Verses Misused to teach Original Sin

[Winman]

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

No, little children are not sinners;

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; )

See, your argument is that someone whom the Bible clearly says has done no evil is a sinner. That is a ridiculous argument.

Now, it is true that the scriptures say "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". This seems to be a direct contradiction, but we know the scriptures cannot contradict themselves.

So what is the answer? The answer is that Romans 3:23 is speaking of adults, or at least of persons old enough to understand right from wrong.

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.

In a figure of speech, yes. Paul said he was chief among sinners. But technically, all his sins are forgiven and he was washed white as snow and has absolutely no sin.

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.

It is not a foolish argument at all. It shows that sin does not result directly in physical death. Animals cannot sin, yet they die. Therefore, physical death does not prove one is a sinner. You may not like that, but it is absolutely true and perfectly logical.

Now, God said Adam and Eve would die in "the day" that they sinned. Did they physically die that day? Nope. So this was not the death God spoke of, he spoke of spiritual death, which is separation from God.

But scripture doesn't show we are born spiritually dead. Paul said he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He could not have been saying he physically died, so we know for a fact he is speaking of spiritual death. Therefore, when he said he was alive without the law once, he meant before he knew the law he was spiritually alive. He was not dead in sin or separated from God.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

This scripture is very straightforward and simple. It is clearly describing when Paul learned the law as a young Jewish man. He said he would have not known sin but by the law, he would have not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet.

Paul thought that the law would lead to life, but instead, knowledge of the law made him accountable before God and convicted him as a sinner, therefore he spiritually died.

That is what this passage is saying, plain as day. But because you hold the false doctrine of Original Sin you must wrest this scripture with all sorts of convoluted theories.

As I showed earlier, 1 Peter 2:25 shows we were not born dead or estranged from God. It shows we were Jesus's sheep until we went astray, but now we are RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. Any honest person easily sees this shows we were not born dead in sin separated from God.

But you just go on and believe that Catholic hack from the 5th century and see where it gets you.

 

[DHK]

No, little children are not sinners;

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; )

See, your argument is that someone whom the Bible clearly says has done no evil is a sinner. That is a ridiculous argument.

You keep using Scripture out of context and ridiculous arguments.
Let's look at if more closely.
First, in context, it is speaking of the nation of Israel as all of Romans 9-11 is.
Second, it is speaking of God's foreknowledge.
Take another example, a parallel example.
Abraham had one child, a child of promise:
Genesis 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Genesis 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
--Even before Isaac was conceived, before he was in the womb, he was chosen to be the heir of all things. He was the chosen one, the one that Jehovah would make his covenant with. He could not do any good or evil before he was conceived, before he even existed, could he?

Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
--Abraham had many other children. Count them all. There are many.
But look at verse 5: All that he had he gave to Isaac!
Before Isaac was even conceived he knew this would happen.

This also is the meaning of Romans 9:11. It is speaking of the purpose of God, as it says it is. It is not speaking of the depravity of man. You are reading that into the Scripture--eisigesis. It is your proof text, but has nothing to do with your errant doctrine.

Now, it is true that the scriptures say "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". This seems to be a direct contradiction, but we know the scriptures cannot contradict themselves.

So what is the answer? The answer is that Romans 3:23 is speaking of adults, or at least of persons old enough to understand right from wrong.

You are the one contradicting the Scriptures. That is obvious. You are making the Scriptures contradict themselves.

In a figure of speech, yes. Paul said he was chief among sinners. But technically, all his sins are forgiven and he was washed white as snow and has absolutely no sin.

This is true of every person who comes to Christ. There is no new doctrine here. Paul was a sinner saved by grace, as we all are.

It is not a foolish argument at all. It shows that sin does not result directly in physical death. Animals cannot sin, yet they die. Therefore, physical death does not prove one is a sinner. You may not like that, but it is absolutely true and perfectly logical.

So, animals are made in the image of God just like you are. Do you have the same image of God as your dog (if you have one)? or your cat? etc.
Do you have the same spiritual image as a rat?

Now, God said Adam and Eve would die in "the day" that they sinned. Did they physically die that day? Nope. So this was not the death God spoke of, he spoke of spiritual death, which is separation from God.

