Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

[Winman]

And I have refuted these mistaken views nearly as often.
1) The word translated returned refers to a change in direction and not to point of origin.

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I believe it means to return to a point of origin. A sheep that was never in the flock and never belonged to the shepherd cannot be said to have "gone astray" or "returned" to the Shepherd of the flock, but this is exactly what Peter tells us.

2) Yes, when we volitionally sin, we go astray, turn aside, stumble, etc. Again, this picture of our leaving the path of righteousness when we choose to sin, does not say we were not condemned already, as both Genesis and John teach.

You cannot go astray from the flock if you were never in the flock. You cannot "become filthy" as scripture says in Psalm 14 if you were always filthy. Words have meaning, to "become filthy" shows a progression from clean to filthy.

Psa 14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

If you were born rich, you would not tell anyone you "became" rich, but if you were born poor and later acquired wealth, then you would tell folks you have "become" rich. Likewise, the scriptures show we have "become" filthy, showing we were not originally stained with sin as Original Sin falsely teaches.

You have to redefine words to arrive at YOUR view.

I am still waiting for someone who denies that the consequences of Adam's sin were applied to all mankind, to explain if we were conceived in Christ, how did we escape His hand?

Yes, all men physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin. This is not all bad, it is physical death that is man's greatest incentive to repent and trust Christ. Solomon even said the day of one's death is better than the day of one's birth.

Ecc 7:1 A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.

Of course, this is only true if one is born again and saved.

This however does not mean men are guilty of Adam's sin. A drunken bus driver might drive off a cliff killing all his passengers, they die as a consequence of his sin, but this does not make them guilty of his sin.

Men are not held guilty for Adam's sin, God clearly says the son shall not bear the sins of his father or vice versa in Ezekiel 18:20;

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

a) God subjected mankind to futility. This refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

Yes, all men physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but all men spiritually die as a result of their OWN sin. Again, Eze 18:20 says "the soul that sinneth, it shall die". It does not say the soul that is simply born dies.

b) All mankind is condemned, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

I disagree, Paul clearly told us Jacob and Esau had done no evil before they were born. I do not believe they were condemned whatsoever.

c) We are by nature, not nurture, children of wrath, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

It is because of sins and transgressions wherein we "walked" that we are children of wrath. This shows a performance of sin, something babies are unable to do.

d) The many were made sinners, this refers again to the consequences of Adam's sin.

And you have been shown an alternate explanation. I believe both Adam and Jesus were the "legal precedents" for those who followed in their footsteps. For those who knowingly sinned as Adam did, they were judged or "made" sinners, and the sentence of death passed on them. Likewise, for those who believe on Jesus as Jesus believed on his Father, these persons are judged or "made" righteous and the free gift of life is given to them.

Your interpretation of Romans 5:19 is inconsistent, because you impute sin unconditionally to all men, but only impute righteousness conditionally to a few men. This violates Paul's form of argument in Romans 5 where each side of each verse is treated equally.

My view treats both sides equally, every man who conditionally sins is judged or "made" a sinner, every person who conditionally believes on Christ is judged or "made" righteous.

My view is consistent with Paul's form of argument, yours is not.

e) We are conceived in iniquity, and this too refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

Psa 51:5 does not say all men were conceived in iniquity, it speaks only of David. And there are alternative explanations for this verse. This verse can simply mean David was born into a sinful world. This is the traditional understanding of this verse that the Jews knew for 1500 years before Augustine. The Jews did not interpret this scripture to teach Original Sin at all.

The only rebuttal offered for these scriptures is because of context, or figurative language, or word substitution, or structural analysis, they do not mean what they say.

And likewise, your argument is simply that you think you are correct, and we are supposed to take your word for it. Sorry.

There are other explanations for all of your views, and they do not make God the author of sin as your view clearly does. You even admitted it.

In your view, God is like a sadistic doctor who infects everyone with a deadly disease, and then he plays the hero by saving a few of them. Sick.

 

[webdog]

And I have refuted these mistaken views nearly as often.

1) The word translated returned refers to a change in direction and not to point of origin.

