Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

[DHK]

Wow, those were looooooong posts, so I will not even attempt to answer every point, but I will address this.

Some seem to believe that in heaven everything will be perfect, but I do not share this belief. I believe we will still require grace and forgiveness in heaven to a degree.

If you are not as holy as God is, you will not enter heaven.
God will not allow anything that is defiled, sinful, unholy, etc. to enter into heaven.
Yes, it will be a perfect place.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Rev 22:3-5
3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

You believe it is a sin to complain as DHK said, perhaps. But we see complaining in heaven.

Complaining is a sin. What was the result when Israel complained?
Numbers 11:1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

Rev 6:9

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

We see saved persons here complaining, they are crying out to God to avenge them for being put to death for serving the Lord on earth. The Lord is very patient with these folks and gives them a white robe and tells them they should rest for a season.

They were not complaining. They were asking when the Tribulation would be over. They were praying; praying earnestly, travailing in prayer. Perhaps you have never done that. You should. In verse 11 they were rewarded. God doesn't reward complainers; he punishes them.

We also see in Revelation 22 that the tree of life's leaves are for the healing of the nations.

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

We have been conditioned to believe heaven will be absolutely perfect, and perhaps it will be. But perhaps some things will still go wrong, perhaps we will still be able to get ill, or injure ourselves, I don't know, but the leaves of the tree of life are used for "healing" so it might be possible.

And you think that that is indicative of sin??
You have a lot to learn.
First, as A.T. Robertson points out, not everything is chronological. This may be a reference back to the Millennial Kingdom.
Second, as Wesley points out out, it is spiritual healing and it is continued healing as there is no sin in heaven.
Clarke believes that since it is describing an actual city it is describing the city which will be found in the new earth and thus will be physical. The healing is spiritual.
--Not one of them involve sin.

One of the funniest glimpses into heaven for me is when God asked the angels who would persuade wicked king Ahab to go down and fight at Ramothgilead.

1 Kin 22:20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Perhaps there is nothing funny here, but I see this almost like an episode of Dilbert. All the angels talk among each other, but no one can come up with a good idea of how to get Ahab to go fight this battle where the Lord knows he will be killed.

Then one angel comes forward with his idea, he will be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab's wicked false prophets. This is Wally to me. :laugh:


Perhaps this was not funny, I seem to see humor everywhere. But it seems to show that heaven is not exactly perfect, we see angels here scratching their heads trying to come up with a good idea. That doesn't seem to be "perfect" to me. And sometimes folks might complain a bit in heaven as well. I don't think we will be robots incapable of making mistakes in heaven.

It is a story, an illustration. Also remember that at that time Satan had some access to God. Read Job chapter one. God used (in his providence) Satan to accomplish his purposes. He knew before hand what he would do. He simply let the scenario play out before him. There was no sin involved with God. Satan cannot enter heaven. Nor can his demons. They had a limited access as described in Job chapter one. That you will have to figure out on your own.

 

[Winman]

Your interpretation is absurd. Everyone on the board can see this. The parable is not talking of heaven. You have introduced that.
The definition of a parable:
An earthly story that gives a heavenly (spiritual) meaning.

You are perverting the parable. The parable has to make sense.
It is a story. It has real characters. It was told so everyone could understand it. It was told as if it really took place. Jesus told stories or parables like this all the time.
There are no infants in this parable. There is no mention of heaven in this parable. You have inserted those things in the parable at your own will and wish and have perverted the meaning of it. BTW, there is no mention of OS either. It is irrelevant to the teaching of the parable. Why bring it up at all?

An elder son is not an infant!! Let common sense prevail here.
The younger son was old enough to take his inheritance, take a journey and go and spend his inheritance, come back and find repentance.
Now you say that someone older than that man is an infant. Totally absurd!! Totally impossible. Infants are not older than men. Where does that kind of thinking even enter your mind?
No, the elder son cannot be an infant. That goes contrary to the parable that Jesus was telling. Use some common sense.

It doesn't matter what you believe about heaven. Jesus didn't talk about heaven. You introduced heaven and infants into this parable as an aside. Why not introduce Farraris, and motorcycles as well? They are just as irrelevant.

"If you die as a baby you must remain as a baby." Don't slander. Quote me where I said that, or retract it. Don't read your perverted theology into what I said. It is a parable. There are no infants, no heaven, not even original sin, mentioned in the parable. You have gone off the deep end with this parable. Go to a book on parables and study it. Stop making yourself look so silly on the board.

Well, I believe this parable does speak of heaven, and the servants are the angels.

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.

All three parables are one (Luk 15:3). Jesus is speaking from the perspective of heaven in these three parables that are one parable.

The elder son is a person who died before he could ever sin and has been in heaven his whole life. That is why the elder son complains of serving "these many years". The prodigal son is a person who matured past childhood and understood right from wrong, and willfully chose to go out in sin. He "joined" himself to a citizen of that far country which I believe represents Satan. This person had no regard for the prodigal and put him in his fields to feed swine. The young man came to himself and realized how sin had destroyed his life, and decided to return to his father. His father saw him coming from a great distance, I believe this represents God's foreknowledge, he sees in advance those who will repent and come to Christ.

The boy is forgiven, the robe represents the righteousness imputed to those who believe. The ring represents sonship and adoption, the new shoes represents the new walk.

It is all a parable, but I believe it all fits. It is better than any interpretation you have come up with.

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said. Yes, the elder son is an adult in the parable, and Jesus did indeed say this grown man had never sinned, or at least that he claimed he never sinned. The father did not correct this elder son, but called him "Son" and said, "thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine". So Jesus did confirm this grown man never sinned.

Note the father said, "thou art ever WITH me". Again, this confirms this is speaking from the perspective of heaven.

That said, I am not saying this elder son was a grown man on earth. ALL men who reach the age of accountability will knowingly sin. The only persons I believe who have NEVER sinned are babies who die before or shortly after birth, or very young children who died before learning good from evil and are therefore not held accountable.

You show that you are losing the debate in that you constantly accuse me of teaching false doctrine, when I simply believe this parable literally. I simply believe the elder son did not sin as Jesus plainly said. But you must falsely accuse me and purposely misrepresent me over and over again.

I will leave it up to the reader to decide who is being dishonest in this debate.

 

[DHK]

Well, I believe this parable does speak of heaven, and the servants are the angels. The elder son is a person who died before they could ever sin and has been in heaven their whole life. That is why the elder son complains of serving "these many years". The prodigal son is a person who matured past childhood and understood right from wrong, and willfully chose to go out in sin. He "joined" himself to a citizen of that far country which I believe represents Satan. This person had no regard for the prodigal and put him in his fields to feed swine. The young man came to himself and realized how sin had destroyed his life, and decided to return to his father. His father saw him coming from a great distance, I believe this represents God's foreknowledge, he sees in advance those who will repent and come to Christ.

The parable must make sense.
In verse 11 it starts out saying, "A certain man had two sons." It makes no mention of one of them being in heaven.
When the prodigal returns this is what it says:
Luke 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
--The elder son is in the field, not in heaven.
--He comes near to the house; he is not in heaven.
--He hears music and dancing; something we are not assured of hearing if we are in heaven.

Luke 15:26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
--He is not an infant in heaven for he has understanding enough to call one is his father's servants and ask him what is happening. Of course this is all on earth. It is an earthly story, just as all of Jesus's parables were. You are teaching mysticism.
The servant explains to him that the younger son has returned and they are rejoicing. In fact they have killed the calf and having a feast. Now, what is the response of the elder son?