Are you a created being? Then the comparison is irrelevant.
God said: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And they did. And every person born thereafter died also. Adam was the federal head of the human race and passed that sin nature to every person born of man. That is why Seth was not made in the image of God, but rather in the image of Adam, to stress that point to us. The image of God had been marred.

But scripture doesn't show we are born spiritually dead. Paul said he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He could not have been saying he physically died, so we know for a fact he is speaking of spiritual death. Therefore, when he said he was alive without the law once, he meant before he knew the law he was spiritually alive. He was not dead in sin or separated from God.

"You do err not knowing the Scripture...."
There has never been a time in the existence of mankind where there has been no law. Thus he was dead from birth, and needed to be born again. Why do you think there is a necessity of the new birth?
I have explained this passage more than once to you. You refuse truth. Go back and read my explanations.

Rom 7:7

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

This scripture is very straightforward and simple. It is clearly describing when Paul learned the law as a young Jewish man. He said he would have not known sin but by the law, he would have not known lust except the law had said, thou shalt not covet.

It is not as clear as you think. For you simply force your thoughts and opinions into it; your teachings which are contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. You stand outside 2,000 years of orthodox Christianity.
Paul had the law as a very young child. I was always in his heart, just as it is always in the heart of every Gentile. It is called "conscience" which God gives every man. He did not have to be taught guilt when he did wrong, even at the age of two and three or perhaps earlier.

The came "alive" when the Holy Spirit convicted him of his sin.

Paul thought that the law would lead to life, but instead, knowledge of the law made him accountable before God and convicted him as a sinner, therefore he spiritually died.

Every Jew thinks they will be saved by keeping the law, even up to the age of 100 or as long as they live. The law came alive when he was convicted of the Holy Spirit.

That is what this passage is saying, plain as day. But because you hold the false doctrine of Original Sin you must wrest this scripture with all sorts of convoluted theories.

The law condemns. It always condemns. It condemns from birth onward.

As I showed earlier, 1 Peter 2:25 shows we were not born dead or estranged from God. It shows we were Jesus's sheep until we went astray, but now we are RETURNED to the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls. Any honest person easily sees this shows we were not born dead in sin separated from God.

As I have told you before I tell you again.
The cults are the ones that use the method of "one word-one meaning" interpretation of Scripture. But words have more than one meaning. Until you admit this you will never be able to interpret Scripture properly.
1Pet.2:25 is irrelevant to OS, and doesn't prove your case at all. You simply don't accept the definition of words. You try to redefine them by taking scripture out of context.
"Astray as soon as they be born" is a good example of how you can't change the meaning of this word in some cases.

But you just go on and believe that Catholic hack from the 5th century and see where it gets you.

You stand outside 2,000 years of Christians orthodoxy. I am not the one in danger of heresy.

 

[Winman]

You keep using Scripture out of context and ridiculous arguments.
Let's look at if more closely.
First, in context, it is speaking of the nation of Israel as all of Romans 9-11 is.
Second, it is speaking of God's foreknowledge.
Take another example, a parallel example.
Abraham had one child, a child of promise:
Genesis 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Genesis 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
--Even before Isaac was conceived, before he was in the womb, he was chosen to be the heir of all things. He was the chosen one, the one that Jehovah would make his covenant with. He could not do any good or evil before he was conceived, before he even existed, could he?

What does Isaac have to do with Romans 9:11? Romans 9:11 is speaking of Jacob and Esau when they were very much alive in their mother's womb. They existed. And Paul tells us they had done no evil at this point in their existence.

This refutes Original Sin, especially those that claim Paul was teaching all mankind "sinned" at one moment with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, a favorite claim of Iconoclast and Hank.

Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
3 And Jokshan begat Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.
4 And the sons of Midian; Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.
5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.
--Abraham had many other children. Count them all. There are many.
But look at verse 5: All that he had he gave to Isaac!
Before Isaac was even conceived he knew this would happen.

Isaac was born in chapter 21, I don't have an idea what you are rambling about here.

Gen 21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

This also is the meaning of Romans 9:11. It is speaking of the purpose of God, as it says it is. It is not speaking of the depravity of man. You are reading that into the Scripture--eisigesis. It is your proof text, but has nothing to do with your errant doctrine.

I agree with you that Paul is discussing election here, nevertheless, he tells us that Jacob and Esau had done no evil while they were alive in Rebecca's womb. This absolutely refutes Original Sin that says all men sinned in Adam.