2) Yes, when we volitionally sin, we go astray, turn aside, stumble, etc. Again, this picture of our leaving the path of righteousness when we choose to sin, does not say we were not condemned already, as both Genesis and John teach.

I am still waiting for someone who denies that the consequences of Adam's sin were applied to all mankind, to explain if we were conceived in Christ, how did we escape His hand?

a) God subjected mankind to futility. This refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

b) All mankind is condemned, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

c) We are by nature, not nurture, children of wrath, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

d) The many were made sinners, this refers again to the consequences of Adam's sin.

e) We are conceived in iniquity, and this too refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

The only rebuttal offered for these scriptures is because of context, or figurative language, or word substitution, or structural analysis, they do not mean what they say.

The curse was the consequence of Adam's action. We die spiritually in the manner Adam did. Read James 1:15

 

[AVL1984]

I have read the many posts here but find that I must do more research before I commit to anything. I was raised with some of the beliefs that were quoted in some of these posts, but never held to them, and was taught in school of some of the positions mentioned further in. It is an interesting study, though.

 

[Inspector Javert]

1) Now, it seems, those that deny the consequences of Adam's sin affect all mankind,

NNE...
NNE...on Baptist Board, denies that the consequesnces of Adam's sin "affect all mankind?"

Whom, precisely, do you accuse??

WHO?

Say his or her name...Say it.
Say the name of the poster whom you accuse of beliveing this.

2) What is the nature of the corruption? Do we naturally put ourselves first or God and others first?

Corruption corrupts...like moth, like rust, like worm...
So what?

"Putting God first" has nothing to do with anything...absolutely nothing.
You seem to have no verses, no passage of Scripture, no exegesis for your doctrine of "Original Sin"...

Do we use deception to achieve our goals, or do we stick to the truth even when to do so thwarts our goals?

I don't know... what do we do??
Do we lyingly claim that some (and I quote you):

deny the consequences of Adam's sin affect all mankind,

When not one person on Baptist Board has done so???

Do tell, what do we do Van.

What do we do.

Do Satan, the world, and our flesh offer what comes "naturally"

Yes, of course....no one on any side of this debate denies that....EVERYONE AFFIRMS IT....EVERYONE... So, this is wasted bandwidth.

or do we feel no attraction toward ungodliness?

EVERYONE maintains we feel an attraction toward ungodliness...

Please name the person whom you accuse of denying this, so we may treat him or her as anathema...

Who is this person...

Use a name, Van, or cease lying about your presumptive brothers and sisters in Christ...

Who denies this???
Who?
EVERYONE asserts this.

3) Does being predisposed to sinful behavior make us unable to recognize ungodliness? Thus we are able to set our minds on that which is godly or choose to sin. Yes, some have a seared conscience, but they did not start out that way. God has provided in us the capability to seek God and trust in Christ, but it is not easy as we must turn away from what comes "naturally" to us. God is not the author of sin, He did not predestine our choices to do what Satan, the world, and our fleshly desires naturally attract us to do.

:sleep::sleep:

 

[DHK]

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but I believe it means to return to a point of origin. A sheep that was never in the flock and never belonged to the shepherd cannot be said to have "gone astray" or "returned" to the Shepherd of the flock, but this is exactly what Peter tells us.

You cannot go astray from the flock if you were never in the flock. You cannot "become filthy" as scripture says in Psalm 14 if you were always filthy. Words have meaning, to "become filthy" shows a progression from clean to filthy.

What a terrible theology.
You do know that it is the cults that use primarily the one word-one meaning tactic don't you? Words have meanings, and most more than one meaning. Check your dictionary.

With your theology you have just condemned all aborted babies, and all infants up to the age of understanding (however you see it) to hell. Jesus didn't atone for their sin according to you. Why is that?

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
--According to your definition the Lord has laid on Christ (or he atoned) for the sins of only those who have deliberately gone astray. It is impossible therefore for those under the age of understanding to go to heaven. Their sins have not been atoned for--not in your schematic. You have condemned them all to hell--all because you stick to this idea of "one word-one definition" idea. Really, it is not a good hermeneutic, or hermeneutically sound to be more accurate.