Luke 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
--There is no anger in heaven! It is sin. There is no sin in heaven.
This is on earth. He had obeyed his father, so he said. It was his testimony. He would not go in. The sin of stubbornness. His father had to come out and intreat him--beg him to come in. This is not the sign of a submissive son--another sin. There is no sin in heaven. This was a very sinful man.

Luke 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:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
--NOTE: This is the testimony of the elder son. It is not necessarily true!
He says:
"These many years do I serve thee." Maybe. That is what he said. What verification do we have? And with what attitude? Apparently it was, he served him begrudgingly, not willingly, for he never got a fatted calf to party with his friends. This showed his selfishness. Another sin.
"Neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment." This is an outward lie. No person is perfect. He had sinned and he knew it. We know this by his attitude, and by the sins that he had committed above.
"...that I might make merry..." His motive of pure selfishness instead of being content with the love of his father. This was also sin.

There is no sin in heaven.
This is an earthly story. It took place on earth. The entire discussion here was on earth. It was impossible for it to take place in heaven.

The boy is forgiven, the robe represents the righteousness imputed to those who believe. The ring represents sonship and adoption, the new shoes represents the new walk.

You can come up with such a spiritual application if you wish.

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said. Yes, the elder son is an adult in the parable, and Jesus did indeed say this grown man had never sinned, or at least that he claimed he never sinned.

NO, Jesus never stated that. That was the testimony of a wicked elder son who had never repented of his own sin.

The father did not correct this elder son, but called him "Son" and said, "thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine". So Jesus did confirm this grown man never sinned.

Why would he have to go outside of his own house in order to "entreat" his own son to come in and be reconciled to his own brother? The elder son was angry and selfish.

That said, I am not saying this elder son was a grown man on earth. ALL men who reach the age of accountability will knowingly sin. The only persons I believe who have NEVER sinned are babies who die before or shortly after birth, or very young children who died before learning good from evil and are therefore not held accountable.

And the elder son sinned so many times one cannot count them all. We don't know how many times he sinned before he is introduced in the parable.

You show that you are losing the debate in that you constantly accuse me of teaching false doctrine, when I simply believe this parable literally. I simply believe the elder son did not sin as Jesus plainly said. But you must falsely accuse me and purposely misrepresent me over and over again.

You don't believe it literally. You introduce other material into the parable to prop up false doctrine.

 

[Winman]

The parable must make sense.
In verse 11 it starts out saying, "A certain man had two sons." It makes no mention of one of them being in heaven.
When the prodigal returns this is what it says:
Luke 15:24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
--The elder son is in the field, not in heaven.
--He comes near to the house; he is not in heaven.
--He hears music and dancing; something we are not assured of hearing if we are in heaven.

Baloney, Jesus had already said there would be more joy in heaven for one sinner that repents than 99 just persons who did not need repentance. Jesus also says there was joy in the presence of the angels.

Luk 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

You simply don't WANT to see that this parable is speaking of heaven.

Luke 15:26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
--He is not an infant in heaven for he has understanding enough to call one is his father's servants and ask him what is happening. Of course this is all on earth. It is an earthly story, just as all of Jesus's parables were. You are teaching mysticism.
The servant explains to him that the younger son has returned and they are rejoicing. In fact they have killed the calf and having a feast. Now, what is the response of the elder son?

Luke 15:28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
--There is no anger in heaven! It is sin. There is no sin in heaven.
This is on earth. He had obeyed his father, so he said. It was his testimony. He would not go in. The sin of stubbornness. His father had to come out and intreat him--beg him to come in. This is not the sign of a submissive son--another sin. There is no sin in heaven. This was a very sinful man.

And I have already shown you persons complaining in heaven in Revelation 6. According to Revelation 6 there is indeed complaining by saved people in heaven.

The fact the elder son is an adult in heaven does not prevent him from being a child on earth. In fact, this is the ONLY person he could have been. All men sin, but little children are not sinners as shown in Romans 9:11;

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; )

Could the elder son have been an adult on earth? NO, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Could the elder son have been a baby that died in the womb like Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11 that had done no evil? YES!!

You simply don't WANT to see it. My view is based on FACTS given in scripture.

Luke 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:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
--NOTE: This is the testimony of the elder son. It is not necessarily true!
He says:
"These many years do I serve thee." Maybe. That is what he said. What verification do we have? And with what attitude? Apparently it was, he served him begrudgingly, not willingly, for he never got a fatted calf to party with his friends. This showed his selfishness. Another sin.
"Neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment." This is an outward lie. No person is perfect. He had sinned and he knew it. We know this by his attitude, and by the sins that he had committed above.
"...that I might make merry..." His motive of pure selfishness instead of being content with the love of his father. This was also sin.

There is no sin in heaven.
This is an earthly story. It took place on earth. The entire discussion here was on earth. It was impossible for it to take place in heaven.

You can come up with such a spiritual application if you wish.

NO, Jesus never stated that. That was the testimony of a wicked elder son who had never repented of his own sin.

Why would he have to go outside of his own house in order to "entreat" his own son to come in and be reconciled to his own brother? The elder son was angry and selfish.

And the elder son sinned so many times one cannot count them all. We don't know how many times he sinned before he is introduced in the parable.

You don't believe it literally. You introduce other material into the parable to prop up false doctrine.

As I have shown you, heaven may not be exactly what you have all figured out in your infinite wisdom. People complain in heaven, I showed you that in Revelation 6. God was very patient with these saints that complained, and gave them white robes and told them to rest a season.

Likewise, the father was very patient and kind to the elder son who complained. He kindly called him Son, and reminded him that they were FOREVER together, and all that he had belonged to the elder son. He then reminds this elder son that his younger brother was lost, but is now found, that he was DEAD and now is ALIVE AGAIN.

You simply don't WANT to see it. Believe what you want.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Jesus also says there was joy in the presence of the angels.

The elder son did not express joy. He expressed indignation over his repentant brother.

And I have already shown you persons complaining in heaven in Revelation 6. According to Revelation 6 there is indeed complaining by saved people in heaven.

Their "complaints" as we'll call it are for legitimate reasons...
They are like Habakkukh or other prophets who are concerned that God is permitting evil to continue.
Their "complaints" are more like a righteous indignation about abhorrent sins....

God himself SHARES their wrath against the sinners.

The elder brother's complaints were steeped in self-importance and self-concern, and the father did not share his concern.
There is a difference in the two.

Could the elder son have been an adult on earth? NO, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

He is not anyone in particular, anymore than the swine are someone in particular. or the food they ate or the servant the elder son asked about the goings on....

They are just a literary device to teach a lesson.

As I have shown you, heaven may not be exactly what you have all figured out in your infinite wisdom. People complain in heaven, I showed you that in Revelation 6. God was very patient with these saints that complained, and gave them white robes and told them to rest a season.

Their complaints were based in righteous anger against sinners who torment
God's children...
The elder brother's complaint was anger and jealousy against one of God's children.
That is a sinful attitude.

Likewise, the father was very patient and kind to the elder son who complained.

He was rebuking him.

He kindly called him Son,

I'm not sure it was particularly kind....
He was rebuking his attitude.

 

[DHK]

Baloney, Jesus had already said there would be more joy in heaven for one sinner that repents than 99 just persons who did not need repentance. Jesus also says there was joy in the presence of the angels.

Luk 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

You simply don't WANT to see that this parable is speaking of heaven.