Look, you can't have it both ways, you can't say Paul is teaching everyone sinned with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, and then this same Paul tells us Jacob and Esau had not sinned while they were in their mother's womb. It doesn't matter that the subject is election, Paul gives us a fact that refutes Original Sin here.

You are the one contradicting the Scriptures. That is obvious. You are making the Scriptures contradict themselves.

That's ridiculous. The only thing I am contradicting is your ERROR.

This is true of every person who comes to Christ. There is no new doctrine here. Paul was a sinner saved by grace, as we all are.

Yes, but babies who die are not sinners and need no repentance as Jesus said in Luke 15:7

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.

I didn't make up this story about 99 just persons who never went astray and need no repentance, Jesus did. Do you really believe Jesus spoke nonsense?

So, animals are made in the image of God just like you are. Do you have the same image of God as your dog (if you have one)? or your cat? etc.
Do you have the same spiritual image as a rat?
Are you a created being? Then the comparison is irrelevant.
God said: "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. And they did. And every person born thereafter died also. Adam was the federal head of the human race and passed that sin nature to every person born of man. That is why Seth was not made in the image of God, but rather in the image of Adam, to stress that point to us. The image of God had been marred.
"You do err not knowing the Scripture...."

It has nothing to do with being made in the image of God. Animals physically die, and animals cannot sin, therefore physically dying does not prove one is a sinner. The fact that babies physically die in the womb does not prove they are sinners. That is plain logic and common sense.

There has never been a time in the existence of mankind where there has been no law. Thus he was dead from birth, and needed to be born again. Why do you think there is a necessity of the new birth?

The law existed around 1400 years before Paul was born, but Paul wasn't born KNOWING the law. You don't get it, it is the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil that makes a person accountable. That is why Adam and Eve died, because they now understood between good and evil and were convicted as sinners.

I have shown Deu 1:39 dozens of times. God did not punish the little children of the Jews who sinned in the wilderness. Why? Because they had no KNOWLEDGE between good and evil.

Deu 1:39 Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Why do you ignore plain scripture? Was there law in the world at this time? Sure, men knew right from wrong long before this. Did the little children know between good and evil? NO!

You are just being stubborn and resisting truth.

I have explained this passage more than once to you. You refuse truth. Go back and read my explanations.
It is not as clear as you think. For you simply force your thoughts and opinions into it; your teachings which are contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture. You stand outside 2,000 years of orthodox Christianity.
Paul had the law as a very young child. I was always in his heart, just as it is always in the heart of every Gentile. It is called "conscience" which God gives every man. He did not have to be taught guilt when he did wrong, even at the age of two and three or perhaps earlier.

The came "alive" when the Holy Spirit convicted him of his sin.
Every Jew thinks they will be saved by keeping the law, even up to the age of 100 or as long as they live. The law came alive when he was convicted of the Holy Spirit.
The law condemns. It always condemns. It condemns from birth onward.
As I have told you before I tell you again.
The cults are the ones that use the method of "one word-one meaning" interpretation of Scripture. But words have more than one meaning. Until you admit this you will never be able to interpret Scripture properly.
1Pet.2:25 is irrelevant to OS, and doesn't prove your case at all. You simply don't accept the definition of words. You try to redefine them by taking scripture out of context.
"Astray as soon as they be born" is a good example of how you can't change the meaning of this word in some cases.
You stand outside 2,000 years of Christians orthodoxy. I am not the one in danger of heresy.

Yes, men are born with a conscience, but the conscience takes a few years to develop. Men are born with the ability to walk, but that takes about a year to develop, the ability to talk takes around two years to develop. Until men are able to clearly understand between right and wrong God does not hold them accountable and does not charge them with sin.

And this is what Paul is explaining in Romans 7. Like all young Jewish persons, he was required to study and learn the law. He believed that following the law would lead to life, but instead, the knowledge of the law made him accountable before God. He was convicted as a sinner and spiritually died. Paul didn't say he "mistakenly thought" he was alive as some foolishly claim, he clearly says he was "alive" without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and he "died". He could not possibly be saying he physically died, so we know he is saying he spiritually died. This shows that Paul was spiritually alive until he learned the law.

And I don't care what the church has taught for 2000 years if it is pure ERROR. That is why God gave us the scriptures, so we can study and know the truth, and not be deceived by the false doctrines of men.

