact that the church has accepted this doctrine since Augustine does not prove that it is correct doctrine, it was FORCED upon people by threat of death.
What Winman teaches affects these doctrines:Are you saying that the sin nature makes is guilty or is it that the sin which results from the sin nature makes us guilty? Are you saying we are guilty without ever having committed the first sin just because of our sin nature?
Unfortunately it is a very important subject, and probably hundreds of thousands of people have died over this issue. Many millions of people are atheists because they refuse to believe in a God that creates them (and especially babies) as sinners and then torments them forever in hell for being the very thing they were created to be.
The fact that the church has accepted this doctrine since Augustine does not prove that it is correct doctrine, it was FORCED upon people by threat of death.
No one has died over it.
The first part of what he said is true.I can agree with you on this.
I've been following this thread, and this could be a very good, instructive, and fruitful discussion if all the personal stuff could be left out of it.
It is a logical fallacy. It cannot be proven. To prove this statement Winman would have to back in history and interview all Christians that lived before the time of Augustine to see whether or not they believed in the depravity of man or Original Sin. He cannot make such a sweeping general statement without any evidence. Where is his proof?The fact that the church has accepted this doctrine since Augustine does not prove that it is correct doctrine, it was FORCED upon people by threat of death.
It can't refute what it doesn't teach. You are not logical.
Look. You do not believe that the Bible teaches OS.
Therefore, logically, Jehovah, Israel, her prophets, Jesus, and the Apostles, (or anywhere in the Bible), does not teach OS, according to you.
If the Bible does not teach OS, according to you, it cannot refute OS, because there is no mention of it in the Bible!! You cannot use the Bible to refute something that doesn't exist.
I don't believe that the passage in Ez.18 speaks of original sin and can be used to refute OS, so your argument is completely moot. It does not refute OS, and it cannot refute OS, because you do not believe that OS is taught anywhere in the Bible.
If OS were taught in the Bible, you would believe it, right?
If there is a refutation of it; there must be a teaching of it!!
The first part of what he said is true.
But this is false:
It is a logical fallacy. It cannot be proven. To prove this statement Winman would have to back in history and interview all Christians that lived before the time of Augustine to see whether or not they believed in the depravity of man or Original Sin. He cannot make such a sweeping general statement without any evidence. Where is his proof?
Who says it started with Augustine except for Winman's opinion and bias?
It is clearly taught in the Bible, except for Winman's adamant opposition to this Biblical doctrine. But he is the one standing outside of historical orthodox Christianity. The doctrine was not "forced" on anyone.
The first part of what he said is true.
But this is false:
It is a logical fallacy. It cannot be proven. To prove this statement Winman would have to back in history and interview all Christians that lived before the time of Augustine to see whether or not they believed in the depravity of man or Original Sin. He cannot make such a sweeping general statement without any evidence. Where is his proof?
Who says it started with Augustine except for Winman's opinion and bias?
It is clearly taught in the Bible, except for Winman's adamant opposition to this Biblical doctrine. But he is the one standing outside of historical orthodox Christianity. The doctrine was not "forced" on anyone.
You must be joking. The whole reason babies were baptized was to wash away Original Sin. Many believed that babies were not guilty of sin, and also believed that no one could be baptized until they understood sin and knowingly placed trust in Jesus for forgiveness of sins.
Not everybody believed in OS. The Anabaptists did not believe in OS. The EOC did not believe in OS in that a person inherited Adam's guilt, although they did believe in a physical corruption at the fall.
John Smyth, the man credited with starting the first true Baptist churches did not believe in Original Sin.
The early church fathers barely spoke of a concept of Original Sin, they overwhelmingly believed in free will. This is a fact that Calvin admitted in his writings.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.There is a teaching of it, there is a teaching that it is false. The Jews had a proverb that said the father eats a sour grape and the children's teeth are set on edge, God said he would refute this proverb so that it would be said no more. This is a refutation of Original Sin.