 

[Winman]

What a terrible theology.
You do know that it is the cults that use primarily the one word-one meaning tactic don't you? Words have meanings, and most more than one meaning. Check your dictionary.

With your theology you have just condemned all aborted babies, and all infants up to the age of understanding (however you see it) to hell. Jesus didn't atone for their sin according to you. Why is that?

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned everyone to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."
--According to your definition the Lord has laid on Christ (or he atoned) for the sins of only those who have deliberately gone astray. It is impossible therefore for those under the age of understanding to go to heaven. Their sins have not been atoned for--not in your schematic. You have condemned them all to hell--all because you stick to this idea of "one word-one definition" idea. Really, it is not a good hermeneutic, or hermeneutically sound to be more accurate.

You reveal your true character more and more. You accuse me of being an atheist, a heretic, and now you compare me to being in a cult. Well, I will give you a comparison, it is Satan that is called the ACCUSER of the brethren.

Look, it was Jesus Christ himself who described a shepherd with 100 sheep. NONE were lost originally. One did go astray and become lost, and he searched diligently until he found it. When he did find it, he rejoiced more over this one lost sinner who repented, than 99 "just" persons who never went astray and which needed no repentance. Those are not my words, those are the words of Jesus Christ himself.

Luk 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
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

Mat 18:12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
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.

Now when we get to heaven, you can ask Jesus why he would make up an incredible parable that has no basis in reality. You can remind him that we are all born lost in sin, and that his shepherd in reality had NO sheep at all. Then, when the shepherd did find one lost sheep, he could rejoice, but there is no such thing as 99 just persons which never went astray and which need no repentance.

I want to be there when you correct the Lord, that is going to be good.

You don't get it, babies who die are not lost. They are not sinners. They are like the many MILLIONS of angels who have never sinned. God does not seem to have a problem with these millions of angels who have never sinned, so why should you?

Did the Lord speak of men who have never sinned? YES.

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:

He spoke of the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandment AT ANY TIME. The father did not correct or scold the boy for making such a ridiculous claim, he called him SON, and said, "thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine".

31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

He then compares him to his brother. It was his brother only that was LOST, and now is FOUND, he was DEAD, and now is ALIVE AGAIN.

Words have meaning, you have to be alive ONCE, to be alive AGAIN.

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.

But you can take this up with Jesus too, again, I want to be there when you do. :thumbs:

 

[DHK]

You reveal your true character more and more. You accuse me of being an atheist, a heretic, and now you compare me to being in a cult. Well, I will give you a comparison, it is Satan that is called the ACCUSER of the brethren.

You are so emotional.
I compared your method of interpretation as being the same used as that of the cults--one word to one meaning. That is hermeneutically wrong. You need to correct it.

Look, it was Jesus Christ himself who described a shepherd with 100 sheep. NONE were lost originally.

All of your comparisons here are off the mark, unless you believe that one can lose their salvation. Since I believe in the eternal security of the believe then every example you used is irrelevant. They all deal with believers. Every believer can go astray. You haven't proved a thing.

But that is not the teaching of Isaiah 53:6
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
--The Lord isn't addressing NT believers here.
The Lord has laid on "him" the iniquity of us "all."
Who is the "all"? The all is all of human kind or mankind. In this context the "we" is mankind. Did Christ die for all. Are infants included in "all"? Or did Christ not die for them? (as you suggest).

 

[Winman]

You are so emotional.
I compared your method of interpretation as being the same used as that of the cults--one word to one meaning. That is hermeneutically wrong. You need to correct it.

All of your comparisons here are off the mark, unless you believe that one can lose their salvation. Since I believe in the eternal security of the believe then every example you used is irrelevant. They all deal with believers. Every believer can go astray. You haven't proved a thing.

But that is not the teaching of Isaiah 53:6
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
--The Lord isn't addressing NT believers here.
The Lord has laid on "him" the iniquity of us "all."
Who is the "all"? The all is all of human kind or mankind. In this context the "we" is mankind. Did Christ die for all. Are infants included in "all"? Or did Christ not die for them? (as you suggest).