First, the parable starts at verse 11, is a new paragraph, and is not connected with verse 10 which is the conclusion and application of another section.
Second, even in that verse, as already shown, you have taken it out of its context and forced an unnatural meaning into it which just isn't there.
What does it say?
There is joy in heaven over one sinner in heaven that repents. That is what Jesus said. He said there is joy in heaven over a repentant sinner. Do you have that, understand it? Let it sink in for awhile.

And I have already shown you persons complaining in heaven in Revelation 6. According to Revelation 6 there is indeed complaining by saved people in heaven.

There is no complaining in heaven; complaining is a sin. Only a person like yourself what read that wild interpretation into that passage. It is absurd.
Your conclusion is that heaven is a sinful place. And you even suggested as much. I don't want to be in your heaven, Winman.

The fact the elder son is an adult in heaven does not prevent him from being a child on earth. In fact, this is the ONLY person he could have been. All men sin, but little children are not sinners as shown in Romans 9:11;

There is no fact here, only a wild imagination and speculation.

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; )

A total non sequitor.

Could the elder son have been an adult on earth? NO, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

Anger, selfishness, stubbornness, disobedience to his father, resentment towards his brother, etc. are all sins.
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
All those sins you would have in heaven. What kind of heaven do you believe in?
Do you contort this verse to say:
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall enter into heaven!
Is that your version of heaven? It sounds like it!

Could the elder son have been a baby that died in the womb like Jacob and Esau in Romans 9:11 that had done no evil? YES!!

You simply don't WANT to see it. My view is based on FACTS given in scripture.

How many others agree with you? You have no basis in fact for this wild speculative view.

As I have shown you, heaven may not be exactly what you have all figured out in your infinite wisdom. People complain in heaven, I showed you that in Revelation 6. God was very patient with these saints that complained, and gave them white robes and told them to rest a season.

There are no complainers in heaven. Complaining in sin. In Numbers 11, God killed them that complained. Those in Revelation 6 were not complaining. You pervert the Scriptures.

Likewise, the father was very patient and kind to the elder son who complained. He kindly called him Son, and reminded him that they were FOREVER together, and all that he had belonged to the elder son. He then reminds this elder son that his younger brother was lost, but is now found, that he was DEAD and now is ALIVE AGAIN.

Your argument defeats itself here.
First, he can't complain to someone in heaven. :laugh:
Second, he was very patient to him, true; that didn't absolve him of his sins of anger, selfishness and resentment, etc.
Third, he still was entitled to the rest of the father's inheritance as the father had just told him or reminded him.

You simply don't WANT to see it. Believe what you want.

You certainly are believing what you want, and it is not in the Bible.

 

[Winman]

OK, so the objection to my interpretation of this parable is simply this, you cannot complain in heaven. The opponents to my view say the elder son could not have been in heaven because he complained.

Do people complain in heaven? I say the scriptures show they do on occasion.

Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

These saints are complaining because their blood has not been speedily avenged by God. They are tired of waiting. But God is very patient with them and gives them robes of white, and tells them to rest for a season.

You say this is legit. Fine.

The elder son complained that he had served the father for "these many years, neither did he transgress his father's commandment at any time, yet no fatted calf was ever killed for him". That seems like a fairly legit complaint to me, perhaps it does not sound legit to you.

But that is it, that is the big objection to my interpretation of this scripture. Fine. Folks seem to think things must be perfect in heaven, but I am not so sure. For instance, John by accident worshiped either a saved person or angel in heaven and was rebuked.

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

I could be wrong, but John seems to have made this mistake TWICE.

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

So, for those who think that just because we are in heaven we cannot complain or make mistakes, I think you need to read scripture a little closer. If this is your only objection to my interpretation of Luke 15, it is pretty weak.

 

[Van]

15 then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.

Kind of hard to give birth to something that is already there.

Why discuss our individual sins, rather than the consequences of Adam's sin. You prove A but evade B.

This verse actually refutes Augustinianism.

Not sure what you mean, but it does not refute Paul's teaching on the consequences of the Fall. This verse (Isaiah 59:2) teaches sin causes a separation. Thus when Adam sinned, according to Isaiah 59:2, he was separated spiritually that day, because he died that day, yet physically lived for years.

Being created dead is an impossibility as death is the ending of life.

Again, if a person is created in a separated from God state, they die because they are not in union with God. So to be made sinners, is to be made dead spiritually. You can dismiss what Paul clearly teaches, but Paul still teaches it to those who accept the straightforward reading of the text.

So all in Adam being dead means the same all in Christ are made alive. IF the first group are all mankind, so must the second. The sentence structure allows for nothing else.

Again, you deny what it says. The sentence does not say the same group that starts in Adam is then put in Christ. That is nonsense.

Let me remind you about the question I asked. If we start out spiritually alive, then we must be in Christ. Now, when we reach the age of accountability, lets say we sin. How does that result in us being snatched out of God's hand and being placed in Adam. You have no answer.

Next, remember the question, what happens to those who die physically before the age of accountability, before they have done nothing wrong. According to your view, they are holy and blameless and not sinners. So they should go straight to heaven. But they did not ascend to heaven. Why would they need the washing of regeneration to enter heaven, why would they need to be born anew? The view of starting out spiritually alive simply falls apart under examination.

 

[Winman]

Why discuss our individual sins, rather than the consequences of Adam's sin. You prove A but evade B.

Because if Original Sin is true, then individual sin does not cause death, you were born dead. Your individual sin does nothing.

Not sure what you mean, but it does not refute Paul's teaching on the consequences of the Fall. This verse (Isaiah 59:2) teaches sin causes a separation. Thus when Adam sinned, according to Isaiah 59:2, he was separated spiritually that day, because he died that day, yet physically lived for years.

Yes, Adam died and was separated from God by his own personal sin. This scripture teaches that we also die and are separated from God for our own personal sin.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.

Does this scripture say we are separated from God because of Adam's sin? NOPE, it repeatedly says we are separated from God by our own sins, our hands are defiled by blood, our fingers with iniquity, our lips have spoken lies, our tongues have muttered perverseness.

And you think this scripture supports your view? :laugh:

Again, if a person is created in a separated from God state, they die because they are not in union with God. So to be made sinners, is to be made dead spiritually. You can dismiss what Paul clearly teaches, but Paul still teaches it to those who accept the straightforward reading of the text.

But scripture doesn't say we are created separated, it says we are separated by our sins and iniquities which we have performed with our own hands, fingers, lips, and tongue.

Again, you deny what it says. The sentence does not say the same group that starts in Adam is then put in Christ. That is nonsense.

Scripture does not say we start "in Adam". We are not unconditionally placed "in Christ" why should we unconditionally be placed "in Adam"? That said, "in Adam" is used only once in scripture and applies to physical death only in 1 Cor 15:22. We do inherit Adam's corrupt flesh that dies. But nowhere do the scriptures say we are born "in Adam" spiritually.

Let me remind you about the question I asked. If we start out spiritually alive, then we must be in Christ. Now, when we reach the age of accountability, lets say we sin. How does that result in us being snatched out of God's hand and being placed in Adam. You have no answer.

We do not necessarily start out "in Christ". The Jews believed men are born in a neutral state, neither good nor evil as Romans 9:11 teaches. When we sin as Adam did, we then are placed in Adam spiritually. Actually, we die spiritually. The only time the term "in Adam" is used speaks of physical death only in 1 Cor 15:22.