 

[Inspector Javert]

In fairness, by saying "THE CHURCH" has believed thus and such for about 2,000 yrs. means only that the ROMAN Catholic Church has believed thus and such for x amount of time....

They also believe in infant Baptism and the Immaculate conception of Mary (both deranged ideas rooted specifically in Original Sin).....

This not only ignores the fact that Orthodox Christianity, and there have been hundreds of millions of those throughout history (probably more in total than Roman Catholics) do not believe in Original Sin (at least not in the same since as Romanism does) and never have. They do not believe that man participated in Adam's sin in the garden as Romanism holds. So, that statement fails on that point alone....

But there are other groups who do not believe in Original Sin either.
So this claim that "THE CHURCH" has believed thus and such is myopic, ethno-centric, and short-sighted. On it's face...it means absolutely nothing.

Only someone who is incurably trapped in a uniquely Western mindset would ever make such a statement....
If someone who grew up in Romania, Greece or Russia taught Original Sin, they would be rebutted by the statement:
"You are ignoring 2,000 yrs. of the Church's belief"....

 

[DHK]

Only someone who is incurably trapped in a uniquely Western mindset would ever make such a statement....
If someone who grew up in Romania, Greece or Russia taught Original Sin, they would be rebutted by the statement:
"You are ignoring 2,000 yrs. of the Church's belief"....

The depravity of man (and thus original sin) was taught by the apostles, the early church and onward. Augustine may have coined the term "original sin," just like some other coined "trinity" but that doesn't mean the concept wasn't taught.
Consider the history that baptism by immersion, given to adults upon profession of their faith was universally practiced for the first two centuries. In the third century infant baptism began to creep in. Why? Because they feared that their infants would die and go to hell. This was before the origin of the RCC. This teaching came from the belief of the depravity of man. Because they were born in sin, sinners at birth, they must be baptized at infancy to guard against going to hell. Hence, baptismal regeneration--one of the first errors to enter into the Christian church.

 

[Inspector Javert]

The depravity of man (and thus original sin)

Man is depraved...
I don't lump that in with "Original Sin" ala Augustinian style.
Some ancient fathers referred to "Ancestral Sin" basically affirming that all mankind is tainted with what amounts to a sickness invariably resulting in their eventually sinning...and I don't particularly have a problem with that.
But, you don't find them claiming that we were active participants in Adam's sin...

That is not taught by the Apostles, early Church etc....

Augustine may have coined the term "original sin," just like some other coined "trinity" but that doesn't mean the concept wasn't taught.

I don't know about the term's origin....but one difference is that the "Trinity" is Biblical whereas Augustinian O.S. is not, and it was indeed quite unique to him, and RCC Theology....
It has been rejected by countless millions throughout history.
The Orthodox Churches do not subscribe to Augustine's theories, and never have.

Consider the history that baptism by immersion, given to adults upon profession of their faith was universally practiced for the first two centuries. In the third century infant baptism began to creep in. Why? Because they feared that their infants would die and go to hell.

I believe it actually began to creep in in some places earlier than that. I do not argue that some elements of "Original Sin" as a teaching haven't existed in at least various pockets very early on...
That is so.

That doesn't mean it was Universal, but it was so.
At best, all you are proving though is that there have been various debates (and there have been many heresies in the Church too) from day one...
It is CERTAINLY not the case that Augustinian-style "Original Sin" has been Universally accepted by all Christians throughout all time.

That is a stretch.

This was before the origin of the RCC.

I would say the groundwork for the RCC was being laid long before 311 A.D. When Constantine legalized it rendering it official.

This teaching came from the belief of the depravity of man. Because they were born in sin, sinners at birth, they must be baptized at infancy to guard against going to hell. Hence, baptismal regeneration--one of the first errors to enter into the Christian church.

Yes.
A belief in Baptismal Regeneration (itself a heresy) combined with Original Sin (and high infant mortality rates) to bring about infant Baptisms.

What you are calling "THE CHURCH" in support of your belief in Original Sin....
Is the very "CHURCH" (Romanism) which has continued that line of thinking for the last 2,000 years...

That's not a convincing argument.

 

[HankD]

This refutes Original Sin, especially those that claim Paul was teaching all mankind "sinned" at one moment with Adam in Romans 3:23 and Romans 5:12, a favorite claim of Iconoclast and Hank.