Now you misrepresent me. I did not say these are saved persons which have now been lost. I said these are persons who were NEVER lost. They never went astray to begin with, and they needed NO repentance.

They are like the elder son who NEVER transgressed his father's commandment AT ANY TIME.

I didn't make these words up, Jesus is the person who spoke of 99 just persons which never went astray, and which need no repentance. It was Jesus who told us of the elder son who never sinned.

To be "saved" you must have been "lost". If you were never lost and never went astray, you do not need to be saved. You are like the many millions of angels who have never sinned.

But there is one important thing to notice, there is no big celebration for these persons who never went astray and were never lost. The big celebration is only for those who were lost, and are now found, who were dead, but now are alive AGAIN.

It is amazing how folks can ignore such obvious scripture. Luke 15 absolutely destroys the false doctrine of Original Sin.

 

[DHK]

Now you misrepresent me. I did not say these are saved persons which have now been lost. I said these are persons who were NEVER lost. They never went astray to begin with, and they needed NO repentance.

Are you familiar with three strikes and you're out?
This is the third time I am asking you to reply to the same post.
Can you do that this time instead of just skirting the issue?
Go back to the former post. Answer my questions concerning Isaiah 53:6, and stop avoiding it.

 

[Winman]

And the "all" are persons old enough to understand right from wrong. Every person who reaches maturity and understands right from wrong will sin and come short of the glory of God.

I do not believe the scriptures are addressing little babies. The Jews themselves did not hold a child accountable until he learned the law around the age of 12-13 years old.

We are directly told Jacob and Esau had done no evil before they were born. We are shown that little children who do not know between good and evil are not held accountable for sin in Deu 1:39 and several other verses.

There have literally been BILLIONS of babies who have died in the womb, or as very small children before they could understand between good and evil. I believe these are the 99 "just" persons "which went not astray" and "which need no repentance" Jesus spoke of.

 

[DHK]

And the "all" are persons old enough to understand right from wrong. Every person who reaches maturity and understands right from wrong will sin and come short of the glory of God.

I do not believe the scriptures are addressing little babies. The Jews themselves did not hold a child accountable until he learned the law around the age of 12-13 years old.

We are directly told Jacob and Esau had done no evil before they were born. We are shown that little children who do not know between good and evil are not held accountable for sin in Deu 1:39 and several other verses.

There have literally been BILLIONS of babies who have died in the womb, or as very small children before they could understand between good and evil. I believe these are the 99 "just" persons "which went not astray" and "which need no repentance" Jesus spoke of.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

So you believe that the Lord did not die for the sins of the world, of all mankind. You believe he died for the sins of all mankind minus all infants and aborted children? (How do you keep track? )

 

[Winman]

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

So you believe that the Lord did not die for the sins of the world, of all mankind. You believe he died for the sins of all mankind minus all infants and aborted children? (How do you keep track? )

No, Jesus died for these persons as well. They had bodies, and our bodies have to be redeemed, so Jesus died for them in this respect.

But it is Jesus himself who spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance, and the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe the Lord said nonsensical things? Do you believe the Lord would tell parables that have no basis in fact? Do you believe the Lord Jesus would speak of persons that could not possibly exist, such as a person who has never sinned like the elder son?

If you want to believe Augustine's doctrine, that is your right. As for me, I will believe Jesus who told three stories where no one was originally lost. The lost sheep was not lost originally, the silver piece was not lost originally, and the prodigal son was not lost originally.

When we get to heaven you can correct Jesus and tell him all about Original Sin.

 

[DHK]

No, Jesus died for these persons as well. They had bodies, and our bodies have to be redeemed, so Jesus died for them in this respect.

But it is Jesus himself who spoke of 99 just persons which need no repentance, and the elder son who never transgressed his father's commandments at any time.