Next, remember the question, what happens to those who die physically before the age of accountability, before they have done nothing wrong. According to your view, they are holy and blameless and not sinners. So they should go straight to heaven. But they did not ascend to heaven. Why would they need the washing of regeneration to enter heaven, why would they need to be born anew? The view of starting out spiritually alive simply falls apart under examination.

This is an excellent question, and the first real objection to those who deny Original Sin I have ever seen, but it doesn't prove we are born sinners. Abraham was "imputed righteous" before he died, he was forgiven, completely without sin, but he had to wait in Abraham's Bosom until Jesus rose from the dead and gave gifts to men. I believe this is when OT saints received the Holy Spirit. This could very well be the exact case for babies and infants who died before they could sin in the OT.

As for Romans 5:19 saying by Adam's disobedience many are "made sinners", it also says by Christ's obedience many were "made righteous". Were those persons who were made righteous by Christ's obedience imputed righteous unconditionally? NO, they had to believe to be imputed righteous which is conditional. Likewise, those who were "made sinners" had to conditionally sin as Adam did.

You impute sin unconditionally, but you impute righteousness conditionally. This violates Paul's form of argument in Romans 5 where he treats both halves of each verse equally. Your view is inconsistent with Paul's argument.

And I have showed that when the scriptures say someone "made" another person to sin, that it normally means by example. The scriptures abound with verses that say an evil king or person "made" others to sin. That doesn't mean he sinned for them, but that by example he encouraged others to sin.

Your argument is easily refuted.

 

[DHK]

Your argument is easily refuted.

No, you fail to follow logic, and then you fail to use logic.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
--If the first "many" are "all" as most agree then depravity of man is proved right here and there is nothing you can say against it.
By Adam's sin all were made sinners. ALL! That means infants, toddlers, children, teens, adults, middle-aged, seniors, etc. ALL! All were made sinners; no one excepted but Christ himself.

What is the result of sin?
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--The result of sin is always death. It is also eternal death, as in this verse--eternal death contrasted to eternal life.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
--It is sin that brings forth death.
By one man sin entered into the world. Because of that sin death passed upon ALL men. What passed upon ALL men? Death! What causes death? Sin. On who? All men! Who has sin? All men! ALL: infants, babies, toddlers, etc. ALL! It means everyone. It means that by Adam's disobedience all are made sinners and therefore all have a sin nature. Perhaps it is a mystery to us exactly how it is passed down. We know that it is passed through the male.
Why?
Genesis 3:15. Satan would be conquered by one born of the seed of a woman. Even Eve knew this would happen. It would be a miraculous event. The savior would come through the seed of a woman, something that a woman doesn't have. He would be virgin born. He would not have the sinful flesh of man. He would be "like man in his flesh." Remember, he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. That is not exactly like man.

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.
Acts 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
--How does one become a child of the devil? Is he born into the devil's family at birth? Or does he ask to be adopted at some later time when he has a will? If so does he take out a membership? How does this happen?
I say that it is the former. In fact the Bible teaches that every infant is born into the devil's family, and thus the necessity of the new birth.

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
--How did they become children of disobedience, children of wrath? Were they born that way? It appears so. Thus the necessity of the new birth. Or, did they somehow have take out a membership in the devil's club.

 

[Winman]

No, you fail to follow logic, and then you fail to use logic.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
--If the first "many" are "all" as most agree then depravity of man is proved right here and there is nothing you can say against it.
By Adam's sin all were made sinners. ALL! That means infants, toddlers, children, teens, adults, middle-aged, seniors, etc. ALL! All were made sinners; no one excepted but Christ himself.

But it doesn't say ALL does it? It only says many, because many will be lost, not all. Likewise, only many will trust Christ, not all. The verse says exactly what it appears to say.

What is the result of sin?
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
--The result of sin is always death. It is also eternal death, as in this verse--eternal death contrasted to eternal life.

It is not eternal death for those who trust Christ.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
--It is sin that brings forth death.
By one man sin entered into the world. Because of that sin death passed upon ALL men. What passed upon ALL men? Death! What causes death? Sin. On who? All men! Who has sin? All men! ALL: infants, babies, toddlers, etc. ALL! It means everyone. It means that by Adam's disobedience all are made sinners and therefore all have a sin nature. Perhaps it is a mystery to us exactly how it is passed down. We know that it is passed through the male.

No, it says death passed upon all men (not babies) "for that all have sinned". The reason all men (not babies) spiritually die is because all men sin. It does not say Adam sinned for you.

And your belief that sin is passed by the male is nothing but medieval superstition. We are clearly told Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh". Jesus was the "Son of David". That Jesus was born of a virgin was a sign. Repeating a falsehood a thousand times does not make it so.

Why?
Genesis 3:15. Satan would be conquered by one born of the seed of a woman. Even Eve knew this would happen. It would be a miraculous event. The savior would come through the seed of a woman, something that a woman doesn't have. He would be virgin born. He would not have the sinful flesh of man. He would be "like man in his flesh." Remember, he was conceived of the Holy Spirit. That is not exactly like man.

Yes, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Yet, we are directly told he took part of "the same" flesh and blood as us, he took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (not Adam), that he was made like unto his brethren the Jews "in all things", that he suffered being tempted (God cannot be tempted), that he could be touched with the feelings of our infirmities (God has no weaknesses), and that he was tempted "in all points" like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was just as human as you and I and felt temptation just like us. But he never obeyed temptation when it would cause him to sin.

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.
Acts 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
--How does one become a child of the devil? Is he born into the devil's family at birth? Or does he ask to be adopted at some later time when he has a will? If so does he take out a membership? How does this happen?
I say that it is the former. In fact the Bible teaches that every infant is born into the devil's family, and thus the necessity of the new birth.

The scriptures do not teach we are born children of the devil. I believe the scriptures teach we are joined to the devil when we willingly choose to go out in sin as the prodigal son did. This is when he "joined himself to a citizen of that country".

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
--How did they become children of disobedience, children of wrath? Were they born that way? It appears so. Thus the necessity of the new birth. Or, did they somehow have take out a membership in the devil's club.

No, they became children of the devil because they "walked" according to the course of this world, as the prodigal son went out and sinned. They fulfilled the lusts of the mind and the flesh, and this is how by nature they became children of wrath. Nature can mean a learned lifestyle.

Little babies cannot "walk" in sin, they can't walk at all. That is why scripture is using this term, to show you that sin is something you learn and perform, just like walking. Words have meaning. A little baby cannot truly form thoughts at first, and so cannot fulfill the lusts of the mind and flesh. They can't even feed themselves!

And as I showed Van, scripture says we are separated from God by our own sins that we commit with OUR hands, OUR fingers, OUR lips, and OUR tongue, not Adam's.

 

[DHK]

But it doesn't say ALL does it? It only says many, because many will be lost, not all. Likewise, only many will trust Christ, not all. The verse says exactly what it appears to say.

I am not naive. I study the Word. Do you?
A.T. Robertson says:

Here again we have “the one” (tou henos) with both Adam and Christ, but “disobedience” (parakoēs, for which see note on 2Co_10:6) contrasted with “obedience” (hupakoēs), the same verb kathistēmi, old verb, to set down, to render, to constitute (katestathēsan, first aorist passive indicative, katastathēsontai, future passive), and “the many” (hoi polloi) in both cases (but with different meaning as with “all men” above).

Your cultish "one word-one meaning" method of interpretation doesn't work, and forbids "rightly dividing the word of truth."

It is not eternal death for those who trust Christ.