First just for the record my view of "original sin" (I don't even use that phrase) is not exactly the usual traditional view.

There is a significant difference between Romans 9:11 and Romans 5:12.

Romans 9:11 uses the phrase "practice" evil while Romans 5:12 uses "all sinned".

IOW the sentence of sin was there in both Jacob and Esau in 9:11 it just hadn't borne its adamic fruit yet through the exercise of there individual wills and therefore neither had incurred guilt.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

We have ALL ran away from God, that we are sinners who are away from God, at war with him, as our natural selves neither seek after Him, nor can even know Him in a saving sense !There is NOTHING in our flesh that can make peace with God, as we MUST be born again and have a new nature in order to make that happen!

 

[Inspector Javert]

We have ALL ran away from God, that we are sinners who are away from God, at war with him, as our natural selves neither seek after Him, nor can even know Him in a saving sense !There is NOTHING in our flesh that can make peace with God, as we MUST be born again and have a new nature in order to make that happen!

It might floor you to realize that Winman would affirm every single one of those statements you just made.

 

[Yeshua1]

It might floor you to realize that Winman would affirm every single one of those statements you just made.

Interesting, as he has stated that we are right with God until we actually choose to sin against Him!

 

[Inspector Javert]

Interesting, as he has stated that we are right with God until we actually choose to sin against Him!

Yes, and none of the statements you made contradict that.

They were general and non-disputed Theological platitudes, none of which are denied by anyone here.

 

[HankD]

Also just for the record and something I have known for a long time is that "original sin" was taught in one form or another before Augustine.

One of the reasons I don't like the phrase "original sin" I have stated many times.

Another is that the early church fathers didn't use the phrase itself but yet taught sin passed on from Adam, here is a list and where you can find it.

Be sure to read them all (there are others as well) because it might be denied, so read and decide for yourselves as it seems that at least one opponent assigns all the credit to Augustine.

I don't like citing the ECF but to clear up a point of church history concerning what is commonly called "original sin" is that it goes far back beyond Augustine.

IRENAEUS - 180AD
TERTULLIAN – 200AD
ORIGEN – 244AD (yes, not a good guy)
CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE – 250AD
METHODIUS OF PHILIPPI – 300AD
APHRAATES THE PERSIAN SAGE - 340AD

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ch...h-fathers.html

HankD

 

[DHK]

Yes.
A belief in Baptismal Regeneration (itself a heresy) combined with Original Sin (and high infant mortality rates) to bring about infant Baptisms.

What you are calling "THE CHURCH" in support of your belief in Original Sin....
Is the very "CHURCH" (Romanism) which has continued that line of thinking for the last 2,000 years...

That's not a convincing argument.

When I used the word "church," it was a mistake. I should of used "Christianity." The RCC did not exist until Constantine arrived on the scene and made a "state-church" for his own political gain. That "church" I consider the beginning of the RCC. Before that time there were "churches." When Montanus saw the corruption in Christianity or in the churches in general, he separated himself. He wanted purity of life and purity in doctrine and thus began the Montanist movement.
One can trace the doctrine of such separated movements outside of the RCC and find whether or not they believed in the depravity of man.

Orchard, in his "A Concise History of the Baptists" quotes Ireneus:

Irenaeus, pastor of a church at Lyons. He was a Greek by birth, and liberally educated. Before he accepted the pastorate of Lyons, he lived at Smyrna, under the religious instruction of Polycarp, one of John’s disciples. During his residence at Lyons, the Christians were called to realize death in every form. A creed is still extant bearing his name, and much of early simplicity. [Le Clerc’s Ecc. Hist. and Jortin’s Rem. on Ecc. Hist. v. ii., b. 2, p. 2, p. 25] The following passage from his writings is supposed by some to allude to the ordinance: "Christ passed through all ages of man, that he might save all by himself: all, I say, who by him are regenerated to God infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and persons advanced in years:" [Facts Opposed to Fiction, p. 17] but these words refer to salvation, not baptism. The word regeneration cannot, in this passage, be understood to signify baptism, without attaching too much importance to that ordinance. The same pious father regrets the conduct of some "who thought it needless to bring the person to the water at all; but mixing oil and water together, they pour it on the candidate’s head." [Wall’s Hist. part 1, p. 406] How deeply would Irenaeus grieve, did he live now!