Context and application: You ignore them both.
First. Jesus also said: "Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise enter into heaven."
The 99 "just or righteous that need no repentance" are the Pharisees, who "will in no wise enter into heaven or the kingdom of heaven." They stand firm in their hypocritical self-righteousness which Jesus was speaking of.
Therefore he says: There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents more than 99 "so-called Just persons..." They aren't really just persons unless they have repented. And if they had repented the angels in heaven would be rejoicing over them, wouldn't they.
Your interpretation fails.

The elder transgressed at many times. He transgressed right then and there for he was angry with his father. Anger is a sin. The real lesson of the parable is: if any person was unsaved it was the elder for he was the one that never repented nor showed any sign of repentance or the fruit of repentance in his life.
Again, a wrong interpretation on your part.

Let me ask you a question, do you believe the Lord said nonsensical things?

I believe you show an inability to rightly divide the word of truth.

Do you believe the Lord would tell parables that have no basis in fact? Do you believe the Lord Jesus would speak of persons that could not possibly exist, such as a person who has never sinned like the elder son?

The elder son sinned, sinned terribly, and probably never repented. The prodigal son showed more remorse and repentance in his life than the elder son did. Take your blinders off.

If you want to believe Augustine's doctrine, that is your right. As for me, I will believe Jesus who told three stories where no one was originally lost. The lost sheep was not lost originally, the silver piece was not lost originally, and the prodigal son was not lost originally.

I will stand by my statement: You have an inability to rightly divide the word of truth. You demonstrate it day by day.

When we get to heaven you can correct Jesus and tell him all about Original Sin.

And when you are unable to properly expound the Scriptures you make statements like this.

 

[Winman]

Context and application: You ignore them both.
First. Jesus also said: "Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees you can in no wise enter into heaven."
The 99 "just or righteous that need no repentance" are the Pharisees, who "will in no wise enter into heaven or the kingdom of heaven." They stand firm in their hypocritical self-righteousness which Jesus was speaking of.
Therefore he says: There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents more than 99 "so-called Just persons..." They aren't really just persons unless they have repented. And if they had repented the angels in heaven would be rejoicing over them, wouldn't they.
Your interpretation fails.

Why are you pulling a verse out of Matthew 5 and inserting it into Luke 15? It is you that is ignoring context.

The context is that the Pharisees complained Jesus "received sinners and ate with them". Now Jesus is showing these Pharisees that each one of these "sinners" once belonged to God, but have become lost. Now, as a shepherd he is seeking his lost sheep, and when he recovers one there is more rejoicing over this one sinner who repents than over 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance.

Jesus is not implying the Pharisees are the 99 just persons, Jesus called the Pharisees "hypocrites", "whited sepulchres", "blind guides", "child of hell", and many other harsh names.

So, you are absolutely butchering scripture with your interpretation, taking one verse from another chapter that has nothing to do with the context in Luke 15 or Matthew 18.

The elder transgressed at many times. He transgressed right then and there for he was angry with his father. Anger is a sin. The real lesson of the parable is: if any person was unsaved it was the elder for he was the one that never repented nor showed any sign of repentance or the fruit of repentance in his life.
Again, a wrong interpretation on your part.

The elder son did not sin, the father did not correct him or call him a hypocrite. In fact, he confirmed that the elder son has spoken honestly. He called him "Son" which shows he was not lost, he said "thou art EVER with me", again, showing he was never lost and never would be. He also says only his brother the prodigal was lost and dead, clearly implying the older son was never lost and never dead.

I believe you show an inability to rightly divide the word of truth.

How ironic.

The elder son sinned, sinned terribly, and probably never repented. The prodigal son showed more remorse and repentance in his life than the elder son did. Take your blinders off.

I will stand by my statement: You have an inability to rightly divide the word of truth. You demonstrate it day by day.

And when you are unable to properly expound the Scriptures you make statements like this.

Anybody can read this passage. It was Jesus himself who spoke of this elder son who never sinned, and his father never corrected him. I do not have blinders on, I believe what Jesus plainly said here.

It is you that cannot accept this passage, because you have been taught Augustine's false doctrine for many years, and this prevents you from simply believing the scriptures for what they plainly and directly say.