I didn't say it is. I said "eternal life is contrasted to eternal death."
Read again:
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

No, it says death passed upon all men (not babies) "for that all have sinned". The reason all men (not babies) spiritually die is because all men sin. It does not say Adam sinned for you.

And then it says because of the disobedience of one many (or all) have been made sinners. Death comes by sin. Infants die because of sin. Death would never come to infants if they never had a sin nature. We all have been cursed because of Adam. They die because sin entered into the world through Adam.

And your belief that sin is passed by the male is nothing but medieval superstition. We are clearly told Jesus was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh". Jesus was the "Son of David". That Jesus was born of a virgin was a sign. Repeating a falsehood a thousand times does not make it so.

You ignore Genesis 3:15 and cannot explain it can you?

Yes, Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Yet, we are directly told he took part of "the same" flesh and blood as us, he took on the nature of the seed of Abraham (not Adam), that he was made like unto his brethren the Jews "in all things", that he suffered being tempted (God cannot be tempted), that he could be touched with the feelings of our infirmities (God has no weaknesses), and that he was tempted "in all points" like as we are, yet without sin.

First, you quote from the Book of Hebrews. "He took on the nature of the seed of Abraham." What does that mean Winman?
It means that he identified himself with the Jews as opposed to the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Medians, Egyptians, etc. He was born into the world "of the seed of Abraham" (the father of the Jewish race), as a Jew or an Israelite. That is all it means. That is why the verse is in the Book of Hebrews. Consider who he is writing to and why.
In Genesis 3:15 he is the seed of the woman, Eve.
In Gal.4:4, he is also of the seed of the woman.
Ergo: You are not rightly dividing the Word of truth.
"God has no weaknesses." So are you denying the deity of Christ?

Jesus was just as human as you and I and felt temptation just like us. But he never obeyed temptation when it would cause him to sin.

He was made LIKE unto his brethren. All mankind has a sin nature. He did not.

The scriptures do not teach we are born children of the devil. I believe the scriptures teach we are joined to the devil when we willingly choose to go out in sin as the prodigal son did. This is when he "joined himself to a citizen of that country".

Yes they do. I gave you scripture. You can't refute them. There is a necessity to be born again. Why? Because you are born into the family of the devil and you need to be born in the family of God. You must be born again.

No, they became children of the devil because they "walked" according to the course of this world, as the prodigal son went out and sinned. They fulfilled the lusts of the mind and the flesh, and this is how by nature they became children of wrath. Nature can mean a learned lifestyle.

At what point in your life Winman, did you say: "Devil, I give my life to you, I come into your family." Please share your testimony. If you were not born into his family, how did you get there (before your salvation). I am not inferring that you are there now.

Little babies cannot "walk" in sin, they can't walk at all. That is why scripture is using this term, to show you that sin is something you learn and perform, just like walking. Words have meaning. A little baby cannot truly form thoughts at first, and so cannot fulfill the lusts of the mind and flesh. They can't even feed themselves!

In Acts 3 Peter healed a man who lay by the Temple. He had been lame for over 40 years. He begged. It was hard for him to feed himself. Yet, he walked in sin for those forty years even though he could not "walk" or was lame. It has nothing to do whether or not you can physically walk. I have children. They can sin before they can walk.

And as I showed Van, scripture says we are separated from God by our own sins that we commit with OUR hands, OUR fingers, OUR lips, and OUR tongue, not Adam's.

By one man's disobedience we are made sinners.
Believe it. There are no exceptions. If there were exceptions then Jesus did not atone for all men's sins. Did he atone for yours?

 

[Winman]

I am not naive. I study the Word. Do you?
A.T. Robertson says:

Your cultish "one word-one meaning" method of interpretation doesn't work, and forbids "rightly dividing the word of truth."

Right, as if the Holy Spirit could not say "all men", what a joke.

It does not say all men, because not all men sin as Adam did, some men die before they are able to sin. But those who do sin are judged "sinners" as Adam was and sentenced to death as he was. He was their legal precedent. Likewise, those who believe on Jesus as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead are judged or "made" righteous and given the free gift of eternal life. Jesus was the legal precedent for those that believe.

This verse supports my view as is, I don't need to redefine "many" to mean "all" as you do.

I didn't say it is. I said "eternal life is contrasted to eternal death."
Read again:
The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I am not sure how this truth supports your argument.

And then it says because of the disobedience of one many (or all) have been made sinners. Death comes by sin. Infants die because of sin. Death would never come to infants if they never had a sin nature. We all have been cursed because of Adam. They die because sin entered into the world through Adam.

Infants do not die because they have sinned, animals die, and they have not sinned. Infants die, animals die, and the whole creation wears out and fades away as a consequence of Adam's sin. But Adam's sin does not make a horse a sinner, nor does Adam's sin make a non-living star a sinner, yet stars burn out and fade away.

You ignore Genesis 3:15 and cannot explain it can you?

It is you that does not understand the curse. Non-living things grow old and fade away, that does not mean Adam made them a sinner. Animals cannot sin, and yet they die. Your view is easily refuted.

First, you quote from the Book of Hebrews. "He took on the nature of the seed of Abraham." What does that mean Winman?
It means that he identified himself with the Jews as opposed to the Romans, Greeks, Persians, Medians, Egyptians, etc. He was born into the world "of the seed of Abraham" (the father of the Jewish race), as a Jew or an Israelite. That is all it means. That is why the verse is in the Book of Hebrews. Consider who he is writing to and why.

No, it means he took on the nature of men after the so-called "fall". His nature was exactly like ours.

In Genesis 3:15 he is the seed of the woman, Eve.
In Gal.4:4, he is also of the seed of the woman.
Ergo: You are not rightly dividing the Word of truth.
"God has no weaknesses." So are you denying the deity of Christ?

Yes, and he was also "made of the seed of David according to the flesh". Why do you accept one verse of scripture and deny another? Inconsistent AGAIN.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

And I am not denying his deity, I am confirming that Jesus became "flesh" and dwelt among men as the book of John teaches.

He was made LIKE unto his brethren. All mankind has a sin nature. He did not.

If man is born with a sin nature, then he was not made like us. However, if men are not born with a sin nature as I believe, and Jesus was not born with a sin nature as I believe, then he was exactly like us.

Again, it is YOUR view that is logically inconsistent, not mine.

Yes they do. I gave you scripture. You can't refute them. There is a necessity to be born again. Why? Because you are born into the family of the devil and you need to be born in the family of God. You must be born again.

Yes, Jesus said this to men, not babies. Men spiritually die when they sin, and must be born again. Babies do not spiritually die until they reach maturity and sin.

Jesus compared being born again with those persons who were bitten by fiery serpents in the wilderness. They were not born that way. These persons had to look on the brass serpent to live. This was being born again.

At what point in your life Winman, did you say: "Devil, I give my life to you, I come into your family." Please share your testimony. If you were not born into his family, how did you get there (before your salvation). I am not inferring that you are there now.

The moment I knew right from wrong and chose to sin just like Adam did.

In Acts 3 Peter healed a man who lay by the Temple. He had been lame for over 40 years. He begged. It was hard for him to feed himself. Yet, he walked in sin for those forty years even though he could not "walk" or was lame. It has nothing to do whether or not you can physically walk. I have children. They can sin before they can walk.

You are desperate now. You will do anything except admit you are wrong. The scripture says we were dead in trespasses and sins wherein "we walked". Babies are not born knowing how to walk. The scriptures used this word to show that sin is something we learn and something we perform. You cannot be born a sinner, you must actually sin to become a sinner.