Irenaeus lived ca. 125-202 A.D. He is one of the earliest of the church fathers.

Contrary to what Winman keeps on asserting, the "innocent" infant must be regenerated by Christ. Christ died for the sins, and atoned for the sins of the infants, and the little ones, and the children..."
These words refer to salvation not baptism the author rightly asserts.
It is obvious that Irenaeus taught the depravity of man, that man had a sin nature from birth onward.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, and none of the statements you made contradict that.

They were general and non-disputed Theological platitudes, none of which are denied by anyone here.

IF, as He supposes, mankind was NOT affected by the Fall as assuming a sin nature, that God did not judge us all already guilty in Adam, then would he have to state then that all of us are born OK, and not away from God until we choose to sin and get the sin nature then?

 

[Van]

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.

I am not imputing sin. I am not imputing sin. I am repeating because you seem unable to grasp I am not imputing sin. If you cannot present my view accurately, you need to quit.

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.

Pure fiction. All in Adam were made sinners, all in Christ were made saints.

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.

I see you cannot grasp the argument. Let me try again and I will type slowly. The verse says sins (more than the first one) cause a separation. Thus if we are separated to some degree as a consequence of Adam's sin, then our iniquities would continue to separate or enlarge the gap. This is not rocket science.

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.

It is becoming clear, that you misread the verse. "It" was imputed to him for righteousness. But what was the it? His faith!!! Abraham was not made righteous, his faith was. To quote verse 5 from the same passage, "his faith was credited as righteousness.

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.

Here we have stonewalling, repeating the same argument and ignoring the rebuttal over and over. What does the fact "in Adam is only found one place, have in the argument? Nothing. And when we are spiritually formed "in Adam" as we are made sinners, we are separated from God. Thus we "die" meaning being separated spiritually, when we are conceived in iniquity.

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

Here we have the actual issue, Winman if frantically trying to avoid the fact that little children are made sinners. Those that died did not ascend to heaven, even though they had done nothing good or bad. Winman simply refuses to address this truth.

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.

Scripture tells us the OT saints, including Abraham gained approval through faith, it does not say they were forgiven or born anew. No one was baptized into Christ before Christ died on the cross.

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

The issue is not the sin burden applied to us when we sin, but the consequence of Adam's sin, i.e. corruption and separation, being applied to us at conception. Righteousness is not imputed to us when we believe, but when God credits our faith as righteousness and places us in Christ, where we undergo the circumcision of Christ. Then we are righteous, holy and blameless.

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.

When the many are made sinners, they all have sinned. This does not say they did sinful acts, but that the separation of sin is applied to each and every one of them. Thus to undergo the separation of sin is to be made a sinner, and to undergo the separation of sin is to have sinned.

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.

Nonsense.

1) We are made sinners by the transgress of the one, not the many.

2) We were subjected to futility.

3) Abraham was not made righteous, his faith was.

4) We are not imputed with sin, we are conceived in a separated from God sinful state, thus made sinners.

5) Little children (babies, etc) did not go to heaven when they died before the age of accountability even though they had done nothing wrong. So the theory of being alive in Christ at conception, or in limbo (neither dead nor alive) at conception is bogus. They were conceived in Adam as are the rest.

 

[Inspector Javert]

When I used the word "church," it was a mistake. I should of used "Christianity." The RCC did not exist until Constantine arrived on the scene and made a "state-church" for his own political gain. That "church" I consider the beginning of the RCC. Before that time there were "churches." When Montanus saw the corruption in Christianity or in the churches in general, he separated himself. He wanted purity of life and purity in doctrine and thus began the Montanist movement.
One can trace the doctrine of such separated movements outside of the RCC and find whether or not they believed in the depravity of man.

Now, that's a meaningful argument :thumbs:

If indeed that is what you mean, than that is an important statement....
Admittedly, I've never attempted to exactly trace how they view Original Sin, but it's a worthy under-taking....

On some level, I think we all believe in something we could call "Original Sin" (you are using the term Depravity of Man)....

I think what I object to is the literal inherited guilt/ co-participant with Adam in the garden style.
I know many of the ancient Church fathers believed in what many called "Ancestral Sin"...which is more of a condition and a pre-disposition towards sin....
but it's not necessarily inheriting the GUILT itself.

That's what I mainly object to, GUILT being passed from father (specifically) to child....
The Augustinian version.