 

[Van]

I am still waiting for someone who denies that the consequences of Adam's sin were applied to all mankind, to explain if we were conceived in Christ, how did we escape His hand?

a) God subjected mankind to futility. This refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

b) All mankind is condemned, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

c) We are by nature, not nurture, children of wrath, this also refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

d) The many were made sinners, this refers again to the consequences of Adam's sin.

e) We are conceived in iniquity, and this too refers to the consequences of Adam's sin.

The only rebuttal offered for these scriptures is because of context, or figurative language, or word substitution, or structural analysis, they do not mean what they say.

The response has been evasion, i.e. tell us who denies Adam's fall affects all mankind, rather than telling us how we got out of Christ's hand. They say we were not subjected to futility by being made sinners at conception. So they quibble with the wording rather than address the issue.

They say we must be part of the flock belonging to Christ to go astray. Neither flock nor astray conveys that requirement. Thus they have added to scripture a "special" meaning to words to pour their view into the text.

 

[Van]

Yes, all men physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, but all men spiritually die as a result of their OWN sin. Again, Eze 18:20 says "the soul that sinneth, it shall die". It does not say the soul that is simply born dies.

Yes, this verse is very important to understanding the difference from being punished for the sins of another, something this verse clearly teaches God does not do, and suffering the consequences of the sin of another. For example, if a person is murdered before they put their faith in Christ, they are not being punished for the murder's sin, but they suffer the consequence.

Thus, when God says He "visits" the sins on following generations, He is not telling us He is punishing us for the sins of prior generations, but that we suffer from some of the consequences of another's sin.

What the claim is here is that people do not die as a consequence of Adam's sin, because that would be punishment rather than consequence.
Not necessarily, for Paul taught we are condemned because of Adam's sin. For by the transgression of the one, the many died.

Adam was cursed, requiring him to return to the dust, i.e. lifelessness which is death, and all mankind is suffering the consequence of his sin, not his punishment. Christ came to remedy our futile situation.

 

[Van]

The curse was the consequence of Adam's action. We die spiritually in the manner Adam did. Read James 1:15

I agree God imposed the consequences of Adam's sin through the curse.

Yes the wages of sin is death, and this death is threefold, (1) spiritual death, i.e. separation from our holy God, (2) physical death, and (3) eternal death - eternal separation as eternal punishment.

So how do we reconcile two verses that say different things, i.e. we die because we sin, and we die as a consequence of Adam's sin. Both are true, we cannot say one is true, and the other is false.

It is sort of like being shot through the heart with a second bullet. We died when God formed our spirit not in union with Himself, but in Adam, thus in Adam all die. But this refers only to our condition of separation. We also were conceived with a corrupted spirit, predisposed to sin, for we are my nature, not nurture, children of wrath. But we still have done nothing good or bad. In the afterlife we are punished for our sins, our doing bad. So when we sin after the age of accountability, we are shot with that second bullet, and although already separated, now we have piled up wrath, punishment in the afterlife and earn our place in Hades and Gehenna.

 

[DHK]

Anybody can read this passage. It was Jesus himself who spoke of this elder son who never sinned, and his father never corrected him. I do not have blinders on, I believe what Jesus plainly said here.

It is you that cannot accept this passage, because you have been taught Augustine's false doctrine for many years, and this prevents you from simply believing the scriptures for what they plainly and directly say.

First, you are teaching new doctrine from a parable. That goes against hermeneutical principles. Parables don't teach doctrine; they illustrate doctrine already taught. Furthermore they are meant to teach one basic truth.
Second, you are contradicting in this parable other doctrine in the Bible, and you ought to know it. In fact you are contradicting doctrine that you know to be true.

"There is not a just man on earth who knows to do good and does it not."
There is a contradiction of what your interpretation is.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Another contradiction.

There is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Another contradiction.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Another contradiction.

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?
Another contradiction.

All we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Another contradiction.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Another contradiction.