You are simply making yourself appear foolish now.

By one man's disobedience we are made sinners.
Believe it. There are no exceptions. If there were exceptions then Jesus did not atone for all men's sins. Did he atone for yours?

Correct, we were made sinners by his example, just as we are made "righteous" by Jesus's example. No man is unconditionally imputed righteous, he must conditionally believe as Jesus did.

Likewise, a man must conditionally choose to sin as Adam did to be imputed or "made" a sinner.

 

[DHK]

Right, as if the Holy Spirit could not say "all men", what a joke.

Did it ever occur to you that the Apostles, including Paul, did not speak English, especially the KJV Shakesperean English? The NT was written and inspired in Greek, which the apostles spoke fluently. If you want to know the meaning of the verse you need to understand it in the Greek language not necessarily the KJV. That is why I quoted from A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar who gave to you the actual Greek sense of the verse.
Are you claiming a translation is more accurate than the original language?
It isn't.

It does not say all men, because not all men sin as Adam did, some men die before they are able to sin.

Check some Greek commentaries before being so dogmatic.
Here is what it really says:

Romans 5:19 ωσπερ γαρ δια της παρακοης του ενος ανθρωπου αμαρτωλοι κατεσταθησαν οι πολλοι ουτως και δια της υπακοης του ενος δικαιοι κατασταθησονται οι πολλοι

Now remember, one cannot use a "one word-one meaning" method of interpretation. It does injustice to finding the truth of the Word of God.
Read how Jamieson, Faucett and Brown explains this verse:

The “all men” of Rom_5:18 and the “many” of Rom_5:19 are the same party, though under a slightly different aspect. In the latter case, the contrast is between the one representative (Adam - Christ) and the many whom he represented; in the former case, it is between the one head (Adam - Christ) and the human race, affected for death and life respectively by the actings of that one. Only in this latter case it is the redeemed family of man that is alone in view; it is humanity as actually lost, but also as actually saved, as ruined and recovered. Such as refuse to fall in with the high purpose of God to constitute His Son a “second Adam,” the Head of a new race, and as impenitent and unbelieving finally perish, have no place in this section of the Epistle, whose sole object is to show how God repairs in the second Adam the evil done by the first.

Adam is the federal head of ALL men (mankind), ALL of whom are sinners.
Christ, the second Adam, is the federal head of ALL who believe; a nation called out by Him.

But those who do sin are judged "sinners" as Adam was and sentenced to death as he was. He was their legal precedent. Likewise, those who believe on Jesus as Jesus trusted his Father to raise him from the dead are judged or "made" righteous and given the free gift of eternal life. Jesus was the legal precedent for those that believe.

Adam brought death into this world by his sin. Through him all have sinned and all experience death.
Through Christ all who will believe will experience eternal life.

This verse supports my view as is, I don't need to redefine "many" to mean "all" as you do.

Nothing has to be redefined, just defined according as the Greek reads.

Infants do not die because they have sinned, animals die, and they have not sinned. Infants die, animals die, and the whole creation wears out and fades away as a consequence of Adam's sin. But Adam's sin does not make a horse a sinner, nor does Adam's sin make a non-living star a sinner, yet stars burn out and fade away.

All of creation is under the curse.
The creation groans and travails in pain until now and waits for the coming of Christ. Even we wait for our adoption, even the redemption of our bodies. We live under the curse of the Fall, the result of Adam's sin which affected all creation and mankind, and resulted in a sin nature for all mankind. Even nature no longer lives in harmony.

It is you that does not understand the curse. Non-living things grow old and fade away, that does not mean Adam made them a sinner. Animals cannot sin, and yet they die. Your view is easily refuted.

That has nothing to do with Genesis 3:15, which apparently you don't understand.

No, it means he took on the nature of men after the so-called "fall". His nature was exactly like ours.

That is not what the angel told Mary. He was so different that the angel referred to him as "thing."
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
--Hardly the same flesh if even the angel had to refer to "it" as "thing."
He was not the same, obviously!

Yes, and he was also "made of the seed of David according to the flesh". Why do you accept one verse of scripture and deny another? Inconsistent AGAIN.

In contrast to the seed of Alexander the Great for example. It simply means he came as a Jew. But you reject Biblical teaching here.

Rom 1:3

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

By your own logic the seed of David must be different than the seed of Abraham, unless he is simply identifying himself with the Jewish race as I have been emphasizing all along.

And I am not denying his deity, I am confirming that Jesus became "flesh" and dwelt among men as the book of John teaches.

Yes, fully flesh and fully God at the same time. Because he was fully God there could be no taint of sin in him including a sin nature. That is the reason he was virgin birth. I realize you reject this truth also.

If man is born with a sin nature, then he was not made like us. However, if men are not born with a sin nature as I believe, and Jesus was not born with a sin nature as I believe, then he was exactly like us.

If a man is born of a virgin he is not exactly like us either.
If a man is conceived of the Holy Spirit he is definitely not like us either.

Again, it is YOUR view that is logically inconsistent, not mine.

Mine? Were you conceived of the Holy Spirit??

Yes, Jesus said this to men, not babies. Men spiritually die when they sin, and must be born again. Babies do not spiritually die until they reach maturity and sin.

All are spiritually dead. Jesus made no exceptions when he said: "You must be born again."

Jesus compared being born again with those persons who were bitten by fiery serpents in the wilderness. They were not born that way. These persons had to look on the brass serpent to live. This was being born again.

No he didn't. He was using that OT picture as a picture for the necessity of faith. He was not speaking of infants or the depravity of man specifically.

The moment I knew right from wrong and chose to sin just like Adam did.

Why would you do that? If you conscientiously knew you would be entering into the family of Satan why would you even sin if you knew the consequences would be so devastating. Why wouldn't you just keep on keeping away from sin and be perfect not entering into his family at all? Wouldn't that make better sense?

You are desperate now. You will do anything except admit you are wrong. The scripture says we were dead in trespasses and sins wherein "we walked". Babies are not born knowing how to walk. The scriptures used this word to show that sin is something we learn and something we perform. You cannot be born a sinner, you must actually sin to become a sinner.

The Scripture say that:
Babies go astray as soon as they be born.
They speak lies as soon as they be born.
They are born sinners.
All are sinners because Adam disobeyed.

Correct, we were made sinners by his example, just as we are made "righteous" by Jesus's example. No man is unconditionally imputed righteous, he must conditionally believe as Jesus did.

Really? Are you serious?
Are you saved because Jesus set a good example for you and that is all?
Is it the blood of Christ or the example of Christ that saves? I hope you know the correct answer to that question. Even the Muslim believes Christ set a good example. But they are not saved.
We are made sinners by Adam's sin, not by example.
We are saved through Christ's sacrifice, not by example.
Please, study your Bible.

 

[Winman]

Did it ever occur to you that the Apostles, including Paul, did not speak English, especially the KJV Shakesperean English? The NT was written and inspired in Greek, which the apostles spoke fluently. If you want to know the meaning of the verse you need to understand it in the Greek language not necessarily the KJV. That is why I quoted from A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar who gave to you the actual Greek sense of the verse.
Are you claiming a translation is more accurate than the original language?
It isn't.

What a joke, not only does the KJB use the word "many" here, but so do all of the MVs. Obviously scholars believed the word "many" and not "all" was the correct interpretation.