 

[Winman]

1) We are made sinners by the transgress of the one, not the many.

Correct, those who sin as Adam did are judged "sinners" as Adam was and sentenced to death as he was. It is not saying we were all transformed into sinners as you believe.

2) We were subjected to futility.

Yes, and babies die as a consequence of Adam's sin as do animals, but that does not prove they are sinners.

3) Abraham was not made righteous, his faith was.

What a bunch of nonsense. Abraham had faith and was therefore imputed righteous.

His faith was made righteous?? What does that even mean? Nonsense.

4) We are not imputed with sin, we are conceived in a separated from God sinful state, thus made sinners.

Again, nonsense.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Sin is not imputed when there is no law, but sin IS imputed when there is law.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

5) Little children (babies, etc) did not go to heaven when they died before the age of accountability even though they had done nothing wrong. So the theory of being alive in Christ at conception, or in limbo (neither dead nor alive) at conception is bogus. They were conceived in Adam as are the rest.

No one went to heaven until Jesus ascended and gave gifts (the Holy Spirit) to men. Abraham was completely without sin when he died, but he did not ascend until after Jesus rose from the dead. There is no reason to believe it would be any different for little children who died before they could sin.

It's pretty hard to debate with someone who completely redefines practically everything in scripture as you do.

 

[Winman]

Now, that's a meaningful argument :thumbs:

If indeed that is what you mean, than that is an important statement....
Admittedly, I've never attempted to exactly trace how they view Original Sin, but it's a worthy under-taking....

On some level, I think we all believe in something we could call "Original Sin" (you are using the term Depravity of Man)....

I think what I object to is the literal inherited guilt/ co-participant with Adam in the garden style.
I know many of the ancient Church fathers believed in what many called "Ancestral Sin"...which is more of a condition and a pre-disposition towards sin....
but it's not necessarily inheriting the GUILT itself.

That's what I mainly object to, GUILT being passed from father (specifically) to child....
The Augustinian version.

It is certain the corruption that passed upon all men and creation had a profound effect on men. I would even say man's judgment was affected by physical corruption, men are not as intelligent as they might be, and might be more prone to make poor judgments which would lead to sin. Even the curse of having to earn bread by the sweat of our brow tempts a man to steal. So this corruption could absolutely tempt men to sin.

My view is very similar to what the Eastern church believed.

The Eastern Orthodox's version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil, "for the devil sinneth from the beginning. (1 John iii. 8)".[62] They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin[63] into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine of Hippo's notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.[64]

I do not agree that we get our soul and spirit from our parents, but directly from God.

Zec 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

We do receive our physical bodies from our parents, which is affected by the corruption that passed on all creation, but we receive our soul and spirit directly from God. To teach that we have evil spirits and souls is to directly blame God and make him the author of sin.

 

[Inspector Javert]

My view is very similar to what the Eastern church believed.

As far as I know....mine is quite similar to the Eastern Orthodox version as well.

 

[Winman]

As far as I know....mine is quite similar to the Eastern Orthodox version as well.

Yes, this from Wiki

Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the doctrine of ancestral sin: "Original sin is hereditary. It did not remain only Adam and Eve's. As life passes from them to all of their descendants, so does original sin."[65] "As from an infected source there naturally flows an infected stream, so from a father infected with sin, and consequently mortal, there naturally proceeds a posterity infected like him with sin, and like him mortal."[66]

The Orthodox Church in America makes clear the distinction between "fallen nature" and "fallen man" and this is affirmed in the early teaching of the Church whose role it is to act as the catalyst that leads to true or inner redemption. Every human person born on this earth bears the image of God undistorted within themselves.[67] In the Orthodox Christian understanding, they explicitly deny that humanity inherited guilt from anyone. Rather, they maintain that we inherit our fallen nature. While humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death."[68]

I don't know if I like the term "fallen nature", but I do believe our corrupt physical bodies do have an effect on us and could make us more prone to give in to temptation. We are not as intelligent as we might be, and our judgment is very likely affected as well for the worse. The scriptures also speak of our "infirmities" or weaknesses.

But again, the scriptures are clear we receive our soul and spirit from God. God does not make evil spirits and souls. We become evil when we make a willful and knowing choice to violate one of God's laws.

Jesus said the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Compare this verse to the end of Romans chapter 7 and I think you will have a scriptural view of the state of man.