And more and more and more.
--This was a grown man. He was not just. He had sinned, just as all men have.
Likewise, how can any group of Pharisees that the Lord had so justly condemned in Mat.23 be called "just" actually be just or righteous, in the light of the rest of Scripture?

Your interpretation is totally flawed. Words have meaning.
Your "one word-one meaning" puts you in trouble once again.

 

[webdog]

I agree God imposed the consequences of Adam's sin through the curse.

Yes the wages of sin is death, and this death is threefold, (1) spiritual death, i.e. separation from our holy God, (2) physical death, and (3) eternal death - eternal separation as eternal punishment.

So how do we reconcile two verses that say different things, i.e. we die because we sin, and we die as a consequence of Adam's sin. Both are true, we cannot say one is true, and the other is false.

It is sort of like being shot through the heart with a second bullet. We died when God formed our spirit not in union with Himself, but in Adam, thus in Adam all die. But this refers only to our condition of separation. We also were conceived with a corrupted spirit, predisposed to sin, for we are my nature, not nurture, children of wrath. But we still have done nothing good or bad. In the afterlife we are punished for our sins, our doing bad. So when we sin after the age of accountability, we are shot with that second bullet, and although already separated, now we have piled up wrath, punishment in the afterlife and earn our place in Hades and Gehenna.

We reconcile it quite easily. One says we die spiritually when we sin, the other does not say that. Nowhere in Scripture does it say we die spiritually due to Adam's sin...but we DO have clear Scripture that we die in OUR trespasses and sins in which we once walked. So when you get to a passage like in Adam all die, so as in Christ all live, it must be understood that we die in like manner as Adam did since he ushered sin into the world...and in Christ we live in like manner He does as He ushered in life to the world.

 

[Winman]

First, you are teaching new doctrine from a parable. That goes against hermeneutical principles. Parables don't teach doctrine; they illustrate doctrine already taught. Furthermore they are meant to teach one basic truth.

I am simply believing what the scriptures say literally. I realize it is a parable, but parables represent spiritual truths, so if Jesus spoke of a person who has never sinned, I believe him.

And who would qualify as this person who never sinned? Well, we know from scripture that Jacob and Esau had not sinned before they were born, and many children die before or shortly after birth, so children would qualify as these persons.

Second, you are contradicting in this parable other doctrine in the Bible, and you ought to know it. In fact you are contradicting doctrine that you know to be true.

I am not contradicting scripture. Again, we are told from scripture that babies have not sinned, and many babies die. That is plain FACT.

"There is not a just man on earth who knows to do good and does it not."
There is a contradiction of what your interpretation is.

I don't believe this is speaking of little children, but men who understand right from wrong.

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Another contradiction.

There is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Another contradiction.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Another contradiction.

The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?
Another contradiction.

All we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Another contradiction.

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Another contradiction.

And more and more and more.
--This was a grown man. He was not just. He had sinned, just as all men have.
Likewise, how can any group of Pharisees that the Lord had so justly condemned in Mat.23 be called "just" actually be just or righteous, in the light of the rest of Scripture?

Your interpretation is totally flawed. Words have meaning.
Your "one word-one meaning" puts you in trouble once again.

My view does not contradict any of these scriptures if you understand they are speaking of grown men who know right from wrong, and not speaking of unborn or very small children.

You act as if you don't understand my view, but I know you do.

Jesus did not speak of little children as sinners. He told his disciples they must be converted and become as little children 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.

We know from scripture that nothing sinful or that defiles can enter heaven, so this verse clearly argues that little children are not defiled or sinners. If you must become as a little child to enter heaven, and you must be without sin to enter heaven, then obviously little children are without sin. That is plain logic.

Mat 18:10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Jesus said to be very careful not to offend a little child, for they have personal angels that do ALWAYS behold his Father's face.

Does that sound like little children are wicked little sinners to you? It certainly does not sound like Jesus is calling little children sinners to me.

So, when the scriptures say "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God", I believe it is speaking of persons who have matured and understand right from wrong, who understand between good and evil. I do not believe it is speaking of unborn, or very little children. I believe the scriptures are very clear that little children are not sinners whatsoever.