Check some Greek commentaries before being so dogmatic.
Here is what it really says:

Romans 5:19 ωσπερ γαρ δια της παρακοης του ενος ανθρωπου αμαρτωλοι κατεσταθησαν οι πολλοι ουτως και δια της υπακοης του ενος δικαιοι κατασταθησονται οι πολλοι

Now remember, one cannot use a "one word-one meaning" method of interpretation. It does injustice to finding the truth of the Word of God.
Read how Jamieson, Faucett and Brown explains this verse:

Adam is the federal head of ALL men (mankind), ALL of whom are sinners.
Christ, the second Adam, is the federal head of ALL who believe; a nation called out by Him.

Adam brought death into this world by his sin. Through him all have sinned and all experience death.
Through Christ all who will believe will experience eternal life.

Nothing has to be redefined, just defined according as the Greek reads.

The Federal Headship Theory was developed in the 17th century by Johannes Cocceius. It was unknown to the church before then.

All of creation is under the curse.
The creation groans and travails in pain until now and waits for the coming of Christ. Even we wait for our adoption, even the redemption of our bodies. We live under the curse of the Fall, the result of Adam's sin which affected all creation and mankind, and resulted in a sin nature for all mankind. Even nature no longer lives in harmony.

Yes, babies die because of the curse, not because they were made sinners by Adam. Animals and sea-life also die, and they are not sinners. Physical death does not prove one is a sinner.

That has nothing to do with Genesis 3:15, which apparently you don't understand.

Genesis 3:15 is simply the promise that Jesus would come from a woman. A man and God cannot both be his Father, so if God is Jesus's Father he could not be born to an earthly mortal father. This does not negate that Jesus was also made of the "seed of David". We know today that a person receives 50% of their DNA from their mother. Of that 50% DNA received from your mother 50% is received from your maternal grandfather. In fact, it is commonly believed that baldness is inherited from your mother's father. Whether that is true or not is meaningless, but you do receive your grandfather's DNA through your mother. Jesus was a direct PHYSICAL descendant of David. In fact, this was the most common name that the Jews called Jesus.

Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

Unlike you, the Jews understood the Messiah had to be a direct physical descendant of David according to the flesh.

That is not what the angel told Mary. He was so different that the angel referred to him as "thing."
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
--Hardly the same flesh if even the angel had to refer to "it" as "thing."
He was not the same, obviously!

You left out the part where the angel called David Jesus's father.

Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

In contrast to the seed of Alexander the Great for example. It simply means he came as a Jew. But you reject Biblical teaching here.

By your own logic the seed of David must be different than the seed of Abraham, unless he is simply identifying himself with the Jewish race as I have been emphasizing all along.

The seed of Abraham are the descendants of Abraham, but the seed of David must be a direct physical descendant of David.

Yes, fully flesh and fully God at the same time. Because he was fully God there could be no taint of sin in him including a sin nature. That is the reason he was virgin birth. I realize you reject this truth also.

No, he was born of a virgin as a sign.

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.

Now you show me where the scriptures say Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. You can't do it.

If a man is born of a virgin he is not exactly like us either.
If a man is conceived of the Holy Spirit he is definitely not like us either.

If Jesus had not been born of a virgin, then no one would believe he was the Son of God, they would think a normal man was his father.

Mine? Were you conceived of the Holy Spirit??

No, but this does not prove Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature.

All are spiritually dead. Jesus made no exceptions when he said: "You must be born again."

I believe the scriptures are addressed to men, not newborn babies. All men have sinned and therefore need to be born again. But we are directly told in Romans 9:11 that Jacob and Esau had done no evil. If they had died in the womb as many babies do, would they need to be born again?

No he didn't. He was using that OT picture as a picture for the necessity of faith. He was not speaking of infants or the depravity of man specifically.

It is both a picture of sin and the cure for that sin. These persons were not born this way, but because of sin God sent fiery serpents among them. Once bitten they had to look to the brass serpent to be healed. But they weren't born poisoned, they had to sin before God sent the fiery serpents to bite them.

Why would you do that? If you conscientiously knew you would be entering into the family of Satan why would you even sin if you knew the consequences would be so devastating. Why wouldn't you just keep on keeping away from sin and be perfect not entering into his family at all? Wouldn't that make better sense?

Because I wanted to do what I wanted to do, just like Adam and everyone else who has ever been born including YOU.

The Scripture say that:
Babies go astray as soon as they be born.
They speak lies as soon as they be born.
They are born sinners.
All are sinners because Adam disobeyed.

It also says in this Psalm they are poisonous like an adder, have huge teeth like a young lion, and melt like snails. So obviously this scripture is not to be taken literally.

I have eight children, and none of them could put words together to form a sentence until they were nearly two years old. They could not tell a lie if they wanted to, and they did not want to. Lying entails INTENT.

And what language do children speak? Why, they speak the language of their parents don't they? You don't have a child with English parents speak Spanish do you? Of course not, they speak the same language as their parents. This is where they learn to speak, and where they learn to lie as well.

Really? Are you serious?
Are you saved because Jesus set a good example for you and that is all?
Is it the blood of Christ or the example of Christ that saves? I hope you know the correct answer to that question. Even the Muslim believes Christ set a good example. But they are not saved.
We are made sinners by Adam's sin, not by example.
We are saved through Christ's sacrifice, not by example.
Please, study your Bible.

No, Jesus had to shed his blood for me for my sins to be forgiven. But I must believe to receive the atonement he provided, and so do you.

And this is what Romans 5 is teaching. To those who sinned as Adam did, the judgment of being made a "sinner" passed on them, as well as the sentence of death. The term "sinner" is a legal term.

Rom 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

Do you see Paul's question? He asks, Why yet am I "judged" as a sinner? Read that again until you understand it. Being "a sinner" is a legal judgment.

Sinner is a legal term like the term "felon". It means you are guilty of certain more serious crimes as opposed to misdemeanors. The Jews understood sinner was a legal term and called certain persons "sinner".

Jhn 9:24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

Everyone who sins as Adam did are treated equally and fairly by God. They are judged "sinners" by God, and they are given the same sentence, which is death. That is what Romans 5:19 is teaching.

Likewise, those who believe on Jesus, are judged "righteous" and given eternal life.

This is what Romans 5:19 means when it says by one man's disobedience many are "made sinners", and that by one man's obedience many are "made righteous".

This is what is called a "legal precedent" in law, it is a method or system in law to treat persons fairly and equally when they commit similar crimes, but it can apply to good legal acts as well.

 

[Van]

Lets say the many were made sinners, thus made or conceived in a separated from God state. But we have done nothing good or bad at that point. Now we sin, and the result of that action increases the separation. If we follow your reasoning, then it would read, your first sin causes the separation, but each and every sin causes or enlarges the separation.

So again, Isaiah 59:2 supports my view, sin causes or increases the divide between the ungodly and God.

Was Abraham made righteous? Nope.

Are we "in Adam" at conception because we are made sinners? Yes

The claim was made that scripture does not say when we are put "in Adam." But it does, for we are made sinners, and thus we are made in a separated from God state, i.e. in Adam.

Lets review:

1) Are we made sinners by the transgressions of the many? Nope, by the transgression of the one.

2) Did God subject mankind to futility? Yep, we did not subject ourselves.

3) Was Abraham made righteous through faith under the Old Covenant? Nope, his faith was credited as righteousness.

4) Did those who died before they did anything good or bad ascend to heaven? Nope, no one did.

5) Was sin imputed to us? Nope

6) Were we put in Adam unconditionally? Nope, we were put in Adam as a consequence of Adam's sin.

7) Were we put in Christ unconditionally? Nope, we were put in Christ as a consequence of God crediting our faith as righteousness.

At the end of the day, the original sin doctrine teaches that the many were made sinners through the transgression of the one, and to be made sinners requires us to be made (conceived) in a separated spiritually dead state.

 

[Winman]

Lets say the many were made sinners, thus made or conceived in a separated from God state. But we have done nothing good or bad at that point. Now we sin, and the result of that action increases the separation. If we follow your reasoning, then it would read, your first sin causes the separation, but each and every sin causes or enlarges the separation.

Again, your interpretation of Romans 5:19 fails because you are inconsistent with Paul's form of argument. You are imputing sin to all men unconditionally, but you impute righteousness to only those who conditionally believe. This is inconsistent, you are not treating each half of this verse equally as Paul's form of argument demands.

There are only two "consistent" interpretations. The first would be that if sin is unconditionally imputed to all men, then righteousness would likewise be imputed unconditionally to all men. This would lead to universalism, which we know is not true.

The only viable option is that sin is imputed to all men who conditionally sin as Adam sinned, and likewise righteousness is conditionally imputed to all men who believe as Jesus believed on his Father.

That's it, those are the only two "consistent" views, and only the view that sin and righteousness are imputed conditionally fits reality.

Your view is inconsistent and cannot be correct.

So again, Isaiah 59:2 supports my view, sin causes or increases the divide between the ungodly and God.

Well, if you ignore verse 3 you could wrest verse 2 to fit your view, but in context with verse 3 it absolutely shows we become sinners when we personally sin with our own hands, fingers, lips, and mouth. It could not be any clearer.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
3 For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue hath muttered perverseness.

If you think this scripture supports your view you are out of your mind.

Was Abraham made righteous? Nope.

Yes he was, he was made or "imputed" righteous when he believed.

Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

To "impute" righteous can rightly be said to "make" righteous. It means to place on one's account. So one who has been imputed righteous could rightly be said to have been "made" righteous.

Are we "in Adam" at conception because we are made sinners? Yes

Wrong. The term "in Adam" is found only once in scripture in 1 Cor 15:22 and speaks of physical death only, not spiritual. And even in this case it would not support your view, because it says "in Adam all die" which is FUTURE TENSE, showing we are born alive. Busted.

The claim was made that scripture does not say when we are put "in Adam." But it does, for we are made sinners, and thus we are made in a separated from God state, i.e. in Adam.

No it doesn't, again the term "in Adam" is used only once in scripture, speaking only of physical death, and shows that we "die" future tense. This verse actually refutes your view.

Lets review:

1) Are we made sinners by the transgressions of the many? Nope, by the transgression of the one.

Correct, Adam was the first "sinner", and all those who follow in his footsteps and sin are judged "a sinner" as he was, and likewise sentenced to death as he was.

2) Did God subject mankind to futility? Yep, we did not subject ourselves.

All of creation is under the curse, but that doesn't prove little children are sinners. Animals die, and they are not sinners.

3) Was Abraham made righteous through faith under the Old Covenant? Nope, his faith was credited as righteousness.

Abraham was imputed or made righteous when he believed.

4) Did those who died before they did anything good or bad ascend to heaven? Nope, no one did.

And neither did saints whose sins were completely forgiven. Abraham had no sin when he died, yet he had to wait in Abraham's Bosom until Christ ascended and gave gifts to men. There is no reason to believe little children who died without sin would be any different.

5) Was sin imputed to us? Nope

Sin is certainly imputed to us when we sin as Adam did, but righteousness is imputed to us when we believe on Jesus.

6) Were we put in Adam unconditionally? Nope, we were put in Adam as a consequence of Adam's sin.

False, Romans 5:12 says death passed upon all men "for that all have sinned". That is conditional, men are imputed sinners when they personally sin as Adam did.

7) Were we put in Christ unconditionally? Nope, we were put in Christ as a consequence of God crediting our faith as righteousness.

Correct, we had to conditionally believe on Jesus to be imputed righteous. This is why your interpretation of Romans 5:19 is inconsistent and cannot be correct.

At the end of the day, the original sin doctrine teaches that the many were made sinners through the transgression of the one, and to be made sinners requires us to be made (conceived) in a separated spiritually dead state.

Yes, we were made sinners by Adam's transgression, but that does not mean we were transformed into sinners. It means Adam's JUDGMENT was passed to us when we sin as he sinned. Likewise, Jesus's JUDGMENT is passed on us when we believe as he believed.

Romans 5 is showing a legal precedent. As in all law, persons who commit a crime first become the precedent for those who commit like crimes in the future. Adam was judged "a sinner". Likewise, when we sin, we are judged or made a sinner.

Simply read the NT and you will see this legal term used over and over again.

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

Luk 19:7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.

Jhn 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

Jhn 9:24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

You don't get it, "a sinner" is a very specific legal term describing someone who has committed specific transgressions against God's law. Because of Adam, all men who transgress God's law are judged "sinners" and sentenced to death. This is how Adam made men sinners.

Likewise, the term "righteous" is also a legal term. Those who believe on Jesus are imputed or "made righteous" because of his obedience.

This is what is known as legal precedent.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, where are all the folks who are going to refute this heresy?

Jesus, Paul, all the Apostles and Prophets, to name but a few!

Are we born estranged from god, no relationship with him until we received Jesus thru faith, as Bible teaches, or we are reconciled an all right still with him even while we were yet sinners before him?

 

[Winman]

Jesus, Paul, all the Apostles and Prophets, to name but a few!

Are we born estranged from god, no relationship with him until we received Jesus thru faith, as Bible teaches, or we are reconciled an all right still with him even while we were yet sinners before him?

No, we are not born estranged from God.

1 Pet 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Peter said we are now RETURNED to Jesus, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. You cannot return someplace you have never been. This verse proves we are not born estranged from God, but go out later in sin and become separated. We we repent, we RETURN to God.

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?

Was the lost sheep originally lost? NOPE.

Luk 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

Was the lost silver piece originally lost? NOPE.

Luk 15:11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

Was the prodigal son originally lost? NOPE.

Now, if you want to play stupid like you do not understand this scripture, that is your privilege.

 

[DHK]

Simply read the NT and you will see this legal term used over and over again.

Luk 7:37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

Luk 19:7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.

Jhn 9:16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

Jhn 9:24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.
25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

You don't get it, "a sinner" is a very specific legal term describing someone who has committed specific transgressions against God's law. Because of Adam, all men who transgress God's law are judged "sinners" and sentenced to death. This is how Adam made men sinners.

Likewise, the term "righteous" is also a legal term. Those who believe on Jesus are imputed or "made righteous" because of his obedience.

This is what is known as legal precedent.

All are sinners: both infants and adults; both unsaved and saved.
For there is none righteous, no not one.

Even after a person is saved he is still a sinner, simply a sinner saved by grace. There is no such thing as an "innocent" person on earth. No one is excepted. ALL are sinners, whether by nature or by deed; certainly most are by both.

Your inconsistent argument about using animals as examples of those that are not sinners is a foolish red herring. They are not made in the image of God. They do not have a will to choose. Furthermore they are under the curse, and do not live in harmony. When the curse is lifted they will once again live in harmony. This argument is one of the most foolish I have ever heard. Are you as dumb as an animal or are any animals as computer literate and able to think and reason at the same level you can (whatever that level may be)? When you can answer that question honestly then you realize that you cannot use the argument that "animals are not sinners". It is plain foolishness.